After that simple business, we move on to an even more straightforward piece of business, which is the Sewel convention inquiry. There are two issues for the committee to consider today. One is possible witnesses from a list of academics and commentators. Information has been circulated to members on the articles and research that the academics have conducted. [Interruption.] My apologies; we must also consider agenda item 2, which is to ask the committee to agree to delegate to me responsibility for authorising witness expenses. Can we formally agree that?
My apologies for missing that.
I would like to hear from Gerry Hassan.
My impression was that his material was more political than about the process and therefore was less in line with what the committee is actually considering.
My view is that we should have him as a witness and that the committee should question him along its chosen lines.
I support the convener's view.
Given that Barry Winetrobe is writing a chapter for a forthcoming book, we ought to consider him as a witness.
The committee agreed at its previous meeting that we would not include Barry Winetrobe on the list on this occasion. However, he is free to submit in writing any views from his research, which would obviously be helpful to the committee.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
I ask that any presentation papers are circulated, because I will not be here.
We will arrange that. Are members content with the arrangements for that session?
That concludes the public part of the meeting. I thank those members of the public who sat through it.
Meeting continued in private until 12:16.
Previous
Private Bills