Cross-party Groups
Our second item relates to cross-party groups. Members will see that there is an application for a cross-party group on Cuba. Do members have any comments?
As we have already approved a cross-party group on Palestine, the principle of setting up cross-party groups on foreign affairs issues—even though they are reserved matters—has been conceded.
Are members content to approve the proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
As I said, we have been joined by Keith Raffan, the convener of the cross-party group on drug misuse. Keith has asked to be allowed to make representations to the committee concerning the application of rule 9 of section 8.3 of the code of conduct, which requires cross-party groups always to meet in public.
Thank you, convener, for allowing me to attend this meeting. I would like to read into the record the written statement that I submitted to members in advance, because it sums up my argument. Afterwards I would be happy to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.
I am proposing that we relax the rule that requires cross-party groups to meet in public. In my view, the principal objective of the cross-party group on drug misuse is to increase the knowledge and extend the expertise of those MSPs who are interested or involved in what is a highly complex and controversial area of policy. The main means of achieving that objective is through informal meetings with specialists from across the field, who can provide information, criticism, policy ideas and proposals. Such people can both inform and add to MSPs' parliamentary contributions on the subject.
It was originally expected that our meetings could be held under Chatham House rules—in other words, in private—in order to encourage our guest speakers or panellists to be as open and as frank as possible and not to hold back in disclosing information or concerns. The rule that cross-party group meetings must be held in public has had the unfortunate effect of inhibiting some guest speakers' initial remarks or subsequent contributions to the group's discussions. For example, several speakers from voluntary organisations have indicated to me their concern that, if they said what they really believed and word of their criticism got back to the Executive, the already precarious funding of their organisation might be further threatened. I should add that, on one occasion, the Scottish Prison Service forbade two representatives from attending a meeting of the group. One of the representatives attended only after I intervened directly with the Minister for Justice. However, she limited her contribution to reading out a prepared statement and then informed those who were present that, regrettably, she was not allowed to answer questions.
In my view, cross-party groups—like committees of the Parliament—should have the option of going into closed session or holding meetings in private if a proposed guest speaker indicates that he or she could not attend on any other basis or would feel inhibited in what they could say if the meeting were held in public. I believe that such cases would be the exception rather than the rule and that most meetings would continue to be held in public.
Thank you. Do you wish to add anything to that statement?
No, not at the moment.
I appreciate what you said in your statement, Keith, but there are many cross-party groups and the same arguments would apply to all of them. Susan Deacon will forgive me, but there are a lot of cross-party groups on health issues and I do not think that we can change the rules because some people might be worried about their funding—that seems a little far-fetched. I am sorry to hear that people are being gagged by their organisations—that is wrong—but I do not think that what they fear would actually happen. It is important that groups are open.
That depends. Let me respond to your point directly, Kay. I am not saying that all cross-party group meetings should be held in private. All I am saying is that cross-party groups should have an option to meet in private—an option that is given to committees of the Parliament. It could be argued that cross-party groups should have a greater right to go into private than committees, as cross-party groups in Edinburgh—as at Westminster—are informal forums at which members can receive information that they would not otherwise receive. As I said, such information could inform and add to their parliamentary contributions, such as the questions that they lodge.
I will be frank. Such circumstances have arisen on only three or four occasions over the past two years. Perhaps my concerns are unjustified, but that is how people feel. The issue is not that people from voluntary organisations have been gagged, but that they are hesitant about saying certain things. That may be because they sit on the Scottish advisory committee on drug misuse, which, as members know, advises the Executive. That puts them in an invidious position, yet they have information that they would like to pass on.
Other groups, such as the cross-party group on cycling, might not feel the need to go into private session, but then cycling is not exactly controversial. The main aim of the cross-party group on drug misuse is to pass on information that members would not otherwise receive.
It concerns me that people who sit on drug advisory bodies are not prepared to speak out or to give information and that they keep to themselves information that may be crucial.
Cycling is an activity that is much more public than private anyway, Keith.
A number of members of the Standards Committee also sit on the Procedures Committee, which is exploring the four principles on which the Parliament was established. A key issue that has been raised by a number of civic groups is the committees' use of private sessions. The evidence is strongly critical of committees that engage in that practice, although 90 per cent of such sessions probably deal with housekeeping and are not held in private through a desire to keep the public out.
If there are concerns that are as critical as those that Keith Raffan raises—for example, if people in a quango, an institution or a public body feel that they have been restricted by senior management, say, from speaking out—there should be better mechanisms for dealing with those concerns. Moreover, there might be an opportunity for the convener of the cross-party group to meet individuals privately to discuss issues of concern and subsequently to feed that information through the process of the cross-party group in a more structured fashion. That would prevent people from feeling that they needed to go into private session.
