Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Official Report 517KB pdf

---

Decisions on Taking Business in Private

I welcome everybody to the Justice Committee’s 10th meeting in 2013. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with the broadcasting system, even when switched to silent. We have received apologies from David McLetchie, and John Lamont is here as a substitute.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. We must decide whether to take three items in private, so I will go through them one at a time.

Item 3 is consideration of our next steps following the evidence that we have taken in our inquiry into the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003. It is proposed that we take the item in private to allow us to consider the evidence that has been received and possible conclusions to draw. However, I am relaxed—my goodness; am I?—if members would prefer to have the discussion in public. Do members want to take it in private or in public?

If there is no good reason to take it in private and you are relaxed about it, maybe we should just take it in public.

I am relaxed, but is everybody else relaxed?

I am relaxed, but there is something that I would not say in public.

I do not want to inhibit the discussion. That is the problem. I want you to say stuff.

Actually, this is making too much of a deal of it. It is to do with something in the briefing from Angus Evans that I did not quite agree with. Maybe it is best if I talk to him about the issue at a suitable point.

If you like.

I am happy to take the item in public.

Right. We will do it in public.

Agenda item 4 is our continued consideration of research undertaken by the University of Dundee in relation to fatal road accidents. We have previously considered the issue in private, as it relates to our work programme. Are members content to take that item in private?

I would like to take the item in public because if we are discussing the reasons for pursuing the issue—or not—it would be good to have those on the record.

I see Graeme Pearson nodding. My feeling is that there are sensitive issues to be discussed and I want members to be free to discuss them. It would be much better if we took the item in private. Can I have other views?

At the end of our private discussions, can we put something on the record about our deductions from the conversation?

We can put something in the minutes. We can discuss in private what we would like to put in the minutes.

As Jenny Marra said, people will be interested in the way forward. We should ensure that the public are aware of how we have discussed the matter.

The reason for taking the item in private is because we take the issue seriously and it is a sensitive area. That is the only reason for taking the item in private—it is not for any other reason whatsoever. We can then discuss what we put in our public minutes. Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 5 is continued consideration of our draft report on the Public Bodies Act 2011 consent memorandum on the Public Bodies (Abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council) Order 2013. Do members agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Last week, the committee agreed to consider item 6 in private, because it is a draft report.