Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, October 28, 2021

Official Report 561KB pdf

---

Cross-Party Groups

Agenda item 7 is consideration of applications for recognition from five proposed cross-party groups.

The first group that we will consider today is the proposed CPG on Ireland. I hope that we can welcome James Dornan, who is the convener of the proposed group. He joins us remotely.

Hi.

Good morning, James. You have made it through to us. We are asked to consider and approve the application for recognition under agenda item 8. In due course, the clerks will inform you of the committee’s decision. I invite you to make some opening comments on the proposed CPG.

Ireland is one of our closest neighbours. The cross-party group would be about fostering further links for culture and business and giving the Irish voice in Scotland a place to be heard. The Irish community is one of the biggest migrant communities in Scotland, and it is important that the Scottish Parliament has a distinct place where people in that community can come to tell their stories and tell us about the successes that they have had while living in Scotland, as well as something that enables us to strengthen the link between the two islands.

You have been appointed as the convener. Will you tell us who your deputy convener is, please?

Yes, of course. Finlay Carson is the deputy convener. To date, seven MSPs from four parties have said that they will join. Countless organisations and individuals are also keen to join if the CPG gets up and running. It will have a lot of people on it.

As I said, the clerks will be in touch after we make our decision on the CPG under the next agenda item. I thank you for joining us. We will, no doubt, speak soon.

Thank you very much.

We will now consider the proposed CPG on long Covid. I welcome to the meeting Jackie Baillie, who is a co-convener of the proposed group. Again, we will make a decision on the proposed CPG under the next agenda item, and the clerks will notify you of the decision in due course. I invite you to make an opening statement on your proposed CPG.

Thank you very much, convener. I thank committee members for their time this morning.

The pandemic has touched everybody in Scotland, but, unfortunately, its impact on some people still lingers and has quite serious consequences. A number of MSPs were asked by Long Covid Scotland, which represents ordinary people across Scotland who are still suffering from the after-effects of Covid, to set up a cross-party group. It asked us to do so in order to bring focus to the issue, to highlight and recognise the problems that are being experienced, to ensure that there is appropriate service provision, to try to influence the policy that is emerging from the Scottish Government and to bring to the Parliament the lived experience of people who are suffering from long Covid.

I have had discussions with colleagues, and we have set up the cross-party group. We hope that the committee will support us.

I am very grateful for that.

I welcome Jackie Baillie to the committee. I am pleased that you have been able to come along.

In your opening statement, you commented on the question that I wanted to ask. Who could disagree with the purpose of the cross-party group? However, I did not see anything about how people with lived experience of long Covid can help to shape, improve and enhance services and service provision in a positive and constructive way. I know that Long Covid Scotland wants to do that, but I did not see that reflected in the purpose of the group. It is up to the cross-party group to shape its work programme, but what you have put on the record gives me confidence that that will be a key part of the group’s objectives. I do not know whether you want to add anything to that.

I agree with what you have said. Given that that is such a core part of the group, it is not a single objective. The group is serviced by Long Covid Scotland, which brings those voices into the Parliament. Even as we speak, the cross-party group and I are negotiating with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to ensure that lived experience feeds through into Government policy. We see the group very much as a supporting vehicle to do that. People with lived experience are central to the cross-party group and to every agenda that we will have, and we will certainly promote that work. I am happy to reassure Bob Doris that that is the case.

You have answered the question that I was going to ask about how to reach out and include everyone who is suffering from long Covid. How will you make people who are suffering aware of all that you are trying to do? The group’s aim is very laudable, and it will be breaking new ground. You have partly answered my question, but I would appreciate it if you could give me a bit more information.

Long Covid Scotland represents hundreds upon hundreds of long Covid sufferers in Scotland, but it is not our only member organisation. A variety of organisations, including Long Covid Kids, are very active in this space. They will bring their knowledge directly to the Parliament and to the cross-party group, and they are also willing to share their knowledge with the Government. If you have listened to anyone who is involved describing their experiences, you will know that what they say is hugely powerful. Those experiences will be very welcome for policy makers across Scotland in considering how we ensure that people with long Covid are catered for within myriad complex systems in our public services and are assisted in their journey to recovery.

