Under agenda item 3, we are asked to approve a request to commission work on the selection of the First Minister nominee. I do not know whether that is a reflection on some of the choices that the Parliament has made, or whether it simply concerns procedural issues—I suspect that it is the latter. I am sure that the committee accepts that the work should be done.
Can I—
Oh—a challenge.
Where did the proposal come from and why was it made?
I understand that the business team and the directorate of clerking and reporting wanted to consider the issue, simply as a housekeeping matter. It is similar to the work that we are doing on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I am unaware of particular difficulties or problems, or of an agenda. The proposal has been made because it is good practice to consider such issues from time to time.
The outcome may be that what we do is perfectly acceptable and does not need to be changed substantially. We are also considering SPCB elections and Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer elections. As far as I am aware, the work will be part of a general cleaning of our procedures.
I have no problem with that, but I have a question to ask. One of the milestones that is listed in the paper on the selection of the First Minister nominee is:
We will mention that in our report.
I thought that the live testing might take place after May 2003.
I do not know whether we will have a dummy run in advance—I hope that that is not an unfortunate expression.
I hope that we can hold off until May 2003.
We are either expecting a new election in April 2003 or, to be serious, considering the impact for the new parliamentary session. I am unconvinced that this is a general housekeeping exercise. It probably relates to our experience in recent years.
I am sure that nothing is excluded.
We will agree to the proposal.
Meeting closed at 11:53.
Previous
Standing Orders