Cross-party Groups
Our third item concerns the operation of cross-party groups. Members will recall that last year we reviewed the activity of such groups in the Parliament. Although the results of the review were generally positive, we had some concerns about MSPs' attendance at cross-party group meetings. A number of groups had not had two MSPs in attendance, as required by the rules.
In addition to that issue, we have received two requests to change the rules on the use of parliamentary resources. Instead of making piecemeal changes to the rules, it might be appropriate to have a comprehensive review of the rules and the operation of the cross-party groups. I seek members' views on that suggestion and on the issues that a review should address.
Having been a member of the Standards Committee from the start, I think that it would be useful to explain our thinking behind the cross-party groups at the time. Although it was suggested that we should have cross-party groups, committee members were clear that they did not want to follow the Westminster model for such groups, which are essentially set up by organisations such as the Scotch Whisky Association and other individual companies and are no more than lobby organisations that have contacts with MPs. We were quite clear that cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament would not be like that, but would be parliamentary in nature—"parliamentary" is the key word. That is why we included the requirement for two MSPs to attend, for example.
I have expressed my concerns on several occasions in the committee that the cross-party system is not working as effectively as some of us envisaged that it would. There is a misconception outside the Parliament about the purpose of cross-party groups and what cross-party groups are. Many organisations see Scottish Parliament cross-party groups as similar to the cross-party groups at Westminster. We need to review our approach to the groups.
I am concerned by a letter that I received this week from a councillor asking me to attend a meeting in the Parliament to discuss the formation of a cross-party group. There is no mention of the name of the MSP who will sponsor the group—all that I know is that the councillor is a member of a trade organisation. He kindly supplied the briefing paper that the trade organisation had sent to him. It appears that the trade organisation wants a cross-party group to be set up in the Scottish Parliament to allow it to contact and lobby MSPs. That seems to me to be back to front; it is not what the cross-party system in the Scottish Parliament should be about. We should not be receiving invitations from trade organisations to meetings that are being held in the Parliament.
I suspect that that is not a one-off occurrence. In light of our experience of the past three years, we should review cross-party groups and make recommendations for the session beginning in 2003. If we do not get to grips with cross-party groups, we will find ourselves going down the Westminster route, which is not one that our open, transparent Parliament should follow.
I agree that there should be a review prior to the beginning of the 2003 session. I share Tricia Marwick's concerns about cross-party groups. I suspect that the issue might be a case of never mind the quality, feel the width. We are in danger of people forming cross-party groups as a platform—cynical old Kay would say this—for their own political ends. People want to be able to preface what they say with the words, "As a member of the cross-party group". I am a wee bit suspicious of some people's motives. I am concerned that there are cross-party groups that cannot get more than one MSP—and sometimes no MSPs—to attend. That must be reviewed. We must take a firm line on cross-party groups that are not operating in the way that we expect them to.
I strongly support the proposal for a review. We could also check whether there is any duplication and whether it might be preferable for some groups to merge.
One of the great advantages of the Parliament is the increased accessibility—groups can visit us much more readily than they can the House of Commons, because of the cost of transport, for example. People enjoy coming to the Scottish Parliament. It would be useful to know how much the criticism that one MSP has been present on occasion, rather than several MSPs, mattered—perhaps the other MSPs would have been there if they had not been at other meetings. In the case of cross-party groups on health subjects, such as those on combating multiple sclerosis or cancer, it is inevitable that there would be complete unanimity across the party-political spectrum.
Tricia Marwick mentioned trade organisations. I agree that their involvement is worth reviewing. If the trade organisation has a legitimate interest in protecting jobs or in securing more jobs, its involvement is legitimate. However, if it is simply trying to pursue its commercial interests against other groups, its involvement is not legitimate. It would be useful to know what had taken place and what the current thinking on the subject is. A review is necessary.
Before I bring in Susan Deacon, I reiterate that, under the code of conduct, a cross-party group requires
"at least two Members of the Parliament".
To my certain knowledge, that rule is not being adhered to. As Tricia Marwick pointed out, the rule is in place for the specific purpose of maintaining the parliamentary nature of the group. It is important that we emphasise that rule.
