I welcome members to the fifth meeting in 2016 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones if other devices should be kept on silent. We have apologies from Mr Arthur, who is delayed but expected to be in attendance at the committee at some point this morning. The first item on the agenda is decision and taking business in private. Our first item today is for members to decide the consideration of the draft standing orders, rule changes and draft report and first ministers questions and consideration of the committee's work programme and whether that should be taken in private at future meetings. I have your agreement to do so. Thank you very much. I move to agenda item two, which is to take evidence from Joe FitzPatrick, MSP Minister for Parliamentary Business, on the issue of parliamentary liaison officers. I welcome Minister Joe FitzPatrick to the committee this morning, as well as James Hind, head of cabinet, Parliament and the Governance division, and Stephen McGregor, head of parliament and legislation unit in the Scottish Government. I welcome the committee. Mr FitzPatrick, if you have any opening remarks, who would like to make a comment? I think that I am pleased to come along and speak to the committee and answer your questions. I will take opening and end it on that one. You could give your description of what the parliamentary liaison officers role is. The parliamentary liaison officers were something that was devised back in the first minority government in 2007. Previously, there had been a system of ministerial aides that had worked through the first two coalition Governments. Clearly, in 2007, things had changed and the way the Parliament was going to work had to change. The emphasis went from supporting ministers to being a liaison with the Parliament as a whole. Clearly, for the Parliament to work and for the Government to make progress on any of its agenda, there had to be consensus built across the Parliament. That is the main role of parliamentary liaison officers. It is not just a link to backbench Government ministers, but it is a link to the whole Parliament. It has worked very effectively over the time. I think that a number of members wish questions to Mr Harvey. Thank you very much. Good morning. I suppose that there is that central question about the definition of the role. You have said that you believe that the role changed during a period of minority government, or the beginning of the first minority government, from supporting the minister to liaising with Parliament as a whole, not just Government's own backbenchers. That is reflected in the answer that you gave in announcing the most recent set of changes. PLOs will assist in developing and maintaining a positive and constructive relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. In a previous answer, in announcing the first appointments of PLOs during this session, relationship between the Scottish Parliament Government and to take account of the views of the Parliament and of Scotland as a whole. However, the ministerial code itself, the part that has not been changed, is the simple definition at section 4.8 of what the role is. The appointment of an MSP as a parliamentary liaison officer to support the cabinet secretary in the discharge of his or her parliamentary duties. There seems to be a mismatch between those two aspects. If the job is one working for the Government, not of the Government but working for the Government in supporting the cabinet secretary, that seems to be a very different role than the one you are describing in liaising between Government and Parliament as a whole. I would have to say though just in passing, either during the first months of this period of minority Government or during the first minority Government session when there was a great deal of inter-party discussion and negotiation that there had to be on a whole host of issues, I do not recall PLOs performing that function. MSPs and ministers would pick up the phone to each other. I should refresh your memory. In that first Scottish National Party Government, I was the parliamentary liaison officer for John Swinney. I can certainly remember having many discussions with Sarah Boyack and other Opposition members at that time. John Swinney had four committees that he was responsible for. I sat on one of those four finance committees, but I can certainly remember having lots of discussions specifically because I was John Swinney's PLO with myself and with other members. Particularly one of the areas of budget, lots of discussions around that. I did not mean to say that there was not a discussion directly with cabinet secretaries, but it was an additional layer that I hope was valued because I can certainly remember spending a lot of time in those years carrying out that role to what I thought was helpful to not just the Government but to Opposition members as well. There are certainly aspects of discussion on budgets in which we would engage with not just the cabinet secretary or other ministers but yourself or officials. However, the principal negotiation was between the Government Party, the members of the Government and Opposition parties. I suppose that the committee is having this look at whether the suggestion of having this role codified at some level in the standing orders is relevant to this. If the role has changed away from what is in 4.8 the ministerial code of supporting the cabinet secretary to one that is a go-between role, a liaison role between Parliament and Government, then the role is not working for the cabinet secretary but for all of us and requires to be defined in the standing orders of the Parliament. It is an appointment made by the First Minister, so it is important to have that distinction. It is not an appointment of the Parliament, it is an appointment made by the First Minister in discussion with myself and cabinet secretaries. However, the name change was about a shift of emphasis and that was made very clear when the change from ministerial aids to parliamentary liaison officers was made and the former First Minister made it clear that it was very much about improved transparency and increased engagement. However, it is an appointment of the First Minister, not of the Parliament. It does not in any way to bar members going directly to cabinet secretaries, but sometimes it is worth having different routes. I can certainly remember