salwll yn Siwydd yn Y Llywodraeth Cymru. We have apologies from Jamie Halcro Johnson, who is unable to be with us today, and in his place we have John Scott MSP. I think everybody will be happy enough with that. I'm not happy enough to be pleased with that. Can we first of all decide, please, to, as a agenda item one, to take agenda item 6 in private. That's for the committee to consider a draft report and draft standing order rule changes and do members agree to take that in private. Thank you very much. Agenda item 2 then in cross-party groups. Agenda item 2 is for the committee to consider an application for recognition for a proposed cross-party group on the USA and Dean Lockhart MSP as the proposed convener of this group. Welcome, Dean Lockhart MSP. Would you like to make a short opening statement on the purpose of the cross-party group on the USA, please? Yes. Good morning, convener, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning. The proposed cross-party group on the US could make a number of important contributions across the areas of trade, foreign investment, education and cultural exchange. In terms of trade, the US is Scotland's largest export partner internationally and accounts for around £5 billion of trade each year, £5 billion of exports, which is roughly 18 per cent of Scotland's international exports, and both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are looking to promote trade with the US. The cross-party group could play an important role in promoting collaboration between the key stakeholders in trade between both countries. In terms of education, thousands of students come from the US each year to Scottish universities and colleges, and there are a number of exchange programmes between the countries that are increasing, and research collaboration is increasing between the countries as well. I would hope that the cross-party group could encourage those trends in the future. In terms of cultural activity, there is a huge Scottish diaspora in the US and there are already significant cultural exchanges between the countries, and I believe that the cross-party group could enhance that further. The US principal officer, Ellen Wong, recently took up post in Edinburgh about six or eight months ago. Part of the reason why this proposal is coming to the committee now is that as a result of a number of discussions with the US principal officer, who is very keen that she increases her engagement with the Scottish Parliament. If the cross-party group is recommended, the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce has agreed to act as the secretary act, so I believe that there is a lot of support for the cross-party group to be established and to further the aims that I have just mentioned. I invite committee members to ask any questions. Thank you very much for joining us. I apologise for my voice, as you can hear. I am struggling a wee bit. It seems to me that a lot of the purpose when we look at it and from what you said involves exchanges, although you mentioned issues around trade. That seems to be quite limited, so could you expand a wee bit more on how often you think the group would meet what other topics might be discussed? Are there any Scottish-American organisations involved? In America, there are Scottish organisations that are there. Is there any organisations like that in Scotland that you think might want to join the cross-party group to widen out the organisations that you are interested in? I have spoken to a number of organisations and it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. They have expressed real interest in joining the group once it is officially established. For example, the Carnegie Institute, based in Dynfirmland, and a number of universities I have spoken to are very interested in joining. The way that we have left it with them is that, when the group is established, it will come on board and take forward the work in those areas. In terms of the aims of the group, I think that there is a lot of interest in having trade missions to the US, not just looking at the US as a federal state but looking at individual states in the US in terms of increasing connections, business connections, but cultural and education connections with specific states in the US. I believe that the cross-party group can act as a platform. It will not have execution capability, as you know, in terms of limited resource, but it can act as a platform to share information and bring together people who are interested across the areas of trade, education and cultural exchange. In terms of the remits of cross-party groups, it would be more about informing members. I am just interested in the kind of guests that you might have along and the topics beyond exchanges if you have thought further than that. I met the principal officer last week at the US consulate. She has a number of ideas about how the Parliament can get involved with the cross-party group. She has recently, in her post, a number of ideas about how she can promote engagement with the Parliament with US companies. The US is one of the largest single investors in Scotland, and there are a number of companies that she mentioned to me who would want to get involved with the cross-party group, to expand business links and to have a better understanding for the Scottish Parliament to understand better what is happening between the USA and Scotland. I am sorry, convener, but I recommend that you join your cross-party group. She is not listed at the moment. Absolutely. She was one of the inspirations behind the idea of the