 Ysbytyd i'r cwm datblygu cyhoeddwyr ar gondol. Rwy'n credu'r cwm datblygu cyhoeddwyr 14 ymleidio'r ysbytydau Sailing, ac y bydd yr aceddiad cyfan y Com普 oedd yn 2022. Y gydw i'n ddweud y cyflwng ymlaenio ar gyfer y cyfrifoedd ymlaenol, ac rydyn ni wedi cael eu cyfrifio ymlaenio ymlaenio ymlaenio. Mae ymlaenio ymlaenio ymlaenio ymlaenio ymlaenio ymlaenio ar gyfer yr ymlaenio ymlaenio a'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio. I'm grateful. The second item is to welcome the return of Alexander Stewart MSP and his opportunity to declare any relevant interests that he would like to put on the record. Do you have any interest to declare Alexander Stewart MSP? I don't have any, convener, and I'm delighted to once again return to the standards procedures and public appointments committee and look forward to working with you all. It is good to welcome back our bummerang member over a number of sessions but it also gives me the opportunity to say that Alexander is replacing Tess White MSP and I would like both formally to put on the record here our thanks to Tess for her extensive work on the committee over a relatively short period of time and hope the committee would be in agreement for me to write to her to thank her for her time of service. I'm grateful. The next item is a cross-party group. I'd like to welcome Katie Clark MSP who is the potential convener of the proposed cross-party group on Europe. Good morning, Katie. Would you like to explain the purposes of the group? First of all, I apologise that I wasn't in attendance at the last meeting. I had transportation issues on the day and I'm sorry for the inconvenience that that would have caused. I'm delighted to be here today and to hopefully be able to persuade you that a cross-party group on Europe should be established. I believe that there is interest from members for such a group and I think that there is very not much the space for the kind of discussions that a cross-party group in Europe would take part in. Obviously, there would be occasions where there would be overlap with other cross-party groups. I suspect that on occasions we may wish to have joint events but many of the issues that I think a cross-party group on Europe in relation to the post-Brexit issues and our relationship with the European Union specifically but Europe more generally I believe will not be covered by other cross-party groups. I think that there is the appetite for the group and I believe that there are many discussions that can take place there that would be of use and would not necessarily be taking place in other cross-party groups. Thank you very much for that and your apology is noted. Does any member of the committee have any questions? Alexander, can I come to you? Thank you very much for that. There is no doubt, as you have indicated in your submission, that there is potentially need for this but you have also indicated that there are a number of other groups that have already been in place and some of those groups have been there for some time and they have created a niche market, whether it is in Germany or the universities or Poland or whatever. I would ask what level do you think you would have co-operation and support from those other cross-party groups because they may do things that you want to try and do in a larger area but also the experience and the knowledge that they have may be of great use to you as a new group trying to establish across Europe itself. That is an extremely helpful question. Partly it would depend on the appetite of the cross-party groups in question but in terms of those who are currently involved in the work to establish this particular cross-party group there is very much a willingness and a desire to work with existing cross-party groups. To use the example that has already been given in terms of education and erasmus, which is a massive issue at the moment, some of the organisations that are involved in the cross-party group are disproportionately in the education sector. That is a big issue in the early days and it is very much an issue that we need to work with other cross-party groups on. I think that we would be very sensitive or attempt to be very sensitive to the work that is already taking place and attempt to work collaboratively. If another cross-party group was already leading on an issue then that would obviously be an argument that perhaps we should focus on another area. For example, the post-Brexit issues are potentially massive and there is no doubt that there will be a continuing debate about that. For example, some people are arguing that it should be a softer form of Brexit that we should rejoin the single market. Those kinds of debates may become big debates over the coming period of time or may not. I would very much hope that there would be a range of views in the cross-party group. I do not think that we should take a presumption that there would be one view. I suspect that we would want to have a range of views and to have that discussion. That is the nature of a cross-party group and I would hope that that would be the way that the group would develop. I think that there are some systems that could perhaps feed in and assist those other CPGs rather than a separate stand-alone. You mentioned Erasmus, which in its sense lends itself to a pan-European view. Rather than being the interfering expert in a country, what you intend to offer is a room for European expertise to come together and feed into that work. That is correct. For example, if we look at the cross-party group in Poland, it is quite active and it has been quite active on issues in relation to the rights of EU citizens, then clearly that is an issue for a number of cross-party groups, in particular the specific European country groups. If you like, hopefully the CPG on Europe might bring some of that together. I do not think that it would undermine any of the work that is being done by any specific group. For example, the cross-party group in Poland will be very focused on the Polish community, whereas the potential cross-party group in Europe would be looking at it on a pan-European basis. The issues are basically the same or very similar in relation to every country. There are obviously a number of countries where there is no cross-party group and it may be that the cross-party group in Europe may pick up some of that in terms of issues for specific communities that are not covered by any of the stand-alone European country groups. However, I suspect that, like most cross-party groups, we will react to events and it will be the issues where we think that there is a desire and an appetite for a debate in Parliament that will dictate the agenda. From my perspective and from all the members who have attended meetings so far, I wish to work collaboratively and try to look at ways of doing that. The problem sometimes is that we do not know if somebody else is already doing work. That is our job to try to make sure that we make the attempts to find out exactly what is happening and to make sure that we are not undermining the work that is being done. It is very helpful. I note from the membership that there is no representation from the Conservative Party. Is there a particular reason for that? No, there isn't a particular reason at all. I think that we would welcome representation. That was one of the reasons that I said that it is important that there is an understanding and a recognition that there might be a range of views within the group. I suspect that there is probably already a range of views on many issues within the list of members that we have before us today, but it could be that that range might expand. I think that it is about grappling with the issues and having that discussion in a way that perhaps is less heated than