I completely agree. I really like that idea of thinking about what the Government policy is—do you already know about it? And if you already know about it, then you have a good inclination of what they might want to discuss in that meeting. So, what becomes more important are the outcomes and whether you get a good summary. And we've already discussed the kind of weaknesses and the summaries that we've had to date, or the lack of consistency, then, in the content of what we've already seen, and then, yes, the lack of Government policy, or lack of clarity in relation to what the Government might want in a certain policy area. That makes that warning, and the content of the warning, even more important then, doesn't it, because you want to have an idea of what they might discuss, and the significance of those meetings.
In relation to the kind of less formal interactions that exist outside of the proper structures, I think we could probably make a good best guess as to why they're there, why the Governments are in the room, in relation to the structures of the inter-governmental relations review, the inter-ministerial committees, because they are standing committees. It may be more useful to press for pre-warning of more ad hoc structures, because something would have triggered those engagements, something would have triggered the need for bilateral or inter-governmental meetings outside of those structures. And so I would argue that maybe notice of the intent, why are they meeting, in that respect is maybe more significant than the kind of clearer structures in the inter-governmental, inter-ministerial sphere.
I said earlier about the quality of the summaries. I would probably, here, say a word about how we make sure that we know what's been communicated. And so I think there is a job of work to think about what happens to the products of the inter-ministerial, inter-institutional agreement when you receive them. So, we know that they feature on the committee agendas. It would be for a policy-specific committee to take notice of the correspondence in relation to individual policy areas, and this committee has this wonderful oversight job of working out how things are working in the round.
This information, on the Senedd website, and elsewhere, is not always very clear. I would advocate thinking about being able to kind of thematically sort this information, making sure that information in relation to inter-ministerial meetings sits alongside other information that you receive, so that the good work of the agreement is then not lost in the quagmire of webpages. I'm a bit of a geek; I love spending a lot of time on the Senedd website, but others maybe don't. And so I think greater signposting of the information that you do have would also really assist in the scrutiny process, and in appreciating what you have, so that, again, going back to that cyclical way of looking at things, when you do have a Minister in front of you, when you have a policy in front of you, you also, as Members, know where to go to to find that information that you need to perform that better scrutiny.