 I would like to make a statement on the decision of the Standards, Procedure and Public Appointments Committee on a report from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland on a complaint made against Maggie Chapman MSP. The Standards, Procedure and Public Appointments Committee has carefully considered a report from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland on a complaint from Melissa Titus about Maggie Chapman MSP that she failed to make a declaration in respect of her registered interest as chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre at the meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022 when it took evidence from Rape Crisis Scotland on the gender recognition reform bill. The committee is unanimous in the conclusions and the decision reached. The committee is of the view that Maggie Chapman's registered financial interest, remuneration received by virtue of her employment as the chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, was relevant to the proceedings of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee of 31 May 2022. The committee considers that it is a matter of fact that Maggie Chapman has had a registered financial interest in the remuneration category of her register since the beginning of this parliamentary session. This registered financial interest is the remuneration she received by virtue of her employment as chief operating officer at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre until 30 June 2021. As this registered interest is in the remuneration category, in accordance with the code of conduct, it must remain in her register throughout the current session, even though she is no longer employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, although it has been amended into the past tense. Under the 2006 act, a registered financial interest is a declarable financial interest and a member who has a declarable interest in any matter shall declare that interest before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter. The committee has concluded that this declarable financial interest was declarable in the context of the meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022 because the proceedings of that committee were related to that financial interest. The committee notes the commissioner's findings on the similarities in the support provided by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland and the link between those two organisations. The committee considers that it is relevant that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is one of the network of 17 independent rape crisis centres with which Rape Crisis Scotland works and that Maggie Chapman MSP referred to Rape Crisis Scotland network members at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022. The committee also notes the commissioner's findings that Rape Crisis Scotland and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre are in the same industry and have as organisations the same general aims and that Maggie Chapman MSP considered her declarable interest to be relevant to the remit of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and for that reason she declared it at the first meeting of that committee on 23 June 2021. While the committee notes the commissioner's findings that the two organisations had the same general aims and were part of the same network, the committee considers that it is relevant that one of the witnesses that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee was taking evidence from on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill on 31 May 2022 was the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland. In her written representations to the committee, Maggie Chapman MSP states that Rape Crisis Scotland and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre are completely separate entities and have distinct governance, employment and funding arrangements. The committee is of the view that in keeping with the principles that underpin the code, the member should not just take into account their own view in the assessment of whether a declaration relates to the committee proceedings, but also considers whether a fair-minded and impartial observer would consider that the declarable interest could influence the member or give the appearance of prejudicing that member's ability to act impartially. The committee considers that a person watching or reading the proceedings might reasonably consider there to be a connection between the two organisations. More particularly, in the question that Maggie Chapman MSP addressed to the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland during the evidence session, the committee notes that she referred to the work of that network as having been trans-inclusive for 15 years and invited the chief executive to say a bit more about how the medicalisation of trans identity had been dealt with if it had come up in services provided either the chief executive or Rape Crisis Scotland network members had experienced. The committee considers that the question asked by Maggie Chapman MSP related to the matter in which she has a declarable interest, namely the remuneration she had received by virtue of her employment as chief operating officer at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. The 2006 act requires a declarable interest to be declared before the member takes part in any proceedings relating to that matter. The committee is of the view that even if Maggie Chapman MSP made an assessment that her declarable interest was not sufficiently related to the gender recognition reform bill, which was the subject of the agenda item at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee meeting, a declaration should have been made before pursuing a line of questioning that referenced the network of Rape Crisis centres, which includes Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. The committee is of the view that her line of questioning brought the proceedings in closer relation and proximity to her declarable interest. The committee notes that central to the Member's interests regime are the principles of transparency in relation to matters that could be thought to influence a Member's actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament, and the need to assess whether an interest could reasonably be considered to influence or to give the appearance of influencing the ability of the Member to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of the Parliament. The committee believes that for those watching or reading the proceedings of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee of 31 May 2022, a declaration by Maggie Chapman MSP of her declarable interest would have provided the transparency and openness that the standard regime requires in relation to Member's interests. For these reasons, the committee concludes that Maggie Chapman MSP breached the following provisions. Section 13.1 and 13.2 of the Interest of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, referred to as the 2006 act, following the definitions and conditions of having a declarable interest in section 12 of the 2006 act. Section 3, paragraphs 6 to 8, of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament, 8 edition, dated 6 May 2021, referred to as the code. The committee agrees with the commissioner's findings that there was a failure to declare a declarable financial interest in this case, and the commissioner's conclusion that Maggie Chapman MSP's conduct in not declaring a declarable financial interest breached the 2006 act and the code. In conclusion, a finding of a breach of the 2006 act and the code of conduct is a very serious matter. The committee notes that Maggie Chapman's written representations made reference to two previous complaint reports investigating complaints that MSPs had breached the statutory and code requirements relating to the declaration of interests. However, neither of those cases is strictly comparable to the current case. In one case, the member did not have a registered financial interest, and in the other case, the member made a declaration that did not refer specifically to the registered financial interest. In the current case, the member had a registered financial interest but made no declaration of that interest. The committee wrote to all members in January 2023 emphasising the requirements to declare a financial interest in any matter before taking parts in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter. The committee would now like to take the opportunity to remind all members of the principles of openness and transparency that underpin the standards regime. The consultative steering group's report, Shaping Scotland's Parliament, published in January 1999, stated that the Scottish people deserve a Parliament and members they can trust and respect and recommend a rigorous code of conduct for MSPs. It also recommended a set of nine key principles that reflected the recommendations of the Nolan committee on standards in public life. Accordingly, the committee believes that all members should respect the Parliament and the people of Scotland by taking their registration and declaration requirements seriously. In her representations to the committee, Maggie Chapman referenced a perception of custom and practice that may be developing around the declaration of interests in the Parliament. However, the requirements in relation to registration and declaration are statutory requirements and are included in the code of conduct for MSPs. For this reason, members should not look to custom or practice or rely on advice from other MSPs in relation to the registrational declaration of interests. The code very clearly sets out that advice is to be sought from the standards clerks and the committee notes that Maggie Chapman indicated in her all representations that she did not seek the advice of either the standards clerks or committee clerks in relation to the meeting at which Rape Crisis Scotland gave evidence. The committee takes breaches of the requirements in relation to the failure to declare a registrable financial interest before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter very seriously and advises members to seek advice from the standards clerk should they have any questions about any matters relating to the registration or declaration of interests. In relation to the breach in the current case, the committee has agreed unanimously to recommend the imposition of a sanction. I would now like to consider the imposition of a sanction and I would propose that the member be excluded from one meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I would now like to invite the committee to comment as whether or not they are into agreement with this proposal. Bob Doris. Emma Harper. I agree also, convener. Edward Mountain. I agree. Alexander Stewart. I agree, convener. I'm grateful for that confirmation of agreement of the whole committee and I will now close this public part of the meeting.