 Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting in 2017 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Can you remind everyone to switch mobile phones and other devices to silent as they may interfere with broadcasting? Our first agenda item today is a decision to take agenda item 4 in private. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. Our second item today is proposed cross-party groups, and we'll take evidence from the proposed groups this morning. The first one is the proposed cross-party group on Brexit. Welcome to Tavish Scott MSP this morning. Tavish is the proposed deputy convener of the group, and I'd invite you to make an opening statement. The intention of our group is to create, above all, a forum for debate and lively interpretation of the on-going political issue, which is going to govern our lives, I suspect, for the remainder of this Parliament. The strength of our proposal, I hope, for your committee is that not only is it cross-party, but it also governs both sides of those who argued and voted on this matter as well. That is both helpful and constructive. What we want to do with our group is to make sure that, out with the formal structures of parliamentary committees both in this place and down at Westminster, there is a genuine forum to bring together people who maybe haven't had their view heard before. We're going to do that in a variety of different ways, subject to your committee approving the formation of our cross-party group. For the avoidance of doubt, we haven't had enough time yet to invite and pull in external members, but we certainly plan to do that as well. That will be very much part of our plans for the future. Thank you very much. Can I invite any questions from the committee? I do believe that there is a real need for a group of this nature, because we are moving into new territory. As you indicate in the report, it is a watchdog, and I think that that is important. My question is engagement. There is a very broad church out there of individual organisations that you might need to try and capture. How are you planning to try and do that in a reasonable timescale, and how will you engage with them effectively? It's a very fair question. I'm not sure that we've totally worked that out yet. I suspect that we'll be governed by the ability to react or to attempt to judge the process that we all believe to be under way now. For example, we are hoping to bring to Edinburgh, and we're not wedded on just having this in Edinburgh either, but to bring to Edinburgh a number of speakers from different aspects of not only Scottish life, but also international life as well. The four of us who get together, I dare say it, if you see any conspiracy, it's eight o'clock on a Wednesday morning when we're having breakfast together. That's when all the things are decided. If you want to intervene in that, please feel welcome to come along. The serious point is that by bringing people from out to with Scotland who bring an international perspective to a meeting or to a discussion hosted by an independent chairperson of some description, which is how we plan to develop this, we hope to capture that very point. I mean, we've had some of the breakfast briefings that Spice have put together recently when they've been discussing the breakfast issues, and they've been extremely well attended, which is very encouraging. Exactly. And I do think that you will get a good turnout at all your meetings as well. Well, thank you. I think that's fair. I also think that there's an onus on us just to raise the bar a bit. I mean, we all sit round many committee tables and it is what it is, as Daniel Johnson and I were reflecting on education yesterday. But we've got a job to do in terms of bringing a calibre of person to a meeting, which we hope will provide interest not only for elected members but also for a wider audience. Believe me, we crossed the divide in terms—well, I shouldn't call it a divide, that's a very pejorative term—but we crossed the Brexit debate in terms of those who believe for and those who are remainers. So, we'll keep it that way too. Thank you. Thank you. Can I bring in Mr Harvey? Thanks very much. Good morning. Two questions. One is on the first of the three bullet points on the group's purpose to act as a watchdog over the Brexit process. I wonder if you could just say how you feel that will connect or relate to the committee's responsibility, how they overlap and what the balance of activities will be there. The second question is on the third point. To make contact with other European countries and institutions to examine the best way forward for Scotland and the UK post-Brexit, I recognise and value the fact that you've said that there are people who voted and campaigned for yes and no within that. I wonder whether there's an implication in point 3 and whether it's a deliberate implication that the group is restricted to those who accept that Brexit is happening and that Scotland's going along with that. How do you intend to relate to or reflect the views of those who don't accept that Scotland should be taken out of the European Union? Very fair question, Mr Harvey. I think it's a subtle point, the third one, rather than a hard point. Hard, soft Brexit, this is a soft point rather than a hard point. I wouldn't overinterpret it because for those of us who campaigned for Scotland and the United Kingdom to remain within the EU, we're never going to allow that to become a hard interpretation of how our cross-party group would operate. Our view would very strongly be to make sure that, again, we cover, as I answered before, both aspects of what could happen in the future, and I think that's very important. Is that sloppily worded yes? Could it have been worded a little less pejoratively yes? On your first point, in no way would we seek to cut across a parliamentary committee. We won't have the resources to do it anyway. I have just sat upstairs going through 108 pages of Stephen Henry's latest epistle on Brexit and all that it means to Scotland, and it's very good. As you would expect with Stephen Henry, it's