Committee News

Issue 72, 11^th June 2002

Audit Committee
Audit meets to take further evidence for its consideration of the Auditor General’s Overview of Further Education Colleges in Scotland 2000/01, this week hearing from the chief executive of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

Education, Culture & Sport Committee
The Committee met last week to consider its draft stage 1 report on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill, voting 5 to 2 to reject the general principles. The SNP, who initially indicated they would reject the Bill, are now supporting the general principles, despite their reservations over the drafting. Mike Russell (SNP) is complaining the Bill does not define nutritious and does not specify what is meant by ‘middle of the day.’

This week, the Committee begins taking evidence for its wide ranging Purposes of Education Inquiry from EIS, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.

Enterprise & Lifelong Learning Committee
The main business of the last meeting was to agree the remit and work programme of the Inquiry into tourism. Members felt it was very important that people at the "grass-roots" of the industry should be consulted rather than just the agencies working in the sector. Members requested there should be some flexibility in the areas covered by the case studies. For example, in examining tourism in urban areas it was argued the case study should not be too Edinburgh or Glasgow-centric. The Committee also undertook to carry out two overseas case studies.

Members also wanted the Inquiry to focus on gauging the economic impact of tourism in Scotland and the effect of new developments such as e-tourism. It was agreed that when consulting the other national assemblies on their strategies, Westminster should also be included in these discussions.

This week, the Committee will discuss the response to the Minister on the implementation and progress of the Scottish Enterprise area Local economic Forums.

Finance Committee
Finance meets this week to consider the financial memorandum of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, taking evidence from the Scottish Courts Service among others. While there has been some comment over the financial impact of the Bill, the Crown Office reassured Justice 2 last week that there would not be an excessive financial burden arising from the Bill.

In private, the Committee considers its draft report for the PFI/PPP Inquiry.

Justice 1 Committee
Last week there were two meetings on the Prisons Estates Review. The first heard from Bill Marshall, a Canadian sex offender expert involved in a review of Peterhead. He was positive without exception and also said that a passage in his report regarding the possible impact of closure on the town and community of Peterhead had been removed.

The second meeting took evidence from Justice Minister, Jim Wallace, and combative SPS Chief Executive, Tony Cameron. Ill-tempered exchanges with Christine Grahame (SNP) and Michael Matheson (SNP) ensued. Points of interest included:

• Members have finally seen, in private, the contract for Kilmarnock Prison, and there was discussion about whether costs are best compared on the rate of return to the private sector or the market price of a private prison.
• There was no meeting of minds on the staffing levels at Kilmarnock and their relationship with safety.
• It was suggested that the comparability of the apparent PFIs in France and Chile was being hampered by translation difficulties. Messrs Wallace and Cameron suggested that what was really happening in France was simply outsourcing. The fact that in both countries prison staff carry guns also impacts on risk calculations.

This week the meeting hears from Peter McKinlay, the former SPS boss who has recently compiled a report on Peterhead. The papers include his report and that of private company Grant Thornton – both openly acknowledge that they have been commissioned by those opposed to the closure of Peterhead. Meanwhile, SACRO’s written submission to the Estates Review opposes any increase in prisoner capacity.

There is also subordinate legislation banning knives disguised as other objects (a post-September 11^th measure).

Justice 2 Committee
Last week’s marathon evidence on the Criminal Justice Bill began with the Children’s Reporters. It was mainly a factual session, although they emphasised that it is possible to anticipate very early which children are going to get into difficulties. Committee members are becoming frustrated that all of their witnesses have only anecdotal, not statistical evidence, for their views on the efficacy of children’s hearings.

Next came Victim Support Scotland who, while feeling that victims’ views are not heard in Scottish courts, are neutral about victim statements. Confusion continues as to whether the statements will impact on sentencing (the Bill says courts will ‘have regard’ to them), and whether the Bill will set up pilots or a full scheme. Women’s Aid, meanwhile, are opposed to victim statements because they believe that in the context of an abusive relationship women may be pressured to mollify them. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) feel that their subjectivity could lead to prejudice. The Sheriffs’ Association opposed them on jurisprudential grounds.

The CRE also argued that public education for different communities would be necessary in relation to the child punishment provisions. On this issue, the Crown Office pointed out that, firstly, a complaint would have to be made to the police, and secondly they would exercise their usual discretion as to whether a prosecution was in the public interest.

This week’s evidence comes from legal and criminal experts. The Faculty of Advocates, in their written submission, question the need for some of the chastisement proposals. Along with the Law Society, they are exercised about the risk criteria which could lead to an Order for Lifelong Restriction.

The papers also include expert submissions on how the civil compensation process can be accelerated in cases such as those for victims of asbestos.

Local Government Committee
The Committee took evidence on stage 1 of the Local Government Bill last week. Kenneth Gibson (SNP) returned to the Committee, replacing Tricia Marwick (SNP). He marked his comeback with a succession of questions on local government resources, their ability to deliver improvements, and the extent of ministerial guidance. Executive witnesses defined the Bill’s headline objectives as greater consultation, more innovation and better services that are tailored to local needs. CoSLA said they would like to see the addition of the right for 18 year olds to stand for election to the council.

