 Good morning and welcome to the third meeting in 2017 of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Can I remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other devices to silent? Agenda item 1 in today's committee is to take evidence on three proposed cross-party groups. The first group that we have to consider today is proposed CPG on commercial sexual exploitation, and I would like to welcome Ash Denham to the meeting. Ash is to be a co-convener of the group and I would like to invite you to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. Good morning. It was expected that it would be Voda Grant with you here this morning, but unfortunately she has had a family member taken ill, so I agreed to step in in her place. I have an opening statement, it's okay if I go ahead and read that. The intention of the proposed group is to provide a forum for those who are concerned about commercial sexual exploitation, CSE, to meet, to discuss the issue and to work together to raise awareness of the issue. It's recognised as violence against women under equally safe, but while progress has been made in raising awareness of domestic abuse and sexual assault, we've not had the same focus on CSE. We need to tackle violence against women in order to achieve a truly equal society. I realise there are a large number of cross-party groups already, but it's important to be able to explore the issue further. Our application, which I assume that you have a copy of, gives a list of a number of organisations that are interested and individual members who wish to join. It gives a list of MSPs who have supported us and I also have another few MSPs to add to that list. Does your list contain Joanne Lamont's name? It does. Okay, so you've got that one. So then it would be Kate Forbes, SNP MSP and Joan McAlpine SNP MSP. Thank you very much. Can I invite any questions from the group? Yeah, Mr Stewart. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Ash. You've already identified that there may be some overlap with others and I think that that's quite important that you have because you will learn from what they've done and the experiences they've had. Can I also ask what connection you will have with Police Scotland in the process and are they going to be part of your investigation or part of the team that's going to come on and give you information about what they're doing across the whole of Scotland to try and manage the process and also tackle what's happening on the UK by-basis as well? I've only had contact with the police informally, so we haven't actually thought at this point about whether we would involve them, but certainly I think that's a good suggestion. Okay. Other groups that we are aware of, obviously that would maybe cover similar ground would be the Men's Violence Against Women group and also the Human Trafficking group. So I'm co-convener of human trafficking as well and I've also spoken to men's violence against women. I believe, I wasn't at that meeting, but I believe at the last meeting of that group, it was agreed that both of these groups would work together but not all the stakeholders in that group agree with the aims of this group but they wish as well. Okay. Thank you, convener. Are there any other questions? That's thanks. Good morning. Looking at the terms of reference that you've proposed, it seems fairly clear that the group is intended to be explicitly a group supporting a particular model of legislation of criminalising demand. I'm just wondering how that's going to work if members who don't support that choose to become involved. Obviously, all MSPs have the right to join any cross-party group and this particular proposal is one that's been considered in a previous session and legislation not supported by Parliament. Is this group intended to be open to people who have an interest in the subject and wish to discuss it from a range of different perspectives or only a space for discussion from one particular viewpoint? The rules are that CPGs need to be open to—I'm not entirely sure what the rules are on CPGs. In that case, if that's the rules, that would have to go forward. I would assume that people who supported the aims would be more interested in joining it but we couldn't exclude people who had held opposite views. Any further questions? I thank the member for her attendance this morning. The decision will be taken at agenda item 2 in our proceedings today and you'll be informed as quickly as possible of the results. Thank you very much. I'm going to suspend shortly to allow witnesses to change over. Thank you. The second group for the committee's consideration is the proposed CPG on end-of-life choices. I would like to welcome George Adam, MSP, to the meeting. George is the proposed convener of the group and I would like to invite Mr Adam to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. The whole idea for the end-of-life choices CPG is effectively to give a forum. We've obviously had two bills appear before the Parliament, which weren't supported when both were came from Margo MacDonald and then Patrick took on after Margo passed away. I think that we had open debates during that but we've never got by stage one and part of the I believe that CPG would be let's have these robust discussions about this very passionate subject and let's have it in a cross-party group so that some of the politicians, because the public, time and time again we're told the public actually support this idea. So I think in order to get the politicians in line with the public ideal I think we have to have this cross-party group in order to have the debate and that would include people being involved that aren't for the actual idea as well because I think we'd be fooling ourselves having there talking to the converted every single quarter. So