Seòmar agus comataidhean

Part of the work programme that we envisage includes some form of inquiry into CPGs. From the outset of this parliamentary session, MSPs who were returned with considerably more experience than others had a view on the number of CPGs. Members have commented on that, subjectively and objectively, because of the time commitment and because, as far as the committee is concerned, CPGs have responsibilities under the code of conduct, which relate specifically to the MSPs who are involved.

I have said before that, sometimes, MSPs need to be protected from themselves. We have the opportunity to take evidence in whatever form from people who are involved in CPGs and to return to the report that we are considering today. Serious questions need to be asked. The original purpose behind CPGs, which I laid out at the outset, is incredibly important, and that has not changed. However, there is clearly a challenge in complying with the responsibilities that MSPs take on when they—willingly—agree to do the useful task of convening and organising a group.

It is.

I do not know that; I am just saying—

If there are no other comments, I will reiterate the committee’s significant disappointment about non-compliance. MSPs have a personal responsibility with regard to CPGs, which are an opportunity for MSPs across political parties to hear the lived experience and wisdom of people outside this place. CPGs fulfil an important role, not least with regard to the number of people who visit the Parliament because of them. The hybrid nature of so much of our interaction now means that people who are much further away can also contribute to CPGs, which is important.

First, I suggest that we put it in the diary to revisit the position in, say, three months. Secondly, I suggest that, if the committee is happy, I will write to the CPGs that are in breach to point that out, to reiterate that we are concerned about whether they should maintain their recognition as a cross-party group and, perhaps, to say that silence will not be accepted as an indication that they want the group to continue. Are we content with those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee has been provided with the annual update on cross-party groups’ compliance with the code of conduct. Members have received the papers and I thank the clerks for the extensive work that goes into not only the annual report but the maintenance of the records on cross-party groups.

Cross-party groups are an essential part of the Parliament, in the sense that they allow people from outside this place to have contact with their MSPs and to bring to bear their experience, lived experience and information. CPGs form an important part of MSPs’ work.

It is worth remembering that, at the moment, CPGs are not part of parliamentary procedure here at Holyrood. However, the committee is responsible for monitoring the keeping of the code of conduct as it relates to CPGs.

I invite comments from members before we make decisions. If members are happy, I will start with Stephen Kerr and work my way up the table.

I am not sure whether “lenient” is a word that I would use—

I would certainly take an individual approach to the reasons for specific CPGs not having complied.

A significant number of CPGs have complied with all the requirements that are imposed on them. However, there are individual circumstances, and you have mentioned the most common, which is that, having been elevated to a ministerial post, a member runs around to find colleagues to take over the responsibilities that they had. I am sure that the committee will be more than happy to reflect on the individual causes of problems. Such groups will not automatically have their recognition removed; the matter is considered case by case. Whatever we do needs to reflect that.

If, for some reason, a CPG wanted to cease to exist—whatever cause brought that about—it would have to come to the committee for formal recognition of that, which triggers changes to the website and to the requirement for the clerks to collect its minutes, for example. In addition, although CPGs are not a formal part of the parliamentary process, they enjoy certain privileges—for example, under the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016—so removing recognition from a CPG is a formal step that rests with the committee. I hope that that is helpful.

That is worthy of note. In the past, following various interactions with CPGs throughout this parliamentary session, the committee has written to MSPs to remind them of their personal and individual responsibility, notwithstanding the fact that many are supported by a competent secretariat and their members of staff, who carry out so much work. There is support and it is disappointing that, for whatever reason, some people who have a role that is placed on them under the code of conduct have—on the face of it—chosen to ignore requests from the clerks.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2024 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received no apologies.

Under agenda item 1, do members agree to take in private item 4, which is on-going consideration of the committee’s work programme?

Members indicated agreement.