Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 27 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999

Official Report 267KB pdf

---

Meetings

Point 5 on the agenda is private/public meetings. We all have a paper from the clerk. To reiterate, we were concerned that our efforts to deal, for example, with housekeeping, with tidying up our business, and with setting dates in our diaries, should not take up valuable time during the formal part of the committee. Those housekeeping issues were the reason—the only reason—for meeting in private. We asked for clarification on that from the clerks. Have you all had the chance to look through the paper? Are there any comments or possible amendments?

It is terribly important that the work of this and other committees of the Parliament is not dictated by one newspaper and its gimmicky action against the Parliament— trying to boost its flagging circulation by attacking the Standards Committee for meeting in private. Paragraph 9 of the paper summarises clearly the times when it would be appropriate for us to meet in private. We should not shy away from that. This Parliament is sovereign and we should not be dictated to by the media and journalists. I say that as an ex-journalist.

The discussion of draft committee reports in particular—in which I have been involved in select committees in another place—is much freer if the meeting is held in private rather than in public. If other people are present during the discussion of the draft report, the final report may be qualified by them because of something that they heard and have perhaps taken out of context. It makes a lot of sense for that kind of meeting to be held in private.

It is absurd, with four parties represented on our committee, to think that some kind of conspiracy is going on. It would be unique in political history, and even more unlikely, if we managed to conspire together and then keep it quiet.

It is usually just three parties.

In the coalition? [Laughter.]

Now, now.

Now, now.

I think that the four points in paragraph 9, including

"discussion of the questions to be put to witnesses"

and

"discussion of draft committee reports"

are probably the most appropriate.

When it is appropriate, to cover that kind of ground, we will go into private session.

One of the problems is that a lot of these issues—for example, the questions to be asked—are likely to come up at the beginning of meetings. That will lead to a timetabling problem. We do not want people to be waiting about because they did not know in advance that there was to be a private session. We will have either to plan ahead, or allocate a particular time for meeting in private.

Members should think about that matter when we have our forward plan, which will take us through November, December and possibly some of January. As long as we make it clear in advance why we are having private meetings and what we will cover in them we will reassure people that we are not saying politics is only for politicians. I acknowledge Keith's point about a certain newspaper, but we need to reassure communities and organisations that we want them to hear our open debate.

We will agree to this paper, and it will determine how we operate. When we need to meet in private we will provide advance notification. Committee members should tell me or the clerk if they feel that we need to discuss in private how we question key witnesses.

The point is that if the committee is to go into private session, a specific decision should be made to do so: there should not be a general, blanket arrangement.

And the decision must relate to a specific piece of work.

The decision must be recorded in the Official Report.

Yes. We would need also to include an agenda item on the need to take a decision.