Seòmar agus comataidhean

We move to a discussion about the legacy paper. I see that Alexander Stewart would like to comment on it.

I thank Alexander Stewart for opening the meeting and for bringing to the chair not just his age but his vast experience of committees in the past. I welcome all the members who are new to the Parliament, such as Paul McLennan and me, as well as those who have—shall we say?—a few more years of experience. We will look to them for guidance in the committee’s work.

In my view, this is a very important and powerful committee, which has a huge responsibility to the Parliament and the people of Scotland. From the outset, I wish to put on public record my recognition of the lack of gender balance on the committee, which has occurred in the process of creating the membership of the committee rather than as the act or intention of any of its members. With the permission of members, I intend to write to the Parliamentary Bureau about that matter and raise it at the Conveners Group as a matter of urgency. The effect of the situation that we find ourselves in might directly affect aspects of the committee’s responsibility, particularly with regard to standing orders rules 6.4.1(b) and (d). I have every confidence in each member of the committee, but I am concerned that, in fulfilling our responsibilities, we will not be able to carry the confidence of those whom we serve or who seek to rely on the committee. I hope that the members of the committee are in agreement with that action and I am happy to discuss it in more detail when we turn to our programme of work later.

Item 6 is the legacy paper that was prepared by the previous committee to show the work that it covered and to indicate the areas that it felt we should look at. I would like to get the committee’s permission to write to the session 5 committee members to thank them, particularly the convener, for their work and for the legacy paper, which encompasses a huge amount of work and raises a number of significant questions that we will look at. Do I have the committee’s agreement to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Absolutely. I agree with those points.

Item 4 is to decide whether to take item 7 in private. Just to give a short explanation, a number of items will come before the 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 transparency in our decisions or in our opinions or views; it is just to allow full discussion to take place. In the current meeting, item 7 is about our programme for work. Do members have any comments before I invite us to take that item in private?

As no one wishes to speak, do members agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Congratulations, Bob. You certainly have committee experience dating all the way back to 2007, including in relation to local government and subordinate legislation. In fact, I think that you have experience of virtually all committees but, most importantly from my point of view, you were a member of the predecessor of this committee, so I will be looking to you for advice, wisdom and support. Congratulations.

Item 3 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 ask whether there are any nominations for the role. I understand that Paul McLennan might wish to say something.

Item 5 is on cross-party groups. The issue has come up because of the timing of committees starting and the desire among members and groups outwith the Parliament to start cross-party groups. We have been asked to consider the rules on the membership and registration of cross-party groups. As I said, that requires our attention because of the timescale.

The committee is invited to consider and agree a general modification to rule 6.8 of the code of conduct to allow cross-party groups that have at least one MSP member from the majority of parties that are represented on the Parliamentary Bureau. That is not a rule change; it is an indication of how we would apply our ability to waive certain parts and regulations. In this case, we are carrying on with the process that I understand began with the previous committee. 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 will continue to allow them to be registered where they have at least one MSP member from the majority of parties on the bureau. Would anyone like to comment on that?

As there are no comments, do members agree to that general modification?

Members indicated agreement.

I absolutely agree with all the statements that have been made. I envisage that the committee will work collegiately across what some people call political boundaries but what I prefer to call the political spectrum. We have a good balance of new members and experienced members. To echo what Bob Doris said, I think that we are a group of people who genuinely want to involve other people in our work. We do not have the answers sitting in the committee, so people who feel that they have answers to problems relating to procedures and other matters can come to us and will get a listening ear.

Before I close the public part of the meeting, I thank every member of the committee and the clerks who support us behind the scenes. I look forward to meeting in September, and I wish everyone a lovely recess.

Do you want to say anything?