Standards Committee, 05 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 5, 2001

Official Report 146KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Our next item of business concerns two issues papers on cross-party groups. I hope that members have copies of both papers; one was sent in a folder and the other was sent more recently.

The first paper highlights a potential anomaly in the application of rule 12 of the code of conduct, on the use of parliamentary resources. Although MSPs may make reasonable use of parliamentary resources such as telephones and the e-mail system for daily cross-party group business, they must not use such facilities for publicising meetings. Given the important role that such groups play in promoting participation in the Parliament, the paper proposes that we amend rule 12 to permit MSPs to make reasonable use of parliamentary resources to advertise meetings and sets out a possible new wording of the rule.

If members are content to change rule 12 as suggested, we will submit a paper on our proposals to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. However, if we take that route, we must lodge a motion to make the necessary changes to the code of conduct. I was asked to put this paper on the agenda because some cross-party groups have been frustrated by not being able to use the e-mail system, even though other groups are allowed to use it. It is the most efficient way of sending and receiving information.

I recall our first conversations about what cross-party groups could and could not do. At the time, most of our advice on that matter came from the SPCB. Some of us felt that those restrictions were far too tight; and experience has shown that, if we want the cross-party groups to operate, they need reasonable access to the Parliament's facilities.

Part of our reasoning behind those restrictions was that we did not want the same cross-party group system that operates in Westminster, where outside organisations are responsible for the groups and MPs turn up at meetings now and again. In effect, the organisations—whether it is the Scotch Whisky Association or whatever—have a free run of the place; we felt that many of the cross-party groups at Westminster were a front for more commercial activities.

We sought to avoid that situation in the Scottish Parliament. However, although I think that we have avoided it, we have paid for that by frustrating the work of the cross-party groups. It is totally unreasonable to suggest that reasonable use cannot be made of the e-mail facility when any outside organisation can put together a list of all MSPs and researchers and e-mail straight to them.

The e-mail restrictions are utter nonsense and unworkable. We know that some cross-party groups are acting contrary to the code of conduct. It is time that we embraced their needs and practices. Nobody is suggesting that their practices are not good practice.

It is not unreasonable to request flexibility on the issue. We are moving into a world in which information technology is increasingly used. There should not be an overburdening monitoring role—another office should not be created simply to police cross-party groups and waste money. Members receive a number of messages by e-mail from organisations and individuals and even internal messages that are an absolute waste of time. The occasional notification of a cross-party group meeting would be helpful so that members could look at their diaries for the week to find out whether a meeting could be fitted in. The proposal is not unreasonable, as long as there is not excessive monitoring.

Are members content that a paper be forwarded to the SPCB?

Members indicated agreement.

The second paper deals with the findings of a survey that the clerks carried out on behalf of the committee earlier this year. On 28 March 2001, the committee agreed to review the activity of cross-party groups. The report is a detailed, statistical analysis of the current cross-party groups.

Paragraph 15 of the report states:

"The number of CPGs does not appear to be excessive".

The number is certainly not excessive in comparison to Westminster. The report also states:

"There appears to be a good degree of variation in the activity of each Group;

There may be some concerns in relation to MSP attendance;

There may be some scope for some Groups to be amalgamated."

Those are the basic findings in the clerks' report.

I am concerned about MSPs' attendance. When I was elected, I was as guilty and as full of enthusiasm as other MSPs in saying that I would join groups, but the reality has now set in. New groups are suggested and the same people are involved. I am concerned that around 30 per cent of meetings are attended by only the minimum required number of MSPs—two. In the first flush of youth in the new Parliament, as it were, joining cross-party groups seemed like a good idea, but I am concerned that we are giving false expectations to people and voluntary organisations that expect more of the groups than they deliver, particularly in respect of MSP participation.

There is a case for considering amalgamating groups, if possible, although nothing screamed out as to what groups could be amalgamated on my first read-through of the paper. The issue is a real concern. As I said, members had the best of intentions in joining groups, but they now find that they cannot attend them through sheer pressure of work. There should not be requests every other week for yet more groups to be formed when the evidence shows that MSPs are not coping with group membership.

