We will ask them, because we have now taken a vote and it is unfortunate that they are not here. I would like them to express their view on whether the work programme should be discussed in public or private.
Thank you very much.
For 13 years, it has been standard practice for the committee to discuss in private our work programme as well as draft stage 1 reports, likely witnesses and approaches. Are you happy for us to consider in private item 6, which is a draft report, item 7, which is a draft stage 1 report, and item 4, which is our approach to an issue?
Item 4 is the approach, item 6 is a draft report and item 7 is a draft stage 1 report. Can we narrow our present discussion to the work programme?
I am just trying to move us on. We have a lot of work to do. If you do not want to debate them, we can tick off items 4, 6 and 7 and talk just about whether the work programme should be discussed in public.
I would be happier if we stuck to your original proposal to discuss them one by one.
Is that the one on prisons?
Right. My question is, why should we discuss an approach to a legislative consent memorandum in public?
We have done so for 13 years.
Every parliamentarian wants the electorate to see the work that they are doing. I presume that, if there is a long-standing convention in place, there is a reason for that. Without putting the clerk on the spot—although I am about to put the clerk on the spot—would it be possible to outline the rationale behind decisions to take individual items in private? I am supportive of the committee doing as much as possible in public, but that may fetter us when we are discussing individual witnesses.
Each case must be considered on its merits, and it is obviously a decision for the committee.
That is my memory from last year, not that it happened often.
I have said what I have to say. As I said, I have been a convener four times and I hope that I know something about convening by now. Good will is terribly important to the good running of a committee. Political posturing is a committee’s death knell. People having arguments in public over what might be, at the end of the day, quite a small matter in a stage 1 report is bad for a committee. Our duty is to try to work together, regardless of our political differences, to be coherent in our approach to legislation and to put the Government to the test. That is much easier to do in inquiries, although this committee has not had much opportunity yet to do that.
Peter McGrath might be able to help us again. With regard to the likes of item 4, which is on the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, is it feasible that we could discuss our approach in public? If we decide that we want to take evidence, we can go into private session to discuss witnesses. At least we could have the logic of holding the debate on the public record, because it looks like a sinister thing—
That is not—
I agree with you, but I think that we would have to have a separate agenda item for the selection of witnesses.
That is why I am asking.
We might decide once we have discussed the issue that we are happy to let it flow through and that we do not need to do anything more about it, or we might want to talk about witnesses.
I would be very unhappy about the discussion of witnesses being held in public.
That is what I am saying—we can go into private at that stage. At least we will have talked the business through in public.
Right, we have done that. I would like the committee now to consider whether we should continue to deal with draft reports, including draft stage 1 reports, in private for the reasons that I have given.
If I remember what happened last year correctly, if a member of the committee feels strongly about a report, they can have a paragraph put in. That means that, if we fall out about something, we can record that there was a falling out, even though the discussion took place in private. If there is a feeling that, because of the way that the committee is operating, we are not ventilating matters properly, we can stand on principle and insist that a paragraph be inserted in the report, even though it might be a minority view.
That relates to the discussion of our reports, whereas Graeme Pearson’s suggestion relates to item 4, in which we will consider our approach to the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, rather than discuss a report. We can move into private for the selection of witnesses. That seems reasonable to me.
Absolutely.
We return to item 2.
I am sorry but I have got the item numbers mixed up. Do you have a revised agenda?
Right. We have aired the issues. I will now go through—one at a time—the items that we must decide whether to take in private.
It is item 4. We can take it in public and not discuss witnesses. Do members agree to that?
Do we agree to take in public item 5, which is discussion of our work programme?
There will be a division.
We need to be careful about the issue that Jenny Marra raises, which is that the fact that we are not discussing something in public makes it look like we are being secretive. We must demonstrate that we deal with matters in private only when we absolutely have to, and that we still publicly record our views. It is a reasonable issue for discussion. I hope that we can come to a sensible outcome.
Convener, I agree with Graeme Pearson, Jenny Marra and you about witnesses—that issue must be dealt with in private.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Do we agree to take in private our consideration of a stage 1 report, which is item 7?
I suppose that you could turn the question around and ask why there is a natural presumption that we would always discuss such things in private.
I am a very open member of Parliament, and I always have been. I take on the Government on all sorts of occasions; I will probably even do so this afternoon. For me, the issue is the freedom of members to discuss openly with other members whether we take on certain issues and how we approach matters. Members may sometimes say silly and inappropriate things—perhaps I should not have said that in public.
