This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
Such meetings might have been tense if they had taken place, but I understand that only one formal meeting has occurred so far. There may need to be more meetings.I am grateful to committee members for their comments—the suggested route forward is helpful.
We need to encourage the Government not to look at what the evidence adds up to at the moment but at where it may reasonably point. It should look over the horizon and draw the correct conclusions about what we might well see there.
I do not want to spend much time on this, because we have amplified many of the points previously. However, Paul Martin may want to clarify a few issues. Margo MacDonald is famous for calling me Michael, but now you are doing it, convener.
Members will recall that, at the end of our first meeting, we agreed that we would take evidence on progress that had been made in the current year and any in-year budget revisions that Audit Scotland may propose. I welcome Mr Black and Mr Frith back to the table and invite them to make any brief opening statement that they may wish to make.
I think that the committee wanted to see in the bill what amendment 286 proposes. On amendment 287, we may want to see in the bill something that says that any changes to function would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so we may want to look at that ahead of stage 3.
Against that background, it is also rather odd that Karen Whitefield appears to be nit-picking about what the coalition Government in London may or may not do in future. By its nature, coalition government involves an element of coming together of policies from different perspectives and an element of compromise.