Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 16 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2002

Official Report 236KB pdf

---

Items in Private

The first item is to consider whether we want to take item 7, on proposals for a children's commissioner bill, and item 8 in private. Both items relate to drafting a proposal for a committee bill. Concern about taking matters in private has been expressed in the Procedures Committee, but, given the nature and importance of the items, I believe that it would be fine to discuss them in private.

I wondered about this question. We have had an open set of hearings about the children's commissioner bill. I do not think that the discussions that we are having today will reflect on anything other than those hearings. There might be a case for discussing our forward timetable in private, simply because we will be discussing details of committee reports. However, I do not think that there is much of a case for having the children's commissioner bill discussions in private, unless people think that it will be particularly acrimonious, which it has not been so far.

I ask Irene McGugan to comment, given that she and Jackie Baillie have been working in detail on the proposed bill.

I doubt that there will be anything acrimonious about the discussions that we are having with the non-Executive bills unit on the policy direction and decisions that we are making to guide the draftsmen. There are issues of resourcing, which are, perhaps, a little more sensitive. We would appreciate the opportunity to update the committee on where we are with that.

I query the idea that because something might be acrimonious, it should be kept private.

That has been the story of the Tory party.

It has been the story of all your articles in The Herald, Mike.

If Irene McGugan's view is that issues of resources or advice that officials give us should be protected because the advice might otherwise be compromised, that is a reason for having the discussion in private. However, I can think of nothing healthier than for the public to see that we disagree quite acrimoniously.

Do other members have views on this? I do not know whether we have unanimity.

I agree with the essence of what Brian Monteith said. We should take the discussions in private because of the nature of the advice that we might get, rather than because we might disagree on the details or principles of the children's commissioner's appointment.

I saw Cathy Peattie nodding there. Do we agree to take items 7 and 8 in private, while being conscious of the impact of taking future discussions in private?

Members indicated agreement.