Standards Committee, 14 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Official Report 199KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

The next item on the agenda is consideration of three applications to establish cross-party groups. I understand that, for family reasons, Mr Davidson is not able to join us to speak to the application for the cross-party group on diabetes. He has been replaced by Mr John Scott. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong. John Scott is replacing Nora Radcliffe. Karen Whitefield will replace David Davidson. Karen, do you want to make any further comments about the application?

It is news to me that I am a stand-in for Mr Davidson. However, I will say that the cross-party group is much needed and all group members believe that it will make a worthwhile contribution to the debate on diabetes in Scotland.

As far as I can see, the group complies with the rules on cross-party groups. However, I note that the proposed group contains some non-MSP representation, including a commercial organisation and a Government relations agency. It might be useful to know whether secretariat facilities might be provided by either of those organisations; if so, I should mention that any related costs should appear in the appropriate paperwork in due course.

I understand that those facilities will be provided by Alan McGinley, the policy officer of Diabetes UK Scotland. That information is set out on the application.

In that case, I should point out that the costs of the time that he spends on that activity ought to appear in the paperwork in the same way that, for example, ASH Scotland sets out the costs of providing secretariat facilities to the cross-party group on tobacco control. Perhaps all cross-party groups should have that drawn to their attention to make things absolutely clear.

Given that the cross-party group meets with the specified criteria, do members agree to approve the application?

Members indicated agreement.

We will formally write to Mr Davidson to inform him of our decision.

I will get things right this time. We are also considering an application for a cross-party group on food, whose proposed convener is Nora Radcliffe. Nora Radcliffe cannot attend the meeting, but John Scott, one of the proposed conveners, is present. Mr Scott, I draw to your attention the point that I made about the secretariat, which you might wish to consider. Do you want to add anything?

No, except to say that the group is worth while and will be considering issues such as healthy eating, public service food procurement and food tourism. We are hoping to explore a range of issues. I know from our first meeting that there is a lot of interest in the group from within and outwith the Parliament.

No members have questions to ask. Given that the group complies with the regulations, I take it that the committee agrees to accept the application.

Members indicated agreement.

Fine. We will write to Nora Radcliffe to inform her of the committee's decision.

Thank you.

The final application under item 3 is to establish a cross-party group on tartan day. We have with us Andrew Welsh, who is the proposed convener of the group.

The group is based around the celebration of the declaration of Arbroath and is to provide a platform for parliamentarians to discuss how to develop the idea. We do not seek to duplicate existing parliamentary activity; the idea is to supplement, augment and support parliamentary events. We seek not to replace such events, but to extend them to the rest of Scotland. Members of every party and the independent group are interested and a wide geographic spread of people has expressed support; we hope to include all Scotland.

The group seeks to be a catalyst to encourage activity based on the 6 April re-enactment of the signing of the declaration of Arbroath. In some ways, we present Angus Council as a model, as it is planning a series of events. We hope to encourage other local authorities and groups to join in. We say in our application that we seek to

"encourage individual and international friendship and goodwill through Tartan Day celebrations both in Scotland and worldwide."

Thank you for coming along, Mr Welsh. I have a number of questions. I am slightly concerned that the group might duplicate some of the cross-party work that goes on around tartan day, which the Presiding Officer leads. I am interested to know what discussions you have had with the Presiding Officer's office about how you could work together and not do some of the work that he will do in leading a cross-party delegation to tartan day celebrations annually.

I am also interested in how you engaged with members of the Parliament in making up your group. I have no recollection of having received notification of the group. I note that on 18 June the decision was made about how membership needs to be constituted according to the party splits. One of the points is that all four major parties need to be represented. Your representative from the Labour Party is Mr Frank McAveety, who was a minister on 18 June. It strikes me that he would not have been in a position to be a member of a cross-party group. He might well be now, but he was not at the time of your inaugural meeting.

I will have to check that with Frank McAveety.

We have no intention of duplicating work; as I said, we hope to augment and supplement other parliamentary work. Until the group is formed, we can hardly open up discussions with the Presiding Officer or his deputies. However, you should take it as read that we do not intend to interfere or to get in the way; we intend to augment and supplement work and to act at a sub-parliamentary level to encourage events. In an ideal world, we would see tartan day events being encouraged locally, in the same way as we have Burns suppers. We already have town and village twinning. At all levels, it is possible to encourage tartan day thinking, international good will and ties around the event.

