Equal Opportunities Committee, 22 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 22, 2002

Official Report 75KB pdf

---

Items in Private

We will get started. I have received apologies from Tommy Sheridan and Jamie Stone.

The first item is to ask the committee to take items 5 and 6 in private. Item 5 is consideration of the draft report on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill and item 6 is consideration of the draft report on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The reason why we are to consider those items in private is that the committee has not discussed the reports yet. Are we agreed?

Given that the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill is about openness and accountability, should consideration be held in private? What is the reasoning for holding the discussion in private?

Every committee discusses draft reports in private.

The Procedures Committee is taking evidence on the work of the Parliament. One thread that runs through the evidence is the idea that we are taking too many things in private. I agree with my colleague that the bill we are to discuss under item 5 is about accountability and openness. We would be foolish to take the item in private. We should hold our consideration of Alex Neil's bill in public.

I am aware that the matter is under discussion in the Procedures Committee, as it is also under discussion in the conveners liaison group. At the group's discussion, the Equal Opportunities Committee came out rather well in comparison with many other committees, in respect of the amount of business that we hold in public. It was agreed at the conveners liaison group—I suspect that it will also be agreed by the Procedures Committee—that, when committees are discussing things such as draft reports and lines of questioning, it is perfectly acceptable for consideration to be held in private.

We should not pick out one bill. We should either decide to discuss all draft reports in public or stick to the procedures that are followed by all committees, which is to discuss all draft reports in private. I have no difficulty with discussing anything in public, but we should follow the protocol that there is at the moment. There is no more need to discuss in public a draft report on a bill about public appointments than there is to discuss a draft report on a bill about land reform or than there was, in the past, to discuss any other draft report. What do other committee members think?

I agree. Just because the word "public" appears in the title of a bill does not mean that we have to discuss the bill in public. We are not discussing the subject; we are discussing our report on the evidence, which was heard in public. We have considered draft reports on every bill in the past in private. Other committees, including those that considered the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, consider their draft reports on bills in private. Should the committees have done everything in public because the title of the bill included the words "Freedom of Information"?

Procedures exist for dealing with draft reports. The reason for that is good: it is so that we can discuss details of what will be contained in our report without worrying about the discussion being misconstrued before the report is put into the public domain. I hope that we stick to that position.

The committee discussed its draft report on the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill in private. At that time there was no dissent.

I am merely using the draft report on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill as an example of something that could be discussed in public. As the bill is about openness and accountability, the question screams out: why are we are discussing it in private? The same is the case with other draft reports on bills.

If members want to go to a division, we can do so. I suggest that, until such time as the Procedures Committee reports on the matter, we continue to discuss draft reports in private. Are we agreed?

No. In this instance, I move against that. We are to discuss something that, in its very title, suggests that we should be open and accountable. We should let the public know that we are willing to discuss things in an open forum.

I propose that item 5—consideration of the draft report on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill—be taken in public.

Thank you. Do other members want to speak?

I want to intervene briefly. I take the point that is made by Gil Paterson and Kay Ullrich, but if there is a decision in the offing that might make us reconsider the issue, let us wait until we hear that decision.

This is the first time that the Equal Opportunities Committee has had a division, so I have had to consult the clerk.

The question is, that item 5 be taken in public. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)

Against

Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The proposal is disagreed to.

That means that we will take item 5, as well as item 6, in private.