in the last Parliament the work of Angus MacDonald in making sure that the Government understood the concerns, particularly of Labour members, on the land reform bill and understanding that, as well as back bench S&P members and others. That process, which Angus was very much involved in, got us to a point in which we got a better bill. It is about not just a direct communication but understanding what it was that members were saying. Over the nine years since we have had parliamentary liaison officers, I think that you will find that maybe people did not realise that they were speaking to somebody in a capacity as a parliamentary liaison officer. That is something that the Presiding Officer has spoken to me about and now parliamentary liaison officers will declare their appointment in the chamber to improve that transparency, which I think has been a positive step forward both for them and for the Parliament in terms of having that awareness. I hope that folk have seen over the years that it has been a useful role. If they look back, they will find examples where it has helped. I certainly welcome that last point about transparency. In short, would you say that PLOs still, as in 4.8 of the ministerial code, work for ministers, or are you saying now that PLOs work for the Parliament? They are clearly appointed by the First Minister, but as part of that, particularly in a minority Government, I think that the role is important. I hope that it is valued by members across the chamber. Thank you for the promotion, convener. First of all, thank you very much for coming to the committee. I think that it is useful and an important discussion. I would like to continue on from some of the things that you mentioned in response to Patrick Harvie. You described yourself as working for John Swinney. No, that is fine. I am not saying anything wrong with it, but could you explain a little bit about how you would describe what you were doing for the minister and more broadly how PLOs help ministers? I think that each PLO and Cabinet Secretary will have different ways of working. That is one thing to be accepted. Obviously, they have to work within the confines of the ministerial code in terms of that, but when everybody does a job, they will have their own ways of doing that and their own ways of working. There is not a clear here, X, Y and Z that you need to do, so it will depend on that relationship and how people do that. When I was John Swinney's parliamentary liaison officer in 2007-11, I spent a lot of time meeting with Opposition, a lot of focus on budget, but we were looking at bringing in the climate change bill. Initially, I was the only parliamentary liaison officer within John Swinney's remit, so I had a lot of discussions with Sarah Boyack on taking that forward. Obviously, as a Government, we would have had to build consensus in order to get that legislation through. Partway through, we put it early on in that process, Shillian Somerville came into the Parliament and took on and joined me as one of John Swinney's parliamentary liaison officers, so Shillian focused more on the climate change area. At that point, Shillian, who did more of the discussions with members in that relation, sat on the climate change committee, which Patrick chaired. I hope that he appreciated the input that Shillian was able to make. It would be fair to say that your role was about helping Government legislation to make sure that it had the support that it needed to get through. No, it always has been. Obviously, I have no idea what there was prior when it was the ministerial aides and what the role is, but it has always been a two-way process. It is also about understanding the Government process and trying Government policy and trying to find consensus, but it is also about understanding the opposition's position as well. A really good example of that in just the last Parliament would have been land reform, in which I think that Angus MacDonald did a fantastic job of bringing together the thoughts of backbench SNP members, particularly Labour members on the committee, and we managed to get to a point where we had a stronger bill on that. That shows the benefit of the system working two ways. Those are both Government bills that you have named check there. How much time did you spend working on members' bills and getting support from the Government for those? Well, there is far less, but there will be some examples where I am trying to think what members' bills there were.  Although it became a Government-inspired bill, it became a being of the Parliament as a whole. I do not think that the Government would claim all the credit for that bill. It was something that, across the chamber, we worked together, and I hope that the Parliamentary Liaison Officer system helped us to get to that point where we were all proud of the legislation that was ultimately passed. Supporting the programme for government clearly is an important part of the PLO's role. I guess that supporting your manifesto commitments is something that people do from any party, so just as S&P members, whether they are PLOs or backbench, will support in the main. But there is a difference between a manifesto and a programme for government. It is the same, but to the same point members of the Opposition will come in with their specific manifesto commitments or policy positions. However, when you come on to a committee, that is where things change. We have really good examples where members of all parties have been able to somehow take off their party political hat, whether they are a PLO, a spokesperson for the Opposition and look at a subject. I think that the committee's system of this Parliament does that very well. Clearly, if it is a Government-backed venture of any sort, the type of questioning will be slightly different to its opposition. Nonetheless, if we look at the robustness of questioning, whether it is from Opposition or from Government-backed benders, including parliamentary liaison officers, we can see that from the stage 1 reports and the changes that the Government often makes at stage 2. The Parliament works really well in doing that ability to sometimes take off a political hat and look at a subject straight on. There are good examples of people from both Government and Opposition who have managed to do that. Can I ask how the parliamentary liaison officers were chosen? I am taking it as not