Work Programme

Item 5 is our work programme. Members have quite a number of papers to refer to. We agreed previously that we should examine European law specifically regarding alternative dispute resolution. It is suggested that we could seek written and oral evidence to inform our consideration in advance of the formal production of any text on that legislation. Members will know that we chose that subject because it would give us a chance to get in early on in the procedure and see how we progressed with it.It is suggested that we could, if there is time, take oral evidence from the relevant European Commission official. Alternatively, we could take oral evidence from an academic with an interest in the subject. There is also the Law Society of Scotland, which has an interest in European matters. Also suggested are Citizens Advice Scotland, Family Mediation Scotland and the Scottish branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Those are some organisations that might have an interest in alternative dispute resolution. The main thing is for us to kick things off somewhere. I am happy to receive any suggestions, so that we can get started.

We will seek oral evidence from the relevant Commission official, and from Paul McKell and Jane Scoular of the University of Strathclyde, who are specialists in family mediation. We might have to prioritise some witnesses on the list if we do not have enough time to hear from them all.

Does anyone dissent from the view that we hear from Paul McKell and Jane Scoular first, if they are willing to attend? Having spoken to the clerk, I should clarify that Paul McKell is the Commission official and Jane Scoular is from the University of Strathclyde. If we follow Stewart Maxwell's suggestion, we will ask Jane Scoular for evidence first. We will then seek to arrange for Paul McKell to give oral evidence. Is that agreed?

We move now to the European Union white paper on divorce. We expect the white paper to be published in November.If we could go back to alternative dispute resolution for a moment, I presume that the committee also wishes to receive written evidence.

Sorry—we return now to the EU white paper on divorce. It is an interesting issue. I wonder why we have got to the stage of legislating on divorce at the EU level. I would really like to ask why we need to do it at all, rather than simply getting into the issue, examining it, ascertaining whether the white paper is compatible with our law and so on.

Perhaps we should shunt it into a siding at the moment.

Yes.

We could come back to the matter at an appropriate time.

We need to keep an eye on what is going on with the white paper. I wonder whether there is a mechanism through which we can ask why it might be necessary to legislate on divorce. Perhaps there is a specific matter at stake, such as access to children.

We should perhaps wait until the publication of the white paper. We can consider its terms and decide whether it is appropriate for us to consider it.

I will try and pull that together. When the white paper is published, the committee will want to see what it looks like, although it might be better if we have a summary note of it. We could then examine it and see whether there is a big European dimension to it and decide from there. If there is not, we can decide whether it could or should be challenged. Is it agreed that that is what we will do for now?

I am keen that the committee see the end of the process of the regulation on parental responsibility so that we can decide on the approach we are going to take and whether we are happy with the regulation. Colin Imrie gave evidence that UK and Scottish officials are happy that enough changes have been made to the regulation and that it is compatible with UK law. I would like to see the Executive note on the regulation, although I do not know whether we have to write to the Executive to ask to see the note.I am told that the note is on its way.Members have got some information on how we could begin the sentencing inquiry. It is suggested that we take initial evidence on 19 November from Professor Neil Hutton, who is deputy head of the law school at the University of Strathclyde. We heard from him at the committee's away day.We have secured a debate on the previous committee's report on alternatives to custody. That will take place on 12 November. We have not yet received a response from the Executive although we will have one, and that will allow Parliament to debate the issue. The debate will be in the name of the committee, although we decided that we would not formally adopt the report because it is not ours but the previous committee's.Are members content to kick off the sentencing inquiry by hearing from Professor Neil Hutton? Are there any other suggestions?

That seems to be a reasonable way to proceed.

It is quite important that we hear from the Parole Board for Scotland, which could give some detailed information on how the licensing system works and on how it makes decisions. We do not have a lot of information on that at the moment. That could be our second choice for oral evidence. It would set the scene.I do not think that there is anything further to say on alternatives to custody unless Michael Matheson has something to add. He was on the previous committee and can provide some continuity.

