Justice 2 Committee, 12 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 12, 2001

Official Report 139KB pdf

---

Consultative Steering Group Principles

Item 3 is on the Procedures Committee's inquiry into the consultative steering group principles. Members have a note, which says that the Procedures Committee is asking whether we wish to make a submission or to present oral evidence on how the committees have embraced the CSG principles of sharing power, accountability, accessibility and equal opportunities. If members wish to make a submission, we will have to discuss what will be included in it. The original deadline was 26 June, which is a bit tight, so the deadline has been extended to the end of the recess. The first decision we must make is whether, in principle, the committee wishes to make a submission to the Procedures Committee.

Can I ask a stupid question? Who are power, accountability, accessibility and equal opportunities being shared with?

There is a note that explains that accountability is in relation to the Executive, accessibility is in relation to the public, and equal opportunities goes across the board in terms of the way in which we apply policies and procedures.

I see that those principles also apply to the legislators—the members. We have had difficulty getting information out of ministers; for example, getting information on the cost per prisoner place was like drawing teeth from a hen. Suddenly we see the light, and find that we have been talking about different things.

It took a year to get that information. The request had a real purpose, which was obvious to the Executive. I might be wrong, but I do not think that accountability is evident when it takes so long to get one simple fact.

In principle, we must make a submission. The purpose of the CSG and its view on the importance of the committees must be embraced.

I agree with that, convener.

This is also an opportunity for the committee to reflect on what it has achieved, especially through the evidence that it has taken on a variety of subjects. Women's offending, which we have just discussed, strikes me as a matter that would not have been aired at Westminster. The committee should take the opportunity to say that we have given people from different parts of Scottish society the opportunity to put their points and we have pursued with ministers the issues that they raised. On the principle of power sharing, which the CSG stated, there is a good opportunity to say what the committee has been doing on sharing power with people.

I endorse that. Everybody says—I think it is true—that the committees are the success story of the Parliament, not only because of their openness and accessibility to the public, but because we try to prise open the Scottish Executive's secret drawers, if I can put it that way. We are still learning; we are not succeeding very often because there are a lot of civil service defences to break down. The Scottish Office was not used to this, but the Scottish Executive must get used to it. We must change the Executive's attitude. The committees are open and accessible, but much more must be done to make the Executive more open and accessible.

To continue Tavish Scott's theme, we have a lot to say about this because of the experiences of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee in putting together legislation. Four members of this committee were party to the development of the first committee bill—the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. It is important to examine how that came about, and we have a lot to say on that.

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee dealt with the first major bill, the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. That bill demonstrated how the public view could be taken on board. A considerable weight of opinion from organisations and individuals was taken on board through oral evidence and correspondence. It might be worthwhile to trawl through the archives of the justice committees; that will give us headings for inclusion in the report, on which we think we have done well or not so well.

We should consider accessibility in terms of how easy it has been for members of the public to make their views known; that relates to the issue of public petitions. On accountability, we could examine how we have questioned the Executive and executive agencies on specific issues. In fairness to the committee, we have brought a few matters into the public arena, especially on the Scottish Prison Service.

Equal opportunities was the other theme of the CSG principles. We have had a fairly equal-opportunity friendly agenda in the justice committees. We have demonstrated that a committee that has a wide and general remit can consider gender-specific issues.

I will discuss two aspects of accessibility. I am concerned about the agencies that want to come to talk to the committee to present their cases; we put a huge imposition on them financially by doing that. Preparing evidence and coming to the committee has placed a financial strain on several organisations.

The other aspect of accessibility is physical accessibility of buildings. One occasion that especially comes to mind is when the committee meeting was in the Hub and one person who attended had great difficulty getting up the stairs.

You will just have to vote for the new Parliament building.

Perhaps we should have made a point of looking into that when we came here.

I am holding the jackets.

Careful.

We should not talk about accessibility, accountability and the new Scottish Parliament building in the same breath.

That is not a subject for this meeting.

