 Good morning, and can I welcome you to the first meeting in session 6 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee? I am Alexander Stewart, MSP for Mid Scotland in Fife, and as I am the oldest member of the committee present, I have the pleasure in convening this meeting for the first two items of business. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all members to the committee and I look forward to working with you during this tenure. Before we move to the first item, I would remind all members present to switch mobile phones to silent. We have received apologies from Edward Mountain MSP for this meeting. Item 1 is declarations of interest. Each of us, if we have any declarations of interest to indicate to the committee, will do so, and I will go first. I have no declarations of interest that are relevant to this committee, and I will now go through the members alphabetically. First of all, Bob Doris. Thanks, Alexander. Likewise, I have no declarations of interest that are relevant to this committee. Thank you, Bob. I now want to Paul MacLennan. Thank you, convener. I, like yourselves, have no declarations of interest relevant to this committee. Again, thank you Alexander. I have no declarations relevant to this committee. Thank you. Item 2 on the agenda is the choice of the convener. The Parliament has agreed that the only members in the Scottish Labour Party are eligible for nomination as convener of this committee, and it is my understanding that Martin Whitfield is the party's nominee. Do we agree that Martin Whitfield should be the convener of the committee? Agreed. Congratulations, Martin. You are now convener of this committee, and I hand over the rest of the meeting to you. Thank you very much. Thank you Alexander, and thank you for opening the meeting, bringing not just your age to the chair but also your vast experience of committees in the past. I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome all of the members new to the Parliament—like Paul and myself—and those with, shall we say, a few more years' experience. I think that we will be looking to you for your guidance on this. I would just like to say a few words before moving on to the next agenda item. That is that this is, in my view, a very important and powerful committee, with a huge responsibility both to the Parliament but also to the people of Scotland. From the outset, I wish to put on public record my recognition of the lack of gender balance on this committee and that this has occurred because of the process of creating the membership of this committee rather than the act or the intention of any of its members. I intend, with the permission of this committee, to write to both the bureau but also to raise this at the convener's group as a matter of urgency. The effect of the situation that we find ourselves in may directly affect aspects of this committee's responsibility, particularly with regard to the standing orders rules 6.41b and d. I have every confidence in each of the members of this committee. However, I am concerned that, in fulfilling the responsibilities of this committee, we will not be able to carry the confidence of those we serve or, indeed, those who will seek to rely on this committee. I hope that the members of this committee are in agreement with this action, and I am happy to discuss it in more detail when we turn to our programme of work later. The next item that falls is agenda item 3, which is the choice of a deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener of this committee. I open the committee to see whether or not there is a nomination for this role. I understand Paul that you may wish to say something. I formally nominate Bob Doris for the position of Vice-Convener. Do we agree that Bob Doris should be our deputy convener? Agreed. Excellent. Congratulations, Bob. You certainly have experience dating all the way back to 2007 with committee experience from local governments, subordinate legislation. I think that virtually all committees, but most importantly, from my point of view, also with the predecessor of this committee. I will be looking to you for advice, wisdom and support, but congratulations. Do you want to say anything? I would not normally say something at this point, convener, but given the resonance of the initial comments that you made as convener, the remiss of me is not to reflect on what you have just said, Martin. Of course, we should be striving for gender balance on all committees, particularly this committee, given the types of issues that we will be looking at. I hope that there is a matter of course proactively, as a committee, quite frankly. I would like to show my support for the initial comments that you have made, but I look forward to working on them with all committee members, irrespective of the lack of gender balance, which is deeply unfortunate to ensure that we seek the views of the wider MSP membership and wider society, which is far more reflective of Scotland than the members of the committee may reflect in practice at the moment. Excellent, and absolutely, I agree with those views. Our fourth item agenda today is in respect of the last item, item 7. Whether or not we are in agreement to take this in private, just as a short explanation, there are a number of items that will come before this committee that it would be better to take in private so that full and frank discussion can take place. There is no intention to avoid any transparency towards our decisions or our opinions or views. It is just to allow full discussions to take place. In the current meeting, this last item is really about our programme for work going forward. Can I ask whether any members have any comments before I invite us to take that last point in private? I do not see anyone wishing to speak, so do the members agree to take this last item in private? Very grateful. Item 7 is the cross-party group agenda item. That has come up because of the timing of when committees have been started and the desire for members and groups out with the Parliament to start cross-party groups. We have been asked to consider the rules on the membership and the registration of cross-party groups. That requires, as I say, our attention because of the timescale. The committee is being invited to consider and agree a general modification to rule 6.8 of the code of conduct to allow cross-party groups, which have at least one MSP member, from the majority of parties represented on the Parliamentary Bureau. That is not a rule change, but the indication of how we would apply our ability to waive certain parts and regulations of it. In this case, we are carrying on with a process that my understanding has began with the previous committee. However, because of the change of the structure of the parties on the Parliamentary Bureau, we would like to give an