Official Report 244KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill. A paper has been circulated that outlines our proposed approach to consideration of the bill. This afternoon, the Parliamentary Bureau is reviewing the allocation of all bills to all committees, so the proposed bill may be reallocated to another committee. However, for the purposes of the agenda item, we will work on the assumption that we will continue to be the lead committee.
Thank you, convener. I was under the impression that I was here purely as a spectator and that, on this occasion, I would not be asked to speak about the merits of the proposal. Is that correct?
Yes. This is not about the proposed bill, but about how we will handle the passage of the bill.
The proposed bill is the culmination of about four years' work. It does not appear to have attracted any obvious antagonism. It is a small, modest piece of draft legislation that would, I hope, have considerable effect on safeguarding the future of tartan both for the industry and for tourism. I recommend it highly. I do not have anything else to say at the moment.
A paper has been circulated that outlines our timetable for progress, how we hope to consider the bill and the various sessions—
I am sorry, convener—do you wish me to say more about what the bill is about?
No. You would do that at the first meeting at which we considered the proposed bill. Today we are considering a paper to ensure that we get in all the oral consultation and that the bill goes through the due process that it deserves. We have outlined an approach. If we find at a later stage that we need to invite more people to give evidence, we reserve the right to do so. Is the committee happy with the general approach that is outlined in the paper?
I am concerned by the amount of time that is to be devoted to the proposed bill. I have a few first-principles questions about whether legislation is required in this area. At this stage, I would rather not commit to the amount of time that is proposed for consideration of the bill, as that presupposes that we will want to examine the proposal in that amount of detail.
I have a similar point. It seems to me that the bill is about something that one considers to be either a good thing or not a good thing. I would be interested to know the suggested groups' views on the bill's merits and about any concerns that they had, but I question whether we would need to do that in oral evidence sessions. I would like us to reserve the decision on whether we call people in for formal evidence sessions until we have ascertained whether there is anything for them to come in about.
I do not think that we have any choice but to consider the bill in detail, given that Jamie McGrigor has obtained the right to introduce it. If the bill is assigned to us, we must consider it at stage 1. However, I think that we should consider written evidence first, before we decide to embark on inviting a range of witnesses to give oral evidence. The committee is pushed for time as it is. In the first instance, we should seek written evidence from people to ascertain whether there is anything that would merit their coming in. For example, they might raise specific issues or concerns that we could then address through the oral evidence process.
That seems a sensible proposal to me. Members are shaking their heads in agreement.
Nodding their heads.
Yes, nodding—sorry. It has been a long day. I go to bed at night now saying "Is that agreed?" [Laughter.]
What if Isobel says no?
We had better strike that from the record, Karen. Thank God the public gallery is not full.
Members indicated agreement.
That is subject, of course, to the Parliamentary Bureau maintaining its position that we will be the lead committee for the bill. If the bill is referred to us, we are duty bound, as Karen Gillon said, to give it due consideration and to report back to the Parliament on it. We must observe the spirit as well as the letter of the standing orders in that respect.
That suggestion is perfectly fair and I take it on board, but what would be the timescale for obtaining written evidence?
I will seek guidance from the clerks on that. [Interruption.] I am informed that we are not in a position to give a deadline just now. However, given the stage that the bill is at in the parliamentary process, we would invite written evidence as soon as is practicable. We will keep you informed, Mr McGrigor, as we make progress on the bill and we will consult you to ensure that you are happy with what the committee is doing. We are always keen to ensure that we involve members who are in charge of bills.
My concern is purely the time available between now and the end of the session.
We will not have any undue delay—let us put it that way. We will write to the suggested organisations this week and ask them to provide written evidence. We must give them a reasonable time in which to do that. As part of its stage 1 consideration, the committee is required to assure Parliament that we gave adequate time for consultation as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny. We will give the organisations time to respond. Normally, that period would be around a month. We would then need some time to consider the written evidence and to decide who, if anybody, we wanted to call to give oral evidence. Given that we are going into recess for two weeks, I think that that is reasonable.
By definition, the organisations that we are contacting will mainly be those that are interested in the proposal in some shape or form. Most of them will be minded to support it in some way. We should be cognisant of the fact that we are not reaching out more widely to those who, while not feeling sufficiently motivated about or aware of the proposed measures to write in and oppose them, might not feel that it should be a legislative priority. We ought to be aware of that. I am conscious of what the member in charge of the bill said about the proposals having been around for a while and being broadly supported, but I think that we have to ca' canny in that respect and in how we interpret what is put forward by those who have engaged with the process thus far or who might do so from here on in.
Normally, a general notice goes out as well as specific invitations for written evidence. One would hope that, if people have concerns about the bill, either in principle or in practice, they would draw those concerns to the attention of the committee, initially in writing. When we come to consider oral evidence, we will need to take a balanced approach with regard to whom we invite to give that evidence.
The consultation on the original proposal, which was not a consultation on the proposed bill as such, is in the public domain. I imagine that it will show a lot of the pros and cons.
Absolutely. The committee would want to be sure that it goes through the appropriate processes, with a "Speak now, or forever hold your tongue" approach, so that we can hear from anyone with concerns, either in principle or in practice. They are entitled to have their views heard as well as those who are in favour of the bill.
Absolutely.
Is everybody happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank everybody for that, and I wish you all a happy recess.
Meeting closed at 16:02.