Chamber and committees

Michael Clancy joins us online.

Although we were trying to stick to 20 minutes for each topic, we have already had quite a good mix of all four, so I am relaxed about that. A number of members want to contribute, however, so I will call Alasdair Allan and Donald Cameron and then bring in others from the wider group.

It is interesting that, if the PPA decides to go down the route of subgroups, those would likely be around policy areas and, although subject committees of this Parliament and the other devolved Parliaments would obviously have no role in that, the expertise would be there for devolved areas. We absolutely need to be working on that.

I am very interested in this area as well. Obviously, the interparliamentary forum has started up again and those links are there. The scrutiny of decision making is a concern across all devolved Parliaments at the moment and is a concern for the House of Lords, whose Constitution Committee has raised these issues. I am interested in how we go forward with that. As Maurice Golden said, a formal interparliamentary forum is an informal grouping of the Parliaments. As we move forward, are we in danger of not formalising some of those things as a way of future-proofing for dispute resolution in other areas. I am also interested in how the Parliaments can possibly scrutinise common frameworks.

I want to bring in Mr Clancy and then open up those points for the wider group.

I can neatly bring Akash Paun in at this point.

We have exhausted our time, if not our questions and interest in this area. I echo Ms Boyack’s comments and thank everyone for their submissions to the committee, which were extremely helpful, and I thank Dr McCorkindale for his continued support in our evidence sessions. As I said, we are holding a series of round tables in this area, and I am sure that the committee will report on it in the near future. I thank everyone for their attendance.

Welcome back, everyone. I invite questions or comments from Ms Boyack and Mr McMillan, after which we will open up the discussion again.

I am conscious of time. I will suspend for five minutes for a comfort break. When we come back I will bring in Ms Boyack and Mr McMillan.

I will bring in Ms Boyack, before I open it to the floor.

I will go to Mr Clancy first to answer that specific question. I will then bring in Professor McHarg and Mr Paun. Perhaps Professor Tierney could then reflect on his statements about other federal arrangements. What other places get this right and who might have solved some of the questions that we are asking about?