We had, first, to submit an application. We deliberately have members from all parties on the group and I hope that the group will be augmented. All MSPs are welcome. We want to be as open as possible and I hope that MSPs will encourage as much activity around tartan day as possible in the areas that they represent. That is not to take anything away from the national event—nor should it. I hope that such activities augment and supplement the national event.

Angus Council has encouraged a panoply of events around the re-enactment at Arbroath on 6 April, from ceilidhs and rock-and-roll reminiscing to tartan day workshops and brainstorming sessions that explore local possibilities for contacts and interaction within Scotland and between Scotland and other countries. We hope, at the sub-parliamentary level, to encourage as much activity as possible involving art, culture, charity events and heritage. There is a great possibility for the creation of international friendship and growth through tartan day celebrations that supplement whatever the Parliament does, although they will never replace it in any shape or form. That applies to areas that the Parliament probably could not cover, so I see the two as complementary, never in competition.

As the group qualifies under the current regulations, I take it that the committee is content to agree to the group.

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to you formally in due course, Mr Welsh.

I hope to report progress.

We look for an annual report from each of the cross-party groups.

I will do my best to make it substantial.

Item 4 is further consideration of cross-party groups. I understand that Dr Turner is not going to be present this morning—as you can see, she is not present—but that she has nothing to add to the letter that she sent to us, which members have before them. She has made efforts to recruit a Labour member to the proposed cross-party group on the loss of consultant-led services in Scotland and we agreed at our meeting in June to give her time to do that. However, she has been unsuccessful in that and seeks a waiver with regard to it. Is the committee content to grant her proposed group a waiver?

I would support that. If the cross-party group has made every effort to attract a member from each of the parties, as is stated in the rules, and if, for whatever perfectly valid reason, no member of a certain party wishes to join, that should not block a reasonable cross-party effort across the other parties. Without going into the rights and wrongs of the argument, we should grant the group a waiver.

It is unfortunate that there is no Labour member on the proposed group, as the group will be the weaker for it. Donald Gorrie has argued before—and I agree with him—that the groups are not all-party groups but cross-party groups. I do not think that any one party should be able to prevent the formation of groups if members choose to form them. The group will be the weaker for not having a Labour member, but there we are.

I commend Mr Macintosh for his magnanimity. He is quite right. The fact that a precedent has already been set rather dictates the way in which the committee should go. I would support the application.

Is that the view of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Today, we have discussed four cross-party groups. The clerks have received a letter, which all committee members have seen, from Margo MacDonald on behalf of the group of independent MSPs. The point that Margo MacDonald raises is substantive and we ought to consider it. I suggest that we do not do so today but include it in our work programme for early in the new year. Are members content that we do that and that I write formally to Mrs MacDonald on behalf of the committee to tell her that that is what we plan to do?

I am sorry—we are agreed to what, convener?

Mrs MacDonald wrote to us on behalf of the independents to ask us to look again at the rules on the setting up of cross-party groups and on their membership. She asked us to do so in light of changes that have taken place since the issue was last looked at, which was at the beginning of the session. Since then, the independents have become a formally recognised group with a member on the Parliamentary Bureau. The bureau started out with four members and it now has seven members. It is perfectly legitimate, therefore, for us to look again at the requirements for the membership of cross-party groups. We should bear in mind the point that the deputy convener made that a group is not necessarily an all-party arrangement. Circumstances have changed and we should look again at the issue in the light of those changes. Are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 5 is also about cross-party groups. Clearly, it is within the rules that cross-party groups can make "reasonable use" of the Parliament information technology facilities. We have been asked to interpret the meaning of "reasonable use" in relation to requests for links to be made from the Parliament website to external websites.

To date, most of the requests that have been made have been for one link to be added and those requests have been actioned as requested. The paper gives advice on the practicalities of adding links and we are asked to decide what the Parliament's policy should be in respect of more than one link being added, who should make the request and who should be responsible for the maintenance of the links. Committee members have a copy of the paper in front of them. Does any member have a view on the subject?

I am sure that the request for more links to be added is perfectly innocuous, but it has raised a number of questions in my mind. The paper does not say which group made the request or what the links are for. Although we might not need to know that information, I wonder why one group might need 11 links when no other group has more than one link—if any at all.

