We now move to matters that are not quite so onerous. For agenda item 4, members have a paper on procedures that relate to Crown appointees. We have to respond to the Justice 1 Committee on the issue. A draft response has been circulated, which has five bullet points and two options that relate to the subsidiary issue of annual reports of the Scottish public services ombudsman. Option A is for the status quo and option B is to say that, in due course, the committee should seek to remove through legislation the Parliament's right to interfere with those reports. Do members have any strong views? I am inclined towards option B, but I am not too fussed. Also, is the rest of the draft response okay?
I apologise for missing the previous meeting, but I had a death in my family and could not be here. The issue is probably not up for discussion now, but I must be honest and say that I do not concur with the conclusions that the committee reached at that meeting in relation to non-competitive reappointments. I just want to place it on record that I am extremely unhappy with that conclusion, but that is for another day. Given that the decision has been taken, I think that there is merit in option B—to indicate that we wish the provision to be removed at a suitable opportunity.
If no one else has any comments, we will go with option B and accept the draft response. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.