Standards Committee, 18 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 18, 2002

Official Report 109KB pdf

---

Cross-party Group

Our second item is a proposal from Ian Jenkins to establish a cross-party group on textiles, clothing and footwear. Would Ian Jenkins like to add any comments in support of his proposal before we move to questions from members?

No. I will be delighted to do my best to answer any questions that committee members have.

I see no problem with the group and I can see the reasons for having it. Are you aware that the group will run for only three months, because all cross-party groups cease to exist on dissolution?

Yes.

Can you comment on that?

We were approached last June about the idea of setting up a group. As textiles are very important in my constituency, I went to the meeting on the subject and was convinced that there was a case for establishing such a group. There are precedents that would make the establishment of the group no problem in itself. The question was whether people felt that there was a case to be made and we said yes at that meeting.

I was invited to set up a further meeting, which took longer than expected to set up. We had a second meeting—I think that it was in November. Members of the Scottish Parliament and people from the industry wanted to establish the group. We considered other sectors such as the paper industry and felt that it would be worth while to have a textiles group. We want to establish the group now, so that if it wants to be reconstituted after the election it will already be up and running. The mechanisms will have been put in place, the membership will have been established and it will be possible to move on from there quite quickly.

Did you not consider saying that, as there were only three months to go, you might wait and allow somebody else to do it?

I did not want to be involved in establishing the group, but David Mundell and I were the only two MSPs at the second meeting and I did not want the group to fall by the wayside. I explained that I would not be standing for the Parliament again, but everybody felt that it was worth getting the group on the map. If the number of cross-party groups were to be rationalised after the election—I do not know whether the committee has any such thoughts or even whether it would be the committee to do that—the textiles group would be in there to be considered. In other words, the textiles group would be part of the thinking if there were proposals to consolidate or bring together various cross-party groups.

The proposed group obviously complies with the regulations. This is in no sense to diminish the importance of the subject but, although the view is often expressed that cross-party groups offer the only way for bodies to influence and interact with the Parliament, that is simply not true. As I think I have said before at the committee, I believe that there are too many cross-party groups. I think that the default position, which is that interest groups should automatically be involved in setting up cross-party groups, is leading to a situation where the system cannot operate.

There are far too many groups, and MSPs do not have time to go to all of them. Some of the MSPs named in the proposed membership are active members of other cross-party groups. Although the application is clearly in order and must be accepted, I would suggest to Ian Jenkins—and moreover to members in the new parliamentary session—that we should find other ways of proceeding and should not always automatically set up cross-party groups. They sometimes fall into disrepute because they do not meet or because MSPs do not turn up, and they become frustrating for those involved. When we come to consider the draft proposal on external research later in the meeting, we need to think carefully about the over-provision of cross-party groups.

I am inclined to agree with that view, which is why I made the point about consolidation offering one way forward. MSPs do not know as much about textiles as they think they do. One of the proposed non-MSP members is an academic who works on industrial textiles. There is stuff about clothing that we do not always consider.

But those things could be learned about from visits.

Indeed. The impact of changes in the sector has a broad geographical spread. If people wish to come together regularly to consider sectoral training, marketing and so on, the proposed cross-party group offers one way of facilitating that. Cross-party groups are the mechanism that the first Parliament has established. I would like the textiles sector to be in the position of having been represented in a cross-party group when such groups are being examined again after the elections.

How many meetings do you intend to hold between now and dissolution?

Just the one.

Just one meeting?

Yes, I think so.

Let us consider the seven MSPs who are proposed as members of the group. You have indicated that you are not standing for re-election yourself. Nobody is able to look into a crystal ball and see who will still be here after the elections, but from our experience of cross-party groups, we know that some members are more active than others. Who are the more active members among the seven MSPs? You and who else?

David Mundell is the proposed vice-convener, but I would not want to get into this discussion—it is awkward.

What I am trying to get at is whether there is—

A driving force behind the group?

Yes. We have changed our procedures. In taking applications for cross-party groups and looking into the problems around them, it often became apparent that some MSPs had done little more than put their names on the group registration form, and were not very active in the group. We asked potential conveners of groups to come to the committee—in the way that you are here today—so that we could press them a little to find out what their motivation, driving force and connection with the group was.

The whole point of the groups is that they should be parliamentary in nature, but we find that, despite the fact that the regulations specify that at least two members must attend each meeting, that has not necessarily been happening. I am therefore trying to press you a little further about how active the MSPs who have put their names to the registration form are.

They have not had any opportunity to be active, as the group is not up and running. It was established—rather, the procedures to establish it were gone through—at the meeting that I mentioned, and David Mundell and I were the two members who were there at the time. That does not mean that other members would not be active once the group got going.

We should support the application because the production of clothing, textiles and footwear is very important to the Borders. A decision to support the application should not be taken as a precedent that the committee will act similarly any closer to the election because after the new year, the election will be so close that it may be preferable to leave matters to the new session. Although a strong case has been made for this group, especially the fact that it will have at least one meeting, that should not be taken to mean that the committee would approve any others.

If there are no more questions, I will sum up. The committee is inclined to approve the application, which is absolutely in accordance with the rules. It is worth putting on record, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has just said, that we would treat any other application for a cross-party group differently in the new year because it will be so close to the election. This group has got in just under the wire.

I thank Ian Jenkins. As you are here, I will not write to you to tell you the good news that the committee has approved your application.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful and I acknowledge what has been said about the application.