I formally open the 21st meeting in 2006 of the Justice 1 Committee. No apologies have been received.
No. I do not seek to oppose both propositions; I simply seek to invite the committee to think about having in public the discussion on compelling witnesses' attendance and on the refusal to give us the documents that we requested. To some extent, those two matters go very much to the heart of what is going on in relation to the report that we are compiling. If we were not to have at least some of the discussion on those two matters on the record, it would leave people not understanding why we are structuring some parts of the investigation as we are. I simply put that before colleagues to see whether others share my view. It is to that restricted extent that I seek to have the discussion on the record.
You are talking about item 3.
Yes, but I do not necessarily mean discussing the whole of item 3 in public. I do not particularly mind having in private our consideration of the general approach, but if it is necessary procedurally—
Let us have a brief discussion and make a decision on the procedure. Just to make members aware, we normally take legal advice in private rather than in public, so we must red circle that discussion for the private session.
There are issues that the committee would want to discuss in private, frankly. Would it be possible to bring the meeting back into public for the discussion that will follow our consideration of legal advice on whether we should compel individuals to attend a committee meeting and what our view is on certain documents not being made available? We could discuss that legal advice and ask questions about it in private, as normal, but the actual decision could be discussed in public. I envisage difficulties for the committee—there may be accusations that we are not going to come to a conclusion in our inquiry if we are not given certain evidence. I think that it would be advisable to have at least some of the discussion on item 3 on the record. However, I accept that discussing the legal advice and the questions that we may wish to pose to our legal advisers should not be on the record.
The suggestion is that we take in private the first part of item 3—we will put the clock on that—and then discuss in public the continuation of item 3. That would allow members to put on the record what they want to say about the committee's decision.
I am grateful to you, convener. I think that that expresses exactly where I am coming from.
I do not think that any members object to that proposal. However, as ever, the obstacle is time. I hope that, if possible, the meeting will finish at 2 because an emergency question in which some of us have an interest, will be asked in the chamber at 2.15. We need to work back from that, so we must go back into public session at around 10 to 2 to allow everyone to have their say briefly on how they wish their decision to be recorded for the public record. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Members are otherwise happy to agree to take in private item 2, which is simply the question of additional written evidence.
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session until 10 to 2.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.