The Committee also took evidence from Chief Exec’s organisation SOLACE on Renewing Local Democracy. They expressed frustration at what they see as extensive and repeated debate. However, it appeared that SOLACE could reach consensus and their response contained a few contradictions on key issues, such as the number of councillors. Other issues covered included remuneration and electoral reform.

This week the Committee continues with the Local Government Bill taking evidence from the Forum of Private Business Scotland and the Federation of Small Businesses. It also begins preparations for next week’s chamber debate on its local government finance report.

Public Petitions
Among last week’s discussions was a petition from Firrhill High School calling for the banning of smoking in public places. The Committee agreed to seek views from the Executive and pass the petition to Kenny Gibson (SNP) with a request for an update on the current position of his private members bill on the issue.

Rural Development Committee
The Official Report is not yet available for last week’s meeting. The Committee met in Huntly to continue to take evidence as part of its Inquiry into Integrated Rural Development.

Social Justice Committee
The Committee took further evidence on the Debt Arrangement & Attachment Bill, hearing a local authority perspective from Dundee City Council, and a legal perspective from Law Centres and Sheriff Officers.

The representatives of the council expressed concerns over how workable a national debt arrangement scheme was, expressing satisfaction with the way it currently collected debts and arguing that local solutions were preferable. They were worried about the impact of many creditors dealing with a single agency, and whether debts to councils will be prioritised by the agency. They were also concerned that the new arrangements would cost the council money in unrecovered debts and expressed a hope that the Scottish Executive would make up any shortfalls. However, the council representatives did agree a single arrangement would be preferable for debtors, and said that they wanted the Scottish Executive to provide every means of collecting debt.

Representatives of law centres generally welcomed the proposals for a national scheme and said that it was a step in the right direction. However, Angus McIntosh of the Scottish Association of Law Centres had some problems with the details, particularly in that he saw the use of attachments becoming the norm rather than used in exceptional cases, as creditors would not accept small repayments over a long period. He also argued there would need to be more money advisers and questioned what role they would play.

There was some debate over whether the lack of legal aid provision for attachment proceedings would fall foul of the ECHR. It was argued that a major flaw in the Bill was the proposal that once an attachment order is granted, sheriff officers can immediately take away the property and sell it seven days later, because it makes the system much harsher than it is at present.

This week, the Committee will discuss Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation, its draft response to the Housing Improvement Task Force, and the consultation on Community Budgeting.

Standards Committee
Last week the Committee discussed the scope and format of its review of Cross Party Groups (CPGs). Members were particularly concerned that some groups were not currently following the rules which apply to Cross Party Groups. While it was not felt the Committee should become a policing body on this matter, it was suggested this issue should be covered in the review. Others issues raised included:

• The need for a statement of objectives for Cross Party Groups.
• What impact organisations had on groups who had a financial interests in the issues on which groups worked.
• What parliamentary resources should me made available to groups.
• It was queried how genuinely cross party some groups were, especially as many MSPs did not actually have time to attend their meetings.

It was decided the Committee would issue a consultation paper on the review, which will be drafted at the Committee’s next meeting.

It was also agreed to invite Jackie Baillie (LAB) to the Committee’s next meeting to talk through with members points arising form the application for a CPG on Learning Disabilities.

Subordinate Legislation
This week, there will be evidence from Executive officials on a consolidated set of orders relating to BSE.

Transport & the Environment Committee
Two meetings last week, both of which majored on the Rail Inquiry. The first heard from transport academics and passengers’ representatives. The academics pointed out the shortcomings of privatisation, and suggested that a separate Scottish track-holding body need not prevent UK (and indeed Europe) wide integration. However, given the EU context, they argued against a separate Scottish safety regime. Passenger representatives talked their way around the various rail improvements that could be made in Scotland – there was no consensus as to whether speed or a diversity of routes was the priority on the Edinburgh-Glasgow line.

Evidence at the second meeting of the week came from the railway companies. The width of the directions for the new Scotrail franchise was held to mean that bids might not be comparable. Scotrail argued for Scottish Executive control of track in Scotland, but the other companies all favoured the UK-wide system.

On a petition on the Carntyne incinerator in Glasgow, the Committee will look into wider issues regarding the appropriateness of urban settings and transparency in information provision.

This week’s Rail Inquiry evidence comes from the trade unions.

There is a report this week on public petitions regarding opencast mining – one in favour and one against. The reporters (Adam Ingram (SNP) and Nora Radcliffe (LIB DEM)) conclude that a new fees regime is required.

Other Committee Homepages:

Equal Opportunities Committee
European Committee
Health & Community Care Committee
Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee

[ HOME ] [ News ] [ Articles ] [ Calendar ] [ Contacts ] [ Links ] [ E-Mail ]

[ Copyright ] [ UK Online ] [ Scottish Parliament ]

Previous Page