Official Report 271KB pdf
The next item of business is what we wish to do as a committee in the coming weeks and months and the issues that we might wish to examine. We had a brief, general discussion in June at the first meeting, during which members indicated areas of concern. The committee has been allocated weekly slots from now on, and we must ensure that we maximise the time that is available to us.
I hope that the committee will agree to discuss at an early date the introduction of a bill to amend the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. It could be the Parliament's first committee bill. It would be a small, if intricate, measure that should not prove to be contentious but it would be of enormous benefit to victims of domestic violence as it would extend the protection of interdict with powers of arrest to ex-spouses and former cohabitees.
Maureen, would you object to this discussion being extended a little to allow consideration of other changes that could be made to matrimonial interdict, in the same bill? Would you be happy for that to be discussed?
Yes, but I do not want to overload the discussion as I want to get this measure through as quickly as possible. It might be held up if it becomes too complicated. However, we could certainly discuss other members' proposals.
Do members wish to speak on this specific issue?
At the first meeting, I mentioned post-decree continuation of matrimonial interdicts. The wording—of definitions, for example—will probably be more complicated than we think. As was rightly said, the issue is linked to the matrimonial home, yet how can it be a matrimonial home when the couple no longer occupy it? I have one correction: the matrimonial interdict falls, but usually a lawyer will also take out a common-law interdict at the time of taking out a matrimonial interdict. In principle, I think that it is an excellent idea, but it may prove technically quite difficult. I am no expert in drafting, and we would be tinkering with a substantial act.
We have ascertained that somebody from Scottish Women's Aid would be available to come to the committee next Wednesday morning if the committee thought it appropriate. We could then at least begin to look at and talk through some of the issues with somebody who understands even more than we might. Before Wednesday, we should consider inviting more people.
What space do we have in the timetable to introduce a bill? I have no problem with the subject matter, but I do not want to spend time discussing something if the practical reality is that we cannot draft a bill. We would no doubt get help, but we might never be able to legislate. Are there slots for committees?
It will be for the bureau to handle the business. It must take into consideration the need for appropriate standing orders that allow committee-initiated legislation to come forward. The bureau cannot take the view that it has filled up the Parliament's time to the extent that—notwithstanding this wonderful new committee system that it has introduced—it will, because of time constraints, debar us from ever bringing anything forward. The only way that we will find out is to go ahead and present the bureau with something that it might find very difficult to refuse.
Do we have the drafting ability to do that?
I do not wish to cause fear and alarm among the clerks, but I think there is. As long as the proposal is clear, it can be turned into a draft bill. That comes back to what Maureen said about not making any bill too big. We do not want to end up with pages and pages. The proposal is meant to be short.
I would like to pick up on Gordon's point about time. The Government is putting through three bills that will, presumably, have to come to committee for detailed debate. That will take up quite a bit of time. This morning, Pauline, Christine and I sat in the Public Petitions Committee, which will receive petitions. That will add to the time spent debating. We must examine the time element that was mentioned by Gordon and we must be rational about what we will take on board
I take those comments on board but in my position as convener I want to state that I do not want this committee to have its entire agenda dictated by other committees, by the Executive or by people who are not part of this committee. We must have the ability and the time afforded to us to pursue some of the very serious issues that will arise.
I agree and I do not think anyone in this committee wants that. We all have our own responsibilities, apart from committee membership, so I have no problem with what you are saying.
The Executive is not here and—notwithstanding the Executive bills that we know are coming—we have an allocated slot next Wednesday. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that this committee meets next Wednesday morning and discusses matters beyond the Executive's agenda.
I would like to go back to the request for suggestions on people who could come to the committee. Should we invite somebody from the family law group to represent family lawyers generally? Their input on practical difficulties might be very useful.
It would be very useful to get on to that quite quickly. I am conscious that we do not have much time and that that is why we took it upon ourselves to ensure that Scottish Women's Aid can come next Wednesday morning.
I want to go back to what we were talking about earlier because I am really very anxious to find out what we are doing. I totally agree that we do not want to be running on the agendas of others, but how do you see our time being divided up? We meet once a week, so do you envisage that we will look at the Executive bills that come to us every second week, or that we will concentrate on our business every second week? Do you have a plan?
I do not think that we can arrange things like that. We were told that we would get two Executive bills in September, and we are almost at the beginning of September. We have this committee meeting today and there is another timetabled for next Wednesday morning, when we do not have Executive business to discuss.
