Mr. Robert Watt:

It is an issue that is worthy of discussion. Public scrutiny is critical and, as Deputies noted, this committee is at the centre of that. The public has a right to know how its money is being spent and, to that end, these types of formats are vital. However, we must bear in mind that while we have had a reasonable debate here for three and a half hours, only a small snippet of that will be covered in the media and it will not necessarily reflect the discussion that took place. We might be used to all of this, but a lot of people out there just hear the noise and not necessarily all the discussion. In a private organisation or even a large public company, the types of debates we might have around accountability and spending happen within a certain setting. On the other hand, discussions here take place in a public setting. All I am saying is that we need to be aware of what that actually means. While it is the nature of the system, as the Chairman observed, people outside look at it in a different way from how we look at it. For some people on the outside looking in, what goes on here is a very unattractive dimension of certain roles. It does not bother me because I know about the nature of it, but for some people outside who may be thinking of a career in the public sector, it could be factor. The Chairman may be right that there is nothing we can do about it, but we should keep in mind the tone of the engagement. This is not a reflection of my own experience of engaging with the Chairman and members of this committee. If I had a problem with the committee, I would have told the Chairman. In fact, I have never had a problem. However, there have been occasions where the tone of the debate - not necessarily here, but in other parliamentary fora - is such that it is a real turn-off for people. The Chairman might discount it but it really can serve to put people off. That is just the way it is.