I refer members to paper J2/03/7/8, which is our draft annual report, detailing the work of the committee from 12 May 2002 to 16 March 2003—how the months have flown. The report follows the format used for previous annual reports, as agreed by the Conveners Group. We have noticed the typographical error—the report is of the Justice 1 Committee, although we could pass it off as being from the Justice 2 Committee. I invite comments from members. Do members want me to go through it paragraph by paragraph or do they just want to make comments?
We should go through it page by page.
There is nothing to discuss on the first page; it just says who we are. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has thrown me, because the paper that he has in front of him is peach coloured. I think that you have the wrong paper, James; we are looking at J2/03/7/8. The first page is fine. Does anyone want to raise points about the second page? This is like asking a class to read an exam paper; it has gone quiet in here. Read all the questions, then make your selection.
Can we say that a lot of people went away happier after our scrutiny? I feel that we did a good job with the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill.
I do not think that we could say that. That would be preening—heaven forfend. However, we might say that the committee found the interaction with witnesses useful, particularly with regard to devolved management.
I would include interaction with the Executive, which seemed open to change.
Yes, because it moved on devolved management and sheltered accommodation. Okay. Let us move on to the next page.
Perhaps we should flag up the fact that we have prepared a legacy paper that identifies the issues that we think a future committee should address. I started amending the report by mentioning common services, rebuilding and so on. I do not now think that that is appropriate. Instead, we should have a paragraph that notes that the legacy paper highlights several areas that we feel our successors should tackle.
Because of the sensitivity about why we hold meetings in private and whether we should do so, I thought that paragraph 13 should explain in bold type specifically what we were doing in meetings that were held partially in private. We should also stress that all outcomes are made clear in public session.
I thought that we should say that 27 meetings were held overwhelmingly in public, convening in private only for specific items. That is the reality of how we have met; I would just prefer to reverse the way in which it is described.
That is a ministerial way of doing it.
That is a spin way of doing it.
You are quite right to take us down that road.
"Overwhelmingly" is a bit of spin, but I take the point.
Is this a split in the coalition?
No. Our approach should be positive, but not exaggerated.
Are we content with the draft report with those amendments?
Members indicated agreement.
We agreed at previous meetings that the remaining items on the agenda—the legacy paper and our report on alternatives to custody—would be discussed in private.
Meeting suspended until 14:25 and thereafter continued in private until 14:57.
Previous
Civil Legal Aid