At the moment, all we are discussing is what we will do next week—which is essential, because that is where we are in the life of this committee. There needs to be some flexibility to allow us to deal with emergencies, such as somebody else being released from Carstairs, but we should have a diary that allows us to know what we are likely to be doing week by week until Christmas, for example. Is that to be the case, or is everything to happen week by week, on the hoof?
We hope to organise our business for more than a week ahead. I would be concerned if we got into the trap of working on a week-by-week basis.
Surely it will be possible for us to plan in advance once we know what bills will be before us and the likely time scales. We might be told that we must finish consideration of the bills by the end of November, for example. That would give us eight weeks, which is a ridiculously short time. We would then have to say how many weeks we thought the process would take, which would dictate the timetable. Until we receive the bills, we are in no position to guesstimate what our business will be.
If it is helpful to the committee, the advice that I have so far is that we would be expected to take a couple of committee meetings to produce the stage one report for each bill, which means that the end of November may not be a ridiculously tight deadline. Everything depends on when the bills are referred to us. The bills will come back to us after the stage one debate in Parliament, which is when we will deal with them line by line and consider amendments. Line-by-line consideration of bills does not happen at stage one. When bills are first referred to us, we discuss them in principle, not in detail.
When we are considering legislation, at what stage do you envisage our consulting other organisations or individuals—at the line-by-line stage, or at the initial stage?
We will want to take some formal advice at the initial stage.
A couple of weeks is not much time to consult.
I appreciate that, but organisations will have to become more responsive to the needs of this Parliament's committee system. To be fair to most organisations in Scotland, that is not an issue with which they have had to deal until now. However, from now on they will have to deal with it, because no committee will be in a position to say to someone that they should set aside two days, say, in January, to appear before it. No committee will able to give that much notice.
I accept what Scott said, but I was trying to get an idea of what subjects were likely to come up in the few weeks ahead. Maybe that is just the way that my mind works and I am being unrealistic.
We are having this discussion today because Justice and Home Affairs Committee meetings should be marked in everyone's diaries and we want to attempt to indicate what business we will cover as far in advance as possible.
Talking about prisons is not a problem for me because I am fascinated by the business. The subject of prisons is a big one for me, almost by definition. However, it is a huge subject. What aspects do you have in mind for a discussion on prisons? Maureen has something in mind. We are having a discussion with a view to bringing in legislation to close another loophole. We would like to draft a bill and get it through Parliament. On prisons, however, what would we be addressing?
Prisons are part of our remit in terms of scrutinising the Executive, Gordon. A report has been published that has serious things to say about the conditions in two or three of our prisons. It is incumbent on the committee to push the Executive as much as possible on the way that Scotland's prisons are being run and on the conditions in them. That is not necessarily about producing a piece of legislation.
What would we produce?
We might choose to produce our own report on the basis of the evidence that we are given. That is what I envisage. Such high-profile reports are the kind of thing that, from time to time, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will have to produce if it is to do its job properly.
We have been asked to consider two quite different projects. Maureen wants us to initiate a bill and you want to scrutinise the subject of prisons. I am against neither project, but, to go back to Gordon's point, with which everyone agrees, we do not yet know what our timetable will be like. Until we do know, I suggest that we allocate a slot for Scottish Women's Aid—perhaps an hour—and hear their case, then allocate some time for prisons in the following meeting and take the projects on from that basis.
It is important to remember that at each committee meeting we need not deal only with one subject. It is entirely possible to break and to move on to a second subject.
I am just anticipating the situation arising that Gordon raised. By next week we may well have something in front of us to consider. I would expect to see the bills, if not by Wednesday, at least by the following Wednesday. That needs to be taken into account.
That can be fitted in. If we start to find that we have real difficulties, I am prepared, as I have said, to take up the issue formally, because the broader question about the ability of committees to operate independently has to be taken on board. This committee will not be able to operate independently if it ends up drowned by someone else's agenda.
I agree with Roseanna entirely. Everybody recognised that the committee structure of this Parliament would be unique. The consultative steering group certainly envisaged that the committees would have a powerful role in holding the Executive to account, in considering legislation and, more important, in initiating legislation. For the committees of the Parliament to work, all the elements must be in place. I concur absolutely with Roseanna. We cannot allow ourselves to be in a situation where we are swamped with legislation—whether from the Executive or from other committees—and do not have the opportunity to put forward legislation that we consider to be important to the criminal justice system in Scotland. As far as I am concerned, Roseanna should be making those points forcibly to the Parliamentary Bureau.
