 Rwy'r gymryd, ac rydyn ni'n mwyntio'n gwiaeth y lluniau'r oedl Aberkirifol ddim yn gydych chi. Yr eitem gwych gan gyfnod 1 o 6 pan lluniau 5 october 2021. Rydyn ni'n mwyntio'n gwiaeth y mynd i wedi gwypo am hynny i'r gymryd, ac rydyn ni'n mwyntio Tom, Ian a John Sinclair, gan gy円ig i ni'n wneud hynny i gyda'r chyf urgellol. Ymgylchau oherwydd yr ydyntig iawn o'r cyfnod, ac mae'n ynch yn ôl i gynnwys ar â'i gweitharau oedl. Felly, maen nhw ymwlad yw'r hyn o blwg, rydyn ni'n rhaid o'r cyflamwch ar y ddenedig, neu o gwmwlad pan gen i newidol ar y cwestiynau gweld. Yr ystafell yma yn gweithio y gendro dros gyflau'r grefnig sy'n ddim gweithio'r grefnig y cyflau, ac mewn gweld sy'n ddod i chi'n cymdeithasを adeithio. Marwch eich gweld y ddysgolol i ni'n eu gennymau newid yma. Mae'n ctynnu am hynny'n myneddol i'n gweld chwarae o'i berthynas a'r ddysgol. Ieiddiwch chi gael ymddangas am ymddangas a Dwy Alexander i ddechrau'r cyd-dodd i Caesif Hyrwyngiannol ac rwyf wedi'i gweithio i gyd i wneud o gweithio'r cyd-dodd i'r cyddodd, ac wedi'u gwybod i gynhychiad bod o fewn gwybod i'r cyd-dodd, am cettec ddaethol yn ei gweithio ar ymd ещё? Rwy'n bod yn aggrifennu gyd? Rwyf wedi'u gweithio gyd? Nid yw? Ysgol. Item 2 is the matters that we are going to take in private. Oh, please, Paul. Just regarding declarations of interest, just to refer members and public to my register of interests I am an existing councillor on these building council at the moment. Thank you very much for that, Paul, and the record is so noted. Item 2, I'm seeking the committee's agreement to take agenda items 7, 8, 9 and 10 in private. Agenda item 7 is an update to the guidance on the code of conduct. Item 8 is consideration of the committee's work programme. Item 9 is an item in relation to cross-party groups. Item 10 is for the committee to consider an approach to the UK elections bill legislative consent motion, which falls to this committee. Are we in agreement to take those items in private? Yes. We are. We are now on to agenda item 3, the subordinate legislation. I would like to welcome Tom Arthur, Minister for Parliamentary Business, and the officials John Sinclair and Ian Thompson, who are joining us online. Tom, would you like to make an opening statement in relation to this item? Thank you very much, convener. Good morning. It is a pleasure to appear before the committee. I have many fond memories of being a member of this session. I congratulate all members on their appointment, and I congratulate you, convener, belatedly, on your appointment as a convener. At the outset, I want to put on recognising your facts to all who have contributed in the process of devising this revised model code, in particular key stakeholders, including board chairs, commissioners or the Standards Commission, for their input in this process and continuing engagement. I want to put on recognising your facts to your Scottish Government officials. Finally, I want to offer my sincere thanks to all those who participated in the consultation who ran over the autumn and winter of last year and early into this year. The Scottish Parliament demonstrated its commitment to the promotion of high standards in public life. By passing the ethical standards in public life Scotland Act 2000, it is one of the earliest statutes. The act introduced a new ethical framework under which Scottish ministers were required to issue a code of conduct for councillors and a model code of conduct for members of devolved public bodies listed in schedule 3 of the act as amended. Each listed public body is required to develop an individual code based on the model code. Both codes of conduct are based on nine key principles, duty, selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability and stewardship, openness, honesty, leadership and respect. Responsibility for ethical standards policy including the model codes and councillors codes rests with the Scottish Government. However, the independent offices of the Standards Commission and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland have responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the codes. The initial councillors and members codes were approved by the Scottish Parliament in December 2001 and brought into effect on 1 May 2003. The current version of the members code was amended in 2014. The Scottish Government recognised that a number of new developments have occurred since the model code was last reviewed in 2014 and that it is important to take account of such changes and also provide users with an opportunity to contribute to the revised model code. A public consultation on the revised model code of conduct was carried out by the Scottish Government in October 2020, running for 16 weeks through to the beginning of February 2021. An analysis report of the sponsors has been published and is available on the Scottish Government website. The consultation sought views on the amendments to the existing model code with the aim of establishing whether the proposed revisions made it clearer, easier to understand, raised awareness of the use of social media, changed the rules on gifts and hospitality, highlighted that bullying would not be tolerated and, importantly, whether the proposals were proportionate and appropriate to be included in the model code. We also welcome comments on any aspect of the model code. A total of 45 responses to the consultation were received from a wide range of stakeholders. The overall view from respondents was very positive, agreeing that the model code required updating and that the proposed changes achieved the aim of making it clearer and took account of issues such as the use of social media and highlighted that bullying and harassment would not be tolerated. We have carefully considered the responses to the consultation and the proposed changes have been made to strengthen the model code and provide clearer information for its users. It is important to emphasise that the ethical basis of the revised model code remains unchanged from the original model code. While we want to make the model code easier to understand, we also want to take the opportunity to take account of developments in our society, such as the role of social media. We also want to strengthen it by reinforcing the importance of behaving in a respectful manner and to make it clear that bullying and harassment is completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated. There