Justice 2 Committee, 21 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

Police and Justice Bill: Legislative Consent Memorandum

Item 2 is consideration of the legislative consent memorandum to the Police and Justice Bill, which is a Westminster bill and will be the subject of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament.

Members have received a briefing note from the Executive and a clerk's note that set out the pertinent points. Interestingly, the bill has a certain significance, given that its passage is almost parallel to that of the legislation that we have been actively considering.

We need to think about and decide on a number of issues. First, does the committee wish to seek oral evidence from the minister? Indeed, do we wish to seek any additional oral evidence? Moreover, should we seek written evidence from organisations such as ACPOS, the Scottish Police Information Strategy, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and so on? I am simply placing all this before the committee so that we can reach some decisions.

I think that we should take oral evidence from the Minister for Justice. However, I am not so sure that we should take oral evidence from anyone else, given that the time for taking such evidence is limited, as the clerks have pointed out. It seems sensible to seek written evidence from ACPOS, the Law Society of Scotland and various other groups, but I know of no other groups from which we should seek evidence that are not contained in the clerk's helpful list.

I agree with those comments.

I agree too.

I am not against inviting the Minister for Justice to give oral evidence. However, having read the papers, I feel that this legislative consent memorandum seems—strangely enough—to be fairly straightforward. It is clear that the legislation itself is a knock-on effect of the abolition of the police information technology centre. We might need to seek written evidence from certain organisations if any difference of opinion exists, but I am not entirely sure what information, other than what we have already received, we would garner from an evidence-taking session with the minister. Perhaps someone could explain that further to me.

I am not sure about that, either, but we should have the chance to take evidence formally and on the record. As Stewart Maxwell has suggested, we might gather little or no additional information, but it would be much safer to find out whether that is the case.

I point out that the committee is obliged to prepare a brief report or set of recommendations, and it would look a bit strange if we did not have any specific comments from the minister on the matter.

As I say, the matter is fairly straightforward.

Do I gather that the committee agrees to proceed as outlined in the clerk's note and that we should arrange to take oral evidence from the minister?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerk's note contains a list of various bodies from which we could seek written evidence. Do members wish to seek evidence from all of them?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, do members agree to work to the clerk's proposed timetable?

Members indicated agreement.