Cross-party Groups
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's first meeting of the year. Happy new year to everybody.
Agenda item 1 is on cross-party groups. The committee's agreement is sought to establish four cross-party groups. Members are aware that in considering whether to approve proposed cross-party groups, they must take account of a range of matters, such as a group's purpose and whether it is being formed on the basis of public interest.
The first proposed CPG is on Tibet. As members know, such a group was active in session 2. I welcome Mike Pringle, the group's convener. Does he have any comments to make?
Not really. I am here just in case anybody has any questions.
Members have no queries, so I thank Mike Pringle for attending. Do members agree to approve the cross-party group on Tibet?
Members indicated agreement.
The second proposed CPG is on climate change. I welcome Malcolm Chisholm, the group's co-convener. Would he like to make any comments?
I do not need to justify the group's creation—it is a case of booking early to get in, as it is one of the most popular cross-party groups that I have had anything to do with.
I was asked a question—I am not sure what the precise formulation was, so the convener can correct me if I am wrong—about the monetary value of secretarial services to the group. The secretary told me that her work takes the equivalent of about one working day every month to administer and that that is worth approximately £85 per month. Of course, the secretary is priceless, but I had to give a value.
What are the criteria for declaring the equivalent monetary value of what is used?
Any benefit that exceeds £250 a year ought to be declared.
The secretarial services have been declared, so the group has complied with that requirement.
Members have no questions for Malcolm Chisholm, whom I thank for coming. Do members agree to approve the cross-party group on climate change?
Members indicated agreement.
The third proposed cross-party group is on civil nuclear energy. Unfortunately, no office bearers for the group could attend the meeting, but I am happy to consider the application in their absence. Should members have queries, we can seek a written response from the group's convener, Elaine Murray.
Yesterday, I received information from Linda Smith on the support that British Energy provides to the group, which is mentioned on the group's registration form. She confirmed that she provides secretarial support to the cross-party group and that she cannot vote at any of the group's meetings. The secretarial support involves arranging speakers from organisations that group members would like to hear from and providing a brief minute for the website. She says that interested parties from other companies—including energy companies—are free to attend meetings should they wish to do so.
The monetary value of the support is minimal but hard to cost. It is estimated that Linda Smith spends a maximum of about eight hours a year on arranging and attending meetings. Approximately four meetings a year are agreed by members. She holds a parliamentary pass for use when working on cross-party group meetings, meeting guest speakers and other visitors to meetings and escorting them to meetings.
Members might wish to seek confirmation from the convener of the proposed CPG on civil nuclear energy that the value of that secretarial support does not exceed £250 in any one calendar year. If members have no comments or questions about the proposed CPG, we could agree to write for that confirmation. Subject to receiving that confirmation, do we agree to delegate responsibility for approving the group to me?
Members indicated agreement.
Could you also seek agreement that if the value exceeds £250, members still agree to approve the cross-party group?
If the group's convener confirms that the value is above £250, the code of conduct will have been complied with, so the group would proceed in any event.
The final proposed CPG is on housing. Cathie Craigie is the group's convener. Does she want to make any comments?
First, I declare an interest in the group. I think that other members of the group would have to do that, too. I have one amendment to the application, which is that I want to add Dave Thompson to the list of MSPs who will be involved in the group. I throw myself open to the mercy of my committee colleagues.
That is a brave thing to do.
Members seem to have no questions or comments. Are they happy to approve the CPG on housing?
Yes.
Jamie McGrigor, at least, is happy, so I think that that is agreed.