cross-party group, so she would be a central figure in the cross-party group. Okay, thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Elaine. Tom Mason, please. Just a really clarification, Dean. Does the US not have a consulate general in Edinburgh anymore? Yes, they call it the principal officer. She is affected with the site. Correct, yes. Why is she not actually joining the group as a permanent member? She will. Again, she was waiting for it to be established before she formally joined the group. Okay. Can you clarify for me the other individuals what their reason for being there? Yes, I think that a number of members—sorry, you are referring to MSPs or— Well, it was Julia Mackintosh, Thomas Harold and William Sterling. Oh, some of them are members of my office. William Sterling has a significant history in the US. He is Scottish, but he spent time in the US. He wants to look at the trade aspects of the links between the countries. As I said, there will be a number of other members' institutions or organisations who will join once the group is officially established. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Tom. John Scott, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Mr Loha. Can I ask you about the opportunities of the cultural links between Scotland and the American diaspora and the benefits of enhancing those, perhaps, here in Scotland? Absolutely. I was surprised when I looked at the number of events that take place. It is relatively limited. We have tartan day in April, which I think is the showcase between cultural exchange between Scotland and the US. Given the huge Scottish diaspora across the US, I think that there is an opportunity to increase cultural exchanges. That is something that I did discuss with the principal officer, Ellen Wong, at the US. We have a number of ideas as to how we can engage with organisations who are already involved in cultural exchange between Scotland and the US and encourage further promotion in that area. John, that is you. Good to be here. Right. Maureen Watt first and then Mark Ruskell, please. I am not sure that the job of cross-party groups is to promote trade between countries. I thought that it was more cultural issues and stuff like that. I will go through the individuals and they are listed here. How many of those four are working in your office? Leslie, Julia and Thomas are listed primarily as people who will help run the cross-party group in terms of just admin. In terms of individuals, the form should have listed more individuals, but I can assure you that there are a number of people who will be involved in the cross-party group if it is established. In terms of the universities, do the students have student organisations that are university student organisations? Can you name them in Edinburgh and Stirling University? The answer is yes. I met someone from Edinburgh University yesterday to discuss that, and they have a number of ideas as to how they can involve student groups at the university in the cross-party group. That is very much something that we will be taking forward. However, there are currently no student organisations relating to the United States. There are, but they have not engaged yet with the cross-party group because I thought it was a bit premature to reach out for engagement before the cross-party group was established. What are the names of the organisations at Edinburgh University? I do not know the individual ones. I could have listed St Andrews as well because I have spoken to St Andrews University. There is a huge number of American students in St Andrews, and that would be something that I would want once the group is established. I would look to reach out and engage with them. Clearly, the place in Scotland with the most or historically the most people from the United States is the north-east in the oil and gas industry. There is nothing about that here. That is true. That is something that we can work on once the group is established. As I said, the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce has agreed that, if the group is established to act as the secretariat, it has a number of planned trade activities as part of the Scottish Government's ambition to increase trade with the US. The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce will, I believe, add a powerful voice to the cross-party group in terms of not just trade but business links. I agree that the role of the cross-party group is not to increase trade, but part of it can be to increase business connections. I think that increasing business connections is all about collaboration, sharing ideas and increasing the network of people who are engaged in increasing links between the US and Scotland. That applies to education and cultural activities. I very much see the cross-party group as a platform to enhance interaction between Parliament, between MSPs and between stakeholders who are involved in the Scotland-America relationship. I appreciate what you are telling us, Dean, about the fact that it is a bit chicken and egg in terms of the fact that you set up a cross-party group and that individuals and organisations will come on board. However, I am a bit surprised by the initial individuals that are listed here, most of which are members of your staffing team. Can you furnish this committee with letters, notes of interest, from the US consular, from the other organisations that you have listed, specifically saying that they are interested in joining this group and what contribution that they would bring to this group? You talked about the potential, but