The second item of business is a decision on whether to take in private item 4, which is discussion of recent correspondence from Esther McVey MP, United Kingdom Minister of State for Employment. Do members agree to take item 4 in private?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we go on, I want to say that it is a disappointment to me that we have just agreed to debate in private a communication between a UK Government minister and me, on behalf of this committee, the content of which has already been sent to a newspaper and put in the public domain before the committee has had a chance to deliberate on it.
This committee has earned a good reputation, and the basis of that success over the past three years has been that, in spite of many legitimate political or personal difficulties, there has always been a willingness to act constructively and consensually in the interest of those affected by current welfare reform. The practices that we have developed and deployed have served the committee well.
I understand that new members might not be aware of the approach that we have operated to dealing with correspondence and information. However, even if MSPs are not familiar with the processes, they must be aware of the confidentiality requirement under section 7.4 of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, which clearly states when members are required to treat discussions, documents or other information relating to the Parliament in a confidential manner. Paragraph 7.4.6 states that, at the very least,
“members are requested to exercise their judgement as to what should or should not be made available to outside bodies or individuals. In cases of doubt members should seek the advice of the relevant clerk.”
I have checked with the committee clerks and no such advice was sought in this instance.
I find this situation completely unacceptable and I do not tolerate that type of behaviour. I expect this to be the first and last time that I have to make such a statement.