Advisers
Although we have reached the end of our stage 2 consideration of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, we have not reached the end of our agenda—she says, waving her arms, lest the meeting become inquorate.
Item 4 concerns the appointment of an adviser to the committee on alternatives for custody. I ask members to have a quick look at the paper on that. I also remind members that one of the justice committees will scrutinise the criminal justice bill, which is expected to be introduced around Easter.
Pardon me if I am hurrying too much. We should first deal with the appointment of an adviser on alternatives to custody. We should also comment on the proposed role and specifications but, at this stage in the day, let us simply agree in principle to the appointment of an adviser. Perhaps the clerks can circulate the suggested role and specifications to members, who can then say whether what has been suggested is appropriate.
Item 5 also concerns the appointment of an adviser, but this time for the criminal justice bill, which has not yet been allocated to a committee. The Justice 2 Committee has perhaps jumped the gun by agreeing in principle to the appointment of an adviser. I believe that we should also agree in principle to that, as the bill will be substantial and wide-ranging. Does the committee agree in principle to the appointment of an adviser?
Members indicated agreement.
What is the status of the bill?
It will not be introduced until just before Easter. At that stage, the bill will be allocated to one of the justice committees.
I think that we declared an interest in the bill.
Whether the bill is allocated to this committee is a matter for negotiation. It would be helpful if committee members could let me know their views on whether we want to deal with the criminal justice bill. The alternative is that we deal with the poindings bill and title conditions bill.
This committee should deal with the criminal justice bill.
I would be quite content for that to happen. Do other members wish to express a view? Does Maureen Macmillan have a view?
I am sorry, but I am trying to remember—
Perhaps it is too late in the day.
I am sure that the committee previously expressed an interest in dealing with the criminal justice bill.
I would be interested in the committee's pursuing that bill. That makes three of us. Does Maureen Macmillan have a view?
I express an interest in the bill as well.
That is four.
The Justice 2 Committee is dealing with the huge Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Do not worry. I shall argue about the timetabling but, if there is a conflict, the decision on which committee should deal with the criminal justice bill is for the Parliamentary Bureau and the business managers. My attitude is that we have space because we have finished dealing with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill.
We now have only one or two things to finish off, such as our regulation of legal aid inquiry, which can be picked up. We have finished our report on legal aid. We are about to begin the early stages of our inquiry into alternatives to custody, but our timetable for dealing with legislation is clear. We could pick up the criminal justice bill and run with it, whereas consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will be ongoing.
Is the committee content to take that view?
Members indicated agreement.
There are a few more final points to be dealt with. Our away day has been cancelled, as it would be a waste of time to set it up on 18 and 19 March, when there will be railway strikes.
Our fact-finding visit to Peterhead prison has been arranged for 25 March. Michael Matheson and I have indicated that we want to go. Anyone else who wants to go to Peterhead should inform the clerks by this Friday. Having already been to Peterhead on an informal visit, I can say that the visit is well worth while. It will be extremely interesting to speak to the prison officers about the prison estates review and about the STOP 2000 programme.
When the Parliament goes to Aberdeen in May, we intend that an informal visit to Grampian police headquarters will be arranged. It will be quite useful for the committee to see how that operates.
The committee's debate on legal aid takes place on Wednesday 13 March, so I hope that all members will be in the chamber for that. Next Tuesday, we will meet at 1.45 in committee room 2 to consider the details of how to handle that debate. The committee might want to take a view on that. We will also have some other exciting items on the agenda. I know that you cannot wait.
That concludes this meeting of the Justice 1 Committee. I thank you all for your tolerance during such a long day.
Meeting closed at 17:08.