You are a co-convener, so it is right to note that Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP and Sandesh Gulhane MSP are the other co-conveners—is that correct?

That is right. We like to be very inclusive and to work across parties. We share the responsibility, because I think that it reflects well on the Parliament that we can operate in that way.

That is excellent. Thank you very much for your evidence. As I said, we will be in touch after we have made our decision.

There will be a short suspension while there is a changeover of witnesses.

10:09 Meeting suspended.  

10:12 On resuming—  

The committee will continue to consider CPGs. I welcome Liz Smith for our consideration of a proposed CPG on outdoor education. We will make the decision on the proposed CPG under the next agenda item. The clerks will be in touch with you about that. Would you like to make any opening comments about the proposed CPG?

Yes, I would. I thank committee members for giving up their time to listen to what I have to say.

Most people around the table are aware that, during the 15 years that I have been in the Parliament, outdoor education has been a strong personal interest. As time has gone on, I have been struck by how much it means to many members across the political spectrum. You will know from recent members’ business debates and discussions that we have had on the subject that it is capturing the imagination.

In relation to the Covid situation, outdoor education and all the assets that it brings are vital to young people’s wellbeing. It is clear from what members have said in debates that there is an issue in relation to pressures on education and, especially, outdoor education centres.

I have convened the cross-party group on sport for some time. There is a distinction between sport and outdoor education, and one of the gaps in the Parliament is that we do not have a sufficiently discrete group on outdoor education. I spoke to various colleagues across the political spectrum when thinking about setting up the group, and they are very keen that I do so.

That is where we are. I did an informal consultation about it and spoke to a lot of people with whom I have considerable contact in the outdoor education world. We agreed that not only would it help the Parliament to engage with that increasingly important sector but it would help local authorities, schools and people who have a strong interest in the unmeasurable aspect of education, which I would defend as being the most important. We all feel passionately about that.

Those are the basic reasons for the group, convener. I set out its purpose in my paper.

10:15  

Do members have any questions?

A broad set of organisations from outwith the Parliament support setting up the group, which is good to see. The deputy convener is Daniel Johnson—is that right?

That is correct.

Excellent. We wish you well for our next agenda item.

10:15 Meeting suspended.  

10:27 On resuming—  

I now welcome to the committee Rona Mackay MSP, who is joining us to speak to a proposal for a CPG on women, families and justice. I invite Ms Mackay to make some opening comments about the proposed group.

When I was the convener of the cross-party group on women’s justice, which was formed in 2018, it became increasingly clear that what we were discussing involved children and families, too. There was already a cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment, and its members regularly attended and contributed to our group’s meetings. As a result, it seemed logical and sensible to merge the two groups in this parliamentary session, given that we shared the same agenda on many occasions and spoke about the same problems faced by women going through the justice system and the effect on their wider families.

Thank you very much. Do members have any questions?

Good morning. I just want to take this opportunity of Rona Mackay’s appearance to ask a brief question that, I think, reflects a constituency interest. I know that alternatives to custody for women will be part of the group’s work. Frankly, we are failing too many women by locking them up. One of the new smaller custodial units for women is being developed in Maryhill, in my constituency, and we are all very keen to see what difference these establishments make in ensuring that women whose being held in such a unit is unavoidable still have access to their families and wider support mechanisms and are not cut off from that wider family group. As the new units come online over the course of this parliamentary session, will looking at their effectiveness or otherwise form part of the work of the cross-party group?

10:30  

That was part of the work of the previous group, and, now that the units are nearing completion, we are very keen to press the need for contact between mothers and children. We are asking for mother-and-baby units to be part of these establishments in order to allow mothers to bond with their babies instead of being separated from them. As I said, it has been part of our work—we have taken evidence on it from the Scottish Prison Service on many occasions—and we very much see such work as on-going and necessary.

I just wanted to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.

I think that this is an important CPG, but I have two questions about it. First, what, for you, as the convener, would be the measures of the group’s success?

