Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Official Report 337KB pdf

---

Policing (Scrutiny)

Item 3 is about the proposed policing sub-committee—we know what we are doing with this now. Members will see from paper 2 that we have received responses from the Finance Committee, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee on their involvement in the sub-committee. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee have agreed in principle to participate, but the Finance Committee cannot spare the time.

We have a couple of issues to firm up today before we write to the Presiding Officer, as chair of the Parliamentary Bureau, with our proposal. I make it plain that that is just a proposal—whether it will be implemented is up to the bureau.

Given that the Finance Committee will not participate, are members still content to propose a membership of six for the sub-committee, as set out in paper 2? That would involve two Scottish National Party members. The proposal—subject to members’ agreement—is that I would convene the sub-committee, so there would be only one SNP member in effect, because the convener is somewhat trammelled, although the sub-committee would not have votes and so on. The other political parties and the independents who are represented on the bureau would have one member each, to give the sub-committee a cross-party flavour. What are members’ views?

This is probably the first time we have discussed the proposal in public in any detail. The creation of a sub-committee is probably the lowest level of response that the Parliament can offer for oversight, and I would like it to be recorded that a more significant body should be worked on for the future, particularly given our discussions earlier and given general concerns.

As we said at the outset, when Alison McInnes was part of the discussion, I would like to think that the sub-committee would have a genuinely apolitical approach.

Absolutely.

It needs to reflect the interests of the Parliament, not the Government’s or any political party’s view. I would like to think that the business managers will be able to determine the membership of the sub-committee to reflect that accordingly, rather than having us trammel ourselves with the need to have a certain balance of numbers from each party.

Members might recall our very first discussions on the matter. It would be useful for the committee to choose its own convener, in order that that convener can report to this committee, rather than presupposing the convenership at the outset. That would allow the members of the sub-committee the freedom to decide the way forward. That is nothing to do with your particular involvement with it; it is about setting a template for the future with regard to the independence of that group of members and how it reports.

First, these would only be proposals from the committee. Even when the Parliamentary Bureau makes a determination, it is still up to the sub-committee to select its convener.

I am only making the point at this stage.

I take your point. The second point that I wish to address concerns perception, which is so important in politics, as you know. I hope that an apolitical approach will be taken, and I expect that it will be—when we are addressing policing, the SPA and so on, it ought to be. By having an equal membership from each of the parties, perhaps with me as convener—being convener really takes you out of the politics of the matter—the sub-committee will be perceived to be politically balanced. If it was any other way, it would look like something else, even if it was not. It would be good to have one member representing each political party, and I would hope to be convener and to withdraw a bit from the politics.

It is certainly my view that the sub-committee will not be doing party-political stuff—its job will be to watch what is going on in what is a unique development. The three of us who had informal discussions on the matter discussed that point. We considered the matter in that way, with representation as we have been discussing. In any event, even if I were to chair the sub-committee—I make no presumption about that—and there was another SNP member, there would be only two SNP members and four others. I emphasise the perception that there would be one member from each of the parties.

Alison McInnes may speak next, as she was part of those discussions.

I am pleased that the committee has agreed that we need the special vehicle of a sub-committee to focus in on the matter properly. To an extent, I disagree with Graeme Pearson that it is a lower form of representation. We are saying that the matter is so important that we are going to set some time aside to consider and monitor the situation. It is unprecedented in the Parliament’s history to do such a thing. Let us give the proposal the credit that it deserves so that the sub-committee can start off on the right foot, if it is agreed to by the bureau.

I agree that we need a broad representation on the sub-committee. That is how we would set up any committee. It needs to have representatives of all the parties on it. I agree that we need a membership of six. You were asking us our view on that. We should accept that six members is sufficient.

I am sorry if I have missed what you have said on this, but what about the political balance? Do you feel that the proposal is appropriate?

Yes—I think that we need a political balance.

Like Graeme Pearson, and as I said in private, I would have supported having a stand-alone committee. It is important that the sub-committee is not viewed as a lesser beast, and its relationship with the parent committee is important. For that reason, and referring to Graeme’s comments about chairing the committee, I do not know whether it is beneficial to have the same convener for the sub-committee and the committee or whether there is an opportunity to feed in in a different way. I am open minded about that.

What causes me more frustration is the timeframe. Ironically, this is the important bit, not what happens after the start of April. I have to say—I use the words quite intentionally—that a lot of significant reputational damage has already been done, which was unnecessary. Had there been more active and direct involvement from the committee, that might have been different. It is crucial that the sub-committee be apolitical. We cannot express concerns about ministerial interference and the like while allowing the discussion to be party political in any way.

We will have to look at the relationship with local policing boards. Again, if we have a scrutiny role—

I will come to the remit, but can we go back to the first point that I made? Are you content that the sub-committee should have six members?

