I welcome everyone to the eighth meeting in 2004 of the Health Committee. Shona Robison apologises for not being here for the beginning of the meeting; she should arrive later. She is launching some healthy something or other—members can see what interest I take in it.
I wonder why we will be discussing individuals. Surely it is better to let people know what our thought processes are on why we will or will not invite people to give evidence on the members' bills. It will not help the Parliament's ethos of openness and transparency if we go into private session for consideration of such an issue. I feel strongly about the matter—there are but few occasions when the committee needs to go into private session.
Fine. Does any other member wish to say something? I am relaxed about the question either way.
We have proved previously that discussing in private session matters such as those in item 5 aids the process and moves us along. The committee has tried discussing such matters in public and in private. I do not know what other members think, but I feel that when we discuss issues such as item 5 in private, we have a more constructive debate and arrive at a point of view that is more representative of the committee. I accept the convener's lead, which is that we should discuss item 5 in private.
On this occasion, we have for consideration opinion letters and so on from an awful lot of individuals. I believe that there may be disputes about who should get picked to give oral evidence or about whether we should ignore the option to take oral evidence and just take the letters as written evidence. As Duncan McNeil said, it would be simpler to have a short, sharp private session on item 5 at the end of the public part of the meeting.
I agree with David Davidson.
I take it that the majority view is that we should take item 5 in private.
Can we have a vote on that?
Certainly.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.