Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Rural Affairs Committee, 25 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 25, 2000


Contents


Items in Private

We now come to item 4. It has been suggested that we take items 4 and 5 in private. Do you agree that we should discuss the budget in private?

I do not see why.

Do you see any reason why we should not take the scheduling of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill in private?

I would prefer not to.

We have met in private when discussing the committee's timetable and we should stick by that precedent. It is not of public interest; it concerns only members' diaries and related matters.

Why should that be in private?

Because it is only housekeeping—not democracy in action.

Lewis Macdonald:

I agree with Alasdair. We have established a sensible approach—that things that are of no conceivable public interest can be discussed privately and we can then complain about our conflicting committee commitments without its having to go in the Official Report.

I still disagree. If there is no overriding reason why something should be confidential, it should be in the public domain. The timetabling of a forthcoming bill is of public interest.

Are there any other views? Given that there is disagreement and that the majority appears to be in favour of taking this item in private, I would be keen to hear the views of those who have not yet spoken.

Can we have a show of hands, to speed things up?

I do not think that it is in the public interest to have several pages of the Official Report taken up with discussion of our diary availability to discuss a particular bill. It is crazy to have reached the stage where we may vote on that.

We have set a precedent for this. I see nothing of public interest in the timetabling issue that we are about to discuss. I am happy to agree with the deputy convener.

Mike, would you be happy to have your objection noted, but to continue with the will of the majority?

No.

The question is, that item 5 be taken in private. As we are not all agreed, there will be a division.

For

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con)
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Irene McGugan (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)

Against

Mr John Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to.