The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I suggested that a solution to this could be a dual reporting structure. I would be happy to explain that afterwards, as I am sure the noble Lord would be. In view of the fact that three or four years of work is stretching before us, which sounds very expensive to me, it might be cheaper just to ask the opposite numbers at Holyrood at one of the forthcoming meetings in the next few weeks whether the pragmatic suggestion of going down the Empey/Kinnoull route might cut the mustard. If it does, it would be a heck of a lot cheaper and, I believe, much more effective. It is a free question. Will the Minister consider at least asking, to see whether they might accept this slightly different approach?
Scotland Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Kinnoull
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 January 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Scotland Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
768 c711 
Session
2015-16
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-07 16:46:29 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-01-19/16011953000066
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-01-19/16011953000066
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-01-19/16011953000066