Standards Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 3, 2000

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

Cross-Party Groups

We will now move on to agenda item 3, which is the consideration of applications for recognition from cross-party groups. We have received three applications. Members have copies of the forms that have been submitted. We shall take the applications in order. The first is an application for a cross-party group on women.

I should point out that although only women are identified as members of the proposed group, members will wish to note that membership of the group is open to men and women. Therefore, it fulfils the criterion of being open to all members.

Are there any comments on the proposed application?

I advise members that although I indicated that I wished to be a member of the group, my name was not included on the application form.

If no one else is rushing in, I will make a comment. I want to ensure that the group is open to men and women—as it should be. The last bullet point under "Purpose of the Group" reads:

"to act as a forum for networking and support led by women MSPs".

I want to focus on "led". Are you a member of the group, Patricia?

Technically, no, as I have not been included in the list.

In the spirit of the group being open to all members, I make the observation that to have it led by women means that men cannot lead it. Whether that is the case or not, the application form seems to imply that men cannot lead the group.

The inaugural meeting took place last June, but members of the group were waiting for clarification of the Standards Committee's procedure on cross-party groups. I remember that at least one male MSP attended that meeting—I recall that Richard Simpson and his beard were present. I do not think that the group intends to exclude men at all, but if it is to consider issues relating to women specifically, it is not particularly unfair that women should lead it.

It is important that we stick to the spirit of cross-party groups being open to all— that people are not excluded.

I note that members of all parties are listed in the application form. This is an application for a cross-party group—we are not discussing a cross-gender group. I am quite sure that the group would encourage men to come to its meetings and to listen to the issues in order to obtain a greater understanding of them. The group meets all the requirements set out by the committee and I am happy to support it.

Convener, my only concern is the issue that you described as being discriminatory against men. Everyone knows that the group will be led by women and it appears that it is impossible for men to be considered for such positions in any circumstances. When the Executive gives grants to ethnic groups, for example, it does so on the basis that the facilities should not be exclusive to one particular ethnic group. Is the committee entitled to ask that the last six words be deleted from that bullet point, even if it automatically happens that women lead the group?

I agree with Lord James. I asked the staff to check this application against our rules, which say:

"The group's membership must be open to all Members of the Parliament".

I am not trying to be pedantic, but I think Lord James has made a valid point. I am not sure where we go from here. Could we request that the group resubmit the application with a changed form of words? Perhaps we could approve the group, with a request that it review that last bullet point.

I do not understand your problem with the bullet point saying that women will lead the group. That is only natural and in the nature of the group. There is absolutely no indication anywhere in the application form that men will not be welcome to be part of the group.

Under "Purpose of the Group", the group makes the statement that men shall not lead it part of its constitution.

No—women will lead the group's activities of supporting and networking.

That is why I suggest that we approve the group and, in the spirit of the all-encompassing rules, simply make that request.

I think we would be acting outwith our powers if we did, convener. I agree with Tricia Marwick: the group is meant to be a cross-party group, which, patently, it is—it is not meant to be a cross-gender group.

It would be in order for us to approve the application, but we should express the hope that the words "led by women MSPs" would not be used in any discriminatory way against men.

I do not think that that is possible, because, without doubt, those words are discriminatory.

Not at all, convener.

I do not think that they are at all discriminatory.

The bullet point says:

"to act as a forum for networking and support led by women MSPs".

That is patently discriminatory.

I am entirely at one with Patricia. I can see no reason why women MSPs should not lead a cross-party group of women. Of course male MSPs will be welcome to join the group, if they want more information and expertise on women and women's issues. I am sure that we would welcome you, convener, Lord James and Des McNulty to the next meeting, and we would hope that you would sign up to the group. I see absolutely no reason why we should not approve this application. It meets all our requirements—we should approve it.

I agree with Tricia. The fact is that every member of the group happens to be a woman. On that basis, we should just approve it and move on to the next item of business.

I would like to record my comments. Our rules are quite specific. They say:

"The group's membership must be open to all Members of the Parliament".

That is why I think we should approve the application. However, under the "Purpose of the Group", the group quite clearly includes a discriminatory sentence, which says:

"to act as a forum for networking and support led"

by one section of MSPs, to the exclusion of another. That is discriminatory and should be brought to the attention of the group.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament group allows only members who are opposed to nuclear weapons to become involved.

