The next item on the agenda is the consideration of applications for recognition as cross-party groups. There are two applications; members have copies of the forms that have been submitted.
Why did you make that comment, convener?
I was asked to point that out because the covering note says that the group is to be called
I do not have a problem with the group being registered. However, as in other applications, this group seems to be made up of more outside agencies than MSPs. We might bring that to the attention of the group, which may want to recruit more MSPs.
The group contains 11 MSPs, nevertheless. Are members happy to approve the group?
The second application, which members have as annexe B, is for a cross-party group on strategic rail services in Scotland. Do members have any comments on this proposed application?
I want to make a point of information on cross-party groups. We had a considerable discussion at our previous meeting about the group on pluralism in education. I received a calling notice on Thursday afternoon, from which I understand that the group is now called the group for pluralism for Steiner Waldorf schools in education. The committee might wish to bear that information in mind for future reference.
It did not state "proposed".
That raises another question. We referred that application back to Brian Monteith at our previous meeting and I presume, because it is not on our agenda, that we have not had anything back. What should our next step be?
The committee clerks will write to the group and point out that, as is not registered, it is not entitled to use that description.
I suggest that we go further and say that, until it is approved, it cannot continue to use any of the facilities of the Parliament—that includes rooms, stationery and the like.
Yes.
Previous
Models of InvestigationNext
Lobbying