Items in Private
The first item is consideration of whether to take agenda items in private. I recommend that we take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. I will explain my reasons and members who want to oppose the recommendation in relation to a particular item or all three items may then do so.
I will consider items 3 and 4 together, because the reasons for my recommendation are the same for both items. The items are consideration of how we will deal with bills at stage 1. We have already given extensive consideration to the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, but the expert group on prostitution in Scotland recently published its initial report and it is now appropriate for us to complete our stage 1 consideration. We will therefore consider potential witnesses under item 3, which might involve discussion of named individuals. Similarly, at item 4 we will consider appropriate witnesses in relation to the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill. I recommend that we take both items in private.
Item 5 is consideration of our draft report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. We are at an early stage in giving the clerks indications about the report's shape. The report is nowhere near complete—indeed, item 5 will be our first consideration of the draft. Previous practice in the committee has been to take such matters in private, so I recommend that we do so today.
In general, the committee has a good record on taking the vast majority of its business in public. I feel comfortable about recommending that we consider items 3, 4 and 5 in private. I invite comments from members.
I oppose the recommendation. There is some justification for holding items in private when we are discussing individuals, which is why I did not oppose our doing so when we discussed the appointment of an adviser on the United Kingdom Railways Bill. However, on the broad issue of invitations to give evidence to the committee, we are not in danger of inadvertently hurting people's feelings or causing major heartache. I do not see why items 3 or 4 should be taken in private.
Item 5 is non-contentious. I do not see why we should go into private session for it. We have a report in front of us, the thrust of which we will broadly agree and move on. I do not feel that item 5 should be taken in private. I oppose taking all three items in private.
Despite the obvious dictate of natural justice that the clerks should have a breather after last week, I reiterate my general view—which I have expressed in various parliamentary committees—that members should not say anything in private that they do not wish to see reported in public. Outwith this place, there is a considerable and growing opinion that too often we go into private session. I entirely agree with Tommy Sheridan's remarks that we should discuss matters concerning individuals in private, but that could quite easily be accommodated in respect of items 3, 4 and 5. I do not wish to go on any longer, because I have made the same arguments repeatedly and have invariably lost when it came to the vote.
I note both members' points. They are consistent in the opinions that they express. However, this committee and the Parliament as a whole have a good record of conducting the vast majority of business in public. The extensive consideration that the committee gave last week to the Sewel motion on the Railways Bill was a case in point. Given that overall record, it is appropriate that we consider the items in private.
We will be discussing the potential calling of individuals under items 3 and 4. As for item 5, parliamentary reports lose their impact if they are reported piecemeal over a series of weeks by the media; it is better if they are completed and represent the full and considered views of the committee before they are made available to the rest of the Parliament and the public of Scotland via the media. I reiterate my view that all three items should be considered in private.
Given the fact that opposition has been expressed, the question is, that items 3, 4 and 5 be taken in private. Are we agreed?
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)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Against
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0. We will consider items 3, 4 and 5 in private.