Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Health Committee, 20 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 20, 2004


Contents


Items in Private

The Convener (Christine Grahame):

I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting this year of the Health Committee and I direct members to today's agenda. The first item of business is to ask members to consider taking items 4, 5 and 6 in private. I will expand on that. Item 4 concerns the committee's work-force planning event. Taking that item in private would allow us to discuss fully the bids that we have received and the best way of progressing matters. Incidentally, the clerks, who were part of the budgeting process, would also be able to contribute to the discussion, which obviously could not happen if we took the item in public. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):

No, I am not content. I repeat what I have said before: it seems ironic that we should move into private session to discuss an event for which we are seeking public participation. I do not think that such an approach helps the ethos of openness and transparency that we are trying to inculcate in the Parliament and I see no overriding reason why we need to take the item in private.

The Convener:

I see a lot of merit in what you are saying, Mike. However, the clerks have had a lot to do with the whole process and I would quite like them to contribute to our discussions. They simply cannot do so if we take the item in public, because standing orders do not allow them to take part. I think that it would be useful to take the item in private, because I really want them to feed into the committee's discussion.

Mike Rumbles:

To me, there is quite a distinction between what we are talking about and a briefing session in which the clerks participate and give us information—the process is correct and proper in that respect. However, it is being suggested that a parliamentary committee should go into private so that the clerks can brief members on issues. That is not the correct way of working.

I take your point. Does any other member share that view?

Members:

No.

Do you wish to press the matter to a vote, Mike?

Yes.

The question is, that item 4 be taken in private. Are members agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

For

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)

Against

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

Abstentions

McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)

The Convener:

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 1. Item 4 will be taken in private.

It is suggested that we also take item 5 in private to allow the adviser to brief members on the budget process for 2005-06. That could not be done in public session. Does any member oppose that?

Mike Rumbles:

I make the same point about this proposal as I made about the previous proposal. The item is appropriate for a briefing session for members of the committee; it is not appropriate for a public meeting of the Health Committee. We should always meet in public unless there are extenuating circumstances that require us to meet in private. I feel that we are automatically going into private session in our meetings.

The Convener:

My experience from previous committees—which may be the same as that of other members—is that these are the very circumstances in which briefing sessions are held in private, as they are not evidence-taking sessions. Nonetheless, I acknowledge your views. Do you wish to put the matter to a vote?

Yes. I wish to record my dissent.

The question is, that item 5 be taken in private. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

For

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)

Against

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

The Convener:

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0. Item 5 will be taken in private.

Item 6 is on the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill and the discussion of possible witnesses. The view has sometimes been taken that, as individuals may be discussed in the selection of witnesses, it is not always best to take such items in public. I ask that the committee take the item in private. Does any member object to that?

I object to that.

For the same reasons?

Mike Rumbles:

No, for slightly different reasons, which I will explain. On a number of occasions, we have taken the decision to go into private session when thinking about calling witnesses before the committee. It is important that the general public know the thought processes and deliberations behind our calling people or not calling people to give evidence to us.

Time is limited, so only a certain number of people can be called to give evidence to us. However, people have told me that they do not understand why the committee had invited X but not Y. I do not want to get into the nitty-gritty of that, as I appreciate that members may not want to discuss it, but I think that it is important that people understand where we are coming from. It gives a bad impression if people do not know why they have not been selected to give oral evidence to us. If people were aware of our deliberations, that would be extremely helpful in ensuring openness and transparency.

I will give one example of that and then I will shut up. We took a decision—for all the right reasons—not to proceed with the hepatitis C issue. However, that decision was taken in private and the matter has come back to us time and again. People still do not understand why we took that decision because they were not aware of our deliberations. It is important that we go into why we call witnesses to give evidence.

You make the point that individuals are identified. However, if we want to invite, for example, the Confederation of British Industry to give us evidence on the bill, we should ask the organisation to choose an individual to do so and not pick an individual ourselves. There is no need to name the person in the briefing paper—I do not understand why we are given individual names. There seems to be an automatic response that, because individual names are involved, we cannot discuss the matter in public. All that I am pleading for is a little more openness and transparency. There is no reason why we cannot have that in this meeting.

The Convener:

We sometimes want a specific person to give evidence. In our private paper, we have given a specific reason why one of the potential witnesses whom we may want to invite to give evidence on the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill has been named. Nevertheless, I am happy to hear other views on the matter. Do any other members have views that they wish to express?

Members:

No.

As it appears that no other members wish to express a view, I will put the question. The question is, that item 6 be taken in private. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

For

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)

Against

Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

The Convener:

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0. Item 6 will be taken in private,

I thank the committee for that. Depending on how the time works out, I may ask the committee's permission to move later agenda items around a little, depending on when Arthur Midwinter arrives.