Openness and transparency in decision making is one of the key principles that we are continuing to address. Mr Raffan said that pressure can be brought to bear on some organisations if the matter is raised with the appropriate minister. There are undoubtedly some public and appointed bodies in which scrutiny, accountability and the idea that folk can make comments are considered strange. Interestingly, however, at yesterday's Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting, half the members of the senior management team of Scottish Ballet submitted a report to the committee, even though they knew that their chief executive was going to come for the follow-through discussion. Whether what they said was right or wrong is a different matter, but they were prepared to open up the discussion.
The question is one of balance. I understand the concern that Mr Raffan has raised, but I am not convinced that the approach that he has suggested to resolve it is the most appropriate mechanism. Perhaps more time could be devoted to considering ways in which we could address the issues raised by folk at cross-party groups, other than by excluding the public from participation in them.
I agree with much of what has been said. When I read the statement on this subject a few days ago, I was sympathetic to the points that Keith Raffan was raising. Ironically, having heard the justification that he has given, I am less sympathetic. I thought that the reason for seeking the exception was to protect individuals. I was visualising, for example, a drug misuser who would be uncomfortable about speaking openly in front of a group of people that might include the wider public. There are other occasions when I would be extremely sympathetic towards a desire for privacy—with victims of sexual abuse, for example.
However, the idea that privacy should be granted to protect organisations—whether voluntary or statutory—is wrong, for the reasons that others have given. That is partly because of the general principles about the way in which the Parliament should operate. Like Frank McAveety, I have recently been involved in the Procedures Committee's consultative steering group principles inquiry. Openness is a recurrent theme from a range of organisations. It would be contrary to the general practices of the Parliament to move in the direction of privacy with the cross-party groups.
Words such as "gagging" have been used. Keith Raffan said nothing about an organisation being gagged. The issue is more about a sense of people being frightened to speak out—voluntary organisations that think that to do so could affect their funding or public bodies that think that they had better not be seen to say something. With voluntary organisations, we must work to create a climate in which people can speak openly. Many voluntary organisations—including those that are Government funded—speak openly and often critically, which is right and proper. The situation of public bodies—bona fide public sector statutory organisations—is different. Having said that, I would expect some consistency in what representatives of such organisations say—in public or in private, in a committee or at a cross-party group, or to the media. I do not find the privacy argument acceptable.
However, I still hold to my initial, instinctive reaction that there could be an exceptional situation, particularly for the protection of an individual, in which the private option might be appropriate. I would not be averse to considering some way of allowing for that exceptional situation. The idea that there should be a general option for meeting in private is neither appropriate nor necessary.
I wanted to make the same point as Frank McAveety made. The appropriate way forward is for the convener to have a private meeting. In child abuse cases, for example, it is very distressing to have all the evidence dragged out in public. Some years ago, we had legislation on rapes. Evidence from children in the Orkney case was taken privately. The way round the problem is for the convener to hold private meetings to sort out what can be said publicly and to proceed on that basis.
I was about to ask the same question, Keith. How do you get round that problem at the moment when you have people who want to speak in private? Obviously, there is an official rule, but I do not like rules to get in the way of MSPs' work or of the free flow of information. Do you simply suspend the group and meet informally? How do you cope with that rule at the moment?
Will Keith Raffan answer that and sum up?
The rule gets in the way of the cross-party groups, which exist primarily to help and support members. Meetings in private would be the exception, not the rule.
At the moment, members of the public invariably have the courtesy to ring up and say that they are coming so that I can get a pass ready for them. Frank McAveety is slightly wrong to say that members of the public are allowed to participate. They can be invited to participate—that is the approach that I take, as it helps to know who people are. I usually inform the guest speaker whether members of the public are present and who those members of the public are. I was prompted to come to the Standards Committee because some speakers have told me that the fact that the meetings are in public has led them not to say what they would otherwise have said.
I say in reply to Susan Deacon that I am making this request not to protect organisations or individuals but to ensure that members get the maximum amount of information. If the Parliament is to be truly open and transparent, it is important that we get the maximum amount of information. That should include anecdotal information, which we might not otherwise get.
Although the convener of the cross-party group could meet the speaker in private, individual MSPs can do that anyway. The whole advantage of cross-party groups is that people are prepared to come to the Parliament, which means that we do not need to meet them on a one-to-one basis. As my regional constituency is Mid Scotland and Fife, I am not usually in Glasgow, so if people who work on drug misuse in Glasgow come to the Parliament, I can hear them speak to the group. There is huge advantage for MSPs in meeting as a group to hear experts in the field. I always benefit from listening to the questioning from other MSPs, who might have more expertise. Sometimes other MSPs will introduce a line of questioning that I did not think of and perhaps would not have thought of had I met the speaker in private.
