Justice 2 Committee, 12 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 12, 2001

Official Report 202KB pdf

---

Annual Report

Under item 6, we will consider our draft annual report. It does not seem that long since we started, and there have been many changes, but the draft report outlines the main items that we have been dealing with. I invite members to comment on anything else that they would wish to be included in the report.

Obviously, I was not a member of the committee for the period that is covered by the report, so I will just make a general point. The committee might wish to take the opportunity to comment on its work load—whether it is too much or too little.

Do any members have any feelings about the work load? I suppose that only I, Mary Mulligan and Scott Barrie can comment—this is only Bill Aitken's second meeting.

If Stewart Stevenson had had the opportunity to be on other committees, he would recognise that, while our work load has always been heavy, the work load is also heavy everywhere else. If we say that our work load is heavy, we have to make a comparison. The committee will work to the best of its ability to ensure that it deals with the necessary legislation and takes on board issues of interest and importance that are brought to it. I am not sure that the question of our work load is relevant for inclusion in our annual report.

I was not suggesting that the committee's work load was excessive, nor that the balance was right, nor that we had too little work—I was not a member of the committee until today. I wondered merely whether work load was an issue upon which members wished to comment. If those members who have been on the committee for longer feel that the balance is right, perhaps they should say so, so that, if excessive demands are made at a later date, it will be possible to refer back.

The essence of the Parliament is its committees. If this committee is a model for getting the balance of work right, let us say so. The Rural Development Committee, which I have also been put on, has serious concerns about its work load and about the balance of where it is coming from. This committee does not have to share that view, but, if members think that the balance is right, it might be useful to say so. That would put down a benchmark for other committees.

I do not want to go on about this, but I am reluctant to get into the subject of work load. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee mentioned its work load in every report that it submitted to the Parliament. One of the solutions that the Parliament came up with to address that concern was to set up a second justice committee. If we keep going on about the work load, there might come a time when we legitimately say that enough is enough; if we keep flagging up the subject, we are in danger of flogging a dead horse.

We could say that we have got it right.

I do not think that we need to mention it at all.

Okay. I defer.

I have a different point, on the introduction, which deals with the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and then that of the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee. The last sentence reads:

"Work is allocated between them by agreement, depending on their current workload."

Could we add something to the effect that we have joint meetings? I recall that there is to be a joint meeting fairly soon. We should make it clear that such meetings are held and that it is not a case of the two conveners just meeting in a wee huddle and deciding to divvy things up. We should stress that the members of the two committees actually meet.

That is a good point. We should weave into the report the fact that there is a joint approach when necessary between the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee. We have had some teething problems with that, but it made some sense—although we may need to discuss this in future—that the committees considered the budget report jointly, and that we should continue to hold joint meetings.

Mary Mulligan is right about work load—many committees have heavy work loads. Let us see how things go. I think that the nature of the justice committees is that we will always have a substantial work load. That means that there is, unfortunately, quite a lot of reading of stuff that may seem quite mundane and boring, but which contains much that is of crucial technical importance. It is recognised that, even if three justice committees were dealing with the work load, the nature of the work would still be intense. We will leave it at that.

If members have no further points on the draft report, the suggestion made by Margaret Ewing is agreed, and we can get the report drawn up.

We now move to item 7, which we agreed to discuss in private.

Meeting continued in private until 11:35.