Official Report 109KB pdf
Item 3 on the agenda also concerns cross-party groups.
I would like the research to examine alternatives to the operation of the cross-party group system, in terms of parliamentary structures and other ways of proceeding. I am worried that the automatic reaction from any sectoral interests once they get involved in the Parliament is to set up a cross-party group.
If members are happy with that, we will proceed.
Can the task be completed successfully within the allotted time scale? I would prefer something short and highly effective, rather than an unfinished book.
January 2004 is a realistic time scale. Although that must seem like a long time away, part of the reason for the time scale is that the elections are coming up and cross-party groups will break up for a period, during which MSPs will not be available. We might also want to see what happens in the new session and factor that into the research.
Will you be starting with the groups as they exist at present?
We can certainly start by examining some of the background material, both before and during the elections. I have my doubts whether it will be practical to meet cross-party groups before the elections. By the time the conveners liaison group approves the research and it is up and running, we might be straight into the election period.
That is disappointing, because it is important to consider how the groups have been operating for the past three years and to see where they have reached. It is important to be able to evaluate the groups after they have been running for a long time rather than at the start of a new session, when everybody is bright eyed and bushy tailed and rushing to join cross-party groups and so forth—particularly the new members who have not yet got the tee-shirts. It is important to look at how the groups are operating at present and I am disappointed that we are not going to do that.
I will clarify that point. It should be possible for the research to do that. The process of commissioning the research means that the contract cannot be awarded until March. We would expect the researchers to do the background work to identify the current groups during this session. Although the researchers may not speak to members of the groups until May or June, they will talk to cross-party group members about their experience of the groups during this session. We may, however, be into the next session before that happens. It is fairly standard research interview practice to ask people to reflect on things.
The paper contains no reference to costing. The conveners liaison group will ask how much the research will cost.
Once the committee agrees the proposal, the next stage in the process is to work out an outline costing, which will accompany the proposal when it goes to the conveners liaison group. That costing will be very much an estimate for the basis of competitive quotes.
The point that Kay Ullrich made also worries me. From our previous discussion, I understood that we were going to learn from the experience of this session. Cross-party groups will come forward for registration after the election and yet the research on which decisions about future cross-party groups will be predicated will not be introduced until January 2004. New groups will be registered before that—indeed, I suspect that the research will lead to a revision of the system.
We cannot, of course, bind members of the next Standards Committee to such a decision.
No.
We could produce a handover note for the new committee to make clear our views on the subject. As members have no further points to make, I assume that the committee is content for me to take the paper to the conveners liaison group in January.
Thank you.
If the researchers run into any particular problems getting information and so forth, they could always come back to us for support.
Thank you.