Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, November 7, 2013

Official Report 411KB pdf

---

Cross-party Group (Approval)

Agenda item 4 is discussion of the evidence that we heard earlier this morning from Richard Baker MSP on the proposed cross-party group on the Scottish economy. Do members have any comments?

It was an excellent presentation. The case was made for the re-establishment of the group. There has been a cross-party group on the Scottish economy in previous parliamentary sessions, and I think that we should give the go-ahead to the proposal that there be one in this session. We may want to clarify the cost of the secretariat, but I do not think that it will be all that much.

Colin Keir made the point that the work of the proposed group will cut across the work of existing cross-party groups, but it will be on the Scottish economy in general. I was struck by the fact that it will be co-convened by members of all four main parties, which is good. Therefore, I think that we should give it the go-ahead.

I refer to what I said earlier. Richard Baker said that the issue of duplication had been considered and that the proposed group would work with other groups. That is all to the good. Given that it is not trying to sneak in and take issues from groups that have already been set up, I do not have a problem with it.

I want to be a member of the group, so—

Yes, Margaret.

This might be a silly question, but why do we need a cross-party group on the Scottish economy when we discuss the issue in detail in other places? I do not quite follow that. Maybe I am being a bit naive.

Although Richard Baker gave quite a good explanation in his opening comments, I thought that it was interesting that other members raised the fact that there are industry-specific cross-party groups. Mention was made of liaison with other cross-party groups. Are we confident that that liaison will happen?

That was one of my concerns. One of the group’s proposed topics is university/industry collaboration. There are various education cross-party groups. There would have to be collaboration to ensure that they did not do the same work, because that is an important topic.

If my memory serves me correctly, there is a cross-party group on colleges and universities.

There is.

So, even with its agenda, there is crossover between the proposed new group and existing groups.

Are we talking about collaboration rather than duplication? I was a bit concerned about that.

Richard Baker talked about liaison but, as George Adam has picked up, one of the group’s proposed topics covers an area with which an existing group deals. Should we be encouraging that?

But the proposed collaboration is between universities and industry.

I know, but the cross-party group on colleges and universities already does work on that. I am just using that group as an example, because it is one that I know about.

I am not making a political point, but the group is to have four co-conveners from different parties. How will it make that work? How will it manage to remain focused?

But there are other cross-party groups that have co-conveners.

This is purely a personal view, but I have doubts about the group’s ability to remain focused and on track when, every time that the group has a meeting, it has a different convener—assuming that it has one meeting a quarter. The positive aspect of that is that it provides a different perspective—that is fair enough—but the negative aspect is a lack of fluidity or continuity. That is slightly concerning.

I should say that, as well as being convener of the cross-party group on aviation, I am a co-convener of the cross-party group on Taiwan.

How many co-conveners are there on that group?

11:00

That group has three co-conveners: Richard Simpson, Margaret Mitchell and myself.

The difficulty with having three co-conveners is not so much the problem that George Adam mentioned. Given that our members of staff here in Parliament do the background work—a lad from Queen Margaret University does the secretary’s job in his own time, if you like—the real difficulty is in liaising with the co-conveners and in deciding who puts everything together.

That is what I am talking about.

The issue is about tying up which co-convener’s office will deal with a given matter at a given meeting and who will take charge of that meeting. That can be done, but it is a bit fiddly.

Do members have any other comments?

I think that the proposed cross-party group is a good idea, notwithstanding my interest in it, because it will look at the economy rather than specific fields within the economy. The group will cover macroeconomics and that kind of thing.

I have listened to all that has been said, and I agree with Margaret McDougall. At the end of the day, people might say, “I find it astounding that there is no cross-party group on transport, so I will apply to set up such a group even though there are already cross-party groups on rail and on aviation.” Some cross-party groups will touch the remit of other cross-party groups. If there is a desire to re-establish a cross-party group on the Scottish economy and if a major bank wants to back that cross-party group, I do not see a problem with it. I support the establishment of the proposed cross-party group on the economy.

I do not have a problem with the proposal. Given the group’s very broad range, it should be aware that other interest groups may already be doing work that it wants to take on. As I pointed out earlier, if Maureen Watt’s cross-party group on oil and gas is looking into helicopters and offshore safety, there is no point in my cross-party group on aviation producing the same report. However, Maureen Watt is a member of the cross-party group on aviation, so she can report such things as a matter of course. There is no point in having such duplication, not just for parliamentarians but for people outside. In setting up its agenda, the proposed cross-party group on the Scottish economy will need to be aware of what other interested cross-party groups are doing and at least ask them what is on their agenda. It will need to check whether other groups have discussed the work that it wants to undertake and, where that is the case, come to some arrangement with them.

I have brought up a few points already. I believe that there will be a crossover with other groups. I am not going to die in a ditch over this, because it does not concern me that much but, to play devil’s advocate, when do we stop with cross-party groups? We complain that there are too many and that members do not have enough time to attend them properly, although some members are on more groups than others. When do we stop and say that we are already doing these things?

I agree with Colin Keir that communication is the key. The example of Maureen Watt is a perfect one. I hope that some of the members of the proposed group are members of similar groups. If we approve the group on the economy, I want it to actually do something—I do not want it to be a talking shop. That is where I am coming from. I do not want it just to be another cross-party group that MSPs turn up to every four months and nothing comes from it. We have to do something practical and have a group that has a bit of traction and direction.

In some instances, joint cross-party group meetings can be held. I have done that with cross-party groups that I am on, when there is an agenda item that is of interest to two groups. That saves everybody’s time.

The importance of liaison and communication is coming across. The committee considers the registration of cross-party groups. Why do we do that, and does it have a purpose? Section 6.3.11 of the code of conduct states:

“The Committee will also consider whether the purpose of a proposed Group overlaps the remit of an existing Group. The proposed Group will be asked to provide justification as to why its aim could not effectively be achieved within the existing Group.”

We have to bear that in mind when we consider whether a cross-party group should be established and registered.

Is it the general feeling that we will approve the registration of the proposed cross-party group but write to it asking for more information on the costings for the Lloyds secretariat and giving it a clear line that we are looking for it to communicate and liaise with other cross-party groups and consider holding joint meetings with them when that is relevant? From the application, the obvious point would be that, if the group is going to look at universities and industry, it should consider a joint meeting with the cross-party group on colleges and universities. Does that meet with everyone’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

We have approved the establishment of the cross-party group on the Scottish economy, but we will write to it with our thoughts on the matter.

We move into private to discuss agenda item 5.

11:06 Meeting continued in private until 11:17.