We stay with cross-party groups for our third item. We have a proposal to establish a cross-party group on learning disabilities. I hope that members have had a chance to read the proposal and I invite comments.
This is an extremely important area, in which I know that enormous advances have been made over the past 15 years. I think that the proposal is appropriate. There are so many different forms of learning disability that a cross-party group could serve a very useful purpose.
Tricia Marwick asked me to raise a point in her absence. In section 5 of the registration form, under the heading "Financial or Other Benefits Received", two amounts of money are listed—£3,000 from Mencap City Foundation and £6,500 from United Distillers. Given that they are substantial sums of money, Tricia Marwick wanted to query what they are for and whether we should get further information. I hope that I have represented her question accurately. I understood from her whispers that that is the point that she wanted to raise.
I return to the point that cross-party groups are supposed to be parliamentary. I am concerned about this proposal, but I do not want members to misunderstand me. We have approved cross-party applications for groups in a similar vein, but given the number of MSPs and non-MSPs that are identified as members, the balance is towards the group's being non-parliamentary. I know that we have not stopped other groups being approved for that reason, but I am concerned.
The organisations in the group, which include Enable Scotland, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the National Autistic Society, cover a huge number of different forms of disability. Rather than having separate all-party groups for each disability, it is better to have an umbrella all-party group that deals with them all.
I just want to note that there are separate cross-party groups for many if not all of those areas already.
The other point that I wanted to make goes back to our earlier discussion about cross-party groups. I have no wish to identify the MSPs that are listed in the registration. I am sure that the MSPs who have put their names to it have done so because they have agreed to it 100 per cent. However, unless I am wrong, I note that there is only one Conservative member and only one Liberal Democrat member. I am conscious that for other cross-party groups there have been cases of people trawling groups to add a name to the list. I am not suggesting that that has happened here—I make that clear. I am simply concerned that there is one name from the Conservative group and one name from the Liberal Democrat group.
In response to the point that Susan Deacon made, a large number of the subjects that might have a slight crossover are medical. Learning disabilities is not just a medical matter; it is also educational. There has been an enormous increase in focus on learning disabilities in the past 15 to 20 years and there is a strong case for setting up a cross-party group on learning disabilities on educational grounds, quite apart from the health considerations. I do not think that any educational cross-party group covers the issue in the same way. It would be highly appropriate to invite Jackie Baillie to provide us with clarification.
My concern is that we attempt to be consistent in our treatment of groups, which illuminates the need for a review. In the light of previous discussions about groups that have appeared before us, I have no difficulty in endorsing and approving the learning disabilities group and considering it to be an excellent idea. I would be slightly hesitant about applying different criteria.
I raise the matter only because of information that has come to light and because we have been approving cross-party groups, which is leading to a problem. That is what I am getting at.
In the light of what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, I want to put on record the fact that I am very supportive in principle of a cross-party group on learning disabilities, for reasons similar to those that Lord James voiced. I do not want us to go off at a tangent, but I want to clarify the practical point that I was making. Lord James had indicated that the group on learning disabilities was potentially an umbrella group that we could encourage, rather than separate groups. I simply noted the factual point that separate cross-party groups exist on a number of relevant areas and that those cross-party groups are not only medical in nature; they address educational dimensions as well. The autism group, in which Ken Macintosh is heavily involved, illustrates my point.
Tricia Marwick referred to the figures of £3,000 and £6,500. I am rather astonished at the size of those grants and I think that clarification is necessary. Cross-party groups usually require only enough funding for postage, which costs less than £100. If substantial funding were available for a big function, that would throw in an outside dimension, which could be non-parliamentary. The situation needs to be clarified.
Some issues need to be clarified, so I will write to Jackie Baillie to ask if she could come to our meeting in a fortnight to talk us through the application. Do members agree to that proposal?
It might be helpful if all proposed conveners of cross-party groups were to attend Standards Committee meetings in the future, even though that is time-consuming for the committee. Ken Macintosh raised the issue of consistency and not setting Jackie Baillie apart from any other proposed convener. I appreciate that I am a new member of the committee, but in future proposed conveners should be asked to come before us to answer briefly questions on some of the points that have been raised.
You are absolutely right. I do not want to single out Jackie Baillie. I am not trying to do that. It is a coincidence that our review has turned up all of the information that we have in front of us. For the record, when the process of approving cross-party groups began, conveners did come before us. At the time, it was seen as a formality and after a while it stopped happening.
Meeting continued in private until 11:31.
Previous
Cross-party Groups Review