Seòmar agus comataidhean

Oh, are they in the report?

Is there a trend of people in public office complaining about other people in public office?

People outside the Parliament have continually expressed concerns, which they have aired quite publicly, that too many of our parliamentarians have only ever lived in the bubble of politics, and therefore their ability to do what you describe is inhibited by the fact that they have no hinterland.

But there must be something amiss in the legislative process if, during that process, the Parliament or the committees—whichever it is—do not come up against the idea that, actually, a piece of legislation is probably outside the scope of the Parliament’s authority. Surely that is a process-related defect.

That is okay—I get the message.

I have a concern about the power imbalance between the Executive and the Parliament. There have been a number of references to the fact that powerful committees were to be a feature of the Parliament, in place of a second chamber. I want to challenge something that Adam Tomkins said. He was critical of the scrutiny powers of the Parliament in relation to the power imbalance, but he was full of praise about process. However, if the process leads to law that is then designated as ultra vires, that is surely a failure in the process.

I have a question about the changes that have occurred over 25 years. Certainly, Johann, you are well placed to offer observations on them. One of the things that I struggle with in this Parliament is the degree to which parties control everything. They control who is on the committees and who speaks in the chamber—just about everything. Is that how it was originally? Has that evolved? Has that stranglehold of party business managers and leaders evolved to what it is now, or was it like that from the beginning?

Yes.

Is that a reflection of calibre?

Adam Tomkins was only too happy to say so. Do you have a view?

Outside Parliament, a lot of people think that we have too many career politicians.