Item 6 is consideration of the annual report. I refer the committee to the draft report, which covers the work of the Justice 2 Committee from 12 May 2002 to 26 March 2003—the report does not quite cover a full year. The report's format is based on the Conveners Group's recommendations. I invite members to make comments on or suggest amendments to the draft report. The publication date is 26 March. We will start with the introduction. Do members have comments on anything on the first page?
The report says:
In terms of the number of meetings, that is the case.
So, in the introduction we should add to "heavy workload"—
Heaviest.
I do not think that we can claim to have had the heaviest work load.
We can say that we have had the greatest number of meetings.
We can say that the committee has had a heavy work load, including the greatest number of meetings of any parliamentary committee. Will that do?
Yes.
On the basis that if we do not blow our own trumpet, no one else will.
Absolutely correct, Bill.
The first section of the report deals with our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
That inquiry is now historical, so perhaps we should replace "has been conducting" with "carried out" or "conducted".
Yes. I wonder whether it is possible to refer to the success of our inquiry report. The Lord Advocate has put on record the fact that the changes in the Crown Office are partly due to the Justice 2 Committee driving change by our decision to—
We could add after paragraph 5 that we believe that the inquiry was instrumental in changing policy and practice in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
As has been acknowledged by the Lord Advocate.
The inquiry may prove a model for other committees, in that regard. We could say something along those lines.
We will put that into an extra paragraph.
Yes. Some of them were all-day meetings.
Can we say that?
It might be useful to say that we spent 34 hours on stage 2. That is my rough calculation, which someone will have to verify.
Is that a lot?
It felt like it—and that was not just down to Bill Aitken.
Can that figure be checked?
Yes.
The times are in the Official Report.
During stage 2, I think that we all—including the clerks—felt that land reform issues dominated our lives.
When we are dealing with a subject of that size, the issue is not the time that is spent in committee meetings, but the time that is spent on work outwith meetings on preparation and research, for example, which take at least twice as long as the committee work does.
How can we strengthen paragraph 6?
We should go along the lines that Stewart Stevenson suggested. Following the sentence that ends in the word "considered", we should add that the committee met for about 34 hours at stage 2.
Was not it the case that more amendments were lodged for stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill than for any previous bill?
I am afraid that that record was quickly broken.
Drat.
I think that the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill has broken all records.
I think that I am correct in saying that the Executive accepted amendments lodged by members from all political persuasions. We would need to verify that, but I am quite confident that it is true. That would be worth saying, because it is a committee point, not a partisan point, and it illustrates the value of the committee's impartiality.
Yes, let us put that in.
We should refer to the measure to extend the children's hearings system to include young people aged 16 and 17.
The paper mentions victims' rights.
I have not specifically mentioned the youth crime pilots, partly because the provision was taken out of the bill.
All the more reason to mention it. The committee succeeded in its aim.
We ought perhaps to note as a matter of concern that major changes were made to the bill both at stage 2 and at stage 3. The committee found that that posed the risk of legislation being passed without adequate scrutiny. It was not only the Executive that was responsible for that; individual MSPs also lodged substantial amendments.
While we are on the subject, I should mention that an amendment on interim anti-social behaviour orders will be considered at stage 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment, but I think that we should express some alarm at the fact that, when we pressed the panel of housing organisations on whether a change was necessary, we did not get any takers for change. Now that the bill is at stage 3 and the Executive is supporting an amendment, I am concerned about the parliamentary process. As yet, the committee has not been approached by any of the organisations that are promoting the change.
I have been approached individually, although I had the impression that the e-mail was a circular one.
Yes, it was.
As a committee, however, we have not been approached. Okay.
The figures will need to be updated after today.
I do not know whether it is worth reporting—you can advise me—but I was not happy with what happened today in relation to scrutinising the lengthy codes.
Are we in private session?
No.
There is a lot of detail in the papers on the codes, but we got sight of them only on Saturday. Many of the statutory instruments with which we deal are detailed and technical. I wonder whether it is worth thinking about how the scrutiny process can be better in future.
