Cross-party Groups
Agenda item 5 is the committee’s second monitoring report on the activities of cross-party groups. As members will see, paper 1 demonstrates that the new monitoring system for CPGs is now a much more robust process. The vast majority of CPGs now routinely provide more detailed information on their activities and finances in annual returns to Parliament. There are still a few groups that are not providing the information or are not meeting at least twice a year. Today, we have an opportunity to reflect on what further action is required at this stage.
Annex B of paper 1 provides details of meetings that have been held by groups, including annual general meetings. As detailed in the annex, a few groups have not done one or more of the following: notified the clerks 10 days in advance of holding a meeting; held an AGM within the required timescale; or had a meeting for more than a year.
It is worth updating the committee on the following points. The cross-party group on golf now has a second meeting scheduled for 10 December. The cross-party group on Poland has contacted the clerks to confirm that it has met on three other occasions—the clerks have reminded the group that it is required to provide 10 days’ notice of all meetings. The cross-party group on Russia now has a meeting scheduled for 19 November, and the cross-party group on video games technology now has a meeting scheduled for 11 December.
Does the committee wish to take any action in relation to any of those groups? We might wish to write to the conveners of those groups to request explanations. Would that be an appropriate step?
Members indicated agreement.
I am seeing nodding heads. Unless anyone is otherwise minded, we shall write to those groups.
The committee also wished to review the new registration form, which members can see at annex C of paper 1. Does anyone wish to say anything about the registration form?
On page 11 of paper 1, some of the boxes in the cross-party group registration form are quite small. Being someone who writes quite large, I suggest that the boxes could be slightly expanded.
I am advised that, because the form will be made available as a Word document, the space will expand as required. The assumption is that the form will be filled out electronically.
That was my point. If you fill out the form electronically, the box will expand, but if you fill it out on paper, the box is too small.
That point is duly noted.
It has been drawn to my attention that a number of cross-party groups have not met since the changes came into effect, so we should perhaps note that. The cross-party group on dementia last met on 8 February last year—although the group is now doing something about that—the cross-party group on Russia last met in November last year, and the cross-party group on the Scots language last met in December last year. The cross-party groups on cancer, disability, digital participation, human trafficking and Palestine have met, but have not provided notification of their meetings. We will also write to all those groups, if members are content with that.
On the cross-party group on the Scots language, paper 1 says:
“The Convener of that Group has advised ... it has been in abeyance since December 2012.”
I seem to remember that we had a discussion about another cross-party group that said that it was in abeyance. I do not remember what the outcome was, or whether we decided what “in abeyance” means.
I am advised that the cross-party group on beer previously said that it was in abeyance, but it has subsequently been disbanded. That, I suppose, opens up the question what “in abeyance” means, because I do not think that we formally recognise the term. Groups either meet the requirements or they do not.
Now that you have reminded me, I think that we wrote to the cross-party group on beer to say that it could not be “in abeyance” and that it had to make a decision. Should we do the same with the cross-party group on the Scots language, given that we have asked it twice to hold an AGM and it has not done so?
We have agreed that we will write to the groups. In what we write, we will reflect what Fiona McLeod has suggested.
Are there any other matters on the cross-party group registration form? Are we content to note what Richard Lyle has said?
Members indicated agreement.
Annex D of paper 1 contains data protection guidance, which has been provided by the Parliament’s head of information governance. The guidance is published on the Parliament’s intranet and is available to all MSPs. Do members wish to note the guidance at annex D and agree that it should be sent to all groups?
Members indicated agreement.
I see nodding heads, so that is agreed.
That brings us to the conclusion of the public part of the meeting.
09:40
Meeting continued in private until 10:09.