Good afternoon. I welcome committee members back from what I know was a busy recess. Most people were working—I put that on the record for all of us. Welcome to the 10th meeting in session 2 of the Health Committee. I ask members to ensure that mobile phones and pagers are switched off.
You quite rightly say that that has been the practice of this committee, and of many other committees in the Parliament, so it is an issue not just for the Health Committee. A general trend of taking items in private has developed over time. Although you say that it has been the general practice of the committee to take such items in private, it is not presumed that they should be taken in private. In fact, rule 12.3.4 of the standing orders states that
Are there any other comments? For clarification, Mike, is it your submission that you wish this particular draft report to be taken in public, but that there might be instances where certain reports of a different nature would be taken on their merits?
I agree. We should take them on their merits. We should try to avoid the practice of saying that we will take all draft reports in private session.
I have sympathy with what Mike Rumbles is saying. I think that, on balance, the Health and Community Care Committee considered far too many draft reports in private during session 1 and that that was not always required. There is an important principle here. There is also a perception among the public about all these reports' being discussed in private, which is perhaps not the image that this new Health Committee wishes to give out. I am quite happy to hold item 4 in public today. I do not think that that sets a precedent in any way. It is about common sense. I think that we should hold item 4 in public.
I think that the committee should continue with the practice of asking at each meeting at which a report is being discussed whether that item should be taken in private. On the previous such occasion, I suggested that, given the range of views on how we were going to approach the report, we should not have that discussion in the public domain until we had reached a later stage and had thrashed out the fine print of the report. I have no difficulty with taking our consideration of the budget report today in public, but we have to be wary that there will be not just political issues at stake, but other situations where people do not have a full understanding of what is meant in the draft of a report that comes out. It would be better to deal with such situations in private.
I am happy to proceed on that basis—without setting a precedent. It might be necessary for the committee to have a debate on how and when to consider draft reports in public. Nothing has been said about the merits and strengths of the committee discussing its reports in private. The committee framework has so far been served well by the process overall, right through to when a report is debated in the chamber. There are balances to be struck and debates that can take place on such decisions.
I agree with the previous speakers. If we wish the Executive to be transparent, we have ourselves not only to be transparent, but to be seen to be transparent. As soon as we discuss agenda items in private, people automatically assume that we do not want them to hear about what we are discussing. From what I have heard so far, I do not think that there has been any need to discuss those matters in private. It is a good thing, however, to have to consider whether something should be taken in private under certain circumstances.
I have just taken some advice on the technicalities. It would be useful for Andrew Walker, our adviser, to take us through the report. The paper itself is not in the public domain, although it can be put in the public domain if the committee agrees to discuss it in public today. I have no difficulties with that myself, as it does not set a precedent, with such decisions' being decided on a case-by-case basis. I share the view of other members that there might be occasions when, for a variety of reasons, it would be appropriate to discuss reports in private. When we come to our discussion—if we decide to take it in public—I will invite Andrew Walker to speak to the draft report and lead us through it. The draft report could then be added to the committee's public papers following the meeting. Are members content that we do that? Does anyone not wish us to proceed in that way?
I would just point out that there is an immediate impact on the committee's work. Our discussion on the draft report will now be on the public record. The management and delivery of the report has already been compromised, as it were. It will now be out there. Normally, we would present a completed piece of work to the public in a more managed way. That is of immediate consequence.
If we choose to discuss a draft report in public again, we need to take a view on our approach to that report beforehand.
I am aware that we are reporting to another committee, so the draft report will be in the public domain before the committee to which we are reporting will have had sight of it. I am not saying that that is a reason not to proceed with the item in public, but we should be aware that that might create certain difficulties with some reports.
On this occasion, the Finance Committee will deal with its report in private, sifting through all the information from the various committees. What is before us now will not be what comes out through the Finance Committee's report.
I take Kate Maclean's point.
It would not be courteous of us to discuss a report in public before the lead committee had sight of it.
It is right that we should give the lead committee notice.
I am not talking about the present circumstances; I am just saying that that is an issue that we should be aware of.
That point is well made.