Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Rural Development Committee, 06 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 6, 2001


Contents


Items in Private

The Convener:

Item 1 is to consider whether we will take items 4 and 5 in private. Item 5 is to receive a draft report on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. It is our usual practice to deal with such reports in private.

Item 4 is a conveners group report on increasing the effectiveness of committees. It has been suggested that we may wish to take that report in private, but I will listen to views on that.

Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):

Item 5 is standard stuff. The precedent is well set that we should take draft reports in private, so that we do not give them the status of published reports. However, I see no reason why we should take item 4 in private. I deprecate the apparent trend of committees taking more and more items in private. Deciding not to take this item in private would send out the right message. There are no secrets in this report.

I am happy to take item 4 in public, if the committee agrees.

Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):

I, too, am in favour of taking the report on the effectiveness of committees in public. It is worth placing on record our comments on how committees should be organised. We can refer back to such a record if in future our meetings are not structured as they should be.

I do not have a problem with discussing the issue in public. However, I note that the document that was circulated is marked confidential. I would like clarification on how we deal in public with something that is deemed to be confidential.

I understand that there was a rebellion on this matter at the Justice 1 Committee this morning.

In my experience, moving into private session leads to much more external speculation, which can lead to later confusion. I am a great believer in discussing things in public. We should definitely take items 4 and 5 in public.

I do not agree about item 5. We established the precedent ages ago that we should discuss draft reports in private.

I am a newcomer to the committee.

I have no difficulty with item 4 being discussed in public, if the clarification for which Cathy Jamieson asked can be given.

I understand that the paper was discussed in public at the Justice 1 Committee this morning.

Mr Rumbles:

As convener of the Standards Committee, I attended the meeting of the conveners group at which this was discussed. I did not understand that this was a confidential paper, even though, as has been pointed out, it says inside that it is confidential.

Can I assume that, given the views that have been expressed, the committee is content to take item 4 in public but that, as has been our practice, we will take the draft report on the bill in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Alex Fergusson:

On a point of order, convener. Last week, I was asked to provide a copy of a document that we had been given. Nowhere on that document did it say that it was confidential or private, but when the person had tried to obtain a copy directly from the clerk, they had been told, quite reasonably—this is not a complaint against the clerk—that it was a confidential document for discussion by the committee. I discussed the matter with the clerk, and respected that opinion by not passing on a copy.

I think that it would be helpful to have a colour coding system for documents. For example, it is extremely effective to have certain documents on pink paper—one knows that such documents are private and are not to be passed on. It would be helpful if all documents were colour coded so that it would be beyond doubt whether they were confidential. There is obviously some confusion.

The Convener:

Indeed, we will look into that.

Before we leave this item, members should know that the only item on the agenda for our meeting next week will be further discussion of the draft report on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Is it agreed that we take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.