Official Report 243KB pdf
We have all been sent copies of feedback from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council concerning the evidence-taking session on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill in which it took part. I am conscious that letters are being exchanged in the pages of today's edition of The Herald. It is depressing that people feel that they had an unpleasant experience at any meeting of a committee of the Parliament. I suggest that we refer the matter to the Standards Committee and ask it to take a view on what can be done to prevent that happening in future.
It was quite appropriate for the Scottish Parent Teacher Council to write in the manner in which it did. I do not think that the council's representatives were alone in receiving the treatment that they received. I was not present at the session at which they gave evidence, but I was present at other evidence-taking sessions at which I felt the emphasis was on political point scoring rather than exploration. Given the committee's high standards, that was regrettable. I agree with Jackie Baillie that we should seek guidance on this matter.
The record will show that I commented on the incident at the time. If referring the matter to the Standards Committee will show how seriously we take it, I would be happy to do that.
As Brian Monteith said, it might be useful to find out what is the procedure in situations such as this. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council made it clear that it was responding to the information sheet that all witnesses receive, which invites them to provide feedback, good or bad. It would be interesting to know what the sheet says will be done with information that has been received. I would like to know whether there is a standard procedure for dealing with negative or critical feedback or whether, as in this case, such feedback is simply passed on to the relevant committee for consideration.
This is the first time that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has received negative feedback from witnesses, so there is no precedent. I would expect comments by witnesses about their experiences at committee meetings to be noted or circulated to members of the committee for information.
The Standards Committee needs to address the wider issue of the way in which members of the Scottish Parliament behave in relation to witnesses. We invite people to give evidence to us and they do so voluntarily. We do not want the experience to put them off ever coming back.
It is possible for the convener to refer the matter to the convener of the Standards Committee.
The Scottish Parent Teacher Council points out in its letter that it has given evidence to many committees before, and that the experience of its representatives on this occasion was not normal. The council points out that, if witnesses are treated badly, they will not want to give evidence. For that reason it is important that we seek guidance on the matter and ensure that witnesses are not treated badly again. All members of the committee who were present at the meeting in question felt that there was a cause for concern.
Karen Whitefield's points are well made. Anyone who has been involved in taking evidence from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council previously will know that Judith Gillespie, who usually represents it, can give as good as she gets. She is no spring chicken—
Is that an ageist point?
I mean it in the kindest sense. Judith Gillespie is a formidable evidence giver. The fact that the Scottish Parent Teacher Council wrote such a letter says something about the day in question. We are not looking for the Standards Committee to reprimand members. We simply want a mechanism that will enable members to realise that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is concerned about what took place at that evidence-taking session, so that in future all other committees will be able to have regard to that.
Meeting closed at 16:51.
Previous
Purposes of Education Inquiry