 I'm going to welcome everyone to this, the third meeting of the standards procedure and public appointments committee in 2024. I've received no apologies this morning and good morning committee members. Agender item one is for members to agree to take agenda item four in private. Item four is the consideration of the ongoing consideration of the committee's work programme. Are members in agreement to take that in private? Excellent thank you. Our second agenda item is the cross-party group annual report. The committee has been provided with an annual update of cross-party groups compliance with the code of conduct and I know members have received the papers and just before opening up I'd like to thank the clerks for the extensive work that goes into not only this annual report but also maintaining the records with regard to the cross-party groups which are an essential part of this Parliament in the sense that it does allow people from outside this place contact with their MSPs to bring their experience, lived experience and information and that CPGs do form an important part of the work that MSPs do. But it's also worth reminding that at the moment CPGs are not part of the parliamentary procedure here at Holyrood but this committee is responsible for ensuring that the code of conduct or the items within the code of conduct that relate to CPGs are kept. Can I invite comments from committee members before we make decisions on where we'd like to start? If people are happy, I'm happy to start with you Stephen and work up the table. One of the things that I would just like to make public record of is the fact that some of the CPGs that are struggling with some of the requirements, this may be because of the number of ministerial changes that have occurred during the reporting period because some of the people who are now ministers were prominent members of the CPGs. I'm assuming that we will take an appropriately lenient approach to those CPGs in terms of them giving them some time to get their affairs in order again so that they can conform to the minimal requirements that are set out for the existence of CPGs. I'm not sure whether the word lenient is one that I would use but I would certainly use an individual approach to the reasons for specific CPGs where they have all and a significant number of CPGs have complied with all of the requirements that are imposed upon them. Of course there are individual circumstances and you've made mention of the most common one which is where having been elevated to ministerial posts you run round to find your colleagues to take over responsibilities that you had. Of course I'm sure that the committee will be more than happy to reflect the individual causes where problems are and it's not a case of automaticity of having your recognition removed, it is a case by case basis and I think whatever we do needs to reflect that. Can you clarify what the procedure is in the event that a CPG consistently doesn't meet the requirements? If for some reason a CPG wanted to cease to exist for whatever cause that brings about it would have to come to this committee to have the formal recognition which is what triggers the website, which is what triggers the review that the clerks make of collecting the minutes and things like that. Although CPGs are not a formal part of the parliamentary process they do enjoy certain privileges with regard to the lobbying act and things like that so it would be a formal step to remove the recognition from a CPG and that rests with this committee. Can you clarify on that specific point, convener? That's a process you're describing whereby a CPG decides of itself that it wishes to cease to be a CPG. Is there a process whereby in some circumstances this committee may decide that it wishes to derecognise a CPG even if it hasn't volunteered to be derecognised? I chose the route of explanation as empathetically as possible for CPGs. Should a CPG fail to comply and if having been given an option depending on what the facts are, the committee are of the view that it cannot maintain or return to its cross-party group then similarly the recognition would be removed. That would not stop, in fact, the very same MSPs or others coming back to us to say we feel there should be a CPG for whatever the area was, but of course that would, as we have dealt with a significant number of recognitions of CPGs, that could happen as well. There isn't is an automatic process where this happens without the involvement of this committee and there are not specific things that automatically trigger a reference, which I think speaks to Stephen's comments about the individual reasons why some may be struggling and some aren't. It allows a reality to get behind the situation that the public can see from this document, which is in the public record, as indeed all of the minutes and other items are. I wonder, given the number of CPGs that are listed in the various partial compliance to quite a failure of compliance overall, that it is down to the number of CPGs that are in existence. I know that this is something that we have discussed before. The number of CPGs is quite numerous and maybe that is something that we have to think about in the future. Certainly part of the work programme that we envisage is doing an inquiry in some form with regard to CPGs because from the outset of this session I think those MSPs who returned with considerably more experience than perhaps others had a view of the number of CPGs and it is something that both subjectively and objectively members have commented on because of the time commitment because the responsibility of CPGs, as far as this committee concerned, lies under the code of conduct, which is very specifically to the MSPs who are involved in it. I have said before that sometimes MSPs need to be protected from themselves and I think when we have the opportunity to take evidence in whatever form we choose to