Education, Culture and Sport Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Official Report 83KB pdf

---

School Meals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item on the agenda is the School Meals (Scotland) Bill. It is the committee's role to consider the evidence that has been taken at stage 1 of the bill. Advisers' reports have been circulated to members.

If this item concerns the preparation of the committee's stage 1 report, it would be normal for us to discuss it in private.

Absolutely. I have raised the same issue. Apparently, it was agreed that it would be considered in public. However, as we are considering reports from our advisers, and because we have not had the opportunity to discuss the evidence that we have taken from the numerous witnesses, it seems to me that the item should be discussed in private. I have spoken to Martin Verity, the committee's clerk, about the matter. Apparently, Frank McAveety agreed that the item should be considered in public. However, that will make it difficult to discuss how we can progress the bill.

The committee knows how immensely reluctant I have been to agree to discuss items in private. It is therefore unusual for me to make such a request, especially with the press present. Nonetheless, the principle that we have previously operated on is that, if we are discussing the detail of the way in which the committee will report on an issue, we all take positions on what should be included in the report. I have no objection to making my position known in public, but in the past such items have always been discussed in private, as they are preparatory to a stage 1 report.

Does the committee want to move into private session to discuss the report?

Is that competent? That is not on the agenda.

Yes, it is competent. It is what normally happens.

Would it be possible to re-order the agenda to discuss the item at the end of the public session and then move into private session? If aspects of a stage 1 report were leaked, there would be an inquiry. It is possible that they could be leaked through our discussion.

Absolutely.

Would it be appropriate to consider in public further questions that we want to raise, or would that have to be done in private?

It would be acceptable to consider those questions in public.

Yes. We can discuss in public any specific issues that members want to raise, then discuss in private the wider evidence that we have taken.

In that case, the two would be separated.

Yes. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Will we first consider the rest of the agenda in public?

I am happy for us to do that.

That would be easier on the official reporters and others.

That makes sense.