Official Report 299KB pdf
Good morning everyone and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee. I have received apologies from John Scott, for whom Phil Gallie is here as substitute. I have also received apologies from Rosie Kane and Jackie Baillie.
I am not here to cause trouble, convener. As you say, it has become standard practice to consider draft reports with a degree of secrecy because, in some instances, there is quite a bit of debate surrounding the various issues that are discussed. However, it seems to me that the Public Petitions Committee has always been a very open committee and, as far as I can see, everything that is to be considered in the draft report has in the past been considered in full view of the public. It might be good for the committee to set an example, when there is no necessity to take the item in secret session, by discussing the draft report in public.
Are you opposing our taking the item in private?
Yes.
I second what Phil Gallie says. It is a good report that praises the committee, so we should discuss it in public.
I move against that. It is a fact that committees of the Scottish Parliament do not go into private session unnecessarily. In every such situation with which I have been involved, there have been good reasons—sometimes a variety of reasons—why we have held discussions in private. On this occasion, I agree to the suggestion that we discuss the item in private.
Phil Gallie is correct to say that the Public Petitions Committee seldom discusses issues in private; we are the most open committee of the Parliament. Nevertheless, the draft report has not been seen by members, so I am concerned that members might feel restricted in what they can say if they have to debate openly a report that they are seeing for the first time. It may be that, at some point, if a report is not contentious and we know that there will be all-round agreement to it, we might discuss it in public. However, in this instance, on principle, I would say that Phil Gallie is wrong because committee members have not previously had a chance to discuss the draft report. We should have the opportunity to examine the report collectively without our being concerned about making comments on it that the public might misinterpret.
Many items are put before members—including some of the petitions that we will discuss today—that they have not had the chance to consider previously. I do not see anything in the draft report that would be contentious, nor do I see any reason for trying to hide discussion of what has been submitted. I would be surprised if there were more than one or two suggested amendments to the report, if any. It could well be agreed to unchanged.
I have nothing to add but that I disagree fundamentally with your suggestion. The committee does not discuss many of its agenda items in private. The information on petitions that members have is provided by the clerks and the petitioners and is available to the public. Everything that relates to that information should be debated openly. However, we are not talking about a petition; we are talking about a report that will be discussed only by members and which will become public once the committee has discussed it.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 0. I have the casting vote, and I vote that we take the item in private.
That is democracy.
Yes—that is democracy, Campbell. That is how it works in every other democracy in the world.