Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 11 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Official Report 131KB pdf

---

Decision on Taking Business in Private

Item 4 is to decide whether to take three items in private. That may surprise folk, as there are only two more items on today's agenda.

The first item relates to the budget process. It has been past practice—and I think that we have now established that it is our practice—to discuss items relating to the work programme in private. The second item is item 6 on the agenda, which relates to the request for direction from the Standards Commissioner. The final item refers to our earlier discussion about elections to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Are we agreed to have our discussion on that in private at our next meeting? Those are the three items to be taken in private.

What was the third one again?

It is on the elections to the corporate body, which we discussed earlier. We agreed to discuss the report at our next meeting, and it is practice that we agree at this meeting whether we want to do that in private.

I am curious about why we should take that particular item in private. I would not have thought that the report was particularly sensitive. We have already discussed the issues of sitting days, working days, calendar days and so on. I would rather that we dealt with that item in public, although I am quite happy for the other two to be taken in private.

I think that the only reason is that it is accepted practice to deal with draft reports in private. However, the decision is up to the committee.

I take it that it makes sense to deal with draft reports in private in case we need to adjust or modify anything.

I do not follow that logic. People will know that a draft report is just a draft report and is subject to changes, following discussion, before it becomes a formal report. I still do not see the need to deal with it in private.

In anticipation of this discussion—because I remembered that we had previously had a similar discussion—I asked the clerks to give their view. I do not want to misrepresent their position but, basically, they said that they would like that general rule to be upheld because it works in the interests of the committee, as members are able to have a freer debate on the matter. However, they also said—to use the exact words—that they would not go to the wall on that matter in relation to this report, as it does not deal with a contentious issue and we have discussed the issue in public before.

I accept the general presumption, but I do not see the case in relation to this report.

Having spent a good hour in another committee looking at a draft report, I beg to differ. There are very good reasons for dealing with draft reports in private. It might be that we simply okay this report because there is nothing wrong with it. However, I do not think that it would be helpful to dot the i's and cross the t's of every report in public. We should stick to the general rule of having a look at them in private first.

In my limited experience—I am only a new member—consideration of draft reports can become an editing exercise that deals with style, grammar and so on. Some of us are more fixated on those matters than others, and I apologise for that. Considering the draft report in private is a better way of dealing with those stylistic elements. The point is well made that this report does not deal with a contentious issue, but the danger is that we might set a precedent that would result in our having a difficulty in relation to a report on an issue that is a little more contentious.

I do not think that hiding the bad grammar or style of someone who drafted a report is a good reason for dealing with it in private.

There is considerably more to it than that. During consideration of a draft report in private, you can influence the focus and emphasis of passages much more freely than you can in a public session.

I take the point that you have made about this report; I agree that it is not contentious. However, there are instances in which considering a draft report in public could present problems.

I would rather not go to a division on this matter—conveners are given guidance that they should try to work out such differences of opinion without dividing.

The clerks have agreed that there is nothing particularly contentious in the report. Although you never know how a discussion will go, nothing contentious arose when we took evidence on the issues.

Cathie Craigie, our deputy convener, has more experience of these matters than most of the rest of us. Perhaps she has a comment to make.

I should have asked earlier, when we were talking about the change in the days, but will what comes forward be a draft rule change rather than a draft report?

The proposed rule change is accompanied by a report making the proposal. As you can imagine, it will be quite a short report.

If we decide today that we want to take the item in private, could we decide later—at the meeting on whose agenda the report features—that, because we can see that the report is not controversial and that there will be no big discussion about it, we will deal with it in public or are we tied into the decision once the agenda is set?

I do not see why you could not do that. Obviously, there is a slight housekeeping issue. The item would be publicised as being one that would be taken in private and, if a decision were made to take it in public, there would be short notice of that decision. Ideally, it is best to decide in advance whether to take the item in private or public. I think that that helps the official report as well.

It is useful for any committee to be able to discuss their draft reports in private before they finally send them off. Since the clerk has confirmed that there will be a report as well as a rule change, I think that we should continue with the procedure whereby we deal with draft reports in private.

Would anyone else like to comment?

I have said my piece.

It is obvious that I am in the minority, so I will not push the issue. I will go with the flow.

It is useful to have someone on the committee who is concerned about the public's access to information. Those views are shared by us all but, on this occasion, we will keep with convention.

As was mentioned by the deputy convener, we can change our mind on the day, although that would mean that people would not know in advance that the matter would be dealt with in public. If they did know about it in advance, we would, of course, print a couple of hundred extra copies of the draft report for the massed ranks of the public that would come to see our deliberations.

Do we agree to take the item in private at our next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now continue our meeting in private.

Meeting continued in private until 15:42.