 I Thank you, the debate on tackling Scotland's Mental Health crisis is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 8, 9, 4, 6, in the name of Martin Whitfield on standards, procedures and public appointment committee's 10th report 2023 session 6. I would ask members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request speak button. And I call on On Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I am very grateful. As convener of Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have the responsibility to lodge and speak to motions seeking the Parliament's agreement to the committee's recommendation of a sanction, where the committee has concluded that a breach of the conduct rules has occurred. Mae Gweithgailiaeth Fyafodraeth rwyf yn rhaid o'r codi yn cyd-dwyf ymgyrch â'r MEPs, sy'n byw, y sylwedd yn ymgyrch yn yn iawn y parlamau a'r ffeyddau o'r Gweithgailiaeth ar gyfer y Llywodraeth a'r Fyafodraeth. Y codi yn cyd-dwyf yn ymgyrch â'r Gweithgailiaeth i'r MEPs, ac rwy'n gwybod i'r cyd-dwyf ar gyfer ymgyrch yn cyd-dwyf, We must, as parliamentarians, as lawmakers take the rules seriously and adhere to them. The code also provides for the enforcement of the rules, and over four weeks the SPPA gave detailed and thorough consideration to the report submitted to us by the Ethical Standards Commissioner on the complaint made against Maggie Chapman MSP that she had failed to declare a registrable financial interest. We carefully considered the provisions of the Members' Interest Act and the Code of Conduct in relation to declarations of interests. We concluded unanimously that Maggie Chapman MSP failed to declare a registered financial interest, namely the remuneration she had received by virtue of her employment as the chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre during the proceedings relating to that registered financial interest, at the Equalities and Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022. We agreed with the commissioner's conclusion that Maggie Chapman MSP had breached the interest of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the Code of Conduct for MSPs. The central purpose of the requirements to register and declare interests is to provide transparency. This transparency makes certain registrable interests public through publishing them on individual members' register of interests. This standards regime aims to ensure that somebody watching or reading parliamentary proceedings is made aware of a financial interest that could influence or give the appearance of influencing a member's ability to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of this Parliament. The transparency was missing at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022. When Maggie Chapman MSP asked a question of the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland that referenced the network of rape crisis centres in Scotland, she did not, by means of a declaration, make it known that she had a registered financial interest by virtue of the remuneration that she had received as chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Thus, that transparency, which is central to the understanding of any interests that could influence us as MSPs, was not there. I will. Ross Greer. I am very grateful to the committee for the intervention. I do not dispute that an inadvertent breach took place, but what Parliament is being asked to vote on today is a sanction in this case. I would appreciate if the committee convener could explain why the committee has departed so significantly from precedent in the case of the sanction here. In the case of multiple members who are in the chamber today, previous breaches have been found in relation to failing to declare a former employer. No sanction was issued. Previous breaches were found in relation to direct financial interests, gifts that had not been declared to the tune of thousands of pounds, and no sanction was issued. Ross Greer, explain why in this case a sanction has been issued, because that is a serious departure from precedent. Martin Whitfield. I am very grateful for the intervention. I will indeed deal with that matter, as it is in fact specifically dealt with in the unanimous report of the committee, which has been published and is able to be read both by members within this chamber, but also by people who are watching from the outside and holding us to account. We live in an age now where there is a great deal of skepticism and mistrust in politicians. In order to challenge those perceptions, it is incumbent on us to act with integrity and to respect the rules in the code of conduct. It is also incumbent on us, I believe, in certain circumstances to exclude a member from the proceedings of the Parliament where a member has failed to comply with the requirement to declare an interest. We fail ourselves, and we undermine those founding principles if we do not uphold the requirements in our standards regime. For these reasons, I intend to write to all MSPs again next week reminding them of the declaration requirements and encouraging them to seek advice from the clerks where they have any doubts about the correct approach to the declarations. With regard to the sanction that has been unanimously suggested by the committee, there are differences in this case. The committee is not required to follow a rule of precedent, but deals with each case individually, fairly and following the rules of natural justice as it appears before us. The committee's unanimous decision is to recommend the exclusion of Maggie Chapman MSP from one meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and it is, I believe, a proportionate one. The committee has taken its role