Finance Committee, 21 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Official Report 136KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Building (Reporter)

Colleagues, I call this meeting of the Finance Committee to order, with the usual reminder about pagers and mobile phones.

Members will be aware that a revised agenda was issued yesterday, because there is a new item 1. I wanted that item on the agenda not because I think that the committee needs to consider the role of the reporter; I want to draw attention to my disquiet at the remarks attributed to Keith Raffan and, in an Edinburgh Evening News article that I have been shown this morning, to another MSP, who is not a member of the committee, about our decision last week to elect Ken Macintosh as our reporter.

I do not intend to open a debate about this matter. I want to clarify that, whoever is the reporter for the committee, that person's report will come to the committee for discussion and will then be the property of the committee itself. It is not the property of any individual member, nor of any political party represented on the committee. I was disappointed at the suggestion that our decision had been made for some partisan reason, particularly as the vote did not split down party political lines. For the record, we should note that committee members, and other members of Parliament, accept that a reporter to this committee will make his or her report and that the committee itself will then decide what form the report should take when it becomes the property of the committee.

May I comment, convener?

It is only fair that I should allow you to speak, but I do not want to open a debate.

I stand completely by my remarks, which were accurately reported by Mr David Scott. I am sorry that you have paraphrased them inaccurately. I was following the precedent as established in the House of Commons, where the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is traditionally and conventionally a member of the Opposition—I hope that that will be recorded by the media. I made it quite clear that my comments were not directed personally at any member. I think it quite wrong that a member of the party of the First Minister, whose role in this whole project is under close scrutiny, should be the reporter. I think that we should follow the conventions established in another place, which have traditionally served that place well and would serve this place well.

We are not obliged to follow the traditions of what you call another place.

I never said that we were obliged to follow them.

In many cases, we should avoid doing so. However, we are not the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee. In the Scottish Parliament, as you well know, that role is performed by the Audit Committee. There is a rule in standing orders that the convener of the Audit Committee must not be from the party or parties in government, so that is covered. Without opening up the matter to any further debate, I want to record that any report of this committee is the committee's report and not the property of any individual.

I want to—

I am not accepting any more discussion on this matter.

Well, I shall certainly make my views clear to the press.

You always do, Keith.

I will, and very, very strongly.

I shall now ask the committee to agree that we take agenda items 2 and 4 in private. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private.

Meeting resumed in public.