Standards Committee, 22 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000

Official Report 274KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

We now move on to agenda item 2, colleagues, which is consideration of applications for recognition as cross-party groups. Members have copies of the forms that have been submitted, and we shall take the applications in order.

The first group is information, knowledge and enlightenment. I should inform members that the application for registration of that cross-party group has been withdrawn. We will therefore go straight to the next one, on media. Do members have any comments on the media application?

The application conforms with the rules on cross-party groups as I have read them, and I suggest that it be approved.

Is that the view of us all? Members are agreed.

The next group is that on epilepsy. Do members have any comments on that proposed application?

Like the previous one, this application seems to conform with all the regulations that we set down, so I propose that we accept it.

Is that the view of everyone? Members are agreed.

I think that I raised this at the previous meeting, convener: once we get past the point of approving groups, what is the next stage of monitoring their activity? Elizabeth Filkin mentioned that one of the issues that concerned her was the use of cross-party groups for advocacy purposes—I will put it no other way than that.

I think that we should discuss mechanisms for regulation. At the previous meeting, I highlighted the need for us to be certain that a cross-party group had a sufficiently general scope for its activity, and was not being used as a vehicle for a purely local campaign. I think that we need to examine that in the context of dealing with these approvals. I would like those issues to come up on the agenda for discussion.

I agree with Des McNulty. We need to look beyond where we are at the moment, and at how we monitor the cross-party groups. I am less concerned about the activities of lobby companies in relation to our cross-party groups, as they are essentially quite different from the bodies that are effectively the cross-party groups at Westminster. We said clearly that our cross-party groups shall be essentially parliamentary in nature. That is not the nature of the beast of cross-party groups at Westminster.

That is not to say that we should be complacent, but there is a recognition that the systems are quite different in Scotland compared to those in Westminster. While I agree with Des that we need to consider carefully how the groups operate, I do not think that we should be unduly concerned at this stage that they may be hijacked by lobby companies.

I agree with Tricia. What we have so far heard confirms the rightness of the decision that we made about the process of regulation. Once we get past the registration process, we need to consider in due course any other aspects of the role that we might have.

I have no difficulty at all with the cross-party group on the media. The point which we heard about having a register of interest for journalists in due course could be usefully put on to the agenda of a later meeting. If everyone else is covered, and if it is the practice in other Parliaments, I think that we should consider it.

If that is the view of the committee, I will put those two issues on the agenda so that we can discuss them at an appropriate time. I will ask the clerks to write to the conveners of those two groups, informing them of our decision.