Official Report 158KB pdf
The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. We are taking oral evidence as part of our rural housing inquiry and the committee has formed the practice of holding brief private sessions after hearing oral evidence simply to review the evidence heard. It is proposed that that practice is repeated for the rural housing inquiry. I ask members to agree to take in private item 6 and equivalent items at later meetings in the inquiry.
I agree with what you say if the purpose is to review the evidence that we have heard, but I am a little concerned about how the item is worded on the agenda. It says:
We used the same wording throughout the flooding inquiry. It is not about decision making at this stage. It is simply about gathering views on the evidence that we have heard thus far. Any such views or preliminary direction are subject to further evidence. The conclusions of any inquiry are not drawn until the final sessions after all the evidence has been heard.
And the purpose of considering the item in private is to help the clerks to understand where we are coming from.
It is to help the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre to identify issues that we might want to flag up as we go through the inquiry, so that we are not left in a situation where everything has to be rolled up at the end of the process.
In that context, it might be worth adopting a form of words such as, "with a view to clarifying what further evidence might be required".
The words are as they are on the agenda, but the purpose of the item is to clarify our views on the evidence that we have heard and to inform our next evidence-taking sessions. It also informs the clerks and the SPICe researchers. Is everybody happy with that?