Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Local Government and Transport Committee, 16 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 16, 2003


Contents


Item in Private

The Convener (Bristow Muldoon):

I welcome members of the committee to the 12th meeting in this session of the Local Government and Transport Committee. I hope that members of the public will be here in due course.

Before we move to the main item on the agenda, which is to take evidence on the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, do members agree to take in private agenda item 3, which concerns the possible contents of the committee's report to the Communities Committee on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill?

No.

Tommy Sheridan does not agree that the committee should take in private item 3, so I propose that we go straight to—

Could members say why they think that agenda item 3 should be taken in private or in public?

The Convener:

I am happy to say why it should be taken in private. We must consider evidence and give guidance to the clerks on the possible contents of a report, which will be subject to debate at subsequent meetings. There could be a confused picture if various versions of parliamentary reports become available before final reports, which would not be good practice in respect of scrutinising bills. On that basis, I recommend that the standing practice of parliamentary committees be followed and that the possible contents of the report be considered in private.

Tommy Sheridan might want to say why he would like the item to be taken in public.

Tommy Sheridan:

Sure. In line with the consultative steering group's principles, it has always been emphasised that discussions should be as transparent and open as possible and that a committee's going into private session should be an exception rather than a general rule. On this occasion, the qualification for going into private session has not been satisfied. We are mature and adult enough to know exactly what will be discussed—as the convener explained, we will discuss the possible contents of a first draft report that will return for more knockabout and more discussion. We will then reach a consensus or perhaps disagreement on the report.

I do not accept that such deliberations should be in private—they should be in public. We do not have anything to fear. I might say something today and change my mind about it in January; another member might do the same. We should not be frightened about that—people change their minds all the time about complex issues. The item should be taken in public.

The question is, do members agree to take agenda item 3 in private?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

For

Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)

Against

McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0. The proposal is agreed to.