Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, October 10, 2013

Official Report 282KB pdf

---

Cross-party Group

Item 3 is for the committee to take evidence from George Adam MSP on the proposed cross-party group on multiple sclerosis. I welcome George Adam to the committee and ask him to tell us a bit more about his proposed cross-party group on MS.

Following a very successful MS awareness week event in the Parliament earlier this year, the Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland wants to connect with the Parliament to inform everyone about the 10,500 people in Scotland who suffer—although those with the condition do not like to use that word—from MS. As my wife has MS, I know that there is nothing worse than seeing someone whom you love having the condition, and it is quite difficult. So, yes, I am emotionally compromised when it comes to this issue.

Along with the MS Society, I am keen to build on the work that the society did in the report that it published for MS awareness week, which in effect said that many things need to be done for people in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom who have MS. The idea is to work within the system by working with MSPs, the Government and others to look at how we can fix things.

From 1999 until now, the MS Society had not been keen to have a cross-party group on MS—I do not know why, as I always thought that having a CPG was probably the best way forward—but, following quite a change in staff, the society is now keen to be involved. The cross-party group is about ensuring that efforts are directed towards making things better for people who are diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

Thank you for that comprehensive introduction. We all appreciate your personal involvement in the issue. I now invite questions from members to George Adam about his application.

Good morning. Wearing my other hat of health spokesman, I am conscious that the Parliament has a proliferation of cross-party groups on almost each and any condition that potentially exists. I have a lot of sympathy for, and indeed may support, your application, but can you tell me whether the interests of MS sufferers—or those who want to promote a better understanding of the condition—might be represented through the current cross-party group structure? Is there a cross-party group with which such people might have a natural affiliation? If not, what do you hope that a separate cross-party group on MS will achieve?

I understand and appreciate the question because, having previously been a member of the committee, I am aware that there are quite a few health-related cross-party groups. However, multiple sclerosis is not only difficult for those individuals who have the condition but individual to each of those individuals. So many different things are involved, because everyone who has multiple sclerosis has different issues, that it would be quite difficult for someone with MS to be a lone voice in another health-related cross-party group.

I am passionate about taking up the work that the MS Society outlined in its report to the Parliament earlier this year. Since becoming an MSP, I have led an MS awareness week debate every single year, but I do not want to be saying the same old things and making the same complaints time after time. I would like to use that debate in future—if the whips and the Parliamentary Bureau allow me to have it—to talk about the state of multiple sclerosis and how we have moved things forward. I think that having a CPG is critical to ensuring that we achieve that.

As convener of the future CPG, I have discussed with my MSP colleagues on the group the need to ensure that we focus on an agenda that achieves something each year. Yes, we might just be chipping away to make things slightly better, as we cannot wave a magic wand that will change things overnight. The group is about working constructively in a focused way to ensure that we achieve an outcome at the end of each year, and I will ensure that we have an agenda that focuses on how we can make things different. The fact that we have a couple of MSP members who have family members with multiple sclerosis will help to ensure that we are focused on getting the best outcome that we possibly can.

Having listened to that response, I think that the group might be also be distinguished by your personal passion and commitment to it. I know that some MSPs have agreed to host or facilitate a cross-party group on behalf of others who have an interest in a subject, but I think that you are driven with a personal determination to see progress through the group. That may also be a unique aspect of the group that you are proposing.

Also, my wife, Stacey, is a very strong-willed individual.

Are there any other questions for George Adam?

Good morning. On the financial benefits, I note—officers can correct me if I do not have this right—that there is a limit of £500 for CPGs. The application says that the proposed CPG on MS will have benefits of £1,000 to £1,500 per year. Is that within the limits of a cross-party group?

In the financial benefits section of the application, we ask that benefits of more than £500 per annum should be declared.

If those benefits are from a single source.

Yes. The application form asks for details of any benefit

“which has a value, either singly or cumulatively, of more than £500.”

Let me explain the costs, as I am aware that this question usually comes up.

The idea is that the MS Society will provide the secretariat. The society is serious about ensuring that it can do that, so it has taken into account the cost of the members of staff who will work for the CPG over that period. I told the society that we need a realistic figure because, having been a member of the committee, I know that the CPG needs to provide something of value. The society took that very seriously when it produced the figures.

If there are no other questions from members, I thank George Adam both for his passionate evidence and for the very complete application form that he has submitted. It is important for us to be able to make our decisions based on that information.

Under item 4, the committee will discuss the evidence that we have heard from George Adam on the proposed cross-party group on MS. George Adam may remain with us while we discuss the application or, if he wishes, he may leave us—I think that he has chosen to leave.

I invite comments from members on the application for a cross-party group on MS.

What comes through is not just the completeness of the application form, which provides all the information that is asked for, but the very clear commitment on the part of many of the MSPs who really want this CPG to work. On that basis, I am quite happy to support the application.

If there are no other comments, do members agree to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group on MS?

Members indicated agreement.