���˿���

That is very helpful. Alexander, would you like to add anything?

Bob, I know that you would like to come back in.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take business in private. Do members agree to take in private item 3, as well as future consideration of correspondence from the Parliamentary Bureau, changes to the standing orders and changes to the code of conduct and to its guidance?

Members indicated agreement.

That is very helpful. Emma, do you want to come back in?

That is very helpful. I thank the committee members for all their opinions on the issue. For a start, we need to understand that the motion is the vehicle that is used to bring any matter to the attention of those in Parliament, and I think that we are in agreement that there is a responsibility on individual ���˿���. The standing orders are very clear on motions. They set out how a motion will be admissible rather than refer to their content or the expectation or hope that certain motions will come before the chamber.

A number of members have reflected on the importance to our constituents of Parliament recognising their work, whether or not that is in a congratulatory way. Emma Harper’s comment about the cross-party groups is very important.

To go back to the analysis from SPICe, we are not that far away from the numbers increasing. Perhaps that is why, in actuality, some members felt concern. I hope that members will be reassured that we will undertake to monitor the situation over the next 12 months, to see whether we move away from that being the case. If we do not, that might be the trigger for us to return to the matter.

With regard to the chamber desk team, obviously, the expertise lies with the clerks who serve the chamber. I note Bob Doris’s suggestion. If we were to consider an inquiry into the matter, we would, of course, seek evidence from all relevant and experienced bodies, to feed in their views.

However, at this stage, if the committee is content, I will write to Graeme Dey to thank him for expressing a concern, which is not just his concern, as other members have raised it, and to tell him that we will—I do not mean this to disparage the idea—take a watching brief, to see whether this parliamentary session continues in the way that the previous sessions have, and that we will continue to monitor the effect on and use of the motions system. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful. That being the last of the matters that we intend to deal with in public, I move the committee meeting into private session.

Item 2 is correspondence from Graeme Dey MSP. He wrote to the committee expressing concern about the type and number of parliamentary motions that were being lodged to congratulate individuals or organisations. The committee previously considered his letter and requested more information relating to congratulatory motions.

The Scottish Parliament information centre has kindly prepared an analysis of the trends in the usage of motions that start with the phrase “That the Parliament congratulates”. The paper from the clerk provides more information on the rules that relate to the admissibility of motions.

I ask that members comment both on the report from SPICe, for which I thank it, and on the original correspondence from Graeme Dey. If it pleases the members who are here in person, I will turn to my deputy convener, who joins us online.

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Edward Mountain has given his apologies, so I welcome Stephen Kerr as a substitute member. Good morning, Stephen.

Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The committee has received apologies from Edward Mountain MSP.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take business in private. Does the committee agree to take in private, at a future meeting, consideration of revisions to the guidance on the code of conduct for ���˿��� and consideration of its approach to petition PE1949, which calls for a review of the rules concerning dual mandate ���˿���?

Members indicated agreement.

I am glad that you have found it useful as a synopsis of the committee’s work prior to your joining us—and your joining us is most welcome. It is an interesting snapshot of the work that the committee has covered in the past year. In particular, the report of our inquiry into future parliamentary procedures and practices was the starting point for—the genesis of—our work in that year.

It is worth pointing out that the report features, as did much of our discussion, the iterative nature of change—that we should never consider the Parliament to be fixed; it is always on a journey of improvement. Some of that might go down the odd cul-de-sac, but there is no harm in learning from mistakes, whereas there is harm in trying to fix everything in aspic and in saying that we are successful because of that. Thank you for that, Emma.

Are there any other comments?