I must say that I am surprised at the committee's response. Parliamentary committees can go into closed session in exceptional circumstances, as this committee is about to do. I will, of course, remove myself at that time. All that I ask is that cross-party groups, which are informal groups, should have that same right, which would be used only exceptionally.
Perhaps I should not say this, but—I am never good at biting my tongue—cross-party groups in the Parliament are in danger of being grossly over-regulated. As one of the 14 or 15 members who have been at Westminster—it may be inappropriate or bad form to mention the big W, but Westminster does many things well—I think that we could learn from Westminster in this regard.
Not many of us would disagree that Westminster does many things well, but it strikes me that we need to get the balance right. The fact that committees have the right to move into private session is probably right and proper, given the need for confidentiality. A singular example of that is the Standards Committee, which goes into private to examine cases against members. If the committee did not go into confidential mode for such items, it could find itself the subject of a serious recommendation for discipline and legal action might be taken about the process that was used.
That does not mean that the 90 per cent of other cases in which committees have gone into private session have necessarily been appropriate. The Procedures Committee's inquiry into the CSG principles is exploring whether the Parliament has exercised that provision sensibly and whether we have the right balance between openness and transparency. So far, the submissions that we have received indicate that people are concerned about whether the Parliament is engaging properly.
Equally, there are mechanisms that cross-party groups could use. The cases that you have highlighted are of an exceptional nature, but you are asking for a mechanism that could have a more general application and might be used disproportionately by other cross-party groups. I do not think that such a mechanism necessarily strikes the appropriate balance to address the concerns that you have rightly raised.
Perhaps it is just the experience that I get when I go to meetings in Glasgow, but council members do not mess about. I have seen the senior social work director get absolutely ripped apart at public meetings on some sensitive issues. That is because people are committed to the issues, through their experience and their passion.
A balance has to be struck and I wonder whether a wee bit more consideration could be given to seeking alternative ways and mechanisms, rather than automatically closing the door on a genuine request. We should seek to strike a balance between the various things that members have said so that, in that spirit of consensus and trust that we are building among ourselves in the Scottish Parliament, we can actually deliver something.
I have every sympathy with that and I do not like the idea of rules getting in the way of our work, of the public or of the flow of information between us all. We need to bear in mind the work that the Procedures Committee is doing and the fact that it is not likely to report until the summer. I would hate to prejudge what the Procedures Committee will find, but I suspect that we will recommend—I certainly will—that we tighten up the rules on committees going into private and encourage them as far as possible to stop using private sessions. I am not sure how far we will go in that direction, but it would be odd were the Standards Committee to send a signal in the opposite direction, particularly when there is genuine public concern about the matter.
I appreciate that Keith Raffan's is a genuine concern, but it relates to only one group—no one else has made the same appeal. I suggest that we do not do anything about the matter today but await the Procedures Committee's opinion. If the Procedures Committee recommends less use of private sessions, I do not think that it would be for the Standards Committee to say something different. I also suggest that Keith Raffan tries, in the meantime, to find other methods of working with people for whom the possibility of speaking in public is limited; he could come back to us after the summer so that we can find out whether the group's experience has got worse or better and whether it has found ways around the difficulties that it has experienced.
Ken Macintosh has given me an idea. I hope that the committee sees the downside of this, but there is indeed always the possibility of meeting people informally instead of in a formal group meeting. In a sense, that means that we are driven underground and nobody knows what is happening. I do not want that; I would rather that what we did was recorded and that people knew why we were doing things. However, I think that informal meetings are inevitable, particularly in our field. If we did not have them, formal meetings would not be of much benefit and I think that attendance at them would decrease.
I remind members that rule 9 of section 8.3 of the code of conduct states:
"Cross-Party Group meetings must be held in public."
If members wished to vary or qualify that rule, we would need to seek the Parliament's agreement for the necessary amendments to the code of conduct. Having helped to draw up the guidance for cross-party groups, I recall that we felt that such groups were only one way—not the exclusive way—in which members of the public and others would engage with MSPs. Other forums are available. We felt strongly that all cross-party group meetings should be held in public and that they should be open and transparent. We were concerned about some of the practices at Westminster, not least the fact that some cross-party groups there were not parliamentary in nature and were not led by MPs—in many cases, they were led by lobbying companies. We determined that, on balance, we wanted a Parliament that would be open and accountable to everyone.
I am not persuaded by Keith Raffan's arguments. I think that there are other ways of getting the evidence that he is seeking. That need not be through the cross-party group itself. I get the feeling from the committee that we do not wish to take the matter any further at this stage. I hope that you are not disappointed by that response, Keith, but you are of course free to come back to us to ask us to think again.
I am grateful to you for hearing me. The group's annual general meeting is coming up. I will not stand again as convener because I believe that the way of getting further information in that complex field, in which I am particularly involved, lies through other means. I am sure that the group will continue.
Thank you for coming.