Thank you and good afternoon, everybody.
Unlike some members of the committee, I will certainly not make a habit of making suggestions such as this, but I think that item 8, the consideration of our draft stage 1 report on the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill, should be taken in public so that the public can know what was said in the debate lying behind the committee's conclusions in its stage 1 report. We know that the public are interested in the matter from the number of e-mails and letters that we have all received. The discussion should be held in public for the sake of transparency and because of the public interest.
That is a rather remarkable suggestion. On almost every occasion when we have discussed whether to consider a stage 1 report in private or in public session and I have proposed that we should discuss it in public so that people can see the reasoning behind our arguments and how we have reached decisions, the committee—apart from me—has unanimously decided to take the item in private. That can be checked in the Official Report. I welcome Shona Robison's conversion to the idea that we should consider stage 1 reports in public session and I see no reason why we should not do so. I hope that Shona Robison will not make such a proposal only for this one item.
Obviously, it is up to the committee to decide what to do. I would normally support the principle of everything being considered in public, but there are a couple of suggestions that I want to make about the selection of witnesses in the work force planning inquiry and I would like an opportunity to make those suggestions, however the committee decides to conduct the agenda item.
You will be able to contribute only if the committee decides to take the item in public, not if the item is taken in private. Whether the committee wants to discuss the item in public or in private is a matter for the committee.
I can write to you.
I am interested in Shona Robison's proposal to discuss item 8 in public. Mike Rumbles said that he welcomed the proposal and that he hoped that the item would be discussed in public. I do not think that Shona Robison will propose that we discuss such things in public in future.
I am against the item being held in public, on the ground that standing orders presume that such items will be held in private. That presumption came about as a consequence of long deliberations by all the political parties in the Parliament. This is about a particular party wanting to gain political capital, which is why Shona Robison has moved that we take the item in public. Mike Rumbles is absolutely right to say that, on every occasion in the past, Shona Robison has contested taking such items in public. I do not see why today we should accede to the proposal. If it goes to a vote, I will oppose it.
I have consistently supported the Parliament's procedure over the past five years that committee reports are thrashed out fully and go public at the final stage, when we give all the reasons why recommendations were or were not made and say whether members dissented, which has always been clearly stated. I have no particular objection to the proposal, but it would break precedent. We cannot pick and choose. We have to be consistent.
I have a small point. I do not wish to contradict fellow committee members, but if they read standing orders—as I do, heaven forfend—they will see that they are clear that there is a presumption that agenda items will be taken in public, not the other way round.
I suggest that we do not address the principle of the debate. We have a specific suggestion about a specific item on today's agenda. This is not a broad debate about the issue in general. Does anybody else wish to come in on the specifics?
It might be clearer if we knew exactly why the proposal has been made. Members have made presumptions about Shona Robison's motives, so perhaps she could clarify them. Mainly, I do not have a difficulty with taking items in private or public. The issue that the bill deals with has been prominent for weeks and it affects the public. I have no objection to taking the item in public or in private, as long as the deliberations eventually find their way into the public domain.
I do not propose to go on with this much longer. Shona, do you have a final statement? Your reasons have been challenged.
My reasons are straightforward. For the record, I have voted for items to be taken in public for specific reasons. Because of the overwhelming public interest in the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill—which is greater than for any other bill with which I have been involved—I believe that the public should hear our deliberations. That is the simple reason for proposing that we take the item in public.
We should make a decision on items 7 and 8. Item 7 is the selection of witnesses for the work force planning inquiry. Nobody has proposed that it be held in public. Can I assume that the committee is content that it be held in private?
Members indicated agreement.
Item 8 is consideration of the draft report, which it is proposed we hold in public rather than in private. The question is, that we hold item 8 in public. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0. Item 8 will be held in private.
Previous
Convener