Official Report 154KB pdf
We have two papers under agenda item 3, on different topics: cross-party groups and the rules governing them, as was rightly referred to earlier by Christine May; and the registration of interests of members' staff.
I seek clarification on paragraph 3 on page 2 of annex A to the paper on cross-party groups, which says that
We have received representations on the subject, although it would be fair to say that the number of representations has been fairly limited—in fact, we have had precisely one. [Interruption.] I have received one, but the clerk tells me that there have been phone calls to the clerks' office. I suspect that at least some of those calls will have been motivated by articles appearing in the press. I hope that that answers your question. I have no idea what proportion of the public have expressed that view.
I suspect that, other than people who know or care about the fact that we have cross-party groups or how they operate, the proportion of the public who do not support the system is fairly limited. On that basis, I think that the system should continue. Cross-party groups are valuable sources of information and cover in detail topics on which legislation might be pending or recently introduced and other matters on which members wish to develop their policy thoughts. It follows that the rules surrounding the establishment of and support for cross-party groups and the publication of their activities should be as transparent as possible, so that the concerns of the members of the public who have been in touch with us about them can be allayed as far as possible.
Perhaps we should go through annex A paragraph by paragraph, or at least heading by heading. Christine May's point is covered in paragraph 1. Do we agree in principle that the cross-party group system should continue to exist?
In that case, do members have views on paragraphs 4 and 5?
The decision taken by the committee in June 2003 and confirmed in January 2005 was sensible and we should incorporate it in the new rules.
I agree with Linda Fabiani. The system that we put in place to recognise the diversity of the Parliament's membership appears to work relatively well. It reflects the need for cross-party groups to be truly cross party in nature, but does not put too much of a burden on any one party. We should formalise those arrangements and recognise that they work.
How do members feel about the minimum threshold of five MSPs in a cross-party group?
That is fair, given the many parties and independent members in the Parliament.
Do members wish to consider whether the threshold of five MSPs is too low? I know that a number of groups sometimes have difficulty reaching a quorum with only two MSPs having to be present, so perhaps it is worth considering a higher threshold. Perhaps we should consult specifically on that point.
I hear what you say; indeed, I am a member of one or two groups that often have difficulty reaching a quorum, but which have a large number of signed-up MSPs. One of those is the cross-party group on animal welfare, which is well attended and does a lot of good work, but on occasion we have difficulties with the quorum.
I was not referring to the spread of members, which was the first point, but the total number of members in a group. If the threshold is relatively low, the potential for being inquorate might be a problem.
The possibility of being inquorate remains, regardless of the number of members who sign up to join a group—apart from the renewable energy group, whose membership fascinates me.
It has certainly been my experience cross-party groups make few decisions. They are largely about the exchange of information. However, as we review the code of conduct, we might wish to consider some mechanisms for broadening the discussion beyond the committee, which is a rather select group. Do committee members think that we ought to engage other people in discussing this point? I have no difficulty with the decision that was reached on 25 January 2005 forming part of the code of conduct. We should always have a mechanism for reviewing the threshold in light of any change at an election. Do we need to broaden the discussion on the matter, or is there not enough evidence that the subject is sufficiently controversial for us to go beyond the committee? We have had two consultations on cross-party groups.
From my experience in the groups of which I am a member and from general observation, I would say that MSPs are members of a number of groups and struggle to get to the same one each month, partly because meetings clash. Non-attendance does not imply any lack of interest and there is not a huge groundswell of muttering among members for changes to be made. There is no indication that, if we were to expand the number of MSPs needed for a quorum, the task of achieving a quorum would be any easier. I suggest that we write that decision into the code of conduct and that we leave the situation as it is at the moment. When it is next reviewed, we can determine whether any further action is required.
Is that the committee's general wish?
Yes, I do not argue with that at all. I am happy with the suggestion.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the paper ask whether cross-party groups should continue to have non-MSP members and whether they should continue to be able to vote. Do committee members wish to make any comment on that?
CPGs should continue to have non-MSP members. As far as I can recall, there are very few times when matters go to a vote in a cross-party group. If anything goes to a vote, it should be the MSP members who vote but, to be frank, I would be surprised if there were one or two votes a year—if that—in all the cross-party groups. That is my tuppenceworth, convener.
