Official Report 268KB pdf
Welcome, colleagues, to the sixth meeting of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee—I cannot believe that it is our sixth meeting already. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones.
Convener, you might want to tell them that there are some other committees meeting this morning that have longer agendas than ours.
They have probably gone to visit another committee.
Good.
We have a note by the clerk—paper REF/S4/12/6/1—on the subject of whether we should have an adviser. In discussing that, we should probably focus first on the person specification that will apply for such an adviser if we decide to have one.
Is that paragraph 16?
Yes, it is.
I wonder whether the two different types of legislation will require two different sets of skills, or whether they overlap. We might need to discuss that, because it might be better to think about having more than one person so that we have specific advice on the particular areas. I would be happy to hear other members’ views on that.
Do other members have views?
In the absence of any other views, I will comment.
My view is similar. Given that we have not passed legislation to create a referendum before and that this is a new process, we are justified in seeking advice on the legal and technical aspects.
I do not think that we could find a total expert on the subject, because I do not think that anybody has ever done anything quite like this referendum. However, perhaps there is somebody. A bit of research will be required to find someone with a background in this type of work. Would it be best to have someone who does not come from Scotland or the United Kingdom, as that might take out the political aspect? Perhaps that would widen the pool—which I imagine is relatively small—of people with specific relevant expertise.
For what it is worth, I agree with Tavish Scott and Patrick Harvie that we need to keep this aspect out of the political arena. We need to be clear that we are bringing in someone to deal with the technical things and the arcane bits of law that are involved in electoral law. There are people in Scotland who do this work pretty regularly at elections, such as returning officers, and there are former returning officers. We have not long had the retirement of the former returning officer and convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, for instance.
I apologise for being a wee bit late. Am I right to say that, if we have an adviser, there is no retainer and we will pay only when they are used? We are as well to have the comfort of having someone so that, if we need to draw on their experience, we can do so.
I ask the clerks to respond to the question about how advisers are employed, but we can use them as we require.
There is no retainer: advisers are paid for the work that they do.
I should have apologised, as Linda Fabiani did, for arriving a wee bit late.
Yes, that is what the paper suggests.
There is some uncertainty as to how we should progress. Clearly, there is a recognition that we might need someone with expertise on electoral law and administration, but we are unsure whether we could attract someone with that expertise. Perhaps the best way forward would be to look for suitable candidates and then to assess whether any of the potential candidates would be of practical use as a committee adviser.
Linda Fabiani makes a fair point, because it would be useful to have someone’s expertise to draw down if we deem that necessary as we go through the scrutiny process. My particular plea is that we have someone with hands-on practical experience. Otherwise, frankly, we could look up the books ourselves.
We have a clear choice between a practical person and an academic. Given the nature of what we are dealing with, I doubt that there will be a shortage of people applying to assist the committee. The difficult job for the committee will be to whittle down the applicants to a short leet and then to decide on an individual or individuals. However, I think that we have to decide whether we have an academic or practical person. I would favour someone with practical knowledge and expertise.
We have all come to the conclusion that we need an adviser with practical, technical experience who can help us through the nitty-gritty of the process.
Thank you very much.
Would that debate take place on the same day as the vote to pass the motion approving the order?
Yes, I am suggesting that we request a debate for immediately before the motion on whether to approve the order.
Why would we not simply have a debate on the motion to approve the order?
I will let the clerk explain the procedural issue.
Under the standing orders, the rules governing the scrutiny of affirmative instruments provide for quite a constrained process in the chamber. The motion to approve the instrument must be lodged by the bureau and moved by one of the business managers on behalf of the bureau. The only other people who are allowed to speak are the minister in charge, which will be Nicola Sturgeon, and any member who wishes to speak against the motion—in the circumstances, we can probably reasonably assume that there will be no such member. Under the standing orders, no one else gets a right to speak and those two members only get three minutes each. Unless we start suspending standing orders, that is all that would be allowed. The suggestion is that we have an additional debate to allow other members, including members of the committee, to contribute.
That is fine, but I suggest that we ask for more than half an hour. A half-hour debate would allow only a small number of members to contribute, unless the Presiding Officer allowed them speeches of only two or three minutes each.
We can ask for that but, from what I have heard, next week is a busy week. Do we wish to ask for a bit longer than half an hour? We can ask for longer than half an hour to allow others to contribute, and we will see what latitude we can get from the business managers. Are members content with that?
Thank you very much. Our next meeting will be on 13 December.
Previous
Attendance