Yes.

The sub-committee will have six members. There will be two from the SNP, and one from each of the other parties, if the SNP convenes the sub-committee.

I have no view to express other than saying that everyone who is represented on the Parliamentary Bureau should be represented on the sub-committee. I do not wish to comment on the make-up of the sub-committee any further. If the sub-committee is apolitical, its make-up does not matter. It is more important that it should be made up of people who are able and willing to scrutinise.

I hear what you are saying. Let us move on. Do you want four members from the Justice Committee and one each from the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee, which are the two committees that responded?

It would be inappropriate to start preferring the Local Government and Regeneration Committee over the Equal Opportunities Committee. The best way forward would be to have four members from the Justice Committee.

And one from the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and one from the Equal Opportunities Committee.

Yes.

That is what I am trying to get to. We need a kind of structure. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

There will be four members from the Justice Committee and two others from the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee. We also need to agree that the proposed membership, however it works out, has at least one member of each party. That means that five places are gone. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have to talk about the problem of the convener. I hate doing this because I am the convener of the committee and it is awkward for me to talk about the convenership of the sub-committee. However, I will chip in on this one.

I am talking not about my politics but about the convenership of the sub-committee. There are a couple of reasons why it is appropriate for the sub-committee to be convened by the convener of the Justice Committee, whoever they are. We are talking about a sub-committee of the Justice Committee. The sub-committee will not usurp the Justice Committee in any way by what it does. It will also ensure that the members of the Justice Committee are fully involved in the sub-committee, with the help of the added expertise of members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee. As convener of the main committee, I think that it will be difficult for someone else to convene a substantial sub-committee. The sub-committee will have to come back and report to the main committee, and it will make for an awkward working relationship.

John Finnie seems to disagree, but I do not quite know how to operate otherwise.

There is ample precedent. Indeed, the police boards are precedent for that. To me, this is not about personalities but about opportunities.

I am not talking about personalities. I am talking about convenerships and being a convener. It has nothing to do with the party or with me. It is about the main committee having a substantial sub-committee and the convener of the main committee being a member of the sub-committee and then having to come back and convene issues discussed by the sub-committee. That is a very awkward position for a convener to be in. It also breaks the link, which is why we are doing this. It does not give the convener more power. It just seems to me to be appropriate for the convener of the main committee to convene the sub-committee. If the Health and Sport Committee was setting up a substantial sub-committee, I would expect the convener to convene the sub-committee. That would be my understanding of any other committee in the Parliament.

Yes?

11:30

You never called me Graeme this time.

No—I just pointed because I could not remember your name.

I whole-heartedly agree with your comments, convener. The only thing that I have as a reference from local authorities is that I chaired a quasi-judicial committee in the City of Edinburgh Council, which had a sub-committee that did more of the work than the substantive committee. It would have been completely impractical to have run the two together with a different convener taking the information in and heading back to report, so I am in full agreement. With that experience behind me, albeit at a local government level, I thoroughly agree with the comments that the convener has made.

Now that we have established that there is going to be a sub-committee and we are going to talk about it in private—

In public.

Sorry. I hope that I am not overstepping the mark but, as a member of the committee, I do not intend to put my name forward for membership of the sub-committee. We have agreed that there are going to be six members of the sub-committee, and only two other committees have said that they will come forward—the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee—so we do not have much choice in the size of the sub-committee. We have all agreed that it is going to have six members.

I cannot imagine the convener of the Public Audit Committee giving over the convenership of a sub-committee of that committee to some other member of the Public Audit Committee. I am not talking politics; I am just talking sense. It is a Parliament that we have here, and we must run the committee and the sub-committee absolutely properly. I would say that the only person who could be the convener of the sub-committee is the convener of the Justice Committee. That just happens to be Christine Grahame, but it could have been someone else. It is not about personalities or political parties; it is just the sensible thing to do.

It is important that the sub-committee works closely and in parallel with the Justice Committee on this important issue. From that point of view, continuity of the convenership would help.

The first part of what Rod Campbell said is right—it is important that we work together. However, I see it as strength of scrutiny to delegate and perhaps have the sub-committee led by someone else. It shows confidence in the scrutiny process if the sub-committee is not convened by the person who convenes the Justice Committee. There could be a public perception that the sub-committee is merely an arm’s-length committee of the Justice Committee, and given that a lot of committee members had a preference for a completely separate committee we want to make it as independent as possible.

In case there is any doubt in members’ minds, this is nothing to do with the current convenership. As I commented earlier, I understand that, under the current arrangements, when a Parliament begins its life this committee is normally convened by someone from the majority party—is that not the case?

It is under d’Hondt.

