Official Report 164KB pdf
Good morning, colleagues, and happy new year to you all. Welcome to the first meeting of the Education Committee in 2006.
I think that we should take the item in public. Although we have a general precedent, in the Parliament, the Procedures Committee and others have suggested that committees reflect on whether they genuinely need to have sessions in private. Our principles of openness and transparency must lead us to examine each time whether we really need to discuss an item in private. The Education Committee has conducted several discussions of draft reports in public, and that has caused no difficulty whatever in either members' contributions or in the response to them. We have a responsible committee, and I have not seen evidence of grandstanding by anybody in the discussion of draft reports. In this case, I think that it would be very helpful to the political life of Scotland if we decided again—as we have decided previously—to discuss the draft report in public.
Do other members have views on the matter?
I disagree profoundly with what Fiona Hyslop has just said. I do not think that anybody in Scotland is desperately concerned about whether we hold the discussion in public or in private; what they are interested in is the quality of the report at the end of the process. That would benefit from our having the chance to express our views candidly before the report is agreed. In that context, I support your suggestion, convener.
I support the convener on this matter. I think that drafting should be dealt with in private. The Procedures Committee has come to the view that committees should be able to deal with such matters in private. The conclusions will be public—the committee's recommendations, the report and everything will, eventually, be public. It makes for efficiency if minor drafting matters are dealt with quickly and effectively in private.
I agree with Frank McAveety and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and not with Fiona Hyslop on this issue. When we are discussing evidence that has been given to us on which there may be differences of opinion and on which we may aspire to achieve consensus, that may be done more effectively if we hold the discussion in private. Like Frank McAveety, I am sure that the people of Scotland are not waiting just outside the door to hear the pearls of wisdom that fall from the lips of the members of the Education Committee as they discuss their reports to Parliament.
I would like to respond to what Frank McAveety and Elaine Murray have said. The evidence that the Procedures Committee received when it examined the issue showed that a considerable number of people are interested in such sessions being held in public, not least several trade unions. Given the unions' affiliation to the Labour Party, Labour members might want to reflect on that. As has happened before, I recognise that I am in the minority, but I hope that, at some point in the future, the Parliament might break out of its conservatism and consider routinely holding such discussions in public.
I look forward to the private discussions of the trade unions being made public and smoke-filled rooms being aired all over Scotland.
I take it that we note Fiona Hyslop's opposition to the proposal but that the committee agrees that we take the item in private.