We move on to civil partnership registration. I invite the committee to consider whether it wants to have any input into the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which is conducting a consultation on civil partnership registration. The committee might decide that it is satisfied that the Equal Opportunities Committee should conduct the consultation without any involvement from ourselves, or it might be pertinent for us to appoint a reporter. Thankfully, we have two members who sit on the Equal Opportunities Committee and who may be prepared to play that role, although I do not know. I think that Margaret Smith wants to say something—I am not prompting her.

That is very helpful. As Margaret Smith said, we are talking at this stage about a Sewel motion, which means that there will be no lead or secondary committee. However, it is right that the Equal Opportunities Committee should in effect be the lead committee in relation to the Sewel motion process.Whether the Justice 1 Committee or the Justice 2 Committee is involved, it is important that we be kept informed, although I do not suggest that that commits us to doing anything in particular. At some stage, I am certain that a justice committee will have to be involved if we are to consider the technicalities of Scots law in relation to intestacy, inheritance, degrees of prohibition and a host of other areas that we have not yet discovered that might connect with UK legislation. I am sure that interested parties will make strong representations to us. People will be quite happy for the UK to legislate on civil partnerships as long as they feel that they are being involved, informed and consulted and that there will be a way for them to influence matters. That is the crucial thing.

I would be happy for Margaret Smith to take on the role of reporter. That might be quite onerous, so I would be willing to help out, especially as I am a member of both the Justice 1 Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee. Such reporting could turn out to be a huge piece of work, but it would be interesting to see how matters progress from both points of view. In my view, if the Justice 1 Committee were to proceed with consideration of the issue, it would be sensible if Margaret Smith and I were involved because we are both members of the Justice 1 Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee. Is that possible?

I take that as an expression of interest. Does anyone dissent from that suggestion?

We agree to that suggestion. I have been advised that the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, Annabel Goldie, will be quite happy for us to pick up that work; however, we might not feel the same way in two months' time. It would be helpful for Margaret Smith to be the reporter and to have Marlyn Glen assist with that. Do members agree to that?

I thought that we had agreed that, if there is scope for a justice committee to examine a specific area on civil registration, we will express an interest in doing that.

We would pick that up if you reported to us that it would be appropriate to timetable it in. Perhaps you should keep in touch with the clerks to let them know when it would be appropriate to have the report on the formal agenda.We now turn to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. When we pass legislation in the Parliament, it is often the case that the code of practice has greater importance than the legislation itself. I have a strong view on that subject. If we are dealing with legislation to which codes and guidance are attached we must, as a general rule, be able to scrutinise them. Given that the code can affect the meaning of the legislation, there is no point in our scrutinising legislation if we cannot scrutinise the code.We are being asked to consider the draft code of practice that will accompany the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. I think that the Executive has made an oversight in formally notifying the committee of the draft code. Members will see that the draft code is dated July. That is unfortunate, because we would have wanted to consider the matter properly. I would like to hear from Michael Matheson on the issue. I am sorry for asking him to contribute again, but he is the only member who was involved in the previous Justice 1 Committee's consideration of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill. I am conscious that an increasing amount of work is being loaded on to members. However, as a point of principle we must ensure that we are happy with the code.

I see that members are nodding in agreement. If members support what Michael Matheson and I have said about the importance of codes of practice, I would like to make that point in our response.

If the Executive says that it will stick to its timetable, how might we respond? I suppose that we will simply have to write a very strongly worded letter.

I hope that the Executive will see sense, as it usually does.

Bill Butler said "as it usually does".

Nobody is perfect.

These things happen. However, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 is important legislation and we do not want to set any precedents. We will write a strongly worded letter in the hope that we will get a little more time.Is Michael Matheson prepared to act as the reporter on the issue?

I thank Michael Matheson for agreeing to act as reporter on the matter. Once we receive a reply to our letter, we will ensure that it is sent directly to him so that he knows how the Executive has responded. If the response is negative, we will bring the matter back to the committee for further consideration.