I welcome everyone to the 14th meeting this session of the Justice 2 Committee. The first item on today's agenda concerns our approach to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.
We need to think about which witnesses we want to talk to. The Scottish Parliament information centre has given us a helpful note of the sort of witnesses to whom it thinks we should speak. I stress that three committees are involved in the bill—the lead committee is the Communities Committee and the secondary committees are this committee and the Local Government and Transport Committee. We are anxious to avoid duplication of evidence taking, which is why paragraph 7 of the note indicates the areas on which this committee might want to focus. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
It is reasonable to try to have a tight focus on the evidence that we will take. For that reason, I am slightly concerned that some of the people from whom we propose to take oral evidence are likely also to be called by the Communities Committee. It would be enormously helpful to have clarity as to who will call whom.
We will turn to that. Does that mean that you would review the focus slightly, or is the focus okay, providing we rein in the witnesses a little?
The focus is fine.
Okay. That takes us to the annex from SPICe, which was helpful. The original version that I received had 11 proposals, but the second version took out the Scottish Police Federation, the idea being that the Communities Committee would want to address that area. Was that the rationale?
Yes. The Communities Committee has not yet made firm decisions about whom it will hear from, but we understand that it is likely to call the police. One possibility is that we call different police organisations. Another is that we both call the police, which may be sensible.
Are there any thoughts from members?
I take Jackie Baillie's point. Looking through the list of witnesses, I would have thought that it would be appropriate for us to take evidence from all of them, with a couple of exceptions, because they are more likely to consider things in which we are interested. The exceptions—or the ones that the Communities Committee and we might argue about—are Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending, Apex Scotland and Children 1st, which could probably usefully be heard by either committee. There is a bit of a grey area, but the other organisations are probably all focused on the areas that would be of primary interest to this committee.
Would you be happy to retain the rest of the list?
Yes.
Are there any other comments?
I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that most of the witnesses suggested by SPICe are the right people for us to listen to during our stage 1 deliberations. However, before listening to SACRO, Apex Scotland and Children 1st, we should check that they are not being invited to go to the Communities Committee, because there is no need for duplication. Should the Communities Committee not be hearing from those organisations, we would want to hear from them, but it is likely that the Communities Committee will want to speak to them first and, as the lead committee, it should do so.
Does that reflect the view of the committee?
We will check whether the Communities Committee intends to speak to those organisations but, if it does not, this committee will certainly want to hear from them.
Rather than ask the Communities Committee, is it possible for us to say that we had a look at this issue and, because of time constraints, we suggest that the Communities Committee should see those witnesses?
We can do that. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The point is that those three organisations must give evidence in the process.
All I am doing is trying to encourage the Communities Committee to see them, not us.
That is up to the Communities Committee. Somebody has got to hear from them. The Communities Committee will have to make a decision on that.
I agree that the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration should come before the committee. Could we also invite the chairs of some of the children's panels, because we might get a slightly different view?
That would have my blessing. Would that have everyone's agreement?
I am aware that there is an absence of voices from the social work element, either from social workers or from the Association of Directors of Social Work. Again, the Communities Committee may intend to take that evidence.
That is true, but I understand that the Local Government and Transport Committee has started its deliberations, and that it is examining specifically the impact that the bill will have on the operation of local government, so I would have thought—although I am not sure—that it is more likely that the Local Government and Transport Committee should hear from social workers.
Certainly social workers are not on the proposed list. My anxiety was that they should not be missed out, because they have a significant opinion to express about the bill. Rather like our approach to the Communities Committee's evidence gathering, we should ensure that the social work voice is being heard by some committee and, if it is not, pick it up. Is that agreed?
That is helpful. Would anybody like to make any other comments about witnesses? What about the Minister for Justice? The minister in charge of the bill's passage through the Parliament is the Minister for Communities, who will almost certainly give evidence to the Communities Committee. However, given the proportion of the bill that seems to relate to justice interests, the question arises whether it would be desirable for us to hear from the Minister for Justice. Is that the committee's view?
We should leave the Minister for Justice until the end of our oral evidence taking.
I agree—that is the logical place to do it. I am glad that the committee takes that view, as it would be strange not to have the opinion of the Minister for Justice.
From informal discussions that we have had, my understanding was that the date of 5 February was flexible. The flexibility was dependent on when the Communities Committee considered its draft report. I am unclear about whether that flexibility exists and when the deadline is for the Communities Committee. I understand that that committee has agreed a timetable.
I defer to the clerk.
Our understanding is that the Communities Committee intends to begin consideration of its draft report at the meeting immediately after 5 February. The Communities Committee should get our report in time to circulate it with its draft report, because past experience suggests that, if a secondary committee's report is received in time for the consideration of a lead committee's second draft report, that committee is much less likely to be influenced by the secondary committee's recommendations. Although, in theory, the Communities Committee could take our report into account if we sent it later than 5 February, it is much less likely that it would have the time to do so.