I do not see a firm number of groups that are coming together and wanting to work with you and other MSPs to further the agenda of understanding of the opportunities that the engagement with the US presents. The case looks a little weak at the moment, and I am just wondering how you can convince us and bring forward evidence that this will be quite a robust and useful cross-party group. No, I would happily do that. Just to give you a parallel, I set up— Sorry, do you have that now? Can you provide those letters and emails and notes of interest and firm commitments to join and be part of this group? I cannot do that now. I did not know that that was a formal requirement as part of the cross-party group application, but I can get those very easily to you. To provide reassurance, you probably remember five or six months ago that I was here to set up the cross-party group on Japan. I probably had a similar number of individuals involved. In the first meeting of that group, we had 35 people at that group, and we have now got a large number of organisations involved in that group. I saw this cross-party group on the US following a similar pattern. If you would like that paperwork, I can happily submit it to the committee. I would personally find that reassurance as the direction of the group and its remit. I will ask about linkages with other groups. Is there an old party group at Westminster on the US that focuses on trade and other issues? There is not. Historically, I think that there was, but for whatever reason, there is not one in this current term at Westminster, as I understand it. That would be a natural place for trade issues to be discussed, would it not? You can also ask about linkages with other cross-party groups. You will be aware of a burgeoning number of cross-party groups in many ways of a victim of their own success in some ways in this Parliament, but there are now moves to seek greater collaboration between groups. Joint meetings have been very successful, the ones that I have attended. Where would you see the shared agendas between cross-party groups? With other cross-party groups that focus on education, there is definitely an opportunity to collaborate and have joint meetings. If the group is established and we were looking at education, for example, we would definitely engage with other cross-party groups that are involved in education. Likewise, if it is going to be a session on business development or trading links, there are other groups that we could involve to make sure that we are not doubling up and using resources for two separate meetings and that we make sure that we use parliamentary time in the most efficient manner possible. I declare an interest as a co-convener and cross-party group on food, but food policy, for example, on trade, is that something that may be considered? The cross-party group in Scotch whisky or Food and Drink would be the ideal example. For example, the US is the biggest market for Scotch whisky exports and for food and drink exports. If we were having a session on the US cross-party group on exports or on food and drink, there would be two or three other cross-party groups that we could naturally get involved in that meeting. Thank you very much. A small question from Tom Mason again. I just wondered if the US is a big country, a big area to cover. Do you anticipate concentrating on particular states or a broad-brush attack? It is a very good question. It would be a combination of engagement with federal organisations, but if Scotland's economy was ranked alongside US states, we would be the 25th state in the US in terms of economic size. It gives you a fair idea of how big the Scottish economy is with regard to a comparison with individual US states. We are in the middle of the average economic size—this is GDP per capita. Five or six states already have strong links with Scotland. We would look to build on those links, but we would also look to develop new links with other states. Getting a bit of a feeling from questions that the idea of a cross-party group in the United States is one that people believe could be advantageous. However, there is, I believe also, from a number of our members on the committee, a feeling that further information on those areas that have been inquired about might be something that, if it could be provided, would give us greater comfort on the establishment of the cross-party group. Could we possibly send you a small note to ask on those areas? I do not expect you to remember them all. Therefore, you could reply to us and we could bring you back at some point in the not too distant future to go over those again in order to give us a feeling that a cross-party group in the USA is a good idea to establish. I would be very happy to proceed on that basis. I would like to thank you for attendance. The committee will consider whether to approve the application for recognition, and we will inform you of that decision, but, as I say, you may look out for us to be in contact with you also. That is great. Thank you very much, Mr Lockhart. Does that seem reasonable and fair to everyone on the committee? I think that it is fair. I think that it is a bit of an overkill. In my experience, we have set up cross-party groups before, and there is a lot less evidence being required from them. It is an outward-looking group. It is a fact, and it has been since the beginning of the Parliament that Tartan Day is the one thing that this Parliament goes out of its way to support. I am actually surprised that we have not had a cross-party group in America before on