Chamber and committees

That was helpful.

That is helpful, and it is right to say that a significant number of the CPGs have complied with their regulatory requirements. Indeed, there are CPGs that have not got to the stage when they would have been expected to do their annual return that have complied with all the requirements. We have already withdrawn recognition from one CPG this year for failure to meet the requirements, and that is noted in the report.

For the purposes of the annual review, would the committee be content for me, as convener, to write to all cross-party groups? I would thank those that have complied and, for those that have not complied, I would highlight where they have fallen short and the outcomes that could follow unless they rectify their regulatory failure—I was interested to hear Mr Beattie talking about regulatory requirements—and would ask them to explain why they have been unable to comply. I know that a number of events have had to be cancelled because of chamber commitments.

If the committee is happy for me to write to the cross-party groups in those terms, I think that that would be a way to take forward the annual monitoring report, which is an excellent piece of work—I echo Bob Doris’s comments on that. I would draw the report to the attention of all CPGs so that they can see how they are doing. It is very quick for members to find an individual CPG that they are involved in to see whether it has complied with the requirements.

That is common sense at its best. I will write to the conveners of the cross-party groups because, as MSPs, they are the individuals who have undertaken to comply with the requirements. However, it makes sense to make sure that the secretariats, where they are identified, are also aware of the situation, because of the good work that a lot of them do.

Almost from day 1, the committee has been concerned about CPGs. The issue is discussed by MSPs. At their very best, CPGs fulfil an incredibly valuable function in the Parliament, as they allow people, industries, charities, the third sector and communities in Scotland to reach out and speak to specific MSPs in order to seek their help and assistance or simply to give them information. However, the annual report shows that there are warning lights on the dashboard, which it would be wrong for us to ignore.

If the committee is happy, I will write to all CPGs, as well as their supporting secretariats, to congratulate those that have complied. For those that have not, I will seek an explanation and an undertaking that they will put right the defects as soon as possible. Are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the first meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take business in private. Do members agree to take in private agenda item 6, under which the committee will discuss the cross-party group system, and agenda item 7, under which the committee will consider correspondence that we have received from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body?

Members indicated agreement.

We move to agenda item 2 of this, the 25th meeting in 2022 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I welcome Stephen Kerr MSP, who is substituting for Alexander Stewart, and invite him to make a declaration of any interests that are relevant to the committee’s remit.

Thank you.

The committee has been considering a complaint about a member of the Scottish Parliament. I will read a statement that sets out the committee’s findings.

On behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I make the following statement in relation to a complaint against Jackson Carlaw MSP.

The committee has carefully considered the report by the Commissioner on Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland on the complaint that Jackson Carlaw MSP failed to declare a registered financial interest prior to the commencement of scrutiny of public petition PE1879 by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on 6 October 2021.The committee is unanimous in its conclusions and decision.

The committee notes that, at the beginning of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s meeting on 6 October 2021, Jackson Carlaw MSP declared an interest as the convener, in the previous parliamentary session, of the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel. However, the declaration did not refer to the financial interest that was in his entry in the register of members’ interests of the £2,200 cost of an overseas visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, which was funded by the embassy of Israel in the United Kingdom. It appears, therefore, that Jackson Carlaw MSP did not fully recognise or understand the requirement to declare a relevant financial interest in advance of proceedings relating to that matter.

The committee recognises that Jackson Carlaw MSP took and acted on advice in relation to the consideration of petition PE1879. In his representations, Jackson Carlaw MSP states that he recused himself

“entirely from consideration of the petition and from any determination”

and that he cast no vote and advised the petitioner in the usual way and in terms drafted by the committee clerks. The committee considers that that demonstrated the intent of Jackson Carlaw MSP to address any perceived conflict of interest.

The committee further notes the commissioner’s finding that the advice given to Jackson Carlaw MSP referred only to his being convener of the CPG and not to his overseas visit, and it concurs with the commissioner’s view that it is

“unlikely that he”—

Jackson Carlaw—

“intentionally withheld information about the overseas visit in an attempt to hide this information”.

However, the steps taken by Jackson Carlaw MSP did not meet the requirements of the Interests of the Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament” in relation to the declaration of registrable financial interests. For that reason, the committee must conclude that Jackson Carlaw MSP breached section 13(1) of the 2006 act and paragraphs 6 to 8 of section 2 of the code of conduct for MSPs.

The committee therefore agrees with the commissioner’s findings in fact and conclusion that Jackson Carlaw’s conduct in not declaring a financial interest breached the 2006 act and the code. A finding of a breach of the 2006 act and the code of conduct is a serious matter. Acknowledging the efforts made by Jackson Carlaw MSP to act with propriety, the committee is of the view that its agreement with the commissioner on the finding of a breach is sanction enough.

The committee intends to write to all members to remind them of the requirements to declare a financial interest in any matter before taking part in any proceedings of the Parliament that relate to that matter. In addition, members will be reminded that the standards clerks can provide advice to them on any matters relating to the registration or declaration of financial interests and that they should seek that advice on any questions that arise.

Full details of the complaint and the commissioner’s investigation of it will be included in the committee’s report, which will be published later this afternoon.

Our second item of business relates to a cross-party group. The cross-party group on the prevention and healing of adverse childhood experiences currently does not have any active MSP members or office bearers. The CPG is therefore in breach of section 6 of the code of conduct, which sets out the rules with which a CPG must comply. With that in mind, the proposal is that we withdraw recognition from the CPG. I know that we have had a paper on it.

As nobody has any comments, are members in agreement to withdraw recognition from the cross-party group on the prevention and healing of adverse childhood experiences?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerks will now write to the secretariat accordingly to let them know of that decision.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 23rd meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2022.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Is the committee in agreement to take item 3, and any future consideration of a complaint report from the acting Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, in private?

Members indicated agreement.

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?