Item 2 concerns the new Scottish Parliament building. When we produced our report on the Holyrood project, I asked the clerk whether he would approach the conveners group with the aim of securing a debate on the report in Parliament. He informed me that it is not for me but for the committee to make that decision. I stand suitably corrected. Do members agree to ask the conveners group that the report be debated in Parliament?
I have some difficulty with such a request. Are you proposing that the report be debated in Parliament?
Yes.
I do not support that proposal.
Could you elaborate on why you are opposed to it?
We have put together an impressive report on the Holyrood project and I do not think that we would benefit from debating it in Parliament. We should give further consideration to this matter, rather than simply referring it to the conveners group.
That is why the issue is on the agenda for today's meeting.
I cannot understand why Paul Martin has reservations about a debate on the report in Parliament. I am quite happy to hear the Executive's view on the report. However, the report belongs to the Parliament. We were asked to do this work. Now that we have completed it—and I know that Paul Martin supports the work that has been done—it is only appropriate that the Parliament should have the opportunity to consider what we have to say, in conjunction with the Executive's response.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but the other committee on which I serve has waited for the Executive's response before deciding to request a debate in the Parliament. I think that we should do the same.
I would like to make one point.
With respect, Margo, could you wait until the members of the committee have had their say? Visitors will be catered for once members have spoken.
As you know, deputy convener, I was not able to participate in the committee meetings that led to the report. However, I believe that the report was well received and that it is regarded as a good piece of committee work. If the committee is reluctant to have the report debated in Parliament, does that call into question the committee's confidence in the report? I understand that this is an agreed report. There is no doubt that it has attracted significant public interest. MSPs who are not members of the committee may have genuine questions to ask arising from the report. I do not think that the report is controversial. The inquiry was purely a fact-finding one, which reached sensible conclusions.
That was one reason for my suggesting that we request a debate on the report, which is unique. The Audit Committee is not an inquisition; in this case, it was reporting on the Auditor General's findings. I think that it would be useful to have a debate on the report. However, I take the point that Margaret Jamieson made. The only reason for applying now is that if we postpone doing so until the Executive has taken the full time available to it to respond, the debate might not take place until March, April or even May. By then, the report will have receded into the past.
We should wait until we have received the Executive's response—which will, I hope, be comprehensive—before deciding whether to seek a debate on the report in the Parliament. We should not discount the possibility that we will request such a debate. However, before requesting it, we must ensure that we have received the Executive's response to the points that the report made. If we fail to do that, we may encounter some difficulties.
I agree with the deputy convener. The Parliamentary Bureau sets aside limited time in the Parliament for debate on committee reports. If we are not properly in the queue, the report may not be debated for some time.
There is no attempt to bury the report—Paul Martin is concerned about timing.
Is the Executive under any time constraint in delivering its response? If not, matters will be left in limbo. That would be an untidy conclusion to what has been a solid exercise.
The Executive must respond within two months of the date of publication of the report; that is the timeframe. The Executive has until 5 February to respond, I think—the clerk may correct me on the exact date. We would come back to the issue and discuss it after that date, once we had received the Executive response.
What would appear before the Parliament? Would Parliament debate our report, the Executive response and our consideration of that response? It is unlikely that there will be many committee days in Parliament before 5 February. If we do not make the bid now, it could be a long time before we secure a slot.
That is the point that I was trying to make. If we do not make the bid now, the debate could be pushed into the summer. Who knows what else will come up that the conveners group might decide was more worthy of debate? We can do no more than make a request for a debate to the conveners group; the conveners group will decide whether the report is put forward for debate.
If we were to make a request for a debate on the report today, rather than on 5 February, what would be the first committee slot?
The current plan is to assign one committee half sitting day each month. There will be 12 committee half sitting days in the Parliament over the next year. I am concerned that we get the matter on to the conveners group agenda as soon as possible. It is for the conveners group to decide whether to accept the report for debate.
The committee could have it both ways, but it must get in the queue. It would be naive to say that there would not be a little more interest in the report than in many other things that come before Parliament. There is nothing wrong in asking to be put in the queue because it is the Audit Committee's judgment that, even after receiving the Executive's response, the committee will still want to have a full parliamentary debate. If, after receiving a response from the Executive, the committee decided to take all those responsible outside and garrotte them, it could then inform the conveners group that it no longer needed the time in Parliament.
Is that legal?
I propose that we apply to the conveners group for time to debate the report in Parliament, given that, as Margo MacDonald says, we can withdraw our request if, after considering the Executive's response, we decide that a debate is no longer necessary. Is there another proposal?
I am happy to support your proposal, convener.
In response to Brian Adam's earlier point, I am not saying that I am sure that we should discuss the report in the Parliament. We can take a decision on that only when we have received the response from the Scottish Executive. When we have received the response, we should decide whether to make use of the time that is available to us in Parliament to debate the report. The committee has discussed other reports, such as the Scottish Ambulance Service report, which members may want to debate in full in the Parliament.
That is a possibility. However, I remind members that, if we do not apply for time now, our business is likely to get pushed into the middle of the year.
My point is that we should make the best use of the limited parliamentary time that is available to the committee. There may be no requirement for a debate on the report once we have received the Scottish Executive response. We might want to use our committee time to discuss the Scottish Ambulance Service report or one of the other reports that we have considered.
As a member of the committee, rather than as the deputy convener, I think that the report, the issues that it raises and the whole project are of vital public interest and I would push strongly for the Audit Committee to request a debate on it.
That would not discount the possibility of discussing the report in Parliament, but it would allow us to receive a comprehensive response to the issues that the report raises. After we have received what I hope will be a comprehensive response, the committee can decide whether to request a debate.
We have two proposals: we can apply now to the conveners group for a debate in Parliament or we can wait until we receive the response from the Executive—around the beginning of February—before applying for such a debate.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 2, Abstentions 2.
I am not going in a huff—I am just going.
Next
Work Programme