the whole idea is so that if there is another case when we have a bill coming forward then we have the opportunity to get beyond stage one and not hide behind various issues like legal. I think one of the problems was in stage one the last time was people kept saying there was legal problems and we wouldn't pass any bills past stage one in this place if we actually can use that as a reference all the time. So I think we have to look at it. This is an opportunity for everybody to have open frank discussion with regards to the subject. For me personally it's a very personal subject to me because my wife says it's MS and obviously it's something that she has to look at possibly if she goes from secondary progressive to primary progressive MS. So yes I do have a very personal need for it but that's part of the reason why I'm trying to take this thing out the tail almost in the debate and have it in a cross-party group so we can have these discussions and then hopefully who knows what could happen in the future. Okay thank you very much. Can you invite any questions? Miss Hawke? Thank you convener and thank you George for coming along and speaking to us today about the CPG. I'm just looking at your membership last year and you have one individual named and two organisations and I was wondering what proposals you have for broadening the membership of the proposed group. As I stated earlier the whole idea is to make sure that we do have other organisations involved. I would say probably we're looking towards getting some of more religious groups involved as well because that was one of the groups. Not all but some of the religious groups were some of the ones that were very passionate against the idea and as I've said earlier on clear it would be just stupid of me to sit there every quarter and talk to the converted. This is about getting an idea, taking this idea, running with it, taking a lot of the scare stories out of it and actually saying let's have an open frank discussion about that so yes we would be looking towards actually getting anyone else involved. We've already had some individuals who were vehemently against the idea of turning up at meetings and yes that means it's difficult for me as a chair to have the meeting but you know you can't actually change people's way of thinking without getting involved in a bit of passion. Absolutely. Can I ask another question convener? There obviously have been some countries that have legalised assisted dying and I was wondering what plans you had for reaching out to organisations perhaps in those countries or other jurisdictions to find out how they've managed. Obviously these very difficult arguments perhaps are some time ago. I've already been in touch with people from Catalonia who have been going down this route as well. We've had a meeting with individuals from there. We're also talking of going there's a conference abroad where I think it's in Italy is it Stacey? Just Stacey will tell me and keep you right on this one where we're going to actually discuss that as well so you know we are looking at other places where this has obviously worked out and that's on-going and we've actually had a few speakers already from people who have attended meetings who have been from abroad. Mr Stewart. Thank you convener. Thank you George. I very much welcome the dialogue that you're trying to embrace here because I do believe that that is the right way to tackle it is to embrace both sides of the debate and see how things can progress but when it comes to the legal and the medical matters it sometimes there's a fear in the community and we understand that the community wants it. There's a sea of opinion out there that people believe this is the right way to go but how are you going to manage that because they say that the legal and the medical side seem to be the blocks that seem to have stopped us so far from progressing and there's a fear about that across potentially the political situations in here and it's how you bridge that gap. Ironically the fear is with the politicians it's actually not so much with the members of the public they more or less attitude tends to be just get on with it you know do the right thing and get on with it but we have a situation where our last meeting that we had where the discussion along the lines we had someone who was coming from the legal aspect because I know that is we have to get that at stage one if we were putting another bill forward you would have to make sure that you had it robust enough to be able to deal with that and that's one of the major hurdles that we have to do but as I've already said you know if we use that as a rule of thumb for just about every other bill that we're passing normally stage two that you start ironing out all these issues and stage three as well you know we have that system for a reason and I think it's actually if we did that with every kind of legislation there wouldn't be much passed here so I think this is one where we need to take this thing out we need to have that discussion but we need to that's why we've stuck we've been talking to we've made sure we've had representations and we will continue from people from a legal aspect who are have no opinion they're just coming from the legal aspect and I think that's an important one for us don't get me wrong the members that are a part of the cpg might kind of feel that that's not what they want to hear but I think we have to take on everyone else's views as well but the important thing is it's to fear with the politicians that's the issue. Thank you. I commend you I think on the intent I think using cpgs to do the sort of the the debate and discussion and actually seeking to build consensus I think makes an awful lot of sense I think that we there are an awful lot of cpgs and I think the usefulness