Health Committee, 18 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Official Report 88KB pdf

---

Items in Private

I propose that we discuss items 4, 5 and 6 in private. The reason why I request that the committee agree to discuss the items in private is that we will discuss the selection of witnesses. As individuals might be named and discussed, it would not be appropriate to take the items in public.

I think that that is an eminently sensible approach to take, but I would like to raise a point, and I think that this is the appropriate point at which to raise it, as it affects items 4, 5 and 6, under which we will consider the taking of evidence.

The proposed approach seems an odd way to proceed. The usual procedure is for a committee to ask for written evidence, especially if that can be done over the summer, and, once it receives the written evidence, to consider whom it wants to call before the committee to explain or expand upon the written evidence that has been given. Currently, we will be shooting in the dark in considering whom we think we should call to give oral evidence. We should proceed by first considering the written evidence.

We will also discuss from whom we might seek written evidence. It is invidious if people's names come up in public and we then decide, for perfectly good reasons, that it would not be appropriate to take evidence from them. That is the reason for having the discussion in private. Names are bandied around and for that reason I have in the past considered it inappropriate to discuss such matters in public—it is up to other committee members to decide on this occasion. The situation is completely different once we have called for evidence.

I am not sure that you follow what I am saying. I am not disagreeing with your suggestion. It is eminently sensible that we do not discuss individual names in public. I am asking whether there is any reason to take the item in private session because I am not sure that we should be at that stage yet.

I am advised that because of the timetable we have to be at that stage. We are doing it this way round because of when the various pieces of legislation will be introduced.

But we are calling for written evidence over the summer.

In certain cases.

Our problem is that we cannot take oral evidence over the summer. Do you have a huge problem with our proposed course of action? All that we will do is discuss which witnesses we might want to ask to appear before the committee. Do you agree that there are difficulties if we discuss witnesses in public?

I understand the point. I do not think that Mike Rumbles is questioning whether we should discuss proposed witnesses in private.

Excuse me. The clerk is trying to speak to me; I cannot listen to two people at once.

The normal practice on the committee has been to take a decision on written and oral evidence at the beginning of consideration of a piece of legislation. That does not mean that when the written evidence comes in we cannot pursue it as oral evidence if it becomes apparent that it raises a new piece of information or a matter of particular interest.

It is good that we are starting at this early stage so that we do not lose the couple of months over the summer. I understand what Mike Rumbles is saying, but I do not think that our approach precludes deciding later to take oral evidence from someone from whom we had not previously agreed to take evidence.

That is what I hoped I was saying, but obviously I was not doing so.

I follow the logic of what Mike Rumbles is saying. In theory the approach that he suggests might be the best way to proceed, but there are timetable concerns and there are certain people who will always be called to give evidence—they are probably the ones we will discuss later. If an organisation that is not one of the best-known ones gives us written evidence that suggests that there is more to be probed, we would come back to the issue—as we have done on the committee before—and ask the organisation concerned to give oral evidence. Generally though, some witnesses, from a variety of professional organisations, will always be called to give evidence.

The compromise is that we call the obvious witnesses whom we would call anyway, but then consider the written evidence and call people from whom we think it would be interesting to hear more.

I am obviously not firing on all cylinders today. We are discussing a first swathe; that will not preclude others from giving evidence. The practice in the other committee that I was on was that if others whom we had not thought of in the trawl wrote in to give evidence, it was for the committee to decide whom it wanted to call to give evidence thereafter.

That is why I am raising the issue now. I do not have an axe to grind but we should, if we can, stick to the procedure as a matter of course. If we are going to have an investigation or take evidence, it is good practice to put out a call for written evidence. I do not see the point of calling the usual suspects to a committee meeting. I speak as a new member of the Health Committee; I do not know who the usual suspects are, so I do not have an axe to grind. However, I believe that as a matter of procedure, we should get the written evidence from organisations first, because that might be all we need. The whole point of people coming to the committee to give oral evidence is to probe them on the evidence that they have given to us.

That is right. I do not know about the rest of the committee, but I prefer to get written evidence in any event and anything else is supplementary or provides further clarification. Our approach certainly does not preclude other people from giving oral evidence. I will have to watch myself, as Mike Rumbles is an ex-Standards Committee man.

Do members agree to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.