Official Report 206KB pdf
Item 2 on the agenda is on the regulation of cross-party groups. I hope that everyone has had a chance to read the papers in detail. As a result of answers to written questions to Sir David Steel lodged by Richard Lochhead, it was agreed that we would move as quickly as possible to put into a place a scheme for the regulation of cross-party groups. Before we go through the action points, are there any general comments?
Many of the regulations appear to be derived from the Westminster model and from Westminster practice. Westminster attracts to itself a notion of its own centrality and salience, and there are all kinds of all-party groups that provide ways in which people can exercise influence within a setting where the Parliament itself is relatively inaccessible. If our Scottish Parliament is going to be different, we must be careful about the bases on which we establish all-party groups. We do not want them to be a mechanism for any particular external or externally led group to have what might be seen to be privileged access to the institution of Parliament. I would prefer a narrower definition of cross-party groups—one that is focused on MSPs—rather than the Westminster model of a mechanism for interest groups to pursue their agendas.
Are there any other general comments?
I support what Des said. These groups can have considerable influence, but that influence will be disproportionate if they are merely external groups with minimal MSP involvement.
There is a draft before us. Do we want to go through it?
It might be helpful to go through the draft and highlight some of the issues. We do not have to make a final decision today.
We can return for refinements later. We will press on and examine this draft paragraph by paragraph. Perhaps we can take the first three paragraphs—the introduction—together.
This point relates to a later paragraph, but the change that I will propose to it affects the introduction.
What are you suggesting?
Paragraph 2 states that cross-party groups must include a member
We could amend it to "which aims to include".
It might be helpful to stipulate a minimum number of party groupings.
If every party has to be represented, we might have tactical discussions at party group meetings about whether we want a cross-party group established on an issue; it may be counter-productive to stipulate that every party represented in the bureau should have a member on a cross-party group. In addition, some parties are not represented in the bureau and they should not be excluded.
I have been advised that those parties are not excluded—they can join cross-party groups.
Patricia and Adam have made a good point. If it is stipulated that there must be members from all the parliamentary groups that are represented on the Parliamentary Bureau, one party could decide not to take part in a cross-party group, which would mean that the group could not be set up. A way round the problem may be to stipulate that there should be membership from at least two of the groups represented in the Parliament.
I have concerns about cutting the minimum representation down to two, as that could mean that the group was not cross-party but only a faction within the Parliament. If all the groups represented in the bureau are involved in a cross-party group, the group would deserve the status of being called cross-party. I understand Patricia's concerns about difficulties that may exist in establishing the women's issues group if one party grouping decides not to participate. However, if we cut the number to two, we may not produce proper cross-party groups.
The danger is that two parties representing the Executive—or two parties from the Opposition—could form a so-called cross-party group.
We should leave the paragraph as it is. In special circumstances, an appropriate group could be registered as cross-party by this committee or the Parliament.
We could add a sentence to the effect that in special circumstances the rule could be waived by the Presiding Officer.
Would it be the Presiding Officer or this committee?
I have been informed that it would be this committee.
If there is to be a process of registration for cross-party groups, it will fall to this committee to construct, maintain and monitor that register.
Have we covered that issue?
I am not happy with that. My point stands. We could get into a situation in which a cross-party group is blocked. I do not think that an appeal to the Presiding Officer is necessarily the right way forward.
We have just decided that the matter would come back to us. This committee would decide on the special circumstances. If there were a difficulty, this committee would be able to waive the rule. Would that be acceptable?
As an example, suppose that there was a cross-party committee on disability and that it happened that one of the party groups did not contain anyone who was particularly interested in the issue—I know that that is unlikely, but it could happen. Would that mean that we could not have the cross-party group? That would not be reasonable. We must be satisfied that the groups are genuinely cross-party. Given a stipulation such as the one that we are discussing, with the added caveat that Karen has suggested, it may be possible to deal with such problems on a case-by-case basis.
I see a lot of nodding in agreement. Shall we strike out "corporate members"?
I do not necessarily disagree, but I have concerns. For example, organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Children in Scotland could be excluded from membership of an all-party group on children. I do not accept that those organisations are just interest groups such as the ones that Des is talking about. They have a genuine role to play in consultation and development, and I would be concerned if those types of organisations were excluded from membership.
