Felly, we are doing our best to stay on schedule, but clearly, as the months go by, I will keep the chamber and the industry up to date in terms of the payment schedule. Many thanks. We now have to move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12869, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on EU engagement and scrutiny of the committees of the Scottish Parliament on the European Union policies 2015-2016. I invite members to speak in the debate, to please press the request to speak muttons now, and I call on Christina McKelvie to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee. Ten minutes are there by please, Ms McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to open this debate as convener of the European and External Relations Committee on our annual report of the EU engagement and scrutiny of committees of this Scottish Parliament. This debate shows that we as Scottish Parliamentarians take EU matters very seriously, and I was very pleased to see that the range and variety and depth of other committee's reports to our committee this year reflect that fact. My committee leads, as you know, on the Parliament's EU strategy for committees. We act as a mainstreaming hub, actively encouraging our fellow committees to strengthen their work with a wider European context and engage early on with issues of importance in the EU to Scotland. This year, I believe that we have been successful in that aim again. I intend to outline briefly how we have achieved that, but before I do, I would like to thank sincerely the other eight participating committees for their on-going engagement and the reports to my committee. I also pay tribute to the clerks of the EU and External Relations Committee for the work that they do, which has been very intense over the past year. Since our last debate, we have had elections for the European Parliament in May 2014. In late 2014, we have seen the formation of the new College of Commissioners in the European Commission, led by President Junker, who presented a new look, the Streamline Commission work programme, for 2015. Looking ahead, the UK elections campaign has featured EU issues more than ever before, not least in the context of the possibility of an in-and-out referendum. With all that as a backdrop, I am really glad that we have had this opportunity to share how we and other parliamentary committees have engaged in EU issues over the past year and what our future EU scrutiny priorities are. This will be our last such debate for the current parliamentary session, so we asked other committees about their engagement on EU policies in 2014 and what they are planning to do in 2015 and in early 2016 until the end of this session. We did not realise that it was coming that quick, did we? We asked committees to identify their priorities in relation to three main areas. Those three main areas are the EU 2020 agenda, the Scottish Government's action plan for EU engagement and the European Commission's work programme. I would like to focus on the European Commission's work programme for 2015 or the CWP 2015, as it is known in the Eurofile community, including my committee's consideration of its new approach. The approach of CWP 2015 is to focus on a limited number of 23 new initiatives for 2015, a lower number than was the case under the previous College of Commissioners. Additionally, the new commission also proposes to withdraw 80 pending pieces of legislation, so we could scrutinise and better understand the implications of that new approach. The European and External Relations Committee took evidence from the commission directly. The commission told us that it wanted to focus on priorities and on results and invest in proposals that would have the biggest impact on jobs and growth. We also took the opportunity to ask the commission how the new commission was connecting with European citizens and making its work accessible and comprehensible. We also heard that work was being undertaken to make the commission's website more accessible. I am sure that my colleague Willie Coffey will be delighted with that and other initiatives to make its work much more transparent. However, the commission will also acknowledge that it, and I quote, needs to take measures to restore trust. A sentiment that our committee entirely agrees with. In our report, we have asked the commission to keep us updated on how it progresses in this area, and I hope that a future European committee can report in further years on that very progress. Given the changes in the commission last year and the streamlined nature of the commission's work programme for 2015, there were fewer opportunities for committees to engage with the work programme this year, but I am sure that that will change in the five years of this commission, as more initiatives and policies are rolled out, which we can then scrutinise. We gathered useful evidence from various different perspectives so that we could report to Parliament on what Team Scotland collectively thinks are the priorities for Scotland in the CWP 2015 R. I thank all those sources who gave us their views and their insights. Namely, we had all Scotland's six MEPs, the Scottish Government and, finally, not forgetting, Stuart Maxwell and Patricia Ferguson in his particular Stuart's report with his Scottish Parliament member of the Committee of the Regions hat on to our committee, which is very insightful and helpful indeed. In summary, we heard that the CWP initiative's importance for Scotland included the digital single market, the energy union, the internal market, the capital markets union and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, which is widely known as TTIP. I am going to pick out just one of those, which is the digital single market initiative, to give you a flavour of the work that our committee has done on the CWP. I will also come back to TTIP later in the context for more detailed work that we have been doing in the committee. The committee has been following the digital single market initiative avidly for some time now, particularly a pay tribute to Willie Coffey, who has never allowed an opportunity to raise this at a committee at any point to be lost. I commend him for his insightful work on that, too. We were keen to seek assurance from the commission that the digital single market initiative would improve issues in Scotland, such as bringing uniform broadband coverage to remote areas such as the Highlands and Islands. I am sure that my college, Jamie McGregor, would be delighted to hear that as well. He is one of his hobby horses that he likes to keep pressing. We also highlighted our concerns that the final EU budget, agreed by the council and the European Parliament, reduces the connecting EU budget, which could impact on the digital agenda. The commission told us that its new investment plan was intended to provide funding for projects such as rural broadband and that that new plan would not mean less money for digital infrastructure. As you can imagine, we were quite interested in that. However, we have noted in our report that we are not entirely satisfied with the level of information available from the commission on the aims of the digital single market. Given its importance to Scotland, I would like to reassure Parliament that our committee will continue to monitor any key developments and assess how the digital single market might benefit Scotland. Turning to the other areas of importance for the committee, some committees have declared their intention to consider aspects of the European 2020 strategy. That is the EU's 10-year growth strategy for boosting sustainable economic growth and creating new jobs. As in previous years, committees can directly input into the strategy review of the Scottish Government's national reform programme, which set out the distinct approach in Scotland. Similarly, the relevant committees will be considering the priorities identified in the Scottish Government's action plan for EU engagement. The plan describes its focus being in four main areas, which are being a committed EU partner, promoting EU reform, active participation and strengthening partnerships. In summary, we can see how the work of the committees on EU scrutinises both the bigger picture of the CWP and the specific Scottish perspective of EU initiatives. I am not going to dwell on specific topics that each committee has prioritised. No doubt that that will be covered by my colleagues for those committees in the debates. I know Hans Alamallek, our deputy convener, will reflect our colleagues' contributions to the debate as it unfolds. On the other hand, I would like to take the opportunity to briefly highlight some of the committee's main areas of work from 2014 and 2015 thus far. Our recent inquiry on TTIP, the Transatlantic Trades Investment Partnership, has been of great interest. To a backdrop of many discussion events on TTIP, more generally, being organised by various organisations throughout Scotland, Scotland's trade unions and the active group from St Andrews University, I was very pleased to host one such event recently here in the Parliament, which was organised by the Hansard Society on behalf of the European Parliament. It was a sold-out event, very quickly, with a roomful of active and well-informed participants. In fact, there is so much heated public engagement on TTIP that we thought it only right to request a chamber debate, which I think is taking place very, very soon. As I am sure colleagues will be well aware, TTIP is a trade agreement that is being negotiated by the EU and the USA. In fact, the ninth round of negotiations are taking place right now in New York from the 20th to the 24th of April. The key issues that our committee has heard evidence on include the transparency of negotiations are very important aspects, the economic benefits of any agreement, the potential inclusion of investor-state-dispute mechanism, settlement mechanism and the impact of TTIP on public services. Moving on to a different topic in 2014, we began a major four-part inquiry called Connecting Scotland, how Scotland can engage more effectively with the globalised world. We have started that inquiry already with evidence from representatives from Catalan, BASC and Flemish Governments to give us a wider perspective. The next phase of that inquiry will consider how non-governmental and third sector organisations in Scotland can engage both in the EU and internationally. We will be bringing a wide range of organisations from the third sector local government to civil society, universities and colleges to find out what they do. Closing to that, I hope that the Parliament finds our report of interest, and I look forward to hearing thoughts and views from colleagues of all EU subjects across areas this afternoon. I move that the Parliament notes the European and External Relations Committee's first report, 2015, Session 4, EU engagement and scrutiny of the committees of the Scottish Parliament on the European Union 2015-16. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the convener, Christina McKelvie, for setting out the conclusions of the EERC's report. Before I go into the detail discussion about that report, it would be remiss of me when we are doing a discussion on the EU not to begin by giving the Scottish Government's very heartfelt and sincere condolences over the issues that we have seen in the last couple of weeks with the dreadful drownings in the Mediterranean. Our resolve as the Scottish Government to play a constructive role in helping those who are being smuggled has got stronger. It is an issue that the Scottish Government, Cabinet Secretary Fiona Hyslop, has been involved in for not just a number of months, but even longer than that. We hope that, as a continent, as a multilateral institution, the EU can come together. We must not turn a blind eye to those who are the most vulnerable in the world. We must ensure that we do all that we can to help them, to support them, and this is above and beyond anything else a humanitarian issue. I very much welcome the report from the committee, Presiding Officer, and particularly the fact that many of the committees have mainstreamed consideration of EU issues into their existing work programmes. I think that that is to be welcomed. I spoke last month in the Government's debate on the importance of EU engagement and said why that engagement is important, not just in the context of influencing the rules and the regulations that are made in the EU, but also in the context of acknowledging that the European Union is a marketplace for exchanging ideas, for showcasing where Scotland can display leadership, or where Scotland can learn from others. I want to formally acknowledge the important work that the committee has undertaken of late and add my thanks to those behind the scenes as the convener did often in getting the workings of the committee to run extremely smoothly and efficiently. That work includes, of course, last year's inquiry into the Scottish Government's proposals for independent Scotland. I think that we can all agree which ever side of the fence people sat on. In that debate, it was important that those proposals received the full and considered scrutiny of our committees. We as a Government will also continue to co-operate closely with the committee's connecting Scotland inquiry. I also welcome the committee's more recent report as the convener reflected on TTIP, which broadly aligns with the Government's view as well. Transparency is, of course, critical in the context of existing TTIP negotiations. As the committee heard themselves, there are different views on the economic benefits or possible economic benefits of TTIP. If there are benefits, we are clear that they must not be at the expense of the NHS and other public services or, indeed, the rights of Governments to regulate. That is why the Scottish Government has pressed firmly and strongly for an explicit exemption of the NHS and is not currently convinced that the ISDS investor state dispute settlement mechanism is necessary. I am also encouraged by the work programmes going forward that other committees have identified, which have EU issues at their core. That includes important work on rolling out the new cap in CFP packages, where the simplification agenda will certainly be key. The commission's EU 2020 strategy, which has already been touched on, seeks to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. China is very close with the Scottish Government's own programme for government and our refreshed economic strategy, with the key themes of tackling unemployment and reducing income inequality at their core. For the last four years, Scotland has produced its own national reform programme report, in addition to contributing to the UK's Governments. Those reports have given a sense of how Scotland is performing against some of those very important key targets that are set out in the 2020 strategy, in terms of employment and reducing poverty, for example, and in cutting the number of early school leavers. We will publish our 2015 report following the UK general election, which has been informed by a successful stakeholder event that we held in March in Edinburgh. Last month, on a visit to West Brewery and the constituency that I represent of Glasgow—the regional that I represent in Glasgow—I visited a fantastic company. Many colleagues here might be familiar with West Brewery, owned by—it is a great success story, not just in itself, but actually represents why we are so proud of and engaged as members of the EU, because it is owned by a German national who came to study here in Scotland. She then, Petra Westall, went on to start her business, her brewery, her staff, has half a dozen EU nationals and is brewing a craft beer that is being used by a German purity law from 1519. It