Rural Development Committee, 11 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Official Report 154KB pdf

---

Items in Private

Item 2 is consideration of whether to discuss items 5 and 6 in private. It is right and necessary that we address the two items individually. We will consider item 5 first, which is a discussion on a possible amendment to the motion for debate on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

We ought to discuss that item in public. Given the speculation that there has been in the media about the report and the discussions around the report, it would be helpful to have the discussion on the record.

I support Dr Elaine Murray's statement, especially in view of what happened when previously we went into private session on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

More generally, I feel that this is an opportunity, with a new convener, to be more open and transparent. I know that the convener wants to deal with item 6 separately, but the Justice 2 Committee and the Standards Committee—if I dare mention the Standards Committee—do not even have agenda items to discuss whether the committee annual report should be dealt with in private. I do not see the need for us to go into private session for item 5 or item 6. We should discuss those items in open session.

I appreciate what Mr Rumbles says, but my understanding is that a committee must decide at each meeting whether to discuss items in private.

The convener decides in the first place whether to put on the agenda discussion of other items being taken in private. As convener of the Standards Committee, I have not put an item on tomorrow's agenda to discuss whether the discussion on the committee annual report should be open or private. We go into private session far too readily in committees in the Scottish Parliament when there is no real need to do so.

This is a new parliamentary year, so we have the opportunity for a new start. It would be helpful to have the discussions on item 5 and item 6 in public. There is public interest in them. As Elaine Murray says, discussing the items in public removes the possibility of anything that we say in private being misquoted, misunderstood or not fully appreciated. If we do not want to see something in the newspapers, the best way to achieve that is not to say it. I hope that we can start a new parliamentary year with a new spirit of openness. I say that without any criticism of the former convener, because the committee as a whole took the decisions.

I have spoken to one committee member about the matter previously. I said that I do not intend to stand in the way of the committee if it wishes to discuss items in public. However, for the time being I intend to bring up the subject on an individual basis at our meetings until we see how we get on with the new procedure—if I can call it that—rather than rule that we will not have private sessions. I would like to revisit the matter at every meeting.

I take it that the view of the committee today is that we should take item 5 and item 6 in public. I am happy to go along with that feeling and I welcome the new-found openness on the Rural Development Committee.

Is everybody agreed?

Members indicated agreement.