As I explained at the start of the meeting, more than half of today’s business is being taken in private. I have raised before my unease at the work programme being considered in private. I do not feel that there is anything that I want the Justice Committee to consider going forward that needs to be discussed in private. I am happy to discuss our priorities in public. Sandra White picked me up on my reference to my party, and I clarify that I meant my party’s priorities for the committee and what it should be looking at—I do not have anything to discuss in private. The work programme should be open to scrutiny by the public, which is why I propose that item 5—as it now is—should be taken in public.
I thought that your proposal was to take them one by one.
That is fine—that is not a problem.
Wait a minute—let me finish. As a headline, it looks like a sinister thing, but in actual fact it is fairly mundane and practical.
I do not want to reiterate what members have already said but, on the work programme, there is something to be said for the fact that we can speak freely about competing priorities. If we all had to be very careful about what we were going to say because the discussion was going to be in public, that would be a disadvantage.
I will make a quick comment about the work programme item, which is the item about which I feel most strongly. I understand what colleagues are saying about having a free discussion, but I feel that, because we have been elected to the Parliament, we must have broad shoulders and be able to justify the committee’s priorities in public and to the public.
I would also be very unhappy if draft stage 1 reports were debated in public. We come to a pretty well unanimous decision on such reports, and we manage to get a form of words that we can sign up to. That has sometimes not been easy, but folk have been prepared to give and take a bit. I do not know whether they would be prepared to do that if the discussion was held in public, and that worries me in respect of the operation of the committee, which has been very successful.
That is fine. Does the committee agree to take item 4 in public, and to discuss only our approach to the legislative consent memorandum, not witnesses?
They can express a view, but—
This is my fourth time as a convener. I have never stopped someone expressing a view. I try to get consensus on the wording first so that everyone can sign up to it but, sometimes, that is not possible. In those cases, so be it. It is perfectly right that someone should be entitled to express a different view.
I have a slightly different view. I find the private sessions handy because we can have a substantive debate, with ground rules that we all know, without having a party-political bun fight, because we have agreed the process beforehand. I am concerned about the possibility that we end up with something in public, then something in private, and then head back for a substantive debate, with everything looking a bit messy. That is my problem with the suggestion.
We return to item 2.
As I explained at the start of the meeting, more than half of today’s business is being taken in private. I have raised before my unease at the work programme being considered in private. I do not feel that there is anything that I want the Justice Committee to consider going forward that needs to be discussed in private. I am happy to discuss our priorities in public. Sandra White picked me up on my reference to my party, and I clarify that I meant my party’s priorities for the committee and what it should be looking at—I do not have anything to discuss in private. The work programme should be open to scrutiny by the public, which is why I propose that item 5—as it now is—should be taken in public.
For 13 years, it has been standard practice for the committee to discuss in private our work programme as well as draft stage 1 reports, likely witnesses and approaches. Are you happy for us to consider in private item 6, which is a draft report, item 7, which is a draft stage 1 report, and item 4, which is our approach to an issue?
I am sorry but I have got the item numbers mixed up. Do you have a revised agenda?
Item 4 is the approach, item 6 is a draft report and item 7 is a draft stage 1 report. Can we narrow our present discussion to the work programme?
I thought that your proposal was to take them one by one.
I am just trying to move us on. We have a lot of work to do. If you do not want to debate them, we can tick off items 4, 6 and 7 and talk just about whether the work programme should be discussed in public.
I would be happier if we stuck to your original proposal to discuss them one by one.
Right. My question is, why should we discuss an approach to a legislative consent memorandum in public?
I suppose that you could turn the question around and ask why there is a natural presumption that we would always discuss such things in private.
We have done so for 13 years.
Every parliamentarian wants the electorate to see the work that they are doing. I presume that, if there is a long-standing convention in place, there is a reason for that. Without putting the clerk on the spot—although I am about to put the clerk on the spot—would it be possible to outline the rationale behind decisions to take individual items in private? I am supportive of the committee doing as much as possible in public, but that may fetter us when we are discussing individual witnesses.
Each case must be considered on its merits, and it is obviously a decision for the committee.
I am a very open member of Parliament, and I always have been. I take on the Government on all sorts of occasions; I will probably even do so this afternoon. For me, the issue is the freedom of members to discuss openly with other members whether we take on certain issues and how we approach matters. Members may sometimes say silly and inappropriate things—perhaps I should not have said that in public.
