THE meeting between Justice Secretary Michael Matheson and the former chairman of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), Andrew Flanagan has been much commented on. For what it’s worth I believe the Minister was right to voice objections to a decision that was clearly flawed.

The debate has moved on to the question of minutes of the meeting. There were none, which although not surprising, raises a wider issue of public scrutiny. For whilst there has to be an open door for individuals and organisations to meet with ministers, government can’t be conducted in full public viewing. Being in office can’t be like Celebrity Big Brother, played out before the cameras on a decision by decision basis.

It’s a matter of balance and why there are Freedom of Information (FoI) laws and a Scottish Information Commissioner. In a democracy it’s vital that important decisions are detailed and expenditure of public funds held accountable. That applies not just to governments, but also to public bodies.

However, there needs to be space for ministers and boards to think over and discuss issues without setting hares running. Likewise, some information can be extremely sensitive or requires to be put into some form of overall context. It can be a snapshot in time that’s not the overarching picture; some information can be prejudicial to partners or public. Those discussions and considerations need to be kept confidential.

FoI is something I’ve used myself. Many years ago, a talented young researcher obtained the McCrone papers from UK Government,archives disclosing Scotland’s hidden oil wealth and I and the SNP milked them for all their worth. Equally, in government I’ve been subject to FoI sometimes to my annoyance and sometimes even to my embarrassment, such as when I described my tipple of choice as “cooking lager” in an email and required to apologise profusely to the brewers. But,you learn to live with it.

Decisions and communications need to be made available for public scrutiny but there needs to be space to work in and to consider policy without every decision being second-guessed and every musing subject to speculation that it is a coming certainty.

Equally though, access to ministers is just as important as information as to what they’re doing and it’s likewise in public bodies. When I entered into the office that Michael Matheson now holds I recall asking for regular meetings with the Police Federation and with the local Chief Constable whom I had engaged with in opposition.

Previously, the routine for Justice Secretaries was only to address the annual conferences of both and then depart. often without even questions being taken. That seemed inappropriate though rightly officials advised that if meeting one staff federation then all would require to be engaged with and likewise with Chief Constables.

But it was done and was replicated across the justice sector ,where regular engagement with stakeholders became the norm. Some could be fractious, others highly enjoyable. A few would have a set agenda with issues flagged up in advance, others were simply about a regular exchange of views and developing a mutual understanding. A vital appreciation of a key stakeholder’s perspective was gleaned and a relationship established.

It took up a lot of time but was essential in having an overview of what was happening in the sector. That’s repeated across every government department and in every public agency. The meetings aren’t minuted and why should they be? From chats about the welfare of kids to views on the chiefs, they varied from the mundane to the highly sensitive. Some could involve discussions that related to others, whether chief or rank and file.

That’s a disappointment to many journalists seeking a regular mine of information. To be fair many have used FoI for scoops and in the public interest. But, it needs to be balanced with privacy to simply chat and reflect. I believe Scotland is better served by a culture where there’s an open-door policy for access to the minister for stakeholders. But, it cannot be in full public view.

Hence, Mr Matheson was right to meet the past chairman and express his views. Had the advice been rejected then it would have escalated with letters that would have been subject to FoI. But, the chat was necessarily and rightly took place unminuted.