is greater emphasis on the requirement for individual board members to take personal ownership of their behaviour by ensuring that they comply with their postcode conduct and that they personally take steps to understand their role and compliance. We feel that the proposed changes to the model code will help to make it more practical and easier for users to apply in their everyday roles. In concluding, I would also like to highlight that we are appropriately at both the council's code, which is currently being considered by Parliament, and the model code has been aligned. I would now welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that the committee may have on the revised model code of conduct for members of the devolved public bodies. Thank you very much for that contribution, Tom. Just before I come to my first set of questions, can I just remind everyone that the actual microphones are operated by broadcasts, so we don't need to press buttons or ensure that it is on. It will all be taken care of. I will indicate who is going to speak so that broadcasts know who that is. Once again, Tom, I thank you for that short introduction. There are a couple of questions that arise from it, and I suppose to take them in reverse order from the way I was originally going to give them to you. The model code has been around for a while. Why was it felt, or why was the need felt, to make the amendments at this stage, and indeed not earlier or later? Or does it form part of a rolling programme where the codes will be reviewed regularly? Thank you very much, convener. That's an important question. As I touched on in my introductory remarks, the original code was revised in 2014. I think that the two points I want to highlight, was formed a decision to progress with a revision at this particular juncture, which was firstly the amount of time that has passed since 2014. Indeed, I think that I touched it several times on the issues of social media and bullying and harassment, and I know that there have been significant reflections across the public sector and private sector and world society around codes of conducts with whether they are fit for purpose. Indeed, there was something at this committee that was considered in great detail during the last session of Parliament. We are reflecting the changes that have happened in society over the past seven years. That was an appropriate juncture in which to consider the code and to revise it. The other point that I want to touch on in my opening remarks is that the councillor's code is also being revised at this moment, and as I made clear, re-introduced at a similar time at the beginning of the day, very close to the beginning of the devolution era. If the cause of councillor's code itself has been considered for revision, it was deemed appropriate that there should be a alignment between the two codes, where appropriate. It is to summarise the two factors that have informed the decision to carry out the revision. Of course, going forward into the future, we will always take account of developments and changes and will inform future decisions on when it would be appropriate to revise code in the future. It is not a case where the code should be revisited every five years, but there needs to be a sensitivity to the changes in social understanding of behaviour, social understanding of attitude to feed into the code when it is appropriate. That would be fair. That is a very good definition, convener. I think that the point that you raised about whether or not we should get the process set in advance is an automatic review given the elapsing of a particular number of years of fix and interest and the point that I want to be happy to reflect on. I suppose that flowing from that, this code is specifically in relation to members of public bodies and you have talked about the councillor's code of conduct. I suppose that I will express it as a concern. Surely there is no need to have identical codes for both because both those institutions and responsibilities are different. Are you confident that the code for members of public bodies reflects the unique areas that members of public bodies serve on an answer to rather than just repeating the code and retitling it? That is an important point. What I would draw members' attention to and commit his attention to is that this is a model code and it will be up to the individual bodies listed and scheduled free of the act to apply that code as appropriate to their own organisations. Obviously, the codes that they seek to apply will have to be agreed to by Scottish ministers but the point that we make about the need for a flexibility to recognise not just the distinction between public bodies and local authorities but the variety of public bodies that exist is why we have a model code as opposed to prescribing one overarching code for each public body. I hope that reassures you on the point that you raised. It also reassures the fact that each individual public body needs to look at this specifically based on the model code and I assume that if there is a drift away from the model code you would expect an explanation of why that item had been omitted. Yes, there is obviously the established commission will provide your support and guidance as well. It will be for individual codes to respond to the model codes should Parliament agree to it and there will be a process that individual boards will both submit their revised codes to ministers for consideration. Ultimately, the organisations that are best placed to interpret the model code as applicable to their organisation are those respective organisations. Thank you, Tom. I am going to pass over to Tess White who has a few questions which, if Tom, if it is not for you to answer please call on John Sinclair or indeed Ian Thompson as necessary. Tess. Thank you, convener. The Scottish Government conducted a consultation on revising the model code. Do you say to what extent respondents supported your proposed changes and how were their views taken into account in the revised code? Thank you very much, Ms White. Yes, we conducted a consultation as I said from October to February this year and we had 45 respondents. There was a variety of views expressed within the consultation as one would imagine but overall there was broad support for what we were trying to achieve with the revised model code and as I touched on in my awkward