of that approach I think is I think well made however I mean I think it's pretty clear that the cpg is is being founded from a particular standpoint and I would just you say that you're keen to take evidence from both legal and clinical people I mean what steps will you take to actually bring in members from those perspectives and likewise I would just like to understand what your approach is in terms of exploring issues around palliative care and quality at end of life because I think that's another very critical issue in terms of I think that the wider issues around this topic. You bring up a very very important point I think part of the ideal that we're talking about was to go down the idea of palliative care and choices it's end of life choices you know it's that choice may not be everyone is going to have an assisted death in any shape or form it could be to ensure the palliative care I'm going to speak an event that's about palliative care and end of life choices later on and it will probably be the end of this quarter so it's about having everyone involved in the debate and I also I would see us probably doing a bit of work with the cpg on palliative care as well we've already had some members of that cpg I attend one of our preliminary meetings as well so I could see there be a lot of crossover there for us but it's back down to what I've said right from the start it's about building the consensus I'm aware I used to be a member of this committee I'm aware that there's a lot of cpgs but I think when I tend to do a cpg it's got to be focused it's got to actually want an outcome and at the end of the year we've not just sat around the table and said oh aren't we all very nice and doing a wonderful job there's actually something we've done and I think this is one of the ones yes I've got emotional baggage with this one because it means a lot to me as well but I think it's very important that that's the reason why I've reduced so passionate about it on both sides and I think we've got to get everyone around the table and actually discuss that openly frankly and then we get to the stage where the politicians aren't quite as scared because they say well we've had that debate before we get to stage one you know so for me it's a case of looking at other parts of the world and seeing what they have done and it's about equality and respect to people's wishes. Are there any further questions? Mr Adam thank you very much for your attendance at committee this morning we will deliberate on the proposal at agenda item 2 and you'll be informed of our decision as quickly as possible thank you very much thank you very much convener. I'll suspend Ben briefly to allow witnesses to change over. The final group for the committee's consideration this morning is the proposed cpg on heart disease and stroke and I would welcome Marie Todd MSP to the meeting. Marie will be the proposed convener of the group and I'd like to invite Miss Todd to make an opening statement. Thank you convener. This is a cross-party group which was in existence in the last parliament and I was first asked to conven it during the summer but I suggested that we hang back at pause and have a look at the other cross-party groups that came forward to see if the issues that we wanted to cover were being covered already and what we found when we did meet in the autumn was that there was actually sufficient interest in starting a cross-party group and also sufficient room for a cross-party group specifically on heart disease so despite a huge decline in mortality there's been massive advances in the treatment of acute cardiac disease there's still a real burden of morbidity associated with it so there's a number of people who have had strokes who are surviving them now and much of our focus I think going forward would be on looking at the changes that are happening in healthcare from acute to health and social care integration and looking at issues of inequity of access around the whole of Scotland to things like cardiac rehabilitation. There was also specific cardiac conditions that we felt warranted looking at so there was a lot of interest in looking at atrial ffibrillation and looking at screening for that particular condition so I think there are a massive progress has been made I think there's still room for more improvement and that warrants getting people together in a room to discuss what we can do about it. Thank you very much. Can I invite any questions from members? None whatsoever. I thank you very much for coming along to committee this morning, very comprehensive outline of where you want to go with this APG. We will make our deliberations at agenda item 2 and you'll be informed of our decision as quickly as possible. Thank you for your attendance this morning. Now move to agenda item 2, which is consideration of the proposed CPGs this morning and can I first turn to the CPG on commercial sexual exploitation and invite any comments? Yeah I mean there's clearly a number of groups which have existed for a long time in the Parliament which have rather than the general exploration of a topic have a particular political stance nuclear disarmament, civil nuclear power issues like that and I think there's perhaps just a need to remind members who are setting up a group with that kind of purpose of the fact that all members regardless of their political viewpoint on the issues are entitled to join any CPG that they want. Clearly that wasn't the expectation from the member who is proposing this CPG. I don't think there's any barrier to having groups that have that kind of particularly not impartial viewpoint. I don't think there's any barrier to setting them up but I think it should be understood that they can't restrict their membership to members who subscribe to that viewpoint. Mr Scott? I think Patrick's