might take place in the chamber where there is a genuine exchange of ideas and information. I hope that that could be a forum where that could happen. I think that some members of the group are keen that we use it as a vehicle to find out more about what is happening in the European Union and to foster, if you like, direct relations with other European politicians and parts of the various European structures, not just the European Union, to find out more about what they are doing perhaps with guest speakers. I think that there would be other events that would bring information and a better understanding of what is happening in other parts of Europe. As I said, I think that it will be partly determined by what members of the group want to do and events, but I think that the reason for the group would be on a pan-European basis rather than on any specific issue. If, for example, there was already a lot of work happening on a particular area in the Parliament or in another cross-party group, that would be an argument for us perhaps to focus on something different. I would imagine that that would be the way that it would develop. As I said, I think that we may well have some joint events and, hopefully, they will be successful. It is right to say that the number of MSPs who have indicated intention to join meets the cross-party requirement for a cross-party group in any event. If there are no further questions, I will refrain from asking the primary school teacher a question of how you define Europe and maybe review that in due course. The committee will consider whether to accord recognition in the next session at agenda item 3. The clerks will notify you of that outcome in due course, but can I thank you for attending today? Thank you very much. Indeed, agenda item 4 is for the committee to consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group on Europe. Do members have any comments before I formally put the question? I am appalled at myself for this, but Edward Mountain has extended his apologies today because he has other parliamentary duties that are taking up this time. Can I welcome you today, Sue, as his substitute? My apologies for not doing that before greeting Alexander's arrival. That is okay. I am almost like a permanent member. I feel like that anyway. My serious concern is with overlap. Some of the content that was mentioned is forthcoming to, for example, the Erasmus Plus. I am just concerned about the legitimate need for it, given that there are other cross-party groups where it was mentioned that there will be overlap. The themes are the same, so I am sorry that I have some real concerns about this one. Thank you for that. Any other comments? Thank you, convener. I think that it is reasonable for Sue to mention the real possibility of overlap, but I was listening to the exchange with Ms Clark and members and what I got from it was a more strategic thematic approach that could be taken with the cross-party group in Europe, as opposed to individual country cross-party groups. It is important that the cross-party group in Europe is aware of that. That is what I got from the exchange, and there could be a benefit to the Parliament in relation to that. Of course, I would be concerned if they sought to duplicate or overlap the work of specific discrete cross-party groups for individual countries. However, there seems to be a strategic fit of a work in a pan European. Was your line a question in relation to that? I think that it is right to raise those concerns from Sue Weber, but, by and large, on balance, it would be the right thing to do to approve the cross-party group. I acknowledge the fact that there will be overlap, but I do not think that that precludes the group from progressing, because I think that it will find its way and its opportunity. Depending on the role that they see themselves doing, the overlap can happen, but at the same time they may wish to take a bigger view, because the other ones are country-specific. If there is an issue in Germany, there is an issue in Poland or whatever, if they want to take it further and look at areas in Nordic or areas in the south of Europe, there may be opportunities for them to feature. By bringing in some of the experts within some of that, I think that there is a role. There is also the role of the EU itself in the role. When the culture committee and others from here continually meet and have discussions with the commission and the involvement that takes place, also the consul generals etc, there is a much stronger link with all of that. I am sympathetic to the view that there may well be the opportunity for a group of this nature to get some kind of support mechanism. As you say, the membership is quite wide and varied, and I have no doubt that if it does come to pass, there may be a conservative membership that we should participate in the process. I am certainly more sympathetic towards the role, and I can see, but I think that as long as the definitions are quite strict as to what they would do and how they would manage that, I see that there is an opportunity for it. That's helpful. Any other comments? My only comment in respect to that is that it is not for the place of this committee to come the arbiter or referee between CPGs, but I have to say that I share your view, Bob, that I was reassured by Katie Clarke's assurances of the intention to find out and work collegially with other CPG groups. I was also taken by the fact that there are countries within Europe, however you define it, that do not have a specific CPG group. As you have said, Alexander, there is the question of the EU as well. Are we content to grant recognition to this proposed CPG? I'm not, but I'd say that there's... I absolutely respect that position, and the record will show that. I'm grateful for that. I presume that the clerks will pass the message on to the now-approved CPG. It is now my intention to move the... My apologies, and it's my most appropriate place to put this on the record, but there has been a pattern where cross-party groups just come through, almost like a conveyor belt through the committee, and they get agreed. I think that it's pretty healthy for this committee for there to be a degree of challenge and discussion in relation to the approval, or otherwise, of cross-party groups. I think that I should put that on the record as well, because I've sat in this committee long enough now to know that it does just seem like a procession of cross-party groups, and there's always been concern over a proliferation of them within the parliaments. Although I'm assuming that we have a different perspective on this, I think that it does the committee a service of a bit more robust and challenging the fit of cross-party groups more generally in the Parliament. I just want to put that on the record. That's very helpful, but it is right to say that, within our work stream, one of the intentions from the very start was to review the number of CPGs and those processes at a time when we were aware of how it was panning out in this session. I think that we are heading to that stage, certainly probably soon after recess. It is also right, and I'm grateful that you have put that on the record, that CPGs, by this committee, I've never known them being nodded through without some investigation. It is absolutely within the right, as soon as it's exercised this morning to express concern where it is, and it becomes a committee decision. I don't know whether that's a warning to potential CPG conveners out there or not, but it's not a foregone conclusion that one person's good idea, even with cross-party support, will get through without proper and judicious investigation of the intention, so thank you for that. With that, I will move this committee into private.