Legacy Paper
We will go through the various changes that were made to our legacy paper last week. I have been trying to find out who made which changes, so members should shout out when we reach a change that they proposed.
The first change is in paragraph 4, on our inquiry into the regulatory framework in Scotland. The committee wanted to ensure that its successor committee takes account of our inquiry.
In the previous version, our three years' work on the inquiry and a large amount of time and effort were boiled down to one paragraph. I felt that it should be bolstered and that we should point out to our successor committee the good work that was done. We should point it in the direction of our report, which is well worth looking at.
You never know—we might all be gathered here again after the election. We will have to see.
The next change is in paragraph 7, which states that, on several occasions, the committee was successful in changing the use of negative procedure to the use of affirmative procedure. I think that Murray Tosh raised that point. Paragraph 8 covers the difficulties that are caused by the short time between stages 2 and 3 and the need to take evidence from officials.
Convener, I am momentarily stunned by your suggestion that we might all be gathered here again for a further four years.
I wondered what you were going to say there.
As far as the textual changes are concerned, they cover the points that were made last week.
Good. Do you agree with paragraph 9 as well?
Yes.
The clerk wondered whether a footnote should be added.
Yes. I wondered whether the committee wanted specifically to mention the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which was held up as a good example.
We thought that such a footnote would add to the paper.
On page 3, did Stewart Maxwell have a point about tracking reports?
I think that that was me.
Does what we added address the issues that you raised about tracking reports?
Yes.
Further down the page, a comment was made about reports to lead committees and when it is important to flag up matters.
The legacy paper now reflects well my concern about the language used in such reports.
Over the page, there is a paragraph on consolidation. When I met Margaret Curran, she said that the Executive was keen to take up our recommendation about consolidation and to ensure that the proposed working group is established. Members will see that the end of paragraph 20 says:
"It may also be useful for a successor to examine whether there is a role for the Procedures Committee in examining this issue."
That is another aspect that will have to be taken on board. I hope that members are content with that.
I invite comment on the improving regulation in Scotland unit. We made a recommendation about where IRIS should be located and commented on the increased focus that we would like the unit to have. It should not focus only on the business perspective, as members will remember that Margaret Curran spoke about IRIS's involvement in the voluntary sector and other areas. Are members content with the amended paragraph?
It is fine.
Everything else on page 5 seems to be okay. [Interruption.] I dread to think what members are muttering about.
In paragraph 30, on page 6, I picked up that there were two consecutive mentions of the word "that", so we have taken one out.
It is a common error. Well spotted.
Is it? Ruth Cooper thought so.
Our big concern is with the use of combined powers. Paragraph 31 seems to be okay. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
Paragraph 32 is on financial transparency—I think that it is okay now. Paragraph 34 is on European issues, which is a big area, and I think that the alterations that have been made are all right.
Everything on page 7 seems okay. I thank members for their contributions.
As this is our final meeting of the session, I thank the legal advisers, Margaret Macdonald, who is not here today, Mairi Gibson and Greg Thomson—everyone will agree that we could not do without them. I also thank the clerking team—we could not do without them, either—particularly Ruth Cooper, who is the lead clerk to the committee. I thank her for the legacy paper as well as for all her patience and hard work. I thank David McLaren, without whom we could not have done the regulatory framework inquiry, as well as Iain Jamieson, our adviser, who is not with us today. I also thank our clerks Jake Thomas and Andrew Proudfoot, who have always supplied us with all the necessary material. Finally, I thank members. We have worked together fairly well as a team. Some of you have been on the committee for some time—Murray Tosh and Stewart Maxwell in particular. After the meeting closes, we have the thrill of cakes.
Meeting closed at 10:49.