I draw members' attention to various other documents that have been circulated. The Justice 1 Committee has published its report on the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. The committee was interested in what will be done, if anything, about the commissioner's annual report. Some existing legislation allows Parliament to direct commissioners on their reports, which we thought was not such a good idea. Members will speak from their points of view during the stage 1 debate on the bill, but perhaps I, or somebody else, could point out that the Procedures Committee is not keen on allowing Parliament to dictate the form of the commissioner's report.
That is a fair point. However, in the Justice 1 Committee's defence—and not just because I am a member of that committee—I point out that it grappled with much greater issues and ended up recommending that the bill should not progress at all. We should bear that in mind. If the Justice 1 Committee has not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, that is simply because it was rapidly coming to the conclusion that the bill is not worth progressing.
I am not being critical of anyone; I just want to have the committee's view on the record.
That is fair.
Members also have a copy of a letter from Christine Grahame and my reply. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent Jack McConnell or anyone else from referring to the "Scottish Government"—any of us can do that in dialogue or in a speech. However, in formal documents, it is more difficult to use that expression rather than the phrase "Scottish Executive". The Scotland Act 1998 calls the Government the Scottish Executive and talks about the First Minister, not the Prime Minister. Therefore, official documents must keep in line with that, otherwise some legalistic person could challenge their validity. Do members wish to comment on the letter?
You have interpreted more widely than she had intended what Christine Grahame is asking for. I have not spoken to her about it so I am going only on my reading of her letter and your reply. She was using the case of the First Minister in Melbourne as an example of the use of the term "Scottish Government"; she was not saying that it should be used on all occasions. Which term he uses is a matter for the First Minister. Paragraph 2 of the letter is pretty direct and refers to another example of a decision that has been arrived at—
For whatever reason.
For whatever reason. The essence of Christine Grahame's question is, if it is reasonable to use the phrase "Scottish Government" in place of "Scottish Executive" in parliamentary motions, why is it not used in parliamentary questions? She is asking one question and I suspect that Karen Gillon has a different one.
It is a fair point. The Scotland Act 1998 bestows a specific title on the Scottish Executive. It should be referred to as the Scottish Executive in official publications and documents. We can have a debate about whether it should be called the Scottish Government, but who gave anybody the right to say that it should be referred to as that in official documents of the Parliament?
It could be.
Who made that decision? In consultation with whom? Is it within the legal competence of the Parliament? If there is a specific title in the Scotland Act 1998, we can debate whether we wish to amend the act to call the Scottish Executive the Scottish Government.
No, we cannot. Amending the Scotland Act 1998 is a job for Westminster.
We may wish to make a recommendation to Westminster. We cannot make the decision but we can have the debate. However, as far as I am aware, it is not a debate that we have ever had. Once again, a decision has been made, with no consultation with anybody, which has some pretty far-reaching consequences. The convener's approach is the correct one. I wonder why the decision was made.
I do not think that the Scotland Act 1998 refers to how a parliamentary motion must be worded. Who decided in the first instance that parliamentary questions should refer to the Scottish Executive? I take Karen Gillon's point, but I wonder what the process was. Christine Grahame is pointing out an anomaly—[Interruption.] That sounds like a milk float.
As long as it is not the roof coming in.
It is permissible to refer to the Scottish Government in a parliamentary motion, but a parliamentary question would be rejected if one used that form of words. There is some merit in considering the issue, although not necessarily in spending a heck of a lot of time on it.
The subject is not officially on the agenda. I was trying to be helpful by drawing the committee's attention to the letter.
I was going to mention it anyway.
There is an anomaly. On two or three occasions at First Minister's question time, I have heard the First Minister refer to the Scottish Government. In a parliamentary answer, the First Minister can talk about the Scottish Government, but in a parliamentary question, a member such as Annabel Goldie or Shiona Baird cannot refer to the Scottish Government. That is an anomaly.