do so from people who are involved in CPGs and again return to the report that we see here today, I think there are some very serious questions that need to be asked because the original purpose behind CPGs laid out at the outset was incredibly important and I do not think that that has changed. However, there is clearly a challenge in complying with the responsibilities that MSPs take on when they willingly agree to convene and organise, which is useful. I agree with what has been said by my colleagues. The thing that I feel disappointed about when I read this is that some conveners have not even applied to emails that the clerks have sent them. That is quite disappointing in itself. You take that responsibility on as a convener of a group and you should be at least given explanations. I see some having given explanations to why they are partially non-compliant. I think that that is very worthy of note and we have in the past following various interactions with CPGs throughout the course of this committee in this session written to MSPs reminding them of their very personal and individual responsibility. Notwithstanding, many are supported by very competent secretariat and indeed their own members of staff that carry out so much work. However, there is support there and it is disappointing that some people have chosen for whatever reason on the face of it to ignore requests from the clerks because they are trying to fulfil a role that is placed upon them under the code of conduct. Just a few comments. First of all, I thank the clerks because there is a huge amount of work going into pulling this together. It is a comprehensive document outlining the performance or otherwise of the various CPGs. I think that CPGs are hugely fundamental to the Parliament because it enables members of the public and trust groups to engage with parliamentarians and visit the Parliament building on a fairly regular basis. The number will be the number that can be supported because that represents thousands of people coming into Parliament on a regular basis, which is absolutely to be encouraged. Having said that, I think that the requirements, frankly, if you look through them, are something that if people are operating a CPG they should be able to meet. I do not think that there are especially onerous in terms of number of meetings, number of members involved producing minutes and so on and so forth. I think that it might be interesting to have a consideration of whether we have got a more formal process both in terms of derecognising CPGs and extremists and also potentially an intermediate step because I understand the clerks are right to conveners but clearly that is just an email in the background. It may be that we have got a process whereby we recognise that a CPG is struggling and we make that public knowledge on the website so that the members of the CPG recognise there is an issue and they may step forward and start to do some work to help to reinvigorate the process. I think that it would be unfair if they would just get notification someday that your CPG no longer exists and they have not had the opportunity to engage in trying to seek out other parliamentary support. I think that an intermediate step that we can formally recognise is a derecognition step and I think that I was coming back to this again perhaps in three months to look at it again rather than just leaving it at once a year would be helpful because clearly while there are 76 CPGs on here that have done absolutely everything that has been asked of them, there are a number that haven't and it would be remiss of us not to have another further look at that in short order. I think that that's very sensible and I think perhaps even obviously subject to the committee's agreement a return to this specific annual report perhaps in three months to see where the improvement or changes are notwithstanding the other work that we're going to look at for CPGs. I've been asked this point of information, forgive my ignorance. Is this report published? It is. Okay, that's good to know. The other thing is, I didn't know that I should have brought this up when Ivan was making his excellent points about derecognition, as it were. He does say here in the summary that's been prepared for us and it is a brilliant report. For a lot of hard work that's gone into this and I totally acknowledge that. The two groups disbanded, did that mean they took the decision just to discontinue? Yes, they ceased. For their own compliance they ceased to be. They voted themselves into oblivion. They chose that everything had been successfully achieved that they resulted and decided. I don't know that. That does surprise me a little getting the cue that has been disbanded, but anyway. If there are no other comments, from this committee I want to reiterate the points that there is disappointment, significant disappointment in the fact that MSPs who have a personal responsibility with regard to CPGs, which are an opportunity for across political parties, MSPs to hear the experienced, lived experience and indeed wisdom of people outside of this place, that they do fulfil a very, very important role, not least the number of people who visit this Parliament because of it and also because of the hybrid nature now of so much interaction, the ability from people much further away to contribute to CPGs is important. I'm going to suggest if the committee are happy to things. Firstly, that we diary this to revisit the position in say three months. Secondly, the committee are happy for me to write to the CPGs that are in breach to point out and to reiterate the fact that we are concerned at whether or not they should maintain the recognition of being a cross-party group. And perhaps also put in that silence will not be accepted as acquiescence that you want it to continue. Are we content with that? Excellent. Then I will now move this meeting into private. Thank you.