We are doing really well, because we are 15 minutes ahead of ourselves. We will consider what lies ahead of us in our forward work programme. We will not go into the nitty-gritty of our inquiry into alternatives to custody, because that is an issue for next week, but we have to address whether the committee wants the Executive to respond to our report. If we want that, that will cut down the time that we have to produce the report, because the Executive requires eight weeks in which to respond, and we must bear in mind the fact that the Parliament will be dissolved on 31 March. Alternatively, we must decide whether we are content to issue our report without looking for a response, which would give us an extra eight weeks.
I am not too worried about getting a response from the Executive. I would like to undertake an inquiry into alternatives to custody that produces new ideas as opposed to examining what currently exists. I would be happy for a report to be produced by SPICe or whomever.
We will address that issue next week. The point is that the committee decided on a remit—I will let you see it so that you can raise it next week—and, unfortunately, it would not be appropriate to change it. However, your position is that we should not seek a response. Does anybody think otherwise?
I know that bills fall at the end of a session, but do reports fall at the end of a session? If we write a report and it is not considered by this Executive, will it be considered by the next Executive, or will it fall down a big black hole somewhere?
The next Executive does not have to consider it, but the report will be in the public domain and it would be a pretty foolish Administration that ignored it. We do not even know what the complexion of the next justice committees will be. We can do the groundwork and leave matters to our successors.
I favour using the time to produce a really good report. Whatever it says in the remit, we should take up the point that Michael Matheson raised. I think that it would be more efficacious—party politics aside—if a new Administration, of whatever composition, and a new minister had copies of a good report on their desks. With all due respect, if we get a response to a report a few weeks before an election, it is likely to be coloured by the headline in the Daily Record—or rather, by what the Executive fears might be the headline in the Daily Record.
If there are no other views, we will not look for a response. That moves that piece of work on.
I am not sure that I agree with that proposal. Some changes to the legal aid system have been proposed and I understand that discussions are continuing within the Law Society of Scotland about certain rates for certain pieces of work. I also understand that those discussions are at an advanced stage and are likely to be concluded in the near future. I am conscious that our report may be overtaken by events. I would like to know what stage those discussions have reached and when it is likely that a recommendation will be made to ministers. I would have thought that the committee would want to reflect on the changes that are being proposed to ministers before we publish our report.
I seem to recall—although it is almost lost in the mists of time—that we produced an interim report, which we must finalise.
We may require time to consider the changes that are being proposed before we hear from the minister. We may need to consider fresh evidence.
Therefore, members are not content to conclude the inquiry by taking evidence on the outstanding issues. If possible, we want to hear from the minister and to resolve some of those outstanding issues before we conclude the inquiry. Let us see where we get with the list first, following which we will consider whether to take more evidence.
Before we jump ahead and issue a report.
The report has drifted a bit.
May I mention a point with which I have been struggling over the years? Civil servants keep coming up with different legal aid orders for this, that and the next thing, in bits and pieces throughout the year. I have repeatedly said that those orders should be introduced in one go. However, civil servants will not do that.
We have received a letter about that; I refer members to paper J1/02/32/10. Are you talking about consolidation rather than about automatic uprating?
I am not talking about uprating—I am talking about dealing with the orders together, as that would allow us to take all the different factors into account at the same time. However, the civil servants will not do that.
We recommend that approach in our report.
We are entitled to pursue that issue, because I have a strong suspicion that civil servants are not taking that approach.
I want to deal with the matters that are still in train in correspondence with the Executive, but I will be seeking sharp answers. The report has been drifting for a long time. I thought that much of this would be resolved by now and it is not.
I am not sure where the community legal services issue has got to. We have been taking evidence and consulting.
We are getting an awful lot of that. We want to tighten things up. We will talk about it and I will come back to you when I report next week on what we have done.
I give you my apologies.
I have a committee meeting at that time so I cannot attend.
I have to leave early because I have to give a speech.
I cannot recall what I am doing.
Michael is not up mountains. Three of us will be sufficient to man the barricades.
If there is a problem, come and find me at the Transport and the Environment Committee.
Okay. Thank you all very much.
Meeting closed at 16:10.
Previous
Petition