Official Report 244KB pdf
As we move to the next item on the agenda, I note that we are absolutely bang on time, which is astonishing. All members have had a provisional forward programme of business circulated to them, but I have some additional comments to make.
Will that appear as "laughter" in the report?
The committees are so overburdened with work that they are highly unlikely to be able to report to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee before the end of January at the earliest. That means that we would not be able to make our stage 1 report on the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill until February at the earliest.
Why are there no dates? Should there be?
I understood that there would be timetabling motions before Parliament, but to be fair to everyone—including the bureau—this is brand new for all of us. The bureau may be trying to find a more flexible way of working. The problem is that we are designated a lead committee but find that our work is being held back by other committees that are not lead committees. That is why our programme is perhaps even more provisional than it was originally. We will try to keep members updated when we revise the forward programme, but it has already been added to. Next week, for example, in addition to taking evidence on adults with incapacity, we will hear evidence on the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Bill from the Scottish Executive, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Law Society of Scotland. We may also hear from Scottish Environment LINK and Land Reform, Scotland.
By just before the recess, we will have had the equivalent of second reading of the bills in the chamber. That means that, in January, two bills will be put back in our court. In my view, that is where our real work will lie. The bills will take up a great deal of our time, as there will be a lot of detail to consider. It might be beyond our means to cope with three bills, which would be the situation if stage 1 of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill happened before Christmas.
That is something that I, as convener, would want to manage. This is an extremely hard-working committee and I want us to be as bullish as possible about our capacity to absorb this work load. There is an element of truth in what Phil says. In principle, I am not happy about the lead committee being held back by the timetable of other committees, but the fact that that is going to happen allows us a more deliberate staging of bills. In those circumstances, stage 2 of the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill will be further down the line.
I hear what you say, convener, but it is one thing to be bullish, and another to recognise the importance of this legislation. I accept that we have some legal minds on the committee, who may be able to cope much better with the detail of these bills than laypeople can. However, to be perfectly honest, I think that it will be extremely difficult for us to deal with the detail of one bill at a time, never mind two at once. There is a heck of a lot to absorb and to pick up, and I am concerned about my capacity to deal with two bills at once. This Scottish Parliament has to get the legislation right. It is pointless rushing it through for the sake of it. I want to put down a marker on that.
Notwithstanding that, we will have to produce a stage 1 report on the land reform bill some time after Christmas. There are issues relating to how we will handle all this, but I think that we can manage it if we timetable things sensibly, and if we accept that we may have to schedule in extra meetings.
I do not mind extended times.
We may have to schedule in the odd extra meeting. I do not want to do that as a matter of course, but it may be necessary. We may not need a whole extra meeting, but we could squeeze something in even in an hour and a half.
I give notice that the Equal Opportunities Committee may also want to comment on the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. At the moment, I am trying to find out how the committee fits into the process formally, as that has not yet been made clear. The Equal Opportunities Committee has a heavy work load, but it is in the process of timetabling. I will try to ensure that that fits in with what we are doing here.
The Health and Community Care Committee has been asked to report to us by 22 November so that we can take its views into account for 23 November.
The Equal Opportunities Committee's remit is to scrutinise everything, but it has not been designated the lead committee for anything because the power to legislate in that area is reserved to Westminster. I think that there should be a more formal procedure for our involvement, but we will try to fit in with your timetable.
I want to flag up my concern, which partially covers Phil's concern. I accept what you say, convener, about being bullish and about wanting this committee to be one that does things. However, there is a danger that we will end up taking too much work as the lead committee, because we are the legal committee—that is, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. By that argument, all legislation would be passed to us, as it all has to do with legal matters. The danger is that we will get everything. I am not persuaded that we should have been the lead committee for the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. There is an argument that another committee could have been the lead committee for that bill, albeit that there are legal aspects to it. I am not persuaded that we need to be the lead committee on the land reform bill, if we are busy, because aspects of that bill should be dealt with by other committees.
That is not our decision.
It may not be our decision but, as you say, you are bullish about it. We can have an influence. We can say, "It's not our decision." However, rather than saying, "We want this," we could say, "Hey, we've got enough. Get someone else to do that."
We do not have an agenda item for any other competent business, but I want to suggest one, so that we can cover letters that we receive from individuals on relevant matters. We all received a letter from Mr and Mrs Watson, whose daughter was murdered. We should consider whether we should take a view on such matters as a committee or whether we should deal with them as individuals. Mrs Watson raised the issue of the victims' notification scheme, which appears to have let her down and which we should consider on another date.
I remind members that we decided that we were not going to consider items of new business until the first meeting after the Easter recess. However, that does not prevent individual committee members from putting in writing an issue that they wish to have on a list for consideration. I invite members who have such issues to remember that our meeting then will entirely be taken up with examination of what will be, by that stage, a variety of issues—there are already half a dozen. Members should not feel that they cannot flag up further items for consideration, although they should bear in mind the fact that we will not discuss future priorities until that first meeting after the Easter recess.
I will write to you, convener.
At next week's meeting, we will consider a small draft report on our work so far on prisons issues. I ask the committee to agree that, as with the draft report on the statutory instrument, we should deal with it in private as, until we sign off on the draft, the report is not public. It should be possible to circulate the report to members in a draft form before next week's meeting. We will work out timings for that.
Roseanna, I think that the less we meet in private, the better. I recognise that your suggestion is purely administrative and I accept your comments about the draft report, which I go along with. However, apart from those circumstances, I think that we are better simply remaining in open meeting. In any event, there is nothing to prevent members from having such a discussion before the meeting opens.
I appreciate what Phil is getting at and I concur with some of what he says. However, if we are trying to get the most out of witnesses, it is incumbent on us to be more disciplined in our approach. I do not think that there is anything wrong with your suggestion, convener, if that is what it was designed to do. Certainly, that procedure has worked successfully for other committees.
We can hold those discussions either in private or in public. I have to keep in mind the advice that was given to conveners to try to find ways of avoiding burdening the Parliament's resources. We were asked to have such discussions when dealing with purely housekeeping issues.
If we are talking about five minutes and we are disciplined enough, it will not cause too much concern. People get suspicious only when committees meet in private for three quarters of an hour and then say that nothing was discussed.
We can take the view that such a discussion need not be held in private—in the sense that the public is not present—but we could tell the official reporters that they do not need to record it as part of the Official Report.
I think that I have covered absolutely everything that I needed to cover.
Meeting closed at 12:35.
Previous
Prisons