Equal Opportunities Committee, 03 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002

Official Report 216KB pdf

---

Items in Private

I welcome everyone to the first Equal Opportunities Committee meeting after the summer recess. I hope that everyone managed to get some kind of break.

We have apologies from Lyndsay McIntosh, who is attending a meeting of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Jamie Stone has indicated that he may be late, due to a clash with the Holyrood progress group.

The first item on the agenda is consideration of items in private. Does the committee agree to take items 7 and 8 in private?

Before the recess, there was quite a discussion on the increasing tendency of committees to take items in private. Civic Scotland is worried that the openness and transparency of the Parliament's committees is coming into question. Why should we take items 7 and 8 in private? I do not see any reason to do so. I therefore ask that they be taken in public.

One of those items is consideration of a draft report. The conveners liaison group has agreed that considering draft reports in private is acceptable practice. The other item is a housekeeping issue—the committee and other committees have previously dealt with such issues in private and I would be happy to stick to that precedent. Look at the statistics: compared with the other committees, the Equal Opportunities Committee has a good record on the number of items that we do not discuss in private.

I have a point of clarification. The items that the agenda proposes that we take in private are items 7 and 8, but items 5 and 6 are consideration of draft reports.

Sorry?

Items 5 and 6 look to me as though they are consideration of draft reports.

At the committee's last meeting before the recess, we agreed to discuss those draft reports in private.

So items 5 and 6, as well as items 7 and 8, will be in private.

Yes. That was agreed prior to the recess.

The Procedures Committee has been taking evidence on the issue. My instinct is to support Tommy Sheridan in this matter, but I prefer to wait until the Procedures Committee comes up with recommendations. As discussions have taken place in the conveners liaison group, I would like to leave the situation as it is. I am generally sympathetic to the view that more should be discussed in public, but at this stage I will ca cannie on it.

I share the view that we should take as many items in public as possible. The committee has been good at doing that. I am aware that the issue is being discussed, but if other committees followed our line, the Procedures Committee inquiry would not need to take place. We agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private. We should go with that, but I am open to future discussion on what should and should not be taken in private.

I suggest that we take items 7 and 8 in private unless someone moves otherwise.

I will not move otherwise, because Gil Paterson has made his opinion clear and has said that the Procedures Committee is looking into the matter. However, the fact that a committee has done something in a certain way in the past should not be a reason for continuing to do it in that way. The committee has a good record on taking items in public, but all the Parliament's committees must improve in that regard. I will therefore not press the matter to a vote.

Do we agree to take items 7 and 8 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

As I have stated, the committee has already agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private.

Item 2 concerns taking future items in private. If the committee is so minded, we can leave consideration of those items and deal with each as it comes up at the committee. There might be some change because of the Procedures Committee's inquiry. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.