Convener, all cross-party groups are self-selecting. Members join because they have a particular interest or expertise in the remit of a group. It is like saying that someone with a particular expertise in today's electronic technology—sorry, I am so old fashioned that I do not know what to call it—should not be in the post of convener of the cross-party group on information, knowledge and enlightenment. That should clearly not be the case. We would overstep the mark if we tried to influence an all-party group in that way.

We obviously have a slight difference of opinion in the committee. Why not put it to the vote?

Oh, no—not the first vote of the Standards Committee.

I am sure that, like me, convener, you have done the arithmetic and you know that you are going to lose. The discussion is going round and round.

It is. That is why I think there is no need for a vote. Objections will have been noted in the Official Report. Lord James, do you want to push it to a vote?

No. I think that there should be a cross-party group on women and that, almost automatically, women MSPs will lead that group, but I have grave reservations about the last four words, which could be interpreted as discriminatory. The group should be given the opportunity to change them.

Is everyone agreed that we approve the application?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that you, convener, and Lord James go along to the meeting to make your case.

The next application is less controversial. The second application is for a cross-party information, knowledge and enlightenment group. Do members have any comments on the application?

Are members happy to approve the proposal for the group?

Members indicated agreement.

The final application is for a cross-party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament group. At our previous meeting, we agreed that I should write to the convener of the proposed group requesting further information about the purposes of the group and details of the steps taken to secure Conservative representation on it. Members should have copies of my letter and Dorothy-Grace Elder's response, in which she states that she has personally issued an invitation to every MSP to join the proposed group. Do members have any comments?

Convener, if the committee is minded to approve the application, I would like to put on record my opposition. One of the larger parties will not participate in the group. The group gives as its purpose:

"To oppose nuclear weapons in principle and their presence in Scotland"

Other groups that have been set up give lengthy descriptions of their purposes, which they propose as a form of discussion to take matters forward. In this case, it is not clear what subsidiary purposes the group has; the purpose is stated in very bald terms. I have no objection to CND having meetings with MSPs of different parties whenever it wishes—that is a democratic right. However, if the group is called a cross-party group, it will be assumed that it has the same sort of authority as an all-party group. I do not believe that this group would have such authority.

The group has a fundamental problem, because it will never persuade anyone from the Conservative group to join. However, it has made an attempt to encourage and invite members of that party to join, although those efforts have been rejected. It has taken all reasonable steps. Although the group does not have members from all the parties represented at the bureau—which is strictly what our rules require—the fact that it has representatives from every party in the Parliament apart from one means that it should be given approval.

Are there any other comments?

I agree with Patricia. The group has done what was asked of it, according to our decision at our previous meeting. We have the power to waive the rule about every party being represented on the group and I think that that is what we should do in this case.

Our rules say that a cross-party group should have representatives of each of the parties represented in the bureau. That is clearly not true of the proposed group. However, there are exceptional circumstances and five out of the six political parties are represented on the group. Every case should be taken on its merits. The group has made an attempt to bring on board members of all six parties of the Parliament, which has been unsuccessful. On this occasion, because of the extra efforts that have been made, I think that we should accommodate the request.

For the reasons that I have already given, I would vote against that.

In that case we should have a vote.

There is more to it than that. I have given my opinion on one point raised by Lord James. However, I agree with his point about the proposed purpose of the group. Perhaps we should ask the group to amend that purpose, which should be parliamentary in nature. I am not sure that

"To oppose nuclear weapons in principle and their presence in Scotland"

is parliamentary. It does not seek to promote discussion of the issue in Parliament.

I am sure that that is part of the group's intention, but it has not been explicit enough. Given that there is controversy about the application, it might be worth asking the group to clarify that issue.

That seems a reasonable point.

I agree with Patricia. There is also the issue of the letter from the group's secretary, which is in the papers that were circulated. Although Dorothy-Grace Elder signs it, Adrian Rennie's name is on the letter, which is written on parliamentary notepaper. I wonder whether that is appropriate according to our rules.

That should not be the case, because the Standards Committee has not approved the group. It is supposed to be a proposed group and it is not allowed to use the notepaper. I will bring that to the attention of Dorothy-Grace Elder.

