 I welcome members to the fourth meeting in 2016 in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. As usual, I remind everybody to switch off mobile phones as they affect the broadcasting system. We have received apologies from Cameron McCannan and, once again, we have John Scott with us to substitute. There is only one item on today's agenda, and that is to consider a note by a clerk regarding Chapter 9B of Standing Orders consent in relation to UK Parliament bills. Hopefully, we can discuss that fairly well-focused and in short order just now. I'm going to exercise my prerogative as convener. I don't usually do this. I've been wrestling with what Mary has brought to us with. I think it's entirely a proper thing. I've come to some personal conclusions that my political colleagues and committee colleagues may or may not agree with, but I'll just put them out there to see if they help at all. In a sense, I've come to the conclusion that what Mary is trying to do is perhaps more restricted than too narrow, because there's perhaps underlying a broader issue that Mary's proposal quite properly addresses. In essence, from time to time, this Parliament will wish to inform in a formal sense another Parliament, generally Westminster, of a view that we might take on a subject that may or may not be within our legislative competence. I'll just choose an example, not for any particular reason around the politics. We might wish, feeling strongly about the matter, to make a comment to Westminster about this Parliament's view on a matter that relates to defence, which is clearly and absolutely outside our legislative competence. Perhaps what Mary has done is giving us the opportunity to think about the processes by which we might do such a thing. The paper makes reference to the Welsh Assembly's recent activities in LCM. Indeed, that illustrates that what I am saying and what we are wrestling with isn't necessarily just a matter of the Scottish Parliament. It certainly is for Wales, it may be for Northern Ireland, and it even could be for the jurisdictions of Jersey, Guernsey and the Eile of Man. I happened to know, because of a meeting that I had, that Guernsey is wrestling with difficulties in the way in which their views are dealt with. I'm coming from a sort of starting position and I think that Mary's brought something forward, but I don't think that I would be willing to support it in its present form. Mary could be asked, and this would be entirely for her to consider, whether to work with the clerk and others on the committee to bring something forward. It's actually stronger, and it is a stand-alone provision that the committee's success in Parliament might consider. In the meantime, we could consider asking the Presiding Officer to meet or correspond with opposite numbers and other jurisdictions so that we have a Parliament to Parliament protocol, which is quite a different thing from what we have. That means that there is a formal way in which the Parliament can inform other jurisdictions of their views on important matters of the day that may or may not be within confidence. My thinking is not set in stone. I'm not taking a position on that. It's just in trying to think of where we are of that. That was the thinking that I have. That's me having exercised my prerogative. I now resume that position of absolute impartiality in relation to the discussion that we're about to have and invite other members to contribute to and address what the clerks have put in their paper. I'm grateful to the committee for taking the time to look at the issue, which, of course, committee will know that the issue arose with the passing of the Westminster trade union bill and our ability or inability to comment or fully implement that. My letter was proposing a change to standing order rule 9B12, which would allow us to lay a legislative consent motion to treat the trade union bill as a relevant bill or not. Obviously, the convener mentioned the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly has considered an LCM in relation to the trade union bill and the Assembly has not agreed to consent. We, of course, don't have that opportunity and we would require to change the rules to allow us to do that. I'm grateful to the clerks for preparing the paper, which I think has been really helpful in explaining the issues in the Sule convention and the memorandum. I'm grateful for Stewart's words. However, I would be concerned by opening this up too much. I think that we need to keep quite a narrow focus on what we're doing and look to changing our standing orders in 9B and doing that alone and not opening up too much. I would be content for it to be looked at in the next session to be part of the legacy paper, but we need to be quite constrained in how we do that. However, I would be interested to hear the views of other committee members. I think that everybody agrees that something should be done as ever. The problem is what should be done. It's the right thing to do for this to be considered via the legacy paper by the next committee. I am instinctively attracted to what you say, convener, because I think that you have identified an issue that, despite the fact that we have discussed this on two previous occasions, hasn't yet been identified, which is your particular genius. I would say if I may use that word. I don't want to be quoted on that, however. I think that the issue is Parliament to Parliament and not Government to Government. As I said last week—I'm happy to repeat here, because Mary wasn't here last week—the issue is not the obnoxious nature of the trade union bill, which is thoroughly obnoxious and is opposed certainly by the vast majority