If we want to merge cross-party groups, the proposed cross-party group on Cuba could be merged with the cross-party group on human rights. That would be interesting.

Let us not prejudice our decisions.

I am not uncomfortable, but the issue might be worth attention.

There is an issue relating to attendance and we should write to the groups about that. On the parallel with Westminster, there are an astonishing 306 cross-party groups in the House of Commons. Thirty-eight is not an unreasonable number, although we thought that it was initially.

On Kay Ullrich's point, it is hard to identify which mergers could take place, other than the interesting merger that I suggested. We should write to the groups about attendance and find out whether something can be done about that.

It is a very interesting paper. I have long been critical of the number of cross-party groups, as I do not think that there are enough MSPs to service them all, nor to give the kind of support that we should give to the organisations that are involved in the groups. Having said that, I recognise that any attempts by the Standards Committee—which has a role in monitoring the cross-party groups—to suggest any mergers or that a group should not exist would be met with great resistance.

There will be a cross-party group on resistance.

We might have to accept the fact that cross-party groups will be set up at certain times for specific reasons and, like bright stars, will probably fade away again. It might become the pattern that cross-party groups in the Parliament will not be established for ever and a day. Many of our cross-party groups are based on specific issues, and I do not think that all of them will last for ever. However, if we try to interfere by suggesting mergers or windings-up, that will be met with resistance. We should perhaps just monitor the situation carefully.

I take a slightly different view. I agree with Kay Ullrich. I am a member of several—far too many—cross-party groups, which I joined out of enthusiasm when the Parliament was set up. I try to be as active as I can in those groups. I have wondered whether I should resign from some of them, but I like to receive the information that cross-party groups circulate; I like to know what is being talked about. Therefore, although I do not attend them all—there are three that I do not attend—I like to hear about them. I have to juggle my time to attend the other groups, as their meetings seem to clash.

I am in the middle of setting up another cross-party group, and members will receive an e-mail from me about it today. I have been thinking about it since the Parliament started. I did not push ahead with the idea because I thought, "What is the point of a cross-party group if no one comes along?" However, there is great pressure from the community that wants the group to be established. I do not think that there will be many meetings—perhaps no more than one or two, or whatever the minimum requirement is—but there is a desire for the group to be set up. For that reason, I think that cross-party groups are quite useful. The cross-party group on autism is particularly active. Not many MSPs attend, but it allows members of the community who suffer from, or whose family members suffer from, autistic spectrum disorders to liaise with the Scottish Parliament to find out information. It is a very effective group.

There is a balance to be struck. Cross-party groups can be effective mechanisms for allowing access to the Parliament for the wider community and bringing issues to the attention of MSPs, even if the MSPs do not attend every meeting. It is unfortunate that attendance is low at some meetings, but we should not read too much into that.

We await Ken Macintosh's application with interest.

Perhaps the onus is on us to be more critical in considering applications. I have not always been a member of the committee. Has it ever turned down an application for a group, and if so, on what grounds?

We had a tussle with an application that kept coming back. Eventually, it became the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. The proposal was not rejected, but there were problems with the application and we eventually got an agreement to get it right. We also rejected Brian Monteith's proposal for a cross-party group on pluralism and Steiner Waldorf education, on the ground that it was far too narrowly based.

I would like to pick up what Tricia Marwick said about groups springing up because a subject is particularly sexy at the time and then withering on the vine. I am concerned about that. I am concerned that members could use the setting up of a cross-party group as a publicity tool for something that is topical. They could set up such a group, become its chair and use it as a political platform. We should resist applications for cross-party groups on subjects that are the topic of the moment.