I want to interrupt you there as there is another issue that arises out of some of what was said by Gordon and, I believe, Kate: the issue of being able to give people notice.
I want to press you on something, Roseanna, as I want to understand. If we consider something, such as the report on prisons, which I am happy to do—it is a major issue and it is our job to scrutinise everything—what comes out at the end? I am still trying to work that out.
This committee produces a report in which we can, if we wish, make recommendations.
So, the committee produces a report that represents the majority view of this committee.
Yes.
We would produce a report, drafted by the committee, which would go to the Executive.
Yes.
That is what we would do in that sort of situation?
Yes. I hate to use the W word, but at Westminster what happens is that there are two styles of committee. There are select committees, such as the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which choose a subject—tourism in Scotland, for example, to name but one recent and highly controversial example. The committee went around, took evidence, came to a view and produced a report. The report went wherever reports go, but the committee's purpose was to produce the report, come to majority conclusions and make recommendations. That is what select committees do for a wide range of subjects, sometimes involving long and exotic junkets, which unfortunately in the main will be denied us on this committee. The other kind of committee is a standing committee, which is set up to scrutinise legislation line by line.
I do not think that my suggestion was contradicting that. I was suggesting that we should allocate a slot next Wednesday for Scottish Women's Aid to put the case for legislation. It seems that we would have to go down that road anyway. That would leave time to move on to any legislation that we might have in front of us, and it would strike a balance. The following week, we could allocate the first half-hour or hour to the prison service in Scotland—let us not assume that everyone understands what the problem is. Then perhaps the case might be made to take that further, as you suggest. That leaves time, to anticipate Gordon's point, to play all these roles.
That is what I said. A committee meeting does not have to have only one subject on the agenda.
One of the perceived weaknesses of the select committee system in Westminster is that it produces well-argued cases and excellent recommendations which may have all-party support, but the reports disappear on to a Government shelf. I would like us, if we are doing something along that select committee line, to offer the Executive a period in which to respond to the recommendations that we make, and then to call the relevant ministers here to speak to what they have done about those recommendations, or why they are not pursuing them. The problem with Westminster is always that once a report is produced it disappears into a void and nothing happens. That does nothing for the committee process and nothing for the problems that have been identified. I would like us to go that stage further, and I am sure that is what is in your mind.
I think that that is what I said. Describing it in terms of the Westminster committees does not completely describe what our committees are about. Our work involves both functions which, in Westminster, are dealt with by different kinds of committees. We do not have that here. We have one kind of committee, and it is us.
Because our business will all be taking place in public, the debate, as it should, will go out beyond these walls. That is another safeguard against a report gathering dust.
They do at Westminster.
I do not think that the Scottish people are in the mood for that to happen to their committees. I quite agree with you that we need an agenda after a report is remitted. We have already decided in the public petitions committee to have something like that, in that we will attach notes to our recommendations. I also wanted to say that it is important not to have too many things before us at any one time. It is a lot to have someone from Scottish Women's Aid, or family law groups, or the police superintendents, appear before us in one session and present their different views of the impact of current legislation and any suggested amendments.
We must also try not to have it too bitty. In future, we will probably try to suspend the committee meeting about halfway through, because this room became intolerably hot and I think that a natural break might be one of the things that starts to build in.
Do you want to use my phone number?
Do you check your e-mail?
I do but not every day—
You need to check it about half a dozen times a day.
It is because I have not yet collected my laptop.
That is a problem that you need to resolve.
I wanted to go back a wee bit. After we have heard from Scottish Women's Aid and the family law group, how soon will we make the decision to proceed?
It will be entirely up to members of the committee to indicate whether they feel that they have heard enough or whether they wish to allocate another session at which to hear more.
I am happy with the groups that we are inviting.
Those are Scottish Women's Aid, Family Mediation Scotland, and maybe other family law groups. If other members wish to raise specific things that are not Executive business, they should flag them up the minute they think about them so that we have the maximum opportunity to know what to get on to the agenda. I think that every couple of meetings or so we will try to have half an hour such as this to discuss the ongoing programme of committee business so that everybody understands where we are going. Is everyone happy?
Yes.
Thank you. I declare this meeting closed.
Meeting closed at 16:51.
Previous
Evidence