Colleagues, I open the meeting. I understand that last time we started two minutes early—I hope that today we are starting bang on 2 o'clock. I have received apologies from Nora Radcliffe and Helen Eadie.
I have a query about the role of the committee, based on my previous experience as a member of the Health and Community Care Committee. When legislation born out of an European directive arrived at the Health and Community Care Committee, it did not come with the relevant directive. I do not know what the situation is with the Subordinate Legislation Committee, one of whose tasks is to scrutinise such legislation. Subject committees were not able to compare whether Scottish statutory instruments were in accordance with directives. Their response to statutory instruments was based purely on the instruments themselves.
What we say in the paper does not necessarily preclude our examining how directives are implemented. I would like us to liaise rather better with the subject committees. If they are in agreement and we are not duplicating work that another committee in the Parliament intends to do, I see no reason why we should not investigate why something has occurred in a certain way, instead of just considering cases of late implementation. I have no problem with that and it seemed to be what was suggested in last week's discussion. Are other committee members happy with that?
Ben Wallace has made a reasonable point. It is within the spirit of the paper for us to examine where directives are applied differently in Scotland or whether they could or should be applied differently in Scotland. We need to set up a mechanism with the subject committees that would allow the process to be triggered.
Can the clerks check whether a facility for committees to compare subordinate legislation with the relevant EU directives already exists? Some committees may be doing that, whereas others may not. We may need only to tweak the mechanism to ensure that subject committees receive copies of directives. If they have a problem, they can refer the matter to us.
Paragraph 8 of the paper suggests that we proceed "on a case-by-case basis". In principle it would be fine for us to do what Ben Wallace suggests and to link up with the subject committees. In the meantime, the clerks can investigate the extent to which such scrutiny already takes place and where the gaps in the system are. The paper allows for us to examine how directives are implemented. Ben Wallace is right to say that, if we are to learn lessons from where things are going wrong, we should have an analysis of situations, rather than just figures.
Paragraph 5 of the paper refers to the Subordinate Legislation Committee's role in the scrutiny of documents, including Scottish statutory instruments that implement European legislation. The paper also refers to reports by the Subordinate Legislation Committee to the Parliament. In cases of non-implementation or late implementation of European legislation, does the committee report to the Parliament or just to the European Committee?
Members will recall a discussion that we had with the Executive about six months ago, as a result of which we now receive a list with information on the implementation of directives. Once the new scrutiny process is formalised, it will be our role to work through that list and to identify any areas that we want to develop. Stephen Imrie can update us on that.
One member of the committee, Colin Campbell, is also a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The Subordinate Legislation Committee reports to the whole Parliament and publishes a committee report that is available to all members, in the same way as our reports are. On at least one occasion in the past, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn the European Committee's attention to a problem with implementation.
It is all about legal implementation and the speed thereof. The content and principle of the legislation are not the business of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. We note an instrument and would pass it on to the European Committee if there were something conspicuously wrong with it legally.
Does that answer Dennis Canavan's question?
Partly, but I do not recall any instance of the Subordinate Legislation Committee reporting to us about the non-implementation or late implementation of European legislation. I thought that our committee would have a role not only in noting non-implementation or late implementation, but in recommending to the Executive that it should pull its socks up and get on with it.
I have been advised that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has written to the convener of this committee before. We are saying that there has been a vacuum and that now we want to ensure that we take up anything that is relevant to our remit. Anything that is passed to us now will fall within our new remit.
For clarification, the convener, Hugh Henry, was informed and he decided whether we should discuss the matter during the sift.
The clerk is trying to recall how the process operated. Perhaps we could look into what happened when issues were raised with us before. We assure members that procedures are now in place to deal with information that comes from the Subordinate Legislation Committee or any other committee that feels that we have a role because of our new remit in relation to the scrutiny of implementation.