Social Justice Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 23, 2001

Official Report 163KB pdf

---

Items in Private

The first agenda item is to consider whether we will take items 3 and 5 in private. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we now move into private session—I beg your pardon: we still have to decide whether consideration of the draft report on the annual budget process is to be taken in private at our next meeting, on 30 May.

Why are we taking item 5 in private today? I thought that the subject—post-enactment scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill—was of some significance.

Item 5 is not a discussion about the post-enactment scrutiny as such; it is a matter of deciding on the proposal on that subject.

But surely we should consider such matters in public.

I agree that we have to be quite cautious about deciding to consider matters in private, but item 5 is on a research proposal that is to go to the conveners group. It is a matter of putting a bid in. That is slightly different from the actual work that we will be do in relation to the scrutiny, most of which should be in public.

But what is confidential or private about the matter that requires us to discuss it in private? It is not of huge importance and I do not wish to make a big issue of it, but is there a reason?

The reason is that we might want to change the bid. We might wish to discuss the exact form of the bid, so it is like discussing a draft committee report.

Technically, the committee has already agreed to take item 5 in private, but I am conscious that we perhaps jumped into agreeing to do that before people realised what we were doing, so I propose that we go back. If Robert Brown does not want item 5 to be taken in private, he should move a motion to that effect.

I think that I will do so. I am not satisfied that there is anything particularly private about item 5—although it is not a major issue. I do not think that there is anything secret involved.

I move,

That item 5 of this meeting of the Social Justice Committee is not taken in private.

Let us separate the questions on items 3 and 5. Are we agreed that item 3 be taken in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The question is, that item 5 of this meeting of the Social Justice Committee is not taken in private. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)

Against

Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Motion disagreed to.

Item 5 will be taken in private. My apologies to anyone who is trying to follow our deliberations—we have jumped back and forward a bit.

Let us return to item 2. Are we agreed that, at our meeting on 30 May, we will consider the draft report on the annual budget process in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private.

Meeting continued in public.