Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. I thank the committee members for all their opinions on the issue. For a start, we need to understand that the motion is the vehicle that is used to bring any matter to the attention of those in Parliament, and I think that we are in agreement that there is a responsibility on individual MSPs. The standing orders are very clear on motions. They set out how a motion will be admissible rather than refer to their content or the expectation or hope that certain motions will come before the chamber.

A number of members have reflected on the importance to our constituents of Parliament recognising their work, whether or not that is in a congratulatory way. Emma Harper’s comment about the cross-party groups is very important.

To go back to the analysis from SPICe, we are not that far away from the numbers increasing. Perhaps that is why, in actuality, some members felt concern. I hope that members will be reassured that we will undertake to monitor the situation over the next 12 months, to see whether we move away from that being the case. If we do not, that might be the trigger for us to return to the matter.

With regard to the chamber desk team, obviously, the expertise lies with the clerks who serve the chamber. I note Bob Doris’s suggestion. If we were to consider an inquiry into the matter, we would, of course, seek evidence from all relevant and experienced bodies, to feed in their views.

However, at this stage, if the committee is content, I will write to Graeme Dey to thank him for expressing a concern, which is not just his concern, as other members have raised it, and to tell him that we will—I do not mean this to disparage the idea—take a watching brief, to see whether this parliamentary session continues in the way that the previous sessions have, and that we will continue to monitor the effect on and use of the motions system. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful. That being the last of the matters that we intend to deal with in public, I move the committee meeting into private session.

Item 2 is correspondence from Graeme Dey MSP. He wrote to the committee expressing concern about the type and number of parliamentary motions that were being lodged to congratulate individuals or organisations. The committee previously considered his letter and requested more information relating to congratulatory motions.

The Scottish Parliament information centre has kindly prepared an analysis of the trends in the usage of motions that start with the phrase “That the Parliament congratulates”. The paper from the clerk provides more information on the rules that relate to the admissibility of motions.

I ask that members comment both on the report from SPICe, for which I thank it, and on the original correspondence from Graeme Dey. If it pleases the members who are here in person, I will turn to my deputy convener, who joins us online.

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Edward Mountain has given his apologies, so I welcome Stephen Kerr as a substitute member. Good morning, Stephen.

Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The committee has received apologies from Edward Mountain MSP.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take business in private. Does the committee agree to take in private, at a future meeting, consideration of revisions to the guidance on the code of conduct for MSPs and consideration of its approach to petition PE1949, which calls for a review of the rules concerning dual mandate MSPs?

Members indicated agreement.

I am glad that you have found it useful as a synopsis of the committee’s work prior to your joining us—and your joining us is most welcome. It is an interesting snapshot of the work that the committee has covered in the past year. In particular, the report of our inquiry into future parliamentary procedures and practices was the starting point for—the genesis of—our work in that year.

It is worth pointing out that the report features, as did much of our discussion, the iterative nature of change—that we should never consider the Parliament to be fixed; it is always on a journey of improvement. Some of that might go down the odd cul-de-sac, but there is no harm in learning from mistakes, whereas there is harm in trying to fix everything in aspic and in saying that we are successful because of that. Thank you for that, Emma.

Are there any other comments?

That is helpful. The question of crèche and care facilities in the Parliament has been raised by a number of members in a number of different venues. I know that they—and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—will hear your point, and they can be confident that we will return to the issue in a positive way, I hope, with suggestions for improvements and the facilitation of care.

Item 2 is consideration of the draft annual report for the parliamentary year from 13 May 2022 to 12 May 2023, which will be published in due course. Do any members have comments on the report?

That is helpful.

Before I formally invite the committee to agree to the publication of the report, I echo Bob Doris’s comments about the support that we have from the clerking team, as well as from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the people outwith the Parliament who have supported us in evidence sessions by bringing their knowledge. That has been incredibly helpful. On the formal record, I thank them all.

With that, is the committee happy for the report to be published?

Members indicated agreement.

I will make a statement about the decision of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on a report from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland about a complaint against Maggie Chapman MSP.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has carefully considered the report from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, on a complaint from Melissa Titus about Maggie Chapman MSP, that she failed to make a declaration in respect of her registered interest as chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre at the meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022, when it took evidence from Rape Crisis Scotland on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

The committee is unanimous about the conclusions and the decision that have been reached. The committee is of the view that Maggie Chapman’s registered financial interest—remuneration that she received by virtue of her employment as the chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre—was relevant to the proceedings of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022.

The committee considers it a matter of fact that Maggie Chapman has had a registered financial interest in the remuneration category of her entry in the register of members’ interests since the beginning of this parliamentary session. That registered financial interest is the remuneration that she received by virtue of her employment as chief operating officer at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre until 30 June 2021. Because that registered interest is in the remuneration category, it must, in accordance with the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, remain in her entry in the register throughout the current session, even though she is no longer employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre—although the entry has been amended to use the past tense.

Under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, a registered financial interest is a declarable financial interest, and a

“member who has a declarable interest in any matter shall declare that interest before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter.”

The committee has concluded that that declarable financial interest was declarable in the context of the meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022, because the proceedings of that committee were related to that financial interest.

