Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Health Committee, 28 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004


Contents


Items in Private

The Convener (Roseanna Cunningham):

We start with consideration of whether to discuss items 4, 5, and 6 in private. Item 4 is the taking of evidence from Stewart Maxwell to allow the committee to discuss options for completing stage 1 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill.

Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):

The comments that I made last week apply equally this week, partly for the same reason—there is huge public interest in the issue—but also because we will have a witness for item 4. It is most unusual for witnesses not to be heard in public, so there must be good reason for that happening. In addition to expressing again my comments of last week, I suggest that it is even more important that the item be held in public because we will have a witness before us.

Shona Robison is saying that the item is distinct from discussion of the stage 1 report because we will have a witness before us. Is the committee agreed that item 4 should be held in public?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sure that Mike Rumbles is happy about that.

I am delighted.

The Convener:

A decision was made last week to take item 5 in private. To make the decision again and again is probably not appropriate. Can we agree that, on all subsequent occasions when a draft stage 1 report is being discussed, the item will be taken in private, as is the normal committee procedure?

Mike Rumbles:

According to standing orders, we are not allowed to do that. We are supposed to treat each agenda item separately. There is a presumption in Parliament's standing orders that every item will be discussed in public and that, if we want to discuss something in private, we must decide that case by case.

The Convener:

I am advised by the clerk that there is precedent for the committee's discussing such items in private; however, if members want to have a separate vote on the item at every committee meeting, we can do that. 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)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)

Against

Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)

The Convener:

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0. Item 5 will be taken in private.

Item 6 is consideration of the 2005-06 budget process. We will discuss potential committee advisers, and the practice has been that such items are discussed in private. Does anyone have a different view?

Members:

No.

Okay. Item 6 will be taken in private.