Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Official Report 269KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Under item 3, we have four applications for new or repeat cross-party groups. One of the groups was active in the previous parliamentary session and the other three were not—they are new.

First is the proposed cross-party group on funerals and bereavement, which was active in the previous session. Members will see from the group’s application in the papers that are before them that the group meets all the criteria for registration.

I declare an interest as I am listed as a member of the proposed CPG.

The registration form says that the group will receive £5,400 plus VAT per year from the National Association of Funeral Directors through Brevia Consulting Ltd, which will do the group’s secretarial work and so on. Nanette Milne has provided information about Brevia Consulting. Do members have questions about the group or the information that its co-convener has provided?

Is Brevia Consulting a lobby group for the National Association of Funeral Directors or is it simply a consulting group?

Brevia Consulting has been described as a consultancy firm. I do not know many more details about its activity, but I know that it performs the same role for the all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement at Westminster.

Are you happy with that, Margaret, or do you feel the need to find out a bit more?

Am I correct in saying that the proposed cross-party group is not new?

Yes.

Did the group previously have the same secretariat?

Yes.

On that basis, I accept that the position has been checked out.

I have a general question about cross-party groups—I apologise if it is stupid. I understand that probably more cross-party groups have been registered since 5 May 2011 than were registered in the previous session. I am a member of a couple of cross-party groups. How productive are such groups? Is that measured in any way? Are numbers of people who attend the groups measured? Do they have action plans for the year that include expected outcomes so that it can be seen whether they achieve their objectives, or do people just have cross-party groups for the sake of having them? If the groups are not measured in such ways, should they be?

The basic criterion for cross-party groups is that they provide information and so on for MSPs. They must assist MSPs, although they also do wider things. What is the total number of registered cross-party groups this session?

If the four groups on today’s agenda are approved, that will take us to 66.

I think that there were more than 70 in the previous session.

I seem to remember that there were 74.

There were 78 CPGs at the end of the previous session.

We are getting up to the same sort of level, although it will probably tail off a little bit. One thing that concerns me slightly—we will come to this when we consider one of the other groups—is that we need to be careful about cross-party groups beginning to overlap in what they do. As part of our work programme, we will inquire into cross-party groups and how they work, what their functions are and all the rest of it. I say to Margaret McCulloch that we can get stuck in to the detail at that point; we will take evidence from various people and work out where we want to go with the cross-party group agenda, which might answer the points that concern her. Many cross-party groups have been very useful and effective in the Parliament over the past 12 or 13 years—perhaps some more so than others.

In the context of funerals and bereavement, there are going to be some significant changes in terms of how people are registered when they die. There are also significant issues in terms of cross-border traffic with regard to, for example, people from Scotland who die in England or abroad and regulation of that. That is just one example.

I know that parliamentary activity will be conducted in a number of the CPGs that I am involved with. So, to answer Margaret McCulloch’s question, there will be good ones and bad ones, but my impression is that most of them have sincere parliamentary activity at their hearts.

On a slightly more general point, but with reference to the funerals and bereavement group and questions about Brevia Consulting, it used to be the practice that when a cross-party group was going to be approved at committee, somebody from the potential cross-party group would be at the meeting to answer questions. Is that still the case? I note that since I became a member of this committee, nobody has come from a CPG when we have been considering its approval. It can be a waste of time if everybody says that it is a great CPG and it just goes through, so it would have been handy to have a member of the funerals and bereavement group here to answer any queries about Brevia Consulting. I am quite happy knowing that that company has the same role at Westminster, but there might have been an issue there.

That is a very good point. In the past, conveners of the groups have come along to answer questions when we have asked them to do so. We obviously did not ask them to do so in this case. Perhaps that is something that we should think about a bit more carefully. That is also an issue that we can pick up in our inquiry and ask whether it should be normal practice.

That is fine.

Thank you very much. Is the committee happy to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group on funerals and bereavement?

Members indicated agreement.

The second group is the proposed cross-party group on Germany. It was not active in the previous session, but all the criteria for registration under the current rules have been met by the group. Do members have any questions about the group?

Members: No.

Nein. [Laughter.] I do not mean nine questions, convener. [Laughter.]

In that case, do members agree to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group on Germany?

Members indicated agreement.

The third proposed cross-party group is on the middle east and south Asia. It was not active in the previous session. Members have a note on the application; you will see that the group meets all the criteria for registration.

Members might want to note that a number of existing cross-party groups focus on parts of the middle east and south Asia. That point relates to what I was saying earlier. Do members want to seek information on whether the proposed group has considered how its work might overlap with the work of existing cross-party groups?

The proposed group does not include member organisations. There would be one non-MSP individual member and the other members would all be MSPs. I wonder how the group will get the information and support that it needs. How will it operate if it has almost no members who are not MSPs?

I apologise for arriving late; I was delayed.

You have made a reasonable point, convener. However, the group on Germany that we have just approved includes one non-MSP individual member, and the member organisation is the consulate general of the Federal Republic of Germany. We are not talking about a throng of interested stakeholder groups who are desperate to find out more about Germany. It is worth bearing that in mind as we consider the proposed group on the middle east and south Asia.

However, the convener’s point is important. The group’s proposed area of interest is very broad—certainly compared with that of the cross-party group on Germany. The convener’s point chimes with the discussion about the purpose and focus of cross-party groups that was going on when I arrived. I am minded to support the group’s registration, on the basis that we should be consistent in our approval of groups, but the application flags up some general themes.

I agree with Bob Doris. We will have to consider the issue when we review cross-party groups. I am slightly concerned about the non-MSP membership of the proposed group that we are considering now and the group on Germany: cross-party groups are about informing members, but it seems that these two groups would operate the other way round, which is not quite the purpose of a cross-party group, as I understand it.

Rather than form a new group, has anyone considered whether an existing group could include additional geographical areas?

I take the point that Bob Doris made and which Margaret Burgess endorsed. We should maybe ask the convener of the proposed group to come to our next meeting, so that we can tease out some of the issues with him.

I was going to make the same suggestion. That would be a useful step to take. I do not know who Umbreen Khalid is—I have no idea, to be honest.

I suggest that we delay approval and invite the convener to our next meeting, with a view to getting him to address points that have been made.

I am happy with that.

Are other members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

The final proposed cross-party group is on video games technology. It was not active in the previous session and it meets all the criteria. My only comment is that the first bullet point under heading 2, “Group Purpose”, is not relevant to the group’s purpose and is just a statement on the value of technology companies. Should we suggest that the group remove that paragraph? It does not add anything, and the second paragraph adequately explains what the group is about.

Yes—that paragraph is just a justification, is it not?

Aye, it is. Are members happy to approve the group on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

14:29 Meeting continued in private until 15:03.