Subject to Parliamentary Bureau approval today, the Marriage (Scotland) Bill will be referred to the Local Government Committee as the lead committee. The justice committees will be the secondary committees because the topic of marriage more generally falls within the remit of the Minister for Justice. The committee is invited to consider whether it wishes to examine the bill at stage 1 and report to the Local Government Committee on its findings, with a likely reporting date of early December.
I would be quite relaxed about allowing our colleagues in the Local Government Committee to deal with the bill. However, I would not want to fall out with anyone over the issue.
Your suggestion seems eminently sensible, convener.
I note what Mr Aitken has said, but I assume that, in principle, the committee would not be opposed to a discussion with the Justice 1 Committee about one of the justice committees having some input into the Local Government Committee.
It is a legal matter and it is incumbent on one of the justice committees to consider it.
I concede with indifference. If that is the majority view, I am happy to go with it.
Your indifference is noted.
Perhaps we could deal with the issue by appointing a reporter.
Are you volunteering, Stewart?
No, I am not volunteering.
We will hold that suggestion in abeyance until we get a volunteer.
What about George Lyon?
Is it in order to raise a small matter that is not on the agenda but which I think we should discuss? I am referring to the ruling by Sheriff Gillam at Linlithgow sheriff court last week, which halted the trial. I am not suggesting that we discuss the matter today, but it is clearly a cause for concern. Perhaps as convener of the Justice 2 Committee you could raise the matter with the Minister for Justice.
It is in order for you to raise the matter, but it is for members to comment as to whether they wish to take the matter further.
I support Scott Barrie's suggestion that the convener should write to the minister for further information. One of the justice committees might want to consider the issue. Given our position in relation to the inquiry that is already under way, it might be more appropriate for us to take that on. It is something that the general public find difficult to understand and the public might find it strange if the Parliament did not take an interest.
I agree with Mary Mulligan's point about public concern—not just in the recent case, but in other cases where there has been lack of clarity about search warrants.
That is an acceptable course of action. My concern is not so much the sheriff's judgment—in terms of law, that was correct—but the extent to which there are inaccuracies in the warrants presented to sheriffs and justices. In my experience, 20 to 25 per cent of the warrants placed before me were flawed—names and dates were wrong, or documentation had been signed prior to the deponent being put on oath.
Thank you. I cannot allow this discussion to go any farther—it would have to be put on the agenda. I note members' comments. I suggest that I write to Jim Wallace raising our concerns in the wider context. My quarterly meeting with Jim Wallace and Christine Grahame is due and although it has been cancelled for about the sixth time, I am sure that it will happen eventually. Does the committee agree that it is appropriate that I put the issue on the agenda for that meeting and perhaps bring the deputy convener to the meeting as he has some relevant experience?
Our next meeting is on Wednesday 28 November.
Meeting closed at 11:06.