 I welcome everyone to the first meeting of the committee on the Scottish Government's handling of harassment complaints. I remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones as they interfere with the sound system. I note that everyone is here and no apologies have been received. Agenda item 1 is declaration of interests. This first item allows committee members to declare any interests that they think are relevant to the work of the committee. Background information has been provided in the note from the clerk, paper 1, in your agenda. So declare first any interests of your own or say you have no relevant interests to declare. I think it's best if I just probably go round the table, so Alistair, do you want to start? Nothing's specific to declare other than to refer people to my register of interests. No relevant interests, convener. No relevant interests, convener. While it is not a registrable interest, convener, I would like to state for the record, even although it's a well-known fact, that I have served under both Governments of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. Therefore, there may be individuals who come into the gaze of this inquiry that I know or whom I have worked with. I do not consider that an inhibitor to doing a job on this committee on behalf of Parliament and doing a robust and fair job at that, but I just, I suppose, wanted to state the obvious for the record. So thank you. No relevant interests, convener. No relevant interests. Thank you, and myself. I suppose I'm in the same position as Angela, so while it's not a registrable interest, I am in the same position as Angela, but otherwise no registrable interests. Okay, so we can move on then to agenda item 2, which is choice of convener, and our next task is to choose a convener of this committee. The procedure, as explained to members in paper 2, as you know, the Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as convener of this committee. So can I invite members to nominate someone from the SNP as convener? Yes, Jackie. I wonder whether I could just say something very briefly. There is absolutely no question in my mind about the personal integrity of the person who is likely to end up being convener, and that is quite clear because I've worked with her for many, many years. The issue at hand, though, is whether the party of government should be able to appoint the convener of this committee. I say this because it is clearly unprecedented that a committee of this Parliament is handling complaints against a former First Minister, the actions of the current First Minister, both of who were the leader and are the leader of the SNP. I think that places SNP members in a really quite difficult position for which they have my sympathy, but my primary concern is one of transparency for this committee in order to do its work. As we all know, the question of perception is all in politics and the perception, unfortunately, is that the party of government is actually appointing the convener of this committee, and I think that that would be unfortunate. I think that this committee needs to set off on entirely the right foot without fear or favour, and for that reason I would ask the committee to think carefully about whether it is indeed the SNP that should have the convenership of the committee. Failing agreement from members because I'm conscious that the Parliament has already made a determination on this, I would wish my concerns to be recorded. Thank you, convener. Donald, is it on the same thing? It is, convener. Yes, I just like to put on record my concerns, and I speak to Margaret Mitchell in this regard about the fact that the convener of the committee will be selected from the SNP. This has nothing to do with the personal qualities or integrity of Linda Fabiani, an MSP for whom I have the utmost respect. For the points that Jackie Baillie has already noted, if ever there was a moment for justice to be done and for justice to be seen to be done, then this is it. Ultimately, it's a matter for the SNP members of the committee, because in line with the bureau discussions, the vote in the chamber a few weeks ago and the rules of the Parliament, we will not oppose it. I simply ask SNP members of this committee, even at this late stage, to reconsider and offer the convenership to another party. If I might add, in reflection of the comments of my colleagues Donald and Jackie, the position of my party has some sympathy with those remarks. The optics of this are not great for the Scottish Government to be chairing this committee. However, this committee, perhaps, unlike any committee that precedes it, will undergo a level of scrutiny that no other committee in Parliament has often afforded. As such, we have to trust in the probity of our members and the recognition that they will perform their function with diligence and humanity. I recognise also that the matter was settled by a vote in Parliament. I share some of those concerns but will support the nomination of an SNP convener if that is what the SNP members decide is the best way forward. I would like to point out that the Business Bureau agreed the remit and the membership of the committee, including the matter of the convener and Parliament has subsequently voted on the matter. I would like to put on the record that this issue was not opposed to the Business Bureau when it was first raised. I have every confidence in this committee to do the important work that we have to do. Anyone else? What has been said will obviously now be on the record. As a number of members have said, this was discussed fully at the Bureau and the Bureau came to a decision and put forward a motion to Parliament that was agreed by Parliament. We have had situations in the past where, because of the de Haught method and the way that it works, people have had questions about the convenership but in all cases it has gone with the turn whoever it has been. We all recognise the nature of this committee. It is perhaps unique in the lifetime of this Parliament so far. I think that it is good that that has been put on the record. I invite members to nominate someone from the SNP as convener. As no seconder is required, are we agreed to choose Linda Fabiani as our convener? Agreed. Thank you. Linda, congratulations on your appointment. I will hand over the chair to you willingly. We move on to agenda item 3, which is the appointment of deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener of this committee. I invite nomination from a member of the Scottish Conservatives as deputy convener. I would like to nominate Margaret Mitchell MSP. As no seconder is required in this regard, are we agreed to choose Margaret Mitchell as our deputy convener? Congratulations, Margaret. Thank you. I move on to agenda item 4, which, as you will see on your agenda, is a decision on taking business in private. I would like to say at this point that, as convener, I intend to be as open and transparent as possible, but we do have to recognise that we need to be mindful of on-going court proceedings and what is said in public. What I am proposing here is that we discuss in public the timing of the committee's inquiry as outlined in the paper from the clerk that you already have. I would also like committee to go into private session for a short time to discuss in more detail how we may wish to approach the inquiry overall. That will include discussing on which day and at what time we should meet in the future because everyone has other commitments. I intend then to go back into public so that any decisions that we take in private discussion can be put on record as well as in the minute of the meeting. Can I ask members if they agree to take item 6 on their approach to the inquiry in private? Thank you. I will now move on to agenda item 5, where the committee will consider the timing of the inquiry. I would like to place on record here that what we have actually established, is to undertake a specific piece of work. It is worth having on the full record, and that is to consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, the former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government's handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers. That is procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code. Everybody has read the remit and read the papers that have been put forward and considering the timing of the inquiry. The Parliamentary Bureau agreed, of course, that this inquiry should not impede, interfere with or replicate investigations on going, nor should it prejudice any subsequent legal proceedings. We all know that court proceedings are now active and the Parliament's sub-judice rule now applies. Can I invite comments, discussion and questions from members of the committee? Alex Cole-Hamilton. I understand the collective will of the committee and understanding of the committee on sub-judice and the necessity for us to perhaps suspend our formal hearings of this inquiry until the conclusion of such legal proceedings. However, there are aspects of this case that are not sub-judice, which might be helpful for us to receive informal briefings on or written briefings on pertaining to the complaint procedure that predated the current procedure, the existing procedure and how it is meant to operate in best practice just so that we can familiarise ourselves with the landscape. I support a suspension of formal hearing. I think that there is some background reading that we could be furnished with or briefing that we could be furnished with, which would allow us to understand the landscape without prejudicing any proceedings. I just wonder if it might be possible for the committee to write to the Scottish Government and ask for timing with regards to the other investigations that we are waiting to learn more of, just for the timing of the code referral and the internal review, so that we are in a better position to understand when that might be complete. There is a danger that this committee may be suspended to sub-judice rules that are looked at. I agree with Alex Coleham that useful information can be gathered just now that will help our investigation and our inquiry when we do take that up formally. It is all about complaints to an extent. For example, looking back at how complaints have been handled since the inception of the Parliament would be useful back for our information and perhaps more of that detail we can hammer out in private. On the record, I do not think that we need to be standing still just now. There is useful work that can be done that will aid our inquiry in the longer term. Donald Cameron and then Angela Constance. On a slightly different point, but relating to timing, no issue at all with the substantial point about delaying until proceedings have finished. I simply wonder whether there is a mechanism where either formally or informally the committee might note where progress stands every three months or convene very briefly just so that we are up to date. We do not postpone indefinitely. It is simply an observation that I just wanted to raise. Angela Constance. Following on from Mr Cameron's point, I would certainly be sympathetic to the committee not postponing indefinitely and coming together periodically. I would also be interested in advice on two further points. I am, like most MSPs, perfectly aware of the subjudice rules that are in their standing orders. I am well aware of the statement that the Presiding Officer recently made in Parliament. I am aware of the recommendation that the bureau has made about the inquiry not beginning until legal proceedings conclude. It is important that, in terms of this committee, we perhaps receive our own advice on that point. My understanding as a non-legal person is that the subjudice rules may inhibit or prevent aspects of the inquiry in terms of the work that we will most definitely want to do, but I would appreciate some advice on that. The other point that Mr Cole-Hamilton raised is that we should consider whether there is sensible background work perhaps for our own learning that could be done in the meantime while legal proceedings progress that may save time in the future. I agree that we, as a committee, cannot do anything that would run the risk of interfering with what goes on in court, both for the sake of the defendant and the prosecution. I would be opposed to us doing anything formal. That said, I think that there is an opportunity for some informal evidence gathering that would pave the way for future committee meetings. As such, I think that we should meet from time to time whilst things are continuing. The other point that I would make, convener, is that I do not believe that we should wait for the outcome of the Scottish Government review, nor do I believe that we should wait for the outcome of the First Minister's self-referral under the ministerial code of conduct. This committee has been given a remit by Parliament and we can work out the logistics of things happening at the same time, but I do not think that we should delay for any other reason than live legal proceedings. Yes, convener, thank you. I am a bit concerned about the prospect of taking informal evidence, because I think that one of the problems is that that might convene subjudice rules. I think that it is really important that, if there is anything that we can do to make ourselves more aware of background that we do, so that if there is reading stuff from standards and procedures committee, previous actions that might be relevant or whatever, I think that we should do that, so that when this committee does convene after the legal proceedings that we are prepared and can hit the ground running. Are you two on the same line of thought here? We are indeed on the same page. It's just perhaps my use of language is different to Maureen Watt's, but we're in the same place entirely. Of course, we all have to be very careful about that use of language, and it's very, very important. Alex, you want to say something else? Just for the sake of clarity, convener, I understand entirely Maureen Watt's point. However, I am anxious about us individually going off and doing private study about this. We all have the same information, and we're on the same page when we did reconvene. Can I say, convener, that everything that has been said here reflects the thoughts that I have had about this, too? What I would suggest that we do is take all those points on board with our clerks and put that together. Margaret and I can have a look at it and then circulate to the committee a view of how we think we should proceed with this in terms of what we can actually gather together as background information, what would be most useful for us, and indeed whether it may well be worthwhile to set a regular timetable of coming together to review progress as a committee. Would that be acceptable for everyone? Yes, convener. Okay, thank you very much. We will now move into private session.