an accident that you have a former lawyer helping with the justice brief and a former teacher helping with the education brief. Can I just ask what the process was for selecting people? The decision on selection is one for the First Minister, but I helped her with that process and, in discussion, with Cabinet secretaries. We will have taken account of the whole range of experience that people have in order to get people who can best help in the portfolios. I, coming from a business background, I think that developing skills is really important. Developing talent is really important. I take it that there is an important role of this, in terms of nurturing the backbench ranks and developing the next generation of members to take on further responsibilities. Would you say that that is a part of the role? I think that everybody who comes into Parliament initially is on big learning curves. The role is about liaising between Parliament and Government. That is what the role is about, and it is about using the Government in the same position as the Opposition. We have to look at our whole range of experience within our team and look at how best that can be deployed in the same way as the Labour Party will have made a decision as to which members want to have as conveners, which members want to have as spokespeople. That is a choice that is made, and it is how those talents are used. How many members of the current ministerial ranks have formally been PLOs? How many? I would need to look at a list of names, but probably about a third. Is it more? I do not know. I think that it is about a third. I guess that we could come back to you with an answer on who has ever been a PLO, but no-one has ever been a secret PLO. I do not think that it is a bad thing. That is one of the good things, because I have been dead serious about the process and the discussion that has been around here. We do not think that there has ever been a problem, but we think that it is always possible to be more transparent. That is something that the First Minister is keen to do, which is why she has made the changes that were suggested. It is about how not only are we more transparent, but people have more confidence in the system. I hope that people welcome the changes that the First Minister decided to make to the ministerial code. I hope that, outside, that gives more confidence in the processes that we have in this Parliament. I think that our system is really, really good. I would hate to think that we would never end up having to go down the system of Westminster where we have an unelected house trying to determine what happens in our legislation. I think that we have a robust system, but it is appropriate that we keep checking that and seeing if we can make it more transparent. Obviously, the First Minister made the changes to the ministerial code on that basis. After the discussion with the Presiding Officer, we have also asked parliamentary liaison officers to indicate their positions prior to asking a question of their cabinet secretary. I think that we can agree that transparency and confidence is vital. Thank you very much to the cabinet secretary for coming to speak to us today. Can I go back to Patrick Harvie's point? Of course, I welcome the First Minister's determination to introduce even greater transparency into the process. However, I am still unclear as to—I am still trying to bottom out the down-between-your-statement and the difference in standing orders. If the PLs are working for the Parliament, then this is, as you implied, new, given that their appointment is by the First Minister, because normally when people are working for the Parliament, there are two entities—very real entities, of course, I do not need to tell you—but for those looking in, shall we say, in the Parliament and the Government are two very separate entities. Normally, those working for the Parliament are appointed by the corporate body or the Presiding Officer with the endorsement, perhaps, of the bureau. However, I cannot reconcile in my own mind how, given the standing orders and the fact that those PLOs have to work within the standing orders, they are now working for the Parliament as well, as you have implied. I think that there is a conflict there. Let me be clear. Parliamentary liaison officers are appointed by the First Minister. Their role, I think, is of benefit to the whole Parliament, but, clearly, we all work for the people of Scotland where there are MSPs, so that is ultimately where we all—well, our responsibility all lies is to the people of Scotland. I think that there is an interpretation that I am suggesting that they actually work for the Parliament. I do not think that that is quite fair. They are appointed by the First Minister to do a role that is, I think, clearly of benefit to the Parliament. Particularly in a minority Parliament, if we are going to make any progress on any issues, there has to be consensus, so there has to be liaison, there has to be discussion. The focus is absolutely on that liaison role. We have a group of all the PLOs that are new to those roles, so they will be developing those roles going forward. I hope that, once they are in position for a period of time, members will see the benefit that those positions have had. A benefit to the Parliament rather than a benefit to the Government? I think that it is a benefit to the people of Scotland, which is ultimately the most important. No, I would rather say that you were clearer on that. We are all here for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but we all have different points of view. They are appointed by the First Minister, but I think that it will be a benefit to Parliament, but I also think that it will be a benefit to the Government. I am not seeing a discussion there. I do not see why you can be one or just the other. I am just doing a quite specific point elsewhere in other Parliaments. There are restrictions on questions that PLOs cannot ask of their own Cabinet Secretary or Minister. I wonder if you would consider the value of that. I think that you said earlier that the questioning by PLOs of their Cabinet secretaries had been in the past neutral. I have certainly witnessed questions that are just here's a feat for an inspired question, shall we say, which is absolutely legitimate. I cannot quite get around my head the suggestion that PLOs are also there to scrutinise the