remarks removal of part of information that was not necessarily applicable or required and as I also touched on reflecting the changing mores of the past seven years strength and guidance on, for example, social media, bullying and harassment and indeed collective responsibility another key area where there is broad support to emerge from the consultation was in the adoption of a first person narrative throughout the code as well and this is really to effectively strengthen the sense of responsibility that individual members of boards have for taking ownership of their responsibilities to understand the code and to adhere to it. I'm happy to bring in Ian Thompson if there's any further points that he thinks would be worth sharing with the committee to ensure that I'm giving you a useful next slide. Minister, you haven't really answered my question so I can go back again is to what extent did the respondents support your proposed changes and how were their views taken into account in the revised code? Apologise Ms White if you thought and ask the question. The revised code as it was received broad support and of course the particular issues that were raised which were available in the document were considered and incorporated in our technical language but as I don't know if you hear me it would be possible if I could bring in Ian Thompson who perhaps can expand on that and give me more detail to address the points that you raised. Please do Tom, Ian. Just to explain there was strong sense that the revised code was queer, simple, easy to understand and particular was so compared to the current model code moreover many also felt that the changes made to the model code had helped to make it more helpful, practical and easy to apply to respondents every day rules. We also published the consultation responses as well so there's that on the public record as well. Thank you convenie we'll look at those offline. My second question minister is in section 6 talks about inappropriate behaviour so inappropriate behaviour can be subjective and opinion, who actually decides what appropriate and inappropriate behaviour is? Of course that I think with regards to so did you refer to section 6 member? Treatment of others yes, it's treatment of others. Treatment of others sorry it's just I want to make sure that I'm referring to the appropriate part of the model code and when I'm responding to you that's in section 3 you refer to section 3 under the use of social media conduct in the chamber in the committee and treatment of others. I think you might be looking at the wrong part of the wrong document. My second question is then why has the model code been written in the first person and what impact do you expect this will have? I apologise for the confusion I heard you saying section 6 the general conduct in section is section 3 of the revised model code that is before the committee today and what it touches and it gives definitions about bullying and harassment in the nature of it and ultimately regards to the point we make about being subjective it is about what the individual feels in a particular situation and set of circumstances and that is a definition that I think is more widely across the range of institutions with regards to the point relating to the first person narrative it is a touch on my answer to the point this is about strengthening the narrative that it is for individual board members to take responsibility no one to familiarise with the code but to ensure that they understand the code and adhere to it and indeed we appropriate to seek further guidance from their board or their chair to ensure that they are complying with the code so it is about taking ownership and personal responsibility so that is why the decision is taken to move to the first person narrative which was touched upon in the consultation and I think we received broad support not for many individuals who created it but there was broad support for the move to the first person narrative and as I said it is really just about strengthening that ownership that board members would expect to take for their conduct and understanding of the code thank you minister thank you Tess I'm going to call Edward Mountain now who I understand has some very specific questions about the code so again Tom if someone else is better placed to answer it on your team we'll find to hear evidence from them Edward can I pass to you please thank you convener good morning minister Edward Mountain relates to category 5 has land and buildings I wonder if you think that section 4.1h specifically about rich, dribble interests in houses, land and buildings is compatible or at the same standard that is for MSPs are the two the same I'm not convinced they are and do you think that could lead to confusion that's a very specific question I think it would be more appropriate if I invited Ian Thompson to address that point thank you Tom can I pass to you Ian minister I'm excited as to the terms of the MSPs code so I can't comment on that what we've done is clearly we've worked with the standards commission and the ethical standards commissioner to develop this code so I can give all evidence at the moment to the enemy thank you very much sorry Tom I was just going to invite Edward if he had a comment on that now I'm unmuted what my concern is minister if I can articulate it a bit more clearly it says in that paragraph I have a register of interests where I am right or interest in houses land and buildings you'll be aware I believe that MSPs for example do not have to register their private houses or record them on their register of interests and I wonder if this specific question may cause confusion to those people on public bodies that they may feel they have to register their private houses which goes in excess of what MSPs are requested to do minister minister I take the point that you're making and I will reflect on it and as I said the document itself will be complemented by guidance produced by the standards commission so there may be an opportunity to address any confusion that may emerge certainly this is not something that is immersed through the consultation so in any to any great extent but I appreciate the point you're making it's one of a happy to reflect on it and indeed if there is a case where the standards commission is an independent body and it's for them to determine what guidance they produce certainly it's