One such measure would be highlighting the huge issues that women on remand face. There are still far too many women on remand and in custody. Although we are 10 years on from the Angiolini report, which concluded that we have to stop locking women up for low-level offences, that is still happening. There are many causes of such offending—addiction problems, mental health problems, chaotic lifestyles and so on—and, at that level, prison is not the place for women. Our objective is to keep pressing the issue and to look at what are pretty radical new ways of keeping women out of prison. After all, prison does not help them; indeed, it just makes the situation that they find themselves in much worse, given the mental health effects, and so on. Moreover, it affects not just them but the wider family and their children. Only 5 per cent of children whose mother is in prison remain in the family home, which indicates how disruptive such an approach is. We are focusing on all aspects of how the situation could be improved and on how a much more holistic method might be brought in.

So your focus is on keeping women out of prison.

Yes.

Does that mean that you will not be focusing on the safety of women in prison?

Our focus is on all aspects of women in the justice system. Far too many women in prison have mental health problems or have been victims of domestic abuse and are brain injured. There are huge issues that we need to look at. The cross-party group on women’s justice made a start on that work in the previous parliamentary session, and I hope that, in this session, we can dig deep into the issues and try to effect a lot of change.

Thank you. I have to say that I fully support this proposed CPG.

We will get to that in the next agenda item, but your intention is noted.

For the record, Ms Mackay, can you tell us the name of the group’s deputy convener?

It is Collette Stevenson.

That is excellent. Thank you. It is wonderful to see in your application so many organisations supporting the group. I also put on record how positive it is to see two CPGs with so much of an overlap coming together. I hope that they will provide a stronger voice as they move forward.

Thank you for attending this morning’s meeting. We will make our decision under the next agenda item, and the clerks will let you know the outcome.

Thank you very much.

We will now have a short suspension.

10:33 Meeting suspended.  

10:37 On resuming—  

The final group that we will consider today is a proposed CPG on culture and communities. I welcome Sarah Boyack MSP, who joins us as the convener of the proposed group. I invite Sarah to make some opening comments.

Thanks very much, convener. We want to set up the group after a lot of reflection from the members of the group and after learning from experiences, particularly during the previous parliamentary session. The term “culture” covers a huge number of areas, and there was a very strong suggestion that it is too broad a term for a cross-party group. For example, the Scottish Government has separate culture and creative industries departments, with a full department for each with different aims, objectives and strategies. We therefore think that the proposed group would make a lot of sense in relation to exploring accountability issues.

There is also a real grass-roots sense about it, looking at the two areas of communities and the industrial sector. There is the publicly funded sector of libraries, museums and national performing companies, and we have lots of community arts and culture groups that want to have a voice and speak to us in the context of a CPG rather than through a committee. We also have the industrial sector of publishing companies, record companies, entrepreneurs and the media. There is therefore a huge area to cover.

We have spoken to Culture Counts, which represents the sector, and we think that, if we had two cross-party groups, that would allow both MSPs and the sector to have a proper focus on both areas. I reassure the committee that we are not necessarily planning on having eight CPG meetings a year, as opposed to four, though. In the first year, we are thinking of experimenting with having two meetings for each of the CPGs, with the opportunity to have more, depending on the members of our groups.

I think that that will work really well, and there is a lot of enthusiasm for it. I hope that the committee will be okay with it, because we think that it is a good idea.

Does anyone have any questions?

Did you say that you would have only two meetings a year?

For each cross-party group. There will be a cross-party group on culture that relates to communities and then one that will be concerned much more with the culture industry. We wanted to mirror the two Scottish Government departments, so we will have one for each. To be honest, as we come out of Covid, we are thinking of giving ourselves the aim of having two meetings each. We have had one first meeting of everybody and we reckon that, in the next few months, we will have another two meetings for our cross-party group in the first year. We might have more in the future.

What are your measures of success? How will you know that the CPG is working as you want it to?

There are now so many grass-roots organisations that are involved in culture throughout the country that we wanted to be inclusive. We will be concerned with engagement opportunities and following up how the Scottish Government’s strategy is working in practice. The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is examining that, but the CPG would enable us to take a much more grass-roots approach and involve people on the ground. That has been missing because the proposed cross-party group on creative economy tries to cover too much.