I disagree with only one part of what Bill Butler said—everybody looks shocked that I have disagreed with such a sage. We should continue to have non-MSP members, but we should also continue to allow them to vote because one of the grand things about cross-party groups is that they are not parliamentary committees, but a coming together of like minds on many issues. It is really healthy that everyone who is a member of a cross-party group has a vote, as long as they are a confirmed member.
I do not entirely disagree with that. One of the great strengths of the cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament in comparison with their Westminster counterparts—the all-party groups—is the fact there is a great deal of outside involvement of stakeholders and outside interests.
The concern has been raised with me that there are too many outside members of such groups, who end up having too much influence. That is the nub of a debate that we may need to have.
I robustly defend that as a strength of the system; however, I accept that that is an entirely legitimate debate to have. Given our previous conversation about how difficult it often is for a group to have more than just the minimum number of MSPs, it would be the death knell for a lot of cross-party groups if we excluded outside interests. Therefore, we are almost forced by our previous discussion to ensure that we include them.
This has suddenly turned into an extremely interesting discussion. I hummed and hawed when I read this paper, but the discussion has clarified my thinking. There is a difference between achieving consensus in a group—having a debate and all agreeing on a course of action—and voting on something that is contentious. I do not think that it is reasonable in such situations to commit MSPs publicly to follow a course of action that they are not thoroughly comfortable with or signed up to.
The code of conduct is totally silent—and probably rightly so—on the issue of committing members of the group to following a course of action. If it were spelt out that cross-party groups do not have the power to commit their MSP members to any action as a result of a vote in the group, that may address the point. I understand that part of the democratic tradition is that, if someone belongs to a group, they accept the democratic will of the group; however, I do not think that what we are talking about is quite the same thing.
That is all right, convener.
That is certainly my experience, too. I do not recall a vote taking place in a cross-party group in the seven years of the Parliament. However, that is not to say that that will not happen.
Do members also agree that non-MSP members should be entitled to vote?
No.
I see that Linda Fabiani wants to speak. I will let her do so in a moment.
I would really like to say something, convener.
I know that you would. I am just trying to reach a consensus on the issue so that we can move on. As members are not content with the proposal, we will have a little more discussion. I invite Linda Fabiani to speak.
I think that we are tying ourselves up in knots. What Karen Whitefield said is right—cross-party groups have a vote once in a blue moon. For example, there might be a vote for office-bearers at the AGM. On such an occasion, it would be silly to allow only the two MSPs who made the group quorate to vote. The present position is outlined in paragraph 7 of annex A, which states:
I remind members that we have already agreed that there will be three parts to the code of conduct, only one of which will be rules. Another part will be guidance. If we spell out in the guidance that if a cross-party group took a vote, that would not bind its MSP members, will that address the concerns that some members have?
Perhaps we could add to the guidance that cross-party groups should seek to operate on the basis of consensus at all times, other than at the AGM, when positions can be voted on.
I am content with that.
I agree with Bill Butler. We are in danger of making mountains out of molehills and of creating problems that do not exist. Almost everyone who has spoken so far has agreed that there is not a problem at the moment, so let us not create one. A sensibly written sentence in the guidance is all that is needed. Bill Butler's suggestion is sensible.
We can revisit the issue when we have redrafted the guidance. Are members content with that?
In that case, we can move on to consider the nature and status of cross-party groups, which are dealt with in paragraphs 8 to 13 of annex A. Does anyone wish to have a stab at defining "Parliamentary in character"?
No is the direct answer to your question. The phrase "Parliamentary in character" conjures up connotations of showing respect for the views of others, being polite and not having rammies in meetings. If we seek to define what it means any further, I worry that we run the risk of tying ourselves in the sort of knots that we have been trying to avoid tying ourselves in. We should leave the definition at that because the phrase is sufficiently wide to be able to be used as a sanction against most bad behaviour and—in my view and, I suspect, in that of others—sufficiently detailed to describe how meetings should be conducted.
I agree with that, but I think that it would be useful to say in the guidance what "Parliamentary in character" does not mean. It does not mean that a CPG is a parliamentary committee or that it should be seen to operate as such. We should add what Christine May has suggested to the guidance and leave things at that. That would be sufficient.