Government, yet they are suggesting by their role in committee and therefore the Parliament, which is also to provide scrutiny of Government, yet they are also bound by the standing orders to be working for their Cabinet Secretary. The big difference with other legislatures where PLOs are not allowed to ask questions of the Cabinet Secretaries is that, within the ministerial code, they are expressly bound to support the Government's position, effectively covered by collective responsibility. The old code from pre-2008, when we had ministerial aides, made it very clear in the position that that was the case, that they had to go further than the usual following the whip. The specific line was that the position as ministerial parliamentary aides means that they must support the executive on key policy issues. That is why, at any time in pre-2007, when a ministerial parliamentary aide was wanting to take a different view, whether on committee or in the chamber, they resigned from that position. That was removed from the code, and that is a significant removal. First and foremost, PLOs are MSPs, and that is why it would be wrong of the Parliament to come up with a situation in which a set of backbench MSPs were not allowed to ask questions. The discussions that we have had at the rest of the deputy convener with the PO to make that process more transparent, so that, if a PLO is asking a question, people know that it is the PLO that is asking the question, so that, if people want to put any colouring on that, they can do, it is probably helpful. That is about transparency. I have seen that because I have seen a few articles in the paper where some journalists have said that that was a softball question or whatever. That shows that the system is working in terms of transparency. Government backbenchers will always get accused of softball questions, and opposition will get accused of highly politicised questions. That is the way of Parliament, but I hope that, by the changes that we have made—maybe there is a bit of time to see how all this works out going forward—hopefully the change that we have made has got us to the position where there is an increase in transparency. Even if people think that that is a softball question from a PLO, they know that. There is no secrecy around the system, which I think is one of the strengths of our Parliament. As the Parliament has grown over the years, whereas other places have perhaps closed in, we have become more open and more transparent. I always think that that is a good thing. I suppose that it is this extension of the role beyond the stranding orders that you seem to be implying. If we knew that PLOs were just working for Government secretaries, they were part of the Government for the Government, and there it was. We would ask softball questions. That is not the case. You are saying that they are working for the Parliament and for the Parliament— I did not say that either. I said that they are MSPs. Will you define the extension of the role again for me? Just to be clear, Parliament-lazing officers are appointed by the First Minister their role benefits the Government and the Parliament. I hope that people who have had experience in the Parliament—Patrick in particular—will have—if you look back—a lot of people have appreciated that that role has been a positive role and helpful. A number of members have not been in yet. I will bring in later on Mr Johnson. Minister, going back to the role of the PLO, obviously they require to have access to information. That information may be prohibited. That information may be confidential at time of nature. Can I get in my mind about what they can do with that information? Do they receive any training in the role? Is there any sort of process that they all go through, or do cabinet ministers and secretaries try to assimilate and do roles for themselves? What real scrutiny and governance do they have in that role should they be challenged? As I said earlier, the working relationships and the ways of working of individual PLOs and cabinet secretaries will vary, but it always has to be within the ministerial code. However, when appointed by the First Minister, the PLOs always receive a letter, so maybe if I could read out the specific paragraph that relates to the area. All the PLOs receive a letter. The role will involve you in having to access government information. Such access will be solely for the purpose of allowing you to discharge your role effectively and on a strictly confidential basis. It is important, because it is the other side of it. It will also have access to information provided in confidence as a result of your parliamentary role, for example in relation to committee membership. When a member of a committee receives an in-confidence paper, that is referring to it. It will therefore be important that you respect the confidentiality arrangements that exist in respect of both roles and avoid any conflict of interest or the apparent of such a conflict. The potential for a conflict is recognised and it is highlighted to the PLOs that they have a responsibility to any information that they receive from government, to respect that confidentially and, likewise, any information that they receive in other capacities to respect that equally. I think that that is something that members do, so a spokesperson for a party has to respect what information they get from a committee just the same as the PLOs do. As I said, do they receive any formal training or is that just an accepted rule that they would be supported by their cabinet secretary or the minister of his office? I think that the point is to, and I am not sure what training you would need to understand that if you have received some in confidence, you do not. But just to do the rule, because as I said, there is obviously information that disseminates and how that rule has expanded. Obviously, it has changed in some ways, we have discussed that already from what it was originally. It may adapt as you go forward. Obviously, the First Minister makes the appointment and we acknowledge that, but each individual, when they are working with the cabinet secretary, will have an opportunity to develop their potential, so that they may end up becoming a minister in the future. I am one of those who is on that steep learning curve that you were alluding to earlier. It has been really helpful for me to hear what you have been