Official Report 143KB pdf
We pass now to the final agenda item, which is our proposed inquiry into the regulatory framework in Scotland, with a view to introducing a statutory instruments bill. Murray Tosh has left but I do not think that he had any points to raise. We will go through the terms of reference paper before us point by point.
I found the paper very clear. It covers the bases, or starting points, for the inquiry. I do not have any additions to make to paragraph 2. The paper scopes out what we should be doing very well.
I agree with that. The paper is clear and it is excellent that we know where we are going.
I have one point to make on paragraph 3, which mentions interaction with the European and External Relations Committee. Depending on where it has got to, the new European constitution contains specific detail on subsidiarity and consultation, particularly on regulations. It might be worth taking a look at the provisions in the context of what we are doing.
That is agreed.
Considering the amount of work involved, I wondered whether having an adviser—in the singular—is appropriate. Perhaps we should be considering having a whole team of folk.
Normally—
That was meant to be a light-hearted question. I am not really suggesting that we employ a whole load of folk.
Okay. We are glad about that.
There will be a lot of work involved. It is a big inquiry, involving several sections and taking up the rest of the parliamentary session. In fact, it might not be sufficient to have just one adviser, although that might depend on the individual's breadth of knowledge—we are talking about Scottish, UK, European and worldwide comparisons. I wondered whether there should be two advisers, or various advisers specialising in different areas as we go along, rather than just one person.
They definitely should do.
No—that is fine.
The paper states:
Will the committee have any input into the final selection of the adviser, or will we remit selection to the convener, in consultation with the clerks?
The normal practice is for the committee to discuss such matters in private session.
That is fine.
I presume that, as usual, we will be given three or four people and we will choose one of them.
Yes—if three or four people can be found, which could be difficult.
That might be a big if. Finding three or four people might not be easy.
I would like clarification of a small point about calls for written evidence. Obviously, much of the detail that will be involved in the inquiry will be specific and technical. Will there be a general call for written evidence or will we approach obvious organisations and individuals to alert them to the fact that there is an inquiry?
Usually, there is a mixture of approaches.
That is fine.
Paragraph 5 of the paper is on the inquiry's media profile. It states:
Good luck.
And to you. We will see whether we can hit the front pages—that would be an achievement. I hope that the general profile of the committee's work will be raised.
I have spoken to House of Commons clerks about the timing of UK parliamentary committee visits. They suggested that a good time for them and their committees to meet a delegation from the Subordinate Legislation Committee would be March. I can progress that matter with them.
I have an administrative question. Do we have to put a proposal for a visit through the Conveners Group, or will there be a visit as part of the inquiry?
It is normal practice to put a submission to the Parliamentary Bureau.
That was certainly done for the Enterprise and Culture Committee's visits to Denmark and to Canada, I think. We must get authorisation for payment of expenses.
Okay.
The section is particularly helpful.
It deals with various matters. Do you have any comments to make on other European regulatory systems and European Union regulation?
The paper suggests considering approaches in two countries. The Committee of the Regions is an institution that can be not particularly highly thought of, but I wonder whether it would be worth asking what work it has done. I know that it has done work on the matter.
Paragraph 14 is on the timescale for the overall inquiry. The paper suggests that a full year is needed for each inquiry.
That is reasonable. We might struggle to finish before that.
Yes. We should consider spring 2007 rather than 2004.
Do you know something that we do not know?
As members have no other points to make, do we agree to what has been suggested, with the slight changes that have been proposed?
Yes. However, given the inquiry's potential length, we should revisit its remit from time to time to ensure that we are sticking to it and that no other issues have arisen that require to be added to the inquiry.
That is true—I suppose that there might be other issues.
We will meet again next week.
I can hardly wait.
I thank members.
Meeting closed at 11:45.
Previous
Instrument Subject to Annulment