of people sitting around this table. We don't want that to happen. It is also not the individual ruling of the Presiding Officer whether or not you agree with that. Presiding officers are not infallible, and there could well be room for debate on this. The issue is how we resolve that for the future. The issue of the Parliament being able to express its opinion about a piece of proposed legislation or legislation from elsewhere, which is not subject to legislative consent motion and won't be, is attractive. It gives us an opportunity to do something if properly formalised. For example, it might require the clerk to communicate that to the clerk of the other Parliament. It wouldn't necessarily apply only to Westminster, the clerk to the other Parliament. It might request that that be laid in that other Parliament, whether or not that happens. It doesn't really matter. There is an issue in which, no matter what we do, we are not sovereign, so we can't refuse something because we don't have that final power. However, to formalise things in a way that gives us the maximum opportunity of saying what we want to say in the most effective way is what we should do. I don't think that we should rush into changing standing orders on the basis of a single ruling, but what Mary Fee has identified here is a weakness in the present structure that needs change. Therefore, I am attracted to what you say. I am not attracted to the idea of a narrow solution based on the single instance, but I am attracted to a new opportunity that the Parliament would get if your proposal would go forward. Whatever happens, this has to go into our legacy paper. It is a question of how it goes in. My sympathy would be to put it in and say that it creates a desire and a need for a change to the standing order. That has accepted what change that should be, is the question, and the committee will need to inquire into that, but I am certainly attracted to what you are saying. Before I open it up, I will expect that we will be dealing with the issue of the content of our legacy paper at our next meeting. We may not need to open up today too widely the issue of what might be said in that legacy paper, although it would be helpful to the clerks for them to get a sense of what we might broadly wish to be the detail that will come to the convener. The deputy convener will agree with the clerks' pots to come to our next meeting. I agree with almost all of what has been said. In terms of adding something to it, I would point out that there is a great deal going on at the moment in terms of interaction between the Parliament and legislation. There is a measure of uncertainty as to how that is all going to plan out. Similarly to others, I would not wish to seek a change to our standing orders on the basis of one piece of legislation, however much it is the expressed view of our Parliament that we do not like it. However, that said, I think that what you said was a pretty reasonable idea and not a verse to a Parliament-to-Parliament communication. There is some kind of protocol being established for that to allow views of one Parliament to be made known to another. What interests me particularly is what standing such a communication would have on receipt of such a view being made known. How would it be dealt with or would it just be take note? However, that is perhaps, in my view, a matter for the future. I am very much of the view that that is going to be looked at. If we are of the view that it should be looked at, I think that it has to be looked at properly and in depth and reasonably and cautiously and in a considered way. All the experience tells me that we should not act in haste and repentant leisure in terms of changing standing orders or indeed making legislation. I think that the place for that is in a legacy document and that is really all that I have to say. Obviously, we are where we are and we know exactly what the situation is in relation to the trade union bill. It has gone through. There is nothing that we can do about it. That is a fact. That is very unfortunate because I am very much opposed to it personally, as I said last week at the meeting. I think that the other devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland will be interested in the suggestion that you have made, convener. If we can get agreement with them, that will be a very powerful thing in relation to any discussions that we have with the UK Parliament. It has always been said that devolution is a process and so on, be that as it may. That is something that has been highlighted by Mary Fee because of the trade union bill and highlighted our impotence on relation to it. It would be good if we could move things forward and get a Parliament-to-Parliament agreement amongst all of the four Parliaments in the UK and maybe even other jurisdictions too, like you mentioned, Guernsey and so on and Nile Aman and Jersey, where that would help to put things on a proper footing and help things to move forward. When we discuss our legacy paper, we need to go into a little bit more detail as to what our ideas are so that the committee that follows us very clearly understands what we are asking them to do. I see, John. I just want to make sure that the other two members have not spoken, they are not catching my yet. John, I will go back to you then. Were such a process to be put in place, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? I doubt that you will be as fair with Newton's second law, as I am, convener. If there is to be a process whereby we as a Parliament or other devolved Parliaments have a way of making our views known to Westminster Parliament, it would only be reasonable if that process