extremely well written, and we simply won't have the resources, never mind the secretary, out to do that. So, as Alex Neil and I have slightly observed, watched or maybe slightly too strong a word again, probably more Labrador than Rottweiler on that one. I want to ask about the proposed membership of the group, but you were saying that you were short of time before this was submitted, which was 30 November. We've now had a month and a half since then, so have you explored who you would be inviting to be non-MSP members of the group? Perhaps you could explain how you're going to source that membership? We haven't, for the simple reason that we thought until the cross-party group was set up. There wasn't a lot of point in all of us pushing at any further. Once we're under way, we will have an open invitation on this matter to wider organisations and groups. We're also seeking, as was most cross-party groups, to establish a secretariat that I would be quite open about. It's not being as straightforward as we would have liked. It's tricky to get the right kind of group, a sorry organisation, who would service this group. Once we do that, we'll have some administrative firepower, as well as we hope some intellectual firepower. There are no caveats on that in terms of who could be a member, and we'll be very open. We'll be happy to furnish the committee with a letter indicating how we plan to proceed on that subject, of course, to your agreement. As a follow-on from that, because I was going to ask about secretariat, you're talking about bringing international speakers to the group, but there's no indication of how that would be financed on your application? No indeed. That's where our secretariat is important, because we hope to have an organisation who will see the benefits of exactly that, of frankly paying the travel expenses of bringing people to Edinburgh to create the debate and allow the debate to happen. As you all know, we can't do that out of thin air, so we need to do that, but again, we'll be happy to write to you with that detail. Can I bring Mr Scott? Do you have a secretariat in mind? We do, but if you'll forgive me, Mr Scott, I'm not at liberty to say who it is, because as the Minister would say if I was a Minister, discussions are at an advanced stage. We'll be happy to provide details when we can, but discussions are on the way. How do you propose to contribute to the Brexit process here in Scotland? How do you feel into whom? Are you just going to be a forum and that's it? Or is there going to be another sense of purpose for the group? The view of the four of us who got together to discuss that is that the best role we can play is to be a forum. The debate at times has been too low, the debate hasn't been deep enough, although I think the European Committee has done a Stephen Emery's report, which you'll see published in a few weeks' time, is very strong on analysis. I think I'm going to call it a running commentary coming out of Governments all over Europe at the moment. We want to just be part of that and make sure there's a very clear focus on Scotland, but make sure there's a different perspective on Scotland as well. We hope to bring people in who will provide that different perspective and create a genuine forum where colleagues from right across politics and people from out to with politics can think about and question it. This is probably the biggest decision, or it's the biggest set of circumstances we're all going to have to deal with in our lives, and we hope to add a little bit to that. Both as a declaration of interest in terms of context for my question. As you are aware, I've held a few discussions looking at the possibility of setting a cross-party group on Europe, the purpose of which would be to look more broadly about the interaction between Scotland and Europe beyond the EU and also looking at social and cultural elements of Europe and European institutions beyond the EU. Do you think that this group would be overlap, but do you think that those two groups could co-exist, or do you think that it would be problematic to have two groups co-existing, or if a CPG in Europe were to be proposed? I wouldn't wish to prejudge where you'd wish to take that, Mr Johnson, although that strikes me as a very wide remit. I think ours is going to be, if I may say so, pretty strong around politics. The people we want to have come and create the forum and the discussion are going to be broadly in the political sphere, they're going to come from industry, they're going to come from different backgrounds as well, but they're still going to be, after all, talking about the ongoing political process that is going to be what we're all going to go through for the next number of years. I think that's where our focus is going to be. If your group, and your much wider and therefore probably much more long-term constructive approach, is around the future of the arts, the future of culture, the much wider perspective on Europe, I don't think that's by definition a good thing to do. I think ours is going to be pretty strong on the politics of what we're all dealing with, and we hope to bring some interesting people to engage in that. Can I also just, you mentioned that there have been some issues around finding a secretariat. Are those issues sort of potentially relevant and worth drawing to the attention of the committee? Again, we'd be happy to write to the committee or to the clerks once we've got that ironed out. All cross-party groups are challenged by the need to have a secretariat depending on the scale of the activities they want to undertake. I was at the Tibet cross-party group last night, which operates on a very small and dedicated group of people who just do it because they love it and because they care passionately about it. That's different from bringing people into Edinburgh in order to create the kind of forums we want. We've got to create, frankly, some money to do that in order that people can pay travel expenses. That's simply the process that we're going through at the moment. Can I just ask—obviously, we have a number of CPJs