Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Official Report 184KB pdf

---

Scottish Government (Correspondence)

Agenda item 5 concerns references to the "Scottish Government" in motions and questions. The matter was raised by Christine Grahame. We responded to her, but she has not responded to us. We have a paper on the matter, which sets out that, because the Scotland Act 1998 refers to "the Scottish Executive", that terminology must be used in official settings such as parliamentary questions, but it is open to members to use other terminology in less formal settings. We have explained that to Christine Grahame. Can we let the matter lie there?

I spoke to Christine Grahame because I read in the committee papers that we had not received a response. She told me that she had intended to respond, but she has been off for the past week or so and she has not caught up with things. She would be happy to respond to the points that you made. I spoke to her only this morning, having gone through the committee papers at the weekend.

Concern was expressed that arbitrary decisions were being made, but it appears from the explanation in the paper that that is not the case. The decisions were not arbitrary, but there is a certain interpretation of how a question should be asked. There seem to be fewer rules on how a motion can be framed. The degree of flexibility on what is acceptable seems to be far greater with a motion than with a question.

That begs the question whether the rules on questions that are set out in, I think, chapter 13 of the standing orders—I am sure that Andrew Mylne will keep me right on that if I stray—which refer to

"Questions to the Scottish Executive",

prohibit the use of the term "Scottish Government"—or "Scottish government", as discussed in paragraph 4 of the paper. I do not know whether those rules mean that the question must be addressed to the "Scottish Executive". I understand that that is an interpretation of the rules and might even be a valid interpretation of them, but is it the only interpretation of what they mean? If it is not, then we can call the Executive not quite anything we like, but something that is akin to the "Scottish Executive". However, if it is the only interpretation, we should change the rules in chapter 13. I accept that we cannot change the Scotland Act 1998, but we can change what we accept in questions.

Christine Grahame raised the issue. Given that she intends to respond to our response, can we proceed to the next item?

What is the point? We have the information. The question is whether we want to proceed with a rule change on the basis of the views of one member, who has a particular political perspective. Do we wish to hold a consultation on the matter? Christine Grahame's views might well be important, but they are no more important than those of other members. We cannot pursue the matter with just one member; we would have to pursue it with all members of the Parliament. I would like a steer from the committee as to whether we will ultimately change the rules, rather than just going off on a nice wee hunt for the philosophical definitions of government and executive, because we have far more important things to get on with.

With respect, convener, that was not the first question that I posed. I am sure that Karen Gillon heard the first question, which was whether we require the rules to be changed in order to be able to call the Executive the "Scottish Government", and whether the current interpretation is based on the political perspective of an individual or group of individuals. Does what we are being asked to do require a rule change? I submit that it might not.

Out of courtesy to Christine Grahame, we should allow her to respond. I take Karen Gillon's point. It is not Christine Grahame's issue, so to speak, but she raised it and we have responded. Although there might have been some delay on her part, which goes back quite a long way, we should give her every chance to respond. When we get her reply, we can decide whether we wish to pursue the matter. We are not pre-empting any decision by doing that.

I do not know whether you are aware of this, convener, but sometimes other members criticise the Procedures Committee for making mountains out of molehills with some of the issues that are thrown at us. Paper PR/S2/06/8/6 states clearly the statutory position. I suggest that we agree with what is said under "Options" in paragraph 11 on page 2, which is that

"the rules as they currently stand reflect the statutory position and do not require any amendment."

We should leave it at that. We have work to get through that is important to the majority of members of the Parliament. We do not need to take any further information or receive further comments from the member who raised the matter with us. The statutory position is clear.

I refer members to paragraph 4 of the paper, which states:

"The Rules in Chapter 13 impose a number of relatively prescriptive constraints on the wording of questions – and Rule 13.3 refers directly to ‘questions to the Scottish Executive'. It is on this basis that the Chamber Desk expects Parliamentary Questions to begin: ‘To ask the Scottish Executive'."

That suggests that the chamber desk, or whoever instructs it, has said that it expects a question to begin that way. The paper does not say that questions must begin that way, but that the chamber desk expects them to begin that way.

Paragraph 7 states:

"Both ‘Scottish Executive' and ‘the Scottish Ministers' are therefore statutory terms, and are synonymous."

Could questions therefore start, "To ask the Scottish Ministers"? Is referring to the Scottish Executive a rule because that is what is expected, or because that is set down somewhere in legislation. Clearly, the latter is not the case; the rule is based on expectation. Is a rule change required because somebody expects us to do something in a particular way?

Can we go back to the proposition that, out of courtesy, we should allow Christine Grahame the opportunity to respond? We could then have a discussion based on the report and on her response at the next meeting. The alternative view, presumably, is to close down the issue now. However, I suggest that we allow Christine Grahame to respond and then discuss the matter.

