We have received correspondence from the Lord Advocate and I need guidance from the committee on how it wishes to proceed. The letter from Colin Boyd to me was helpful as he was good enough to copy in the response from the Executive to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill. We need to decide what we want to do at this stage, if anything. We might want to consider whether we want to hear from the Lord Advocate and whether we want to respond to the Westminster committee. I am perfectly happy to hear suggestions about that.
Did we ask Lord Falconer to give evidence and has that been put on hold because of what the select committee is doing?
We extended that invitation.
It strikes me that much as I would be happy to have Colin Boyd come to give evidence, we know pretty much what his view is. There are movements outlined in his letter that I welcome. It would be much more pertinent for us to hear from Lord Falconer, because he will make decisions on amendments and on how many of our concerns are taken on board. However, it might not be the appropriate time to hear from Lord Falconer, given the select committee's inquiry.
I am informed that the invitation has been extended to Lord Falconer to attend the committee. I gather that the decision whether to appear rests with him. Certainly if the committee desires, I can arrange for a timeous reminder to be sent.
That would be helpful.
Does the committee wish to do anything else at this stage?
We should hear from the Lord Advocate. I appreciate what Nicola Sturgeon has said about his views being on public record, but we would normally hear from a minister in a formal inquiry. That is a separate matter from whether Lord Falconer responds positively or negatively to our request. We hope that he responds positively.
Is that suggestion agreed?
I agree with everything that has been said. Do we want to respond to the select committee?
One thing at a time. Do we agree that we want to hear from the Lord Advocate, as well as from Lord Falconer?
It is really important that, after we have heard from them, we make our views known to the select committee.
What is the deadline for that?
We do not have a deadline at the moment. Again, it is a question of slotting things in as best we can in the spaces available. We will invite the Lord Advocate to come before us and we shall renew our invitation to Lord Falconer. We will see how we get on with hearing a little more evidence before we formulate a response to the Westminster committee.
Meeting suspended until 15:42 and thereafter continued in private until 16:35.