Official Report 113KB pdf
The main substance of the brief report that we have before us is the section that gives the proposed remit of the committee, subject to its being cleared by the legal office, which has been considering the remit in some depth. The principal difference between the original proposal and the current form is in the third paragraph of the report, which tells us that the corporate body has taken the view that interparliamentary liaison would be best handled elsewhere. I know that some members of the committee were deeply concerned about the foreign travel and high-quality wining and dining that the committee might be subjected to if it had been given that remit. You will all be heartily relieved to know that none of you are expected to drink, dine and travel for the Parliament.
That was a lucky escape.
I have no difficulty with the principle of the committee's remit as stated in the report. I am a little concerned that the definition makes the remit very wide, particularly part (c), which says that the committee should consider and report on
I welcome the paper, but I share Iain Smith's concern. We will, on occasion, have to deal with matters arising from or relating to the act, but he is right to say that we would do that only if another body referred the matters to us. It is dangerous to define our remit in the way that part (c) does.
The intention was that difficulties that were raised relating to the act would be clearly identified as being our responsibility. We have been consulted on various occasions about difficulties that arise in relation to somebody else's work. For example, on our agenda today we have a paper about people who are not MSPs being on committees and we have had discussions about ways in which private bills might be addressed. Solutions to such problems might involve a re-examination of the Scotland Act 1998. The problem has been in identifying a body that can sweep up all such issues—in that sense, we have a dustbin role.
Perhaps we should turn the question on its head and ask what this committee would not be interested in considering and what administrative area we would not be interested in examining. I can think of no areas that we would not be interested in. The brief that we have in the report covers what the committee is about.
I do not think that that is wrong either. The concern that has been raised is that we will start ferreting through the whole system looking for areas in which we might identify clashes or cause trouble. However, the way in which we tend to work is to respond to difficulties that the Parliament encounters in practice as it develops. I have no problem with trying to find a more precise form of words. If it is decided that it is difficult to conceive of an alternative form of words, we can always talk about it again.
I found it difficult to tell precisely what is meant by the words "any administrative matter". I was trying to think of specific cases that might arise. Perhaps that wording could be made clearer. I feel that what we would be dealing with is not made specific.
There has been great difficulty in finding a precise form of words to cover what we are asked to do without giving us too-sweeping responsibilities.
The present wording might take us into territory that we may not be equipped to deal with, especially if we are asked to deal with difficult legal matters. It would be helpful to find another form of words; otherwise, we will have to revisit the subject.
I think that I understand where we stand. There is no particular urgency about this matter except that, when we agree a revised remit for the committee, we will need to propose a minor order to the Parliament to change the standing orders. We would seek to do that quietly one day on a formal basis. We shall revisit this matter in a fortnight and try to resolve it then.