something that we can engage with if it is felt and if there is an emerging need to address the point but to say this is not something that has emerged in a great extent through the consultation process but I do appreciate the point you're making on a happy to reflect on it Can I ask you Tom, was there the intention to include the dwelling house? I think with regards to that I would like to reiterate the point about how this language was formulated and developed I understand how it's developed and I understand it reflects indeed the council's conduct I just wonder whether or not the question of whether a dwelling house would be covered was considered or whether it was not thought about at the time and I don't mean that in any disrespect or absent way I'm sorry I was just wondering whether my apologies Ian I was just wondering whether or not a dwelling house was intended to be caught by that or it was thought about and the answer was no and it's not caught by the drafting No, I mean it comes down to the actual board member and their requirement to declare a register of one interest if they're required to register an interest under category 5 in terms of paragraph 4.18 they're required to provide the public body standards or for some of the full address of the house, land or buildings what's published on the public body's website and made public available is not necessarily required to be detailed to be as detailed that part 4.18 has not changed in terms of from the last code so that's the position of that So actually it's placing the onus individual and hence the reason that it's written in the first party to comply with the second aspect of that where it is significant and relevant or bear upon the work and operation of the public body That's good Edward, would you like to come back so no other members of the committee have comments I think Bob Doris does My any concern is I think it puts an emphasis on declaring your private residence which is MSPs we don't have to do and I think it'd be useful to remove private residence from this requirement to bring them in line to what we're doing which I think would be equitable and fair That point's noted Edward Bob, can I bring you in? Yeah, thank you I think you may have moped up what I was hoping to clarify with your comments Minister, I'm just checking this is not a general obligation to declare your dwelling house there has to be significant and relevant and bear upon your interest and operation of the public body so just to put that on the record that it's not a general obligation to declare that but I suppose that the wider issue that Mr Mountain is raising is that this mirrors the obligations on councillors and not the obligations on MSPs Perhaps the question we should be asking perhaps not today but at another time is the difference between the obligations on councillors and the obligations on MSPs rather than the obligations on members of these boards so I would welcome your thoughts on that but just for clarity that there's no general obligation to register your dwelling house Thank you, Bob Minister Just on that particular technical point specifically for the implications of the language on that Minister, there will be no general there will be no general requirement to register a dwelling house and this again it's reflected in 4.18 and 4.19 it's an illness on the board members themselves to make that judgment Thank you for that Edward, I know you have a second more specific point can I return to you Thank you convener Just going to ask a question now on section 4.20b which is where at the relevant day the market value of any shares and securities in one specific company or body that I own have an interest of greater than £25,000 Minister, please explain where the figure of £25,000 came from Minister Yes this reflects an alignment to the MSP code in this area but I'll ask Ian Thompson just to get a bit more detail on it for you Mr Mountain That's a reflection on the MSP code as well so it's aligned with that it's also aligned in the councillor's code I've got no further comments to make on that So can I just press Ian, you don't know where the figure came from what was originally calculated that it is a figure that's represented in other codes as you said both councillor and MSP Yes, it's an existing figure from the 2014 code as well I'm excited as to the nature of that value certainly where the origin of it comes from Sorry, you may not be able to answer this Do you feel that the figures mean increased since the original code or was it £25,000 It's remained the same The figures remain the same it's remained £25,000 from the previous code Thank you, Edward Would you like to come back on that point? Yes I'm not totally confused because what the suggestion is that it's aligned to the MSP code but the previous question I asked to 4.18 isn't aligned to the MSP code so one seems to be one way and then the other way £25,000 seems a fairly arbitrary figure I mean, I don't fully understand that because £25,000 is a lot of money £10,000 is a lot of money £1,000 is a lot of money I don't understand where that figure's been plucked from It's not as if £25,000 investments in the Royal Bank of Scotland for example would give you a controlling interest I don't understand where that figure's come from, it seems to be arbitrary and I would like some clarity please on how that figure has been selected because just rolling it forward doesn't make it acceptable Thank you Edward so the clarification is not so much in relation to that figure appearing in here but why £25,000 seems to have been adopted for a figure for the MSP code councillor's code and indeed has been reflected in this Tom, I'm not sure with anyone who's with you can answer that would you undertake to identify for us where it came from? No, I have to take that away and clearly this is a figure that has been reached previously and hence it's reflected across a number of course including this has been touched on the MSP code which is of course a matter for Parliament to decide so I'm happy to take away and to seek to provide the committee with further information at later day as to how that particular figure was arrived at in the previous code but clearly it's something where there's been a general acceptance of hence it's against across multiple course That would be very helpful Tom and indeed if you and those that answer to your question why it's been