I want to tease out that issue. If we submitted a draft report that had not been completely signed off, to what extent could the Communities Committee accommodate that? That committee would have the general thrust of our report, with the caveat that we could tighten it thereafter.
It is for the committee to decide whether it wants to do that.
Jackie Baillie suggests an interim report to guide the Communities Committee on our thinking. That is a practical option, if the committee is so minded.
It is a practical option, but it is not ideal. We are talking about a difference of two weeks. As the bill is, arguably, one of the most important bills that will be discussed in this session of Parliament, we should not rush or cut corners for the sake of such a short time scale. I prefer option 2, because it would give us extra breathing space: it would give the clerks extra time to draft the report and would allow us time to consider it. In the scheme of things, option 2 would not delay the bill much, so it is not essential that we choose option 1. Given the overall length of the process, a couple of extra weeks would not be critical, but they could make all the difference to our scrutiny.
Last week, the convener said that she had pushed the Executive on the time scale and mentioned that there has been some give by the Executive. Is that reflected in option 1? Has the Executive allowed us two extra weeks? All members of the committee want to carry out the process properly and to consider the issues thoroughly. However, I have concerns about option 2 because, although we are an important secondary committee, we are a secondary committee on the bill. The bill is primarily a piece of communities legislation. We should attempt to fit in with the timetable on which the Communities Committee has agreed.
That is helpful. The background is that, informally, an even tighter timetable was put to our clerks by the Executive. Frankly, it was unworkable and I said that. I did not think that there was even any point in bringing it to the committee, as it would have made quite impossible our task of scrutinising. To that extent, there was flexibility, if you can call it flexibility. I made it clear that I could not ask the committee to work to the timetable that was originally proposed, which is how there arose option 1. I thought that it was proper for that to go to the committee; however, I thought, equally, that the committee should see a second option, just to provide a little more elasticity.
It depends on whether we are going to consider inviting the same people to give evidence to us as will give evidence to the Communities Committee or whether the witnesses will be totally separate. In the past, when the Justice 1 Committee has been the secondary committee, it has sent a reporter to the lead committee to ask specific legal questions of witnesses. For example, a member of the Justice 1 Committee attended the Health and Community Care Committee to ask questions on the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. I wonder whether there is any scope for our doing likewise.
Theoretically, that is possible. However, I draw members' attention to the nature of the bill, in which seven of its 13 parts are concerned with justice issues. As convener, I also express concern about losing a member of the committee as reporter to another committee when we are in the throes of trying to process ingathering of evidence. I do not feel that the committee would benefit from being weakened in that way.
No, it would not; however, the Communities Committee does not meet at the same time as the Justice 2 Committee. In the case that I mentioned, the clerks read the Official Report of the Health and Community Care Committee to see what questions had been asked and what answers had been given. I was a reporter at that time and I attended the Health and Community Care Committee to question the sheriffs on the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill.
That is a practical possibility, although I am not sure to what extent it would take us forward.
I just wondered whether it would take us forward. Such action would presuppose that there was evidence that we could take at the same time that the Communities Committee was taking evidence; for example, from SACRO, if we had been intending to call SACRO ourselves.
We would not do that if the Communities Committee was doing that. The point is that we are trying to avoid duplication of work. It is important that, in the evidence-taking process, the committees have clearly defined responsibilities for the categories of witnesses from whom they are going to take evidence. I do not think that your suggestion would solve our particular problem. One way or another, a committee will have to deal with the witnesses.
There should be no duplication of work; indeed, such duplication can be quite easily avoided. I was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee when the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill was being considered. That bill was substantively different from the bill that we are discussing—it was a health bill that had justice implications. I suspect that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill has gone to the Communities Committee simply because the Minister for Communities is the lead minister. Whether the bill's lead committee should be the Communities Committee or one of the justice committees could be argued—the matter is finely balanced. To a large extent, the bill is a justice bill as much as—if not more than—it is a communities bill.
I now have a practical difficulty. If members want me to appear at the Parliamentary Bureau, I will have to leave the committee pronto. Members must therefore reach a view on timetabling. There are two options. I suggest that members who support option 1 should so indicate.
Perhaps there should be a caveat. We could consider a full-day sitting, if that is necessary and appropriate.
I agree.
We should also consider producing an interim report, which would give the clerks an extra week. There would be a similar time scale for writing the report, as mentioned in option 2.
So—a caveat should be attached to option 1.
Yes.
What would happen if such proposals proved to be impossible? I do not know about the practical arrangements for having an extra sitting.
We could revisit the matter.
We cannot—I presume that the bureau will agree to a time scale this afternoon.
With previous bills, we have gone back to the bureau and asked for more time later in the process. That is theoretically possible.
The question is, that option 1, with the caveat as outlined by Jackie Baillie, be agreed to. Are members agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
There could be a session on a Tuesday morning or a Wednesday morning—I have no preference. Perhaps that would address the convener's concerns about there being an all-day sitting and about people's concentration.
It is much easier to get a room on a Tuesday morning than on a Wednesday morning.
We are in the clerks' hands. They should do what they can. I thank them for their assistance.