reflection. I know that Elaine has been to Tartan Day, and I would want to encourage these cultural links. I am actually surprised that there is antipathy apparently towards this. I do think that it is a very positive thing that Dean Lockhart is bringing forward, and I propose that it should be approved. Elaine Smith, first and then Tom Mason, please. Thanks, convener. I do not have any antipathy towards the cross-party group on USA, but I think that for some of the questions that we were asking, maybe the answers were readily available. Therefore, given that this committee has to take a decision, I would suggest that we are not going to refuse the cross-party group, but I think that it would make sense to send the note to get those answers. Therefore, just to put off the decision until that is done. That might just be a couple of weeks, but I am certainly not turning my face against the cross-party group in the USA. John is quite correct that I did attend Tartan week. That is why I asked about the societies. I wondered whether the kind of societies that are in the US, whether those kind of societies here as well, we might be interested in the cross-party group. I would suggest waiting until we get the further information, putting off the decision. I think that that would be the wise thing to do. I was quite surprised that we do not have one already in position, but the evidence that we have here is as much evidence that we had as other groups that we have passed in my limited experience. If we agree that we are going to pass it anyway, going through additional hurdles, it seems to be unnecessary. Just to have the comfort blanket added is not going to necessarily change the decision. I think that it is important that cross-party groups are established in a very thorough way, and I see strong evidence on the whole that they are. However, there are questions around the initial membership of this group. Clearly, Mr Lockhart has gone to some trouble to reach out to some organisations, but I would have liked to have seen a letter from the US consulate, or substantial reassurance from other organisations such as Carnegie Trust and various universities that they are going to participate, and that the student bodies will be involved as well. I do not think that that would be particularly onerous for Mr Lockhart to secure those, but it just means that we defer consideration for another few weeks until he provides the correct evidence. It is not for us to run the cross-party group, especially not before it is even established anyway, but at the same time, if the general mood—I do understand what has been suggested by John Scott in particular and by Tom Mason—is a group that we almost definitely would be in favour of. However, if we can gain further information on how it will be established and who will be members of it, we have already had 106 cross-party groups, and we have talked before about being more rational about the numbers that we have of them. If we can ensure their viability before it comes into being, I think that that would do no harm to John Scott. On that point, Bill, I think that it is important not to limit new groups simply because there are many already set up. I am declaring an interest. I set up farmers markets a long time ago, and I knew at the outset that there would be many endeavour, but not all would succeed. Therefore, the best farmers markets were the ones that continued and prospered in the same way cross-party groups. I think that all should be encouraged and brought forward and that the best ones will succeed and that the ones that fall by the wayside will fall by the wayside because either there is a lack of interest or they are not sufficiently well managed. However, I do not think that it should be a condition of the standards committee—I do not wish it to be presumptuous—that we should set up to stop other new cross-party groups being set up simply because there are already over 100. No, that is fair enough. In actual fact, without spending this out too long because we have other businesses. However, I believe, as I said, that there is a general mood that this is actually quite a good idea as a cross-party group, but that we, as a group committee members, in the majority—anything that we put it that way—would like to see further information in order that we are satisfied that this cross-party group will be successful in its existence. Does that seem reasonable because we do not want—oh, sorry, Maureen. It is very central belt focused and given that, as I said, there is a large American population in the northeast, I would have thought that it might have reached out a bit further than central belt. What would be the timescale for deferring a decision on this matter? I think that we have agenda item 3 and we have a general opinion or direction. We would like to bring Mr Lockhart back with further information. This has been recorded and we will follow up and hopefully get Dean Lockhart back in the not-too-distant future with the further information to be provided, which will include geographical areas, and hopefully from there it will go on to be one of our successful cross-party groups. Agenda item 4 is for the committee to consider and agree our annual report. The annual report has been circulated. Does anyone have any comments at all, please? Can I just say on page 2, introduction that has got membership changes, but it has not actually got the current membership on it? Just on the other—on the REC committee that we looked at this week, it says that it has got the current membership. Right. Thank you very