Convener, there is no way that I wish to be discourteous to any member of the Parliament in my suggestion—I make that clear. However, I feel that the rules as they stand are sufficient and that they reflect the statutory position. I do not wish to divide the committee over the issue, but we must be aware that there is a paper trail attached to it and that we seem to continue matters for what are not always the best of reasons. That is why I feel we should agree today to accept the second option in paragraph 11 of the paper.

I do not see the statutory position to which you referred. Can you perhaps enlighten us?

What you are doing, Bruce, is dancing on the head of a pin. We are coming down again to the constitutional issue of whether to address the Scottish Executive as such, or as the "Scottish Government". The suggestion is that people out there do not know what we are talking about when we refer to the Scottish Executive, but I think that that is wrong. We have established rules and members know clearly to whom they can address questions, whether that is the First Minister or the Scottish ministers.

Cathie Craigie said that I was dancing on the head of a pin, but the First Minister referred to the "Scottish Government" in relation to the Commonwealth games bid for Glasgow, so it wisnae me that first used that particular expression. But we are being invited—

There is nothing to prevent the First Minister from using that term.

Fine. I see nothing in the rules or in statute that prevents a member from using the term "Scottish Government". I have asked for clarification of where in statute it says that we cannot use that term and I am waiting for an answer. I do not think there is anything in statute that says that we cannot use the term.

I do not want to protract this discussion, but surely the point is that we cannot ask a question of a body that does not exist in law. The term "Scottish Government" has no legal position.

Speak to the First Minister about that one.

But he does not address questions to the Scottish Government.

Bruce, when the First Minister refers to the Scottish Government, he is not asking a question of a legal entity but making a political statement—as you are. We must be clear that, in terms of our standing orders, members may put a question to the Scottish Executive, which is defined in the Scotland Act 1998 as having powers conferred on it as the Scottish Executive. We can argue the semantics of whether the Executive is the Scottish Government or whether it is part of the Government of Scotland—or whatever you want to call it. I would accept that the Executive is part of the Government of Scotland, as is the United Kingdom Government and the local authorities. However, it does not choose to call itself that. If we want to get into semantics, the fact is that the Scottish Executive is a legal entity that has powers conferred on it under that name. Therefore, we ask questions of the Scottish Executive.

I disagree with that part of it.

Which part do you disagree with?

I disagree with—

Is the Scottish Executive a legal entity?

Of course the Scottish Executive is a legal entity. Ministers are a legal entity as individuals.

Do they have powers conferred on them as the Scottish Executive?

Yes. I know the line that you wish to pursue; however, they are legal entities as individuals, yet we do not address the questions to them as individuals. I am asking whether rule 13.3 means that members must refer to the Scottish Executive in their questions. We have established that members may refer to the Scottish Executive in motions—

The "Scottish government".

We have established that members may refer to the "Scottish government" in motions, although Karen Gillon maintains that it does not exist.

It does not exist.

That term seems to be acceptable—and the Presiding Officer seems to accept it as valid—in motions or amendments.

Such a motion would bind nobody.

The Executive is not the "Scottish Government", even though you might wish it to be; it is part of the Government of Scotland, as is the UK Government.

The paper refers to motions and amendments that talk about the "Scottish government". I suspect that, if that body did not exist, the Presiding Officer would rule the motion incompetent.

Who is the "Scottish Government", Bruce?

In terms of the—

Who is the "Scottish Government"?

So, you are—

Who is it?

You are not part of it, then? It does not exist?

Who is the "Scottish Government"? I am part of the Government of Scotland.

I think that we know who is dancing on the head of a pin.

Are you suggesting that the UK Government is not part of the Government of Scotland?

It is part of the Government of Scotland, but is it the "Scottish Government"?

Why?

I asked, "Is it?" I did not say that it is.

It is part of the Government of Scotland.

Fine.

As is the Scottish Executive.

Fine. But it can also be referred to as the "Scottish Government".

So, I could refer to the UK Government as the "Scottish Government" in a motion to the Parliament.

No. You asked whether it was part of the Government of Scotland, and I said that it was.

If a motion of the Parliament refers to the "Scottish government", on whom does that motion confer responsibility?

You would not understand that.

Does it confer responsibility on the Executive or on the UK Government?

Members of the Scottish Parliament do not ask questions of the UK Government; they have to ask the Scottish ministers to ask questions of the UK Government. That resolves the problem immediately.

But members can lodge motions that are not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament; therefore, they can use the term "Scottish Government" without conferring responsibility on anybody. We can debate anything that we like.

Do you believe that, if you said "Scottish Government", the public out there would think that you were referring to Westminster?

I think that the public know what the Scottish Executive is; we are kidding ourselves if we think that they do not.

Can we go back to my suggestion that we allow Christine Grahame to respond? I hope that we will then not have this discussion all over again. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.