I welcome everyone to the fifth Finance Committee meeting of this session. I welcome members of the press and the public, as well as our witnesses. I remind members to turn off their pagers and mobile phones in case they go off during the meeting. We have not received any apologies as yet.
We should consider the general principles of conducting debates in private, although not this morning. At the end of the first session of Parliament, there was a substantial body of criticism from groups not allied to any political party that far too many of the Parliament's proceedings are conducted in private.
Although there is an issue to be debated, it is unacceptable that Fergus Ewing has raised it in such a manner. We have witnesses waiting and that means that other members of the committee are not able to indulge themselves in the way that Fergus Ewing has done. We should have an item on a future agenda to allow us to discuss the issue, but the way in which Fergus Ewing has raised the matter today is absolutely unacceptable.
If there is a debate to be had about how committees in general deal with draft reports, that debate affects all committees and not just the Finance Committee. If Fergus Ewing has a particular concern, I suggest that he raise it with the Presiding Officer or with the convener of the Procedures Committee in the first instance.
I am quite happy to do that. To say that my remarks were self-indulgent is simply wide of the mark. We should have less playing of the man and more playing of the ball in the Parliament.
You should take your own advice.
Notwithstanding that, can we agree that, in line with the existing procedure, we will consider our draft report in private at a later meeting? It is necessary for us to proceed in that way at this point. Are we agreed?
What exactly are we agreeing to?
We are agreeing to consider in private our draft report on the financial memorandum for the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill before it goes to the relevant justice committee.
Yes, but we have not decided to do anything in private at the moment. We are going to come back and consider the issue of privacy later. Is that the situation?
I am asking you to agree to deal with the draft report in private at the meeting after next.
No. I do not agree to that.
In that case, we will have to take a vote. May I see all those in favour of the proposal that we agree to consider in private the draft report at the committee meeting on 23 September?
You are saying that the report should be considered in private. That is what I am objecting to.
Yes.
I object to that.
What are you proposing?
I have already said what I am proposing but I will reiterate. I propose that we should have a proper debate during which all members can contribute and with the benefit of information from the other committees, as you said. Arguably we would be setting a precedent that could affect other committees as well. It has been pointed out that the Procedures Committee is considering the matter. If that is the case, it would seem to me to be premature for us to pre-empt the decision of the Procedures Committee. I am proposing that we revisit the whole issue at a later date, after having consulted the appropriate authorities, including the Presiding Officer, the Procedures Committee and anyone else who might be interested in the matter.
I am not clear about what Fergus Ewing is proposing. He said that he wants to have a debate, but what does he want the committee to agree? Is it that we should have a debate about whether to discuss the item in private before taking a vote on it and then discuss the item in private or in public as a result of that vote?
We have to deal with the item that is on the agenda. It is difficult for us to deal with an item that is not on the agenda. If there is a debate to be had about how committees—or indeed this committee—deal with draft reports, it must be put on an agenda and discussed in the appropriate way.
That is what I suggest.
That might well be. However, we must deal with the proposal that we examine the draft report.
Surely the production of the report imposes a time constraint on us. For us to change the procedure would pre-empt the decision of the Procedures Committee. I have nothing against discussing the item in public, but it would be more appropriate for the Parliament to decide whether it wants to change current procedures. As that decision has not yet been taken, I suggest that we adhere to the Parliament's normal procedure at the current time because we must produce a report for the Justice 2 Committee.
For the benefit of those of us who are new to the committee, will the convener give us a brief explanation of why meetings have been held in private before?
The reason was to enable a proper flow of argument among members of the committee on matters of disagreement. In my time on the committee, I cannot remember a time when there has been disagreement among committee members in debates on financial memoranda, but meetings might be held in private to allow members to raise issues that are not fully incorporated in the draft. Members might want to propose items for inclusion or they might want to engage in discussion with the clerks or with members of the committee to seek clarification. Such matters have always been discussed in private by our committee.
What are the time-scale restraints?
We are obliged to make our report in time for the lead committee to question the minister. I understand that the Justice 2 Committee has a session on the bill with the minister on 30 September. Our timetable is to complete consideration of the draft report by 23 September. We will take further evidence next week.
That is in two weeks' time.
Yes, I am quite clear, Fergus, that 23 September—
You said that it was one week away; in fact it is two weeks away.
I said that we are taking further evidence next week. The clerks will need to prepare the draft report for us to examine and agree on 23 September, so that it is available to the Justice 2 Committee in time for it to consider the approach that it wants to take.
I move that we make progress and agree to continue in private for the moment, but that we meet as soon as possible to discuss Fergus Ewing's very legitimate proposal.
The proposal is that we agree to consider in private our draft report on the financial memorandum of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill at our meeting of 23 September. That would be in line with previous procedure. Is the proposal agreed to?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 0. The proposal is agreed to.