I was going suggest at a later stage—although it seems appropriate to deal with it now—that we use the term "representative groups". That would cover organisations that are representative of interests that are germane to the activities of the cross-party group—Children in Scotland with regard to a group on children, for example. Individuals could be members of the group in a personal capacity or as representatives of a relevant group. I was concerned about the idea of corporate members, which I do not think any of us would support.
If we take out the final sentence of paragraph 2, all our problems are solved.
So it would finish:
Yes.
Yes, but we should somehow state that the balance of the membership should be MSPs.
Do you mean the majority?
I do not want to be absolutely hard and fast on that, but I want us to be able to say what happens if it is clear that a cross-party group is predominantly run by outside agencies. I do not want to specify the number of members or say that there can be only five people from outside organisations, but we must have an arrangement whereby the cross-party groups are, in effect, led and run by MSPs. However, I do not want to say that the number of members of the group who are from outside organisations must be lower than the number of MSPs on the group.
Would it be appropriate to talk about the convener of the group being an MSP?
We will get down to that later. At this stage, I am anxious to establish the principle that the group should be genuinely cross-party. Relevant outside interests—but not corporate interests—could be represented on it and others could be there as individuals. Accountability would be ensured through the MSPs who were members of the group. They would have to accept that responsibility. Those are the important dimensions to consider.
Are we starting from the right point in looking at the Westminster model? In Scotland, the civic forum and other organisations are the interested groups, which is not the case at Westminster. One of the reasons why cross-party groups were set up at Westminster was to allow people to influence members on their pet subjects.
That goes back to the point that I raised earlier. There is a demand from parliamentarians for cross-party groups to be set up on a number of issues. Presumably such groups will exist, so we must take account of the issue that I raised, on which Tricia has come in.
I understand the point that Mr McNulty is making but I do not think that the problem necessarily exists. A cross-party group is about crossing party divides and getting people to sit down to talk to one another in a way that they perhaps could not do in the Parliament, where things tend to be split along party group lines. It is not always easy for people to discuss their common interests and concerns. There might be cross-party consensus on an issue even though people might not always agree on what policy should be brought forward.
It is an obvious point, but there should be a distinction between an all-party group and a lobby. It might be absolutely legitimate and democratic for a lobby of several hundred people to campaign for change—on disability allowances, for example—and to call on members of all-party groups, but when such a group gets beyond a certain size, it is no longer an all-party group. That was recognised at Westminster, and it would be safe to recognise it here.
We have had a valuable discussion on the general purpose of the rules and regulations covering all-party groups. I want to come now to the draft rules. Is everyone happy with paragraph 1?
Each group should be required to define its purpose and its scope of operation. It might not be enough simply to say in paragraph 1 that
It is mentioned.
I know that it is mentioned later, but perhaps it should be made clearer from the beginning.
Paragraph 3, on the election of officers and so on, is where I suggested the need for a convener. It states:
It would be more appropriate if at least two of the officers had to be members of the Parliament.
Does everyone agree with that?
Yes, and one of them should be the convener.
What does the rest of the committee think?
We agree.
That would establish the fact that the group was owned by the MSPs.
It also meets the need for accountability.
Is everyone happy with paragraph 4?
Yes.
Paragraph 5?
We have raised the issue of the need for someone to take responsibility for compliance. Should that be the convener, or are all members of the group collectively responsible for compliance? We might be unable to decide that today, as it might be worth speaking to some of the all-party groups about how they would prefer to deal with compliance. Should MSPs take responsibility for it? There is ambiguity in the way in which the document is written at the moment.
I would assume that compliance was a matter for collective responsibility, rather than something that should be forced on one member, who could then become the scapegoat—for want of a better word—and punishable by the committee or the Parliament. Perhaps we should set the precedent that compliance is an issue for all members. Then nobody is left out to dry, so to speak, if something goes wrong, for example, with an outside body.
That is a fair point. We shall leave paragraph 5 for now. Are there any comments on paragraph 6?
I am uncomfortable with paragraphs 6 and 7, which talk about subscriptions for joining cross-party groups. What would the subscription cover?
Communication costs.
A subscription would be just for communication costs, for example, for stationery for those who do not use electronic mail.