seriously, seeking to embed the principles of natural justice and fairness in its deliberations, and for the reputation of the Parliament and the members of it, I urge those in the chamber to support this motion, which I move in my name. I am grateful, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Alexander Stewart. Presiding Officer, as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I take the scrutiny and governance of Parliament and its members very seriously. The committee was unanimous regarding the consultation and consideration and the decisions that we reached. The committee was of the view that Maggie Chapman registered financial interest, i.e. the remuneration that she received by virtue of her employment as the chief officer for Edinburgh Council was relevant to the proceedings of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, on 31 May 2022. The view of all the members on the committee was that, in keeping with the principles and underpin the code of conduct, a member should not just take into account their view of the assess of whether a declaration received relates to the committee proceedings. It should also consider a fair-minded and impartial observer who would consider that the declared interest could influence the member or give the appearance that the member's ability to act impartially was prejudiced. The committee considered that a person who watched or read the proceedings might reasonably consider that there to be a connection between Edinburgh rate centre and rate crisis Scotland. The members take very seriously any breach of the requirements in relation to failure to declare a registerable financial interest before taking part in any proceedings of Parliament relating to that matter. The unanimous verdict of the committee was that the code was breached. That cemented the view and findings of the commissioner. Members can seek advice from standards clerks as to how, in any question at any matter relating to registration and declarations of interest. The integrity and the reputation of this Parliament and its members should always be paramount to the proceedings. Those of us who are privileged to serve as members of this Parliament should at all times act to uphold the reputation and the proceedings in accordance with the code of conduct. When Parliament delegates the decision to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and it comes back with a unanimous decision, that decision should be respected, Presiding Officer. We as members of the Scottish Parliament have a privilege and the privilege of serving the people of Scotland, and we must do that in their best interests and as transparently as possible. It is right that they know of any interests that we may have that could influence our decision making. Although we must not allow those interests to influence our work, we need to go further. We need to be clear and transparent about interests, where a member of the public could reasonably believe that those interests would influence our decision making. It is very easy for us to make a judgment about what does and does not influence our activities, but that might not be apparent to a non-looker. I do not think that anyone in this chamber would believe that they are influenced by the things that we declare in our register of interests. It is quite the opposite. We would avoid things that would in any way compromise our ability to act freely. We must understand that our constituents do not know us personally. We must also recognise that they might reasonably believe that we could be influenced by certain interests. That is why we have a register of interests and that is why we as MSPs must take every step to ensure that we abide by the rules regarding the register of interests and the declaration of those interests. I thank the committee and the commissioner for their work in the case. I note that this is a unanimous report from the committee and the penalty that they propose is not overly detrimental. However, what it does do is provide a very useful reminder to us all to be meticulous in registering and declaring our interests. For that reason, I will support the committee's recommendation and urge colleagues to do the same. Christine Grahame, I am seeking your guidance. I am making a general point. In my time here, we have had several instances of standards recommendations and discipline of various MSPs. I am concerned that the issue raised by Ross Greer has merit in that we do not appear to keep a note of precedent. In any court proceedings, you have a note of precedent of the kind of penalties imposed in similar circumstances. All I am asking is who or why and if we should keep a note of precedent of decisions made in the circumstances and the various disciplinary consequences that occur for MSPs. I think that that is fair. It is not influencing my decision in this particular case, but I think that we have to take a view on it in fairness to any MSP who may subsequently be subject to discipline. I thank Ms Grahame for her point of order. The convener did address some of the points raised in Ms Grahame's point of order. I am pointed out that there is no precedent. The Parliament is about to decide on this matter in due course, as I now call on Mark Ruskell. I thank the SPPA and the Commission for Ethical Standards in their consideration of this case. As a former member of the SPPA committee, I recognise its important work in upholding the values and standards of this institution. The Green Group in Parliament respects the decision made by the SPPA and the Commissioner in deciding that my colleague Maggie Chapman breach the Code of Conduct. We do not wish to reopen that decision. However, we struggle to agree