established in the Parliament, many of whom will be considering the impact of Brexit on their particular area of interest. Have you thought about how your CPJ might interact with other CPJs in the Parliament so that there's not a duplication of effort in working joint meetings with other committees? It's a very fair point, convener. Short answers know that we haven't considered that, but we'd be happy to do that. I'm happy to make sure that we've achieved the objective that you've just pointed out. Okay. We will be considering your application at agenda item 3. You'll be informed of our decision as quickly as possible. Can I just say, as a matter for all CPJs, that the secretary is a decision made by the CPJ members once they're established? Autonomously, and that the secretary act would normally be a member of a CPJ, and also that, when new members do come on board, the clerk should be informed within 30 days of that process. That's just a timely reminder for all CPJs. I thank Mr Scott for his attendance this morning, and I'm sure that our decision will be conveyed to you as quickly as possible. I suspend just shortly while we change witnesses. The second group for the committee's consideration is a proposed CPG on improving Scotland's health 2021 and beyond. I would like to welcome Kenneth Gibson, MSP, who is the proposed co-convenier of the group to the committee this morning, and to invite Mr Gibson to make an opening statement. I thank you very much, convener. I wasn't really going to say much. I think it's, as they say, basically all there on the side of the tin, so to speak. The purpose of improving Scotland's health 2021 is primarily to look at how we can, as it says, try and improve people's health, particularly in the areas of reducing tobacco usage, alcohol misuse and also looking at the obesity epidemic. I'm delighted by the fact that it truly is a cross-party group in that all five parties represent in the Parliament of Members. As you've said, there's a joint convenership between myself and Jenny Marra, and we'll alternate convenership with the meetings. We'll meet four times a year. Already, we've had substantial interest from outside the Parliament. We've got some 20 organisations who've already joined the cross-party group, subject to being approved, of course. We've also started looking at the kind of agenda that we would have over the next year. We're quite clear that we want to set goals that can be achieved and that we can benchmark year by year. Of course, like other cross-party groups, we would hope to try and raise the profile of the group by not only debates in the Parliament and questions, but we also want to full engage with the Scottish Government by having, for example, members of the health team come and present and answer our questions at various meetings. That really is it. Of course, the Secretary of State has been provided jointly by Ash Scotland and Alcohol Focus Scotland, and there is no membership fee for anyone to join in. I would encourage any MSPs on this committee if it's agreed that this cross-party group should be formed to join and participate in it. Thank you very much. Can I invite any questions from members? Thank you very much. It's a very interesting group. The particular issues that you propose to focus on health harm caused by alcohol, tobacco, poor diet and obesity predominantly focus on areas where there are commercial vested interests from industries. I wonder whether you're intentionally keeping it to those kinds of issues rather than wider environmental or lifestyle factors where that's not so much of a barrier. Also, if that's the case, what kind of thought you've given to any overlap or connection to the cross-party group on food as well? We've not put any barriers up in terms of what we wanted to achieve. I certainly believe that there will be room for co-operation with other cross-party groups, as conveners of the cross-party group on epilepsy. For example, we've had joint meetings in the last part with the cross-party group on mental health, so I'd be quite happy to engage with all sorts of organisations. One thing that we've been very strict about is membership restrictions in terms of the tobacco industry and lobbyists for the tobacco industry. We're having a discussion at our next meeting about our view on alcohol. For example, I'm against the Scottish Whiskey Association being associated with the group because of its obvious opposition to minimum-unit pricing. Others might have a different view on that, but we're not there to argue for certain aspects of industry. What we're trying to do is to try and pool various organisations together to see how we can work with the Scottish Government and various organisations of third sector and other to try and tackle some of these huge societal impacts. We're looking for social levers for change, so the group is trying to have a broad remit. In 1999, I formed the cross-party group on tobacco control. That became the cross-party group on trying to remember the exact name of it when Willie Rennie was the convener. I convened it for nine years, and he took it over for four years. It wasn't tobacco control, it was tobacco in health, I believe. We think that there is so much linkage in terms of addiction between tobacco and alcohol, for example, that it would be wise to link the two and have a more of an umbrella organisation. That seems to have resonated with the third sector, which is why already at the first meeting we had 20 organisations who wished to participate. For information, they include organisations, for example, from Obesity Action Scotland to the British Heart Foundation, Macmillan Cancer Support, Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs, the University of Glasgow Royal College of Physicians. Loads of different organisations from a wide spectrum are interested in participating in this group. I can understand exactly why you would be cautious about or hostile to the idea of tobacco industry lobbyists being involved as external members, for example. There might be more controversy or mixed opinions, for example, on issues around electronic