Should not we include a line to that effect? I know that paragraph 6 already states that
We are returning to the difference between the cross-party groups that we are trying to establish and those in Westminster. The matter also arises in paragraph 11, under which the groups are forbidden to use parliamentary facilities such as photocopying and postage. If the kind of cross-party group that we are talking about is owned by MSPs and aims to improve their communication and their ability to impact on the Parliament, surely we should approach the matter differently. Cross-party groups should be supported by the Parliament.
No.
No?
No.
I would not be in favour of Parliament supporting those groups. The budget would quickly quadruple if that were the case. I understand that members hesitate to have a subscription for those groups, but on the other hand there might be circumstances, such as the purchase of stationery or making arrangements, where a subscription is necessary. Is it possible to include in the registration of the group a declaration about the purpose of any financial levy and how much it is likely to be for the next year? Members will register on an annual basis, and that might get us round the problem.
Usually a subscription was just for the secretary's cost—preparing the minutes and sending out letters for the next meeting—and often it was only about £1 a year.
I do not think that the question has been addressed. We are getting confused between the two models.
Adam's point is well made. We have already had e-mails from a number of MSPs asking whether we would like to join the cross-party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament group, the animals group or the film group. Paragraph 11 suggests that the IT system cannot be used even for that. I cannot even pick up a telephone and call Karen and ask her whether she fancies joining a cross-party group on disability. Surely that strikes at the heart of what the cross-party group, as articulated by Karen, should be. It is about the ability of MSPs from all parties to sit down together and discuss common interests.
Perhaps the drafting is the wrong way round. On the one hand we are saying that cross-party groups must notify their meetings on the web. On the other, we are saying that they cannot use the IT. That is absurd. Perhaps we should say that cross-party groups should pay if they use parliamentary facilities that bear a cost. For example, if they are sending external mail from the Parliament, they should pay for that.
I have just been advised that, although we can give an opinion on the use of parliamentary resources, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
Absolutely.
I find Des's suggestion sensible, but I fear that in practice it would not work. My concern is about free postage. It could spiral out of control anyway, even before all-party groups used the facility.
Do we agree that the use of parliamentary resources by cross-party groups be referred to the SPCB?
I will pass on the views of the committee.
Paragraph 7 contains the first mention of registered members. Should not a register of members be mentioned under paragraph 1?
I am told that paragraph 4 refers to that. It states:
Is not the registration of cross-party groups different from registered members of cross-party groups?
The requirements include the registration of all members.
Notice of one sitting day before a cross-party group meeting is perhaps not long enough to allow the public to arrange time off work or child care, in order to attend such a meeting. More notice would be appropriate.
Any suggestions?
A week.
Notice should be given a week before meetings.
Meetings should be announced a week before they take place.
Yes.
It addresses the points that we made earlier on.
Is there an issue here? People can use the restaurant as guests of MSPs. On security grounds, apart from anything else, that is the only reason why they should be allowed to do so. We should avoid the implication that registered members of groups have a status other than as guests.
The problem might be solved by tightening up the wording. Registered members of groups should have the same status as that of any other visitors.
Paragraph 11?
Paragraph 12?
Paragraph 13?
Therefore, we are happy with the rules on cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament.
We will move on to the registration of cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament. Are there any comments?
Do we want to leave it absolutely open, and say that any group can qualify, as long as it has two members—or four or whatever—who decide that they will have an all-party group? Do we want to say what we think the purpose of an all-party group is?
That is defined in the first rule on cross-party groups:
That goes back to my earlier point about our at least giving some direction. Some groups already exist: there is an all-party group on disability and an all-party group on women's issues. Both are fine, and I do not think that anyone has stepped outside the bounds of what is reasonable. However, it is possible to imagine the establishment of all-party groups that were purely mechanisms for lobbying. I would be nervous about such groups, so rather than the rule saying that groups should be parliamentary in purpose, I would prefer it to say that groups should take up particular issues that were widely acceptable. The rule could also make it clear that groups were not to replicate the work of a particular committee.
It has just been suggested to me that we could insert a reference to the Standards Committee reserving the right to refuse to recognise a group.
If members apply to establish all-party groups, and we are unhappy about the group, we could ask questions about it. That might be a way of sorting out the problem.
