Official Report 183KB pdf
We will move on to item 2 on the agenda, which is an update on committee business. I would like to address three matters under this item. If members wish to address any other matters, they can indicate to me their wish to do so.
We have experience of the minister taking questions, in committee and in the chamber, and we have not felt enlightened by it. When we spoke about this matter previously, I mentioned our having a briefing—it had been promised to us—so that we can get behind the public discussion and be enlightened about the consultants' report which, for plausible reasons, is not in the public domain. Has the minister suggested that he will be willing to give us a private briefing?
It is for the committee to decide whether it would prefer a briefing or a formal question and answer session, for which the minister will make himself available. The difficulty is that he does not feel that it would be useful to do that until the committee has more information.
I cannot speak for the committee, but I have not benefited from public questioning of ministers. Ministers see it as being a way to protect their backs, rather than give us useful information. There may be an issue over when the meeting can be scheduled so that useful information can be imparted, but I would be happy to have a private briefing, because I have no doubts that the word of this committee to maintain privacy is good. It would be a welcome example to Parliament to show that committees can hear information in private and keep it private. That is not showing contempt for the public. It shows that we go about our business in a professional manner.
The two options are not mutually exclusive. Brian is right; we want information, not to spend another hour banging our heads off a wall while the minister thinks up dozens of different ways of saying, "A'm no tellin ye." First, we should ask for a private briefing. Depending on the nature of that briefing, it may be desirable to have a public meeting at which we can question the minister, when the questions and answers will be a matter of record.
How do other members feel?
I would like to go one step further, once the Hampden issue is resolved, and meet other stakeholders and partners in that project. We should meet the Scottish Football Association and other people who are involved, and ask them serious questions. A briefing may be useful for background information, but other people have been involved in this matter and have played significant roles; we should meet them.
That is what I have been asking for all along. We have to have a briefing, because the statements that we are getting do not answer our questions. We must be concerned about how this matter is dragging on.
I support Karen's view. Many of us feel that once there is a settlement, we need to speak to other parties, but we should not press for that at the moment because we should not endanger the outcome.
I suggest that we ask for a briefing with the minister. Then we could consider whether we want to pursue Karen's suggestion and decide on who we would invite to an open question session.
It was suggested that, before we finally discuss the report, we provide the Scottish Arts Council with the chronology of events from the report so that it can check that the dates are correct. Is that acceptable to members, given that we will not be publishing the report until after next week?
The third item that I wish to raise is the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. It will be introduced today, and the Executive will launch it formally tomorrow. I will be asked to attend the Parliamentary Bureau meeting on Tuesday to suggest the timetable for the progress of the bill through committee. At the beginning of next week's meeting we may have a draft timetable for members to comment on.
Yes. Can you tell us when we might be expected to look at the ethical standards in public life bill, as undoubtedly we will be asked for an opinion on the part of the bill dealing with section 28?
I will ask Gillian to comment on that. I asked that question as well, because I have received many letters on the subject, as have other committee members. We had not been identified as consultees on the bill, but Gillian might have an up-to-date position.
It is open to the committee to look at that issue if it chooses to. When the bill comes to stage 1, it will be up to the bureau to decide whether we are nominated formally as the lead committee on the bill.
I am not asking about whether we will be the lead committee. Clearly, local government is the prime subject of the bill, but in as much as section 28, which we know as section 2A, impinges on education—for example on curriculum matters, teaching and rights—I cannot see any way in which the bill would not come before this committee for an opinion, regardless of whether we decide to provide one.
That was my concern. Obviously, we have a role to play. My understanding is that, when the bureau timetables the bill, it will identify which committees need to be consulted.
It is inconceivable that the bill would not come to this committee at some stage. You say that the bureau will identify committees that have a role to play. Can we say to the bureau that we demand a role? Would that be appropriate?
We can make representations if the committee feels that it should be one of the contributing committees.
I think that everyone is agreed on that, because no one is shaking their head.
This is a question for all members of the committee; perhaps it is a matter for future discussion. We have mentioned what emerged about the budget from which the money for Scottish Opera was drawn, and where the money for Hampden came from. I wonder whether there is an education budget issue, in that whoever controls the budget controls the service.
I shall ask Gillian Baxendine to comment on that.
When the annual budget bill is introduced, all subject committees have a role in commenting on the budget in their areas. There will be an opportunity for—a requirement on, in fact—the committee to consider the budget at that stage.
With respect, that is not quite what I was asking. That would be consideration of an annual budget, as takes place in a council. I am talking about budget monitoring—that is where there is the opportunity to fire funds. We know that the minister has that power but, in the spirit of openness, the information should be more widely known.
I hear what you are saying. This part of the agenda deals with things that have passed rather than with issues for future discussion. However, now that you have raised the matter, will you give me time to consider how to programme that into the committee's timetable and report back to you?
Of course I will.
I support Jamie Stone's view. My question is perhaps better directed to the clerk rather than to you, convener. A budget bill is being introduced this week and I understand that the time scale is quite tight. At what stage does this committee have to make an input into the process?
I have not been notified of the precise timetable, but I can come back to the committee on that.
We discussed this matter in the Finance Committee yesterday. This year, the time scale is being curtailed because of the nature of this first year of Parliament. In a regular year, we will be given a departmental report by 31 March and be asked to deliver our opinion on the departmental budget. That will be not a static process but an on-going one. We will be asked to come back to consider the budget more than once, so there will be an element of monitoring. We will also be able to examine cross-budget firing of resources and any in-year changes, which are particular concerns for the Finance Committee. That will be part of this committee's remit.
We will find out exactly what is expected of us this year—we will have to programme that in with our other commitments.