Justice 1 Committee, 11 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Items in Private

I ask whether members agree to consider the remit of our inquiry into alternatives to custody, forward planning for the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and our draft report on the prison estates review in private at future meetings. Are members agreeable to that?

The Procedures Committee has been examining people's views on how well committees are doing and has found that the most common complaint is about committees meeting in private. I know that some matters for discussion in private are housekeeping issues, but I do not honestly see why they should not be discussed in public. They might not be of any interest to the public, but at least we would be seen to be open.

Which of the three items are you referring to, Donald? Do you mean all three?

I mean all three. There is an argument about whether draft reports should be discussed in private or in public. Not everyone shares my views, but I propose that it would be good for us to have a go at discussing a draft report in public. I do not think that any other committee has done that. I hope that the Procedures Committee will discuss its draft report in public.

That is fine. Thank you.

The suggestion is that we take three items in private. I am happy to discuss in public the scope of what we will do on the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and the inquiry into the alternatives to custody. I do not feel strongly about that one way or the other. I think that determination of scope is a matter of public interest.

Clearly, the draft report for the prison estates review will ultimately be published as the committee's collective view. The danger of discussing the draft report in public is that the draft report will just become the property of the clerks because members will be conscious all the time of what they are saying. If we are seeking to reach consensus, then there is merit in that discussion, on a document that will be public, taking place in private so that we do not get committees being divided. If you have the debate on the draft report in public, then it becomes known, for example, who is for which amendment. That makes it difficult to maintain the unity of committees.

As a former member of the Executive, I confirm that the reports that caused one the most angst were those that were unanimously endorsed by a committee, because those reports carried the whole force of Parliament. If we discuss the draft report issue in public, we might inadvertently undermine our ability to present a unified face when the report is published.

Does anyone else have a comment?

Much of the discussion of the drafting of the report will be about how best matters should be expressed and whether a form of words can be found. That kind of detailed discussion is better done in private.

I agree with what Wendy Alexander said about the need to discuss the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and the remit of the inquiry into alternatives to custody and that we must be given the opportunity to interrogate each other during the drafting of our reports.

In respect of public demand, I have not had a large number of e-mails from people saying, "I would like to have access to the Justice 1 Committee at 6.30 on a Tuesday evening to hear your deliberations", but it is an issue on which the Procedures Committee could provide clarity. I know that some committees have moved away from private sessions and some have not. I appreciate where Donald Gorrie is coming from, but it would be helpful to be able to discuss the issues in private. The public may be interested to hear our deliberations when we draft reports, but I am not aware of any demand to do so.

I concur. The position of the draft report stands out from that of the other items. We would have the reporting of the draft and that might change the nature of our discussions, which may be robust over certain matters. If we discuss the draft report in private session, it means that we will be able to come to a consensual view. That is very important. I do not know if you wish to press your point, Donald.

On the other two items, I have no problem with the item on our inquiry into alternatives to custody being in public, because we will just be discussing the remit of the inquiry. On the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill, we will be considering a draft list of witnesses, and there might be difficulties if we decide, for perfectly good and sensible reasons, to take some witnesses rather than others. There is also the issue of time limits.

Given that additional information, I do not know if you want to press the point, Donald. I will take the committee's guidance, but we could consider the forward planning for the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and the draft report on our prison estates review in private and consider the remit of our inquiry into alternatives to custody in public, for the reasons that I and others have outlined. Do you want to put it to a vote, Donald?

No, I will settle for that. It is a marginal point as to whether, if we discuss whether to talk to Professor Bloggs or Mr McTavish about the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill, the one who is not chosen will get cross. Anyway, I have floated my boat out into the sea, and will settle for one out of three for today.

That is noted. Does the committee agree to deal with forward planning for the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and the draft report on the prison estates review in private at our next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.