cigarettes and industry voices there. I'm not sure whether that's something you would have reached a view about yet. No, I don't think we have as yet. I would imagine that most members would take a cautious approach to that, but I think that's not something we've really sat down and defined as yet, because it is, obviously, early days. We've just had the first introductory meeting and there was a lot of discussion over a lot of issues and a lot of enthusiasm. When you get so many organisations in the room who all want to say how the group should develop, I think that it will take two or three meetings, perhaps, before we set everything down and can establish a stone, so to speak. Some huge challenges, and I think that you appreciate what you're taking on here. It's going to be a massive potential issue for you. Education, marketing, promotion, all of that comes into this process because individuals make choices sometimes dependent on what they are perceived and the advertising and the organisations in industries that you've touched on already. How are you going to muck and promote yourself to make sure that you get the right people from these organisations in? Also, if you are going to exclude any other organisations because you feel that they are creating the problem, how are you going to manage that because there could well be a conflict? First of all, what I would say is that the decision on who to exclude or include is really a matter for the wider group and where possible, I think, we'll try and take those decisions on a consensual basis. In terms of marketing the group itself, it would really depend on what the group is actually trying to do. Obviously, social media press within the Parliament itself direct contact with MSPs and other organisations. There is a network out there of organisations that are involved in those particular areas. A lot of them are interconnected already. I think that there is a bush telegraph that helps to market it. In terms of dealing with some of the issues such as tobacco, the cross-party group on tobacco control was very much involved in doing work, for example, in the lead-up to the driving force for the smoking ban. It was a group that actually put that into the public domain with discussions with ministers, people like Bill Aitken from your own party, Robert Brown from the Liberal Democrats, for example, Richard Simpson from the Labour Party. We are all very influential in actually taking that agenda forward then. I think that it shows that cross-party groups can actually be effective in terms of raising ministerial and public awareness of some of these issues. There is also a concern among members of our group that people think that, although the smoking ban on tobacco is no real-time issue, it still kills thousands of people every year in Scotland, so we want to ensure that it does not fall off the agenda. I think that we would support President Putin's view that everyone born from the year 2015 onwards should automatically be banned from ever smoking a cigarette, which apparently is something that he is talking about, but certainly persuasion, education over a period of time will be more effective. Mr Gibson, you are going to exclude lobbyists from the whisky industry, for example? No, sorry, I have not said that. That is my personal view. The group has not taken a view on that, for example, as yet. We are still to discuss the position with regard to alcohol companies, for example. The Portland group should it be included, should it not. The only groups that have decided should be banned at this stage are really the tobacco companies and those that serve their interests. In terms of alcohol, a more nuanced approach is likely to be taken by the group in that regard. My question is where do you stop and start when you decide to ban one group of people from a cross-party group, which is about a forum for discussion? In the interest of fairness, I would like to think that all voices can be heard, or perhaps that is not your intention? As I said, that is a matter that we are still to decide on, to be honest. Obviously, if we are going to be talking about obesity, is there an argument that a chocolate manufacturer would ban? Would that be the case or would it not be? To be honest, we will take a more nuanced approach with these organisations. We all have different views and will come to consensus, but tobacco is the only industry that we have decided would not be in any way connected to the cross-party group at this stage. I think that the aims and purposes of the group are laudable and valuable within the Parliament. The title of the group is a cross-party group on improving Scotland's health. Both in terms of where the group has come from and the details group is focused on alcohol and tobacco. Are you wondering whether or not the intention is to remain focused on those two issues or whether there is a wider preventative health agenda that you are wanting to look at more broadly and whether or not in the future that might be reflected in your aims? That is a very good question. In fact, the answer bluntly is yes. We are looking more at the preventative health agenda. We are trying to encourage people in Scotland to lead healthier lifestyles in terms of what they eat and hopefully to drink and smoke a bit less. That is definitely what we would do. I think that what we want to do is to try not to encompass everything at the early stages of the group. The reason that we have set the title that we have done is to say that this is not just something for now. What we want to do is to say that 2021 and beyond is because during this parliamentary term we want to be able to have some achievements, but we want to make it clear that this is a long-term issue. We want people to live 20-30 years from now to be much healthier than people today, to live longer, but also to live healthier. It is about lifestyle and environment as Patrick Harvie talked about. It is about all those issues and how we draw them together and how we focus to take things forward. That is really about taking ideas from all the constituent organisations in the