Agenda item 5 is a decision on whether to take our remaining agenda items in private. Are we agreed?
No.
I do not mean to be difficult, especially given the way that things have gone this morning, and given that many of us had quite good relationships on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I hope will continue. However, item 6 concerns an issue that is very important for us and I would like it to be taken in public so that it is included in the Official Report. We can go then back and compare what we wanted to do with what has been done. It is important that we operate in public as far as is humanly possible, rather than behind closed doors. I would be most unhappy to discuss the item in private.
I support what Christine Grahame has just said. I remind the convener of our visit to the Glasgow sheriff courts. The people we met there showed a complete lack of understanding of why the Scottish Parliament should have two justice committees. We must have open and public discussion of the reasons behind that decision.
That is fine, but item 6 is a discussion of the paper on how the committee will operate, not of the reasons that led to there being a Justice 2 Committee.
I acknowledge that that debate is over for the time being. I accept that the item under discussion is about how the two committees will operate.
The problem is that the paper that we are to consider under item 6 is a private paper. It was discussed in private, I think, with the Justice 1 Committee.
That is a different matter. That was an informal meeting between the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee. This is a formal meeting of the Justice 2 Committee, with a publicly available agenda.
May I make an alternative suggestion? Why not discuss the paper in private and minute our forward work plan? That would give us—dare I say it—the best of both worlds, as we could speak freely and then minute what we have decided to do.
I agree with Lyndsay McIntosh's suggestion. I thought that we would have our discussions in private, but we could ensure that the outcomes were made public, so that people could be clear about what we decided.
With respect, outcomes do not tell people what issues were debated; they just show what the majority has decided. It is very important that we debate publicly how the justice committees will operate so that anyone who is interested in following the proceedings of the Justice 2 Committee can see how we have reached our views on that. That will not make us a hostage to fortune and will not cause any difficulty. To do otherwise—simply to publish some kind of conclusion—would not make plain the issues and difficulties that we may have foreseen and flagged up. Some people in the Executive require to know the difficulties. We will certainly face difficulties; we will not have to try to make them.
I want to clarify something with the clerks. Will the paper that we have previously discussed be made public once the amendments have been agreed?
If that was the committee's desire, certainly it could be made public.
How does Christine Grahame feel about that? We can discuss the document and amend it but, when it is finally agreed, that document could be made public. In effect, it would be the publicly available code of practice by which we will operate.
That comes some of the way to taking forward the honest and genuine difficulties that I anticipate we will meet in issues that will come before the two justice committees.
Having served on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee with Christine Grahame, I appreciate the problems and I am determined that this committee will work in a harmonious way with the Justice 1 Committee. I am also clear that we have to avoid duplication.
If there is a clear undertaking that the paper that we come up with will be made public, I am content.
Is that agreed?
Meeting continued in private until 11.37.
Previous
Europe Familiarisation Scheme