No, we have had a Conservative convener. Bill Aitken was the convener at one point—I am trying to think of who else has done the job. It is designated under the d’Hondt system.

So, it can be almost a lottery in a way.

Yes, it depends. I think that the party in government gets first pick of convenerships. When that was Labour and the Liberals, they picked first. It depends on a party’s number of seats, but the committee has been convened by Conservatives previously.

Given the responsibilities that, as convener, you have for this committee and the pressures that exist, do you feel that being the convener of both the sub-committee and this committee would work? You can make that decision on the basis of your experience and the advice that you would give to the committee otherwise.

I do not want to make the issue personal, as it is not that.

No, not at all.

At Conveners Group meetings, conveners speak in very much the same way, protecting the position of convenership and its independence in trying fairly to let people have their say and so on.

I have mentioned other committees. If a Health and Sport Committee convener happened to be of a different political hue from me and a special sub-committee was to be set up on unified health boards or something, I would expect that convener to chair the sub-committee. Jenny Marra made the point that the sub-committee could be seen just as an arm of the Justice Committee. Four sub-committee members will be Justice Committee members, so it pretty well is an arm of the Justice Committee.

It is regrettable that the Finance Committee cannot participate, but we want to bring in another dimension. During the passage of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, Alison McInnes rightly voiced concern about localism and the delivery of local policing. It is important for the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to be represented and, equally, for the Equal Opportunities Committee to be represented, for similar reasons. Some issues might get lost in a national police force, but we want to ensure that they continue to be dealt with. The Finance Committee’s participation would have been an advantage, and I regret that none of its members will have the time to come along.

I hope that the Justice Committee will recommend that, whoever its convener is over the coming years, they will be the sub-committee’s convener. As we have agreed, the sub-committee will comprise six people—the five others will be from each of the other parties that are represented. That would mean that the perception was of an even representation. As meetings are in public, people would soon find out whether the convenership was appropriate.

I will deal with the question now. The proposal is, that the committee recommends that the convener of the Justice Committee should also convene the sub-committee. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)

Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)

McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)

White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

Against

Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)

Abstentions

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 2, Abstentions 1.

The recommendation, on which the majority of the committee agrees, is that the convener of the Justice Committee should also convene the sub-committee.

We will talk about the remit, then we will discuss in private whom we might recommend as members of the sub-committee. What do members think about the remit? Two remits have been proposed—one is kind of wordy and the other is shorter.

Paper 2 is not public, so I will read out the remits. The first remit is:

“To consider and report on the arrangements for implementation and management of the Police Service of Scotland, the relationships and structures in place to deliver the responsibilities and functions attached to the Scottish Police Authority, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland and the parts of the Scottish Government with responsibility for policing, and the operation of arrangements for policing in Scotland.”

That is the long title. The other remit is:

“To consider and report on the operation of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 as it relates to policing.”

I ask for members’ comments, please.

I prefer the second remit, which is simpler and probably will not lead anyone to go out and get a legal opinion at public expense about what it means, unlike the longer remit.

Does anybody disagree? I think that the second remit is better by far.

Are members content that the sub-committee will last until the end of the parliamentary session, bearing it in mind that all committees last just until then?

Members indicated agreement.

I will write to the Presiding Officer and copy in business managers to outline our proposal, which I hope the bureau will consider next week. It might take a second week to consider the proposal, but the sub-committee will be up and running before the amalgamation—before the single police force and the SPA are in operation.

Will you discuss the paragraph that is headed “Working practices”?

It will be for the sub-committee, once it is established, to decide what its working practices will be, such as how often it meets—it is expected to meet quarterly—and whether it wishes to operate in a non-partisan way and by consensus. We have had today’s discussion in public and our intentions are clear, but working practices will be up to the sub-committee.

I certainly hope that whoever the sub-committee’s members are decide to meet more than quarterly, because the need to address the issue is pressing.

We can reflect that in our letter; you have put that on the record.

Can we discuss paragraph 11, which is on the relationship with the Justice Committee?

We can discuss it now.

What that paragraph says is very welcome. It mentions the fact that, although we will have the sub-committee, we will also have the parent committee and if any issues are raised that the sub-committee cannot deal with, I would hope that the Justice Committee will be able to hear them.

Yes. Issues can arise that we might want to discuss within the week and there might—very rarely—need to be a special meeting of the committee. The sub-committee will not in any way usurp the role of the Justice Committee.

Thank you.

Does anyone else want to comment on working practices?

I do not want to comment on working practices, but I would like you to ask the Parliamentary Bureau to implement the sub-committee as soon as practicably possible when you write to it. As John Finnie says, there are pressing matters to be considered.

I am being advised that if the matter is not dealt with at one meeting of the bureau, it will be done at the following one, and the sub-committee will be up and running before 1 April.