Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Official Report 446KB pdf

---

Decision on Taking Business in Private

We now move to item 1, which is a decision on whether to take item 5 in private. Do members agree to that?

No.

We have one disagreement. I do not want to rehearse the arguments that we had last time, unless there is something different.

I will make two brief points. I want to put on public record that the pre-briefing meeting today—

I am not prepared to discuss what was an informal meeting to which all members were invited and at which nothing whatsoever on today’s agenda was discussed. That is ruled out. What is your next point?

My next point is about the discussion of the Scottish Campaign against Irresponsible Driving and the paper that we have on it. My understanding of the paper that went to the pre-briefing is that we do not take work—

No, no. You cannot understand anything about a meeting that you did not have the courtesy to attend. I ruled that out of order. I only want to know why you want this particular item to be held in public.

11:45

Because the paper that we are considering does not name potential witnesses; it names only organisations. It would be useful for the people who are campaigning on fatal road accidents to have the committee’s logic on the record about whether it is a priority for us to consider their evidence or not.

I want to correct an issue from last week’s meeting at which reference was made to changed procedures. I do not want to politicise the discussion but, because there was a suggestion that the Scottish National Party has changed what agenda items are held in private and in public, in fairness to the committee—

You said that we were not discussing the pre-meeting.

This does not relate to the pre-meeting; it relates to what was said on the record at last week’s meeting. You said that the SNP has come into a culture of holding business in private.

That is right.

I have been here for 12 years. I want Jenny Marra to clarify the situation. We had a Labour-Liberal majority Government for eight years and a minority Government for four years. What has changed in the processes that this committee uses from those used in the previous 12 years? That is all that I ask, because I am not aware of any changes.

I thought that you said that you did not want to politicise the discussion. Eighty per cent of last week’s agenda was proposed to be taken in private. Several people, including among the press and the public, commented to me that they did not think that that was appropriate. That was last week—

I asked a specific question, Ms Marra. What has changed in the processes used by this committee compared with those used in the previous 12 years?

I have read the paper that the committee considered at the pre-meeting. You have made a direct reference to the pre-meeting briefing that you said you did not want to discuss in public—

No, no, no. I am sorry, but you have not answered—

If you want me to answer the question, I am happy to answer it.

Then answer it.

The paper that you considered earlier laid out—

No. I—

The paper laid out the precedent—

Of the past 12 years?

It laid out the precedent and made the point that things had not changed. At last week’s meeting, it was proposed that 80 per cent of the business should be taken in private.

I am sorry, but that is not an answer.

It is.

It is not an answer to my question. I want an answer because I feel that this is very disruptive to the committee. I want an answer to my question about what has changed from the previous 12 years. What has changed this year in the general criteria used by the committee to decide whether to hold business in private? If you can point me to the change, I will gladly accept it, but I cannot see it.

Convener, I think that you have convened the committee for the past five years. Whatever is proposed to be in private or public on the agenda is your responsibility. I have not been in Parliament for the past 12 years; you have. I am saying that, under item 5, on the work programme, no witnesses are named. It is incumbent on us to set out—[Interruption.] Can I finish my point? It is incumbent on us to set out to the public why we would want to consider the report or not.

You have not answered my question, but that is not relevant to your point. I asked a specific question; it has not been answered.

I am going to move on, because I do not want to go through this every week. There are far more important things to do than to have an entirely unnecessary tussle and, frankly, I am losing my temper over it, which I do not want to do.

I will tell you why item 5 is down to be held in private. It relates to the committee’s work programme and it contains a recommendation of action from the clerks. Taking the item in private will allow the clerks—I am weary of saying this—to clarify any queries members may have on the recommendation made in the paper. However—I stress this point—it is a matter for the committee to decide whether to agree to take the item in private. Do members agree to take item 5 in private?

I have already stated my objection.

I go along with Jenny.

There will be a division.

For

Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)

McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)

White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

Against

Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

We have agreed to take item 5 in private, with two dissenting members.

11:48 Meeting continued in private until 12:10.