much, Maureen Mawrine. My advice is that this will appear at the start of the report, so it will be included. Thank you very much. I might have missed it convene, but I did not see a breakdown of the gender balance of witnesses that were giving evidence to the committee. I wondered if that would be a helpful inclusion, given that it is something that I think all the committees in the Parliament are currently reporting on. I think that that is perfectly reasonable. Can we look into that and come back to you, Maureen? I think that there is a general direction, but I think that it is something that maybe should not be discussed at the moment in public, because it is an area of the committee's business that we will have to consider first, but it certainly seems something that we will be looked into if that seems reasonable. Thank you very much. It is under the commission on parliamentary reform section on portfolio and general questions, and I wondered whether we need any kind of explanation as to why we agreed that the number of questions drawn for each portfolio would be reduced from 10 to 8, perhaps, because it is my recollection that it was such that it was a more realistic number and would allow more engagement through supplementary questions. My slight concern is in practice. I think that I probably have to go back and look at how it is working, obviously, on the back of our report, but I think that it was not about getting the eight questions in every single session, but it was about encouraging more engagement in supplementaries, if I am correct. Yes, we can have that added also if that is reasonable, and I think that it is. So, what we are really looking at is for—oh, sorry, big pan, John. Yes. That is the subject that Elaine has raised. I noted yesterday that there were only five questions in the second set of portfolio questions. There were eight questions, but three were not lodged, which reduced the whole number to five, which is always my fear about reducing the number from 10 down to eight. I am only a substitute here, I hope, for one day. I think that it is something that you might want to keep under review, because there is a very real risk of not having enough questions. I will make the point. No, thank you very much, John. That is important, in particular, given your previous experience as a DPO. It is important that we keep those potential changes and changes under review, and I think that that is beneficial for us to take forward in consideration. We will want to bring certain elements, as has been brought forward here, back for the committee to have a further look at. John, et om, big pan. I mean, certainly with questions not being lodged, it does help with every question being asked, which, having been on the number nine and number 10 twice down and missed out, one gets really agitated that there are too many questions being pushed in, and you sit there hoping that people will sit down. Being in that situation, and I am sure that we all have as well, I think that that is worth consideration as well. I do think that the circumstances of not lodged questions are something that may need to be put further into, as to reasons as to why that might be the case. It seems unfair when someone has actually got a particular question, which they really would like to be asked in public, and they do not get the opportunity. Chairman, I am fine and in the charity box might be a good idea. Maybe we won't go doing that route, but thank you anyway. Are we content with the report, with the provisals that we have brought forward? That seems reasonable, thank you. That report will be published, because we will have a look at the elements that have been raised. The report will be published on 21 May. Agenda item 5 is for the committee to consider correspondence that has been received from Mike Rumbles MSP, who has joined us today, and also from Adam Tomkins MSP, regarding law officers answering questions in the chamber. The committee has been asked to consider correspondence previously at our meeting on 28 February, and agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek their views on the points that were raised. Just before we go in, and I believe that people will be comfortable with this, before we go on to inviting any comments, we might ask Mike Rumbles MSP if he would like to make a relatively short statement, please, because we have a lot of business. I think that it is only fair if Mike Rumbles gets an opportunity to do so. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to you about my request that a recommendation be made to Parliament to update paragraph 13 and 7.1 on standing orders. Standing orders are the oil that helps the machinery of Parliament work, and I know this from being a member of the bureau for two parliamentary sessions. Just as background, after the Lord Advocate made a statement to Parliament in February last year and took 14 questions from MSPs on matters not related to his role as the head of the prosecution service, I waited 11 months—I am interested in the question about questions—11 months before I won a place on the ballot to ask an oral question at portfolio questions entitled justice and the law officers. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when the Lord Advocate didn't answer my question but remained seated in the chamber. Or could I say, imagine if you had asked a question of the health minister only to have it answered by the minister for Parliament while the health minister looked on? This situation has exercised my mind for nearly four months. So I would like to refer to the letter that you have received from the minister for parliamentary business. I would like to comment on it. Firstly, he says that the flexibility offered in rule 13 and 7.1 allows for instances when a law officer may not be available to attend proceedings in the chamber. I couldn't agree more with this. I am absolutely relaxed about this. That is what the signing order is designed to do if the minister, in this case the Lord Advocate, couldn't make it. In fact, he was sitting in the chamber listening to what I had to say. He then goes on to say, there is no procedural impediment to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General as ministers, because that is what they are, responding to oral questions. In fact, the Scotland Act makes an outstanding order to make it absolutely clear that they are to be treated in the same way as other Scottish ministers. I couldn't agree more with that response in the letter as well. That is how it used to be operated until January, but that is not how it operates since January. At another point, the minister writes at length in his letter to you about the law officer's legal advice to the Government, but that wasn't what my question was about. I had no intention of asking what the law advocate's advice was to the Government. If I had, I would have expected an answer. That is not what I was asking about. I told the Lord Advocate that subsequently. In his conclusion, having gone off on a tangent about legal advice, which I didn't ask about, he states that he believes standing orders are fit for purpose. My specific request of the committee is that you consider recommending the updating of paragraph 13.1. The example that I have—I hope that you have the 13.71 in front of you—in 13.71, it already says at the very last sentence, and it refers to the First Minister in this case, that all the questions selected for answer at First Minister's question time shall normally be answered by the First Minister, but may, if the First Minister is unable to attend the First Minister's question time or any part of it be answered by another member of the Scottish Government, how reasonable that is. That is how we should operate. I would like to make a suggestion and put it on the record, if I may, to replace the second sentence in paragraph 13.71. We will take that second sentence at which starts an oral question and replace it with an oral question concerning the responsibilities of the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland, which should normally be answered by them, but may exceptionally be answered by another member of the Scottish Government if they are unable to attend a chamber. I am not making any political point at all, because we can leave political points for the chamber, but what I am trying to do is make sure that we as MSPs have the right opportunity to be able to question ministers and the Government. That is our role, and therefore our standing orders should reflect that. Our standing orders up until now, certainly up until January, have been sufficient when the Government has recognised that. Although the minister's letter says that there is no impediment to asking the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General to answer those questions, the Government chose not to ask them to answer the questions. Our job as MSPs, I would have thought, was to make sure that we have standing orders that are fit for purpose, because to make it clear what we intend, that if an MSP asks a question of a Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General in their responsibility, he or she would expect an answer from them in the same way as we ask any other minister, and if they cannot be there, perfectly acceptable. On that particular instance, that would not have been an issue, because if the Lord Advocate, if I had not seen the Lord Advocate sitting in the chamber, if the Lord Advocate had not been there, I would have assumed, probably wrongly in his case, that he was busy elsewhere, and that is fair enough of another minister answers, but that was not what happened. I do not want that to have set a precedent for us in the future, so our standing orders, and in this particular case, in my view, are not fit for purpose, and we need to change them. I thank Mike Rumbles MSP for his contribution there. I would like to invite comments from members, if there are any. Eileen Smith, please. Thanks, convener, and thanks to Mike Rumbles for joining us. Can I ask—actually, it's not a comment, but it's a question—so if we look at rule 13.7, and the second sentence that you were talking about, I know a question concerning the operation of the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths in Scotland. Are you saying that that's too limited? Was your question beyond that, and therefore, is it a question of who decides what the Lord Advocate's remit is? The Lord Advocate's remit is that currently, as it's mentioned in standing orders now in that second paragraph, but in addition, there's a lot of issues in which he's the head of the prosecution service, so that's why that's in. Until February of last year, that's all—I've been in here when I started 20 years ago, as you have, in my case, with an intermission. Over those 20 years, that's how the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General have operated, but it changed in February last year, and that's why I think that we need to update our standing orders. It changed in February last year when the Government put forward the Lord Advocate to make a statement to Parliament and 14 MSPs asked questions