Stobhill Hospital (Consideration in Private)
I call the committee to order. As everyone who is here this morning knows, item 4 on our agenda is consideration of the Stobhill petition from the Glasgow North Action Group, which we have been dealing with over the past couple of weeks. Item 1 on the agenda is consideration by the committee of whether to take that item in private, as has been the practice with previous petitions such as that concerning Stracathro hospital. We took evidence in public on the Stracathro petition, but discussed our recommendations in private over the course of many meetings. The committee has tried to speed up the process for the Stobhill petition, and to deal with it more publicly.
Dr Simpson, our reporter, has published his interim report, which has given people the opportunity to make contributions and comments and to consider any points that needed clarification or change. We held the discussion on Dr Simpson's interim report in public. We have been urged by the Public Petitions Committee to progress with our work on this petition as quickly as possible, which is what we have done. Today, we are asked to reconsider the petition. Among our papers for today's meeting is Dr Simpson's final report. I hope that the committee can make recommendations and put its final report together on the basis of Dr Simpson's report.
The practice that is evolving within the committee structure in the Parliament, and the way in which this committee functioned over Stracathro and other reports that we have dealt with so far, is to discuss draft reports in private. That allows all members of the committee to state their point of view as clearly as they feel able to. It takes away a tendency that some of us are liable to, which is to play to the press or the public gallery from a personal or party political point of view. It also allows us to get to a position in which we feel that we have all had a chance to input honestly and at length, so that the report that we produce is one that the committee can totally support beyond the Parliament, before the public.
Today, item 1 is a decision to be made on whether what we are doing should be in private or in public. I would like to extend the amount of work that we do in public. I am aware of the fact that Paul Martin and other local members have shown interest in this item. If we take the item totally in private session, they will not be able to contribute today, which is a problem. It is also a problem that the chances are that people will come through from Glasgow to hear what we are talking about today. My recommendation is that we hear Richard Simpson speak to his report, before allowing Paul Martin and any other local members who are present to make a final statement to us on the issue and to respond to what Richard has said.
If we do that, only our discussion of the phraseology of recommendations will be held in private, which compares very well with the way in which we have handled public petitions, such as the Stracathro petition, in the past. I have the impression from the committee that there is a lack of consensus, but that members wish to move this issue forward in public as far as that is possible. I hope that that will allow us to do our business properly and fairly.
As I have already indicated to you, convener, I am happy to proceed in that way. It is important that when we take evidence on complex issues of this sort, we should do so as publicly as possible. I am happy that the initial discussions and conclusions should be in the public domain as quickly as possible. That sends out a message about the openness and transparency that we are trying to achieve throughout Scottish society. To do anything else would be inappropriate. However, it is appropriate that we consider the report's conclusions and discuss what recommendations we may wish to make in private.
Although you have tried to reach a reasonable compromise, convener, I think that because of the unusual circumstances the whole meeting should be held in public.
I move,
That the committee consider the report and conclusions in public and move to private session to discuss the recommendations.
Before the meeting, I tried to talk to as many members as possible about this issue, to get a sense of what members felt was the best way forward. From the point of view of pulling together a report that everyone has contributed to and is happy to support, I think that what I have outlined is the best way forward and that we should meet in public up to the point at which we discuss recommendations. We will try to conclude that discussion as quickly as we can. I hope that we will be able to have our report printed this week.
Are we agreed, or does anyone want to move another course of action?
I move,
That the committee consider the whole report in public.
The first question is on the motion that I have put before the committee. The question is, that my motion be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
The second question is, that Dorothy-Grace Elder's amendment to my motion be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment disagreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That the committee consider the report and conclusions in public and move to private session to discuss the recommendations.
We will consider item 4 on the agenda in the way in which I, as convener, have outlined.