identified it would be interesting to hear that as well Bob, I think you would like to come in Yes, I suppose my thanks to Edward Mountain because he's indicating various issues that I perhaps may not have picked up on that might require a little bit more scrutiny so I think that that's helpful to my colleague but can I just check with the minister during your consultation did individuals and groups broadly support the figure of 25,000 to be a figure and then you seek views on that so were people generally content with that but second, this is a model code so if a body thought that that value should be more or higher could they seek to vary that and seek the approval of ministers Thank you very much on the two points that you raised Mr Doris can you turn to Ian Thompson for further into that you don't mind Ian Sorry Mr Doris, can you repeat your question at a minister's point here Yes, so this model code was consulted upon I'm assuming the figure 25,000 was within that model code were there any particular objections to that value being placed within the model code and if not individual felt relatively content in relation to that don't want to get some information on that but also secondly ministers made reference to the fact that it could be adapted by various bodies and then seek Government approval so could that figure technically vary from different codes or has this one baked into whatever code is applied by each body that must be 25,000 pounds On the first point Mr Doris I can't recall the responses covering this section there so I'll need to provide further evidence on that from recollection nothing stood out on that part or that subject there as well in terms of the 25,000 figure you're right to point out that BORS must align with the model code I must admit that that's not being tested out in terms of the 25,000 pounds and I would think that it would be fairly well I think that we need to be at a judgment call in terms of what our decision made as to where if there was going to be flexibility within that number but I would say it probably would be baked in Thank you Thank you Bob Paul, could I bring you in please Thank you, convener excuse me, good morning minister In your opening statement you obviously explained the reasons for bringing the revision off the code through and it just I suppose in your opinion does the revised code place new responsibilities or sanctions on board members or has the exercise been aimed at increasing clarity Thank you Mr McLean The new model code doesn't change the sanction regime what it does seek to do is to provide better clarity and as I mentioned earlier there were certain elements which in the 2014 revision have been removed to improve clarity and the first person narrative that spoke about and has updated and strengthened language concerning social media and bullying and harassment so this was not about introducing the sanctions it was about really taking an opportunity to bring the code up to date to reflect societal changes and also to make it more user friendly and I think that as reflected in the consultation responses that is to a large extent what we have been able to achieve Thank you minister and just moving on from that I mean if the code is approved what work will be involved in the roll-out and in publicity Thank you Mr Cymru there will be a significant amount of regards to it I suppose that the first point just to stress as it is a model code it is for individual boards to take account of the revised model code should it be agreed to by Parliament and to apply that to their own revised code now the legislation it's a window a minimum period of three months from parliamentary approval to a board plan to begin the process to have to submit to ministers a revised code what we're doing is we're giving a six month period to allow boards to consider the revised code should it be approved by Parliament and to redevelop their own codes and to submit that to ministers the idea about who board meeting will take place so the actual process of boards adopting code is for them and of course there will be direct communication from the relevant officials so that boards are aware of the needs to commence work should it be approved by Parliament to update their own codes to reflect on the revised model code beyond that it will be for individual boards to make sure that and individual members to make sure that they are fully nice with the details of their own codes which will of course have to reflect the revised model code for example in terms of the process of individual board members it is incumbent upon them to familiarise themselves with the terms of their boards particularly code we do in the Scottish Government Public Audition to provide induction workshops which the Standards Commission and the Commissioner will be in sessions on and the Standards Commission can also to an extent provide guidance and ad hoc sessions where the source allows a variety of support that is available but principally it will be for boards to reflect on the model code subject to Parliament's agreement and within six months to submit to ministers their revised codes taking account of the new model code and subject approval of ministers it will then be for individual board members to ensure that they are informed of the day and take ownership of their boards own revised codes the way of having to express that but I hope it can be as a point thank you minister just a couple of matters I suppose the one that's most relevant in respect to this code is the training that's going to be required both for new members and existing members how do you plan to meet that need? thank you convener I think I touched on some of these points in my previous answer to Mr Macbillan effectively as has been touched upon by committee members it's a personal ownership for board members if one is appointed as a member of a public board that is incumbent on that individual to familiarise themselves with the code and they will have that provided to them by their chair I mean the reference to the induction workshops from your appointees to public boards at the public board region in the Scottish Government that helps the facility and made reference as well that also includes presentations from the standards commission and the commissioner so there are these opportunities I think it's also incumbent upon individual board members to take opportunities to continually