Official Report 200KB pdf
Item 3 is further consideration of the committee's response to the Executive's action plan, but Shona Robison has passed me a note about Jim Wallace's press statement. Would she like to raise that issue now?
I propose that a letter of complaint be sent to Jim Wallace on behalf of the committee. I do not know how many members have seen the press statement—from the number of shaking heads, it would seem that most have not. It was extremely discourteous of Jim Wallace to issue a press statement without giving us an opportunity to see it beforehand. We spent an hour trying to obtain the statement this morning and succeeded only with great difficulty. It is not acceptable for ministers to fail to supply statements and to come to a committee meeting when they know that most members will not have seen what they have issued. This was an extremely important statement; to make such a major announcement without informing us first was at best discourteous, and at worst an attempt to hijack the meeting for the minister's own ends.
Has the statement appeared in or gone out to the press?
It has gone out to the press.
But has it appeared in the press?
It will do.
But it has not appeared yet?
The statement was issued only today. However, the press have it. Some members of the committee have been phoned by journalists. The fact that that has happened, yet we have not had sight of the statement, is a problem in itself.
Was not the statement put out on e-mail? I should have thought that that was standard practice.
There was nothing.
Jackie's press release is on the Scottish Executive website, but trying to get hold of Jim's was an absolute nightmare. As Shona said, we spent about an hour trying to do so. We were able to get it only by going to the Scottish Executive's press department.
You mentioned Jackie's press statement.
Jackie also put out a statement.
About the meeting?
Yes.
Was that issued before the meeting?
She had it published on the internet.
So you do not object to statements being issued before a meeting?
No, because Jackie had hers published. Furthermore, she was not making a major announcement. Jim, on the other hand, used the committee as a platform to make a ministerial announcement on a specific issue. There is a difference in access to information—Jackie Baillie made the information available to committee members, but Jim Wallace did not. He made an announcement that committee members had difficulty getting hold of. It is inappropriate for any committee to be used in that manner—Jackie did not do that.
Is it the case that Jackie's staff are more efficient than Jim's staff? Can we establish the facts before we go off at half-cock?
How do other members feel about the issue?
There is no doubt that it was made fairly clear to the minister how members who knew that the press release existed felt about it. I would be reluctant to comment, as I do not know what is in the press release.
I can do that and I have no objection to writing to Jim Wallace, if the committee wishes, to tell him about the discussion that we have had on the matter.
You should write because it was discourteous, but we should find out why it happened. Perhaps someone somewhere did not do what they should have done—we should ask who, where and why.
We should ask for an explanation.
We return to item 3, which is further consideration of the committee's response to the Executive's action plan for Scotland.
I wonder how we can formulate our response. At the reporters group, we identified many questions; I think that we asked all of them. If we did not get specific answers, we certainly asked the questions on every area that we identified. I suggest that every member should go away to collect their thoughts and then e-mail me with their views on what happened today and the answers that they received. I could collate that information, draft a report, get it back to members as soon as possible and have it available for Thursday.
That sounds sensible. I am sure that most of the information in the report from the sub-group will remain the same, so we are talking about additions to it. My only concern is the committee's response to Jim Wallace's announcement about the review of the Scottish police complaints procedure. That is the main difference between the information that we had when we wrote the report and that which we have today. Members must see the press release and comment on it, but our response will be a collection of individual responses rather than the result of a discussion about a major announcement.
Given that we are looking at the action plan in response to Macpherson, we can keep our response to the press release separate from our response to the action plan. I do not know whether there is a time limit for our response, but we could deal with it next time we met as a full committee. We could look specifically at what Jim Wallace is saying in the press release, but keep it separate. There is a link, but it would complicate matters if we tried to draw anything from the press release and Jim Wallace's statement. If we are to look at that, it might be best to keep it as a separate item, rather than include it in our response to the action plan.
It depends whether our response is considered to be part of the action plan response. I would be happy if the committee decided that it was not, and if we gave a separate response to the press release.
That would be best—it would mean that we could consider the press release in more detail.
Do you want that to be an item on next Tuesday's agenda?
Yes.
Everybody must e-mail Michael McMahon as quickly as possible.
That is fine, but are we anticipating agreement on every point that committee members make? We have a problem if members make controversial suggestions that have not been agreed by the committee. Is the point about the independent complaints authority the most controversial one? Members might not agree with my generous remark that we are pleased that Jim is open-minded about it, but does the committee take the view that there ought to be an independent complaints authority?
I got the feeling that everybody was in favour of that. It would be the most controversial point.
There should be at least a feasibility study to look at it as an option. We have not even had an explanation of what that would involve.
I am trying to protect the credibility of the committee, in terms of how it deals with other areas on which somebody disagrees. It might be hypothetical, but how will a matter be resolved for the final report if somebody e-mails me to say that they do not agree?
The final report could contain things that are unanimously agreed by the committee and things that are not.
We could have appendices. If I submit a final draft and someone does not agree with a specific point, I do not see any harm in saying that there is not unanimous agreement.
One or two members might have a different view.
That is why the report said that there was unanimous agreement in the sub-group on the need for a Scottish feasibility study, rather than what its outcome would be. We deliberately worded it in that way, in case anyone was unsure about what they would like to see as the outcome. However, we all agreed that there should be no delay in having a feasibility study.
The report could be drafted in such a way that it allowed minority views on an issue. It could say that although the majority felt one way, a minority felt another way. We will not say what we expect from the review, but we want to ensure that those who review the action plan are aware of the issues raised by the committee, whether members were unanimously agreed or not. That would inform those who are carrying out the review of the strength of feeling of the committee. Unanimous and minority views should come through.
May we leave the matter in your capable hands?
I do not know about that.
Previous
Equalities IssuesNext
Reporters Groups