I am going to show my ignorance of IT matters but I am slightly concerned about whether that number of links might create pressure on our IT system. Sometimes, when I log on to a website, it can slow down because too much information is contained in one page. It would be interesting to know what, if any, effect there would be on the Parliament website if all the links were to be made—indeed, what is the point of having them all? Although I have several questions on the issue, I am not against the idea of links in themselves. The point about sharing information is a good one.

Are you suggesting that some of the Parliament IT people should come before the committee to explain how they feel and answer our technical questions?

I would like an answer to my question on the impact of 11 links being made from a cross-party group web page.

I would like to know the security advice on having links to other websites.

Both questions are perfectly legitimate. Indeed, perhaps I should have anticipated them. Mea culpa—I could have asked the clerks to invite someone from the IT team to be at committee today. If that is the general wish of the committee, perhaps we should consider doing so, as we do not have to dispose of the item today. Let us get our questions on the record, so that if we decide to invite one of the Parliament's IT team to come and explain the technicalities, they will have our questions in advance.

My knowledge of IT is limited, but I have always been told that a website is as good as its links. That said, the Parliament website may be in a different category. I have some slight concerns about the security implications of agreeing to the request. Before we agree to it, I would like to be reassured on the issue.

I may be coming at the matter from a different angle, as I have not been involved in discussions before. However, for me, the paper threw up a lot of questions and thoughts for the future. For example, I wonder who vets what links are being made. I am not saying for a minute that I do not trust any of our colleagues, but does the entire cross-party group, including representatives from all parties, have to agree that a link is valid, or is it just that the secretariat thinks that it is a good idea? There are an awful lot of questions that have yet to be teased out. If one cross-party group has 11 links, will the next cross-party group then want 12? Where does it end? We could end up with links from links. That way, we are not entirely sure where the Parliament website is capable of being taken.

I am sure that that is why the directorate of access and information sought a disclaimer on all cross-party group links, saying that the Parliament was not responsible for anything beyond what was on its site.

On the same point, it is all very well to have a disclaimer, but the public often do not recognise the difference between cross-party groups and committees of the Parliament. Both are good things and have their own role to play. What the public perceive is often as important as the fact, so if there is a link to what members of the public would see as an official Parliament website that is dodgy in some way, that must be a concern of ours. I would like the experts to explain to us that aspect of the issue and to tell us whether there is any way in which we can ensure that we are not mired by somebody else's problems.

Secondly, there is the question of keeping links up to date, which is a problem. To give a trivial example, yesterday I was with some colleagues at a cross-party event at Balerno High School, where Mary Mulligan was introduced as the Deputy Minister for Communities and had to say that she no longer held that position. The headmaster was, quite correctly, going by her website. That was not a big deal, but there could be bigger issues about inaccuracies and out-of-date information. I would like some explanation of whether there is any way, without being wickedly illiberal and controlling people—

Heaven forfend!

Indeed. I wonder whether there is some way by which we can ensure that the content of sites is not unacceptable and that it is up to date. What is in the disclaimer is fine, but the public will not read the disclaimer.

I endorse that point. Linda Fabiani and Donald Gorrie both mentioned the fact that the Parliament's website effectively endorses anything that is included in it. Whether the imprimatur of the Parliament gives a website a seal of approval is a difficult issue for cross-party groups, because that is where the policy boundary is. I do not think that we should ask the clerks to police the issue, because that would not be very fair and I know that they would not welcome the role. However, there are not so many links—there is one page with 11 links—that they could not be brought before the committee anyway.

There is also a danger that the links could be used to promote specific interests within cross-party groups. For example, it is already the case with many groups that the secretariat of the group is in a privileged position and could easily put in a link to its own website. The danger with cross-party groups generally is that they can often be owned by specific interest groups or lobbies, with the best of intentions, and they can appear to become branches of those well-meaning organisations. With a link to a website, there is an even greater danger of that perception. I wonder whether the clerks could draw up a paper exploring some of those issues, on the policy side as well as on the practical side, covering the impact on the Parliament's IT system.

Are members content with the suggestion that we should have some more background material and that the specific questions that have not been asked should be put to our IT colleagues, who should be invited to attend our next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

If there are any further questions, members should let the clerks know, so that the IT people have as much notice as possible. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I should have thought of that myself.