Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is excellent. Thank you very much.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking in private item 3, which is consideration of the committee’s future work programme. Are members in agreement to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful. I close the public part of the meeting.

Under our second item, we welcome the return of Alexander Stewart MSP and give him the opportunity to declare any relevant interests.

That is very helpful. Bob Doris is right to say that one of the intentions of our workstream from the start was to review the number of CPGs and related processes once we were aware of how it was panning out in this parliamentary session. We will probably be heading to that stage soon after the recess.

I am grateful to Bob for putting that on the record, but I have never known CPGs to be nodded through without investigation. It is absolutely Sue Webber’s right to express concern, and she has exercised that right; it then becomes a committee decision. I do not know whether that is a warning to potential CPG conveners out there, but it is not a foregone conclusion that one person’s good idea, even with cross-party support, will get through without proper and judicious investigation of the group’s intentions.

With that, I move the meeting into private.

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2022 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take in private item 7, which is consideration of correspondence relating to the inquiry on future parliamentary procedures and practices. Are members happy to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I want to pursue that point with you, Katy, with regard to the other, more country-specific CPGs. Is the intention that the proposed group would offer a more pan-European view of problems that could perhaps feed in to and assist those other CPGs, instead of acting as a stand-alone group? You mentioned Erasmus, which, in a sense, lends itself to a pan-European view. Therefore, instead of being the interfering expert on a country, you intend to offer room for European expertise to come together to feed into that work.

Excellent. It is good to welcome back our boomerang member.

Alexander replaces Tess White MSP. I put formally on the record our thanks for her extensive work on the committee over a relatively short period of time. I hope that the committee will agree to my writing to thank her for her service.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Are there any other comments?

For our next item, I welcome Katy Clark MSP, who is the potential convener of the proposed cross-party group on Europe. Good morning, Katy. Will you explain the purposes of the group?

That is helpful. Do members have any other comments? My only comment is that it is not the place of the committee to be the arbiter or referee between CPGs, but I share Bob Doris’s view and was reassured by Katy Clark’s assurances of the intention to find out about and work collegiately with other CPGs. I was also taken by the fact that some countries in Europe, however you define it, do not have a specific CPG. There is also the question of the EU, as Alexander Stewart said.

Are we content to grant recognition to the proposed CPG?

Members indicated agreement.