Official Report 222KB pdf
Item 2 is on the proposed human rights commission bill, which, as committee members will be aware, we have been allocated. As is normal at this point, it is up to the committee to decide whether we wish to appoint an adviser. If we wish to do so, we will consider potential candidates for that position at a future meeting. I invite members to comment on whether, in principle, they wish to appoint an adviser.
Agreed.
Margaret Mitchell looks as though she is about to say something.
The whole issue is fraught with problems. I see the bill's proposals as unnecessary—as a duplication of the existing commissioners—and I question the value of spending £1 million on something that has no powers.
You will get a chance later to say whatever you want about the bill. At this stage, we are discussing whether we want to appoint an adviser. Are you happy to agree to appoint an adviser?
I suppose that, if we are going ahead with the bill, the answer is yes.
The bill deals with an area in which there have been lots of changes, right across the board in the United Kingdom and in Scotland. It is important that we have an adviser to clarify all the points.
Yes, we should have an adviser. I suggest that we look for someone who can give us advice on the interaction between what is proposed in Scotland and what is happening at Westminster. The two clearly have to dovetail if the bill is to work in any way, shape or form. That is without my taking any position on the matter of the bill at this stage.
That is helpful. As well as links to Westminster and the rest of the UK, there may be an international perspective that the committee will want to look at. We might consider whether we want an adviser who has some working knowledge of similar human rights bodies in other countries. Members will have the opportunity to discuss candidates at a future meeting. We normally do that in private to protect the candidates, so I ask for the committee's consent for us to do that in this case.
Previous
Item in Private