Health and Community Care Committee, 20 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 20, 2000

Official Report 140KB pdf

---

Items in Private

Good morning. Under agenda item 1, we must decide whether to take items 3, 4 and 5 on the agenda in private.

Item 3 is about legislation, the upcoming care bill. It will be a discussion about the procedural aspects of dealing with our first piece of legislation as the lead committee. Taking it in private would allow members of staff to brief us and tell us how we should proceed. There will not be any discussion of the substance of the bill; it will be a procedural noting by the committee of what we have to do from now on. There will be some preparation work for committee members in advance of the legislative process.

Item 4 on the community care inquiry is to hear initial feedback and thoughts from committee members about the visits that we have undertaken. Taking that in private would allow the experts who have been advising us on the inquiry to discuss what they have read of our visits and address the way forward for the inquiry.

Item 5 on committee procedures is to allow committee members to have a go at the convener, or do whatever they want to do, in privacy. We can consider how we have dealt with the first year's work and how we can improve procedures for the coming year.

The reason for asking the committee to take agenda items 3, 4 and 5 in private is that those are mainly procedural discussions and taking them in private will allow members of staff and experts to take part in the discussion. If the discussions were in public, they would have to be limited to members. It would be beneficial, from the point of view of the smooth running of the committee in the coming weeks and months, to hear the input of all those people.

Are there any comments?

I understand that, on item 4, members will want to have interaction with the advisers on what they have seen. However, on item 3, I wonder whether we are precluded from having the staff talk in public. If so, that is fair enough, but otherwise it seems to me that the public should be aware of why we take bills in the way that we take them. This is going to be our first bill. If possible, we should have an open discussion with our support team as to how this committee intends to proceed, so that the public can see how it intends to do so.

The members of staff are allowed to talk in public. It is not common practice, but we can do it. It is for the committee to decide. I have told the committee why it was suggested that taking the item in private was the way to proceed. There is nothing to stop us from taking the item in public, but it has not been common practice.

Provided that our team is comfortable with that.

I support items 4 and 5 being taken in private. My thoughts on item 3 are along the same lines as Richard Simpson's. Given that this is our first bill, the public should know the whys and wherefores. They should be part of the process. This is all about openness and accessibility. The advice that Jennifer Smart gives to us on the procedures for scrutiny of legislation should be public.

Is the general feeling that we take item 3 in public and items 4 and 5 in private?

Members indicated agreement.