Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Official Report 533KB pdf

---

Decision on Taking Business in Private

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee’s 11th meeting in 2013. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with the broadcasting system even when they are switched to silent. Apologies have been received from David McLetchie, and John Lamont is attending as his substitute.

Item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take in private item 6, which is consideration of the Scottish Court Service’s proposals on a future court structure?

Can we record why we want to take the item in private?

The item includes consideration of potential witnesses who may be invited to give evidence to the committee. I would also like the clerks to be able to talk about the processes in Parliament and in committee for dealing with issues if members feel that the committee is not agreeable to some of the proposals. That is quite difficult to discuss if the clerks cannot speak; I thought that such an approach would be useful.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

On a point of information, convener, you will note that I wrote you a letter about the legislation in connection with sectarianism and football grounds. I am grateful that you can put the issue on the agenda for next week’s meeting, but could we have some indication of the cut-off point for intimating to the clerks that we want something to be included in a current agenda?

I saw the letter on Friday and I was happy to accommodate your request. As you know, any member can raise any matter with the clerks, who will raise it with me as convener so that we can decide whether to put it on the agenda. Whether we include items that have not previously been agreed as part of the work programme is a matter for my discretion.

I do not want to disregard the views of any committee member, and I certainly did not disregard yours—I was just striking a balance with what we already had on the agenda. I have gone through the timings for today’s agenda, and it is clear that time is tight.

I felt that we must put the issue on the agenda at the earliest opportunity. Had the matter been really urgent—I have to say that I submitted a question on it for First Minister’s question time and it was refused, so obviously the Presiding Officer does not think that it is urgent—I would certainly have tried to include it today. However, I was thinking of members who might not be able to access their papers or who might not look at them until late and who would therefore not be prepared.

As you know, there is also a separate issue. I am seeking guidance on what the position would be with regard to sub judice if we started to discuss the recent case and the Crown put in an appeal. However, the item will be on the agenda next week, and I fully intend to hold that discussion in public.

So if we get an item in on a Thursday morning, it can at least be considered.

That is far better. Of course, it was recess last week, and I was aware that members might not be back in time to look at the papers. As you know, the item is now on the agenda for next week, which is timeous.

All members have received a lot of correspondence about the issue and the policing in relation to football over the past couple of weeks. I wanted to put on the record the fact that we are concerned about that and want to discuss it at the first opportunity.

That is what we are doing.

Thank you.

Not at all.