Standards Committee, 10 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Official Report 134KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Welcome to our second meeting of 2004. Donald Gorrie has sent us his apologies for not attending today's meeting. I apologise for the number of changes that have been made to the agenda, but that has been done so that we can deal with business as expeditiously as possible.

Item 1 on the agenda concerns proposals for cross-party groups. The first is for the establishment of a cross-party group on wastes management. I note that Nora Radcliffe is not here, but all members have the papers before them, so if there are any questions we shall attempt to deal with them as best we can.

I suggest that we approve the proposal.

Is anybody otherwise minded?

Members indicated disagreement.

In that case, I am pleased to say that the committee agrees to that proposal. We shall write to confirm that.

The second proposal is of a similar nature and is for the establishment of a cross-party group on Tibet. Again, the proposer, Chris Ballance, is not present, but if committee members have any questions I am sure that we can deal with them.

I have a question, based on the e-mail that we have received from the Chinese consulate. I assume that everybody has a copy of that e-mail and I think that we have to speak about it. I would be grateful for members' views, but I suspect that what that e-mail does is flag up something that we have spoken about before, which is the perception of what a cross-party group with the Scottish Parliament tag attached to it actually is. In the public eye, there is a perception that a cross-party group of the Scottish Parliament has much more official relevance to parliamentary proceedings than is the case. I wonder what members' thoughts are on responding to the e-mail and on whether the e-mail affects our thinking on the proposed cross-party group on Tibet in any way.

I also have slight reservations about the possibility of ending up with a cross-party group for every country in the world, given the shortage of MSPs. Nonetheless, I accept that there are entirely genuine desires behind the proposal to establish the group.

At this point, I welcome Nora Radcliffe, who has just arrived. I have to tell you that your visit has almost been in vain, as we have already dealt with the matter. I am pleased to say that we have approved the cross-party group on wastes management, and we shall be writing to you accordingly.

Thank you, convener. I am pleased to be here in person to thank the committee.

On the point that was raised by Alex Fergusson, have all members of the committee seen the e-mail to which he referred?

No.

We were aware that the Chinese consulate had not quite managed to get everybody's address right, and I thought that we had arranged to send the e-mail on, but it may well be that members have not yet had the opportunity to look at it. I shall just give everyone a couple of moments to read it.

On the point of principle on which Alex Fergusson is seeking guidance, there are some requirements for cross-party groups, but all that is required is that a group is parliamentary in character, that it raises concerns of genuine public interest and that its membership is in accordance with the rules. As far as I can see, each of those criteria is met by the proposed cross-party group on Tibet, but if members wish—

Perhaps I can—

On the general principle that Alex Fergusson mentioned, perhaps there is confusion between cross-party groups and committees of the Parliament. That is a matter that we shall return to in our report on cross-party groups, for which we have commissioned independent research. We have already had one cut at it and we await the final report from the academics from whom we have commissioned the work.

What I am really trying to ask, in a rather inadequate way, is whether you intend to respond to the e-mail and to point out what you have been saying, which is that as long as certain criteria are met there is no reason why a cross-party group on Tibet should not be set up, and that there is certainly no diplomatic slur intended by the establishment of such a group.

If that is the wish of the committee, I am more than happy to respond on behalf of the committee, if we agree—which we have not done as yet—to recognise the cross-party group on Tibet. Do other members want to comment?

Can I ask who the e-mail was addressed to?

It was addressed to all members of the Standards Committee but, to be fair, I think that one or two of the addresses were not quite right. I think that you will find when you go back to your desk that there will be a copy for you.

In that case, I think that there is an obligation on the convener to respond on behalf of the committee.

Is it agreed that we should approve that cross-party group?

Members indicated agreement.

I shall write or e-mail, as is appropriate, to the Chinese consulate.

The second matter under the agenda heading relates to groups in which there have been difficulties with membership. Since the setting up of cross-party groups in the new session, we have had to contact a number of the groups that have not quite managed to get the membership that is required from all the parties. As a consequence, we have had correspondence from Pauline McNeill, the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on the Scottish contemporary music industry. Because she has been unable to get a full complement of members, she is requesting that we waive the relevant rule in this case.

It seems that there are two precedents from the previous session of the Parliament that we could consider: the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on nuclear disarmament and the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Palestine.

I will quote Patricia Ferguson, the present Minister for Parliamentary Business, who was then Deputy Presiding Officer: I do that from time to time. On the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, she said that "all reasonable steps" had been taken by the group to meet the criteria. On that basis, the previous Standards Committee decided that an exception could be made. I think that we have another exception here because, as far as I am concerned, Pauline McNeill and the other interested members on the cross-party group on the Scottish contemporary music industry have taken all reasonable steps: we should allow an exception and waive the strict criteria.

I agree with Bill Butler. It is not surprising that we could not find a Liberal Democrat to sing from the same hymn sheet as a Labour convener.

Do any other members want to express a view? Is it the view of the committee that, because all reasonable steps have been taken by the group, we should waive the rule?

I think that we are in harmony on the matter.

That strikes the right note.

On a similar issue, we have been approached by Cathy Peattie on behalf of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on women. There is a late paper on the matter, which I will—if members want to see the detail of it—pass around the table. Cathy Peattie's group was in operation during the previous session of Parliament but unfortunately it has, during this session, been impossible for her to find a Conservative member to serve on the group. We have not heard any objections to the group; the problem is just that members are rather overstretched. Cathy Peattie has taken considerable steps to try to get a Conservative member to serve on the group.

Is the committee of a mind to waive the rule in this case, too?

As I represent the party for which there does not appear to be a member for the cross-party group on women, I agree with that suggestion. I can certainly confirm that extensive steps have been taken to try to get a member; they will continue. I would not want to stand in the way of the formation of the group.

Both of the cross-party groups that have asked for a waiver were well established during the previous session. It is not as if they are new groups; they have quite good records on the issues that they were formed to discuss and they should be encouraged to continue.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

For the record, Chris Ballance, who will convene the cross-party group on Tibet was here but, because we moved through business so speedily, he is delighted that the committee has approved the group and has departed.

That might well be a lesson for other members: if they want to be involved, they must turn up timeously. Nevertheless, we will record that Chris Ballance attended.

To be fair to him, he was told not to come until 10 past 11.

That is okay, although I do not know what we were going to be doing between now and 10 past 11.