The committee notes the commissioner’s findings on the similarities in the support that is provided by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and by Rape Crisis Scotland and the link between those two organisations. The committee considers that it is relevant that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is one of the network of 17 independent rape crisis centres with which Rape Crisis Scotland works, and that, at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022, Maggie Chapman MSP referred to

“Rape Crisis Scotland network members”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 31 May 2022; c 54.]

The committee also notes the commissioner’s findings that Rape Crisis Scotland and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

“are in the same ‘industry’ and have as organisations, the same general aims”

and that Maggie Chapman MSP considered her declarable interest to be relevant to the remit of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. For that reason, she declared it at the first meeting of that committee, on 23 June 2021.

Although the committee notes the commissioner’s findings that the two organisations had “the same general aims” and were part of the same network, the committee considers it to be relevant that one of the witnesses from whom the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee was taking evidence on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill on 31 May 2022 was the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland.

In her written representations to the committee, Maggie Chapman MSP states that Rape Crisis Scotland and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre are completely separate entities and have distinct governance, employment and funding arrangements.

The committee is of the view that, in keeping with the principles that underpin the code of conduct, a member should not just take into account their own view in their assessment of whether a declaration relates to committee proceedings, but should also consider whether a fair-minded and impartial observer would consider that the declarable interest could influence the member or give the appearance of prejudicing that member’s ability to act impartially. The committee considers that a person who watched or read the proceedings might reasonably consider there to be a connection between the two organisations.

More particularly, the committee notes that, in the question that Maggie Chapman MSP addressed to the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland during the evidence session, she referred to the work of that network as having been “trans-inclusive for 15 years” and that she invited the chief executive to say a bit more about how, in the experience of either the chief executive or Rape Crisis Scotland network members, medicalisation of trans identity had been dealt with if it had come up in services that were provided.

The committee considers that the question that was asked by Maggie Chapman MSP related to the matter in which she has a declarable interest—namely, the remuneration that she had received by virtue of her employment as chief operating officer at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. The 2006 Act requires a declarable interest to be declared before the member takes part in any proceedings relating to that matter.

The committee is of the view that, even if Maggie Chapman MSP had made an assessment that her declarable interest was not sufficiently related to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was the subject of the agenda item at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee meeting, a declaration should have been made before pursuing a line of questioning that referenced the network of rape crisis centres that includes Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. The committee is of the view that her line of questioning brought the proceedings in closer relation and proximity to her declarable interest.

The committee notes that central to the members’ interests regime are the principles of transparency in relation to matters that could be thought to influence a member’s actions, speeches or votes in the Parliament, and the need to assess whether an interest could reasonably be considered to influence or to give the appearance of influencing the ability of the member to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of the Parliament.

The committee believes that, for those who were watching or reading the proceedings of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee of 31 May 2022, a declaration by Maggie Chapman MSP of her declarable interest would have provided the transparency and openness that the standards regime requires in relation to members’ interests.

For those reasons, the committee concludes that Maggie Chapman MSP breached the following provisions: sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, following the definitions and conditions of having a declarable interest in section 12 of the 2006 Act; and paragraphs 6 to 8 of section 3 of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, 8th Edition, dated 6 May 2021.

The committee agrees with the commissioner’s finding that there was a failure to declare a declarable financial interest in this case, and the commissioner’s conclusion that Maggie Chapman MSP’s conduct, in not declaring a declarable financial interest, breached the 2006 act and the code. A finding that there has been a breach of the 2006 act and the code of conduct is a very serious matter.

The committee notes that Maggie Chapman’s written representations made reference to two previous reports of investigations into complaints that MSPs had breached the statutory and code requirements relating to declaration of interests. However, neither of those cases is strictly comparable to the current case. In one, the member did not have a registered financial interest; in the other, the member made a declaration but did not refer specifically to the registered financial interest. In the current case, the member had a registered financial interest but made no declaration of that interest.

The committee wrote to all members in January 2023, emphasising the requirements to declare a financial interest in any matter before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter. The committee now takes the opportunity to remind all members of the principles of openness and transparency that underpin the standards regime.

The report of the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament, “Shaping Scotland’s Parliament”, which was published in January 1999, stated:

“The Scottish people deserve a Parliament and Members they can trust and respect”

and recommended

“a rigorous Code of Conduct for MSPs.”

It also recommended a set of nine key principles, which reflected the recommendations of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. Accordingly, the committee believes that all members should respect the Parliament and the people of Scotland by taking seriously their registration and declaration requirements.

In her representations to the committee, Maggie Chapman referenced a perception of custom and practice that might be developing around declarations of interests in the Parliament. However, the requirements in relation to registration and declaration are statutory and are included in MSPs’ code of conduct. For that reason, members should not look to custom or practice, or rely on advice from other MSPs, in relation to registration or declaration of interests. The code very clearly sets out that advice is to be sought from the standards clerks, and the committee notes that Maggie Chapman indicated in her oral representations that she did not seek the advice of either the standards clerks or the committee clerks in relation to the meeting at which Rape Crisis Scotland gave evidence.

The committee takes very seriously any breaches of the requirements in relation to failure to declare a registrable financial interest before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament relating to that matter, and advises members to seek advice from the standards clerks should they have any questions about any matters relating to registration or declaration of interests.

In relation to the breach in the current case, the committee has agreed unanimously to recommend the imposition of a sanction, which we will now consider.

I propose that the member be excluded from one meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I invite committee members to comment on whether they agree with that proposal.