Official Report 420KB pdf
I compliment the officials on this excellent report, which gives a flavour of what is happening. There are around 88 cross-party groups, and given that I have been asked to start another two, we might get to 90 or even 100 before the end of the session.
However, there are problems. The fundamental one is trying to get a room. I will not mention the group involved—the information is contained in one of the submissions—but we were standing outside a committee room waiting for a committee meeting to finish so that the group could go in. Because the committee meeting overran substantially, the group’s annual general meeting could not be held, and it had to be put back a couple of months. The group then ran into difficulty because its AGM was held outside of when it should have been held. I will not give any names, as that would be very unfair.
Writing to conveners of cross-party groups to request an explanation of why things have not happened correctly is the way to go before we stick the boot in. Basically, we have to ask them to comply with the rules and regulations. If they do not, the matter should be brought back to the committee, and we will make recommendations.
I thank the officials for the report. I simply flag up that it is sometimes very hard for a group to get a room.
I do not think that it is our role to ask anyone to comply with the Parliament’s rules. That is a given. However, it is certainly true that our role is to ensure that any apparent failure to comply with the rules is drawn to people’s attention and to act if such failures continue. The system will work if there is self-discipline. We rely on that in many things.
The report is excellent, and I thank the officials very much for it.
Paragraph 20 sets out the different things that we can do. I think that the clerks have written to conveners of cross-party groups as we have gone along; we have explanations from most of them, and almost every one of them is understandable.
As for the cross-party group on Russia and the cross-party on Scots language, I have to say that I have been here before and that we have had problems with them in the past. Given the work that we have done for them, I suggest that we ask their conveners to come and explain why they are still failing to meet the requirements.
Would it also be fair to ask what remedies they plan?
Yes.
I note that one of the options is to disband the non-compliant groups. Can we suspend cross-party groups? Can we suspend the cross-party group on Poland, for example, because not enough people are interested in Poland this session compared with the previous session?
Cross-party groups either exist or do not exist. There is no middle ground.
Right. Okay.
Agenda item 3 is on cross-party groups. We have a report that looks at some of the positive work that the groups have undertaken and which demonstrates that the new monitoring system is proving effective, as the vast majority of cross-party groups now routinely provide more detailed information on their activities and finances. The report details where groups have undertaken work that is required of them, such as holding annual general meetings, outwith the timescales set out in the code, and, in addition, it highlights two groups that are not currently compliant with the rules on ensuring that a group is sufficiently cross-party in nature.
Do members wish to comment?
One might argue that there should be some middle ground, but procedurally there is none. There is nothing to stop a group returning.
The report makes it clear that groups can come back again. Perhaps the problem with the cross-party group on Poland is that not enough people are interested in Poland—I do not know. Perhaps in the previous session people were particularly interested in Poland, Russia or whatever it was. There might not be the same interest this session, or the convener might have gone.
It might, for the sake of clarity, be worth reminding colleagues that cross-party groups end at the end of a session and that we need to be in action for them to open again. They do not continue over the end of a session.
Perhaps before we move on to a wider debate we should consider Fiona McLeod’s proposal that we request and require the conveners of the cross-party groups on Russia and Scots language to appear before us. Do members agree to that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. That is helpful.
Previous
Legislative ProceduresNext
Annual Report