A paper outlining the convener's recommendations has been circulated to members.
The second recommendation concerns the Executive's response to our report on the European charter of fundamental rights. The issue is not over and done with—there will be further discussions over the next couple of years, specifically on the legal status of the charter. I suggest that we note the response and agree to keep a watching brief.
The response is thin and refers to only two of our recommendations. I received the response shortly before the start of this meeting and, as the rapporteur on the issue, I would like the opportunity at least to have another look at the entire list of recommendations, to see whether there are others for which the Executive has some responsibility. I would come back to you if I thought that there were.
We can certainly continue with the issue. Do members agree to the recommendations?
Since our previous meeting, we have been able to make a more detailed analysis of the Executive's response to the report on infectious salmon anaemia and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia. The convener's report makes some suggestions for follow-up and clarification. I suggest that we take those forward and, for the moment, bring our interest in the matter to a close. Do members agree to that?
The Minister for Finance and Local Government has given a response on the development of the LEADER + programme. I am a bit disappointed at the response, as it does not explain why the committee received the draft single programming document so late. Our view was that we could not give a considered response because that document—which, as members will recall, was huge—had arrived so late. That was unfortunate. As a number of members have said, the programme is significant and, if the committee is to have a purpose in scrutinising the work of the Executive, it needs to get the information well in advance.
The final two sentences of the minister's letter say:
I have not seen anything, but I will bring Stephen Imrie in on that point.
To the best of my knowledge, the draft is not yet available—I have not received the document.
Can we seek clarification on whether the minister was offering us a draft of the document at the end of April or the final version of the document at the end of May, which is when the Executive intended to present it to the Commission?
We can make those points. The principle is that we need information with sufficient time to do our job properly.
Does that not raise the more general point about the need to have a programme of work from the Executive that sets out all the draft documents that we are likely to receive over the coming year? I know that we have had such a plan from the European Commission, so I would have thought that the Executive could also have given us a programme of work.
You are right—that should be the procedure, as it has been in the past. However, for whatever reason, that procedure has not been followed in this case and we need to know why. Do members agree to the recommendations?
Finally, we come to the selection of an adviser into the forthcoming inquiry into governance. We have to follow the procedures governing the appointment of advisers. I invite Stephen Imrie to outline those procedures.
The procedure for appointing advisers has been agreed by the Parliament. I remind members that, at our previous meeting, the committee agreed in principle to the appointment of an adviser. The second step is to agree the terms of reference and remit for the adviser. The committee must then ask the Parliamentary Bureau for its agreement in principle that the committee should have an adviser. After that, the committee must agree to a shortlist and subsequently to a name from that shortlist. The parliamentary procurement services will then take up the recommendation. At this stage, the committee must agree to the terms of reference and remit, which are outlined in the private paper that has been circulated to members.
Am I right in saying that the list of names in the private paper is not exhaustive?
That is correct. It can be added to.
Was it our intention to circulate a notice saying that we were looking for an adviser or were we going to approach people? I am not quite sure how we arrived at the names that are on the list.
The names on the list are suggestions of people who we know have a background in the subject. The list is not exhaustive and we are at the committee's disposal in relation to any means or measures by which members want to change the list.
The paper mentions Dr Amanda Sloat—
Dennis, at this stage we are not discussing any of the names.
It is just that there is a misprint on the paper, which refers to
You should take up any references to individuals privately with Stephen Imrie. At the moment, we are just agreeing to the remit—the names are confidential.
I see. My apologies. We should be taking this part of the meeting in private.
I know five of the people on the list. I would like to see the curriculum vitae of the sixth. We cannot make a decision unless we know who the people are.
We are not deciding on the adviser today. The list is not final; it just gives some names that have been suggested and are kicking about. If members have identified others, they should by all means let the officials know. Today we are agreeing only the remit.
At the end of last year, I think, we had an initial discussion about governance—Stephen Imrie has listed in the private paper some of the issues that we touched on. We had a kind of brainstorming session about the issues that the inquiry could cover. The paper shows that the issues are wide-ranging—it could take us a long time to examine them. For example, one issue is
At the meeting on 8 May, we will have another look at the guidelines and the criteria that we want to follow. We will ask the officials to bring forward proposals. If anyone has specific suggestions, they should let the clerk to the committee know. Irene Oldfather is right—we will have another discussion. Do members agree to the recommendations?