update their awareness and understanding about how the code is applicable to their conduct and the operation of their board I appreciate that placing a heavy emphasis on individual responsibility but I hope that that is balanced by the support that is provided for new members as they are appointed and of course there is the resource of the standards officer within each board the individual board members can turn to seek further clarity or guidance upon the code and its applicability and to complement the codes of individual boards that are guidance from the standards commission and that will be under development and should this model code be adopted by Parliament guidance by the standards commission will be published on the website I hope that while placing a heavy emphasis on individual responsibility there is a range of support available including with that point of induction and going forward on a continuous basis might I'm very grateful minister and just really in conclusion just to clarify some matters in this the evidence session it is for this committee to report by the 27th of October in relation to the motion that you've brought before us and there are a number of outstanding matters that have been highlighted in the evidence can you undertake that this committee will have your responses to those so that we can attach it to the report for the chamber for the 27th of October is that something that you can agree to Yes, I'm certainly happy to respond by then to the committee and more endeavour to provide the most of those responses possible I'm very grateful to the committee for their probing questions and scrutiny it has exposed some areas which perhaps haven't been considered before and particularly the line of question from Mr Mountain I'm sure a number of us will want to reflect upon that not just specific to the council's code of the model code but the DMSP code so I'm very grateful to the committee for their contribution this morning and I'll be happy to write back to the committee ahead of the date that you referred to I'm grateful for that confirmation, thank you at that point I'm going to finish agenda item 3 which is the evidence and can I formally before I do so thank the minister and the officials in particular Ian for attending today and giving evidence to this committee, thank you we're now going to move to agenda item 4 for which I will request that the minister stays as we move to a slightly more formal element of this I would now like to invite the minister to formally move and speak to motion S6M-01125 that the standards, procedures and public appointments committee recommends that the model code of conduct for members of devolved public bodies be approved minister I'll live in the remarks convener to simply saying formally moved I'm grateful it is now an opportunity for members of this committee to make submissions Edward can I move to you thank you convener sorry I was gazing happily at the microphone to make sure I was unmuted but my first comment convener is in the interest of all public bodies elected individuals to comply with the highest standards of behaviour and openness to the people that elected them or appointed them and I would never move from that position however I am concerned that paragraph 4.19 does not actually reflect what is in the paragraph 4 sorry what is required for MSPs in fact it is a more onerous declaration whereas the explanation for paragraph 4.20 d was put in there because it complied with exactly what MSPs were required to do so we have a slight mismatch I convener would not be in a position to want to hold this up but I do believe that it is important that members of public bodies do not have to declare their private residence as part or be made to think they have to declare their private residence as part of the declaration that they may wish to make because I think it should be out with the scope as it is for MSPs and as far as the £25,000 figure is concerned it appears extremely arbitrary to me and therefore that is why I seek clarity on it I mean I know you will be in our position because we have limited time for the matter has to be considered by the Parliament what I would say is that I do not wish to hold this up but should this matter come to the Parliament and I have had insufficient answers to my questions I reserve the opportunity to comment on the LCM when it comes to the Parliament because at the moment I don't feel that it is equitable and fair to members of public bodies and nor have we had a beautiful explanation of the figure of £25,000 thank you convener Thank you for that Edward and I note and on the record is the position with regard to the statutory instrument subject to the information that the minister has agreed to send to us from your position I would just and this is not a criticism it's merely a clarification that when Ian gave evidence with regard to the £25,000 he mentioned both the MSPs code of conduct but also the councillers code of conduct to draw it in a line to that so I just merely put that out there to be on the record is there any other member of the committee who would like to make a submission my apologies Bob I can't see the chat function is there anything that you would like to say maybe no but you know what I'm content because you're not like you I'm grateful and on the undertaking from the minister Tom can I just return to you if there's anything that you would like to say by way of closing remarks before I formally put this to the committee I would just wish to be here today convener I'm very grateful to the committee for the consideration of this model code and as I previously indicated to you I will speak to you as soon as possible certainly heard of the date indicated as required and we'll seek to address in specific of the points raised by Mr mountain and provide clarity for that as possible I'm grateful the question is that motion S6M-01125 be agreed are we all agreed excellent I understand Edward that you wish to withstand on that decision so can I move to a formal vote so that your position is preserved Edward I'm going to call a division and I will come to each member of the committee and ask for your vote Bob Doris for against or in abstention I'm agreeable to the motion to be asked for I'm grateful Paul MacLennan for Edward Mountain abstain I'm grateful Edward Tess White abstain and I'm going to vote for this motion subject to the assertions