saying about the history of the role and how it has developed. What would be lost if we did not have PLOs in the Parliament? I think that the role is helpful. I think that it might be more difficult for us to make some of the progress that we have made. You would always find a way, but I think that the focus that PLOs have on a portfolio area is to try to understand the thoughts of other members. I think that it would be a negative if we did not have that role. I think that it is helpful, particularly in minority government, but I think that there are good examples in the last Parliament where PLOs made a particular contribution to getting into a place where the Parliament was comfortable with the legislation. Even when the Government could, if it wanted to, build on something through, that did not happen. Do you be able to expand a little bit on that, on the role or how you see that? One of the things that I think would be lost would be the ability to—obviously, meetings can happen, and some people can put—I especially used to say here is that position, but sometimes it is what is behind that. It is not just understanding what a position is, but understanding why that position is that would help Government to develop policies. Some of the amendments that came forward in the land reform bill were challenging for us to find ways to bring forward those amendments. Government had to work very hard in order to achieve that. We would not have achieved it if there had not been an understanding of what it was that the Members were concerned about. I think that, in that particular role, the PLO was very helpful in making sure that not only did we hear, but we understood what the issues were. Mr Johnson, did you want to back in? Just a brief supplementary question. A number of times I have set out the benefits of the role, and I accept those benefits. I accept that there is a benefit to having a Scottish Parliament, and I think that there is a benefit to having a Scottish Government. It does not also necessarily mean that I agree with its objectives and purpose. Do you accept that there is a difference between saying that there is a benefit to having a role and the objectives and the purpose that that role may, at any given time, be serving? I think that I am not 100 per cent understanding the question, I do not think. There is a benefit to having a First Minister, and it is very easy for me to say that, being a Labour member, I will not necessarily always think that having an SNP First Minister will achieve the purposes that I would want, even if I can accept the wider benefit of the role. Do you understand the distinction? I would be surprised if the First Minister was going to appoint a member of another party as a parliamentary liaison officer. I think that there is always going to be that difference. However, I think that there will be a number of members, current and past, who will be able to reflect on opposition parties, who will be able to reflect on occasions when they will have felt the benefit of the parliamentary liaison officer. It is fundamentally about that that is a benefit, but the objectives are still those of the Government primarily that they pursue. I am going to stick with the land reform legislation. Our objective was to get the best possible legislation, and I think that the process there, in terms of lazing with, I guess, like-minded in that, whether it was the Green Party, the Labour Party, the objective was to get in the same direction, and it was how we got there. I think that we got further along that road than we might have done if it had not been for those discussions and those liaisons, particularly the members of that committee engaged in that in a constructive way. Sometimes that involved direct discussion with ministers, and sometimes it was indirect using liaison officers. Sorry, I have a question for Mr Harvey, and then I will come back to you. Minister, you mentioned that it was unlikely that, in a minority situation, the First Minister would appoint a PLO from another party, but it is quite possible in a coalition that there would be PLOs from both parties? However, how many parts is that? I would have imagined that, if there were a, it was quite hypothetical, but my guess is that, if there was a coalition Government, given that the First Minister discusses and confirms appointments with the cabinet secretaries, it is likely that the parliamentary liaison officers would be of the same party as the cabinet secretary. I think that that is just… Okay, thank you minister. Mr Harvey? Yeah, just a couple of points to follow up from the discussion so far. Quickly firstly, on collective responsibility, you've stated quite clearly that PLOs are not bound by collective responsibility in the way that PPSs at Westminster are, so presumably that being the case, a PLO would not be dismissed or be expected to resign for voting against the Government whip. That's correct, I mean clearly they're bound by the same discipline that we are all bound by in terms of the whip's process and party-to-party discipline, but there's no extra layer… But it wouldn't affect their PLO role. No, there's no extra in the way that there is for clearly a minister, is bound by collective responsibility that does not apply to Parliamentary. And how often have PLOs voted against the whip? It's not something I've ever assessed in any way. I don't know and I think that would probably apply to most green members who've never broken the green whip, but the fact is that people join parties because they have similar views and so in the main people are going to come into the same conclusions on those views, so whether it's members of the Conservative Party, members of the Green Party, members of the Labour Party or members of the SNP, they've joined those parties because in the main they have agreed on most things. Yeah, nobody tended to spot the days when Robin and I voted different ways, but let's leave that side. I think the situation that we've got here is I don't detect any hostility to the existence of PLOs, not even any great rejection of the description you've given of the way government has perceived the role to change over the years. But I do think it seems quite clear that there has been not always good understanding between Government and Parliament about those changes. Government has had a sense of how the role is changing, but that hasn't always been