 Welcome to the 7th meeting in 2015 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones as they affect the broadcasting system. Agenda item 1 is for the committee to take evidence from Bruce Crawford MSP on the proposed cross-party group on tourism. Welcome Bruce Crawford to the meeting and invite Bruce to make any opening statements about the purpose of the group. Thank you very much, convener, and I'm delighted to be here. I'll take a couple of minutes only just to say a few words. 2014 was a remarkable year for Scottish tourism. The Commonwealth Games, the Rider Cup, Armed Forces Day, the huge and successful Banekban Live, to name but a few, there were a thousand other events that I'm aware of attracting over 2 million attendees. As we all know, the industry is one of the key economic contributors to the Scottish economy overnight visitor spend of over £4.5 billion annually. Dave Visitor spends £6.2 billion, accounting for 200,000 direct jobs. By 2020, the plan to grow overnight visitor spend to between £5.5 billion and £6.5 billion. 2014 was a champion year and there are big plans for the future. It struck me towards the end of 2014, that remarkable year, despite the vital importance of tourism to the Scottish economy, no cross-party group existed to help support the industry. I believe that there was one in the early days of the Parliament, but I think that it's a glaring hole in the architecture of cross-party groups in the Parliament. Why the need? It's important that one of our biggest industries has a parliamentary focus to discuss how to grow and develop the tourism product. It will create opportunities for tourism players to meet with MSPs to improve politicians' understanding of the key industry and enable the tourist industry to have an improved awareness of the influence of constraints of governmental and parliamentary framework. We can see some early work of the cross-party group being involved in the 2020 strategy and a greater understanding about its impact and how it will be delivered. There are skills gaps issues to be addressed and a number of sectoral challenges. I already have an indication of 10 MSPs from across the political parties. We already indicated support. I'm confident that that will grow. 90 organisations across Scotland have contacted me about this to say that they would wish to be a member of the cross-party group of these 50 or of national regional organisations who have approached me. I'm aware that there are some potential crossovers with other cross-party groups but I'm confident that we can be complementary rather than competitive. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Do members have questions? Good morning, Bruce Crawford. It's nice to see you before us this morning. Just a question about the overlaps that you mentioned. I was convener of a group that was called the Surizes and Soriatic Arthritis Group. Other folk with skin conditions approached me to form a second group to deal with other skin conditions. After a period of discussion with the existing group—not without its difficulties, I would have to add—we came to agreement eventually that we would form a new group that would broaden the remit of the existing group. The new group is called the Skin and Associated Dramatic Conditions Group. We are getting more people coming along and we are looking at the whole range of skin conditions. That was an example of one group transforming itself and broadening out. I felt that having two groups wouldn't be particularly beneficial. It's just when I look at the other groups where you might have an overlap with golf, for instance, and recreational boating and marine tourism, is there any reason why those two particular groups couldn't come together under the umbrella of your group? Both of those, I would suggest, might fit quite nicely in with it. Well, it's not for me to make a decision about whether those groups would be appropriately fall within the remit of the cross-party group in tourism. Obviously, individual MSPs have come to this committee or gone through some other similar process and been able to provide Parliament with evidence that those particular areas have a distinct niche. I would be relaxed if those groups wished to go in that direction, but that would be entirely a matter for them. Although on page 2 of your own report, where the various groups are outlined, I can't imagine that the Scottish economy cross-party working group would want to become embedded into the tourism group, but there are others where it would be a potential area where they would want to think about it. That would be entirely up to them if they wanted to do that. If the committee suggested that there might be discussions between the conveners of those two groups and yourself, would that be something that you would be amenable to? I am always amenable to discussions with people in circumstances like that, and if it was to lead to something positive, then fair enough. I don't want them to see in any way that this is a threat to their particular cross-party groups, because I don't feel it is. Mark Rathbone Thank you, and good morning, Mr Crawford. It is really on the overlap as well, where Dave has already raised the main issues. I was thinking about where we have the slight overlap in other cross-party groups. We are encouraged to have joint meetings, maybe one a year or something like that, because there is a commonality between those groups, and it can be quite useful. It is something that you might think about in the future. Mark Rathbone I mentioned in the opening remarks that there is an opportunity for us to look at some of the sectors in particular. There will be sectoral issues at stages during the life of the cross-party working group, where I am sure that they will want to develop a particular argument in a particular area. Now it might be that there is a sectoral interest in golf, for instance, or a sectoral interest in food or culture, in general terms, and if there was a desire at that stage within the cross-party working group to take forward a discussion at the area, I think that it would be important before any of that proceeded. I did have a discussion with the cross-party working group conveners in those areas to make sure that, first of all, they do not feel threatened by that, but is there also an opportunity for us to do some joint work? Mark Rathbone Anyone else anything you wish to ask? Mark Rathbone Right, thank you very much. I think that we will inform the committee's discussion, so thank you very much for your attendance. We will consider your application shortly after you leave the room at the next agenda item, and we will let you know as soon as we reasonably can what our conclusions are. Mark Rathbone Thank you very much, convener. I am very grateful for the opportunity to be with people for you this morning. Mark Rathbone Thank you. Mark Rathbone Right, colleagues. Agenda item 2, consider whether we accord recognition comments from members, please. Mark Rathbone I think that this idea that there are so many cross-party groups, and I wonder if there is any way that we can get them together. There is a lot of crossover, as Dave said. I can see there is a crossover, particularly as one mentions tourism as well. I just wonder if we could not disinmit a heck of a lot of cross-party groups that are meeting. If they have a joint meeting once a year, fine, but is there any limit to them? It is more a comment than a criticism or anything, but I just feel that there is an awful lot of cross-party groups that are always being asked to join them. I will put my name down for this one, because it is interesting. Mark Rathbone I know that there is some crossover, but when you look at golf as a sport as well as a major part of our tourism strategy, from that perspective, there is a specific reason to want a group of their own and discuss it. It is a similar argument as well. It is like with a CPG in neurological conditions and a CPG in AMS. It is very similar to what Bruce has already said. There will be a time that will work together on issues, but there is a time when you want specifically to talk about that one subject and explore what that community wants to discuss at the Parliament. I understand that there are quite a lot of cross-party groups, but sometimes I think that it is quite—and in this occasion, my own opinion would be that it is good that we have a separate actual tourism cross-party group in itself, because I think that there is a time that you have to work together, but there is a time that you have to talk about a specific subject in its own. That is a very valid point that George Mac's makes, but I would refer back to my comments about the surizes group and the skin group. What we have done in the skin group is given an assurance to the folk that were in the surizes group that there would be regular discussions on surizes that would be on the agenda pretty much all the time, because they were worried, obviously, that if they went into a broader skin group, that the surizes focus, if you like, would be lost. However, there were just so many other skin conditions, such as eczema and beshates and a whole range of things, and people were coming to me saying, look, we could do with a group for these. I was very sympathetic, but with my experience of being on this committee over the years and going through the review across party groups and all that, I felt that it would not be helpful to maintain the surizes group and have a skin group for all other skin conditions. I can tell you that it was not easy to get agreement, and some people left the group and there was a lot of angst around that, but I felt that it was the right thing to do, because we do have a huge number of cross party groups, and I have been encouraged to help to form another two in very specific areas that I do not think have any overlaps with existing things, but there are a lot of cross party groups that overlap, and if the two groups that George mentioned, the ME, if you… MS. Sorry, MS, George. You started another, Rami. The MS issue could be discussed within the broader neurological thing. I just feel as a committee that there is increasing pressure on MSPs. I am actually going to be writing to you to ask the committee to look at quorums for the cross party groups, because there is a big issue brewing in relation to that. I think that it is incumbent on us not just to approve every single group that comes to us, but to look quite critically at what they are trying to do. Yeah, golf is a sport, but it is very much part of the tourism thing. The recreational boating and marine tourism, I think, fits extremely well within the broad parameter of tourism. I am just wondering if we should not say to Bruce Crawford that you know, ask him and he can say that he has been instructed by us to do it, to meet with the conveners of the marine tourism and boating group in particular in golf. I would not suggest the economy one, I think that is quite a separate issue, but it is probably the same, food culture possibly. I do not think that it would do any harm, even if just sending out a message to people that, where there are overlaps, they should actually make efforts to link with the existing groups and not just say that is up to those groups, which was Bruce Crawford's answer. I did that with Sir Isis and I think that that is the right way to do it. I would not go to the wall on this, but I just feel that we as a committee need to try to do our best to make sure that we are just not rubber stamping everything that comes before us. I am sure that Mr Crawford will have the opportunity to read what is now on the record as an expression of a view. I suspect that, as a committee, we probably should try to create as light a touch while protecting the integrity of parliamentary process and reputation as is possible. To some extent, the number of groups is self-limiting by the number of MSPs. There is almost certainly a case for our having a look at this before the session is out, so that when all the groups who have to apply to be recognised in a new session do so, it perhaps is against the backdrop of our having considered some of the issues that are raised here. I am getting some nodding heads around the group. Do they have to read by at the beginning of the new session? Yes, they fall with the end of the session. There is an opportunity for the new committee to consider that broader picture, but at the end of the day, as I said, just expressing a personal view on the matter, not speaking as convener, I would be relatively inclined to have a light touch. It is a job—also, Margaret, you raised the point of joint meetings. I hope that Bruce Crawford and the group tend to that very appropriate intervention that groups, while having distinct remits that are approved by this committee, should seek and exploit opportunities for joint working where they exist. Does anyone else wish to say anything on the matter? Are members agreed to call the CPG on tourism recognition? We are agreed, thank you very much. The meeting will now move into private session, not for terribly long, and the press and public should leave. It will come back into public session at the next agenda item. We are now back in public session. On behalf of the committee, I would like to make the following statement in relation to a complaint against an MSP. In accordance with the rules, I will first cover whether the committee agrees with the commission of her ethical standards in public life in Scotland's findings, and conclusions on the complaint, and then move on to cover the committee's decision on sanctions. The committee has considered a complaint from Connor McElwain about Roseanna Cunningham MSP. The complaint is that Roseanna Cunningham failed to register on her register of interests shares with a value of more than 1 per cent of the share capital of a company within 30 days of acquiring them. The commissioner for ethical standards in public life investigated the complaint and found that Roseanna Cunningham had failed to register, and this being the case was in breach of the relevant provisions of the interests of the members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the code of conduct. The committee is unanimous in the decisions reached on the complaint. Firstly, it agrees with the findings in fact and the conclusion of the commissioner. Secondly, it does not consider that the breaching question justifies any sanctions being imposed on Roseanna Cunningham. In reaching the decision on sanctions, the committee was mindful of the purpose of the register of interests, the fact that this was clearly an oversight with no intention of avoiding registering, and the decisions of predecessor committees in similar circumstances. The code explains that information about certain financial interests of members must be registered. The types of financial interests that must be registered are those that might be thought to influence a member's actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament. The register is therefore intended to capture significant financial interests that are of interest to the public in order to maintain transparency and accountability. The cost of the shares held by Roseanna Cunningham was £50 at the time that she acquired them, and they appear not to have increased in value or be likely to. The committee questions whether shares of such a value or potential value could reasonably be considered to influence a member's actions. The committee also notes that, as soon as Roseanna Cunningham became aware of her failure to register, she immediately registered the shares and then took steps to dispose of them. The committee wishes to make clear that it takes all breaches of the act and the code seriously. The register of interests plays an important role in ensuring transparency and accountability. It is in place so that details of members' significant financial interests are publicly available, providing sufficient information to members of the public seeking to scrutinise the behaviour of members. While we do not consider that any sanctions are justified in this case, we remind every member of the importance of maintaining the Parliament's high standard of compliance with all the requirements of the 2006 act and code of conduct, including register of interests. It is the responsibility of every member to understand and meet those requirements, and the committee emphasises that to Roseanna Cunningham and all other members of Parliament. Full details of the complaint and the commissioner's investigation of it will be included in the committee's report, which we expect to be published later this afternoon. We now move into private session.