I agree with what has been said about accessibility. We have given people the opportunity to give evidence to us—for example, on prisons. The problem comes when we take evidence from the Executive. We are still learning. We are improving our ability to scrutinise the budget and to hold the Executive to account. I feel as if we are beginning to get somewhere on that, which helps the agencies that come to give evidence to us. We took much more evidence during recent scrutiny of the budget, to help us read between the figures and get to the truth.

We are very proactive in trying, through the Parliament website and through our press releases, to make the public aware of the issues that we are considering. That helps us to be informed when the ministers appear before us. We still have difficulties with the ministerial teams. Quite rightly, they will not tell us everything unless we have sharpened our pens. I have used mixed metaphors galore, but there we are.

The point that I want to make will ring true for every member of a Scottish Parliament committee. We are all back benchers and whether we are constituency MSPs or list MSPs, we have responsibilities to our constituents. However, we also receive correspondence from outside the geographical boundaries of our constituencies, because of the work that we do. The Justice 2 Committee has received a fair whack of such correspondence. The fact that we deal with correspondence that extends well beyond our remit as back-bench members shows that we have embraced the work of the committees.

The wonders of the committees are not known to the public, which only sees show time—otherwise known as question time—and the odd debate on television. I would like the Procedures Committee to pursue the idea of televising what I call raw footage of a committee meeting. It would not have to be the same committee all the time. We could televise meetings such as our meeting two weeks ago during which we took evidence from reformed drug addicts. People would then be able to see what the committees are doing and to understand the worth of the Parliament.

It is all very well our saying what is happening, but the public does not know about it. I would like us to say something in our submission about the media and about televising committee meetings. I am not talking about programmes being shown at midnight, when everyone has gone to sleep.

That relates to a point that is made in annexe 2, which states:

"the Scottish Parliament should be accessible, open, responsive and develop procedures which make possible a participative approach".

To be frank, we have not done that. I know that we play at it and that we have a television service. However, Christine Grahame gave a startling example—and there have been many others—of how our broadcasting has failed to highlight the work of the committees. Another problem is the physical arrangements for taking evidence, which we often do either in the sardine can or up the road in the Hub. This is a marketing and promotional exercise; it is a bridge-building exercise with the people who are paying for the Parliament, and we have not done it very well. We might think that we have, but if we were to ask people they would say that we have not. They do not know what happens in here.

Christine Grahame made a good point. We should say something in our submission about getting the committees more air time, so that the general public can have a better insight into what committees of the Parliament do. I know that BBC Parliament broadcasts committee proceedings on a Sunday afternoon.

We could have a parliamentary channel. There are lines that are suitable for that. I am not talking about edited programmes that are subject to the whim of the various broadcasting companies. I am talking about a parliamentary channel. If, for example, the Rural Development Committee was taking evidence on foot-and-mouth disease, that could be broadcast. That would enable the community to participate in our work and to see the detail of a committee meeting, rather than just edited highlights that provide the viewer with no sense of the in-depth evidence taking that goes on. The questions that we ask are the questions that people outside the Parliament want to ask. That is what the Parliament is supposed to be here for.

We will include a line in our submission about that.

We have one more meeting before the recess, on Tuesday 26 June. I will ask the clerk to produce a draft note that we can amend by e-mail. We all agree on the general points that need to be made, and it is important that we make a submission to the Procedures Committee.

That was the last item on the agenda for today's meeting. I remind members that on Thursday 14 June there will be a stage 1 debate on the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill. Subject to Parliament's approving the bill at stage 1, we will begin stage 2 consideration of it at our meeting on 26 June. Until we see how many amendments to the bill are lodged, it will not be clear how long we will need on 26 June. However, we must anticipate needing the full day. I ask members to bear that in mind. The latest date by which amendments to the bill may be lodged is Friday 22 June.

At our meeting on 26 June we should have an opportunity to consider written evidence that has been received for our inquiry into the Procurator Fiscal Service. Members will recall that we set a deadline for the receipt of information from members of the public. That deadline has passed, so we might have a chance to consider the information that has been submitted.

That ends today's business. I thank members for their attendance. I look forward to seeing everybody at Thursday's debate.

Meeting closed at 15:32.