 Good morning and welcome to the second meeting in 2017 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Can I remind everyone to please switch mobile phones and electronic devices off or to silent? The first agenda item today is a decision on taking business in private. Are the members content to take consideration of its work programme in private at the next meeting? Thank you very much. Our second agenda item today is cross-party groups, and we are taking evidence of four proposed cross-party groups today. The first group to consider is proposed CPG on sexual health and blood-borne viruses, and I would welcome Kezia Dugdale MSP to the meeting. Kezia is the co-convener of the proposed group, and I invite you to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener, and good morning. I must say that this is more nerve-racking than First Minister's questions, so please be gentle. I am here to propose a cross-party group on sexual health and blood-borne viruses. There is currently no other cross-party group looking specifically at these issues. I think that there is a clear demand for it when you look at the increasing number of cases of HIV in Scotland. There has been no decline in the trend over the past 10 years. There are 5,200 people in Scotland living with HIV, and, separately, hepatitis C remains a persistent issue across the country in excess of 35,000 people living with a condition. Many of them are unaware that they have it. I think that there is a lot of work that we can do in this area. There would be some overlap with other cross-party groups. There are clearly similarities with some of the issues that, for example, the cross-party group on health inequalities might be looking at, and some of the work that the cross-party group on LGBTI issues would be looking at, which I am also a member of. However, I think that there is more than enough within the programme to demand or justify a specific cross-party group—not least the rising issue of sexual health education and whether or not it should be compulsory within our curriculum—issues around sexual coercion and violence, digital health, pregnancy. We know that the Scottish Government is about to come forth shortly with a whole new sexual health and blood-borne virus framework, so there are obvious landmarks in the months and years ahead that the cross-party group could work around. Members will be aware of the pro forma that we have put forward that shows a wide-ranging number of organisations and groups that are keen to participate in this cross-party group. We have had a very welcome offer from the Terence Higgins Trust to provide the secretariat. You will also be aware, convener, that two members of your own committee here are also signed up to be prospective conveners of that work, so I am sure that they will diligently commit themselves to that task as well. Thank you very much, Mr Hugg-Bale. Are there any questions from committee members? Yes, Mr Alexander. Mr Johnson. Thank you. As you rightly said, there is a real demand for this situation—no question about that. The groups and organisations that you have listed here have a massive experience in the field. With having so many experts supporting you, how are you going to manage to progress that forward to ensure that it does not get taken over by one or two of the organisations in the way that they want to promote it and move it forward? I think that for everybody there is a commonality in it, but it is important that it is progressed. That is a very fair question. At our first meeting where we contemplated the steps to establish a cross-party group, many of the organisations listed on that form were in attendance. In fact, we had over 60 organisations or individuals representing organisations at the first meeting, and the approach to that that I took from the chair was to have as open and discursive a first meeting as we possibly could, giving everybody the opportunity to put forward their individual priorities from their organisation's perspective about what they would like the cross-party group to work on. We collated all that, and it was very clear that, having written that all down in one piece of paper, there were some common themes. There is a legitimate concern within the group that, given that there are so many organisations working in the field of HIV, HIV might become more dominant than some of the issues around hepatitis C, but that is something that we can easily manage as a cross-party group of conveners to make sure that the work programme reflects the priorities and the demands of all the groups involved. It is not often that your own party leader comes before you on a committee, so there is just one or two things that I would like to get off my chest. In all seriousness, I think that that is very important. Certainly in the discussions that I have had with Waverly Care and I have Milestone House in my constituency, the issues around blood-borne viruses, HIV in particular, I think, are quite pronounced. I was quite shocked to hear that actually it is my demographic that is most at risk because the rising kind of complacency and other issues that are around those issues. I think that the case for the group is well made. I think that one thing that I think that we are all aware of in this committee is that there is quite a large number of CPGs both existing and new focusing on health issues. How do you see this group working collaboratively, if I could speak properly, with other groups and using the multitude of different interests in a way to develop opportunities? There are two things to say about that. We did have a cross-party group on sexual health and BBV in the last Parliament that I and Patrick were conveners of. It worked fairly effectively for the first two years of the five-year Parliament, as I remember it. The rules around the number of parties involved in a cross-party group changed and we were unable to attract enough cross-party support to keep its work going, despite substantial issues to discuss. That is why I think that it is very important and relevant that the proposal that you have before you see a cross-party representation from four different political parties that will continue the impetus in that regard. In terms of the other discussions that we have had around work programme, we have talked about doing joint meetings with other cross-party groups. If you take an issue like compulsory sex education, there is clear correlation between what we would like to discuss as the cross-party group on sexual health and some of the priorities that, for example, the cross-party group on children and young people might be working on. I convene that as well. There are lots of common ground. Equally, the cross-party group on drugs and alcohol, I believe, is being re-established and there is some commonality there as well. I think that by having open discussions, clear priorities and a definitive work programme, we can both have our own defined agenda within the Parliament but also seek to work with other cross-party groups that have been long-established. I am very happy to be involved just so that members are aware that the CPG is going to be created again. During the first sexual health CPG in session 2, there were some opportunities to work with the international development CPG, particularly around how sexual and reproductive health rights and HIV are dealt with at a global level. I wonder whether there is a chance for some of that work to be done again between the two groups, particularly with current events, to refresh the Scottish Government's international development strategy and the US's threat to withdraw funding from any organisations involved in sexual and reproductive health, particularly around contraception and abortion. I think that when you look at how well-attended and how thorough the recent debate that we had in the Parliament on World AIDS Day was, when you had that mix of both domestic and international issues in the context of World AIDS Day raised, it is quite clear that there is an appetite in the Parliament to not just look at what is happening at home but to look abroad on those issues, too. From the early discussions that we have had as a cross-party group, actually a collaboration with the cross-party group on international development did not come up on that one occasion, but there are quite clear and obvious developments since we first met them and put that higher up the priority list. Again, that is something for the members of the cross-party group to demand and determine. I leave you to be commended for setting up this CPG. I think that it is certainly very merited within the Parliament. One of the areas where there has been a huge growth in sexually transmitted diseases is in the over-fifties. I see here that there are pediatrics and adolescent groups, education and contraception, which might not affect pregnancy and the over-fifties. Has there been any thought put into how you would engage that demographic or what groups you might invite to come along who might represent that age group? LGBT health and wellbeing do some work in this area with regard to people living with HIV, because, of course, advancement in medicine means that many people can live well for much longer, so there is a growing group of people in the over-fifty category who are exposed to HIV and BBV or are living with that condition. Those issues were put on our list of priorities at the first meeting. It is fair to say that it was not in the top five, but it very much was on that list, so there is scope to do more work in that area. Just as Waverly Care are actively involved in this, you heard Daniel mention Malstone House, Waverly Care work in the area of the ageing population. In the future, we could do joint work with the CPG on older people, which is the specific group. At the moment, that is not considered high up the list, but we are very much open to that. It is worth saying that one of the other issues that was raised at the first meeting of the cross-party group was the degree to which the list of participants was exhaustive. People were asking how we advertised the cross-party group. How do we make sure that everybody who might have an interest in those issues knows that it exists and knows how to participate in it? I think that you have probably identified an area in which we could do a bit more work to make sure that those people living in older communities know that it is there and that it could represent their interests as well. Are there any further questions from the committee? Thank you, Ms Sugdale, for attending. From the question that we have established, this is an issue that affects older demographics. It is important to everyone in Scotland, but we will make our deliberation at agenda item 3 today, and you will be informed of our decision as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for your time. Suspend shortly to still our witnesses to change over. The second group for consideration by the committee this morning is a proposed CPG on architecture and the built environment. I would like to welcome Linda Fabiani MSP to the meeting. Linda is a proposed convener of this group, and I would invite Ms Fabiani to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. The cross-party group on architecture and the built environment is one that has sustained since the very beginning of this Parliament. Right up front we will say that it should have been easy, but we missed the deadline hence I am here today. The purpose of the group is a recognition of Scotland's places. It brings together planners, architects, surveyors and everyone that is involved in Scotland's built environment. It has been very successful. We have always had a good membership, and we have a broad range of stakeholders who regularly come along to our meetings, from which we produce reports that are then circulated to all MSPs. Over the piece that we have been involved in, for example, last year's Festival of Architecture, we engage with Government and all stakeholders involved whenever there are Government consultations, and it is always about promoting good spaces for people to live and work in in Scotland. Thank you. Ms Fabiani, can you invite any questions from the committee? Our built environment is very important, and I think that the esteem that architecture has held is equally important. I will take this opportunity to air a personal hobby horse of mine. I think that there is a bit of work to be done on making sure that mid-20th century architecture is slightly elevated in its steam. I still lament the loss of the Scottish Provident building on the corner of St Andrew's Square, which I thought was a remarkable building, and the sadly lost to us mainly because it was built in the wrong decade for many people. I think it was an older building. We would have protected it. I am just wondering if there was any thought in your work programme as to looking at mid-20th century architecture, brutalist architecture and how we can change perceptions of those buildings? That is something that comes up fairly often, because you are absolutely right that there is not often a recognition of how excellent architecture is in the modern context. Even where our Parliament is situated here, we have some very excellent, more modern work just across the road in the Basel Spence Flats, for example, that is not recognised as being excellent architecture. That is an ongoing thing. We try to promote that, too. For example, as part of the year of architecture, there were Scotland's 100 favourite places. It was quite uplifting to see that people have started to recognise more modern structures as architecturally brilliant. In fact, there were two in East Kilbride. I may just say why I am here, one being the Darlan Baths. That is an ongoing issue. Part of the remit of the group is about the appreciation of how important it is to have decent, good places within our built environment and, indeed, in our landscapes, because it covers more than just look at all those buildings. We are absolutely right and can suggest that perhaps you come along to our group and put your point forward. I may well do that. I am declaring a slight interest, as my degree was in engineering. Do you invite civil engineers along to your group, given the natural tensions that exist by way of bringing these groups together? Excuse my smile. I did not mean anything worse than having been involved in the construction industry myself in developing housing. The minute you said that an engineer was coming to the meeting, you thought, oh, no, here we go. Sorry about that. That makes my point for me. Absolutely. In the inclusive nature, I am sure that the committee will always be very inclusive. We have had interaction, for example, with the cross-party group for construction over the periods in which the two groups were in operation. I am pretty sure that there are engineering organisations in the membership list, or where, at last time round, but I have to be very honest and say that I do not think that we had much attendance from that section of it. However, I will very much take that on board, and I shall perhaps bully the architects into being more proactive about my inviting engineers. Any further questions from the committee? Thank you very much. I thank Linda Fabiani for her attendance this morning. I would like to recognise your passion and your commitment to this area over the years of the Parliament. However, we will take our final decision at agenda item 3, and she will be informed of the decision regarding the proposed cross-party group. I will suspend shortly until our witnesses to change over. The third group for the committee's consideration this morning is the proposed cross-party group on Nordic countries. I welcome to the committee Maurice Golden MSP, and I would like to invite Mr Golden to make an opening statement about the proposed group. The overall objective of the Nordic countries cross-party group is to promote political, cultural, educational and environmental links between Scotland and the Nordic countries, and to foster ties between Scottish and Nordic politicians. As you can see from the submission, we have achieved cross-party support for the group. I have also met with the relevant consuls for the Nordic nations, which were defining for avoidance of doubt, as Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They are keen to see the establishment of the cross-party group. I have also spoken to relevant societies, as well as businesses linked to those nations operating in Scotland. There are already a number of great ties between Scotland and the Nordic countries, especially in trade and culture. In the report, you talked about the digital economy. How do you engage and progress to ensure that you can capture all that? We are advanced in some aspects, but they are even more advanced than ourselves. I think that it is a very good point. There is an opportunity within this cross-party group, but it is probably something that needs to be clarified, is that we will seek to address a whole range of issues, including the digital economy, and where possible, link with other cross-party groups that might have a specific focus on the theme of connectivity, whether it be health, whether it be renewables. We will seek to link up. Obviously, when you are dealing with a geographical region rather than a thematic issue, we want synergies for parliamentarians and other interested stakeholders. We will seek to tackle those. I genuinely think that it will be a two-way learning process. There is much that Scotland does where our nation is leading the way and vice versa. We can learn where those respective nations are doing some interesting and innovative projects. A note from your application is that you have two individuals noted as members of the group in the honorary council of Finland and a member of MSP staff. You said that you have reached out to other councils. Perhaps you could tell us why they have not been listed as members of the group? I think that that is purely in terms of who attended the initial meeting of the cross-party group. In terms of the formalisation of the process, I think that after today it will bring a confidence about the other councils formalising their engagement. As members may appreciate the concept of a cross-party group to stakeholders outwith, that is something that they may certainly not aware of. Once we have established that, I would expect membership to increase and to get more engagement. The other aspect, particularly with this group, is that there are a number of honorary councils, so people who are effectively doing a full-time job and then have this position on them thereafter. I think that the other aspect of this process is to reach out to the relevant embosies, who will then provide the authority to join. I expect membership to increase. Can I ask where the drive for this cross-party group has come from? We often hear that it is outside organisations who are lobbying MSPs to say that we would like a group on this, which is really interesting. Where has the drive come from if there is only one honorary council from Finland as a member? For me personally, prior to entering Parliament, I referred to my declaration of interest. I did a project with the Chartered Institute of Waste Management looking at the application of the circular economy in similar nations to Scotland. As part of that study, I spent a significant amount of time in Finland and in Denmark and realised that there is much that we can learn from them and take district heating, for example. For members, more widely, in Parliament, Angus MacDonald has a keen interest in Norway and has lived in Norway. Through discussions with him, we realised that there is much that can be learned from this sort of discussion. One of the cases in which the cross-party group has been led by the members, which I think is entirely appropriate. That is why the consoles are therefore coming on board with the relevant members of the Scottish Parliament. Just about the plans that you have to reach out to organisations—this is no organisations, they are currently members of the CPG. Yes. The obvious organisation to meet, which discussed at the initial cross-party group meeting, would be Nordic Horizons. There are other stakeholders and society groups that we would also like to meet with, as well as relevant businesses and chambers of commerce for those nations that we still, as a group, will seek to meet with myself and the other deputy conveners, will seek to speak to those groups as well. Any further questions, Mr Harvie? In the list of the countries that you are identifying as Nordic countries, you mentioned the full members of the Nordic Council. Are there other countries that are observer members? I wonder whether the CPG intends to establish some kind of relationship with the Nordic Council. I think that that would be definitely beneficial. I think that, as you pointed out, there are other interested parties within the wider Nordic region. I think that that would be entirely appropriate and we are flexible enough to accommodate that as well. Going forward, we would like to see the relevant Nordic countries leading discussions on particular areas, and we have discussed with them about some of the particular subject areas that they would like to lead on and to link in with the ambassadors as and when they come to Scotland. Thank you very much for your attendance this morning, Mr Golden. I think that, as a committee, we are delighted that we are not looking at five or six CPGs in individual countries, so congratulations on bringing that together. As someone who has attended a number of the Nordic horizons events over the course of my last term of the Parliament, it is certainly something that is of interest to the people and the members in this area. However, we will be taking our decision at agenda item 3 of today's committee and you will be informed of our decision as soon as possible. Thank you for your attendance this morning. Thank you for your time. I will suspend shortly just to allow witnesses to change over. Thank you. Our final group for the committee's consideration this morning is the proposed CPG on walking, cycling and buses. I would like to welcome Graham Simpson MSP this morning, and I would invite Mr Simpson to make an opening statement to the committee. Yes, I think that I will just speak from the heart, rather than from notes, if that is okay. So, before I became an MSP, I was described as the cycling czar for South Lanarkshire. We set up there a cycling partnership. In fact, I still hold that position. So, when I became an MSP, I was very keen to see if there was a similar sort of group in the Parliament. Asking around, I discovered that there had been in the previous session. It just dealt with cycling and I believe Alison Johnson and Claudia Beamish were the conveners. So, I got chatting to them. Where we are now, it's been quite a long time coming. There was a feeling that the group before was probably, to be fair, a bit of a talking shop. We wanted to make it something a bit better in discussions. We thought, yes, this isn't just about cycling. It's about sustainable transport. So, we've widened the remit to, as you can see, include walking and buses. So, I think the idea is that we just want to get this out there, get this on the agenda, publicise it and get it in front of the public agenda. That's the idea, but it will not be a talking shop. I think that it is very worth while having a CPG that looks at alternative forms of transport, sustainable transport and indeed active transport. I just really want to ask you about the remit, though. I mean, while I understand why you want to extend beyond cycling, you seem to be being somewhat selective in the additional modes of transport. I'm just wondering why you chose to identify cycling, walking and buses rather than, in fact, you used the term sustainable transport, which might better reflect the broad spectrum of modes of transport that you might be looking at. I think that's a fair question, Mr Johnson, but I understand that there is a group on rail already, so that's why we didn't include rail. I guess it would have been obvious to include rail as well, but I think that a group already exists, so that's why we limited it to cycling, walking and buses. I know the organisations that you have as members and there's a wide number of groups and voluntary organisations, but I do also notice that you have a stagecoach here. Obviously, there's immediately an alert to the possibilities of commercial interest given their scope, and I just wonder what thought had been given to that. I think that you can't avoid the fact that there are commercial operators who run buses in large parts of Scotland, certainly the part that I live in. That's just the reality, so I would think remiss if we didn't invite them along, but I think that group of organisations will grow because, as you can see, it's quite cycle-orientated because of the people who were on it before, so I do think it needs to be expanded. I mean, I think that the range of organisations is commendable. It's just that, and I don't disagree, that there clearly are commercial operators operating buses. That is a fact of the landscape, but it's more the question that you only have one of them here. I just wonder whether or not that needs to be looked at, have other bus operators been invited? Could they be invited? Did a trade body, rather than the individual commercial interest itself being a member of the group, might that be a better way to proceed? Is it there? Sorry, I missed. No, I think it's a fair point. As I say, that list that you see before you is not the end of it, so yes, I'll take that on board and would agree with it. I think that it's very laudable that you're trying to expand the remit from just cycling, walking and buses, and that gives you lots of opportunities, but it will also give you some challenges, especially, maybe, potentially, with the bus situation, because you may find, as you indicate within your own area and also my own area, that we have a large number of buses that are operated, but from time to time it gets a little bit difficult when some of them are streamlined or reduced and communities then feel that they are being left. I wonder how you're going to manage to tackle that, because that's bound to come on to the agenda as you move forward. I think that, Mr Stewart, there are different situations in different parts of Scotland. If you take Edinburgh, for instance, my view of Edinburgh appears to have a very good bus service. Other parts of Scotland don't, so I would think that it would be part of the role of our group to perhaps shine a light on that and maybe come up with suggestions for improving things in other parts of the country. As I said, I think that there will be some real opportunities from it, convener, and I wish you well. Are there any further questions? Thank you, convener. Can I just ask that, particularly as you brought up the subject of Edinburgh, had you thought about including trams in the CPG membership list? We haven't discussed it, but now that you've mentioned it, it might be a thought. Thank you any further questions. Mr Simpson, for his attendance at the committee this morning, it's probably worth putting on record for all proposed CPGs that, as their CPGs grow, they have a duty to inform the clerks of increasing membership within a 30-day period, and that's probably relevant for all the proposed CPGs that have been in front of us today. Our final decision will be taken at agenda item 3 today, and you'll be informed of our decision as quickly as possible. Thank you for your attendance this morning. We now move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the proposed CPGs. The first one being the proposed CPG on sexual health and blood-borne rhinos. Can I have any comments from the committee? Are the committee content to approve that CPG? Yes? I noted Mr Scott, thank you very much. The next proposed CPGs is on architecture and the built environment. Are we content to approve that CPG? The third proposed CPG is on Nordic countries. Are we content to approve that CPG? Oh, Ms Hockie, sorry. From previous CPGs that we have approved, we have asked them when there has been a very small or narrow membership to come back to us in a year. Am I correct in that? Looking at the membership list, I think that the Nordic CPG would perhaps fall under that criteria that we have already set. I would be happy to concur that the same wording is used to that CPG. Thank you very much. Finally, the proposed CPG on walking, cycling and buses. Is everyone any comment? Sorry, I am content. Oh, Mr Johnson. I would just like to make one comment. It is certainly not an objection, I think that it is a worthwhile group. I think that the scope is quite particular and I think that they may well find that they want to expand that scope and I think that we would welcome it, or I personally would welcome it if that happened. I think that that is truly noted. It is a strange situation because I think that it is a kind of fall-on from a previous CPG and that it will expand in the remit to cover the areas that they have put forward. It is truly noted, but thank you very much. Are we content to approve that CPG? Thank you very much. On that note, that is the end of the meeting, a close meeting and thank you all for your attendance today.