Standards Committee, 21 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 21, 2001

Official Report 142KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

We have two applications for cross-party group status to consider. The first is for a group on visual impairment. The committee will note that only MSPs will be entitled to full membership of the proposed group. Although the rules do not specifically prohibit that, the committee might want to consider whether it is appropriate, because this is the first time that full membership is to be restricted to MSPs.

According to the e-mail that comes with the application, there is no particular reason why the group has restricted full membership to MSPs. Lots of other groups that may have been motivated by similar reasons have chosen not to do so. The e-mail says:

"The reason for the distinction between MSPs/non MSPs was both to ensure that the group remained Parliamentary in nature, but also so that no organisation was left out."

That makes it clear that the group is just trying not to put off other organisations. As a result, I see no reason to worry about it.

I just thought that I should bring the difference in this application to members' attention. Do members have any other comments?

I think that we can support the application.

I will write to the convener of the group to tell her that the application has been approved. Are all members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The second application is for a cross-party group on Palestine. Do members have any comments on the application?

Before I comment on my concerns, I should declare that I am a member of the cross-party group on international development. I have never been clear on the rules that apply to groups that focus on subjects that might stray beyond the competence of the Parliament.

I seek guidance from the clerk on that question.

The rules state that a cross-party group must be on an issue of genuine public interest. There is no prescription on whether the issue should relate to devolved or reserved matters.

That is what I thought. I am happy to approve the application.

I am a member of the same cross-party group on international development. This application is a test case, as it is the first that we have had to approve for a cross-party group dealing with foreign affairs. As there is currently a dispute between Palestine and Israel, it is important that we are even-handed. If we were to approve the application, we would have to also agree to a similar application for a cross-party group on Israel, to make it clear that we are not taking a partisan approach to the dispute, which is a reserved matter.

I am not happy to state as much today, not because I expect that we would take a partisan view and exclude a cross-party group on Israel—because the subject is plainly outwith the Parliament's competence—but because we must take each application on its merits. There is no reason why the application cannot be approved today; it is for other members to decide whether they want to submit an application for a cross-party group on Israel or any other issue.

That is a valid comment. The comparison might seem strange, but I should point out that we approved an application for a cross-party group on men's violence against women and children. That does not stop another member setting up a cross-party group on women's violence against men and children.

That said, there is no need to draw comparisons. The application is perfectly acceptable and we should move to approve it.

Indeed, but I am not entirely sure about the comparison that you just drew. I agree far more with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments about being even-handed on this particularly sensitive matter. Having said that, I agree that we should approve the application.

Obviously, we have a difference of views. Do members want to make reference to Lord James's comments or not?

I do not think that we should refer to them. We are here to approve groups when individual applications are submitted. Individual members have the right to express valid comments about other cross-party groups that could be developed, but it is unfair to Palestine and to Israel to equate them immediately with each other because of what is happening at the moment.

That is how I see the situation.

Although the application is fine by me, I am generally concerned by the number of cross-party groups that seem to have sprung up, particularly on flavour-of-the-month issues. What is the attendance at the meetings of these groups? How many times do the members listed in the applications turn up? It is a general point; there are too many groups.

When I knew that these applications were coming up, I asked the clerks to draw up a short report for the next agenda. As members have voiced concerns about the issue before, I want to provide an update. We will discuss the paper at the next meeting. For the committee's information, if we approve this application, it will be the 42nd cross-party group.

Is that all? I thought that there were considerably more than that.

I want to point out that Patricia Ferguson's comments were not in conflict with mine. It is perfectly possible to weigh each case on its merits. However, if we approve the application today, there should be no presumption that we have taken a partisan position. I certainly have not.

I want to draw the discussion to a conclusion. Are members content to approve this application and that I write to the convener notifying him of that approval?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of the meeting.

Meeting closed at 10:15.