I agree. The suggestion in paragraph 11 that the committee should consider
My appearance at the meeting is due to my brilliant chairmanship of the Procedures Committee—
Do not drag this meeting out just because you dealt quickly with the other one.
A member of the Procedures Committee who normally talks quite a lot was not present at today's meeting.
Would you regard a cross-party group as parliamentary in character if its membership comprised 10 times as many non-parliamentarians as parliamentarians? My question reflects a representation I have had on the matter and I want to know what members think, but it is not a matter that is being raised elsewhere. We should at least put on the record our thoughts about the proportions of MSPs and non-MSPs.
Cross-party groups are a useful part of parliamentary activity and form a bridge between members and organisations that are interested in a subject. For example, there is an active group on older people, age and aging and another active group on children and young people—there is probably one on middle-aged people, but I do not have to belong to it. I often attend meetings of the cross-party group on sports. MSPs are heavily outnumbered, but it is useful for members to hear the views of pressure groups and individuals who are involved in work on the subject. I accept that many more non-MSPs than MSPs can be members of a group, but I do not know whether that means that the group is not parliamentary in character—perhaps that is not the right phrase. I certainly would not want to shut down groups because MSPs were outnumbered at a meeting by a dozen to two. Both sides can benefit from the discussion.
The phrase "Parliamentary in character" should be taken to refer to the manner in which the group operates and the behaviour that is expected. That is a useful approach and we should not get bogged down in the ratio of MSPs to non-MSPs.
Are members content with Bill Butler's definition?
Bill Butler's approach addresses the point that was raised externally. Some people are concerned about our activities and will examine every nuance and every word of the code. People might regard a cross-party group that had very few members who were parliamentarians as not parliamentary in character.
No. I have nothing further to add.
Good. In that case we have dealt with the point in paragraph 10. We have also agreed that we will include information in the guidance on the code.
Really?
Yes.
Name them.
This is not the place to do so. Although cross-party groups do not have the power to summon anybody to attend, there is an onus on ministers to engage with a variety of organisations. The fact that a body is not a cross-party group should not be a reason for them not to attend. They may have legitimate reasons for not attending, but the fact that a body is not a cross-party group is not a reason for them not to attend.
There is a converse to that argument. I am a member of a group that Christine May chairs, convenes or whatever the appropriate expression is. A reason why it was not formed into a cross-party group was so that a minister who has a particular interest in the subject could attend the meetings.
As a member?
Yes. We should maintain as much flexibility as possible, so that people with a genuine interest in a matter can have their say.
I do not know whether we might wish to refer the matter to the Minister for Parliamentary Business with a view to formalising the situation, or whether we should leave it as it is.
Leave it—it is working, so we should not try to fix it.
I do not think that it could be formalised.
I accept that that is the view of the committee.
There is a problem with the public's perception of cross-party groups and the weight that they carry as parliamentary bodies. There is a misconception that they are a core part of parliamentary business. We must put that right.
It is agreed that it will be spelled out in the guidance that they are not a core part of parliamentary business. It will also be spelled out that a cross-party group is not entitled to use the parliamentary logo.
I seek clarification, because I suspect that I am guilty of breaking the rule. I am the secretary of a cross-party group on ME. I freely admit to using my own parliamentary paper when I write to ministers and others on matters relating to the group. From what has been said, I now presume that that is wrong.
It is wrong.
I will not do it again.
Good.
I suspect that such a practice is not uncommon when MSPs or their staff provide the secretariat for a group.
It has been pointed out to me that rule 12 in section 8.3 of the code of conduct spells out that limited use of parliamentary facilities is allowed. If you are writing a letter informing people that the cross-party group is on the go, there is nothing to prevent you from doing that as an MSP. If you want detailed guidance, please approach the clerks.
I mention the issue not to get personal guidance but because I suspect that such a practice is not uncommon among other groups for which MSPs provide the secretariat. However, that might be something that we want to tighten up or look at.
That is sensible, but we should stick to our decision and make it clear that it is wrong for groups—not members—to use the logo formally on their literature. That makes a distinction.
That is the distinction.
In that case, can we move on to paragraphs 14 and 15, which discuss the number of cross-party groups? Do members wish to limit the number?
I do not think that we should do that because it would disfranchise people.
