Justice 2 Committee, 14 Jan 2002
Meeting date: Monday, January 14, 2002
Official Report
285KB pdf
Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee Monday 14 January 2002 (Afternoon)
[The Convener opened the meeting in private at 14:01]
Meeting continued in public.
I formally open this meeting of the Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee to the public and welcome everyone to the city of Inverness. This is the first time that the Justice 2 Committee has met outside Edinburgh and we are very pleased to be in Inverness. It is great to see such a wonderful turnout for our meeting.
I welcome to the committee Rhoda Grant and Maureen Macmillan; I am glad that they are able to be with us this afternoon. We are also accompanied by a full entourage: our witnesses, from whom we will hear shortly; the official report; and our clerks, to whom a special word of thanks is due for the work that they have done to get us here. The arrangements for today's meeting may look seamless, but I can assure people that getting seven MSPs, the official report and security to Inverness is no easy task.
Our main item of business this afternoon is stage 1 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I have received apologies from two committee members: George Lyon, who is attending another meeting this afternoon, and Duncan Hamilton. I ask members to turn off their mobile phones and pagers.
Members will recall that the committee has agreed to carry out an inquiry into the issues raised by petition PE336, which relates to asbestos victims. I draw members' attention to last week's press, which reported Lord Cullen's announcement that a judge, Lord Mackay, will regularly hear cases from asbestos victims in the Court of Session. That seems to be an important development affecting the work of this committee; it looks like a genuine breakthrough. I propose to write to Lord Cullen on behalf of the committee to clarify what the arrangements are, so that we can determine whether we need to proceed with our inquiry. We may take the view that all that can be achieved has been achieved.
No member of the committee would disagree that the action that Lord Cullen has taken is a welcome development. I look forward to hearing the details in due course. It is entirely appropriate that we view Lord Cullen's announcement positively.
Following the resignation of Margaret Ewing from the committee, did we appoint another reporter on this matter, or did you agree to deal with it, convener?
That is Scott Barrie's way of volunteering me for something. We asked for a volunteer to serve as a reporter on the issue, but following the change in membership of the committee I agreed to take charge of it until the committee had decided whether it wished to appoint another reporter. The committee felt that the matter was a high enough priority for us to continue to pursue it in the meantime. Once I have received a reply from Lord Cullen—in, I hope, the not-too-distant future—the committee can decide whether it wishes to take the matter further.