The final item on our agenda concerns the forthcoming legal profession and legal aid (Scotland) bill. It had always been my view that it would be inappropriate for me to convene the committee when its obligation to scrutinise the bill arose. I discussed the matter with Bill Butler, who kindly agreed that he would be prepared to convene the committee when the bill came along. However, events overtook me and it was recognised that my continuance as convener would be of a fairly short-term nature. That is why, as I said, I have intimated to the Parliament that I am stepping down from the committee. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to play any role at all on the committee in relation to the bill. Therefore, I ask the committee to agree that I demit the convenership and invite Bill Butler, as deputy convener, to chair the committee. At this point, I say my farewells and bid members adieu.
Is that agreed?
Before you go, I put on record my appreciation for your commitment, your hard work and your assistance to me, as deputy convener, and to all members of the committee. Your convenership has always been inclusive and you have adopted a consensual approach when that has been possible. You have always—without exception—been objective and impartial and the committee wishes to put on record its thanks to you for that. Let me say, too, that your convenership has been fun. Your metaphorical flights of fancy sit well on the record and have gladdened the hearts of committee members during some fairly dry, albeit necessary, evidence-taking sessions. Does anyone else wish to say anything at this juncture?
I will certainly miss Annabel's guidance of our deliberations and those of us who do not have a legal background will remember fondly the individual tutorials that she gave us on Latin terms. I am sure that each of us wish her very well. Her successor will undoubtedly have a hard act to follow and we will probably make mincemeat of him, but there you go.
Thank you both very much indeed. When I said at the beginning of the meeting that it had been a pleasure to be the committee's convener, those were not empty words. I have always felt that the Justice 2 Committee is a very good committee and that is attributable in no small measure to the skills and commitment that individual members have brought to it. It has been a pleasure to convene the committee and I think that, collectively, its members have served the Parliament very well. I thank Bill and Jackie for their kind remarks. I am sorry to be leaving and I wish all members every success as you go forward with the committee. I shall look on with interest at the challenges you throw up as you pursue your scrutinising responsibilities.
I will take over just for item 3, which is about the forthcoming legal profession and legal aid (Scotland) bill. The clerk has prepared a note that provides an overview of the expected bill. As the bill will be highly technical, it is suggested that we may wish to appoint an adviser to assist us in our scrutiny. Would that be agreeable?
Let us consider the adviser's remit, which is dealt with in annex A of paper J2/S2/06/4/5, entitled "Specification for Appointment". Do members have any questions or comments on the specification? I have a few.
I want to clarify one point. Could the adviser be a lawyer or are we excluding lawyers because the bill is about the regulation of the legal profession?
Information will be obtained from candidates, who would have to declare any interest. It would then be for the committee to decide whether any such interest would prevent someone from taking up the appointment.
Thank you.
My question is on the same important point. I do not know how the clerks will go about obtaining an adviser. Many of the people who come to us are from the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates. They are the bodies to which we would usually go for advice on legal matters. Will you cast your net more widely on this occasion? Will you consider people who work in other areas, such as academics or other non-lawyers?
We are investigating academic options, as well as the possibility of appointing someone who has previous experience of complaint handling or other jurisdictions.
Members have no more questions, but I have a few fiddly points. The second paragraph, which is on the adviser's duties, states:
Do members agree to the specific remit that has been proposed for the adviser?
The next meeting will be on Tuesday 28 February at 2 o'clock.
Meeting closed at 15:51.