What happened this morning underlined the fact that there is a general problem with the parliamentary process. I do not feel that members get sufficient time to look into matters. They are confronted with massive piles of paper and I am not convinced that, no matter how committed and hard working they are, they have time to consider, to seek advice on and to research points that arise.
It is probably best if we consider that in the legacy paper rather than in the report. You are talking about lessons that have to be learned.
It was certainly disappointing to find that, even after the relatively short time that I had to consider the orders, I had questions that the minister seemed to find difficult to answer. That seems to happen particularly with instruments that I am considering supporting. Instruments show signs of having been rushed, despite the fact that the Executive seems to have had a couple of years to prepare them. That is strange and not at all adequate.
We should have been involved long before the papers appeared. There is no procedure for that. We followed the normal procedure.
That does not mean that the procedure is right or appropriate.
I have an example of what might be slightly better practice. In relation to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, we have had sight of the draft access code. Although we have not had the time to do anything about it, we have had the opportunity to take evidence or whatever steps we want. According to a parliamentary answer that I received, the access code will not now appear for something in the order of eight, nine or 10 months. It would be perfectly reasonable, and would be helpful to ministers, if committees were given the opportunity to consider instruments at an early stage of drafting. That would improve the secondary legislation.
We can come back to that topic and make recommendations for the future.
We can say that on several occasions instruments have come to the committee that have left open important questions. Ministers have had to revert to the committee on X number of occasions—if we can find that out. If not, we could express it more generally than arithmetically.
Is the purpose of the annual report to let the public see what the committee has been doing?
Standing orders require that committees report annually. The report is a summary for the public and anyone who is interested in what the committee has done.
Would it be in order for us to include something about what we are discussing?
Yes.
The committee ought to be trying to help to improve the Parliament's processes and those of the Government. I am sure that such comments are entirely appropriate, if they are backed up by facts rather than being a party-political rant.
One is left with the inescapable feeling that, one of these days, something is going to go horribly wrong with a piece of legislation. There is not a lot that can be done about that in a unicameral system. Unnecessary pressure is put on committee members and members of the Executive if the Executive is not prepared to do things in a more measured manner.
Okay. There are lessons to be learned.
We may be running into space difficulties, but I can note that and come back to the committee if there are difficulties.
I was going to suggest—although it may not be possible—that there should be another paragraph, 11A, saying that the committee continues to believe that the petitions process serves a useful purpose in the Parliament in providing good access for the public to raise issues. I am happy for the clerks to express that as concisely as their number of words requires them to do.
We could open the paragraph by saying that the committee believes that the petition process has been a good one.
That would be fine.
Under "Other work", the report says that we have
The Rural Development Committee has also done so.
Would it be fair to say that we are one of the first, or one of the few?
Both.
Is it a coincidence that I am on both committees? Yes, it is.
The report also says that we
Yes.
A lot of other visits were carried out. Some members went to Aberdeen.
Pauline McNeill, Scott Barrie and I went there.
We went to Aberdeen and to Tain.
Those visits were in the previous year.
Were they?
Yes. I know that it does not seem like it now, but they were.
When was the Parliament in Aberdeen?
In May.
I am sorry. You are thinking about the youth justice visit, not the fiscal visit.
I am not sure whether we did that as individuals or as a committee.
You did not have any clerks with you and we did not organise the visit, so it probably counts as a visit by individuals.
We shall just have to make do with what the report says about
I think that we have said in our legacy document, but it may also be worth saying in our annual report, that a year of relative stability in the committee's membership greatly aided our deliberations.
Yes. If we can fit that in, that would be good.
In fact, although I said "relative stability", I do not think that we had any changes during the year.
No. I cannot think of any.
We went from a virtually all-female committee to a nearly all-male committee in the first year. We had Margo MacDonald, Christine Grahame, Margaret Ewing and Mary Mulligan.
That is true.
And then I came to frighten them all away.
A conspiracy!
I have just one point on paragraph 15. We went to Inverness. Was that not in the current year?
It was the previous year.
We are doing our best to stretch things out.
Meeting continued in private until 11:55.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation