 The 17th meeting of the session 5 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Could everyone please turn off any electronic equipment that may go off phones etc. As this can actually interfere with the recording of the committee. Agenda item 1 will be in regard to taking business in private, which will be items 4 and 5. Item 4 is an item on the code of conduct and item 5 is to discuss correspondence that we have received and do members agree to take these items in private. Agenda item 2 then. Agenda item 2 is in relation to cross-party groups and is for the committee to consider correspondence received from Mr Sammy Steen and 2017 Mr Steen wrote to the committee to complain about the cross-party group on Palestine. At that time the convener of the committee confirmed that non-MSP membership of that group is a matter for that group and any CPG themselves. Therefore the CPG on Palestine had not broken rules in relation to its membership arrangements. The focus of today's discussion is a letter that Mr Steen subsequently wrote to the committee in March of this year in which he has asked for the rules on CPGs in the code of conduct to be reviewed. In this letter Mr Steen makes five specific recommendations that you have been circulated with. You should obviously and will have read over those. Before I invite members' views on Mr Steen's suggestions, I would like to provide a wee bit of background that I hope is relevant on cross-party groups. As you all know, there are now 104 cross-party groups in Parliament that cover a wide range of subjects and issues, some of which are of a sensitive nature. CPGs are not formal parliamentary business although they tend to meet in Parliament as MSPs are able to book rooms here, mainly in the evenings when the Parliament is closed. CPGs do not have access to any financial or staffing resources from the Parliament for their meetings and the code of conduct requires them to respect the limitations on the use of parliamentary facilities. Under the code of conduct, any decision about membership is a matter for the group itself and groups are therefore within their rights to refuse non-member's entry to the meeting. As members are aware, changes to the code of conduct are normally the subject of detailed consideration and consultation by the committee and, ultimately, the decision on whether to make changes is for the Parliament. I hope that that is straightforward. I invite comments from members of the committee in regard to this. Thank you. Elaine Smith, please. Thank you very much, convener. I am carefully reading the paperwork. Obviously, I have not been a member of Parliament since 1999 and I have not been involved as a convener and co-convener of various cross-party groups. Over those years, I have often believed that there has been something of a misunderstanding sometimes about the purpose of cross-party groups. They are set up by MSPs and they are set up so that MSPs can explore a common subject to inform their work and they can do that in what might be considered a safe space with no party political or bargy going on by the very nature of the fact that they are cross-party and you have to get cross-party to set them up. If those groups are not working out and they are not informing MSPs' work then, of course, they could also be dissolved by those MSPs and only by the decision for MSPs. What they are not is public meetings and I have had to sometimes explain that to cross-party groups that I have been involved with. Most of them take place in the evenings in Parliament and the Parliament closes to the public at 6 o'clock at night. It is clear from that that they are not public meetings. I had an issue recently where some members of the public wanted to come to a meeting that I was convening and I had to change the timing of the meeting. I did it in line with the rules of cross-party groups and I had to do that because the MSPs could not comply with the original timings, but the members of the public that I wanted to come and listen did not get that message, if you like, because they were not members of cross-party groups and they did not check the website and so they turned up rather late. The meeting has to run for the MSPs and, as I said, I did it in line with the rules for cross-party groups and how you advertise the meetings. There are also confidentiality issues in some of the cross-party groups that I have been involved with. It seems to me that it would be reasonable that office bearers who—certainly the conveners are MSPs—would be taking decisions—as I say, they could take the decision to actually dissolve the cross-party group if it was not working out. Another point about that is that if other MSPs involved with the group do not like the direction that those conveners are taking, then there is an AGM and conveners can be asked to step down that way. I also finish with the fact that some cross-party groups—again, I have been involved with—have sensitive issues. They have to deal with members of that group who might want to share experiences in a safe space to do that. Therefore, we need to be cognisant of that fact, when we are considering that issue. Finally, I do not think that the committee could possibly be involved with micro-managing cross-party groups. It has to be up to the cross-party groups in terms of the rules that we have, how they run their operations and how they run their groups. I wonder if I could explain to the committee some experience that I had. In 1999, I set up the first cross-party group on men's violence against women and children, and the maker of that group was, for instance, the rape crisis, zero tolerance, women's aid, a whole host of organisations that are quite large and some small ones. In the early stages of that, that received some publicity. The group had been set up—I cannot remember exactly how many months—into the group, but it was fairly early on. I was approached by a letter or by email from a number of men, and the men were insistent that the group should include violence against men. I made a decision as a convener that, for two seconds, the resender of the group should contain that element of it, and they also asked whether they could attend, and I declined both. I went from memory—I am sure that I did not seek anyone's approval, to be quite honest—as a convener. The meeting was just due to come up, and I did not want people turning up and to be disappointed, so I said to both. I then took it to the group itself and explained the circumstances of it. It still is a big group to this day, and everyone agreed with my action, so the group actually agreed it. Maybe the one thing that I should have done as I should have counseled my opinion—I am fairly certain that I did not. Two things were coming from that, in my view. People who—I should say this, so it is important that there is clearly violence against men, but it tends to be violence by men on men. There is clearly violence with women against men. There is no question about that, but our focus is on the effects on women and children, rather than on men. I encouraged the men to, if they thought that they wanted to pursue that, that they should try and engage with MSPs—it would not be me and it would not be my group, but I encouraged them if they wished that they should form a group across the group themselves. It is an issue and it may be needed to be heard. They were not very pleased at that, so they were still pretty insistent that they should be able to attend the meeting. I do not want to talk about specifics other than to give that example, but to look at the range of groups that we have, and as Elaine has already said, you can imagine a group such as men's violence against women and children, and you can imagine some of the issues that are likely to be there, and victims were there also. The idea that someone wanted to be in that group and the group were uncomfortable with that would be problematic. There is the other