Peter McGrath might be able to help us again. With regard to the likes of item 4, which is on the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, is it feasible that we could discuss our approach in public? If we decide that we want to take evidence, we can go into private session to discuss witnesses. At least we could have the logic of holding the debate on the public record, because it looks like a sinister thing—
That is not—
Wait a minute—let me finish. As a headline, it looks like a sinister thing, but in actual fact it is fairly mundane and practical.
I agree with you, but I think that we would have to have a separate agenda item for the selection of witnesses.
That is why I am asking.
That is fine—that is not a problem.
We might decide once we have discussed the issue that we are happy to let it flow through and that we do not need to do anything more about it, or we might want to talk about witnesses.
I would be very unhappy about the discussion of witnesses being held in public.
That is what I am saying—we can go into private at that stage. At least we will have talked the business through in public.
I would also be very unhappy if draft stage 1 reports were debated in public. We come to a pretty well unanimous decision on such reports, and we manage to get a form of words that we can sign up to. That has sometimes not been easy, but folk have been prepared to give and take a bit. I do not know whether they would be prepared to do that if the discussion was held in public, and that worries me in respect of the operation of the committee, which has been very successful.
That relates to the discussion of our reports, whereas Graeme Pearson’s suggestion relates to item 4, in which we will consider our approach to the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, rather than discuss a report. We can move into private for the selection of witnesses. That seems reasonable to me.
That is fine. Does the committee agree to take item 4 in public, and to discuss only our approach to the legislative consent memorandum, not witnesses?
Right, we have done that. I would like the committee now to consider whether we should continue to deal with draft reports, including draft stage 1 reports, in private for the reasons that I have given.
If I remember what happened last year correctly, if a member of the committee feels strongly about a report, they can have a paragraph put in. That means that, if we fall out about something, we can record that there was a falling out, even though the discussion took place in private. If there is a feeling that, because of the way that the committee is operating, we are not ventilating matters properly, we can stand on principle and insist that a paragraph be inserted in the report, even though it might be a minority view.
Absolutely.
That is my memory from last year, not that it happened often.
This is my fourth time as a convener. I have never stopped someone expressing a view. I try to get consensus on the wording first so that everyone can sign up to it but, sometimes, that is not possible. In those cases, so be it. It is perfectly right that someone should be entitled to express a different view.
We need to be careful about the issue that Jenny Marra raises, which is that the fact that we are not discussing something in public makes it look like we are being secretive. We must demonstrate that we deal with matters in private only when we absolutely have to, and that we still publicly record our views. It is a reasonable issue for discussion. I hope that we can come to a sensible outcome.
I have a slightly different view. I find the private sessions handy because we can have a substantive debate, with ground rules that we all know, without having a party-political bun fight, because we have agreed the process beforehand. I am concerned about the possibility that we end up with something in public, then something in private, and then head back for a substantive debate, with everything looking a bit messy. That is my problem with the suggestion.
Convener, I agree with Graeme Pearson, Jenny Marra and you about witnesses—that issue must be dealt with in private.
I have said what I have to say. As I said, I have been a convener four times and I hope that I know something about convening by now. Good will is terribly important to the good running of a committee. Political posturing is a committee’s death knell. People having arguments in public over what might be, at the end of the day, quite a small matter in a stage 1 report is bad for a committee. Our duty is to try to work together, regardless of our political differences, to be coherent in our approach to legislation and to put the Government to the test. That is much easier to do in inquiries, although this committee has not had much opportunity yet to do that.
I do not want to reiterate what members have already said but, on the work programme, there is something to be said for the fact that we can speak freely about competing priorities. If we all had to be very careful about what we were going to say because the discussion was going to be in public, that would be a disadvantage.
I will make a quick comment about the work programme item, which is the item about which I feel most strongly. I understand what colleagues are saying about having a free discussion, but I feel that, because we have been elected to the Parliament, we must have broad shoulders and be able to justify the committee’s priorities in public and to the public.
Right. We have aired the issues. I will now go through—one at a time—the items that we must decide whether to take in private.
Is that the one on prisons?
It is item 4. We can take it in public and not discuss witnesses. Do members agree to that?
Do we agree to take in public item 5, which is discussion of our work programme?
There will be a division.
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
They can express a view, but—
We will ask them, because we have now taken a vote and it is unfortunate that they are not here. I would like them to express their view on whether the work programme should be discussed in public or private.
Do we agree to take in private our consideration of a stage 1 report, which is item 7?
Thank you very much.