I do not think that we should limit the number. The responsibility for dealing with the issue lies with individual members. Cross-party groups can be set up only if MSPs join them. Every member is probably guilty of signing up for a new cross-party group on something that interests them and then never attending its meetings. However, I do not think that we should say that MSPs are not allowed to do that. It is a question of self-policing. We should not sign up to cross-party groups that we are not going to attend. Every member has to take the responsibility seriously. If we did, that would deal with the perception that we have too many cross-party groups. If members sign up to one or two groups and attend their meetings, the system will work effectively. That is the best approach.
I tend to agree with that. We should not be prescriptive, but it is sensible to offer guidance. Earlier this morning we dealt with a revision of a group's name and remit and Mr Fergusson was right to praise Robin Harper for seeking those changes. In the guidance, we should say that it is sensible to deal with overlap or possible duplication. I say no to prescription but yes to helpful guidance.
I do not dissent from the points that have been made. What Karen Whitefield said is correct in theory, but in practice members are often put under pressure to join a cross-party group if it needs a member from their party in order to exist. My standard joke when I speak to women's guilds is that I have always been pleased that I was not born a woman because I have great difficulty in saying no. On that basis, being a kind-hearted sort of guy, I often sign up to cross-party groups but do not go to the meetings. That is bad in a way, but at least my joining the group enabled it to exist.
That is precisely the dilemma that has been presented to us.
There is another dilemma. When a member signs up to a cross-party group, usually at the beginning of a session, they might have every intention of attending it, but they might find that it meets at the same time as another group of which they are convener or an office-bearer. There is a huge amount of duplication, as we are all aware.
Members are not able to attend meetings for a variety of reasons. However, we are being asked to decide whether the number of cross-party groups should be limited. You seem unequivocally to agree that there should be no such limit but feel that our guidance should suggest that mechanisms be found to accommodate new ideas in existing cross-party groups. Are members agreed?
Do members have any comments on paragraph 16 to 28 of the paper?
Paragraphs 17 to 19 seek the committee's views on whether the code of conduct should incorporate a requirement for cross-party groups to hold an annual general meeting with all the associated paraphernalia. Such a move would improve the running of all CPGs.
I assume from your earlier comments that you agree with the points in paragraph 16.
Yes.
Do members agree?
On paragraph 22, I agree that we follow the clerks' advice that
Are members agreed?
Are members content with paragraphs 20 and 21, on formalising links to home pages?
Do members have any further comments on the rest of the paragraphs in this section?
I might be revealing my ignorance, but do sub-groups exist or are they merely a notion in someone's mind?
Yes, they exist.
I believe that the cross-party group on construction has had a sub-group for some time.
In light of our attempts to encourage consolidation of cross-party groups, it might help if members of a group with an interest in certain aspects formed a sub-group. That might get rid of the need for the cross-party group itself to meet so often.
I confess that I do not have any strong views on this matter. Perhaps we should just suck it and see.
Perhaps we should leave it to the CPGs to decide which form of election suits them.
But ensure that either option is open to them.
The paper does not seek to make any form of election mandatory. It simply seeks to acknowledge and formalise current practice in the code of conduct. Are members content with that?
Do members have any views on paragraphs 25 to 28, on banking arrangements for groups that have finances?
I agree that there should be guidance on this matter.
The bullet points in paragraph 26 seem eminently sensible.
So members are happy with paragraphs 25 to 28.
In that case, we have concluded consideration of the first part of item 3.
No.
No.
No.
I suppose that the matter is relevant given that at each stage of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill questions were raised about the effect of putting a public spotlight on people who volunteer for public election. Of course, such scrutiny is appropriate. However, Parliament has already decided that the interests of spouses, civil partners and co-habitants should not be registrable.
Yes. It is unfair to place a requirement on staff that does not apply to spouses, partners and so on.
I also point out that there is no such requirement on parliamentary staff, who can sometimes be as influential as our own staff. By removing this requirement, we create a level playing field.
The committee's view is fairly clear. However, we cannot implement that decision here and now; such a move requires the Parliament's agreement, and it will form part of our recommendations for revising the code of conduct. Are members content with that?
That brings the formal part of our meeting to an end.
Meeting closed at 12:02.
Previous
Petition