Official Report 445KB pdf
Item 6 is for the committee to consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party groups on autism and life sciences. I invite members to comment. Let us start with the proposed CPG on autism.
I have long felt that it is remiss of the Parliament not to have such a CPG.
It is important to focus on what CPGs are about: they are parliamentary in nature, rather than being public meetings. I certainly support the application.
Similarly, I think that there is a need in Parliament for a CPG that is focused on this issue.
Graeme Dey is the convener of the other committee that I sit on and he does things well. He gives it his all, so I would hope that he would recognise Elaine Smith’s point and ensure that the meetings are not just public meetings.
Is the committee content to support the CPG on autism?
Members indicated agreement.
Does anyone have any comments on the life sciences CPG?
It is interesting that it is not appropriate for the topic to come under the remit of the existing group on science and technology. I am asking the question because I thought that the life sciences CPG might have existed in the previous parliamentary session because there was not a group on science and technology. I was trying to get to the bottom of that.
I take the point that groups can work together, cross-reference each other and have meetings together. That is a legitimate point for Kenneth Gibson to have made.
I am particularly interested to know what exactly the purpose of the group is. The registration form says that it is
“to support the delivery of the Scottish Life Sciences Strategy”.
Some of my and Alexander Stewart’s questioning was to get to the bottom of whether the group’s purpose would be to support the strategy or perhaps to scrutinise it and seek to make it better as it goes along. That was my only slight reservation, but Kenneth Gibson answered that point.
Patrick Harvie raised the issue of the organisations that make up the CPG. They seem to be very industry-focused, but Kenneth Gibson said that they were trying to widen that scope.
With those issues having been aired on the record, I support the setting up of the CPG.
As I indicated, the issue needs to be challenged, and that is what is going to happen during this process. We can all sign up to the philosophy behind it, but the CPG needs to be very focused on what it is trying to achieve. Mr Gibson indicated that that would be the case, and I look forward to going along to some of the meetings to see what happens and how the group develops. The group could become quite focused, but it could also be quite broad. It needs to be focused or it will lose sight of its objectives.
That goes to the heart of having CPGs. Do we go broad and have fewer, or go in-depth and have far more? I think that there are far too many, but, at the same time, if we want to look at life sciences properly, we cannot do it within the science and technology CPG. I would be more reluctant to support the life sciences group, because there could be a spin-off from the group on science and technology, especially if the purpose of the group is just to have events.
I am happy to support the creation of the group. I do not think that this applies to this group, but I have made the point before that with a CPG that has a limited range of external members or membership that is entirely composed of organisations that have vested commercial interests, there is a danger that it can tip over into lobbying rather than be a genuine cross-party group.
As I say, I do not think that that is of great concern in relation to the proposed life sciences CPG, because it contains a range of academic and other interests. However, we might review that in the future.
I just want to repeat the point about making sure that there is proper representation, especially to encourage women to get into life sciences, as that is one of the stated aims of the CPG. I also echo Kate Forbes’s point on regional representation. That is important.
I support the group.
Is the committee content to approve the cross-party group on life sciences?
Members indicated agreement.
Both MSPs will be informed formally by the clerks later today.
As previously agreed, we now move into private session.
10:57 Meeting continued in private until 11:32.