No.
It is items 4, 5, 6 and 7.
I raised a similar issue at the committee a couple of weeks ago. We are proposing to take in private more than half of today’s agenda for the Justice Committee meeting. I think that a lot more of the meeting should take place in public to allow the public to scrutinise our discussions and hold us accountable for the decisions that we take. Item 4 on my copy of the agenda is consideration of the committee’s work programme.
I am happy to do that, as long as we have the debate in public.
We shall rewind. The committee is invited to agree that items 4, 5, 6 and 7 be taken in private. Are we agreed?
Item 2 is to decide whether to take business in private. The committee is invited to agree to consider items 4, 5, 6 and 7 in private—in fact, there is not an item 7 on my copy of the agenda, so it is items 3, 4, 5 and 6. Item 3 is—
Can I correct you? There is a big mistake in your copy of the agenda. Consideration of the work programme is now agenda item 5.
Do you have an updated agenda?
We will have the debate in public—that is not a problem. We will park the item and come back to it.
As I explained, convener, I think that it is of concern to the committee and Parliament that more than half the agenda would be taken in private. I would be happy to debate one by one whether to take the items in private.
I am sorry convener, but I object to the language that Jenny Marra has used. In particular, she said that her party does not like to take items in private. I assure you that I, as a member of this Parliament since 1999, certainly do not like taking items in private, either. I think that the public should know what we discuss. I object to the fact that Jenny Marra said “My party”.
I am not having the debate now. We will continue with the agenda and we will debate later what we will and will not take in private.
All right—but it just depends on what is on the agenda on a particular day. At some meetings we do nothing in private. However, I will not open the debate now, but will park the whole issue.
What are we not agreed about?
Yes.
So, the work programme is item 5. My party certainly does not have anything to hide in terms of our priorities for the Justice Committee. I propose that that item be taken in public.
In order to enable us to get through business, can we have the debate on whether we discuss the work programme in private after we have gone through the petitions and so on? Are you happy to proceed in that way?
Item 2 is to decide whether to take business in private. The committee is invited to agree to consider items 4, 5, 6 and 7 in private—in fact, there is not an item 7 on my copy of the agenda, so it is items 3, 4, 5 and 6. Item 3 is—
It is items 4, 5, 6 and 7.
We shall rewind. The committee is invited to agree that items 4, 5, 6 and 7 be taken in private. Are we agreed?
No.
What are we not agreed about?
I raised a similar issue at the committee a couple of weeks ago. We are proposing to take in private more than half of today’s agenda for the Justice Committee meeting. I think that a lot more of the meeting should take place in public to allow the public to scrutinise our discussions and hold us accountable for the decisions that we take. Item 4 on my copy of the agenda is consideration of the committee’s work programme.
Can I correct you? There is a big mistake in your copy of the agenda. Consideration of the work programme is now agenda item 5.
Do you have an updated agenda?
Yes.
So, the work programme is item 5. My party certainly does not have anything to hide in terms of our priorities for the Justice Committee. I propose that that item be taken in public.
In order to enable us to get through business, can we have the debate on whether we discuss the work programme in private after we have gone through the petitions and so on? Are you happy to proceed in that way?
I am happy to do that, as long as we have the debate in public.
We will have the debate in public—that is not a problem. We will park the item and come back to it.
As I explained, convener, I think that it is of concern to the committee and Parliament that more than half the agenda would be taken in private. I would be happy to debate one by one whether to take the items in private.
All right—but it just depends on what is on the agenda on a particular day. At some meetings we do nothing in private. However, I will not open the debate now, but will park the whole issue.
I am sorry convener, but I object to the language that Jenny Marra has used. In particular, she said that her party does not like to take items in private. I assure you that I, as a member of this Parliament since 1999, certainly do not like taking items in private, either. I think that the public should know what we discuss. I object to the fact that Jenny Marra said “My party”.
I am not having the debate now. We will continue with the agenda and we will debate later what we will and will not take in private.
Air adhart
Petitions