Official Report 292KB pdf
We will move quickly on to item 2. Members have a copy of a draft paper that was prepared by the clerk in the name of committee reporter Michael Matheson. I thank the clerks and Michael Matheson for putting together the paper for the committee—I am conscious of the short time scale in which they had to prepare it. Do you want to speak to the paper, Michael?
I am conscious of the time. Members will have had an opportunity to read our recommendations on what we should pursue with the Executive.
The key elements include alternative formats and elements of the charging regime, such as the cost limit. The paper also makes the important point that the committee needs to have early sight of the fees regulations that are to be laid before the Parliament. The regulations are crucial to the operation of the act. We also need an explanation of why no response has been made to the original recommendation about Scottish Administration policy formulation. There is also a recommendation about firming up some stuff on training and education. Does any member dissent from anything in the paper?
In my experience, a number of things come under the public interest heading and are not disclosed because the public interest test is subjective in nature. I think that we should look at that. Do your recommendations cover that point, Michael?
The 2002 act is drafted in such a way that it contains lots of opt-out clauses. We are not in a position to address the issue, as it does not relate to the regulations but is already enshrined in the act. The matter was raised when the bill was being considered, but it would be difficult for us to do anything about it in our consideration of the regulations.
Right. So if we feel that the public interest test is being abused, there is no way of pinning down the issue to see how the provisions are being implemented.
That would come under the review of the implementation of the act and of the regulations when they have been put in place. That will be done at a later stage.
Thank you.
That is correct. When enough time has passed, a future committee might review the operation of the legislation—as we have done in the past in relation to other legislation—especially with regard to the public interest. We have been asked to look at the code that accompanies the act. If there is no dissent from the paper, I suggest that we adopt the recommendations. We can return to issues such as fees when they become apparent. Are we agreed?
Thank you. I remind members that we are to make a joint visit with the Justice 2 Committee to Her Majesty's Prison Kilmarnock on Monday 8 December. I also remind members that our next meeting will be held on Wednesday 10 December. Unfortunately, the meeting will be in the Hub—we have to take our turn at that. We will hear further evidence on the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, with witnesses from the Procurators Fiscal Society and police organisations. Do members agree that we should meet at 9.30 am again in order to review the evidence in the Official Report? I hope that members will have time to get their heads around what we have heard so far so that we can put some of the evidence to our new witnesses.
I think that that would be reasonable, convener.
Members know that we were trying to arrange an informal meeting with Lord Bonomy, the author of "Improving Practice: the 2002 Review of the Practices and Procedure of the High Court of Justiciary". The meeting has now been arranged for Monday 15 December at 4 pm. As members know, we thought it important to take evidence from Lord Bonomy, but it was not considered appropriate for that to be done on the record. We will draw up a report of the meeting, which can be used to inform our stage 1 report. I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 13:12.