apparent to Parliament. I think you gave a good example with the climate change bill, for example, whereas committee convener, I respected and valued the role of all committee members equally, and I always perceived the members acting as committee members. When committees want to hear from government, we invite ministers and civil servants to come and give evidence, and I would not have felt appropriate if a member of the committee had been effectively acting on the Government's behalf during that process. There's been an acknowledgement, and I welcome it, that that was inappropriate for PLOs to be sitting on their own ministers committees, and that's a positive change. I would suggest that there needs to be, if the role has changed from one working for ministers to one that is engaging both with how government conducts its functions and engaging with how Parliament conducts its functions, there needs to be some mutually agreeable definition, rather than Government only defining that through the ministerial code. Can I ask whether the Government seeks to oppose an introduction of a definition into standing orders, so that there is some mutual agreement about how the role is supposed to work? I think that it would be very difficult for what is an appointment of the First Minister to be governed by standing orders. I think that that would be quite strange. Aspect of the way ministers do their job are defined by standing orders? I think that that would be quite difficult. The main role of PLOs is as a backbench, as MSPs. That would be quite strange. However, that said, it's not impossible for us to have a lot of what goes on in the Parliament, it's not in standing orders and it's in a great way forward. In response to the request for increased transparency, the First Minister has confidence in the system as well. That's the other thing. We want to make sure that it's important for Government, as it is for Parliament, that people have confidence in our systems and our democracy. On that basis, the First Minister has put into the ministerial code that PLOs won't be on the committee most relevant to their cabinet secretaries. We have also made sure that, at each point, there is transparency over who the PLOs are. That's something that the First Minister will be clear, that we do that at the earliest opportunity going forward. In addition, with discussion from the PLO, we agreed that at each point a new appointment would make a statement in the chamber prior to questioning their cabinet secretary. I think that we've gone some way to, hopefully, alleviate the concerns, and I just hope that we could give it that some time to see how that works. All the PLOs are relatively new in post. We have got some new systems in place, which I think benefits the PLOs as well as the Parliament. The increased transparency, the point that you're making about people having a better understanding of what the PLOs do, I think that's a good thing for the PLOs as well, because maybe there was a lack of recognition of their role and the work that they were doing. You accept the general argument that the previous role was about how ministers carry out their duties. Now you're saying that this is about both how Government functions and how Parliament functions, and that being the case, there needs to be a mutual understanding of what the role is in how it works. I think that this process is part of developing that understanding, but ultimately this is appointments of the First Minister and it would be strange if we started having, you know, the PLOs don't exist and they don't have any special rights in the Parliament, so it would be very strange if you have insanding orders that would require something. You have acknowledged that they have a special role in relation to the relationship between Government and Parliament that other— Government, Government and right benches, yeah. Okay, Mr Scott. Yeah, I'm still trying to bottom this out in terms of this new role of PLOs, and I have on two occasions suggested that Angus MacDonald's job in the Iraqi committee was to understand the mood of other parliamentarians other than his own party, rather than to influence. If the new role is, as you said twice, to understand and benefit the progress of bills, then I just would like you to confirm that that is, in fact, a new role to understand rather than to influence, but also, and perhaps when following on from what the deputy convener Patrick Harvie has just said, I mean, I appreciate the difficulty and perhaps the nuances around us, but would you or the First Minister perhaps like to write to this committee, perhaps? After reflection with your officials and others, to really give us a clearer definition, because I'm still struggling to grasp what this new role is of PLOs and the apparent conflict between what you have said and what the standing orders tell us. So the big difference and the big change was the focus on liaison, but clearly they're still appointed by the First Minister and they're still working with the cabinet secretary, so there's, you know, to serve as a liaison officer to a particular cabinet secretary, so. DPLR, committee, I'm interested in this new role, so they're working with or working for the cabinet secretary. Well, they're appointed to serve. There was a specific language is, I'm pleased to confirm your appointment as Parliamentary to rate liaison officer in support of cabinet secretary and portfolio minister, so that's the language. But in that role, in taking forward that role, the most important thing is that liaison. It's only part of what they're doing, of course, and different parliamentary liaison officers, different cabinet secretaries will have different ways of doing that, but always bound by the ministerial code, which we've now updated in a way that I hope meets with the welcome officer. Well, I still can't get beyond what you've said and the standing orders and what you've said today. There's a clear conflict of interest and perhaps you could write to us and redefine on how that... Well, we'll have a thing if we can find some words that make that clear. The minister would be willing to share the appointment later with the committee. Yeah, nothing else. That would be helpful, thank you. Are there any further questions from members, Mr Johnson? Just finally, we have a unicameral system, a parliamentary system, so we don't have the clear distinction