from the minister the results are therefore three votes for and two abstentions the matter will now the motion is now passed and will pass to the chamber could I confirm with members that they are content for me to sign off the committee's report to Parliament which will be an essential element of this convener yes Bob can I just ask in signing off the report will that be a formal written report that will just note the division in the committee this morning for some nuances around the reassurances that the committee may or may not wish to seek from the minister there may be a slight variance in nuances around that so I'd be quite happy to get that clarified thank you for that question on a clarification it's a formal report that not only shows the vote but also shows the evidence that we heard in the matters that are outstanding which is why I've invited the minister on time for that to be attached to the report so that it comes before the chamber when it makes its decision if the committee is taking a view on the additional information that we would like to have from the minister on the reasons for that I would be keen to have a look at that before that was issued absolutely Bob the response from the minister will be passed around all committee members we will have an ability to talk about it let me put it that way that we're satisfied it'll return to the committee for the committee to look at what we are reporting to parliament on this matter is that correct? my apologies Bob I didn't mean to interrupt you we can agree by correspondence the report that's going to go to the chamber it's just it requires a signature as well so the committee can agree by correspondence thank you as long as we can we can agree by correspondence excellent thank you 1, 2, 5 we now move we now move to gender item 5 the cross party groups it is for this committee to take evidence from Morris golden MSP who is attending in person on the proposed CPG on the circular economy and then we'll hear from Pauline McNeill MSP who will be joining us remotely on the proposed CPG on medicinal cannabis good morning Morris thank you for coming to the committee and you are our first cross party group in person so welcome to that can I hand over to you to give us an introduction about the intentions of the cross party group and how you see it going forward yeah thank you convener members will be aware the circular economy is an economic system which revolves around circulating materials in as high value state as possible for as long as we can in order to extract the maximum value from them and that means that it encompasses a whole variety of of areas and sectors which are relevant to the people of Scotland as well as decision makers in this Parliament and the purpose of the group is really to both explore and address many of these issues we had nine MSPs from the Conservatives, SNP and Labour attending the initial meeting of the group and we've elected or nominated four of those to serve as convener and deputy convener again cross party and we also have as part of our secretariat and treasury for environmental organisations which will help support the group's functions I think that perhaps the biggest challenge for the group will be deciding which topic to begin with but we're very much looking forward to being established if the committee approves and exploring and addressing many of these issues I'm very grateful I hope you're open to some questions from the committee I'll take convener's privilege by starting I think you hinted on it there in your last statement it is an enormous cross party group that covers many areas and indeed overlaps the significant other cross party groups and in the application you identified the unique concept that warrants very specific consideration for the circular economy would you like the opportunity just to go into that little bit more detail yeah I mean there's obviously a plethora of areas some which are very much distinct to the circular economy CPG for example waste recycling incineration the waste hierarchy is very much exclusive but I do see the opportunity for example in doing joint CPGs with for example on renewable energy where there is a synergy with an existing CPG and that's something I've done in the past with the Nordic countries CPG which I established last term so there is an opportunity to work across but there's other areas including textiles for example that hasn't seen a lot of sector focus in this Parliament to date and I see that CPG is really adding value to our political discussions but also to the people of Scotland thank you that's very helpful so really the position that the CPG is taking although it crosses a number of other areas is almost unique in your ability to bring those areas together and follow the process around the whole system I think so and another area which would perhaps overlap is in the area of housing but I think the CPG offers a distinct vantage point in which to approach how we build our houses, how we heat our homes and I think that's where we can add value to existing CPGs and complement their activities thank you is there any from the committee that has a question that they would like to put to Morris ah we have come to the end of the questions thank you very much for attending again with regard to the procedural matters we close this aspect of it and deal with the actual registration in a separate one you're more than welcome to stay Morris but we're going to hear evidence from another cross-party group and if you're not here then we will of course be in touch but thank you very much for your time this morning thank you so much I've got to go across the way to my other committee now so I appreciate that thank you very much indeed do we need to pause to get Pauline? Can we have a short suspension of this committee to allow Pauline to come on on to blue jeans call and enter the suspension and issue committees welcome to Pauline McNeill MSP who is here to talk about medicinal cannabis Pauline can I hand over to you good morning yes it's medicinal cannabis not medical cannabis medicinal cannabis I'll say why first convener thanks to Sam Currier Clark for the support she's giving us and trying to set the group up which I hope the standards committee will be satisfied with so it's probably the first group of its kind it doesn't overlap with anything else and I was running informal meetings with a really amazing