indication to CPGs that we would continue to allow them to be registered where they have at least one MSP member from the majority parties on the Bureau. Would anybody like to intimate something or comment on it? I am not getting any indication of that. Do the members agree to this general modification? Agree. I like committees that move this fast. Agender item 6 is the legacy paper. This is a document that was prepared by the previous committee to show the work that they covered and give an indication of the areas that they felt that we should look at going forward. Just before we look at the legacy paper and I invite people to comment on it, I would like the commission of the committee to write to the session 5 members and, in particular, the convener to thank them for their work, but also to thank them for this legacy paper that encompasses a huge amount of work and certainly raises a number of significant questions that we will look at going forward. Do I have the committee's agreement to do that? Thank you. I will now open the floor for a discussion about the legacy paper. I, Steve Alexander, would like to comment on an aspect of it, so over to you, Alexander. First, I will echo many of your comments about the legacy paper. The committee is vitally important to ensure that, within the Parliament and outside in the general public and in Scotland as a whole, we are seen as performing the roles and responsibilities that we have. Having had the opportunity to be on this committee in the past and see what the legacy paper is suggesting, I very much concur with its approach in that it goes into specifics that may well require to be revisited, that may require further development and the whole process about how that takes place. Examples such as members' work outside the Parliament are vitally important that we get the scrutiny and the governance of our membership. The whole aspect of sexual harassment has been very high on the agenda within the Parliament but also outside the Parliament, and that will have to be looked at and the whole idea of lobbying. Those are three areas, convener, that we need to take a firm stand on and develop as we progress as a committee to ensure that we have, as I say, the confidence of the Parliament and also the confidence of the community and Scotland as a whole. I very much look forward to going through the legacy paper with members and then finalising and itemising what we think are priorities within our first year of committee and then progressing that as we go forward. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much for that contribution, Alexander. Would anyone else like to comment on anything? Thank you very much, convener. I think that I would concur with what Alexander Stewart has said and draw members' attention to two aspects of the legacy paper. One, of course, is in sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour contained within that legacy paper. It is clear and explicit that the Parliament should never be complacent in dealing with those matters and that we are urged to keep such matters under constant review, as we of course should. I am also mind of the comments that you made, convener, at the start of this meeting about the membership of this committee not being particularly reflective of Parliament as a whole. We have to be mindful of that. That does not mean that we cannot do our job, but that does not mean that it should have to be this way, of course. I will just put that on the record and also the section on involving people in our work. Just because we are a small committee and it may seem to be some of the nuts and bolts in mundane aspects of the Parliament, and it drives vitally important, I should have to say, that it does not mean that we should not reach out and involve various stakeholders and individuals in our work. Of course, we should do that. I can see that the last committee did that, so my thanks to them for putting that on the record. I was finally, I did say true, but I do see the section on the Parliament's practices and procedures. There is a real strength that we will get new members on this committee, because I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament since 2007. The Parliament has been engaged in parliamentary forum in recent years and some of that is embedding in. It is also very good to have a fresh set of eyes on the workings of Parliament. I suppose that my call to fellow committee members who are new to the Parliament to look constructively, but also with a degree of scrutiny into the workings of the parliamentary process is really, really important to have a fresh look at those things with new members coming in who have not been here for a period of time, who can get set in your ways if you are not careful. I just wanted to put that on the record as well, but I look forward to working conclusively again, taking forward many of the issues raised in the legacy paper. Thank you very much, Paul. Thank you, convener. Just to concur with the comments that have been made, and I thank to, in particular, involving people in our work, I think, is really important. We need to reach out to as many people and make sure that we are listening to all parts of society. The other one that has not been mentioned so far is about the issue of the Scottish elections. That was mentioned in the legacy paper. We all went into the election thinking turnout and might have dropped, and we had the opposite effect. It would be good to understand the reasons behind that and, again, to encourage as big a turnout in future elections. I think that a little bit of work and investigation into that would be very helpful, and I hope that we can continue that trend of increased turnout. I concur with the statements, and I look forward to working with the rest of the committee. Thank you very much, Paul. I absolutely agree with all the statements that have been made. I hope that, in fact, I really genuinely envisage that this committee can work collegiately across what some people call political boundaries. I prefer the political spectrum, because I think that we have a good balance of new members and experienced members. We are also a group of people who, to echo what you have said, Bob, genuinely want to involve other people in this work. We do not have the answers sitting in this committee, but this is a committee where people who feel that they do have answers to problems with regard to procedure and that other matters can come to us, and they will get a listening ear. I thank everyone as we move to the end of this public aspect of our meeting, and I was just going to check his notes. I move to close the public element of this meeting, to thank everybody who is on this committee and the class who supports us behind the scenes and look forward to meeting in September, in which everyone is a lovely recess.