between Government and Parliament that other places might have. Would you agree with me that the closer an MSP is to the Government, the more difficult that scrutiny role becomes, the further the separation, the easier it is to perform that scrutiny role? I think whatever the scrutiny is happening has to reflect and respect the voting pattern of the people of Scotland. So in the last Parliament, clearly the majority of MSPs in this Parliament were Government members of the SNP in this Parliament. That's not the case, but I think that, as I've said before, there are some very good examples of people who were her PLOs scrutinising the cabinet secretary that they have been appointed to serve. One example, I'm going to try to stick away from SNP members now. John Finnie, when John Finnie was a member of the SNP group, he was the parliamentary asian officer for Kenny MacAskill. I think that if anybody cares to look at the record, they will see several occasions, lots of occasions, where John Finnie has robustly questioned Kenny MacAskill on justice issues. I think that the challenge then is for all of us in our roles, particularly when on committee, to put aside to some extent the party hat, whatever that hat is, whether it's as a parliamentary asian officer, whether it's as a spokesperson for a particular party where you're bound to support the manifesto commitments or the policies of the party, to take that off to some extent so that you are actually scrutinising whatever it is that comes before you, whether that's evidence from external parties or whether that's a Government bill. I think that most folk managed to do that really well. I take it that you think that it's a good thing that ministers can't question or don't question their fellow ministers in Parliament or sit on committees. Do you think that that's a good thing? Ministers are bound by collective responsibility. PLOs are not bound by collective responsibility. You see the benefit of not permitting that in Parliament. It's not relevant to this area because—I think that there's an attempt here—ministers are bound by collective responsibility when they're appointed and accept appointments, they accept collective responsibility. Parliamentary asian officers are not bound by collective responsibility. However, in other places, they are effectively bound by collective responsibility. There are objectives that are set by ministers. All of those things get access to Government information that is confidential. I think that we've already established that there is at least some connection between the status and role as a PLO and potential future progression within the Government. There's clearly a proximity between PLOs and the Government that an ordinary backbench doesn't have. It's an appointment by the First Minister. If the relationship between a minister and the Government means that it's not appropriate for them to be questioning, surely that certainly raises the question of the PLO. I think that your dismissal of that point is maybe a little quick, may I suggest? I'm merely stating the fact that ministers are bound by collective responsibility. Parliamentary asian officers are not, and that is a substantial and pretty fundamental difference. Transparency is something that's really important. When an opposition spokesperson asks a question, I think that there are lots of ways in which we can improve transparency, but I don't think that it would be right to suggest that we effectively have a set of second-class backbench MSPs who are not allowed to ask questions and not allowed to represent their constituents in the way that other people are. That's the question. We've got a rank of Government that has a different set of roles applied to other ranks. That's the distinction. Your point is wrong in suggesting that a PLO is a rank of Government, because that's just wrong. There's no connection between PLOs and Government? There's lots of connections all over clearly. Any SNP member is going to be closer to Government than a member of the Conservative Party, for instance, who I would suggest is perhaps furthest away. The fact is that a letter means that there's a formal relationship between Government and PLO. It's an appointment from the First Minister. There's no secrecy here. I think that's the importance. That isn't it. It's a formal relationship between Government and MSP. It's an appointment of the First Minister. Which is a formal relationship? We'll leave it there. The end points are made, Mr Johnson. Here brings in Mr Arthur in the middle of Scotland. First, I would just like to apologise for being a bit late in attending due to unforeseen circumstances. Also, just for the record, I will declare that I am a parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, prior to which I was parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and also just to correct Mr Johnson. My background is not in law but in music. Obviously, given my experience of being a PLO, as limited as it is in the last four months, my understanding of it has been and in considering international practice of it, the role, if carried out properly, is to develop expertise in a particular portfolio, to engage in liaison, not just with parliamentarians but to make particular efforts to engage with people who are out with parliament, and ultimately to act as a conduit between members of all parties and indeed the Cabinet Secretary and Ministers. Is that a characterisation that the minister would agree with? I would be keen to hear his views on that. I think that that's true, Mening. In the main today, we've talked mainly about the parliamentary role but, clearly, there are other roles in helping the cabinet secretary here, the voice of wider Scotland. Obviously, there is limited time that anybody has in terms of for engagement, so while here in the Parliament, cabinet secretaries try to make themselves as available as possible equally in wider Scotland, there is a role there as well. As I say, we will vary from PLO and cabinet secretary to PLO and cabinet secretary as to how those functions are ultimately. One of the things that is striking is the seven-built flexibility, which is necessary as ultimately different cabinet secretaries that only have a sort of different modus operandi. However, while respecting that flexibility and the right of cabinet secretaries to have their own unique relationship with a PLO, what has