group of people who believe that there are credible health benefits to the use of cannabis and I thought that probably there would be interest if I set up a formal cross party group so we've already done quite a bit of work so the group seeks to better understand the benefits of medicinal cannabis and recognise case studies indicating its positive impact on patients suffering from a variety of conditions and it also seeks to support patients' rights to get access to the medicine you might be familiar with some high profile cases of young coal for example who cannot currently get access to prescribed bed light and has to pay for it privately but coal being able to take this medicine has reduced his convulsions by an incredible in fact he's hardly had any episodes so for some patients it is absolutely like life changing and we've heard evidence in the informal sense when people who speak serious health conditions have simply been cleared up by the use of certain types of cannabis products so it's in the public interest that we would examine the evidence-based research and seek to investigate case studies for those with chronic illnesses who would benefit from medicinal cannabis so the topics that we would anticipate was access to bed light and other cannabis-based drugs which have a high cost to get into the country more difficult now because of Brexit a red card at the state of Colorado in the US runs called medcan which is a card for medical cannabis users to show that their need is for health benefits patients rights the human rights of patients to access this versus public health and I personally feel quite strongly that it will be prevented from the use of a cannabis product of which there are many because of any laws or judgment calls on people who use it I suppose why did I do this my own father who had very severe arthritis used to say to me that if he ever legalised cannabis would I be the first person to go and get him some so he could alleviate his pain and suffering which he believed would have been a law-abiding a person he died the past five years ago and didn't get the chance but for many people they believe it will alleviate conditions like arthritis so that's what drove me to do this work so reducing stigma using the evidence base and working with the NHS in which we have a good relationship with the NHS because there is some political resistance to this but there is also a bit of interest in it as well and lastly legislation for cannabis so we want to explore whether there should be legislation you probably noticed that a lot more people just take cannabis tablets or cannabis products for health reasons but it's becoming big business now so we want to make sure that it's not something that only big business can control so we're interested in cannabis growing so convener that's the main purpose maybe I should just say that Rona Mackay agreed to convene it Oliver Mindell Conservative member Miles Briggs who has done a huge amount of work in this as well Monica Lennon MSP who's been part of the informal grouping it pulls through the MSP and Pam Duncan Glancy have already signed up a number of individuals which are on your papers to Scottish patient subgroup called PLE Scottish Cannabis Consulting and the MS Society Scotland I would expect a lot more interest in this with standards to prove her application thank you very much thank you for that evidence Pauline and again I'll open up to questions for the committee but take my privilege as convener to go first the purpose as you stated is about primary purpose is to collect and recognise the value of case studies that is clearly a hugely important way of finding out the actuality of the use of medicinal cannabis in real life do you see there being a significant number of case studies on which the CPG can base further evidence and research going forward yes I do we will have to use international examples and examples which might be anecdotal but nonetheless are very compelling we have had the chief medical officer and chief pharmaceutical officer address us and some agreement that we do need to ensure that we are running proper trials so that it is legal for a GP to prescribe certain cannabis products just now but GPs perhaps don't have the confidence that they might have so trials are really important so we want to make sure that we are pushing that door and I feel that that door is actually open for us I think that there is a lot of interest in it but as you would expect any government and any medical system they want to try to test it and do you feel that the CPG will give groups and other individuals perhaps the confidence to share evidence with you that they don't feel able to share at the minute with other organisations or indeed Government? I'm absolutely in no doubt convener of that I think the platform that this would give people who have felt no connection to be able to influence decision makers would be absolutely invaluable which is why I think it's important now to formalise what we're doing and I think there will be a great deal of interest in it and hopefully we can work constructively with the medical profession and the Government to do something in the next few years Thank you. Are there any questions from other members of the committee? No? Excellent. Well Pauline, as you know after your little evidence session we'll move into another agenda item to actually take the decision and the committee clerks will be in touch with you the outcome of that decision in due course but can I thank you for coming along to the committee this morning and expressing the views of the committee Thank you Thank you very much We now move to agenda item 6 the cross-party group approvals so if I can deal with the cpg application for the circular economy first are there any comments or questions before I formally move to test? Just to support it I think it's a very good cpg convener Are there any objections to the cpg being formally founded? No? Established Thank you. Formally established, good. Can I move to the medicinal cannabis and I'll pronounce it correctly this time Are there any comments from the committee before we take a decision? Yes, Tess? I'd also like to say a very good cpg fully supported Excellent Are we agreed that the cpg for medicinal cannabis be formally recognised? Yes Grateful We're now going to move to item 7 which we will conduct in private Can I just call a short suspension?