People in the sector being happy, feeling included and having access to MSPs is our number 1 objective this year as the culture and communities group.

Engagement is how you will measure success. Do you have any engagement indicator or will you take a general view at the end of the year?

We will definitely review it at the end of the year. There is a sense that people at the grass roots have felt excluded from the CPG on culture in the past because it has tended to be dominated by the creative industries sector, which is also important. We want to ensure that both sides get a voice and an input.

Thanks for coming along, Sarah. I know that it is a busy morning for you. I had not intended to ask a question, but I looked at the list of cross-party groups that have been approved. You mentioned the music sector, and that list includes a cross-party group on music. There is clearly room for it and your group to exist, but what might the relationship between them be? The CPG on music might consider a variety of matters that the cross-party group for which you seek approval might seek to consider. Would you consider partnership working or common themes? Do you have any thoughts on that?

No, not at this point. The meeting that we had was a high-level discussion with a big attendance. Culture Counts commented that we could have about 20 different culture groups. We are thinking about the whole range: crafts, fashion and textiles, design, photography, writing and publishing, heritage, cultural education and performing arts. It is still a huge section, even without thinking about the CPG on music. We are not worried that we will overlap.

I anticipated that that would be the answer, but it is in the nature of such exchanges that we ask certain questions. Overlap is a theme that comes up quite often. It is not specific to your proposed cross-party group but is a general matter that the committee considers.

For the record, who will the deputy convener be?

That is on our form. We have formally applied as a group, have we not?

Yes—it is Sue Webber.

I will follow on from Bob Doris’s question. This is absolutely not a criticism. In fact, I welcome the way that the proposed CPG has dealt with overlap, because concerns are expressed about the total number of CPGs that exist. I welcome your comments that there is a need for two separate CPGs but that the workload of each will reduce and they will approach different people so that MSPs can witness the experience and knowledge that the different sectors bring. That is most helpful.

I thank you for attending. We will make our decision under the next agenda item and the clerks will be in touch. Thank you for your time.

The only thing that I did not clarify is that we would be looking at the publicly funded sector and the creative economy CPG would be looking at the private sector. That goes back to the different Government departments. That was a key issue for us.

That is helpful.

I have not been to one of these meetings, so I appreciated looking at previous committee discussions. I hope that I have answered your questions.

10:45  

That is kind. Thank you very much indeed, Sarah.

Agenda item 8 is on the approval of cross-party groups. It is for the committee to consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party groups that we have heard from today—that is, the proposed cross-party group on Ireland, the proposed cross-party group on long Covid, the proposed cross-party group on outdoor education, the proposed cross-party group on women, families and justice, and the proposed cross-party group on culture and communities.

Do members have any comments to make before I formally ask the committee whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party groups?

My only comment is on the proposed cross-party group on Ireland. We already have BIPA—the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I support the setting up of the cross-party group, but I want to ensure that reference is made to BIPA and the work that it does.

The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly has been in existence for a long time. It allows co-ordination between parliamentarians from the different areas, and I know from experience how valuable its work is. Although this was not confirmed in the evidence that we took, I am quite sure that BIPA will be involved. If we agree to recognise the proposed CPG on Ireland, I undertake to speak to its convener, to pass on your comments.

Thank you.

As there are no other comments about any of the proposed cross-party groups, I will formally put the question. Does the committee agree to the formation of the groups whose representatives we have heard from this morning?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 9—our final item—is on the re-registration of cross-party groups. The committee is asked to consider a change of purpose for the proposed CPG on colleges and universities and the proposed CPG on nuclear disarmament, and a change of name and purpose for the proposed CPG on improving Scotland’s health. As members are aware, such changes of name or purpose have to come before the committee to be formally approved. Does anybody have any comments that they would like to make?

As no one has any comments to make, my intention is to put a single question to the committee, if everybody is happy with that. Does the committee agree that the proposed CPG on colleges and universities, the proposed CPG on nuclear disarmament and the proposed CPG on improving Scotland’s health can be re-registered in the new session?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank committee members for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 10:47.