Work Programme
The fourth agenda item concerns our approach to developing a work programme. We might not be able to advance terribly far today, but perhaps we can have some initial discussions.
The gnarled veterans of the parliamentary process among us will appreciate that, at the start of every parliamentary session, committees normally discuss what precisely they should do. This time, things may well be a little more interesting than usual.
From the documentation that has been issued, members will have seen that the previous justice committees spent a considerable amount of time dealing with legislation. Indeed, in session 2, both justice committees spent more than 60 per cent of their time on legislation—I suggest that, in the final year of the session, the percentage was much greater than that. Those of us, such as Margaret Smith and I, who were whips or business managers in the previous session got a fair amount of grief from members about the time commitment that was necessary to facilitate the legislative process.
The parliamentary arithmetic is such that it seems unlikely that there will be a similar volume of legislation this session. However, we must recognise that legislation is always necessary; that, sometimes, emergency legislation is essential—indeed, the first bill that the new Scottish Parliament passed was a piece of emergency legislation; and that there will be more scope for members' bills. We will have to bear such issues in mind in the future.
I suggest that, initially, it is important that we have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, so that he can give us a heads-up in respect of the legislative programme that we can expect during the next 12 months. We have to accept that situations sometimes change, of course, but such a discussion would enable us to start pencilling in certain aspects of our work programme in the short term. Is that agreeable to members?
Members indicated agreement.
Also in accordance with practice, I suggest that we have what is euphemistically described by our American colleagues as an away day, which will allow us to get together informally and brainstorm.
We have had a number of helpful suggestions. The Lord Advocate spoke to me informally last week and said that the Crown Office would be delighted to give us a presentation. At a reception on Friday, I met the chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, who said that he would be keen to give us a presentation. Such presentations would be the sort of thing that we could talk around on the away day.
Is it agreed that we have an away day?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members agree to remit to me, the deputy convener and the clerks the responsibility of finding a satisfactory venue—which will be somewhere reasonably convenient—and arriving at a suitable date?
Members indicated agreement.
I imagine that the clerks will get in touch with members to find out their holiday plans during July and August. I have in mind a date somewhere towards the end of August, not long before Parliament resumes.
I had an informal discussion with Kenny MacAskill, who indicated his willingness to attend our meeting next week. The clerks have made a slightly more formal approach and suggest that it is likely that he will be able to attend that meeting.
Consistent with what has happened in the past, I suggest that we go on a series of visits to places such as prisons, courts and bodies with which we are likely to have dealings in the years ahead. Such visits will be particularly important for members who have not previously served on one of the justice committees. Bill Butler and Paul Martin have done so, and are probably quite experienced in such matters. Margaret Smith also has the necessary experience, but there should be opportunities for visits for the new members in particular and for Cathie Craigie, who has not, as far as I am aware, had the opportunity to go on such visits. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I do not think that there is anything else to discuss this morning. Next week, we can listen to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's presentation, and we will obviously ask him questions. That will progress our assessment of the necessary work programme timings.
Do members have any questions to ask or issues to raise?
There is a clear view in the previous justice committees' legacy papers that we should revisit legislation. Could someone produce a guide to that legislation for us?
That is a good suggestion. It is clear that one of our main duties is to study legislation retrospectively, which perhaps we have not done before. We will arrange that.
Nigel Don made a good point. Colleagues who have scanned the legacy papers will have seen mention of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which seems to be one act in respect of which post-legislative scrutiny would be helpful, given its success. We can take on board the point and develop it more fully next week. Obviously, it will be necessary to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about the Government's legislative proposals and where it would like there to be post-legislative scrutiny. That will be interesting. An excellent suggestion has been made.
Indeed.
I recollect from my time on the Justice 1 Committee the importance of the work of the European Union, which we may want to get further into. The Justice 1 Committee made real efforts to keep an eye on that work. Obviously, the committee focused on what was possible and set that against everything else that needed to be done. Perhaps there is scope to deal with a little more information about the EU's work, and perhaps the committee will want to ensure that that work does not get lost now that one committee is doing the work that used to be done by two committees. I agree that it is unlikely that we will face the volume of legislation that has been faced in the past, but I would not like us to lose sight of the European dimension.
That point is particularly well made, bearing in mind the Prüm agreement, which is likely to impinge seriously on the Scottish justice system. We will certainly take it on board.
We are not in a position to progress our work programme much further until we have heard from Mr MacAskill next week. Following that meeting, the clerks can prepare a paper with suggestions—I stress that they will be only suggestions—for our work programme. Perhaps members will have comments to make after we have spoken to Mr MacAskill. Do members agree with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 10:44.