of the Lord Advocate on his remit, which is not the prosecution service. Therefore, I thought that it was absolutely proper. My question was accepted by the chamber desk because I waited for the ballot to be selected. I asked the oral question perfectly acceptable, and the Government decides that the Lord Advocate should not answer that question. That's why I think that it has changed. What the Lord Advocate has done has changed. In his letter to me, he said that it was unprecedented that he changed it, but he's now set the Government to set the President, because what it now means is that, at any time, the Government can decide to put the Lord Advocate in front of us if it wants to take questions, but we should be holding the Government—that's part of our role—or the MSPs who aren't members of the Government. It's our job, whether we're in opposition or not, to hold the Government to account, and the Government is part of the Government. There has been a change in the system from February last year, which is not reflected in our paragraph and standing order. What I'm doing with my suggestion is only a suggestion. If the committee decided with the clerks that it wanted to go away and suggest something else, I would be happy with that, as long as it addressed the issue. It makes the remit clear that the Lord Advocate and the list of general should be able to answer questions on their remit. Just to the extent that the issue lies in that sentence, because if a question isn't on, that's what's standing order, to say at the moment. Therefore, if a question isn't on those two areas, then it seems to me that the Government would be reasonable for them to decide who answers it. However, if the remit has changed, we need to look into that a bit further before we make any decision on this today. I agree with Mike Rumbles and Adam Tomkins, and I think that they raise a valid concern. Up to the point that the protocol or the standing order was breached or the precedent was breached with the EU legal continuity bill, I don't think that the Government can have it in both ways. Mr Rumbles suggests a different form of word for the second sentence in the standing order rule 13.7 oral questions in the chamber. I didn't actually catch the form of words or write down the form of words that Mr Rumbles suggests, but I'm sure I have a copy of it. However, I do think that there might be an opportunity for the committee, for the committee clerks, for the lawyers of the Parliament, to consider his form of words and perhaps improve on them even bearing in mind the very real point that he has raised, which I find myself supportive of all. Thank you, John Scott. Tom Mason, please. I think that Mr Rumbles has raised a point that Sully needs to detail discussion and study. As always, it's also in the detail and the small print to get it right, but I think that when there's been sufficient time looking at what the issue has been raised, come to the conclusion at some point. I've got some sympathy here with the point that Mike's raising. I think that particularly Elaine's point about whether the remit has changed is worth looking at in a bit more detail. It could be dangerous for us to write into standing orders exactly who should answer which question. I would give the opposite example, Mike. Sometimes I ask questions of particular cabinet secretaries and I actually wish another cabinet secretary was answering that question. In a way, this is an issue about collective cabinet responsibility, it is an issue about joined up governance. There will be times when, particularly with cross portfolio issues, I'd like to see greater engagement from other cabinet secretaries as well. I know specifically about the Lord Advocate, but there's a wider issue here about pinning into standing orders which bit of the Government needs to answer which thing when. I appreciate the frustration that you had at the time with asking your questions. That's very palpable, but I'm not convinced at the moment. I pick up Elaine's point looking at the remit. If the remit has changed, then that would be… If this is a debate with an external member… That's not… Right, fine. I'm afraid, Mr Rumbles, that this is within the committee and we will be coming back to yourself on the basis of that, but we can't have an across argument here. That's okay, because I understand you, so I think that it's okay to be concerned at the moment. Yep, Maureen. What we don't have here, unfortunately, and I should have probably looked at it myself, is the answer to the question. Was Mr Rumbles unsatisfied with the answer to the question? I'm asking them a question, and you're just putting a foot… No, you can't. That's where we should either be asking questions and then having a debate, or finishing the questions in Mr Rumbles' leaves, or we discuss it. We're all over the place. That's in public, and it's an opportunity for people to make their point of view at the moment. We will be following up further on that, but at the moment people are on the basis of what has been presented by Mr Rumbles, we can have a bit of discussion about it, but it's not something that's open for Mr Rumbles to take part in. It's members making their contributions at the moment. Regardless of who answered the question, the answer would have probably been the same. What is at stake here is the probing of legal advice to the Scottish Government, which normally remains confidential to the Scottish Government, and to me that is the question about that. Also, what other members have already raised is about what the Lord Advocate is there in