Justice 2 Committee, 11 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Official Report 116KB pdf

---

Proposed Youth Justice Inquiry

The third item on the agenda concerns the possibility of holding a youth justice inquiry. The clerks have helpfully prepared an approach paper, which is based on what we discussed in general terms at the very beginning of the session.

Substantive issues arise in the approach paper. We have to be realistic about what is in front of us in respect of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill because I am anxious that we do nothing to distract us from our consideration of the bill. We should be mindful of that constraint before we become too ambitious about progressing the inquiry. I would rather progress it against the backdrop of a slightly more relaxed schedule; I do not want us to make decisions that ultimately we find it impossible to comply with.

Members will see from the paper that we need to resolve our approach to the inquiry. The suggestions include holding a seminar and appointment of an adviser. It seems to me that it will be impossible in practical terms to implement the inquiry before February of next year. It may be realistic for us to do some preparatory work at this stage, or perhaps we should think a little longer about it before we determine what we want to do during the remainder of February, March and so on. I am open to suggestions.

I suggest that we go ahead with what I consider to be the first step, which is to hold the seminar as set out in the paper. The seminar would bring together some of the stakeholders and allow us to have a reasonably informal discussion with them about areas of priority. Even more important, it would allow us to address areas of priority that are not being covered by some other inquiry at the moment. It would be useful to arrange such a seminar and we could probably do so in reasonably short order, although it could probably not be held before February. If we organised such a discussion as a first step, we could go from there and refine our thoughts and our focus on the matter.

I was going to say something similar to that. We should agree now to go ahead with organising the seminar, which would offer a positive way forward. Apart from anything else, it would give people plenty of notice, and they could take their time to think about the subject, rather than come to it quickly.

If we are definitely going to go ahead with a seminar, should we think about whom to appoint as an adviser? It would take only a few minutes to consider that, so we could put that on the agenda some time between now and February.

I have been looking at our diary. Provided—remember that "provided"—that we do not have to go back to the Parliamentary Bureau because of some problem with the time scale, the way will be clear to go ahead with the seminar. We will agree our final report on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill on 3 February, then we will have time to discuss matters before that month's recess. It looks as though a seminar cannot be timed to proceed before the end of February or the beginning of March. It takes time to set up such events, to decide who we want to be there, and to issue the invitations and all the rest of it.

There is something of a chicken-and-egg situation around the appointment of an adviser. It might be that, until we hold the seminar, we do not know the areas on which we will try to concentrate. Until we hold the seminar, we might be slightly at a loss to know who we would want as an adviser.

My thought was that we could appoint an adviser for a short period in order to help run the seminar. The adviser could advise us on whom to invite and could identify names and produce some kind of output from the event. If we do not like that adviser, or if he or she is not suitable, we will have taken them on for only a short period. If, however, that adviser is very good, we will have someone available for the inquiry.

That is a sensible proposal. There is a considerable amount of work involved in ensuring that the right people go along to such an event. They also need to be prepared in advance of coming to the seminar. The appointment of an adviser will help with that process and will ease the pressure on the clerks in the short term.

I agree that the seminar is a good idea. We should, with advance notice, be able to make it as good as we want it to be.

In the previous session, the Justice 1 Committee did a report on alternatives to custody, which covered some aspects of youth justice. It would be a shame to duplicate that work, but we could ascertain whether things have moved on since the time of that report. We took a lot of evidence from organisations such as SACRO and Apex Scotland on alternatives to custody.

Is that the report that we will debate tomorrow in Parliament?

Yes. We do not want to revisit the whole subject, but it would be useful to find out whether things have moved on.

Like other members, I think that holding a seminar is a really good idea. There is, however, the potential for our inquiry to grow legs and walk away on its own, because it could turn out to be so wide ranging that we might never be able to reach any conclusions. One of the benefits of holding a seminar is that it would give all members of the committee an opportunity to hear from representatives of all the agencies and organisations concerned, as well as from stakeholders who have an interest in the field. That will help us to focus on what we want to get out of the inquiry.

Although I thought at first that we would not need an adviser until we had held the seminar, I agree that it might be helpful to the clerks to have an adviser to help organise the seminar. I participated in a similar event during the previous Parliament, so I know that members of the Social Justice Committee found that the exercise was worth their while, as did the social justice organisations that took part. There is real potential for the seminar to enhance our work.

The committee clearly supports the idea of holding a seminar, not earlier than the end of February and possibly into March. There is also support for use of an adviser to focus our thoughts on the construction of the seminar and on whom we invite.

That being the case, we should delegate to the clerks the job of presenting to us some names for consideration in the appointment of an adviser. I presume that we need approval from the Parliamentary Bureau to incur that expense. Perhaps, at the same time, the clerks would like to consider possible timing and location of the seminar. Does anybody have any views on that?

That is the question I just asked Jackie Baillie. I said, "Where's it gonna be?"

I have been involved in two similar events. One was in the chamber, which was very successful because, with video and audio aids, the chamber was ideally suited to everybody who wanted to be present to contribute. It is within the Parliament precinct so no charge arises, and it is centrally located. The other event was in the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Again, the facilities were superb and the venue was central and easy to get to.

We do not need to make a decision about a location today. I ask committee members to go away and mull it over and to be prepared to indicate their views. The location will depend on the number of people that we will have. It is wise to be as expansive as we can, within reason—there is no point in asking 22 people to come. We should try to broaden participation as much as we can—obviously we want to include young people. Committee members might have some idea about how we can most conveniently accommodate all those points. I ask the committee to consider the matter; if members have ideas, you can put them to the clerks and we can make a decision once we have considered nominations for an adviser. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do the clerks need anything else by way of guidance about that?

At some stage, we will need more detailed guidance about the types of participants, but I am happy to come back to that at a future meeting.

Perhaps the adviser will help with that.

We now move into private session for final consideration of our stage 1 report on the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.

Meeting continued in private until 14:53.