Seòmar agus comataidhean

That point is well made.

Does anyone have any other comments?

As they do not, I formally propose that we grant recognition to the CPG. Is that agreed?

Members: indicated agreement.

That is very kind, Liam. Thank you for that introduction. I am reassured, because one of the things that leapt out of the original registration form was the very narrow focus on ice hockey. You have explained that it is now much broader and includes ice rink operators and owners—both local authority and private interests—and Scottish Curling.

Thank you, Bob, for your question. That has solved the question of your Christmas present from me: tickets are coming your way.

There is an existing CPG on sport, which covers a much broader range of sports and addresses many areas similar to those that you intend to cover. Have you had discussions with that CPG about your proposals, or is that something that, if recognition were granted, you would undertake to do, just to see whether there is any joint research that you could do, to avoid duplication?

That is helpful. Thank you for attending the meeting. Under our next agenda item, we will consider whether to give recognition to the proposed group, and the clerks will be in touch with you in due course. Good luck with your moustache for the rest of Movember. I understand that people can find your giving page via your Facebook page.

Agenda item 3 is on approval of the proposed CPG. Do members have any questions or comments that they would like to ponder before I formally put the proposal to the committee?

That is a very valid comment and one that it is right to make. That is why the committee intends to look at CPGs after the forthcoming recess. A lot of proposed CPGs come before us. I do not think that I am speaking out of turn when I say that I had some concerns about this application but found much reassurance in what the proposed deputy convener of the CPG said about its scope and breadth and about the need for it.

One important element of the transparency of this place is that it is accessible to groups that might otherwise feel that they cannot get to their MSP or get to the Parliament through their MSP.

Your point is well made and is noted.

It is always a pleasure to follow Christine Grahame, even when she seeks to insult my poor amendment.

I intend to speak to amendments 124 and 120. As amendment 120 is a technical amendment that allows amendment 124 to fit in, I will deal first with the purposes behind them.

The registrar general will have an important role in the process, if it moves forward. The purpose behind my amendments is to draw out the fact—and I seek the view of the cabinet secretary on this—that our young people who are 16 and 17 already have substantial protections around them. It is a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, in which we seek to allow our young people as much freedom as possible, while still providing a scaffolding of support, should things go wrong or should decisions be contrary, perhaps, to an individual’s interests.

In answer to Christine Grahame, I picked the registrar general on whom to place the obligation to ensure that there is some protection, because their office is already under a statutory requirement to undertake assessments of people who present themselves as a result of a variety of legislation. They are therefore well capable of making such decisions.

The protections that are extended in this case are really very narrow. The first two, which are contained in proposed new subsection (2B)(a) in amendment 124, deal with the effect of obtaining the certificate and the importance of a statutory declaration. Anyone who undertakes to hear a statutory declaration needs to assure themselves that there is an understanding of the significance and importance of that document. The reference in the amendment to

“the effect of obtaining the certificate”

is to allow the registrar to ask those questions to satisfy themselves that the person fully understands the consequences of having a GRC.

Proposed new subsection (2B)(b) in amendment 124 is very important, as it ensures that the application has not been made “under coercion”. That sort of provision is echoed in a number of other situations; there is, for example, a requirement on a person registering a marriage to ensure that no coercion has taken place.

As for the point that has been made about the use of the word “capacity”, I would point out that it has a strict legal definition, and it defines the position of a young person in making such a significant decision about these matters.

Both amendments, particularly amendment 124, seek to remind the registrar general of their existing legal obligations and to allow them, in certain situations, to avail themselves of the ability to say “No”—on the assumption, of course, that the decision would always be “Yes.”

I am happy to leave it there, convener, unless I can give any further guidance.

Given the indication from the Government, I will not move amendment 120 at this stage.

Amendment 120 not moved.

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting in 2022 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take business in private. Does the committee agree to take in private item 2 and future consideration of correspondence received from the acting Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, future consideration of correspondence received in relation to complaints procedures, and future consideration of the legislative consent procedure? I am happy to rephrase that, to turn it into English—or are we happy to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful for that.