group and from the MSPs in the group to narrow that down and set ourselves achievable goals so that a year from now we can sit around and say what we would be doing in the last year and make any difference. Miss Hawke. Two very brief questions. The first is about the organisations that have already signed up. I see that you have three medical associations. You have the BMA and two Royal Colleges, one of physicians and one of psychiatrists. Have you looked to the RCN? Not only the RCN but other healthcare professionals organisations to join the group. I declare an interest here because I am co-convener of the mental health cross-party group. Mental health plays a huge part in people's health. We need to look at improving mental health across the country. How do you see your group working alongside the cross-party group on mental health? Those are just the initial organisations that have joined. Once the organisation gets established, if it is approved, we will obviously have other organisations. I would hope that we would certainly wish to join them. I think that the RCN would certainly have a role to play in that, as would other third sector organisations across the board. In terms of working with other cross-party groups, I am pretty sure that Jenny is convening that other members of the group would be more than happy to work with other cross-party groups. As I said in the last session, I was chaired by myself and Cross-Party Group on Epilepsy. Malcolm Chisholm had a very productive joint meeting that was well attended to look at how mental health interacts with epilepsy. Given some of the issues that we would actually want to take forward in this cross-party group, I would certainly think that working at having a joint meeting with the cross-party group on mental health would be a very positive development. I do not think that it is likely to be in the next couple of meetings because we have got to find a feat, but certainly a year or two down the line. Probably not as long, as far away in the future as a couple of years, but certainly a few months down the line, I would certainly be happy to have a cross-party group. I am sure that I would be happy, as would Jenny, to discuss that with your own secretary about how we set that up and what specific focus we would have on such a meeting. It would be a meeting that would be something with a specific agenda and an outcome that we would be trying to achieve. Can I thank Mr Gibson for his attendance at committees this morning? We will deliberate on the CPG agenda item 3, and you will be informed of our decision as quickly as possible. Thank you very much, convener. Can I suspend while the witnesses change over? The final group that the committee is considering under proposed CPGs today is on nuclear disarmament, and I welcome Bill Kidd at MSP to the committee and invite Mr Kidd to make an opening statement. The cross-party group on nuclear disarmament has been a well-established group, unfortunately or sadly. Our secretary, who performed all the roles of the secretariat, passed away near the end of last year. On that side, not on the operational side, because you cannot stop nuclear disarmament from talking, but they did not put their work together well enough to get here sharpish prior to the start of the new year. However, the whole idea behind the group is to act as a policy forum for discussion and updating on how policy impacts on nuclear weapons issued in Scotland. The idea behind it is to share information expertise on nuclear issues in Scotland between MSPs and the general public, as well as organisations such as Scotty, CND and WALP. That is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, established in 1917, whenever anyone from WALP is around. Other organisations have an interest in ensuring that the issue of nuclear weapons in Scotland, in the UK and worldwide, is concerned. That is the basis of the idea behind the cross-party group. Thank you very much. Can I invite any questions from the committee members? I want to take this opportunity to put on the record very sincere respect for the work of John Ainsley over many years in keeping the group on track and working well. The only comment that I had about the paper was that Andy Wightman's name was spelled wrong, so hopefully that can be corrected pretty easily. Thank you very much, Mr Harvey. Either we will correct it or Mr Wightman may care to change his name. I very much reiterate the fact that John Ainsley committed himself for over 20 years to the idea and belief. Janet Fenton, who is now taken over and who is a member of WALP, is equally as capable and will fit into the role. Any further questions? It leaves me to thank you for your attendance at committee this morning. We will be considering the CPG agenda item 3 and you will be informed of our decision as quickly as possible, so thank you very much. Thank you for the group for being so nice to me. If we could move to agenda item 3, and it is for the committee's consideration of the CPGs, and if we could set our first proposed CPG on Brexit, any comments from the committee? Cross-over so many areas and we will give us an opportunity to focus here, so I would be very supportive of it. There are lots of gaps in the information that has been provided to us. I would be minded to ask the group to come back to us with some more information before we approve the CPG. We had a similar situation with the CPG a couple of weeks ago, and we approved subject to an annual review of external membership. Would the committee be happy to approve on that basis for this proposed CPG? The next one is Improving Scotland's health 2021 and beyond. Any comments or concerns? Are we content to agree that CPG? Thank you very much. Finally, the proposed CPG on nuclear disarm, any comments? On top of Andy Wightman's name being spelled incorrectly, Objective 3 is just an NA, unless I am missing something. I think that they are saying that the overlaps with existing CPGs is not applicable. I understood. Okay, so we have content to approve. Thank you very much. On that note, we will take agenda item 4 in private session.