Official Report 109KB pdf
The first item on the agenda is the question of taking item 4 in private, according to the usual process. Item 4 is consideration of our draft report on the budget. Can I have the committee's agreement to do that?
No. I feel strongly that, unless there is a very good reason to consider committee reports in private, the presumption should be that they will not be considered in private. I sat on the Procedures Committee in the previous session of Parliament, and its report recommended that the parliamentary committees and their conveners should think seriously about whether the drafting of committee reports desperately needs to be done in private. I do not think that there is anything contentious or of concern in the budget report that we have before us that would mean that we could not discuss what we wanted to discuss in public.
I am interested in members' views. I understand that the practice of all committees has been to take discussions on committee reports in private. The evidence is taken in public and consideration of the report is done in private. There are good reasons for that, one of which is to try and get the view of the committee without too much party-political interface and without members having to grandstand on the issues. I would be happy to raise the issue formally and seek the views of the Procedures Committee, but that is my understanding of how we have worked up to now. Unless there is a particular reason to depart from that convention for this item, I would be reluctant to change the procedure. There must be consistency in, and standardisation of, committee practice across the Parliament. I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of other members.
I was on the Procedures Committee with Fiona Hyslop. We recommended that there should be a presumption that committee meetings are held in public. However, we also had a full discussion of the subject and we agreed that sometimes it is good to have discussions in private because otherwise the focus of attention is on the areas of contention rather than on agreement.
I am new to the Parliament and its committee system, but I believe that the people who elected us would want us to be as transparent as possible. Meetings should always be open and transparent, whatever we are discussing. I do not see that there is a need to close the doors and do something in private when the rest of the meeting is open. I would like there to be transparency across the board.
I agree with Kenny Macintosh. There should be a presumption that meetings should be held in public. However, the detailed drafting of a complex report and deciding whether a certain paragraph should go in one place or another involves intricate work on the part of the clerks. To my way of thinking, a discussion on the details of drafting does not involve the principle but is about the mechanistic way of presenting that principle in a way that takes account of all the different points that are raised by the committee. That process is so detailed that it does not have to take place in public, but discussion of the principles and policy and the direction in which the committee is going certainly should be discussed in public.
I do not think that the committee is divided on the issue, but the established practice is that committees deal with draft reports in private. It is the only significant issue where that is the case. I would be reluctant to depart from established practice without some guidance on the general views of the Procedures Committee and the Parliament.
I appreciate the comments that have been made by colleagues. I am happy that you want to reflect on the matter, but the presumption should be that business is taken in public. You should look closely at the Procedures Committee's report on this matter, which had cross-party agreement. If you want to take the item in private, members might want to reflect after we have had the discussion whether we really had to have it in private, or whether it could have been held in public. A culture change is needed. The fact that the practice has been established in the past does not mean that it is right.
I do not think that anybody is suggesting that. I am suggesting that it is desirable that the practice of the parliamentary committees across the board be broadly the same on such matters. There are common reasons why things are done in one way or the other, whether it is in the Education Committee, the Health Committee or wherever. It is not desirable for one committee to depart from the practice that has been established hitherto. That is why I say that if the committee has issues about the matter, we should ask the Procedures Committee for guidance. I do not have the Procedures Committee's report to hand, but I did not understand it to suggest that draft reports should routinely be considered in public. I am subject to guidance from members who were on the Procedures Committee, but I do not think that that was the committee's recommendation.
The recommendation was to presume that, unless there is good reason to do otherwise, business should be taken in public. Consideration should be given to whether it is appropriate to take business in private. The committee should not automatically assume that things should be taken in private.
I accept that. Would it be acceptable for us to seek the advice of the Procedures Committee on that matter, and say that the issue has been raised and we would like to know the Procedures Committee's position, specifically on the practice of parliamentary committees considering draft reports in private? I appreciate that issues can arise on other matters. I do not think that we have met in private on anything else, so it has not otherwise been an issue.
That is fine.
Having said that, does the committee agree to take item 4 in private?
Next
Youth Organisations