Official Report 71KB pdf
The second item of business is an update on cross-party groups. Members have received paper SPPA/S3/09/1/1, which contains information about the number of cross-party groups, their meetings and their membership. Are there any comments?
I would like to make just one small point, although it does not really lead to anything. In the paper, the identification of cross-party groups with committees is a bit misleading. For example, I am a member of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on epilepsy, and although the group certainly covers health issues, it also covers education issues, for example. The cross-party groups do not necessarily fit into categories in the way suggested in the paper. A number of them have links with two or three of the Parliament's committees.
Are you making a suggestion?
No, I am just making an observation.
No one seems to want to raise any other points, so are members content to receive another update at the same time next year? If so, would members like the update to contain any additional information, such as the change that Robert Brown has suggested?
Paragraph 12 of the paper says that an average of four MSPs attend each CPG meeting, which means that significantly fewer than four MSPs attend some meetings. I will be advised if this suggestion is too complicated, but it would be interesting to know the ratio of MSPs to non-MSPs at CPG meetings. If it is easy to obtain that information, it would help us to see the full picture. However, if it is not easy, I will not push the point.
I imagine that the ratio will vary widely. At some CPG meetings the room is absolutely full of people, but at other meetings only a handful of people attend. An average figure would be misleading.
My interest is in the ratio of MSPs to non-MSPs. CPGs are supposed to be about sharing experience, expertise and understanding. My impression—although it would be nice to have facts rather than impressions—is that MSPs are sometimes substantially outnumbered by non-MSPs. That might sometimes be appropriate, but it would be interesting to know the figures.
I am a vice-convener or a member of one or two cross-party groups, and it can be difficult for me to get to some meetings because of other commitments. However, when there is prior notice of a pressing reason to attend, the numbers often creep up. The cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on China is probably the best attended by MSPs. In my experience, far more attend that group than others.
With due respect to Peter Peacock, the numbers are less important than the way in which groups concentrate on the parliamentary aspects of their functions. The thrust of groups should be about not just studying a subject but about focusing on the subject's parliamentary aspects. In my experience, the groups that focus in that way tend to be more effective than the groups that are a bit more discursive, if I may put it that way.
By the very nature of CPGs, the way in which they deal with their business varies enormously.
The rules require groups to submit an annual return but, to be fair, some groups have not existed for a year since being set up.
I just wanted to point out that the statistics in the paper are based on a fairly small number of returns.
Is a reminder to be diligent in returning their forms sent out to cross-party groups? Might this committee want to do that?
To send out a reminder to fill in the forms?
Yes, so that the groups comply with the rules.
It might be worth while sending out a wee reminder, so that we can obtain a fuller picture of what is happening.
Right, we can look into the suggestions that have been made. If members are content to leave matters with me and the deputy convener, I am sure that the clerks will inform us about measures that we can take.
Meeting continued in private until 15:22.