We return to item 1 on the agenda without even pausing for breath, as we have a lot to do. Item 1 was to ask the committee to agree to take items 6, 7 and 8 in private. Jenny Marra disagreed to that. Do you want to take all those items in public, or can we agree to take some of them in private?
As I have said before, I object to a lot of the agenda being taken in private. In particular, I see no good reason to take items 7 and 8 in private. I have previously rehearsed the reasons why our work programme should be discussed in public.
Is the committee happy for item 6 to be taken in private?
Are there any comments on item 7, which is our work programme? You will know from the private paper that, quite often, we will be talking about possible witnesses. My concern is that we must be discreet in doing that, and three or four of the proposals will require that we consider possible witnesses. I do not think that it is appropriate for us to do that in public, but I leave it to the committee to reflect on that.
I agree with you, convener. Beyond that, it is also useful to be able to discuss informally issues that we might want to put on the committee’s agenda. It would be unfortunate if, because of a lack of time or other demands, we were unable to put something on the agenda and people took away the idea that it was not an important issue for us. That is why it is useful to be able to discuss such things in private.
As Jenny Marra is, I am instinctively uneasy about taking business in private, but I acknowledge what has been said. I wonder whether at some point, probably early on, a decision was made either by this committee or collectively by all the committees that has set the precedent. Is there any information that our officials could give us on that?
I have said this already, so members might find it a bit tedious to hear me say it again, but in my 13 years here—in 11 of which I have convened committees—all work programmes have been considered in private, for the reasons that we have rehearsed. There is nothing mysterious about it; it is simply so that we can have a free discussion. We do not want people outside to feel somehow that their issue has been not selected other than for very good reasons of time and so on. We also need to discuss witnesses and other issues. There should be a frank discussion among members, and I would not want to inhibit that. I know that everyone has things that they want to put into the work programme, and that is absolutely fair, but sometimes the committee needs to choose not to do something. I feel that we need to be able to have a really frank and robust discussion.
I will make a suggestion, convener. I understand that the discussion of witness names might be sensitive, but I feel quite strongly that we should be able to stand up in public and defend our priorities and what we think the committee should be spending its parliamentary time discussing. Could we split the debate in two, such that we would discuss our priorities for the work programme on the record and then discuss witnesses in private?
That sounds like a neat solution, but it would not work, to be frank. After a decision on our work programme, it is quite good to say at the next meeting what we will do and for what reasons, which will tell people why we have made decisions. I do not see how we could disentangle the two. Again, I come back to the need for a frank and free discussion among members, which is what one wants when the work programme is being discussed.
I think that it would be nonsensical to split such discussions in two. We have had this conversation before; we have spent more time talking about whether we should have discussions in private than we have spent in private at some meetings. I object, and have had my objection minuted previously, to the way in which the issue is being presented by Jenny Marra—as if the Justice Committee wants to do things in secret. We certainly do not. People know exactly what we are coming out for when the decisions are made public. There is nothing secret or underhand about it. Where there are sensitive issues to be discussed, it is far better that they be discussed in private. I really object to the fact that, at every single meeting, Jenny Marra suggests that we are not being transparent and are somehow doing something underhand. I would second the convener in any motion—
It is not a motion. It is a view based on my experience over the years.
My view is that the discussion should be held in private.
Let us hear from Colin Keir then Graeme Pearson, and then from Alison McInnes, if she wants to come back in.
I will see how things develop.
My goodness. Let us see how things develop.
I am with Sandra White on this one. I do not normally go along with the idea of secrecy or anything like that, but I think that considering the three items in private would allow for frank discussion. We can at least set up the priority for the substantive debate that will eventually be had.
It is a pity that Sandra White objects, because it is right that we should check ourselves and ensure that the practice that we are involved in is appropriate. We need to question ourselves about why we are doing things in private. It is right to have this conversation, because it reminds us why we are here and reminds us of the way in which we do our work. Jenny Marra has suggested an approach to try to breathe fresh air through the system and to allow the public to understand things. I do not think that there is anything sinister in the desire to share what we have been doing in private, because folk externally will wonder what we talk about and will think that the private meeting is where the business is being done.
Now they know; we decide what we are going to do.
Although we might be uncomfortable with the exercise of debate, it is right that we should at least talk these things through without feeling that there is something sinister about it.
Convener—
No. I think that we have put fairly firmly why we consider some items in private. There are very good and sound reasons for it. Unless Alison McInnes wants to respond, let us move on. I take it that there is still a split among views here, so we will take a little vote.
There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
I stand by what I said; I see no good reason why we should consider a report on a legislative consent memorandum in private. That debate should be on the record.
I want to get a move on, as we have a lot of business to do. For draft reports, I do not want to make exceptions to the rule. For very good reasons—the same reasons as I mentioned before—we need a full and frank discussion. We should not fight in public over a preposition or a comma—which sometimes happens and would be highly embarrassing if we did it in public—so I suggest that draft reports, as before, should be discussed in private and we should just get on with it. Do you want a vote on that as well?
It might make a good press release.
If people do not want a vote on it, do members agree that the item be considered in private?
Thank you very much. We now move into private session.
Previous
Commission on Women Offenders