has all those various components that I think underscore the importance of freedom of movement and freedom of travel. While I was at West Brewery, I was there to launch a Scottish Government's action plan for EU engagement, which refreshes the original action plan that was launched in 2009. The four key areas that the convener helped to touch on, I will go into a little bit of detail. First, we want to remain a committed partner and make the case for our place in Europe. I believe that there is consensual support and consensus of support around this chamber for the UK and Scotland to remain a part of the EU, for the business benefits that it brings, for the social benefits, for the cultural benefits and the educational and academic benefits that it brings. Secondly, we will continue to promote effective and meaningful EU reform within the existing treaty framework. The key to that is ensuring that the EU institutions pursue an agenda that genuinely adds value and addresses some of the EU-wide problems that member states acting alone could not. That is why we welcome the focus from the commission on tackling things such as stubbornly high youth unemployment or, indeed, promoting energy security through the energy union package, tackling climate change, and so on and so forth. The third area of the action plan centres around active participation, actively participating in the EU in order to secure investment, innovation and inclusive growth. I can go more into that in my closing speech. Fourthly, we are committed to strengthening our European partnerships going forward, which will continue to work to deepen our bilateral relationships with countries, including, but not exclusively, Germany, France, the Nordic and Baltic countries, Ireland and Poland. The action plan is currently on a digital platform, which allows it to be evolving and to be updated. It captures real-life case studies as well. I hope that members here have had a chance to look at it. I am pleased to read that the EERC has asked other committees to identify their priority areas for 2015-16 from the EU 2020 strategy, the commission work programme for 2015, and the Scottish Government's action plan on European engagement. I will conclude by saying that members will be in no doubt about our position when it comes to an EU in-out referendum. We will be passionately advocating the benefits of being part of Europe. We do not agree with the necessity for having this EU in-out referendum, but if it does happen, we hope that the UK Government, in whichever form it may take, on May 7, May 8, will look at our proposals for a double majority. The Scottish Government very much is committed to anchoring its own economic strategy firmly to the EU's growth agenda and delivering sustainable, smart but fair economic growth. I now call on Claire Baker, five minutes on her by please, Ms Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to welcome the committee to debate on Parliament's engagement with the European Union. Our committees do not often grab the headlines of the Scottish Parliament, but it is fair that much of the serious work of the Parliament takes place. The European and External Affairs Committee have an important role in co-ordinating and scrutinising the European aspect of other committee's work, and the report that we are looking at today provides an excellent overview of the areas that those committees are focusing on. From previous parliamentary work, I know the importance of Europe to the rural affairs and environment committee in particular, where decisions made in Europe have a significant impact on our rural economy, our fishing sector and the Scottish Government's attempt to meet our climate change targets, and I note the detailed report from that committee. The report also provides a discussion of the European Commission's work programme, the 10 priority areas and the European 2020 strategy, as well as outlining its own work programme for the year ahead. The Parliament has always been supportive of our engagement with Europe. The European Committee in its various forms over the years has always had MSPs who champion the importance of Europe to Scotland. With our focus on domestic affairs and our recent focus on our own constitution and referendum, we can often be at risk of losing sight of the bigger picture. In the Parliament, we might be focused on the detail of European directives or legislation, but we do not always do a good job of relating that to the public in their everyday lives. The turnout at European elections is historically low, and the public often struggle to see the relevance of European policy. Yet so much of our European policy does improve what works to improve our air quality, our water quality, promotes biodiversity, does often originate in Europe. Much of our positive workplace legislation and regulations around maternity and paternity pay are at work. Those will start in Europe, although there is still much to do in terms of achieving consistency across member states. Human rights and equalities laws are strengthened and enforced by Europe. One look at the priorities of the commission shows how important they can be. Developing a resilient energy union with a forward-looking climate change programme, a connected digital single market, a new boost for jobs, growth and investment are just three of the commission's priorities. Of course, those are high-level objectives, and there will still be a lot of debate around how they can be achieved. Debates that this report today demonstrates are committees are engaged with, but those priorities are aiming at collective action at strengthening the European Union in areas that are sensible and can bring benefits to member states. I welcome the committee's questions to the commission on engagement with European citizens and making its work sufficiently accessible and comprehensive. There is a lot of work to do here. Although measures such as a more accessible website, social media, a transparency register are all welcome, there is a much greater cultural change needed if the commission, in its own words, wants to restore trust. There needs to be tougher budget discipline, especially around potential waste and inefficiency of EU agencies, and we must be prepared to look at where spending at the EU level can help to save money at a national level. We must also look at continuing to open up the decision-making process at an EU level, implementing institutional reforms to help to build levels of trust among European citizens and to ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. That is a short debate, but there is much content in the report. I note that the committee observed that the level of European engagement for 2015-16 has declined compared to 2014, and I support their encouragement for committees and their EU reporters to actively engage. However, I am sure that we will return to many of the subjects in greater detail as the committees progress through their work programmes, which focus on a number of the commission's 10 priorities. Indeed, next week we are anticipating the opportunity to discuss the committee's inquiry and entity tip in more detail. We are living in an increasingly global world with strong, competitive emerging markets and economies. Europe as a trading bloc needs to build new partnerships if it is to be competitive and create opportunities for its citizens, but Europe has never just been about trade. It is about partnership, solidarity, fairness and peace. The heightening of the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean in recent weeks, as referred to by the minister, presents new and complex challenges for Europe, but we must be guided by the principles that created the union when we are looking for solutions. Europe needs to respond to the modern world and address issues of sustainability, economic fairness and stability, human rights and our role in the world. Those are the big challenges, and it is important that this Parliament engages with that future. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by sending the apologies of my colleague Jamie McGregor, who is unfortunately ill.  He asked me to begin by thanking the clerks for compiling the report that Claire Baker has just said. He has a lot of content in, in fact, a very interesting report, and quite rightly, the committees of this Parliament do a great deal to ensure that the full commitment to EU priorities is undertaken. I think that we would all agree in this Parliament that our committees are in one form or another impacted quite heavily by European affairs and legislation, some of which can be extremely complex, perhaps some of the most complex legislation anywhere. I am sure that it is a difficult job for the clerks at times and the conveners to help us to decide how we should proceed with effective scrutiny. It is all extremely important for us to consider how the EU works, what works well for Scotland and where it perhaps does not work quite so well. The Scottish Parliament's committee's EU strategy, which is now in its 50th year, plays an important part in scrutinising the Scottish Government's EU engagement. I pay tribute to the committee for drawing together all the strands in the way that Christina McKelvie has outlined. Acting is a hub for the Scottish Parliament as it goes through its business. I think that there are some very interesting issues thrown up by discussion about the EU, perhaps more of that in my summing up. Quite clearly, the report has led to a wide range of topics being discussed and it shows just how much they underpin all the work of this place. I was interested to note particularly about the very significant evidence that was taken at the time of Scotland's possible membership of the EU should there have been a yes vote in the referendum. I do not want to rehash any of the politics of that, but I am aware of just how many of the politicians and members of academia came to this place to give evidence. Unlike many other aspects of the referendum that I think was invigorating for our democratic process, that in itself is good because it makes this Parliament a better place because of the way that we go through that democratic work irrespective of what our political views might be. The Education and Culture Committee began its inquiry in January into the educational attainment gap, which I think that all parties in the chamber agree is perhaps one of the greatest challenges that Scottish education faces. That relates to the 2020 targets across Europe and, of course, to the Scottish Government's action plan on European engagement. Its findings as to how to reduce the number of early school leavers and raise the numbers entering higher education will, I think, be of particular interest. Similarly, the intention of the committee to look at the experience of other European countries is to promote the sign language, for example, in the context of new legislation. I think that that is also very useful evidence. The Infrastructure and Investment Committee looked at the proposed digital single market initiative. That is of huge significance to Scotland and to the ICI as we continue to ensure improvements to Scottish access and connectivity to digital services that are enjoyed by many other EU states, perhaps to a better degree than in some parts of Scotland. I am certainly a member of Mid Scotland and Fife, and I am well aware of the frustration that is felt by constituents in rural communities. I look forward to the work that will be undertaken on that basis. Obviously, there have been inquiries into freight transport in Scotland, and that has got a very specific focus on transport links to mainland Europe. It is a very important area, whereby I think that we hope to learn a lot more about European models of freight infrastructure. I know that my colleague Alex Johnstone has been taking a particular interest in some of those aspects. The Justice Committee continued to monitor the negotiations of the proposed European Public Prosecutor's Office to focus on protecting financial interests. That is an important area, because two members have already said that the EU faces some challenges when it comes to accountability and transparency. Of course, at a time when human trafficking is so very much uppermost in our minds, it seems particularly appropriate for the Justice Committee's work 2015 to include the Commission's European agenda on migration. Those are related issues. Just to sum up, we can all pay great tribute to Christine McElvay and her committee. I think that it has made all the committees of this Parliament sit up and take notice, not only of what that legislative implication is, but of the way that they go about their business. Anything that improves the scrutiny in this Parliament and makes it more democratic cannot be anything other than a good thing. We now move to the open debate. Will he call for me to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm? Our committee's report, hopefully, provides a Parliament with a useful snapshot and summary of what is happening in the European Union. As our convener, I also said that we must thank the other committees of this Parliament for examining the policies of the EU in detail in terms of their particular committee focus and how those policies might impact in Scotland. The report indicates that the EU's 2020 strategy for growth is pivotal to most of the work that is being undertaken and is itself almost halfway through its programme. Our Scottish MEPs Ian Hodgston and Alan Smith also reminded us of the value of European funding to Scotland—nearly a billion euro from the European regional development fund and European social fund over this period—to help Scotland to develop our innovative low-carbon economy, as well as promoting international business, tackling poverty and getting people back into work. It is important, I think, to keep highlighting the benefits of our membership of the European Union if only as a counterbalance to the negativity coming from some. The current focus, of course, is on Mr Juncker's 10-point strategy, as mentioned by our convener, Christine McKelvie. The action plan, which was published just last December, jobs, growth and investment are key priorities as they should be. There are one or two others that stand out for me, particularly the work that is planned to develop the digital single market across Europe and plans to engage more directly with European citizens. A digital single market across Europe must surely be one of the greatest opportunities for growth, for harmonisation of technology and for competitive pricing to drive down costs for consumers. According to Mr Juncker, we can create €340 billion worth of additional growth, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and a vibrant knowledge economy. He went on to say that the borderless nature of technology means that it no longer makes sense for each EU country to have its own rules for telecom services, copyright data protection or the management of the radio spectrum. I certainly agree with that and the focus on some of those issues will help, but let's not kid ourselves. Companies create technology borders to make money and they make plenty from us as we move from one political jurisdiction to another. If I make the trip across from, for example, Scotland to Donnygollan Island, the mobile phone charges are huge, but it is only 170 miles from here. If I go to Inverness, which is about 200 miles away, the charges are the same as they are at home. This has nothing to do with technology. It is about exploiting jurisdiction changes to make money from customers. That is why I was so disappointed to learn that the commission is planning to delay for perhaps another two years its previously stated commitment to end roaming charges in particular when people move around Europe. Roaming charges were supposed to be phased out by the end of this year. If we are serious about those noble aims and objectives to create a digital single market with things like superfast broadband right across Europe to create this market, then those issues must surely be resolved. A two digital single market should mean that we get the choice of using any digital service providers in Europe for things like mobile and broadband, not just the restricted and diminishing choice that we have in the UK. It should also mean that consumers are free to choose what, for example, TV broadcasts might want to buy, too. Why should consumers across Europe be restricted to their national broadcaster and, in some cases, forced to pay for this when there are plenty of other service providers across Europe whom they might wish to watch? I cite the RTE service from Ireland as a particular one. When we asked the EU commissioner, Jackie Minor, she accepted that the commission needs to take measures to restore trust and that plans were underway to help us in terms of how we engage with European citizens. If you take a look at their public-facing websites, they are hardly designed and written for the ordinary citizen to connect with, and Mrs Minor recognised that. I feel that this is a crucial area of work for the EU and the commission. Telling the public in Europe the positive story about Europe and how the nations of Europe benefit from and help one another is a great story to tell, but it needs to be told often in a much more accessible language than we have seen so far. If not, the negative elements that are fuelled by anti-European press are only too happy to pick up on those issues and use them to attack the whole founding principles of the EU, promoting co-operation, jobs, economic growth and peace. I very much hope to see some further progress in both those issues that I have highlighted today, and perhaps we might also get the chance to update Parliament before our session ends next May. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important relationship between Scotland and Europe and our shared goals over the coming years. Our committees play a vital role in the scrutiny of how effective that relationship is and ensuring that we as a Parliament fulfil our commitments. Scotland's policy relationship with Europe is important in terms of achieving stable growth through interconnectivity and contributing to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. As Josie Emanuel Barroso in the opening chapter of that strategy writes, economic realities are moving faster than political realities, as we have seen with the global impact of the financial crisis. A more determined and coherent response at the political level. As members will be aware, there are so many areas of development that we can go into, and that demonstrates just how much the European objectives for 2020 interact with our own policy process. However, I will endeavour today to remain focused on one area. We as a Parliament have faced many challenges over recent months, as uncertainty over renewable investment and our clean energy sector has impacted on the success of key firms such as Palamas in my constituency. Therefore, I would like to focus on research and development in the EU 2020 strategy and what we are doing here to fulfil our potential in that key sector. A Scottish Government's national reform programme report highlights, quoting again, our capacity for innovation in new renewable technologies and pharmaceuticals and healthcare and biotechnology requires the finest minds from across the European Union and the global academic community to see our shores as a destination of choice. One of the lessons learned from the Palamas closure was that innovation and collaborative working across Europe are necessary of where to produce products that are commercially appealing. A strong R&D base on which to build is essential, and to that extent I am glad to read in the Scottish Government's NRP that growth in this area will focus on the flagship EU initiative innovation union. Research and development is important in terms of making the most of our emerging industries, and I feel that that is particularly relevant to the renewable energy sector. Ensuring that the focus is on making our new technologies commercially viable is vital to ensure that investment by the private sector is secure in future years. The transition to a low-carbon economy is a key component in the success of the Government's economic strategy with investment meeting the twin aims of boosting our economy and achieving carbon reduction targets. In evidence to the committee cited in the committee's report, the Scottish Government stated, quoting again, the Scottish Government wants to see strong incentivisation, research and innovation to lower costs and ensure the energy efficiency of renewables, particularly offshore wave, tidal and wind. Energy storage and carbon capture in storage can play their part in the EU energy mix, improving energy security and creating jobs and growth. That statement rings true, particularly when we bear in mind the debate held recently in this chamber, addressing the need to incentivise innovation in wave power technologies. However, reform of the current laws dictating rules around state aid may also be necessary if we are to ensure that a loss like Palamas is avoided in future. Members will be aware that, in committee evidence, the EERC asked Jacqueline Miner about the possibility of the commission changing their approach to state aid rules so that Scottish investment in renewable energy would allow the state to invest in projects such as wave and tidal power. Ms Miner stated in my final quote, one of the five dimensions of the communication on the energy union will certainly be research and development. It will look at ways in which we can encourage more investment in research into clean and sustainable technologies. It is premature to speculate about whether it will look at the existing state aid rules, but from having accompanied the commissioner earlier in the week, I know that he is very enthusiastic about carbon capture and storage. In conclusion, we have the workforce of the skills to make Scotland a leader within the EU if we pay heed to the lessons of Palamas and look to incentivise growth in new technologies in a more collaborative way, while also looking at how current state aid rules may be reformed to ensure that, where state support is urgently required, it may be given. Many thanks. I now call on Roderick Campbell to be followed by Anne McTiger at a generous four minutes. As the Justice Committee's EU rapporteur, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. Although I am also a member of the European External Relations Committee and I would like to acknowledge that the considerable work that has gone into that committee's report, to the work that the Clients have done, and indeed the convener in putting the report together. Before I look ahead to future work, I want to touch on one aspect of the Justice Committee's EU scrutiny, which started in 2012 and concluded at the end of last year. That is the UK Government's EU opt-out decision, which came into effect on 1 December 2014. In the run-up to this date, serious concerns were raised about how that decision would impact on Scottish interests and whether the European arrest warrant would be affected and what the implications might be if there was a gap between the blocked opt-out coming into effect and the opting back into individual measures. Over at this time, we received updates on the various Westminster's committees inquiries on the issue and we requested written submissions from the Lord Advocate, Police Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society and held regular evidence sessions with the Scottish Government, although we did not quite persuade a member of the UK Government to attend to meet us. However, I thank all those bodies for keeping the committee updated on this significant issue and I am pleased that there seems to have been a smooth transition from the opt-out to individual opt-ins on 1 December. Of course, in my personal view, it is very important for Scotland to remain a member of the European Union and in the event that there is a referendum on EU membership, I am pleased that others in those islands support the First Minister's call for a double majority, which has also received support from the First Minister of Wales, at least as a concept worth looking at. Our engagement with Europe should be one of co-operation and exchanging best practice. For example, Scotland has become a part of the Vanguard initiative for new growth by smart specialisation, which aims to influence the future direction of innovation and entrepreneurship within Europe's member states and regions. In the Justice Committee, our priorities for this year focus on five areas. I will set out briefly. The Scottish Government's updated action plan on European engagement, the European Union's e-justice and the Scottish Government's justice digital strategy and how they interact, criminal procedure dossiers and the European Public Prosecutor's Office proposal. Also, the European Agenda and Migration and, finally, the Justice and Home Affairs agenda of the EU for the years 2015-20. Turning to those in turn, the committee will look carefully at the new Scottish Government's updated action plan on European engagement and will seek to identify any key justice issues for scrutiny. We will also keep a close eye on the Justice and Home Affairs agenda as and when those new proposals are published to ensure that Scottish interests are protected. On e-justice in recent months, the committee has heard much about the Scottish Government's justice digital strategy and therefore we are keen to see how that fits in with the EU e-justice programme. The Scottish Government has confirmed that there are common objectives between the two and it is currently identifying which of the e-justice actions might help it to progress the four main justice digital strategy projects, which are digital platform, justice portal, justice communications and legal. We expect to further update from the Scottish Government on this work in the months ahead. As to the European Public Prosecutor's Office regulation, the committee has an on-going interest in that proposal, having reported subsidiarity concerns on the proposal in 2013. Although the UK Government does not at this stage wish to opt into the proposal, there may still be implications for working arrangements between Scottish prosecutors and the EPPO, so we are keen to keep an eye on how that proposal has developed. We understand, however, that negotiations on the proposal may take some time so that that is likely to be a long-standing piece of work. Finally, on the European Agenda and Migration, the committee is currently considering the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland Bill at stage 1. We are therefore keen to hear more about the European Agenda and Migration, which was listed in the commission's work programme and to see whether there is any interaction. However, in the light of recent unfortunate events to which the minister referred earlier on, it seems that this particular aspect of the European Agenda will merit much greater attention at the European level in the months ahead. I believe that this Parliament will be wise to keep a close eye on the European Agenda and Migration. I am particularly pleased to contribute to the debate being a fairly new member of the European and External Relations Committee, and I would also like to congratulate all my colleagues from the committee, both past and present, on releasing the report that outlines the details of how we and other committees in the Scottish Parliament have engaged on European issues over the past year and priorities for EU engagement in the coming year. In Scotland's action plan for EU engagement that was published a few weeks ago by the Scottish Government, it is set out that Scotland firmly believes that its best interests lie in remaining as part of the European Union and maintaining its strong relationship with Europe. Scotland's place in the EU has led the way to prosperity, sustainability and security throughout the country for more than four decades and will only increase as our relationship grows stronger. The mutually beneficial relationship that Scotland and the European Union share is essential for both parties involved. Within that relationship, Scotland aims to deliver its own influence over key EU policies to ensure that our country's best interests are met. Through careful examination of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Scottish Government has decided which elements of the initiative should be prioritised. Those are the points at which European engagement will be focused. Although many of the committees throughout the Scottish Parliament have made a priority of considering EU engagement, including the scrutiny of the EU policies, it has been noted that, sadly, the levels of engagement in that particular topic have declined over the past year. It is therefore essential to be reminded of the fact that maintaining the strong relationship that Scotland has with the EU is essential, but we must continue to hold the European Union accountable and evaluate its policies as they fit in with our needs. The European External Relations Committee aims to lead the Scottish Government in its engagement with the European Union and will continue to scrutinise the Scottish Government and its engagement within the EU. In order to carry out the scrutiny functions, early engagement is key, as well as prioritising the monitoring of future European legislation being drafted or being implemented just now. The European and External Relations Committee will happily act as the hub for which the scrutiny and engagement will take place within the Scottish Government to guarantee that Scotland's best interests are being met in Europe. I am sure that my colleagues will agree that there is no doubt that Scotland is an essential part of the European Union, and that the European Union is an essential part of Scotland. In order to maintain the best possible relationship, it is necessary that the Scottish Government continues on its efforts to best engage with and monitor the policies that the EU sets forth. That will ensure that Scotland will continue to thrive as much as possible as part of the EU. We now move to the closing speeches. I invite Liz Smith to speak. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Christina McKelvie made an interesting introduction this afternoon when she talked about the increasing depth of the committee reports when it comes to the EU influence. She talked about the increasing influence of the EU on Scottish affairs, and she hinted at some streamlined changes that were necessary to bring about greater accountability. I think that that is a very valid point. She also referred to the impending referendum on Europe. Politics aside, and I do stress this, I do not think that it is time to make party political comments, but I think that the impending referendum is an opportunity to look again at how Europe does things and, obviously, Scotland is part of that process. That is important for two reasons. Those of us who wish to see the UK very firmly established as part of the EU, primarily because of the huge economic benefits that it brings, there is no question that we want to see some reform. I suspect that all parties in this chamber want to see reform of some sort, particularly the tougher budget discipline that is required. I think that it is unquestionable that people want to have greater transparency, and there is also no question about having greater accountability. I think that it was Christina McKelvie who introduced the issue of trust. Trust does need to be rebuilt. It is very important in politics to have trust. I think that one of the issues facing the EU is that it has lost trust across the continent for a variety of different reasons, and that needs to be addressed. I chair the cross-party group on colleges and universities, and there are some very interesting things happening in that field, which make it very clear about the need for greater accountability and transparency as our young people and our mature students look much further afield. I think that one of the most interesting developments that happened recently is the fact that the UCAS system is being opened up beyond the current UK system. I think that that is very good news, because I think that it means that our young people are looking abroad to study, and obviously we are wanting to attract more people to come to this country, including those from the EU. I am very conscious of the Government's attempts to try and improve that process, which I think that they have been let down a bit by the Westminster Government on that. We had a previous debate on that just a little while ago, and I fully support the Scottish Government's move to try to address that. I think that there are lots of interesting things going on in the whole aspect of how we look at the EU, but there is unquestionably an approach that I think has to restore that trust in the institutions. We are in a situation where the world is changing very fast. Somebody mentioned very accurately that it is a marketplace. I think that it was Whomza Yousaf who said quite rightly that it is a big marketplace. It matters a great deal to us as a trading nation and part of a UK trading nation as well. That matters, and we have to ensure that the processes by which we engage in that are fit for purpose. I think that there are some question marks over that. If I can just draw the Scottish Conservatives' remarks to a close on that. The committee report has been very important for pointing us in the right direction of some of the challenges that we face. As I said when I closed my opening remarks, if there is anything that can make this Parliament a better place when it comes to the democratic scrutiny process, then that has got to be a good thing. We have got lots of question marks about the committee system in this Parliament just now that I know that the Presiding Officer is wanting to lead some discussion on that. I think that that is right and proper, because I think that if there is anything about democracy that is the most important thing, it is about that scrutiny that allows transparency and for trust to be rebuilt in the process. Thank you very much. I now call on Claire Baker. I can give you five minutes or so. Thank you Presiding Officer. This is a brief debate this afternoon that recognises the role that committees play in engaging with Europe and examines the priorities that they have identified, which have particular importance for Scotland and considers the EU priorities. The committees play an important role in encouraging early engagement, seeking to mainstream the scrutiny of EU legislation into the subject committees, where they are able to identify the relevance to their areas of expertise, and mainstreaming and co-ordinating implementation of the legislation. We often bemoan the poor turnout at European elections. Only 33.5 per cent of the electorate took part in May 2014, but across Europe the turnout is not much better. Although higher than a third of our electorate, 2014 was still the lowest recorded turnout figure for a European election. Some in the chamber this afternoon have referred to a possible EU referendum. As we are weeks away from a UK election, Europe and our membership of the EU is perhaps not as prominent as commentators were predicting a few months ago. The agenda feels as though it has moved on to much more domestic matters, and there are more exciting predictions for commentators to be speculating on than Europe. Despite talk of Eurosceptics, I feel that most of the electorate are fairly apathetic towards European politics. It is marked that EU referendum seems to have fallen off the agenda. There are many reasons for the apathy from the public, but I suggest that there continues to be a lack of understanding of what Europe delivers for us in the modern world. That is partly the responsibility of European leaders who continue to be very institutionally focused. Members-state leaders who often prefer to present the positive measures from Europe as their own but take the opportunity to criticise Europe when there are challenges. That is combined with a lack of confidence from the citizen that Europe is working for the ordinary person. We are seeing huge economic challenges across Europe. Our fellow Europeans in many countries are experiencing and continuing to experience levels of poverty and economic downturn not seen for many years. Many countries are seeing a crisis in youth unemployment, which leads to significant social problems and often depopulation, as those who can begin to look for opportunities elsewhere. Those are significant challenges with no quick solutions. In response to that, Europe, the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers, for too many people, does not look as if it is adequately responding. If we could see delivery on the 10 priorities that everyone has spoken about this afternoon, we would see a modern responsive union that is able to address the pressures of our modern times. Expansion of the European Union has changed the funding opportunities and the landscape for Scotland. While we remain part of cap funding, our farmers receive support. We can see that as an example where the focus for agriculture has started to change, with a much greater focus now on land management and their environment, and the commission is starting to change the way in which it spends its resources. The funds that Scotland receives for regeneration has changed dramatically over the years, but there are still opportunities. Some members have talked about the European social fund and other areas. The minister knows that I have previously raised concerns around horizon 2020 and the concerns that are from the university sector about changes being proposed there. However, we need to be alert to opportunities. The report and some of the members this afternoon talked about possible opportunities in regeneration or e-health, as was looked at by the health committee, and about potential funding for cultural heritage as the EC committee looked at. The committees have an important part to play in overseeing that. Reflecting on some of the afternoon speeches, Liz Smith highlighted the freight transport report, and that demonstrates how Europe has an impact on many areas of our economy. Cassina McKelvie and Willie Coffey both talked about the digital single market, highlighting the issue of competitive pricing and the need for more consistency across Europe. It is an economy that is borderless and makes no sense to have multiple rules. That is a good example of how the European Commission could make changes that benefit your average European citizen. As Willie Coffey said, those issues should be resolved much more quickly than the current timescale that is proposed. Malcolm Chisholm talked effectively about the challenges facing the renewable sector. I need for a greater concentration in research and co-operation. Malcolm Chishol highlighted the innovation proposals and the need for a greater collaborative research. We are still some way to go in renewables for some of them to be commercially viable, and there needs to be a greater focus on that. As Malcolm Chisholm said, the report when the committee asked about state aid rules, there was not a lot of clarity from the commission—there were certainly warm words there and positive noises—but there was not a lot of clarity from the commission about where we might see changes. I was struck by the report that there were many opportunities for co-operative working and sharing of good practice. Christine McElvie raised the TTIP report that is coming from the committee. The TTIP can give us opportunities in trade and in expanding world, but there is, I think, consensus largely across the chamber that the NHS needs to be excluded from any proposals that are coming forward. Rod Campbell talked about the work of the Justice Committee. As we anticipate a human trafficking and exploitation bill, it is sensible that the committee will take evidence from European and European experts on human trafficking. I support the minister's earlier comments on people smuggling and the need to address that as a humanitarian issue. The Equalities Committee is also looking to learn from EU counterparts in taking forward its work on female genital mutilation. When we are facing a situation like that, which is evident throughout Europe, it is important that we work together to find solutions. McTaggart referred to the debate that we had on Europe earlier this year, which although it did not result in an agreed motion, there was quite a lot of consensus and agreement in the chamber about the importance of Scotland and the UK, the importance of our engagement with Europe and continued membership of Europe. I thank the committee for the work that it has done and look forward to the Parliament's opportunity to explore some of the issues that are coming forward in the coming year. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A brief debate, but one that has covered a number of very important issues and a range of issues and a range of topics that are important to members in their own constituencies, but also of great national importance for Malcolm Chisholm, quite rightly raising the important issue of renewables and wave-entitled technology in particular. I am going into research and development and innovation. Claire Baker touched on that theme too, just at the end there about horizon 2020, and she has been consistent in her concerns that, if any further budget reduction to horizon 2020, how that might impact our research and development and our academic institutions. I hope that I have given strong assurances and can reiterate those strong assurances that we too would share such concerns. Willie Coffey is talking very eloquently about digital connectivity and having a true single market. The exploitativeness is right to use that word of some multinational corporations and not willing to take a sensible approach to a variety of digital issues. I know that that is a matter of great concern to Willie Coffey. He has been consistent over the years in raising the issue in the chamber. Justice issues that I will reflect more on from Roderick Campbell and Liz Smith speaking on behalf of Jamie MacGregor. Of course, he is talking about a variety of transport issues, educational issues, migration and energy union, which I know that Jamie MacGregor has raised on many occasions in the chamber on the debate about the EU. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Government. It is important that, when we are talking about EU engagement priorities, they have a locus on the European Commission's 2020 programme, which will be taken forward through the European Commission's work programme of 2015. As you have heard, that is an effect, a 23-point plan to take forward the growth agenda in the EU and is a subject that I wrote to the committee on myself in January, setting out where the key interest areas are for the Scottish Government. The work programme is more focused than it has been in previous years, a sign that perhaps the commission is serious about reconnecting with its citizens. That is an issue that Clare Baker and other members have touched upon. I think that there is a fundamental failing. I think that the commission would be the first to say that it is a fundamental failing of the EU to connect and make itself relevant to the citizens of its member states. Perhaps it is a demonstration of the commission's understanding that perhaps doing less but doing less more effectively and strategically is a better approach to take. Although more focused, there are a number of strategic issues that will be of considerable interest to a number of committees that are going forward. Climate change, as has been mentioned, will loom large ahead of the major conference in Paris towards the end of the year in which countries of the world will seek to hammer out a global climate deal. The Scottish Government will play its role in that. As Clare Baker said, it will help us to reach our own targets potentially to here in Scotland. The energy union package, which is incredibly important to Jamie McGregor, who cannot be here, will also be a critical initiative. I welcome the energy committee's intention to consider the strategic framework for energy union in the context of its work on oil and gas, wave and tidal power and energy efficiency. There are many other elements of the commission's work programme that will have major relevance to committees going forward, but it is clearly limited by time. I want to make a point on migration, as others have done. It is a key issue in the commission's work programme. I welcome the intention of the justice committee, as Roderick Campbell highlighted, to examine how the commission intends to deal with issues as part of its migration strategy against people trafficking and smuggling. It is a major issue that needs to be addressed, and the Scottish Government, of course, has been deeply disturbed by the deaths of so many migrants in the Mediterranean who have sought to enter the European Union from Africa. There are many other elements of the commission's work programme that will have major relevance to committees going forward. I also wish to mention that it is very good that, in this chamber, we have had a very positive discussion about the benefits of the EU. I would say that there might be other parliaments across the islands where you would not have such a constructive debate and real consensus about the benefits. We know about 500 million people in terms of a single market. Access to 20 million businesses in the EU in 2012 was the world's largest economy in terms of world GDP, more than taking a higher percentage than the United States than China. The benefits that we have seen through migration that we have already touched on for our educational institutes socially and culturally. I welcome the commitment from across this Parliament to engage on EU issues constructively and positively. The Government is committed to a number of key points. It is committed to ensuring that it continues to engage with the Parliament as early as possible when it comes to forthcoming EU legislation. We are hoping to publish a updated transposition guidance soon. We continue to ensure to make the case that Scotland is best served as being a member of the EU. Of course, the UK continues to be a member of the EU as well. We think that the UK is stronger for being in the EU and we believe that the EU is stronger for having the UK as a member. Obviously, our position is very clear that we do not support an in-out referendum and believe that if there is one to happen, then a double lock should be in place. We will continue to make the case for EU reform. Not a single member state ever tells me that the EU is perfect and that they believe that the EU is perfect. Every single one of us wants to see some form of reform, but we believe that that can be done within existing treaty framework. We are also very keen that Scotland gets its share of the investment package, working closely with the UK Government in that regard. We want to support innovation and promoting inclusive growth through active participation in the EU. We also want to use the heightened interest in Scotland since 2014, in particular as a platform to deepen a number of our bilateral relationships across the EU. The Scottish Government firmly believes that the EU is the best international framework to deliver social and economic gains for the people of Scotland and to tackle some of those difficult global challenges facing Scotland and its partners worldwide. We do not consider that there is any viable alternative to our EU membership, capable of delivering the same economic and social prosperity to our people, nor of enabling us to fulfil the Scottish Government's ambition for international engagement. However, as I say that, if I listen closely, I can almost hear Margot Mcdonald's voice perhaps telling me otherwise. It is important that there are a number of voices and we recognise a number of voices in Scotland that are not quite convinced of the case of our continued EU membership. We have a job—I do not doubt—as Governments and politicians across those benches to be firmer on the benefits of the EU. Members might find the Scottish Government's booklet titled The Benefits of Scotland's membership of the EU a very handy guide in doing so, just to finish and conclude. Lastly and subsequently, to the Smith commission report, the Scottish Government will continue to work and engage constructively with the UK Government to press for strength and safeguards to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard and the development of UK policy on EU issues that touch on devolved matters. That is particularly important and an interest to members across this Parliament. I would like to thank once again the committee for its report and indeed all those who were involved in putting the report together. I now call on Hanzala Malik to wind up the debate on behalf of the European External Relations Committee. Eight minutes or so, please, Mr Malik. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and good afternoon to you. I am pleased to be able to close today's debate for the European External Relations Committee. I thank all members for their contributions, including Hamza Yousaf and Claire Baker. I also want to thank the committee clerks, the other committee clerks who assisted and all the people who gave evidence to the committee. It's greatly appreciated. We have also heard about what other committees' European priorities were in 2014 and what they plan to do for the rest of this parliamentary session. As a convener, Christine McKelven said, last year was one of a great change in the European Union. I would like to talk about some of the themes that came out of the European External Relations Committee's report. I agree with Malcolm Chisholn and Anne McTaggart and say that the European Union funds are very important for Scotland. For example, the Scottish MEPs told our committee about the €985 million for Scotland from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund for a period of 2020. We heard that these funds will go into a range of projects to help Scotland build a low carbon economy as well as promote international business opportunities, tackling poverty and getting people back to work and mention the importance of reinforced common agricultural policy and the common fishery policies, which is also closely scrutinised by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environmental Committee. That committee is working on this area, includes hearing from the European Commission officials on the topic. The local government and regeneration committee has also been considering European Union funds in some detail in relation to its continuing interest in develop for a regional economy in Scotland in 2015. It will look at the options from the European Structure Fund programme for Scotland as well in some detail. The European External Relations Committee notes in our report that the Scottish Government has identified youth employment as a key objective for its strategy fund in Scotland. The committee is taking a special interest in the rollout of the European Union's youth employment initiative. The Education and Cultural Committee has also been scrutinising the Scottish Government's actions on youth employment in 2014. In considering the Education Committee's youth guarantee scheme as part of its inquiry, Scotland's education and cultural future will follow this work in 2015. I also mentioned the importance of the digital agenda. The infrastructure of Capital Investment Committee has told us about their continuing interest and the committee will be taking evidence directly from the European Commission. They took evidence on how Scotland is performing on the digital agenda and that more can be done to encourage digital participation. Willie Coffey and Roddy Campbell have mentioned this area in digital arena as well as the justice challenges that face Scotland. Our Justice Committee told us that they intend to monitor the European Union's work on e-justice in the background of the Scottish Government's digital strategy in Scotland. The Justice Committee also intends to pursue a very important issue such as the Commission's European Agenda on Migration, People Trafficking Scotland Bill. This is an area in which the European and External Relations Committee has a special interest. The Rural Affairs Committee challenge and the Environment Committee continue to work in this area tracking development related to the European Union. The 2020 climate targets and target and also the establishment of the European Union 2030 framework for climate and environment policies. I know that they will follow very closely the negotiations leading up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris in November. The Equal Opportunities Commission hopes to be mainstreaming European Union issues on several work areas such as its inquiry into the experience for social isolation faced by people in Scotland and also in an upcoming race and ethnicity related inquiry, which is very important as many in the minority community feel let down in Scotland. I hope that others have found our report interesting. I look forward to another year of effective scrutiny and mainstreaming the European Union's issues of importance across all subjects committees for the citizens of Scotland. Please wish as well in the success of that future. May I also take this opportunity presiding officer to say that I know that Jamie McDagger is unwell and I wish him a very speedy recovery. He is being missed daily here and I know that he was particularly interested in the common agricultural policy as well as the common fishery policy. I don't want him to feel that his absence has not been noted and the fact that he was interested in this areas and I want to stress that the digital network is crucial for the Scottish economy and its growth and I think it's absolutely crucial that our local and it is also important that our MEPs take this fight to the European Union to ensure that we get all the support that we can in rolling out this programme. I think it's absolutely important for us. Presiding Officer, how much time do I have? I can give you another minute or so. That's very kind. Thank you very much. Presiding Officer, just in concluding, I want to take this opportunity to thank our chair in particular, Christine McAlvern, has been working tirelessly with us and trying to ensure that we deliver an effective programme last year and I'm looking forward to doing so this year as well. I also want to take this opportunity to say that I want to thank particularly all those people who took out their valuable time to come to our Scottish Parliament and give us evidence because I think it was important that we share their experiences which would help us to put our report together. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. That then concludes the European and external relations committees debate on EU engagement and scrutiny of the committees of the Scottish Parliament and European Union policies. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 1 to 951 in the name of Stuart Stevenson on the proposal for a member's interest bill. Could I ask members who would like to contribute to this debate to please press the request to speak buttons now and a call on Stuart Stevenson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the standards, procedures and public appointments committee? Mr Stevenson, around 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The role of the standards, procedures and public appointments committee is to keep the Parliament's procedures and processes under constant review. The Scotland Act 2012 gave the Parliament some extra flexibility to manage our member's interest regime and the committee has used this opportunity to take a fresh look at how we operate our standards. The committee is now presenting the Parliament with a proposal for a committee bill under rule 9.15 of standing orders, which is two aims, to make the register of interests more transparent and to make the standards for regime even more robust. I will first address our proposals for increased transparency. Under the 2006 interest act, members have to register certain financial interests. Those are then published in the Parliament's register of interests. The register is principally concerned with interests that might prejudice or which might appear to prejudice and members' ability to participate in the parliamentary proceedings in a disinterested way. The public deserve to know about a member's financial interests so that they can make a judgment on whether the member might be influenced by them. Separately, members also have to register donations alone for political activities with the Electoral Commission. The commission has its own rules and thresholds for what needs to be registered, which are different from the Parliament's rules, and it publishes its own register. That is known as dual reporting. It means that the public has to look in two places for information about a member's interests and that members have to register financial interests in two separate places under two separate sets of rules. The draft bill that we bring forward aims to end dual reporting. Members would only have to register financial interests in one place, and more importantly, the public would only have to look in one place to find out information about a member's financial interests. Under our proposals, the Parliament's existing registration requirements will continue to apply. We have been careful to leave the existing regime as undisturbed as possible, but there will be an additional layer of reporting requirements imported from the political parties, elections and referendum act, PEPERA, as it is known, the legislation that governs the Electoral Commission's regime. PEPERA is quite a complicated set of rules, but in summary, members must register donations or loans over £1,500, which have been received for political activities. That might be a single donation or it might be several donations of more than £500 from the same person in the same calendar year. As the name of the act suggests, PEPERA is concerned with members of political parties. Of course, we also have members here who are independent and we are proposing some specific changes to deal with the position of independent members. The deputy convener will speak about those in more detail in her closing remarks and other matters that I will not have time to deal with now. The proposals that we have in the bill have been discussed in depth with the Electoral Commission. They have to be satisfied that the Parliament's register will give them all the information that they need before they can agree to the ending of dual reporting. The commission has told us that our proposals, along with changes that we shall propose in due course to the code of conduct, should meet their requirements. As PEPERA is reserved legislation, the UK Parliament then has to pass a commencement order to exempt members from the PEPERA reporting requirements. Let me put on record my appreciation of the commission's help in getting the bill to its current stage. Between last year's referendum and this year's general election, the commission is clearly busy, but it has always been very helpful in helping us to navigate our way through their quite complex regime. It is an important reform that we are now proposing that will keep our Parliament here in step with the Parliament for the UK. Dual reporting has already ended for Westminster MPs, and we understand that the other devolved institutions are also considering changes. The draft bill builds the requirements by PEPERA into the Parliament's interest act. I am the first to admit that the bill we are bringing forward will look complex in terms of drafting. However, if we look at how we can boil the changes down, there are a number of key questions that members must ask themselves. Has anyone given me a gift or donation of money, goods or services? Has anyone funded an overseas visit for me? Have I been paid for any work that I have done outside? Do I own shares or property apart from my own home? In most of those cases, in all of those cases, there could be a registrable interest. As convener of the Standards Committee, and not simply being an effort to reduce the workload on our committee, my advice is very simple. Always ask the Standards Clarks for advice if you think that there is any possibility that you may have acquired a new interest, or if the nature of an interest you already hold may have changed. For example, where the value of shares rises above the threshold without the individual member having taken any particular action. The Clarks can help navigate the complexities of the existing legislation and the new provisions. The bottom line is that members must approach them within 30 days of acquiring a new interest and must look at the value of their shares on an annual basis. The committee will also bring forward changes to the members' code of conduct, which relates to what I am saying. At the start of each new session, in particular the next one, the Standards Clarks and officials from the Electoral Commission will arrange briefing sessions for members on what we expect the new rules to be. I believe that our proposals will mean a more streamlined system for members. They will only have to seek advice in one place from our Standards Clarks here in Parliament. They will only have to register interests in one place here in Parliament. The public will be able to find all the members' interests in one place, the parliamentary register. By increasing transparency, those proposals chime with other developments on the horizon, not least the proposal for a lobbying register, which we expect the Government to bring forward soon. One more benefit of ending dual reporting is that complaints about failing to register will all be dealt with by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. At the moment, a complaint could be investigated by the commissioner or by the Electoral Commission or even by both at the same time. That can be confusing for the public to navigate and could also result in a member having to deal with two separate investigations into essentially the same complaint. Committees' proposals would streamline the process so that all complaints are dealt with by the commissioner. To sum up our proposals for the ending of dual reporting, information about a member's financial interests will be available in one place for the public, members will have a one-stop shop for advice or on registering interests and will streamline the process for dealing with complaints. In addition, we propose in the light of the Greco report to lower the threshold for registering gifts from 1 per cent to a member's salary at the start of a session to half a per cent. That will bring us into line with legislators elsewhere and respond to the report from the Council of Europe's group. I said that our second aim in this bill is to make the Parliament's standards regime more