Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Standards Committee, 15 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999


Contents


Committee Drafts

The Convener:

The first item on the agenda is the availability of committee drafts. After our previous meeting, representations were made to me that it was difficult for the press and the public to follow our discussions. I therefore thought it appropriate to make this the first item on the agenda. The committee has been asked to provide observers in the room—members of the press and the public—with drafts of the papers that are to be discussed, which will be retrieved at the close of the meeting. People who attend the meeting will therefore have a better insight into our discussions.

Tricia Marwick:

Like you, I was concerned to find after the previous meeting that the press had sat through our line-by-line discussion of the code of conduct without any information of their own. It flies in the face of the Parliament's commitment to openness for observers not to be given documents. There is nothing secret about these documents. When we discussed putting the draft code into the public domain, we felt that the whole code should be published. I had understood that committee papers would be available so that people could see what we were discussing. It would be bad practice to keep such documents from the press.

Other committees are facing the same problem. Information is not available in the committee room to members of the press and, because they do not see what items are on the agenda, they do not know what is being discussed. The matter needs to be raised with the whole of clerking services, not just with the clerks on this committee.

I see no reason to retrieve the documents at the end of the meeting. It makes us look silly to allow the press access to papers, only to whip the documents out of their hands as they walk out the door.

The Convener:

I suggested retrieving the documents only because the committee agreed on 1 September not to hand out half-baked drafts. At the previous meeting, we agreed a number of changes to the draft code—Des has said that he wanted some time to think about additions to the text. The danger is that the press and public might assume that the information was coming from the committee when it was not. That is why I am suggesting that the press and public be provided with papers, which would also enhance the openness of the meeting. However, it is up to the committee if it changes its mind and wants the papers back.

Tricia Marwick:

I have gone back through the Official Report and have found that, in our first exchange about this issue, I asked whether the papers under discussion were available and whether people could access the briefing papers through the internet. When I was told that people had access to the papers listed on the agenda, I said that those papers were, in many ways, in the public domain. That was at the start of the meeting. It was not until I left the committee room that I found out that the papers were not in the public domain.

I think that there is a confusion about the papers.

Vanessa Glynn:

I am sorry if I misled you, Ms Marwick. Two sorts of papers go out with an agenda to committee members. The papers in the first set, which is available to the public, are listed on the agenda. The second set consists of private briefing papers, which are for members' eyes only. That is made clear in the letter that also goes out to members. In my reply to your question, I meant that only the papers that are listed on the agenda are publicly available; anything else is not. I am sorry if that was not clear.

Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP):

I tend to agree with Tricia. If the press sit through a whole meeting with the papers in front of them, it serves no great purpose to remove those papers at the end. It would be helpful if they could retain the papers to check the accuracy of their reporting.

Ms Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab):

We can all learn from experience. A close look at the proceedings of the previous meeting shows that what was agreed was unhelpful to the press and public, which is the last thing that we want to be. However, although I agree with Tricia, I think that we should clearly identify the status of the papers so that they are not reported as being what they are not. Any confusion after that will not be of our making.

That is a good point. The clerk has made sure that the papers to be given to the press have "Draft" stamped at the top of them to make it clear that their contents have not been agreed by the committee.

Can we also make it clear that some of our business, particularly on the code of conduct, is a working process and will not be dealt with in one meeting?

Do members have any other thoughts? Are we happy to give out details of the committee's business to the press and public and not to retrieve the papers at the end of the meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

In that case, can the documents be handed round?

Just so that members are clear, what is being handed out now is all the material that has draft before the title. The press and the public do not have the briefing that we received. That remains private, but the draft substance of what we will discuss is now available to the press and the public.