Sift
The next item on the agenda is our good friend, the sift paper. Members will recall that we have taken an interim decision to mark documents that are of special importance. Members might wish to comment specifically on those items. Early-warning systems and scrutiny will be the final item on today's agenda, so I ask members to keep the discussion tightly on the sift paper before us.
We are making progress on how we do the sift. At the last meeting, I welcomed the system for documents of special importance. Under paragraph 3.2 of EU/S2/03/5/7, there is a question about how to continue with the system and whether we can refine the process more.
I will hold you there. We are still on agenda item 4, which is the sift paper. As I was saying, agenda item 5 deals with the proposals for revising the sift process.
I do apologise.
Are there any comments on the sift paper?
Do you and the clerks decide which documents are of special importance? What criteria did you use other than the obvious one that some have more impact on Scotland than others?
I clear the papers but, as you would expect, I rely on the clerks' guidance on which are of special importance. I made no changes to their proposals.
On the document of special importance on the establishment of a European maritime safety agency, we have explanatory notes that show that various members of the committee have supported that idea in the past—I was one. However, it is important to note that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government are fully behind the idea and have endorsed Glasgow 100 per cent as the location for the proposed European maritime safety agency. It is important that we put on record that there is wider support for that than from just committee members.
Are there any other comments on the sift paper? I remind members that the sift paper also goes to other committees and that if there is anything that those committees want to pursue, they will do so.
As there are no other comments, I move on to the final agenda item, which is the paper on revising the sift process. Before Irene Oldfather speaks, I remind members that the committee has been considering ways to improve our role of scrutiny and how we carry it out. It is clear that, given that the committee deals with approximately 1,200 pieces of legislation every year, we must have a good system in place that identifies proposals that we can influence and scrutinise at an appropriate stage of the legislative process. Revision of the sift process is about achieving a good system that will enable the committee to play its role as effectively as possible.
The briefing paper is not the final word on the matter; it is intended to move things forward but we will have to continue to reflect upon the situation until we can put the perfect system in place. However, the paper contains some innovative proposals that will help us to make progress and to carry out our role more effectively. I hope that it will also help the other committees and the Parliament with their roles.
We have come a long way from the early days of the committee and we are improving all the time.
I like the idea of documents of special importance—I mentioned that at the previous meeting. However, they should be categorised clearly to identify those that are at the pre-legislative stage. That would represent a further improvement because it would mean that other committees and members would be able to identify matters that they still have time to influence rather than those that we are learning from or that are informing us. Perhaps the table of documents of special importance could have another column that identifies which are pre-legislative, or perhaps there could be a separate category for pre-legislative documents. I am open to either suggestion but that is a further refinement that would be useful.
Other than that, the paper is good and it takes us further forward.
Anything that simplifies the process or makes it clearer would be good. From reading the paper, I am not sure that I am any clearer about the process than I was before I read it. The graphs are quite amazing and as soon as I see the word "roadmap" I begin to groan; it has been the most overused phrase for the past nine months—particularly in relation to the middle east—and now everyone is trying like mad to avoid it.
I tend to think that the sift is the lowest of our priorities, as is said in paragraph 4.2 of the clerk's note. That is qualified when the clerk says that
"many of the activities of the Committee … can stem from the process itself."
I am a new member of the committee and I wait to see whether that happens. What the Commission is getting up to is, in a sense, reflected in the sift. However, I am yet to be convinced, but as long as we do not get distracted or derailed by the sift, it is useful. I realise that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes and the more that that can be boiled down or reduced, the better.
As for the breakfast briefings on issues of importance, perhaps it would be all right if it were a late breakfast because I am not too good in the mornings. I would certainly attend them loyally.
I liked the headline "The Sift In Action". I hope that we can get it into action in a simplified way so that it does not consume the clerks' time. Perhaps I am being a heretic—I do not know—but that is my view.
I must take responsibility for the word "roadmap" and for the flowcharts, which I believe help people understand how the committee interacts with the legislative process.
They are quite helpful, to be fair.
I am slightly concerned about the fact that paragraph 3.2 says:
"Partly it is ‘instinct' that can help officials identify key documents."
That is worrying. I am not criticising our staff, but I think that we, as elected members, have responsibility for the process and that that comment should not be in the paper. I accept that the convener clears the sift list and so on, however.
The same paragraph deals with explanatory memoranda. Those memoranda are extremely helpful and one of the things that has impressed me every time we are faced with a sift is how concise they are. If, having read one, one wants to know more, one can do follow-up reading. In Westminster, however, the explanatory memoranda are sometimes about two pages long.
I do not know the mechanism that we would use to flag up issues that might become dynamite at a later date. Perhaps we would use bold type or different coloured paper. Far be it from me to ask for extra expenditure on the Parliament's part, but I think that there has to be an explicit mechanism whereby members are alerted to issues that are of particular significance.
Paragraph 4.1 deals with subsidiarity and proportionality. I wonder how we are going to
"work in close co-operation with the UK Parliament."
We know most of the members of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and, although they are all very friendly, I do not know by what mechanism we would work closely with them. Would that mean additional work for our clerks or for members? Would we have people flying up and down the UK? Would it all be done by e-mail?
I am happy to invite Stephen Imrie to comment on that. At the moment, there is an informal information-sharing procedure.
On the issue of officials using their instinct, that is described in the section of the paper that deals with the status quo. However, paragraph 4 and onwards of the paper deals with how that can be changed to allow us to have a more stable footing.
It would be useful if the clerks and other officials had more of a political steer from members as to what are and are not areas of importance. For example, if members told officials that deliberations on fisheries issues or justice issues that had implications for Scotland were key priorities, that would help officials to be more alert to legislative proposals that fall into those areas, which would make them easier to flag up.
It is probably worth recalling that the implementation of the early-warning system is still subject to ratification, so we are still a number of months, if not years, away from working out the detail of how it would work. It is clear that the system could be significant, but it could take up a lot of time. In a previous paper we said that if the committee agreed we would bring back more thoughts after deliberation with colleagues in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on how the committees can work together in a relatively painless way without overloading members with tasks.
In my earlier ramblings, I forgot to endorse what Irene Oldfather said about flagging up the issues that we can have influence on in the early stages. The article that Gordon Heggie wrote for Scottish Affairs, which is enclosed in our papers, is illuminating, especially what he said about the European Committee coming to issues late in the day and, in terms of the sift, about the extraordinary dialogue between the then convener and Winnie Ewing, who asked for more information on three issues in a row only to be told that, in each case, the decisions had already been made. Obviously, issues relating to green papers and consultation processes have to be flagged up early so that we can influence them.
I highlight the idea of a procedure by which we would involve other committees in the scrutiny process when we pass proposals to them. Such a pro forma procedure would indicate the stage that the legislation had reached, its impact on Scotland and so on, which would allow us to have a standard cover sheet to inform other committees how they could best intervene.
The paper also covers ways in which we can develop the relationship between this committee and other committees.
Do members agree to endorse the paper?
Members indicated agreement.
We will return to the paper at a later date to reflect on how successful it has been.
I am delighted that we are able to close the meeting already—it is only ten past three. I wonder if that is to do with the fact that we have only five members today.
The next meeting is on Tuesday 4 November, when we will take evidence from the Minister for Finance and Public Services, Andy Kerr, and a UK minister.
Meeting closed at 15:12.