robust. We have already got a very robust regime. In the whole session, we have only had to deal with one relatively minor breach of the interests act by a member, but it is a criminal offence when a member fails to register, declare an interest or undertakes paid advocacy. That is not the case in the House of Commons. We should be proud of an existing regime, but we are not resting on our laurels and we believe as a committee that we can go further. First of all, the bill extends the sanctions available to Parliament for dealing with breaches of the interests act. The power to withdraw rights and privileges is already available. However, when it comes to interest act breaches, the Scotland Act requires us to set out specific sanctions in legislation. The draft bill makes sure that the widest range of sanctions is available for breaches of the interests act, including excluding a member from the premises of the Parliament, withdrawing a member's right to use the facilities and services provided by the SPCB, withdrawing salary and allowances where a member is excluded. To that end, the committee has also included a new sanction in the draft bill, a motion of censure. That would allow the Parliament to draw attention to a breach in a bait in the chamber and give the member the opportunity to comment and apologise as may be appropriate. Members will appreciate that this is not a trivial sanction. For some breaches, it may be more appropriate than withdrawing pay or access. In conclusion, the committee's proposal will increase the transparency of information about our financial interests, make the standards regime that we have even more robust. I commend the committee's proposal to Parliament and I move the motion that is in my name. I want to start by quickly reflecting on the background to the committee's work on updating the member's interest statute. The committee should be commended for moving quickly to utilise the powers arising from the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012, which gave the Parliament the ability to review the terms of the member's interest framework in full. We now anticipate that the Parliament will soon be responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operations. That is something that we have argued for since the first session of the Parliament, and this Government has advocated since coming to office. It is good that there is generally consensus across the Parliament that this is an area where the Parliament should have responsibility for. That default position, the normal position for parliaments around the world, is only right, and I therefore welcome today's opportunity to consider the substance of the proposals contained in the committee's report. The subject matter of the debate is clearly a matter for Parliament. However, I wish to take this opportunity to put the Government's views on the record, and I hope that that will be helpful to the committee and the Parliament as a whole. I consider that the reform package proposed by the committee represents a significant and progressive step forward. It is good to re-emphasise the words of the convener about making the regime more transparent and more robust. We already have transparent and robust procedures in place, but it is always appropriate for us to look at how they can be improved, and I think that that is absolutely correct that that is what is being done. I am very pleased to confirm that the Government is supportive of the committee's proposals and considers it appropriate that the bill is brought forward to implement them, one of the first committee bills in some time. Members of the committee will recall that, during the consultation process, the Government identified two issues that it believed required careful consideration. The first issue was the question about whether criminal offences for failure to register or declare an interest should be removed, and the second was the question about whether a rectification process should be introduced to separately deal with minor instances of non-compliance and avoid investigations of such cases by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life. The Government's response to the consultation put forward some arguments around the merits of implementing such policies. In particular, we were concerned that either move could be perceived as diluting the accountability of MSPs, and we therefore welcome the committee's decision not to proceed with those measures after careful consideration of the consultation. I think that that is something that we very much welcome. Moving on to the proposals that the committee seeks to implement, I would in particular welcome the end-to-dure reporting of members' financial interests to both the Parliament and the Electoral Commission. The benefits of this reform are twofold. Firstly, it will streamline the registration process for MSPs ending a confusion and potentially disruptive arrangement. Secondly, it will provide a single point of reference for the public. Importantly, together with a single complaint system for any perceived instances of non-compliance, both those two things are very important. It would be wrong to underestimate however the challenges that the committee faces in seeking to combine what were two different registration schemes. To do so without undermining the robustness of either scheme and without adding any unnecessary complexity is a significant achievement that I hope is recognised across the Parliament as a whole. The proposals also seek to deliver parity among MSPs reflected of the Parliament's founding principles, so looking to ensure that dual reporting can end also for independent members, despite existing statutory mechanisms being based on members of political parties and on the other side of that coin requiring independent members to be made subject to the requirement to register controlled transactions, as those of us are in political parties are, such as a credit facility extended to an MSP for political activities. It may just be useful to colleagues to be aware that I have discussed with each of our present independent members the proposals. I know that none of them are clearly going to be speaking in the debate, so it may well—I do not seek to speak for them, but at no time did they indicate that this was other than satisfactory to them. Indeed, I am sure that that would be their view, because what they have done is managed to make sure that the founding principle of all MSPs being treated equally has managed to be fully reflected in the new guidance. I think that it has been very much indicative of the committee's approach that, as convener, you did have those discussions. Clearly, the committee must have worked very closely with the electoral commission in pulling those plans forward and in their development. That is also to be welcomed, because we need to make sure that we have proposals that are robust and that actually work in the real world, as well as sounding good here in the chamber. I think that you have, without doubt, managed to achieve that in your deliberations. The Government also welcomes the committee's other reform proposals, namely the reduction of the financial threshold for registering gifts, bringing that to a level that we feel, and the committee feels, is more appropriate. Given the Parliament's full flexibility over imposing the imposition of sanctions in respect of any breaches of the framework, together with the ability to agree a motion of censure, we also agree with the proposal to extend the period of retention of old register entries from five to 10 years. Those are all sensible proposals that the Government agrees with. The Government recognises the amount of work that is invested by the committee in developing proposals in its support. That work is essential towards ensuring that the member's interest framework remains fit for purpose now and for the future. That will be increasingly important as the competence of this Parliament evolves. The Government will maintain its opposition to any moves to remove criminal offences from the 2006 act or, indeed, any provisions that suggest that minor indiscretions are acceptable under the framework. I am pleased that they do not exist, and I hope that no-one tries to reintroduce them at an amendment stage. I want to reiterate that the Government welcomes the committee's report, recognises the efforts that are involved and looks forward to a bill being introduced that implements its recommendations. As a new member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, who was appointed to that committee after it had heard evidence on the proposed bill, I would first like to thank the members of the committee and the clerks for their support as I got up to speed with the issues. I suspect that, in the time allotted to me, I will not be able to cover all the salient points of this report and its recommendations, but I would at the outset want to confirm that Scottish Labour supports the committee's recommendations and, in one area at least, would like to go further. Colleagues might be forgiven for thinking that issues such as the member's interest order are perhaps not amongst the most important matters that this Parliament might discuss. However, it is the legislation, the rules and the standing orders on subjects like that that help to ensure that this Parliament lives up to its founding principle of transparency. We must be very careful when we consider change and be confident that any change that we propose makes the system better. It seems to me that the committee's proposals are sensible and perhaps as important, workable and I commend them for that. The measures proposed today will help to streamline and clarify exactly what interests members have. It will also make it possible for advice to members to come from one source, the parliamentary clerks, rather than from two as at present. As we have heard from the convener, the report prepared by the committee suggests some changes to our current procedures. One of the most significant changes being proposed is that we end dual reporting of financial interests. As we have heard at the moment, MSPs are required to report financial interests to the Electoral Commission as a condition of the political party's elections and referendum act, or PEPERA. They may also be required to report to Parliament. As a result, the information recorded can appear on the Electoral Commission's website, the Parliament's website or in certain situations on both. The committee's proposals end that dual reporting and suggest that all such information should appear on the Parliament's website. Similarly, the present rules mean that advice to members can come from two different bodies depending on the issue and that anyone seeking to check what a member's interests are also needs to check both sources. As a consequence, ending dual reporting will also end dual checking, which must be a good thing. At the moment, breaches of PEPERA are investigated by the Electoral Commission, but sometimes breaches overlap the two currently separate regimes. As such, they are investigated by both the Electoral Commission and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life. The committee sensibly suggests that they should, in future, be investigated by the Commissioner alone. That is both a simpler way of working and much more transparent. However, there was one complication to the sensible changes, and that was that, without making changes to the Electoral Administration Act 2006, dual reporting would not be ended for independent members. It seemed to me—and the committee was of the same view—that all members of this Parliament must be treated in the same way. The committee will, as we have heard, seek to make those necessary alterations in due course. With regard to the thresholds that apply to the register of interests, the committee, as we have heard, proposes that the threshold for registering a gift be reduced from the current figure of £570 to £280, or 0.5 per cent of a member's salary. That brings it into line with a recommendation by the organisation, the group of states against corruption or Greco, as it is known. It is worth noting that Greco specifically mentioned in its report that it believed that the limits in the Scottish Parliament and those used by the House of Commons and the House of Lords are too high. Therefore, we are not alone in proposing to reduce our threshold in line with the Greco recommendations, as both houses at Westminster propose to do so also. The threshold that the committee is also proposing to amend is for registering remuneration, and it is suggested that that should go to the same percentage as should that for gifts. We support that, but we also think that there might need to be more discussion about the threshold for shareholdings, which seems to be at a fairly significant figure at the moment. As the Parliament knows, members are required to register remuneration and related undertakings, gifts, overseas visits, interests from shares and heritable property. I think that the time has come when we have to ask ourselves if that is sufficient. We know that there is no financial threshold for registering a remunerated role, and that if the criteria are met and the remuneration is of any value, then the role must be registered. We also know that the code of conduct prohibits forms of paid employment that involves lobbying, but is that enough? Should we not now be stating clearly that paid directives or consultancies should be banned? Would that not be a significant move to ensure that all our constituents understand just how seriously we take our positions and their concerns? As committee members know, my party leader, Jim Murphy, had written to the Presiding Officer asking that the Standards Committee be asked to look at how we could implement such a ban on members seeking employment as paid directors or consultants whilst sitting as MSPs. I sincerely believe that in taking forward this issue and the work that the committee is doing on lobbying that we should look for an opportunity to consider Mr Murphy's proposal. Very briefly, Mr Stevenson, I am afraid that the member is coming to the close. No, please, but I do have to remind the member. Speaking personally, not as convener, of course. I take a different view, not because I do not think that there is more can be done, but that we should focus on what people do, not what they are. I think that we only have to look at the lobbying legislation at Westminster, which is legislated on people's roles rather than what they do to see the muddle that they get into. I think that there is room for further debate, but perhaps not along the lines that the member speaks to. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am not sure that, in the time that I am allotted to me, I can fully answer Mr Stevenson's concerns. I was going to go on to say that I was really pleased that, following our discussion at the committee, everyone on the committee had agreed that we should do exactly that. I am not of a mind to say that we have to be prescriptive at this point, but I think that Mr Murphy makes a very valid point, and that whatever we do must be open and transparent to the people that we serve, and that, at the end of the day, must be our overriding concern. It must be the overriding concern of every single one of us and how we express that must be in a way that is straightforward and clear to those people that we seek to represent. I do not think that they understand the niceties that we sometimes debate in this chamber, but I think that that is a debate that we can worthwhile, would be worthwhile to have within the committee and within this chamber, and I very much look forward to having that very soon. Many thanks. I now call in Cameron Buchanan in five minutes or so, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is so much to learn when a new member comes into the Parliament, and I have to say that I have found the rules and regulations of the SPPA committee quite daunting, even with the undoubted expertise of our convener and his prehistorical memory of past procedures. This dual reporting that we have done to go where we have to register with the Parliament and the Electoral Commission seems to me unnecessary, as everybody has said, and our proposals are that members only need to register their interests in one place, which is here in the Scottish Parliament. This should prove to be a great help to members, particularly new members like myself, as we can then approach the standards clerk for advice at no matter what the level of interest. The consultation with the Electoral Commission has been extremely complex and has been a lot of work for the committee to bring these rules into our Parliament's regime and make it more accessible. I think it would be helpful if the Electoral Commission could give a briefing to new members at the start of the next parliamentary session, together with the standards clerks, so that we can all understand the new rules from the outset, as they are very complicated. The second point I want to make is that when the Standards Commissioner receives a complaint about an MSP failing to register an interest and it is made aware that a criminal offence has been committed, however small, it must be reported to the Procurator Fiscal. Investigations then get held up until the Procurator Fiscal has ended his or her investigation, either by a prosecution or by deciding not to prosecute. So far as I understand it, there have been no prosecutions, so I feel that the Parliament can introduce a certain element of flexibility in relation to this criminal offence, particularly when the matter is small. No criminal proceedings have ever been initiated since the Parliament's inception in 1999. I presume that it has not been in the public interest to do so. Section 39 of the Scotland Act 1998 requires a provision to be made at the Scottish Parliament's Interest Act prescribing certain conduct, which includes failure to register or declare certain interests and paid advocacy. However, it does make a contravention of those provisions a criminal offence. However, in the Scotland Act 2012, section 39 was amended to give the Scottish Parliament more flexibility in relation to the imposition of sanctions and criminal offence attached to the failure to register or declare an interest with options ranging from removing the criminal offence to providing for a reasonable excuse for more minor breaches. I therefore feel that Parliament could introduce an element of flexibility in relation to the criminal offence. That should in no way be interpreted as being lenient or weakening the punitive aspects of Members' interests. Another way would be not to make it a criminal offence, not to make a criminal offence malatry, but left to the discretion of the commissioner as he sees fit. I think that there are also other ways of strengthening the Parliament's powers to deal with breaches of such as a motion of censure or withdrawing his or her rights and privilege again without it necessarily becoming a criminal offence. It would also mean that breaches or complaints could be dealt with more speedily and, if necessarily, be resolved in a shorter timescale. There could still be a need for a prosecution if there is a serious breach of the rules, and those would then be reported to the Procurator Fiscal, but I think that it is all about deciding and not defining what constitutes a serious breach of parliamentary rules. The committee has taken the views of others into account and agreed not to change the criminal offence at this time, but I think that it is something that I believe should be considered again the reasons that I have outlined today. Many thanks. I now open up the debate and I have two members who wish to contribute, and I call Gil Paterson to be followed by John Pentland around five minutes, please. Presiding Officer, before I start, I wonder if you can indulge me and, since this is my first opportunity to speak, I would like to put on record my personal message of sympathy to my good friend, his family, Tom McCabe. He was a good friend and a good colleague, so I wanted to say that today. Presiding Officer, I want to talk about something very similar to what Cameron had just mentioned earlier on, and it is with regards to the automatic referral to the Procurator Fiscal. At the very present time, what happens now is that, if a complaint comes in with regard to the member's interests, the Standards Commissioner investigates and conducts a very in-depth investigation, and, if a breach is found, it is an automatic referral to the Procurator Fiscal. I am raising this in committee since the First Parliament. I have raised the issue and talked about it. This is the first time that I have brought it to the chamber. I am conscious that, no matter how trivial the matter is, there is no discretion at the hands of the commissioner. As it has been pointed out since the start of the Parliament in 1999, there has been almost no comment to the matters that have been referred to the fiscal in the first place. In the political sense, there is a problem for members, and it works out that some people think that when someone is referred to the fiscal, then there is no smoke without fire, and I think that it is something that we should look at. Just a few weeks ago, such a minor breach was brought and dealt with by the committee. Of course, the minor breach was investigated thoroughly by the commissioner, then because it was actually a breach—it was agreed that it was a breach—it was passed to the fiscal's office. There was no action taken. In my view, I think that the fiscal's time was wasted in many regards. Since we have a commissioner who completely investigates all these matters, it is not that he takes it as a trivial matter because, effectively, if he investigates and the breach is made, then he has to move it on. I think that it would be much better since we have the commissioner doing all that good work. The commissioner should be given the powers of discretion to deal with minor breaches exactly as they are now but report directly to the standards committee for any sanctions. Again, that is exactly what happens at the present time. I am confident that the commissioner has the expertise and experience in that regard. The committee, yet again, is fully supportive of the strongest possible system of standards. I think that my colleagues have adequately described that today. They, in no way, are reducing the aspect of accountability and transparency in relation to the public. I am certainly supportive of everything that has been said and the report itself. I certainly do not want to weaken in any way the robust standards regime that we have. I think that it speaks for itself. However, I do believe that it is worth considering and that we should ask the best people to look at this. The best people for me are the commissioner and the Procurator Fiscal for their considered opinion on the matter. Now, it could be the way that we do at this present time. There may be good reasons that this is the only way. I do not know. There may be a legal or administrative imperative that we would damage the system that we have if we did in any way change it. I must ask you to come to a close, please. Certainly. If that was the case, I would not support that. However, I would certainly be grateful for the benefit of their knowledge on this and ask them to look at that on behalf of the Parliament. I note that lowering the threshold for registering gifts has been undertaken to comply with the recommendation of the group of states against corruption Greco, the monitoring body that includes all council of European members, as well as the United States and Belarus. Not only did Greco state that it thought the threshold for MSPs, along with those of the commons and lords, was rather high. He also noted that this state of affairs is particularly worrying because there are no restrictions on the acceptance of gifts without regard to whether they are required to be registered. I believe that this Parliament, as an institution, has always striven to operate with the highest standards of propriety, so it is right and proper that we should take that recommendation on board and that the threshold will be reduced to 0.5 per cent. I must admit, though, that Greco reports seem to have mis-advised that MSPs are already given by accepting gifts. I think that we already have a fairly explicit and especially when it comes to commercial lobbyists could be summarised as, if you are in any doubt, don't. When it comes to the proposal to streamline the reporting requirements, it is clearly a common sense approach to rationalise from two systems to one. Why have two reports for MSPs to make, two places for the public to search, two places for people to complain and overlaps because of job reporting, when we can make life easier for all concerned, one report, one search and one place to go for those who believe that requirements have not been met? While most breaches of reporting since 1999 have been relatively minor and generally oversights, with the Parliament able to deal with them under the sanctions that they possess, I do believe that it is important to retain the option of prosecution to deal with any serious offends. I think that to do otherwise would be to undermine the importance that we attached as a Parliament to the openness and transparency in the actions of elected members. I believe that that is particularly important with regard to anyone who undertakes paid advocacy work. On the question of the retention of records, 10 years to me is not unreasonable and I can think of no other good reason why records of the previous two sessions of Parliament should not be publicly available. I suppose that, in conclusion, while the committee has taken on board most of the Grecoff recommendations, the exception where we might consider going further is the issue of shareholdings. Grecoff considers that a member may be more influenced by the effect of a matter on his or her stocks than by the receipt of the payment for a speech. I note that the committee decided that the level was right on balance. In the report, that decision seems to be based on the levels for the Lords and the Commons being higher and the Northern Ireland Assembly being only a few grand lower. However, I am not sure whether there were any other arguments against it being lower. What I do know is that, if any of my constituents would regard having £28,000 worth of shares and a company being an insignificant financial interest, although that is below our threshold, there could be several such holdings without any need to be registered. In conclusion, that could be addressed when the committee sums up. We now turn to closing speeches and a call on Cameron Buchanan for minutes, please. At the risk of repeating everything that is said, I think that it is not worth saying much more except that, in the words of Nicholas Parsons, we should be no repetition, no duplication and no hesitation. I do not think that there is anything else to say. We all agree and I do not think that we should say any more. Thank you. That gives me a little bit of time in hand for the rest of the closing speakers, if they wish to use it. I call on Neil Bibby, around five minutes or so. I also take the opportunity to thank members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for what they have done in producing a draft bill and what they are committed to doing to make the register of interests more transparent and the standards regime more robust. I also thank Gil Paterson for his comments about Tom McCabe. Tom McCabe was instrumental in ensuring that the rules of the Parliament have served as well over so many years. As my colleagues Patricia Ferguson and John Pentland have indicated, the aims of more transparency and the highest possible standards are supported fully by the Labour Party. People deserve and need to have faith and trust in those who are elected to serve them. We therefore need a system of members' interests that is fully transparent and one that expects the highest standards of its members. As I have said, Labour is fully committed to transparency and openness. That is why, for example, one of my Labour colleagues, Neil Findlay, originally proposed a lobbying bill in this Parliament. As there needs to be proper scrutiny of lobbying, as well as members' interests that apply to members and Government ministers, following Mr Findlay's proposals, I know that the Government has since said that it would legislate in this area, and I hope that we can see some movement on that issue in the near future. In producing the draft bill, I welcome the fact that the committee has engaged in lengthy discussions with the independent electoral commission, and I hope and anticipate that this will continue. Simplifying the reporting process appears to be sensible, as members have spoken about not having dual reporting will hopefully allow increased transparency, as members will have register of interests in one single place. As Stuart Stevenson said and other members have said, those measures should be helpful for both members and, crucially, those people that are scrutinising us. I am also supportive of lowering the threshold for the registering of GIFs. I understand that that has been recommended, as members have said, by the Greco group. I note their proposals in the House of Commons to also lower the existing threshold. The member will have noted that I have a few references to paid advocacy. I wonder if it would be useful for us all to think about what paid means in that it is not simply cash, it is about reward or the future prospect of reward. In other words, there is a benefit to be derived. Probably one of the things that we might as we take the bill forward do, and I hope that the member will agree, is to examine carefully what we mean when we talk about pay. Frankly, so our colleagues do not get confused and inadvertently transgress the rules, but also to make sure that the public are absolutely aware where we are coming from when we say this, because I am sure that there is a huge measure of agreement between ourselves on that. Neil Bibb. I hope that the committee will look at the issues. My colleague Patricia Ferguson said that the public sometimes does not appreciate the niceties and the nuances. In supporting the recommendations, as Patricia Ferguson said earlier, we also need to look to see whether we can do more. I look at the issue around shareholdings, which is certainly warming them up. As Patricia Ferguson said, members will be aware that, in February, Jim Murphy spoke out about the issue of second jobs for MSPs and MPs. He did, of course, right to the Presiding Officer to ask the committee to consider introducing a ban on members seeking employment as paid directors or consultants while sitting as MSPs. I do not believe that the public will accept in action on that issue, and therefore we need to consider how best and how quickly that can be achieved. There are first and last roles to represent the people that electors are not outside consultants or companies, and we cannot afford to give any other impression. If we accept the principle that there should not be outside jobs, why only directives and paid and consultants? Why not everything? It seems odd to choose two particular professions out of the wide range of professions that might be available to us. Gil Bibby? There are two roles that could have an impact on the perception in the public of conflict of interests. I think that the committee should start looking at the issue, and those are two examples of where the committee should look to introduce a ban on. I also believe that it is important that any measures aimed at introducing improving transparency should be applied fully to Government ministers, as well as members. The UK Government publishes online its ministers' registers of interests, but the Scottish Government, I do not believe, does the same. I asked Spice last June to check this out, and he replied that they had contacted the Office of the Permanent Secretary and confirmed that the Scottish Government does maintain a register, but it is not published. Presiding Officer, all members of this Parliament have their register of interests published online. The UK Government has its ministers' registers of interests published, so I find it inexplicable that the Scottish Government ministers, in their capacity as ministers, do not only fail to publish it but have even rejected a freedom of information request in 2010 from the Sunday Herald. I find that very odd, and I would like to ask the minister for his view on that. In closing, I thank again the committee members for their work so far in looking at the important issues. As I said before, Labour will support efforts to improve transparency and have the highest possible standards in relation to members' interests, but we will also look to see if what we are proposing goes far enough and the areas in which we could be doing more. I look forward to the committee looking at those issues and supporting them in our deliberations. I thank you very much. I now call on Jo FitzPatrick. Minister, I can give you seven minutes or so. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it has been a very good consensual debate, and I think that it reflects the approach that the committee has taken to moving forward. Generally, there has been general support for what the committee is proposing in relation to the members' interests framework. I repeat again that the Government sees those as sensible, clear and a relevant approach has been adopted. I do not think that we will benefit members here in the Parliament but will also benefit members of the public in being able to understand the process better. I will pick up on some of the points. First of all, John Pentland made some really good and clear points in relation to the gifts and the benefit of doing away with dual reporting, and I think that that is important. I should have started by concurring with Gil Paterson's comments in the condolences to the family of Tom McCabe. Tom McCabe was the First Minister for parliamentary business, and he did us a great service in the groundwork that he laid in that role. I knew him as a member of the finance committee, and he was one of our members who had respect right across the political spectrum. He was a real honest guy and a real person who folk could trust and could go to if they wanted advice, irrespective of what party they were in, and he will be sadly missed by everyone in the chamber and those who are no longer here. Cameron Buchanan made a very useful suggestion in relation to new members, because while it is important that we have good, robust procedures in place, it is also important that we all understand them. I would certainly think that the suggestion about improving the induction for members is one of our most recent new members into the Parliament. He will most accurately remember what it was like to come into this fantastic chamber, into these fantastic buildings and have to work out for yourself on how you are going to get on there. I know that, at the start of a normal session, there is perhaps a more orchestrated induction process for MSPs, but we should always listen to how those things can be improved, so perhaps having the electoral commission involved in that is a good thing taken forward. Mr Bibby made some points in terms of ministers. To be clear, ministers are required to register the same way as any other member. Mr Bibby also asked about our situation with lobbying. Although those are two very different aspects, particularly when we are talking about paid advocacy, there clearly is a crossover. The Government was very grateful to the committee for the work that it put into looking at how we might take forward a lobbying register. I can absolutely put on record that the Government is committed to introducing a lobbying transparency bill before the end of the parliamentary session. That commitment has been reiterated several times most recently in our programme for government and the debate here in the chamber. Our bill will continue with the process that we have, which is one of consultation, one of trying to pull everyone on the side. There will be a consultation process and dialogue with all interested parties. We are in the process of speaking to political parties just now to make sure that when we move to consultation we have the broadest consensus here in this chamber and across the political parties as possible, but the rest is absolutely assured that we will be bringing that bill forward in this Parliament. Neil Bibby, I thank the minister for taking intervention. I am aware that ministers need to complete a minister's register of interest. Why is it not published online, publicly available, and does he believe that it should be? Ministers have to fill out the member's interests to the parliamentary register the same as every other member. Ministers are not exempt from any of the parliamentary rules, so that exists for everyone. The Parliament does not distinguish between members who are ministers and members who are not ministers, so that is there, and it is public the same as that. A quantity of space about the issue said that the Scottish Government maintained its own register of interest for Scottish Government ministers, but that is not published. Can you shed light on that? Although there are perhaps other registers and all ministers are obliged to comply with the same rules as every other member of this chamber, in addition, ministers go further in that we publish meetings and events, etc. It is not a ministerial register, because we register your interests as a member in the same way as everyone else. It would be very helpful if the minister could clarify whether there is a ministerial register, because that is really the point. It could be, and if there is, why it is not published, but there could also be an occasion when, for example, a member had a shareholding in a private health company that was not registrable because it was below the criteria. That might be regarded as not being an interest, but if that same member happened to be a health minister, for example, it would absolutely be an interest that people outside and certainly as members would want to know about. It would be helpful to have clarification. I think that the public test of what an ordinary person in the street would consider a registerable interest and that test exam. If a health secretary had shares in a health company, I think that any reasonable person would see that as a registerable interest, so therefore it should be registerable. However, I will go and check and see if there is a gap someplace, then clearly we should look at that. However, the point that I was going to come on to was that I think that Patricia Ferguson in her opening made some interesting points around shareholdings and what the thresholds should be. Clearly, the committee's report says why it thinks that the current levels are correct, but I think that there is a reasonable argument being made about why that perhaps should be looked at again. Clearly, that would be a matter for the committee, and I cannot believe that you are suggesting that. I am short of time. I am sorry that I am now trying to protect the time for the committee's closing speech. To move to the summation, there are two points that I need to pick up on. There was some suggestion that the idea of a rectification procedure might be something that we should do. The Government would argue against any such safety net mechanism. I would be concerned that that idea, the notion of minor complaints, should be a message that should be avoided. It would potentially provide confusion. We would again, as I said in my opening, be very much against the idea of removing away from the criminal offences being there in terms of poverty. It is just that the signal that we would send to members of the public would be entirely wrong. Well, this Parliament has not been involved in any of the kind of mire that we have seen elsewhere. It would be sending out the wrong message at this time, so I think that we would be very much against it. I thank you very much for your forbans. Many thanks, minister. I now call on Margaret MacDougall to wind up a debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee at 8 minutes. That should take us to 5 o'clock, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have enjoyed listening to the contributions in this short but important debate today. I would also like to thank members for their contributions and the clerks for their support in preparing this bill. The convener and other committee members have already explained much of what is in the bill. As the vice convener of the committee in summing up the debate, I want to use my speech to cover three specific proposals—expanding the paid advocacy offence, ending dual reporting for independent members and retaining members' registers. As we have heard in the course of the debate, this Parliament's standard regime is robust. Members take the responsibility to register financial interests seriously. However, we should never be complacent. There is always room for reform and improvement. That is what the committee hopes will be achieved by this bill. First, let me talk about the committee's proposal on paid advocacy. Paid advocacy effectively means an MSP taking up a cause or matter in return for reward. I want to highlight that, since 1999, no member has ever been found to breach the prohibition on paid advocacy. However, in the spirit of ensuring that the Parliament's regime is as robust as it can be, the committee proposes to extend the offence of paid advocacy. At the moment, a member has to receive the payment or benefit for it to be considered an offence. The committee's proposal will extend the offence so that it will be an offence for a member to agree to accept payment in return for advocating a cause, whether or not they actually go on to receive the payment or benefit. Those changes are along the lines of changes that were made in the Bribery Act 2010 and represent a further strengthening of the Parliament's standard regime. The second item that I want to talk about is the treatment of independent members in ending dual reporting. The convener spoke about dual reporting and the committee's proposals for ending it. In section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, the section that will exempt members from preparing reporting once it is commenced was intended to remove the requirement for elected members to report donations to the Electoral Commission. However, it only covers elected members who are members of political parties. In this section, as it stands, dual reporting would end for MSPs who are members of political parties, but independent members would still be required to report donations to the Electoral Commission and the Parliament. The committee's initial view was that it would not be possible to end dual reporting for independent members as they were expressly accepted from the relevant legal mechanism for ending dual reporting. However, we were concerned that this, since we consider it highly desirable that all members should be treated equally. We have therefore revisited this issue and have concluded that legislative changes should be made to allow the ending of dual reporting for independent members. The draft bill included with our report does not yet include this amendment. However, we have been discussing possible changes with the Electoral Commission and the UK Cabinet Office. Our aim is to include the necessary amendments in the bill as introduced so that dual reporting can be ended for all members. The third proposal that I want to highlight is the committee's proposal for publishing and retaining the register of interests. The existing interest act states that the clerk shall keep a copy of old entries for a period of five years from the date of making that last amendment. That means that, currently, members' registers of interests are disposed of when the five-year period has passed. A number of MSPs in the initial registration process at the start of session 4 found that they did not consider the prejudice test applied to some of the interests that they had registered in the previous session. On that basis, there was no requirement that they include those interests in their register for the new session. Since their old register from the previous session was no longer available to view, they felt that they should include those interests just to ensure that they remained in the public domain. A snapshot of registers from the previous session is now available online to try to address that point. However, the committee also feels that it would be helpful to amend the interest act to make it clear that registers may be kept for a longer period. The registers provide a history of information such as members' external employment or significant gifts to members, which are of genuine public interest. Researchers may want to access to registers for earlier sessions in the future and it would provide a more complete picture of the Parliament and its members to make them available as a historic record. The committee is proposing a 10-year detention period for old entries. That means, for example, that people could still refer back to the old register for a member who is not re-elected in one session but is then returned in the following session. The intention is that old entries would only be held for the 10-year period and then transferred to national records for Scotland for historic preservation. Audra, please, could members be respectful of the fact that the committee member is concluding this debate? Gil Paterson and Cameron Buchanan talked about the committee's original proposal to remove the criminal offence for failure to register or declare an interest. I will take an intervention. I made no such claim. That is not what I said. I said what I said for my offences that the commissioner should look at them. I also said that, in any way, if it disturbed the system itself, and it would not work, I would not support it. I would have to check the record to see what you did say. The committee felt that such breaches could be dealt with using parliamentary sanctions, which are robust. Following consultation, the committee took on board the point that that could be seen as making our system more lenient and decided not to change the criminal offence provisions at this time. However, as both members have raised it, there may be a case at some point in the future for considering that. In conclusion, I want to remind members how important it is that we have a robust and wide range of measures in place to deal with the breaches of rules. The Scottish Parliament has seen very few breaches and we want to keep it that way. Extending the offence of paid advocacy, adding new sanctions for breaches, making sure that rights and privileges can be withdrawn where appropriate, all those proposals will make our regimes stronger. The message is clear. The Parliament has the power to punish members for serious breaches of the rules and it will use those powers if it needs to do so. This is a comprehensive set of measures that will improve what is already a robust standards regime. The committee asks members to support this motion and agree that this bill can be introduced. That concludes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee deb