Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 04 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 4, 2001

Official Report 86KB pdf

---

Appointment of Adviser

The paper for item 3 suggests that it might be useful for us to appoint an adviser for the budget process 2002-03, although the Justice and Home Affairs Committee did not appoint one for last year's budget process. As agreed, we will discuss in private session who that person might be and what job description would be attached to the appointment. Are members agreed in principle that we appoint an adviser?

Members indicated agreement.

It may be a silly question, but is the adviser to be present during our meetings or are we going to have written advice in advance of meetings? I agree in principle to the appointment but, as we have not yet had an adviser, I do not know how the advice will be structured.

That would be the case, as the point of having an adviser is for the committee to be given direct advice.

Can I take it that we would ask for our meetings to be adjourned at the points where we need to go into private session to take that advice?

No, you will note from the timetable that the first meeting with the adviser is scheduled to be held on 25 April 2001. At that meeting, the adviser will help us to identify key issues. On that day, we can have a direct conversation with whoever is appointed and we can discuss with that person what our requirements would be thereafter. Christine Grahame is correct to point out that, for the process to be worth doing, we should have access to the adviser and also written advice if needed.

I remember that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee discussed the possibility of having an adviser for the legal aid inquiry. Given that that inquiry is now being undertaken by the Justice 1 Committee, I do not know what role the adviser is playing in that inquiry, but would our situation not be similar?

The Justice 1 Committee has an adviser who gives us suggested lines of questioning in advance of meetings. In addition, the adviser is present at meetings and can slip me little notes suggesting that I ask about such-and-such.

As that is the format that is already in use, will we not follow the same process?

Members have in front of them the adviser's in-principle job description, which I hope we will agree to. Given that, and that the person who is offered the post agrees to take it on, we can shape the adviser's role into one that we want it to be.

Members have agreed that we will appoint an adviser. Are we further agreed that the job description that is outlined in annexe 4 of the clerk's paper is acceptable?

Lyndsay McIntosh and I are sharing papers and we cannot find the job description.

You will find it in the papers after the Scottish Parliament information centre note.

As all members have now found the job description, perhaps those who have not yet read it would like to do so before we agree or disagree the terms.

In the job description, members will see a list of duties and person specifications that include: briefing the committee on the Scottish Executive justice department and the Crown Office budget; comparing the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's responses for 2001-02 with the Executive's proposals for 2002-03; setting out a framework for gathering evidence; assisting in the identification of relevant witnesses—a point that was made earlier; preparing lines of questioning for witnesses, as was already mentioned by Alasdair Morgan; and sifting the evidence that has been gathered.

Are members happy with the job description as detailed?

The adviser has to set out a framework for gathering evidence. That takes us back to the question that was posed earlier by the convener about time scales. I suggest that the adviser should give early consideration to the time scale, as that might help us to set out the evidence-gathering framework.

An early question for the adviser to consider might be whether the committee can do justice to the process in the timetable that we have been given.

At the first meeting with the adviser on 25 April, will we not discuss the timetable and whom we will call as witnesses?

Yes, a good early question for the adviser would be to let him or her look at the proposed timetable alongside our comments. There might be need for an extra meeting to do that. We could perhaps take the adviser's advice on whether there is enough time for us to do what we want to do.

I realise that I have asked questions that were clear from the job description. That has put a blush on my face, as I had not read the job description before the meeting.

I recall that the clerks drafted the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's response to the Finance Committee, on the basis of the evidence and proceedings. If that continues to be the position, am I to understand that the response will not be in the sole hands of the adviser? I would not want the committee to be too distant from the process.

It is taken for granted that the report is the committee's report. Even if it is drafted by the clerks, it is always the committee members who determine what is what.

I understand that, but the job description says that the adviser will "draft the Committee's response".

If someone who has expertise in the field writes up the response, that gives us a head start. That is the best starting point from which to make our own adjustments.

That is fine.

Are we agreed in principle on the job description?

Members indicated agreement.

As agreed, we now move into private session for item 4.

Meeting continued in private until 12:04.