Will the subscription and what it will be used for be put on the form?
Yes.
If members are to apply to register groups, the paragraph will need to be reworded. Because of the way in which it is written at the moment, a group can just establish itself and notify the standards clerk. There will have to be an extra step in the mechanism, whereby groups apply for recognition.
There is nothing to stop four members of the Parliament setting up a group; the question is whether that group is recognised. I could establish a group with three of my pals; it would be a group, but the question is whether it would have any status or recognition in the Parliament. I assume that only when a group applied to be registered would it be recognised and be able to use facilities.
That is right.
Will it be necessary to mention the groups that have already started up, so that they are not excluded just because of the form of words that we have used?
Excluded because the paragraph says that groups must register within 30 days of their first meeting?
Yes. It would be a question of simply adding on a sentence at the end.
That would be sensible. Shall we move on?
The second paragraph mentions the requirement to notify the clerk of changes. I am not sure of the meaning of
That is a good point. The paragraph should be clarified; it should refer only to MSPs.
Yes, and not to every individual member.
The next paragraph begins:
That is fine.
The next begins:
Karen raised the issue of whether we are talking about individual responsibility or collective responsibility for compliance. The wording suggests that it is individual responsibility and Karen suggested that it should be collective responsibility for MSPs who are members of a particular group to ensure compliance.
That is fine.
We could make it the office bearers on behalf of the MSPs.
I move on to:
There needs to be only a wee bit of tweaking to put the wording in line with the intentions that we have mapped out.
The document goes on to say that the register can be publicly inspected and will be available on the website. Our job will be to monitor the register and comply with its requirements.
We do more than monitor registration; we control it.
Should we say, "monitor and control"?
People register with us; that is the way it is. Then we monitor the compliance. So there are two stages.
Okay. I have just had a question from the clerk. Does the committee intend to look at every application? I assume that that is what we are talking about. Is it?
We might have a list of 10 or 15 applications. In general, they would just be nodded through. You would tell us whether you felt that they complied and we could raise any questions at that point. However, I do not think that we would go case by case.
Are members happy with that?
The next paragraph, on advice, states that
I would widen that.
That is wider than the individual, is it not?
Could it say "the secretary"? It would be an awful nuisance if every member of the group had to go to the Standards Committee clerk every time there was a change of membership, with one member joining or leaving.
Unless the office bearers did it.
As long as somebody does, it is fine. That is the point, if I understand it correctly.
I think that we all agreed on collective responsibility, but a code of guidance should say how that is to be exercised. I assume that it is part of the requirements on the group for registration that people are authorised to deal with that.
Right. Let us move on to compliance with the rules on cross-party groups.
Before we do that, I want to ask about the "NB" in the previous section. Is not that point more generally covered by the code of conduct? I find it hard to see what it refers to. Perhaps Lord James can quote us case law from Westminster to explain it, but I am unclear as to what is behind it.
Do you have any comments, Lord James?
No.
It is just a reminder—beware.
We also need to include something about the code of conduct, which deals with the other side of the equation and tells members that registrable interests might arise as a result of involvement in an all-party group. We need to cover this from both sides, so that no one can say that they did not know.
Let us to move on to compliance. The document states:
Yes, although it should be part of the registration process.
The next heading is, "Failure to comply with or contravention of the rules on Cross Party Groups". We will consider those three paragraphs together.
I have a query about the phrase
One way of dealing with that would be to say that failure to comply with the rules on cross-party groups was equivalent to failure to comply with the general code of conduct.
What I meant by collective responsibility was that all members were responsible, and that if a member saw something going wrong, it was their duty either to do something about it or to bring it to the attention of this committee. I would be concerned if a member who brought such a matter to our attention was penalised along with everyone else involved.
Can we leave the paragraph as it stands?
I reiterate my suggestion that it would be helpful to include a reminder to members that when they take part in cross-party groups, they continue to operate under the general code of conduct.
The final heading is, "Membership of other groups".
I agree with the paragraph.
Okay.
We have made one or two adjustments of principle, and it might be helpful if we wait until our next meeting, when the issues of principle will have been clarified, before we go through the next set of documents.
That will be on the agenda for our next meeting—it will be busy.
Previous
Committee DraftsNext
Code of Conduct