Item 9, the final item today, is on a proposal to host an international conference on the scrutiny of delegated legislation. The proposal is set out in a paper from the clerk. It would be possible for the conference to take place in 2006, which would mean that it would fall between our completed inquiry and the eventual bill. Alternatively, we could choose 2008, in which case we would be considering the entire process.
I appreciate what you said about possible dates and the fact that 2006 would come between our inquiry and the bill, but I do not think that that is strictly correct. We would face a problem if we chose to bid for 2006 because that would actually come in the middle of our scrutiny of the bill, rather than before it. It would be too late for the conference to advise our work on the bill, but it would be too early for us to reflect on the completed bill. We will be in the middle of the whole process, so I am not sure that the choice of 2006 would be the best. Perhaps 2008 would be better for that reason.
I gather that we would first have to approach the Presiding Officer to find out about the resource implications.
I am not sure that the success or otherwise of individual members and their selection chances should necessarily come into the equation, but I feel that it would be a distraction or a hindrance, rather than a help, to hold the conference in 2006. It is just bad timing, which is rather unfortunate, but my personal feeling is that 2008 might be a more useful date than 2006 would be.
The most important thing is whether resources are available, either in 2006 or in 2008. Perhaps that is the first piece of information that we should look for, and then perhaps we should consider whether 2006 would be too early. I have some sympathy with Stewart Maxwell's point of view that that would be the wrong time. Nevertheless, I see the logic of the suggestion that it could inform what we do. However, if we have no resources for it, the question is academic no matter when it happens, so let us ask about resources first.
Is it perhaps too close to the previous spat about resources for us to think it tactically wise to raise such issues right now?
As a Deputy Presiding Officer, Murray Tosh should know.
The resources in question here are different, are they not? We are talking about resources for staffing, not for paying air fares. If we get the answer that few resources will be available, the conference will not happen in 2006 or 2008, so I entirely agree with Christine May that we need to find out whether the Parliament would be prepared to provide the resources. Have we done some sort of estimate of what resources would be required in terms of staff time, costs and so on? Perhaps we should do that first, so that we can say, "We're going to need two full-time members of staff at this level, and it's going to cost us that." If the Parliament says, "No, you can't have that," we cannot go ahead at all.
The clerks are going to work up a paper on resources. I am tempted to think that we should put the proposal to the Presiding Officer, and that the sooner we have a decision with regard to 2006 or 2008 the better.
Unless, of course, Murray Tosh, as Deputy Presiding Officer, is privy to the views of the Presiding Officer on requests from this committee in general.
If I were, I would be most unlikely to tell you.
Breaching confidence, I think, is the phrase for that.
Are we agreed, then, that the clerks should prepare a paper on the resources required?
Do you want to see that paper before it goes to the Presiding Officer? Should we do that first and then consider where to go from there?
How long do you think that that will take?
We should be able to do it within two weeks.
Before the recess, anyway.
Before I close the meeting, I should pass on apologies from Adam Ingram. I thank all members for attending.
Meeting closed at 11:18.