Official Report 193KB pdf
Before we go into private session, I ask that we reflect on the minister's evidence on the foot-and-mouth disease consultation, which raises several issues of concern. We might want to discuss that evidence for five or 10 minutes at our next meeting, and follow up some of the issues.
Do members have any views on the evidence that we heard and how the issues might be pursued?
Can we pursue the matter when the instrument comes before us? Would that be the appropriate point at which to weigh the evidence? That is what we usually do.
That will certainly be the case. The instrument will come before the committee in the normal way, once it has been laid. When the instrument comes to us, we might want to discuss with the clerks how to set time aside to put forward any views that members arrive at after the period of reflection that Richard Lochhead recommended. We can review the matter when we have the statutory instrument before us.
I will be perfectly happy, whichever way we decide to proceed. If the instrument will not come before the committee, we should put the matter on the agenda. I am surprised to hear from the clerks that the instrument will not necessarily come to this committee. Surely that is not in practice correct, although it might be technically correct.
I speak only from a manuscript note that is hot off the press of one of the minister's entourage. I am not in a position to offer a definitive comment on the procedure. I suppose that the clerks, the convener and I will have to take the matter to avizandum. I am told that the procedure is such that the instrument will not necessarily come before the committee. That being the case, it would be sensible to put the matter on our agenda for 12 February, when we can discuss the issues that have been raised today.
I would like the clerks to pursue that important issue. The instrument should come to the committee.
Mr Rumbles is right. I am sure that the clerks will write to committee members when they have obtained the definitive view on the procedural issues that he rightly raised.
Would it be possible to ask the clerks to produce a note on the chain of events before our next meeting? We originally requested the minister's presence so that we could influence the content of the instrument, in relation to the consultation period. It appears that that has not happened. Perhaps we could investigate that further.
Yes. If we are to have a meaningful discussion, it would be helpful for us to be informed by a paper from the clerks that succinctly sets out the general background and chronology of events.
The instrument that was before us today was a draft. I therefore understand that we are being consulted before the final instrument is produced. Was not that what the meeting was about?
Yes. That is true. At the outset, I raised the issue of the procedure that is being followed by the Executive. I understand that the instrument was laid on 1 February. In response to a question on whether the instrument that has been laid contains any differences from the draft, the minister initially said that it was identical. Mr Dickson then interjected to say that it was similar. No doubt, we will discover the truth from our collective proofreading of the draft and the instrument that has been laid. However, we have not yet had the chance to consider the instrument and we do not know what differences were referred to today. I did not think that members would want a reading out of certain technical differences that might exist. The discussion that we are planning for next week should be informed by a paper that will be prepared by the clerks in the normal way. The paper will provide a factual background, as with the papers that the clerks prepare usefully and efficiently week in, week out. I am sure that the issues will be covered in the clerks' paper.
Meeting suspended until 15:51 and thereafter continued in private until 16:25.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation