 Good morning everyone and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2017 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I remind everyone to switch electronic devices to silent as they may interfere with broadcasting. Our first agenda item today is a Declaration of Interest. Welcome Jamie Halcro Donson to committee and invite him to make any relevant declaration to the committee. The only thing that I would add is that the interests and shares that I have in campaign house should be completed by the end of this month. Thank you very much and welcome to committee. Agenda item 2 is a decision on taking business in private. Agenda item 6 and agenda item 5 are both, for consideration, agenda item 5 is a discussion of the work programme and item 6 is to consider two complaint reports from the Ethical Standards Commissioner, so we've agreed to take those in private today. Agenda item 3 is for the committee to decide whether to take future consideration of reports from the Commissioner and its own draft reports and complaints in private for future meetings. Thank you for that. If we move to agenda item 4, which is on the Lobbings Scotland Act 2016, we're going to take oral evidence this morning from the Lobbing Registrar on the draft direction and draft resolution under the Lobbing Act 2016. Welcome to committee, Billy McLaren, Lobbing Registrar, Charles Garland and Neil Ross solicitors, all representing the Scottish Parliament this morning. I would like to invite Mr McLaren to open the discussion. As outlined in your committee paper today, the first set of commencement regulations under the Lobbings Scotland Act came into force yesterday. That allows the Parliament to use certain provisions delegated to us under the act. Essentially, those administrative areas that we thought would be useful to have in place prior to the full commencement of the act in the first quarter of next year. I mentioned last with the committee, just before recess, that, as of that point, we had only identified two such areas to bring to the committee, and I'm happy to say that that remains the case. In addition to the committee paper that you have, we thought that members would also find it useful of our to briefly outline the background and purpose of both those. The first is a direction to the commissioner for ethical standards. This new direction is made under powers contained in section 31 of the Lobbings Scotland Act, which sets out a number of areas that we might make directions to the commissioner. We have, of course, consulted the commissioner on the content of the draft direction, which is at Annex E of your paper. It covers administrative issues, as follows. Firstly, in your paragraph-headed information as to the name of a complainer, this sets out the process to be followed by the commissioner in considering whether the name of the person who makes a complaint should be supplied to the person who is the subject of the complaint. This includes considering whether the person complaining may be a vulnerable person, or whether the release of the complainer's name might prejudice the investigation into the complaint. Secondly, in the paragraph-headed interviews at the top of page 2, the direction sets out the commissioner's responsibilities in terms of the following. Firstly, what information should be provided to a person before being interviewed for the first time? The rights of the person being interviewed to have a third party present and to have their views conveyed through an interpreter. Again, as before, consideration is about a person appearing to be vulnerable. Finally, the paragraph also provides that a copy of the draft interview summary is made available to any person interviewed, and that they should have an opportunity to provide representations on that. Moving on, still on page 2, the paragraph-headed documents and records sets out the record-keeping obligations on the commissioner in relation to investigation, including the retention of copies were required, the minimum period of retention and when documents can be destroyed, the paragraph-headed criminal offences on page 3 outlines the commissioner's responsibility in terms of further handling in relation to potential criminal offences. The paragraph-headed reports under section 2412 and 254 of the act on page 3 briefly sets out that the commissioner should also send any report sent to this committee to the complainer and the subject of the complaint unless it would prejudice the investigation. Finally, at the top of page 4, the paragraph-headed inquiries about complaints indicates what response can be provided by the commissioner where he has received an inquiry about a complaint. That takes you through it a little bit. A direction to the commissioner is not a new process. For example, there are current directions in place issued by your predecessor at the committee in March 2012 relating to other investigatory functions carried out by the commissioner. At annex B of your paper, we have the draft lobbying resolution. The committee will remember considering new standing orders, setting out the parliamentary process for this type of new parliamentary resolution earlier this year, which was subsequently agreed by Parliament as a whole. This is the first lobbying resolution to be drafted by the Parliament under the act. It is brief, but it covers the core matters on which the need to make provision has been identified. It has been made under section 41 of the act, the terms of which we are obliged by means of a parliamentary resolution to make provision about. In this case, it is on the procedures to be followed when the commissioner submits a report to Parliament. Essentially, the resolution does three things. It makes clear that the commissioner will provide reports specifically to the committee for consideration. In providing the reports, to be made in writing, it allows the commissioner to send reports in an electronic form, which is an obvious efficiency. It sets out the role of the committee if the Parliament were to exercise its power under section 40 of the act to censure a person who is the subject of any report from the commissioner. It is worth emphasising on that point that the commissioner can only be imposed by the Parliament as a whole. If censure is recommended by the committee following consideration of a report by the commissioner, a motion to that effect would be considered by Parliament. Such a motion can only come from a member representing the committee. In relation to the sections that refer to vulnerability and potentially the need for names to be withheld, I was just wondering if you could say to what extent equalities in human rights organisations have been consulted in the drafting to ensure that any issues that they might have or concerns that they might have have been taken into account? Not as far as I'm aware, Mr Harvey, but we have, if you like, copied over from the previous direction the same set of requirements, so we could easily check with the commissioners how that process has been working in terms of the other investigatory powers. That would be helpful. In broad times, it looks familiar in terms of the processes that the committee is familiar with in terms of its relationship with the commissioner. Is there anything specifically that might be worth highlighting that has had to be specifically considered with regard to the lobbying act or any significant alterations from existing procedures that might be worth highlighting at this point? It's largely based upon previous directions, but the section that I mentioned at the end is what we have noted, because the committee has a role in that. Obviously, the parliamentary resolution process is a new thing, and this is a first for the Parliament, and this is the first time that we've ever considered such a draft lobbying resolution. You've got a question? Thank you, convener. I'm looking at the section that talks about interviews and it says that a person has the right to have a third party present. Could you give us an example of what a third party would be or who they would be? I couldn't. I think that that's probably more a matter for the commissioner, but again, I could get some examples for the committee to provide it afterwards. I'm not somebody who does the interviewing itself as a commissioner's role, but I'd be more than happy to get some examples for you. If I can ask a question, you mentioned the possibility of using section 40 for censure in the bill. Would that be the case? It would likely to be a non-MSP who is being censured from the floor of the Parliament, and is that unique in terms of previous legislation? Yes, and that's a very good point. This is about the censure of individuals, so the subjects have complained so largely of the lobbying community. I thank Mr McLaren for his attendance at the committee this morning, and I invite members to agree to the terms of the draft direction and draft resolution. That's agreed. If you could provide that information from Mr Harvey, it would be very welcome to the whole committee, I'm sure. I thank you very much for your attendance that I did this morning. We now move into private session.