touched the point and maybe you would advise me, convener, but are we seeing a slight change in the intention of cross-party groups that they now becoming campaigning groups for legislation? Trojan horse is an unfair description but campaigning for a legislative end point is that something we're seeing more of? Is it something we would welcome? I'll merely pose the question, I'm not plotting a judgment or an implied judgment. I want to ask Clarks to come in on this as well but if you look at some of the legislation that's come, you know, smoking ban, started CPG on smoking, the Trafficking Bill as well came largely through a lot of the work so I don't think it's an unusual situation but I'll just get asked to Clarks if they've got any indication of this as a trend in CPGs? It's not possible for me to say that, I don't think that we haven't done any of that sort of analysis. BSL is another round. I'm just perhaps more of an impression but it might be just interesting just to go back a little and have a look and see if but it's only of interest, I'm not in any way critical of the thought that this group be established, it just would be interesting to notice if that was a trend. I think to my mind I think it's probably an indication of the success of the CPGs that they are, you know, and I think BSL is another one which has been usually important. I'm going to bring Mr Stewart in the next round. I mean, I'm following on from Mr Scott's comments. I think many of these groups can mean a see that as an opportunity of having that dialogue, of being able to promote a viewer on opinion and I think it's important that they have that platform and they take on both sides of the debate if there is options for that but if they believe that that is what the group want to progress then I think that that should be encouraged at some stage for them to have that opportunity but at the same time we need to be watchful of it so that it doesn't become just a vehicle and an opportunity to try and affect something that it does have a much wider base so I'm sympathetic to what is being suggested but at the same time I think we need to watch and out of the many we have and there are many as you know there are some that fall into that category but others that do not but I think it's something that we would have to monitor as a group and a committee just to make sure that it isn't going down that trend as we progress to the session. Okay, point well made and noted, Mr Johnson. I just want to echo and expand upon Patrick's points. I mean, I think that if CPGs are going to be meaningful and useful they always come with some sort of perspective. I mean even the ones which I think are uncontroversial such as the ones concerning health I'm sure you could find people that find some ways to sort of disagree or object to them however I think the fact that reminding CPGs and people finding CPGs that their membership should be open I think is important. I think the other element to that is as they're constructing their agenda and work programme. Again, those meetings will always have that point of view embedded within them but there is a way to do that in such a way that meetings are open and welcoming to broad range of points of view even if those are maybe in disagreement with the thrust. I think maybe thinking about reminding CPGs of that and maybe as we look at our work in terms of regulation and guiding CPGs we might want to bear that in mind. Well, we have asked for particular guidance to be given on certain CPGs going through. Would the committee like the clerks to come up with a form of wording that reflects the guidance on CPGs to be included in the letter of approval from the committee? I can tend to let the clerks come up with that and I'll ask if you could delegate it to me to approve them for them going out. Thank you very much. A clarification from the clerks, actually. When someone is proposing registering a CPG, is the guidance sent to them or is the guidance available to them in terms of how inclusive they have to be and so on? Yeah, there are rules in the code of conduct and guidance on the web page. So that is a bit because I suppose in this particular circumstances the co-convener who had come along this morning explained that she had come along in place of the person who was going to be here. So it may well just have been that she wasn't as familiar. I know she had less than 24 hours' notice that she was coming along to the group. So I wouldn't want the committee to take it that this particular CPG had planned on being exclusive in its membership. I was intending that wording would be included in all the proofs of all CPGs going forward. No, I'd take the point absolutely, but the member's short notice in proposing it. I think the reason I raised it was that in contrast with the CPG we would consider next on end of life choices, the remit as constructed is very specifically saying we're here to promote one particular point of view. It is a point of view that relates to quite polarized opinion and that seems to me qualitatively different than, for example, a CPG on housing or on a particular health condition which doesn't give rise to those polarized opinions. So I think in that kind of context it's just helpful to remind all of the members involved in that kind of group that CPGs are open to all members regardless of their political viewpoint. Are we content to move forward then? Can I approve the CPG on commercial sexual exploitation? Thank you. I move to the next CPG proposed on end of life choices and I invite any comments from the committee. Are we content to approve that CPG? Thank you very much. Finally, the proposed CPG on heart disease and stroke. Again, I invite any comments. Are we content to approve that CPG? Yes. Thank you very much. Now move into private session.