was a two-way street. How much would we welcome Westminster Parliament making their views known to us about legislation over which we have authority? That is why it is important to know quite what status such a communication would have. I do not think that it is the case that there would have to be a reaction, as it was put. The fact of the matter is that Westminster can legislate for us and we cannot legislate for Westminster, so it is a one-way street. In that sense, I do not have a problem with what the convener is suggesting. Will it make any difference? Probably not. It is just more of the same. However, it does not resolve the problem that Mary's letter sought to resolve. It is, in a sense, unconnected to that particular problem. It may be arising as a result of that particular letter, but it does not do anything worthy though it may be to resolve the problem that we had in front of us regarding the trade union bill. That was my concern, but we needed to do something in regard to that bill. I think that we have given it a reasonable square go, and I think that we probably, informally, can see what our positions are. I propose at this stage, unless anyone objects, that I formally put before you Mary's initiative that we propose a change to the standing orders and formally invite members to indicate those who wish to support Mary's proposal for that and those who wish not to do so. That is what Mary is asking for. I could not support an immediate change to the standing orders, but I could support a change to the standing orders after due consideration. Mary has put a very specific form of words in front of us, so we are quite clear what it is that we are taking a decision on. I think that we have got to the point where we as a committee should simply take a view on the matter. Given that that is the case, can I invite those who wish to support progressing an immediate change to the standing orders to so indicate, which, as expected, is to, and those who do not wish an immediate change to the standing orders is five. I think that that takes us forward, not unanimously, which is always my strong preference, but I think that that does that. The issue that we have been discussing in the run-up to our taking that decision, yes, of course, if you are sure that it is a point of order, rather than merely an observation. The recording of decisions of the committee presumably will record that the vote is on and the immediate change in the standing orders is not on the merits or otherwise of the legislation, which has been opposed by the vast majority of those present and continues to be opposed by them, just in case there were any chance of misrepresentation of this issue. I am not sure that it is a point of order, but we are in public session, and your remarks will, of course, appear in the official report. I see no one dissenting from them, so I think that that will represent, as far as I can establish, the views of the committee. I take the sense of the committee, too, that we are minded to think further of standing order changes. I suggest in my opening remarks that Mary Fee might continue to take the lead on that, if she wished to do so. I am getting a nod suggesting that you would be willing to do that. I think that it is definitely an issue that needs further consideration. The convener's suggestion, where we find a mechanism in which parliaments communicate with each other their views, would not automatically lead to a change in our standing orders that would give us the ability to consent to or not to consent to a change to standing orders, which is why I am concerned about the suggestion that the convener has made. However, I think that it is something that we need to continue to look at. It may well be that, by doing some form of inquiry into what is the best way of taking this forward, it may ultimately lead to the need to change our standing orders. David. Changing standing orders on the face of it seems to be very simple and straightforward. Some might argue that it might deal with a problem, but I am not sure that it would. I think that we need more than that. I think that we need the standing orders to be looked at and also the inter-parliamentary situation to be looked at. You only have to look at what happened in Wales. It voted against the trade union ball, according to the report. We believe that the UK Government just said, sorry, it does not apply. Basically, even changing the standing orders now to allow us to debate on LCM would have achieved the same result. We would have given our view that it was against the trade union ball, which we have given anyway, to be told by the UK Government, sorry, it is a reserved matter, so it does not apply. We need to look at this in a very careful way. We need to involve people from outwith the parliamentary process in Civic Scotland and more widely with the other devolved administrations. It needs quite a bit of work, I think, to work through just how we get a sensible relationship and relation to those matters with the other devolved administrations, with the UK Government. I do not think that it is something that you can do quickly. You have to think it through. You have to work out all the angles, because if you rush into those things, there could be unintended consequences that you have not thought about. You need to be very careful when you are dealing with those matters. I think that we have got to a position where we are beginning to talk about what will be in our legacy paper and we expect to discuss that at our next meeting. I think that that is the proper place to continue that particular discussion. On that basis, colleagues, I close the public part of this meeting.