Justice 2 Committee, 24 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Official Report 99KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Agenda item 3 is the committee's work programme. Since the previous meeting, members have been giving some thought to how the work programme might unfold, particularly in respect of items that perhaps we need to decide on. We should try to look ahead a little.

The first matter concerns an away day, which is now becoming the accepted modus operandi for committees. Apparently, a committee is not a proper committee unless it has been away somewhere—and who are we to fall foul of that requirement? In all seriousness, I think that an away day would be helpful. Many of us are new to the justice committees and some of us are new to the Parliament, so an away day might be a useful opportunity for committee members to get to know one another and, in a more informal environment, to have a general discussion about what the committee should do. With respect to budgets, it would be sensible to hold the away day jointly with the Justice 1 Committee, which is the proposal before us. Is that agreeable to members?

Members indicated agreement.

We will try to find a time and a venue.

It is important that the two committees should have a joint away day, as we are working in the same subject area. Members of both committees will have shared interests and we will need to reach an accommodation on which subjects we want to work on over the next four years.

That is a reassuring affirmation that the Justice 2 Committee will not enter into turf wars, fighting its committee corner. The point is well made.

During the summer recess, the annual report from the chief inspector of prisons will be published. That will certainly provide the committee with an opportunity to take evidence on conditions in Scottish prisons, which is a current issue that is germane to the committee's remit. It would be helpful if we were prepared to try to fit that in. I suggest that the committee agree to hold an evidence session with the chief inspector jointly with the Justice 1 Committee, whose members—I go back to Karen Whitefield's point—will also have an interest in the issue. It is such a broad subject that it would be appropriate for both committees to be involved. Would it be appropriate for us to try to arrange a meeting with the Justice 1 Committee to take evidence after the summer recess?

Members indicated agreement.

I have no objection to a joint meeting on that important subject. However, we should be careful not to go too far down the line of always having joint meetings, as that would defeat the purpose of having two separate justice committees. There will always be some overlap and you are right about what happened with the two committees in the previous session, but that does not mean that we will have to do the same this time. Last time, one of the committees was interested in some aspects of the prison service and offending and the other committee was interested in another aspect. The two committees do not have to do all the work together; they can split it. If we are going to go down that line, a joint meeting might be a useful way in which to start.

I am sympathetic to that view. At an early stage in the work of the committee, we are trying to identify the areas where joint working is not only appropriate but necessary. Having established that, the committee will plough its furrow and consider whatever specific work issues or matters it wants.

For clarification, are you talking about having an away day on that subject?

No. The away day is separate and is an opportunity for the two committees to meet. Karen Whitefield made a pertinent comment. We need to ensure that we have a mutual understanding and it is important that the two committees work with respect for each other. I think that that will be facilitated by the away day. In due course, there will be an agenda for the away day, which will be roughly determined and not too prescriptive, containing issues that committee members think appropriate. The proposal on prisons is separate. Because of the breadth of the chief inspector's annual report, the suggestion is that we have a joint meeting with the Justice 1 Committee and take evidence together.

The other feature that has emerged is the high level of interest among members of the justice committees in scrutinising European justice issues, which is a significant challenge for us. Europe is an important dimension to everything that we are trying to do because it singularly affects many of the issues that used to be the exclusive province of Scots law. It is important that we have an understanding of the broader framework when we try to determine specific matters.

I wondered whether it might be helpful, as a starting point, to invite the Executive to provide an oral briefing on its involvement in developing, monitoring and implementing European proposals in legislation, so that we can understand the machinery for doing that. If we have such a briefing, we might be able to discuss a strategic approach to European matters at our away day. The mechanism that the Executive uses will be in place; I do not know what it is, but it is important that we find out. I am sure that the Executive will be more than co-operative in assisting us by explaining the process. If members are agreeable, I think that that would be a helpful starting point.

Members indicated agreement.

I think that it would be appropriate—dare I say this in the presence of Mr Barrie?—to hold the briefing jointly with the Justice 1 Committee to avoid dissipation of effort, because that committee is affected for the same reason. That would avoid replication of the Executive's time and effort.

I suggest that we consider the matter at our away day, as we already have several subjects—not to mention legislation—that will fill up our agenda after the recess. We must ensure that the committee is clear about its focus over the next year. As both justice committees have an interest in the matter, we should consider it at the away day and come back as a committee to consider how we take the matter forward.

I am relaxed about that. The important point is that it will be difficult for us to work as a committee without being clear about the European backdrop. To be honest, the sooner that we get some guidance on that issue the better. I do not think that the process will be lengthy; it is purely one of information. If members want to defer the matter for discussion at the away day, I am relaxed about that. Are there any other views on the matter?

We could have the briefing at the away day.

From whom would the presentation come?

Scottish Executive ministers could come along.

So we could use the away day for that purpose.

Yes. That has happened in the past.

I am content with that.

That is fine. Your suggestion about finding out how the Executive handles European matters is sensible. If it makes sense to have the briefing at the away day, let us put it on the agenda.

We are all in the business of trying to avoid duplication of effort. I will be happy if the briefing can be encompassed within the away day. Will we agree in principle to take that forward? The clerks can raise the matter with the Justice 1 Committee.

Members indicated agreement.

Perhaps the clerks could clarify to what time scale the other committees are working. It is fashionable for committees to have an away day. When would we have the away day?

Most committees are considering the last couple of weeks of the recess or the first couple of weeks of term, as away days can be useful for drawing up the work programme and deciding on the future direction of the committee's work. Most committees are considering an early date for an away day.

I thank you all for your thoughts on that matter. That is helpful.

I understand that there is a proposal to organise visits over the summer recess to a range of prisons, including Shotts, Cornton Vale, Polmont, Greenock and Kilmarnock. The clerks will be in touch with members who are interested in attending to arrange suitable dates. If members are particularly desirous of participating in those visits, they should let the clerks know; it would be helpful if they also intimated their holiday arrangements, so that the clerks are not chasing imaginary figures.

My only other thoughts on the work programme concern the specifics that are on the immediate horizon. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and the budget process will be on-going commitments for us and will ensure that we have a fairly demanding timetable.

As I indicated at our first meeting, it is important that we maintain a bit of flexibility somewhere in the system to allow us to consider issues that we might need to review. One such topic that came to my mind was the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Another possible subject is the proposal that a supreme court be constituted at the United Kingdom level. I understand that the court will have an appellate function for the Scottish legal system. The issue of judicial appointments is related to that. Of course, we have the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, but I would think that a parliamentary body, whether it is this committee or another grouping, will want to take an interest in how proposals for the supreme court are proceeding. If the court is to have an appellate function for Scottish cases, we need to know what the Scottish input into the appointment of judges to the court will be. The committee might be interested in considering that issue.

We should consider the issue early on and not only in the sense that you indicate. I have not studied the matter closely, but I understand that there are implications with regard to the Act of Union—a document that I take seriously. The independence of the Scottish justice system is enshrined in that piece of legislation and the establishment of a supreme court could have implications for that. It would be interesting to consider the issue.

I am conscious that the clerks spent some time with various members of the committee asking about areas of interest that might feed into a broader work programme. Rather than throwing those suggestions in again, we might do better simply to recognise that there are some short-term drivers of our agenda, not least the forthcoming legislation and the budget process, and to use the away day to tease out some of the other issues that we and the Justice 1 Committee are interested in examining, such as the impact or otherwise—I suspect otherwise—of the supreme court on the Act of Union. That might be a more helpful approach.

I am content with that approach. Do other members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 16:03.