Social Justice Committee, 18 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Official Report 75KB pdf

---

Legacy Paper

Item 4 is consideration of our legacy paper. We have a draft of it before us. I invite general comments from members, after which we will go through the paper paragraph by paragraph.

The paper is very good and, to my mind, summarises the issues excellently.

I have a small amendment.

We will go through the paper paragraph by paragraph, just in case there is anything that members wish to add.

On the introduction, are there any comments on paragraphs 1 or 2?

Are there any comments on paragraph 3, on the background?

Are there comments on paragraph 4, which is on activity in the first session?

Are there any comments on paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18, on committee inquiries?

On scrutiny of primary legislation, are there any comments on paragraphs 19 or 20? When you see the list in paragraph 19, it looks like quite a lot.

Should not the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill be included in paragraph 19, because we scrutinised that?

Yes, we played quite a significant role in the final decisions.

Are there any comments on paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 or 26?

Do members have any comments on paragraph 27, on the scrutiny of subordinate legislation?

On post-enactment scrutiny, are there any comments on paragraphs 28, 29, 30 or 31?

Are there any comments on paragraphs 32, 33 or 34, which address the scrutiny of the budget process?

Are there any comments on paragraphs 35 or 36, on the response to Executive consultations, on paragraph 37, on the consideration of petitions, or on paragraph 38, on the civic participation event?

Are there any comments on other methods of working, which are dealt with in paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49?

Do members have any comments on the conclusion, on paragraphs 50, 51 or 52?

Yes, I have a comment on paragraph 52. Our clerks were far too modest when they compiled the legacy paper. They thanked the organisations that we have worked with and the social justice ministers, which is right, but the paper also needs to reflect our thanks to the clerks who have worked with the committee, because they have supported us very well over the past four years.

If that part is not fulsome enough, I have powers to make it more fulsome.

One point that I should have mentioned is that we have received correspondence from the European Committee. Perhaps we should add something about European issues in relation to social justice, social justice plans and so on under outstanding or on-going issues. If that is agreeable, we will add that to the report.

The other issue of a general nature is that in the early stages we had difficulty in pinning down how much we could fit into the session. Of course, with legislation coming and going, that has been awkward. It would not be unhelpful to give a nod towards the need to be able to programme work in a measured way, so that we can do sensible things effectively, without biting off more than we can chew.

Do you mean timetabling?

Yes. We have made that point a number of times.

Yes—doing a bit really well, rather than feeling that we have just touched base on a lot of different things.

Yes. The Social Justice Committee cannot solve the world's problems within a four-year parliamentary session, but we can make significant contributions within discrete areas.

Do we agree the legacy paper?

Members indicated agreement.

We have completed our planned work programme, so unless there is unforeseen business that we have to deal with, this will probably be the last meeting of the Social Justice Committee, which is quite a significant stage for us all. I want to put on record my thanks to all the clerks we have worked with, but in particular to the current team, as we have got to this stage with the legacy paper in good order. I also thank all the committee members who—at least during the time that I have been convener—have contributed very much to a positive working atmosphere.

My view is that it is possible for committees to work consensually if we are honest about where we agree, and deal with the fact that there are bits about which we do not agree, and do not try to force a consensus where one does not exist. Across parties, work on the committee has been a good and positive experience. I close the public session.

Before you do that, on behalf of the rest of us, I thank you, without wishing to appear too—

Sycophantic?

That is right. The committee has been a good one to work on, under you and under Margaret Curran. I think that I speak for all of us when I say that we have enjoyed the work of the Social Justice Committee, which has been important and relevant. That has been greatly helped by the attitudes of and the approaches taken by the two conveners.

Thank you.

Meeting continued in private until 10:20.