Forgive me for coming to a different view from that of the First Minister, but two Governments govern Scotland: the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. If we want to get into that debate, that is fine.
You were not getting into that debate.
Do you want to debate the issue correctly, when it is on the agenda, or do you want to forget about it?
No.
We should consider it, if for no other reason than to satisfy Karen Gillon on how we got to this situation.
I am happy to write to the chamber desk.
That assumes that the chamber desk determines things on behalf of the Parliament, which would be a dangerous assumption. Someone has asked for the issue to be addressed. There is no need to make a huge issue of it. The question is why we were told in the past that we had to use Scottish Executive in a parliamentary motion when we can now use Scottish Government and why we are being told that we must use Scottish Executive in parliamentary questions. I do not know where in the Scotland Act 1998 it says that we must do so. I would have thought that the act would be gloriously silent on that.
I suppose the point is that nobody has any control over what any of us, from the First Minister downwards, says in speeches, whereas there is control over questions, which must be in accordance with the constitution. Does Bruce McFee want a paper on the subject?
A brief one.
I do not think that it is worth it.
I suppose if a committee member wants a brief paper on the subject—
I would like a letter to be sent to the chamber desk asking on what authority it allowed the words "Scottish Government" to be used in motions—that is the essential question.
And where the instruction came from for the original decision.
And what the reasons were. What was the thinking behind the decision?
Right. The clerk has offered to find that out and to put the chamber desk's response in his report. Does Karen Gillon wish us to write a stroppy letter?
No, I think that people will get the essence of our position—it will be conveyed to them.
I presume that they will read the Official Report.
It was a useful and productive meeting and I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee produces recommendations that will help us all in taking forward legislative consent that involves Sewel motions.
The meeting was useful and it allowed Karen Gillon to buy a new hat for the occasion.
I did not have a hat on.
The final paper, PR/S2/06/6/7, is on the Executive's consultation on the proposed transport and works bill. Before my time, the Procedures Committee drew up the report on which much of the Executive's approach to this matter is based. Does the committee wish to respond further to the consultation? Would it be better or more acceptable for individual members to respond rather than the committee?
The Procedures Committee reached a unanimous decision on the proposition that we put to the Executive and it has filleted it. The consultation document presents a filleted version of what the Procedures Committee recommended. We should perhaps take time—a week—to consider what our response should be, but we should make some form of response.
I was not involved in the original committee inquiry, but I note that the Executive states in its consultation document that the reason for omitting parliamentary consideration of an order is because of
As I understand it, primary legislation is required and the Executive's proposal will have to go through the bill process, which means that the proposed transport and works bill will come to Parliament and the Local Government and Transport Committee will consider it.
But the essential point is that what will have been consulted on is the Executive's proposal, which has filleted out the "plus" element of the proposed transport and works act provisions, on which the Procedures Committee was unanimously keen when it was discussed.
I have no difficulty with our including that, as the committee's considered view, in the report that we submit to the consultation.
Do you wish our response to be accompanied by a note that states that parts of the committee's proposals have been left out of the Executive's proposals and that the committee believes that its proposals as a whole should have been taken forward?
We could say that we are disappointed that the Executive has decided to proceed with a consultation that is not in line with the proposals that the committee outlined.
The Executive has described in the consultation document what the committee proposed. The Executive is being honest by saying, "This is what the committee proposed, but we propose something different." The Executive is not misrepresenting the committee.
Yes, but we can say that we are disappointed that the Executive has gone for a process that is more Executive-led than parliamentary-led. We would duck our responsibilities if we did not say that.
If that is how the committee wishes to proceed, perhaps I could suggest that, given the consultation's timescale, we put on next week's agenda consideration of a draft letter to the Executive along the lines that have been suggested, so that the committee can consider alternatives to that before it proceeds. A supplementary question would be whether the committee would wish to consider that in private.
Our report is in the public domain, so the suggested consideration should be done in public.
Does the committee agree to what has been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank members for their contributions on the various important issues.
Meeting closed at 11:36.