I, too, strongly support a review. I also strongly support the suggestion that a review should take place soon—before the end of the current session. That would mean that the work would be done and the recommendations put in place for the period that follows the election. In the first session of the Parliament, it is understandable that the system has grown and evolved in a number of shapes, forms and directions. That makes it more important for us to stop, take stock and consider putting in place a sensible, meaningful and realistic framework for the period that follows the election.
It has become clear that people have good intentions when they sign up to a group but then find that they cannot participate in that group. Many individuals say that that is the case and I, too, have lapsed in that respect. If, as Tricia Marwick suggests, we are to maintain the parliamentary nature of the groups, we must make a distinction between the nominal and active memberships of many of the cross-party groups. That is important.
I want to add a few specifics to what has been said. It is important to separate out the issues of the enforcement of the existing rules and the need to change existing rules. I understand that the clerks are monitoring the levels of activity and attendance in the existing groups. It does not matter how robust the rules are if we do not monitor and enforce them properly. The rules can be called into question if they are not being put into practice.
The first piece of work that it would be illuminating for the committee to see would be the outcome of the clerks' monitoring exercise. I am aware that a report that was published not long ago covered some of the ground, but it would be useful to see more in-depth data. The second issue is whether the rules need to change. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review, but I want to add to the point that is made in paragraph 7 of the clerks' briefing paper.
We need to think further about the specifics that are involved in cross-party groups, including the definition of what constitutes cross-party membership. I think that the rules set out that one MSP from each party needs to be involved when the group is established—that is important. The degree of bona fide cross-party activity can quickly break down because of lack of attendance, for example. I would like that issue to be examined more fully.
I believe, although I would not swear to it, that Westminster has recently examined that issue. I understand that changes may be made to the rules on the minimal membership that is required when a group is established and to the rules on the membership that is required for a group to constitute a cross-party group. I got that information second-hand—it merits checking.
Another issue that needs further thought is one that, to put it bluntly, has rubbed up a number of members the wrong way—the public face of the cross-party groups. It does not matter how the points that are made in paragraph 7 of the paper about the operation of the groups are constructed, questions remain about how, when, and through whom the groups speak to people in the wider world. Undoubtedly, that is why we have a point of confusion. People think that the cross-party groups and the people who speak on their behalf have a formal locus within the Parliament, whereas that is not the case. I am not sure to what extent a set of rules would be able to embrace that issue, but I ask that it be considered in the review. We can think later about how it should be dealt with.
I support having a review. I echo some of the concerns that have been expressed around the table, but I find that the cross-party groups are useful. Like other committee members, I am a member of several—perhaps too many—cross-party groups, but I have found that it is impossible to withdraw membership.
Yes. I have tried to do that, too.
I suggest that there should be two levels of membership. There should be one level of membership for those who have an active interest and another for those who find that the groups are a useful vehicle for being briefed on subjects about which they might wish to know more. Alternatively, we could have a genuine set of cross-party groups and a different set of organisations as vehicles for briefing members on certain subjects. I am not sure whether we should have two tiers of membership or two tiers of groups, but perhaps we could get round the problem in one of those ways.
On the timing of the review, I agree with Susan Deacon that we should try to agree the new rules in this session but put them in place for the next intake of MSPs. That would be excellent timing.
Will the current cross-party groups fall at the election and have to be re-established after it? I cannot remember whether the groups are required to be wound up come the election and then be set up again, but that might be a good culling process—
And a good exit strategy.
The cross-party groups would need to be set up again after an election because they might have a different membership.
That is my point. Do the groups come to an end?
They must be reconstituted 90 days after an election.
The period is either 60 days or 90 days after an election. For some reason, I seem to have 60 days in my head, but let me find the rule. Yes, rule 14 of the rules on cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament states:
"Cross-Party Groups will cease to be recognised 90 calendar days after the first meeting of the new Parliament … unless a fresh registration is made within that period."
Therefore any new rules that we introduce would need to be adopted by potential cross-party groups in 2003. That is useful.
The clerks now have the detail of all the points that were made, so we will press ahead with the review, which we hope to have completed by the end of the parliamentary session.
Meeting continued in private until 10:59.