with the decision to impose a sanction, because this goes against the recent precedent set by this Parliament in dealing with emissions to declare a financial interest. Since the start of session 5 in 2016, the SPPA have upheld five complaints against Members relating to a failure to declare a registered financial interest, and only one of those resulted in a sanction. In that case, the Member in question had asked parliamentary questions on an issue in which they held a live financial interest and could have potentially benefited financially from the outcome. It was also the second time a complaint was upheld against them on the same issue, the first time resulting in no sanction. In another more recent case, a Member failed to make verbal declarations of substantial gifts from a lobbying organisation, yet the committee concluded that, and I quote, the finding of a breach is sanction enough. This case against Maggie Chapman, however, relates to a previous employment, which had long since concluded at the time that the item of business took place in this Parliament. So there was no way that Ms Chapman could have benefited financially from the subject that was under discussion on that day. I am concerned because this decision sets a precedent for declaring past employment, suggesting that every Member in this Chamber remains financially tied to all our previous employers for an indefinite period. Imposing a sanction today also undermines the previous position that Members are able to make their own judgment on these matters. In a case again in 2016, the SPPA committee admonished a Member, but imposed no further sanction because, and I quote, it is a matter of judgment for the Member on whether a registered interest is sufficiently relevant to particular proceedings to require a declaration. In this case, the committee has decided that it was not sufficient for Maggie Chapman to use her own judgment, despite her clearly making no attempt to conceal her previous employment, which was declared in her written register of interests. I would like to make progress in laying out our concerns, but I give way to convene. I am very grateful. It is really just whether or not the member agrees as a point of clarification that the judgment of the individual Member must always err on being transparent to those who are watching rather than actually the judgment is of the individual, which is the wording in the guidance. Well indeed, but I think I have laid out the circumstances in which this case emerged, and I do not believe that an incorrect judgment was made in that regard. I think that many Members, looking at this case and looking at previous cases that have come to this Chamber, will now have doubts in their mind about when it is and when it is not appropriate to declare a particular interest. It is the view then of my colleagues in the green group that our colleague appears to be being held to a different set of standards than previous Members who were found wanting in relation to much more substantial breaches where direct financial interests were actually at stake. She is also not being given the benefit of the doubt to which other Members have been afforded. This quote is from a decision in 2019, where a Member similarly failed to declare previous employment, where the committee concluded that the complaint was not related to a matter from which the Member could have gained any financial benefit, and there was no attempt to conceal the information that was made available on the Parliament's website. Those words are equally applicable to Maggie Chapman's case, and yet she is now being sanctioned by this Parliament, and that is a departure, Presiding Officer. If the motion is approved, it potentially does have implications for all Members. There will be an urgent need for revised and detailed guidance to Members on what should be reasonably declared for inclusion in their declaration of Members' interests, and that is clearly something that both Clarkson and the convener will need to address in the weeks to come. We recognise how vital honesty and transparency are in the dealings of this chamber, but my colleague has been honest and transparent at every stage of this process, just as crucial are fairness and consistency. We believe that that is lacking in this recommendation today. That concludes the debate on standards, procedures and public appointment committees. 10 report 2023, session 6. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 8986, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question is that motion 8986 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of 10 Parliamentary Bureau motions, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question is that motion 8987 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of 10 Parliamentary Bureau motions, and I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions 9004, on committee of the region's membership, 9005 to 9009, on approval of SSIs, 9010 to 9012, on designation of lead committees and 9013, on committee membership. Thank you, Minister. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. The next item of business is approval of an SSI, and I ask Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move motion 8907 on approval of an SSI, and I call Shirley-Anne Somerville. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and there are nine questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 8954.3, in the name of Kevin Stewart, which seeks to amend motion 8954, in the name of Alec Rowley, on access to bus services be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote, and there will be a short suspension until our members to access the digital voting system.