Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 12 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

Diligence Working Group

Item 2 on the agenda relates to the letter sent to me by Angus MacKay about

"the Cross Party Parliamentary Working Group on a Diligence Against Moveable Property to replace Poinding and Warrant Sale",

which is not the snappiest title that I have ever come across. Basically, Angus is asking us if we will appoint a replacement or representative from this committee to that working group. I do not want to get into the history of the matter, because, frankly, I do not think that whether Christine Grahame was initially asked by Roseanna Cunningham, the former convener, to go on the group as a representative of the committee is relevant. There is a difference of opinion, to say the least, about that.

The point is that we now have a letter from Angus MacKay asking us to appoint a representative to that working group. Members will have seen my comments on the matter: I do not think that it would be particularly sensible for us to make an appointment. I do not believe that this committee would necessarily have one mind on every item that was brought before that working group. It would therefore be difficult for any member to represent the committee. While I think that it is quite allowable for any member of this committee to wish to be on the group—in fact, one of our members is already on the group—it has to be clear that they are there on their own account, not as a representative of the committee. However, it is up to the committee to decide.

I want it to be put on record that, as far as I was concerned, I was on the working group for the Scottish National Party. It was a case of either Michael Matheson or I going on the group, and I was available to do so. When I withdrew from the working group, for reasons that I will not go into again—you know about them, convener—I made it plain that I was there with my SNP hat on. I had my justice hat on only as an individual member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I did not speak on behalf of the committee, nor, as far as I understand it, did Euan Robson, who was there for the Liberal Democrats. Obviously, there have been crossed wires. I am not saying that Angus MacKay is fibbing, but he may have thought that I was there as a committee member. That was certainly not my understanding.

I concur with what the convener said. Having been at the meetings, I do not see how anybody could speak for the committee ad hoc as discussions go along—that would be most improper. I certainly never tried to do that, because I did not have the authority to do so.

I disagree with the convener's comments about the snappy name. If you look at the letters, you could have a committee called DAMP, though as I am not a Tory wet, I would not particularly want to be on it.

I was not aware that Christine Grahame was on the working group, representing the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The fact that she was not aware of that either says a lot. Her actions were those of a politician and not of a member of the committee.

We would be failing if we got involved in the working group. We will get our chance to debate the outcomes when the proposals come to the committee at a later date. I urge every party to get involved in the committee. It should be an all-party group, though it is not for me to say. The arguments should be put forward and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will get to judge the outcomes at a later date.

I am glad that Christine Grahame has clarified her position, as I was a bit worried when I read the convener's memo that we were going to have to have somebody on the committee on the working group.

I now agree that it would make more sense for the working group to be a cross-party group, but this committee does have an interest in how the work of the group is progressing. We need to find some way of receiving interim reports. I do not want to be presented with a report at the end of the process in which I have had no involvement and then be asked to judge whether we should legislate. Can we find a halfway house, to ensure that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee receives a written report from the minister or the working group?

We can certainly write to the minister to ask for regular updates on the conclusions reached by the working group. I have no problem with that.

Are we agreed that we do not want to appoint a representative to the working group?

I think that the convener should write back to the minister on the basis of what has been said this morning. I would like the minister to clarify why he wants a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on the working group and not party representatives.

I have already had correspondence with the minister. This is the second letter that I have received. I am not sure that I will clarify anything any further. It is up to each party to decide whether it wants to have members on the group to make it a cross-party group. It is up to this committee to decide whether it wants to have a committee representative on the working group. I gather that the feeling is that we do not.

My feeling is that we do not want a representative at this stage, but I am not prepared to agree that that is a final decision.

The answer to everything is always "Not at this stage". Nothing binds our successors, especially given that we may metamorphose into two committees in the not-too-distant future, each of which will be able to take its own decisions.

If we are agreed that we do not want to appoint a representative at the moment, would any individual member like to be on the group? I am willing to write to Angus MacKay to say that such-and-such a member would like to serve on the group in an individual capacity.

I want to clarify the matter. The group is called a cross-party parliamentary working group, not a cross-committee group or anything like that. Members of other political parties are on the group; David McLetchie and Euan Robson are on it, for example. The other parties are represented—only the SNP and the Scottish Socialist Party are not. The working group is quite big and fills a whole table. It could get too big; it will be an assembly.

As the other parties are represented, we need some clarity about what the group is—it was meant to be a cross-party group, which appeared to be the case when Tommy Sheridan and I were both there. We came off the group for our own political reasons as members of political parties. There is no clarity about what the group is supposed to be. I do not understand why we would want to put any more people on the group—other parties have two representatives. From what I understood of the stage 3 debate, the working group's final recommendations—I may have to check the Official Report on this—must be determined unanimously. Voting will therefore be another problem. We will need to check what was said in the stage 3 debate.

Two other committees have representatives on the working group. It seems strange that a committee should appoint someone to take decisions and vote on issues whose views may not align with the view of the committee as a whole. How can someone represent the committee if that is the case? If, as Pauline McNeill suggested, the idea is that someone goes along and keeps a watching brief, that is a different situation altogether. Christine Grahame might be able to tell us whether other committee representatives participated in votes.

There are minutes of the meetings. If we want to monitor, perhaps it would be satisfactory to ask that minutes be provided to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. That would keep us in touch.

I have prepared committee minutes before, and they are not necessarily designed to convey information.

Perhaps that is just our group.

A member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, Euan Robson, is already on the group. Members may feel that that is a satisfactory state of affairs and that he can be the liaison and pass information on to the committee. However, as I said, I am quite happy to write to the minister to say that we would like to be updated on a regular basis.

We need to put some of this on the record. It is still confusing. We have agreed that it does not seem logical to nominate a committee member to a cross-party group, but that it would seem logical for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to be appraised of where the group is on its work, because it will, presumably, be the lead committee. If an alternative is drawn up that requires legislation, which then comes to this committee under the normal process, we will take evidence. How does our sitting on a committee that predetermines legislation square with taking evidence on it? We need to clear up the confusion. We do not want to give up our right to question what the working group comes up with in the normal way.

My note made the point that the fact that we would have to sit in judgment on the proposals produced by a working group on which we have a representative puts us in an invidious position.

I reject your suggestion, convener, that Euan Robson could act as a liaison. That would be unfair to Euan. He is there on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. It would not be proper for him not to be allowed to be relaxed about what he says in what are fairly informal discussions and for him to have to report back to us.

That is fair enough, although I was not asking him clipe on the working group to the committee.

The thought of cliping never came into my head.

Are members happy that I should write to the minister, explaining that we do not want to appoint a representative of the committee to the group for the reasons that have been outlined, but that we would like to be kept informed on a regular basis of any conclusions that the working group reaches?

Members indicated agreement.

We now have a slight hiatus. The minister has not yet arrived for item 3, so members will have the unusual luxury of a coffee break.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—