been suggested is that, from the deputy convener, this role could be formalised with understanding of orders. You have raised a particular conflict here because it is an appointment from the First Minister. Would there be perhaps an opportunity within the ministerial code to perhaps expand upon the definition of a PLO, but in such a way that it does not overly restrict it? Obviously, the ministerial code is a matter for the First Minister, but I am sure that she will be listening to the proceedings today. If there are any thoughts on a requirement for further adjustments, I am sure that that is something that she will take into account. What I hope is that members will appreciate that there have been some significant changes. There is a new team of PLOs, and I would hope that the committee would feel that it is appropriate to allow that process to bed in. If there is a feeling that there is a need to come back and have further discussions going forward, that would not be a bad thing. I think that today's discussion has been helpful in highlighting the role and maybe increasing understanding of those roles across the Parliament more, which I think is good for members. I also think that it will be helpful to our PLOs. To take you back to what you said about Mr Finney's contribution to scrutiny of his cabinet secretary, I do not recall that necessarily being welcome, but are you telling us that, in good faith, the new role of the PLOs would also be a scrutiny role? In which case, that would stack up, but you are telling us that they are working for the Parliament because the Parliament exists to allow in a democracy scrutiny of the Government process. If you are going to perhaps write to us in that regard, will you put that in that this will also be a welcome part of the PLOs role that they will be welcome to scrutiny? When John Finnie was questioning Kenny MacAskill, he would not have been questioning Kenny MacAskill as the PLO. He would have swapped his hat back and he would have been questioning Kenny MacAskill as the member for Highlands and Islands. That is something that, in this Parliament, I think that members are actually very good at, is having two roles. I have seen that a number of party spokespeople sit on committees and, clearly, sometimes they will come into that committee wearing their party hat because it is a policy that is in their manifesto when they have a clear policy. For instance, in the last Parliament, Alison McInnes stood rigidly on anything about the creation of Police Scotland because Lib Dem's position was very clear against what we were proposing. On a whole load of other issues, Alison McInnes was able to take the fact that she was the Lib Dem justice spokesperson hat off and look at the evidence as a committee member. I think that our committee members of all parties are actually very good at being able to do that in most cases. There is almost going to be one or two things where people have very rigid views and, at the end of the day, it does not matter what and somebody comes to give evidence, Patrick's view on fracking is not going to change. There will be examples of that across the parties. In the main, I think that members who serve on committees do a really good job listening to the evidence, which is really important for this Parliament because one of the strengths of the committee system is the time that is made to hear from outwith the Parliament in scrutinising Government bills or other matters. I think that everybody has to have that skill of being able to wear two hats sometimes, and it is specifically referenced in the letter that the First Minister received from the First Minister. I accept that, and I think that people work very hard to wear two hats at the one time and with integrity. However, I would also ask you to acknowledge that there is a potential here for the perception at any rate of a conflict of interest in the role that you are assigning to PLOs. The perception, as you know, is sometimes more awkward than the reality. I do not doubt that people of integrity do analysis and machinist is a classic case in point, university recognised in this Parliament. I have seen absolute integrity in that regard historically. However, you are asking an awful lot of PLOs who are mostly, if my memory serves me correctly, newcomers to our Parliament—welcome newcomers, of course—but you are asking a lot of them in this regard to tread that very fine line between the perception and the reality of the standing order of the First Minister's appointment and telling us also that they have the ability when they want—indeed, they should—and scrutinise their cabinet secretary as and when appropriate and hold them to account. I think that that is a big task that we are setting for these people. You might be right. I think that they are up to it. For the last nine years, I do not think that there have been any examples of where there is good evidence of PLOs managing to do that, just as well as spokespeople from other parties have managed to do that. I hope that that continues. For the record, it is worth all of us acknowledging that none of this discussion should be seen as casting aspersions on individuals or the way that they have done their job. However, I think that there is a critical difference between someone having a role on behalf of a political party and a role that is working for a minister. The purpose of Parliament's existence is to hold Government to account. Regardless of which party is in office, the purpose of Parliament is to hold Government to account and not to hold Opposition parties to account. There is a danger that, rather than walking the line, the line becomes blurred. I hope that the changes that we have made in terms of—and it is about perception, as Mr Scott indicated, of adding to the national code that PLOs will not set on the committee of the cabinet secretary makes that line sharper and also the increased transparency in terms of when questions are asked in the chamber. I hope that those two things together will help to blur the line, so to speak. However, as I said, if members feel that, going forward, there is a need for more discussion on those matters, I would be happy to have them back, but— That is helpful. Thank you to members. Thank you to Mr FitzPatrick for attending this morning and to his officials. We will now move into private session and allow the press on public to leave.