Official Report 66KB pdf
The first item on the agenda is three draft affirmative instruments. Our legal briefing on the instrument on air quality is that no points arise from it. It is doubtless welcome legislation. I presume that nobody has any comments to make and that we should not make representations to any other committee.
It appears that few points arise from the second instrument, on forestry commissioners. We have been advised that the matter is being scrutinised by our related committee in Westminster. Should we simply note the instrument?
If the committee in London comes up with anything, does that make any difference to us, or do we just note what it says?
There would not be any correlation between the two committees unless we had informal discussions beforehand on something that was felt to be a problem both here and there. Presumably, the committees could disagree on the interpretation of the instrument, and that could lead to matters becoming more involved. However, there is no overlap as such, apart from informal contacts.