Official Report 126KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is to seek the committee's agreement to the establishment of three cross-party groups. Each of the proposed groups has not previously been active. Members will be aware that, when considering whether to approve proposed cross-party groups, they should take account of a range of matters, such as a group's purpose and whether it is being formed on the basis of public interest.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. I thought that we should establish a cross-party group on obesity primarily as a mechanism for enabling the professional world to engage with Parliament and, therefore, the Government on policy issues. I made the proposal because there seems to be no other particular vehicle for dealing with what is probably the biggest public health issue of our generation.
Are members content to approve the proposed cross-party group on obesity?
I thank Nigel Don for his attendance.
The last matter for consideration is a proposed cross-party group on life sciences. Joe Fitzpatrick was going to come along today but is at the Finance Committee. He has sent a letter of clarification, which contains points that may be of interest. He states that the cross-party group on life sciences proposes to meet three times each year and, in order to ensure that it is as accessible as possible, it aims to hold the meetings in the evening.
The letter helps to clarify a point that is made on page 2 of the registration form that is unclear. It stated:
Sounds like a good spread.
I wonder who is providing the catering.
Sodexho.
That is an awful lot of chicken wraps.
I presume that is the price the secretariat was given when it asked for an estimate of cost.
Perhaps it needs to speak to the cross-party group on obesity.
Are there any other questions or comments?
I will make an observation—I am working entirely from memory, which is not necessarily the best or most reliable source, but this is the only cross-party group application that has come across our desks where, as far as I can see, no individuals are listed. I can see only trade or professional associations on the list. Perhaps we can have clarification from the clerks. Is that normal or acceptable? For example, nobody is listed from higher academic institutions. Consequently, my concern is that this proposed cross-party group looks suspiciously like a lobby group.
That is a fair question. Perhaps one of the clerks will respond to that point. I cannot recall whether I have seen a similar application.
It is difficult to provide a clear answer as to whether this is setting a precedent because sometimes groups choose to register by means of naming individuals who belong to groups and at other times they provide just the name of the group. It can be difficult to tell from looking at the form whether in practice it is a series of individuals, all of whom belong to a group or certain groups.
l may be able to be helpful. I am listed as one of the MSPs involved. It is possible that the answer is that the group has not started meeting properly yet, in that the initial meeting consisted of some of us getting together to talk about it. One of the reasons why I went along was to ensure it was not just a lobbying group for industry. I am interested in the Dundee connection.
It is at members' discretion to decide whether they are satisfied that the groups are parliamentary in character. To be fair to Tom McCabe, I think we finished item 1 quite early. He is not here yet but he may arrive later. If you have any further doubts or questions on this matter you can defer making a decision until you have heard from him.
I do not think it is Mr. McCabe's group.
I am sorry; I meant to say Joe Fitzpatrick. If you have any further concerns you can defer taking a decision until you have either put questions in writing or heard some evidence from members.
On the first point that Hugh O'Donnell raised, if the explanation—I know that Peter McGrath was just guessing—is that the group has registered organisations rather than individuals, which some people do because they are pushed for time, I will be less satisfied, because that would still represent a fairly narrow base from which to draw the membership. However, Marlyn Glen's point is that the group is still in its early stages and that many people are likely to join later. Given that, does the committee agree to my writing to ask the joint conveners to update us after three months on whether the group's membership is wider?
I suggest qualified acceptance. As I said, I would like the group to have a wider base—the members are substantially commercial organisations—which might include universities that are engaged in the life sciences.
Are members happy for us to write to tell the joint conveners that we are willing to approve the group but that we would like to have an updated membership list in three months, to see that it is more diverse?