Official Report 104KB pdf
We now move to a discussion about fact-finding meetings with other United Kingdom Parliaments and Assemblies. We have a paper from the clerk on potential visits. Do members have any comments?
A visit to Westminster, in particular, would be useful in the context of our recent deliberations on the previous Subordinate Legislation Committee's report on our current procedures and its proposal for a Scottish statutory instrument procedure. Westminster's scrutiny process was discussed a few times and, as we inherited our process pretty much en bloc from Westminster, it would be useful to go down there to speak to members of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments who are—presumably—engaged in scrutinising their own process.
There being no further comments on Westminster, what do members feel about going to the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly? I note that representatives from the Welsh Assembly are due to come and see us on Thursday 15 May. Will we assume that we will talk to them about these matters when they come to see us, rather than our going down there?
What are your feelings about Northern Ireland? It has been pointed out to us that they do things so differently there that it might not be worth our going.
It would be an interesting trip, but the advice is that it might not be worth going.
There has been discussion about how the work is balanced between officials and committees. From that point of view, it might be interesting to hear from the person who has been doing the bulk of the work for the Northern Ireland Assembly, although the model is very different.
Did you say that Northern Ireland members are coming here and that we will get that experience anyway?
Members from the Welsh Assembly are coming here. However, we do not necessarily have to visit Northern Ireland; we could have a videoconference.
Is there scope for the clerks to meet their counterparts and provide us with a report or something to get our teeth into so that we can decide whether it would be worth while following it up?
Yes, absolutely.
Convener, if you are saying that in this case the committee does more of the work, there might be a case for one member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee to accompany the clerks and look at the political input, rather than just the technical side of things. It would be useful to get a perspective from at least one elected member. I am not necessarily volunteering, but the principle should be considered.
If we are going to talk to the Northern Ireland Assembly, a videoconference would be the best option. That would bring us all into play.
I have no problems with that; it seems feasible.
Do members agree to have a videoconference with the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Let us consider again how to develop links with Westminster. The first question is for the clerk. There are three relevant committees at Westminster; is it assumed that we should meet the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments because its work is most relevant to ours?
Between them, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee cover the work of this committee. The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has a slightly different role. If members were to go to London, there would be no reason not to meet representatives from all those committees. You would not be attending any committee meetings as they all happen in private. If you are there, you might as well speak to people from all three committees.
That is a point—I wonder whether we could go down when the committees are sitting. That might be useful. It would be a waste of time to go to Westminster without doing that. It would be good to witness the meetings.
But the committees sit in private.
No, I am talking about two things at the same time. Oh, do they sit in private? I am sorry; I did not pick that up. I thought that their meeting with us would be in private.
Do we want to send one person, two people or the committee to Westminster? I am entirely open-minded about it. In considering when a visit should take place, we should remember about balance and voting in the Parliament on Wednesdays and Thursdays. That is pertinent both to the Government and Opposition parties.
As we are in the process of compiling our report after the recent inquiry and looking to engage with the minister and the Scottish Government on the matter, it would be good to give every member the opportunity to go to London because we are at a point in the committee's life when such a visit would be most useful. This committee will not be racing around on foreign trips—unless we go to California to investigate statutory instruments there or to Bulgaria as part of our inquiry into Bulgarian wolves.
A visit on a Tuesday—or on any day other than Wednesday or Thursday—would get us round the tricky problem of missing the vote, which is very often won by a majority of one or two.
That is a helpful steer. We will look into the possibilities and see what we can come up with.
Okay. Is that decided?
Are there any other questions or points? Does anybody want to mention Bulgaria again? The point about Canis lupus—the Bulgarian wolf—was to do with the manufacture of sporrans out of wolf skin, which is not pertinent to this committee.
Meeting closed at 14:28.