In that case, I suggest that we do not approve the application today, but that I write to Dorothy-Grace Elder on the basis of the comments that have been made on the two major issues.

I suggest that we let Dorothy-Grace Elder know that we are inclined to support the application, although we are concerned that the aims of the group are not parliamentary in nature. We could ask her to come back with a revised set of aims. We could also make the important point about parliamentary stationery.

Okay.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of proposals for the post-registration monitoring of cross-party groups. The clerks have produced an issues paper that lists several options for our consideration. The paper reads:

"At present, Cross-Party Groups in the Scottish Parliament are required to elect their officers every 12 months but not necessarily to hold an AGM. The Committee may consider whether it is appropriate to introduce regulations on any or all of the following"

and goes on to list five bullet points. Are there any comments on the five bullet points?

They seem to be very reasonable. Although we do not want to snoop on what groups are doing, be a policeman or over-indulge in monitoring activity, in the spirit of providing a bit more guidance on good practice, I have no objection to the introduction of the regulations.

There is a danger of being too prescriptive. Some groups may not wish to meet very often, but if circumstances arise that give great topicality to a subject they may want to meet immediately and make representations. Are regulations the most appropriate way in which to deal with this? I wonder whether guidance could be given instead. Groups may not want to be put in a straitjacket.

Adam Ingram used the words "guidance" and "good practice". I think that that would be appropriate.

I think that some of these points are duplicates. It is sensible that every group should be required to hold an annual general meeting. Each group should

"submit an annual return that updates its membership".

There should be a financial report, which should give details on

"any donations amounting to more than £250 in a year",

but it should be up to groups whether they submit an annual report.

One of the points is:

"keeping a record of every meeting".

What we should say instead is that at the AGM there should be an indication of how many meetings have taken place during the year. The requirement to keep a record of every meeting could be taken to imply that there should be a secretarial note of what happens at every meeting. It is not for us to determine how many times a group should meet.

Rather than approach this matter in a regulatory way, would it be appropriate to issue this document to all groups when they are approved as guidance on good practice that the Standards Committee would like to be observed? As Des McNulty suggests, groups should submit a financial return that includes details of

"any donations amounting to more than £250",

should update their membership and should hold an AGM at which they should indicate how many times they have met during the year. We should keep it simple.

Members indicated agreement.

We need to be careful with the wording. We should say that the groups "should", rather than "must", submit a financial return.

To whom should they submit it?

To the clerk of the Standards Committee.

Are we agreed? We will move on.

I wish to address another issue that I raised. The question is whether at some point we should review the groups that we have approved in the context of other groups that are formed and the processes that we have gone through, so that we ensure that groups maintain their parliamentary character and are not purely vehicles for local campaigning. How would we handle complaints about cross-party groups? We can formally require that they hold an AGM and submit a financial report and so on, but is it the case that once a group has been approved by the committee we no longer have a locus? Could there be circumstances in which we could ask questions or be asked questions as a result of complaints about a group's activities?

If we find that a complaint that has been raised is justified, it is a simple matter for the committee to withdraw a group's registration. I understand that there is no review procedure in the Westminster system—although I do not always favour the Westminster model. If there were a problem, it would be brought to the committee's attention and we would deal with it and, if we thought that the problem was serious, withdraw recognition.

I think we need a catch-all phrase in the requirements to say that the Standards Committee will keep the operation of cross-party groups under review and that, if there are complaints about a group or if a group no longer seems to be carrying out an appropriate parliamentary process, the committee will take action.

The advice that I have received is that it would be difficult to devise a mechanism to do that. We have to be approachable if there is a problem, but I do not think that we should look for problems.

I agree with you, convener. Once committees have been set up, they are essentially parliamentary in nature. Some of the office-bearers have to be MSPs. It is a step too far to talk about monitoring or regulating the operation of groups. If there are problems with groups, it is open to members of the groups to make representations to us. It is sufficient that we receive information once a year about AGMs, the financial status of groups and donations that are received. MSPs are all grown-up, intelligent people and do not need Big Brother, in the shape of the Standards Committee, watching everything they do. That is not our purpose and it would not go down well.

Are there any other comments? We should proceed on the basis that has been outlined.

We will see how we go.