Draft Reports
We move on to item 3 on the agenda, which concerns the question whether draft reports should be discussed in public or in private. At our previous meeting, we agreed to discuss in private consideration of draft reports on the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, but I agreed to put the wider issue on the agenda for discussion at this morning's meeting.
As I understand it, the legal situation is that it is up to the committee to decide whether it considers draft reports in private or in public. Although the committee can consider reports in private, it must decide formally to do so. That safeguards against committees acting inappropriately.
Across the range of parliamentary committees, the general pattern is that draft reports that have been prepared by clerks—and, occasionally, advisers—are dealt with in private. That ensures that as far as possible the committee achieves consensus and clarity in developing its report. Indeed, when I raised the matter at the Conveners Group away day on Friday—which most conveners attended—the unanimous view was that consideration of draft reports should usually be in private. Brian Monteith made perhaps the most interesting point when he mentioned that, although consideration of draft reports can be taken in public, doing so generally promotes a party-political approach and allows members to divide down party lines and to state party views. If the objective is to achieve consensus on a report within the committee, that is better done in private.
I believe that, as most draft reports that we discuss will be concerned with the scrutiny of financial memorandums to bills, we will usually strive to achieve consensus in our consideration. In fact, there have been very few party-political or partisan divisions over these reports. As a result, I feel that it is better to deal with draft reports in private with the safeguard that we must agree to do so in each case. If members feel differently, they can raise their objections in relation to the specific report that we are considering.
Unfortunately, Fergus Ewing, who raised the matter, is not present today. However, I am very happy to take comments from other members.
At heart I am very sympathetic towards what Fergus Ewing is trying to achieve, because the more transparency that we have in parliamentary committees, the better. However, this committee deals with financial matters and always discussing draft reports in public might occasionally give rise to political grandstanding.
Certain members will feel that it is important to discuss a particular report in public. However, if you are suggesting that we take each matter on its own merits, I think that we should probably retain the right to discuss reports in private.
I think that it should be broadly assumed that these matters will be considered in public. Indeed, we could do so and discipline ourselves against any possibility of political grandstanding by exposing that behaviour for what it is. In any case, given that we are all under the scrutiny of the Alf Youngs and Bill Jamiesons of this world, the more we do in public, the better.
I understand why Jim Mather makes those comments. However, from my experience of committees, I think that there would be far more political divisions if we discussed reports in public. Committees end up with far better reports if draft reports are discussed in private because we can sit down, take on board one another's points of view and seek advice from clerks on specific technical issues. All those things would be harder to do in public.
This discussion is a bit of a waste of time, because the fact that the committee must agree whether to take discussions in private item by item means that we will probably have to vote every week on whether to take an item in private or public. The experience has been that committees produce far better reports and can feed into the legislative process better if they discuss draft reports in private, which is probably why the Conveners Group reached its conclusion at its away day. The statistics from the past four years show that committees meet far more in public than they do in private. The record of many committees is very good.
That includes this committee's record.
Everything should be in public. I am totally opposed to any privacy. If anyone has anything to hide, they should be exposed. That is what the committee should be all about.
I object to that. It is not a case of people having something to hide, because the reports that are discussed are published, ultimately. I object to Mr Swinburne's insinuating that people are being underhand, because that is not the case.
The general public's perception is that things happen behind closed doors. Everything should be overt. If someone is grandstanding, so be it. They can be exposed for grandstanding. Everything should be in the open.
I share Kate Maclean's view. The Parliament's status is enhanced when committees reach unanimity on an issue, despite the fact that, with perhaps four exceptions, everybody in the Parliament was elected with a party-political label. I will pose an analogy to John Swinburne. The appropriate analogy comes from a court of law. When a jury withdraws to consider its verdict, the verdict is certainly public, but the evidence is discussed in private in an attempt to reach a majority view. The analogy is not total, but it has some bearing on what we are discussing.
Of course it is proper that all evidence should be given in public, but discussion in private provides the space in which to see whether a majority view can be reached. In any group dynamic where a majority view is sought, give and take are required. Although views are strongly felt on both sides of the argument, it would be a mistake to portray discussions in private as secrecy. When a jury withdraws to consider its verdict, that is not secrecy; that is an attempt to reach unanimity. At their best, parliamentary procedures parallel that situation when the committee withdraws to consider whether it can reach unanimity on an issue that has hitherto been bedevilled by party advantage. That does not represent a desire for secrecy per se.
We need to reach a conclusion. We might have to have a vote, but I suggest that the committee agree that although there are sometimes good reasons for taking draft reports in private, the committee will continue its current practice of considering how to deal with reports case by case. If anybody has an alternative proposition, they are open to make it. Failing that, do we agree to my proposition?
Members indicated agreement.