issue of access to the group. There is the mission statement and access, and the fact that, if you open it up to the public, the press are there. In a group such as the men's violence against women and children, the last thing that you would want would be for the press to be involved in that. It would never be a meeting if the press sat in on that meeting. Those are the operational matters that let a group function properly. It lets people talk about very serious things to enlighten MSPs. They are trying to influence, no question about that. They are there to explain what is happening in the real world, in a private space. In my view, it must be in a private situation. Thank you very much. Mark Ruskell, please. Thanks, convener. It is quite useful to get a letter like this, because it allows us to reflect on the purpose of cross-party groups and their function. I welcome that. However, I agree with Elaine Smith and Gil Paterson that there is a misunderstanding about what cross-party groups actually are. They are private meetings. They might be taking place within a building, within a public institution, but they are ultimately private meetings. I feel that the recommendations that are being suggested to us are not appropriate in that context. There are two recommendations in here about providing reasons for rejection of application and reasons for expulsions. I could see how some cross-party groups may be in a position to provide reasons. It might be the polite thing to do, but I can also see particular cross-party groups that are working with vulnerable people, where there are sensitivities—I think that we have heard the example already from Gil—where providing a formal statement of reasons would absolutely not be appropriate in that case. I think that trying to create a sort of management manual for CPGs in this committee, I do not feel as appropriate. We have got a huge amount of diversity. As the convener said, we have got 104 CPGs. They cover a wide variety of topics. They cover some extremely vulnerable people as well. I think that it comes down to individual CPGs to determine themselves what is appropriate in the way that they manage. I would not accept these recommendations, but I think that it is useful if it comes in front of us, because it enables us to reflect on where we are at. I recognise the points that were made by Elaine, Gil and Mark. Both about the suitability of people to be able to attend or have effectively everybody to be able to attend every event and the make-up of cross-party groups, what they actually are. Where I have concerns is that the perception of what cross-party groups may well be very different—the public perception—to how they are constituted within the code of conduct, within the Parliament. That therefore reflects on how we do business here. Short of educating everybody and saying, absolutely, that this is what they are and that we have to recognise that. I suppose that where I would look is that I would essentially believe that the default position should be that people should be able to attend cross-party groups. Where there are particular instances, as have been outlined today and there will be other reasons, then it is acceptable that it is right or it is fair that some people may be excluded from those groups. I do also feel that, again, the default position should be where possible, where practical, and it should be good practice to advise those people of their reasons. I again accept that there won't always be, there will be circumstances where that is not possible because, again, of the reasons outlined today, but I do think that it would be good practice in normal circumstances to advise people why they may be refused membership or excluded from cross-party groups. Being comparatively new to this, I do reflect that these cross-party groups do need a large degree of freedom to what they do, but there is the necessity of good practice and good manners in terms of any decisions that they make. I think that some explanation, as a normality, might be appropriate to encourage. I think that the word encourage a normal thing, and there are definitely incidents where that would not be appropriate, but that is the judgment of the group and the chairman and the MSPs who are appropriate for those particular groups, because they are very varied in what they do. Some really do like public exposure, and they can get it quite easily. There are those who really need to go into very detailed private matters, because some of the issues discussed in some of them are very personal and very private, and any public exposure would be, and any reason given publicly might be detrimental to certain individuals. I like touch, but with some guidance on what might be a good practice that I would go along with. Thank you very much, Tom. Maureen Watt, do you wish to say anything? Yes. In vast majority of cases, all cross-party groups work well, but there have been occasions that I think that the way in which you were involved in one that had to be dissolved, because it just ended up being unworkable. That is a very rare occurrence. As other members have said, most of them are as open and transparent as possible, but we have to be aware that sometimes matters do get in such a complicated state that actions in order to keep the cross-party working properly have to be taken or else we end up dissolving it. That is often not a very good situation for some of the people who have been involved in the cross-party group and see it in some cases as very much a support group. It is important, as others have said, that cross-party groups are as open and transparent and discuss what actions they are taking in and what can be a very difficult situation, but a very rare situation. Does anyone have anything else that they wish to contribute at the moment? Everyone has had a good opportunity to express themselves. There is a wee bit variation, but there is a broad general direction. Potential approach that, as a committee, and it will be for the committee to decide whether that is right or wrong, might be for the clerks of the committee to contact all cross-party groups, all 104, with a reminder about the rules on membership of CPGs, as it stands in the code of conduct. The clerks in doing so can remind cross-party groups that any decisions about membership, including whether to limit the number of non-MSP members, they are a matter for the group themselves. In addition, the clerks can suggest that cross-party groups might or may, depending on their circumstances, wish to reflect on how they can ensure an appropriate level of transparency in their decisions on membership. Is that reasonable? Gil Paterson, please. I am always conscious about law and instruments or advice, and we have to be careful that whatever we are deciding is for the slow ship in the convoy. What you have described would cover all the groups and not cause any disturbance in any way, and it would be good practice. It is getting good practice as an approach. Anyone else have a further contribution at the moment? We will then go forward with this approach. The clerks will take that forward on behalf of the committee and report back to us. I think that that will be the agenda item at the moment. Agenda item 3 is the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life in Scotland, and it is a committee to agree the commencement and transitional arrangements for the revised direction to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life in Scotland. The committee previously approved the revised direction. The committee is now required to approve the commencement date and transitional arrangements set out in the cover note that she received. Do members agree the commencement and transitional arrangements as provided? Thank you very much for that. That ends the public part of this meeting. We did agree to take items 4 and 5 in private, so that is the public set. Thank you very much to everyone.