standing orders to answer. Right. Now, if there's anyone else, sorry to Gil Paterson, please. Thank you very much, convener. There's a number of issues at stake here, and it's the power of a Government to govern. It is one of the primary ones, so it's for the Government, if you ask a question to the Government, it's for the Government to decide who will answer that question, and it doesn't say at First Minister's question time that the First Minister must, it says normally. That doesn't mean say must, so there's no imperative in that regard. It may well be, though I don't take it as read that some president has been set. It might have been allowed by the chair, the Presiding Officer, to go ahead, but he should have ruled that if it was not within the scope of any individual and minister of government to make a response, then it's at that point that that should have been corrected. The fact that it may have happened doesn't mean that we need to change our standing orders. There must be protection, and it's almost a president that a Government would divulge what legal advice it had sought and received. If a question inadvertently is aimed at illustrating that information, any Government must be allowed to seek legal advice, and they do so almost on a daily basis. Those who have been ministers will know that. The idea that they are not protected in refusing that legal advice, which they may well do, and it becomes a political issue, must be an imperative that it's protected. However, having said all that, I hear what my colleagues are saying in regards to looking at what has been presented on the issue of a president. I'm happy to look at it. Why not? It's democracy, so let's look at it and see what we can come up with. There are principles at stake here that we shouldn't shift from. If you think that you want to change it because it's advantageous at the minute, you have no ambition to be the next Government. That is what is protecting the future of this Parliament and Governments to have the right to govern, to make change, to listen, to advise and to reject it, and not accept it, but to be in a position without any compromise to reject that legal advice. Elaine Smith, please. I agree with a lot of what Gil has said, but Mr Dumbles said in his statement that it wasn't about legal advice. He said that was something of a right here and in the reply that we got from the Government. For us, the question is whether or not we want to look a bit further at the standing order. The standing order 13.7 specifically talks about the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General. It talks about other ministers and the First Minister, but it specifically talks about the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General. For me, what we need to look at at the beginning is whether or not the only questions that they should be answering are on the operation of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths. Has the remit changed and, if so, does the standing order need to be updated to reflect that? What it says is that she will normally be answered by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General but may exceptionally be answered by another member of the Scottish Government. If it were to be exceptionally answered by another member of the Scottish Government, which I think is something that must stay and, presumably, the Scottish Government would be able to justify the exceptional nature of the Scottish Government answering the question—another member of the Government answering the question rather than the Lord Advocate—I think that the question arises then. That would not have been an issue had the Lord Advocate not been in the chamber, because I suppose we would all have presumed there were exceptional circumstances and we would not have wanted to delve into that in case those were personal circumstances as well. However, it arises because the Lord Advocate was in the chamber. To me, what we need to do is have a better look at, or a closer look at, the remit. Is it just the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths? Or is it wider? If it is now wider, perhaps that sentence just needs to be tweaked to reflect that? Maes John Scott. I would agree with that. I think that there is a piece of work to be done here. It may be that parliamentary lawyers, having looked at it, come to the view that there is not a change to be made, but I think that it is a very valid point that Mr Rumbles and Mr Tomkins have raised. Therefore, it is worth having a look at and if there is a recommendation to be made and brought forward to this committee, then they will then be able to evaluate that advice at that time. Tom Mason. You agree. Mark Ruskell. I agree. You agree as well. Thank you very much. I did not want to get us into a long twisting discussion and argument. It is useful to have people's feelings about what is being said. It is all on record, so it will be brought back to us in a further paper. We also have a general catch-up evidence session next week. We have the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans coming to speak to us, and on that occasion, we could discuss those issues further with the minister if that seems reasonable to everyone. If we are agreed on that basis, that is what we will continue to do. I thank Mike Rumbles for coming along today. I would like to thank the members for listening so carefully to what I had to say. Thank you very much. That ends the public part of the meeting. We are moving into private sessions, so that allows time for the public to leave place.