I share other members' reservations about the potential for groups to be added and added but never taken away. That is something that Ken Macintosh touched on. I also share the concern that the committee must avoid being overly directive or prescriptive on the issue. We could strike a balance by reinforcing or enhancing current monitoring and reporting mechanisms. That would ensure that the existing rules are adhered to. I assume that the survey was part of that process, but I wonder how often reminders are sent and how often groups are asked to submit reports about their membership and attendance. Are members given the opportunity to withdraw if they no longer intend to be active in a group? We should apply the existing rules and should more regularly raise awareness of those rules. That might help members to apply more of a self-denying ordinance on those issues.

Kay Ullrich made an important point about raising expectations. People's expectations are raised enormously when a cross-party group on an issue is set up, sometimes falsely so, not because individuals are not working hard on their behalf but because of the limitations on what can actually be done.

I should like to make an observation about the paper. I was interested in the comparison with Westminster, but I think that we should be cautious about Westminster comparisons. Global comparisons are relevant and interesting. For example, the statistics on the number of cross-party groups per member are a fair comparison. However, I was particularly interested in paragraphs 12 to 14 on health-related CPGs; that is an area that I have some recent knowledge of.

I do not think that making a comparison between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster in an area such as health is appropriate. It is inevitable that the proportion of health-related cross-party groups at Westminster will be significantly smaller because, as a proportion of Westminster's overall responsibilities and business, health is a significantly smaller issue. The Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for foreign affairs, for example, and a huge number of Westminster cross-party groups are concerned with that area. If the committee is considering subject-specific groups in future, it would be better to measure the number of health-related cross-party groups against the proportion of business in this Parliament that deals with such matters. That comparison would probably show that the number of health-related cross-party groups is reasonable. It might even equate to less than the overall proportion of health-related activity and business in this Parliament.

The comparison that has been drawn is rather spurious, if I may say so, but I found the paper very interesting otherwise.

It is amazing what one can do with statistics.

She is the former Minister for Health and Community Care.

Susan Deacon has raised some interesting points. As members might expect, the clerks have been monitoring cross-party groups. Reminders have already been sent out to the conveners of cross-party groups that have not yet held an annual general meeting. There are several such groups.

I would not say that paragraph 3 alarmed me, but I am uneasy about it. It states:

"38 Questionnaires were sent out and the Clerks received 31 full responses and 2 partial responses."

If my maths is correct, that means that five cross-party groups did not respond. We have a monitoring role and it is a little disquieting that five groups did not respond to the clerks. I would like to write to the conveners of those groups and ask them to respond to the survey. We will follow up from there and I will report the findings to the committee.

Are you insisting on a response?

Yes indeed. I will write forcefully.

A failure to respond would mean that we would review the continuation of that CPG.

Yes. I have one more point, about paragraph 8. The rules were written specifically for the purpose of making the meetings parliamentary in nature. The rules say that a minimum of two MSPs should attend every cross-party group. So six meetings were held that should not have been held. We should remind all cross-party groups that they should ensure that at least two MSPs turn up at their meetings.

I agree that you should write to the groups. I am not sure what the tone of the original letter was but, as you know, MSPs get surveys all the time. I am not a convener of a cross-party group and do not know what the letter said, but the conveners might not have made the link that they should respond to the survey. Perhaps, rather than a threat to take the cross-party group away, a diplomatic but firm reminder would be more in order.

When cross-party groups are set up, they come to the Standards Committee for approval. They are made aware of the monitoring role of the committee. They received a questionnaire from the clerks of the committee that asked them about that role, and it is surprising that five group conveners did not respond. Although I would not suggest removing the groups, I will be writing less diplomatically than I did in our original letter.

I would like you to send a letter in the normal gentle and healing tones of Mike Rumbles.

I draw a distinction between my role in the Standards Committee and what happens elsewhere.

That is an admission.

Item 5 is an application for a cross-party group on Cuba.

Could we defer consideration of the issue until our next meeting?

For what reason?

You will see that I am the vice-convener of the group. There are a number of issues that I want to discuss with the proposers of the cross-party group before we approve it.

If you are the vice-convener, that seems appropriate. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.