Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, May 23, 2013

Official Report 420KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Item 5 is the first monitoring report on the activities of cross-party groups since the review. The paper demonstrates that the new monitoring system is now more robust. The vast majority of cross-party groups are now providing more detailed information on their activities and finances in annual returns to Parliament. There are still a few groups that are not providing that information, or are not meeting at least twice a year.

Members have the opportunity today to consider the report and to decide how we want to deal with it. I intend to go through annex B page by page, but do members have any general comments before we do that?

Did you say that we are going through it page by page?

Yes. Annex B is the crucial part. The general report summarises matters first. Let us go through the first few pages and hear general comments, and then we can go through annex B.

I would like to thank the clerk who went through the huge bundle of information. It was really useful to have a summary—I got as far as China before I realised that someone had summarised it for me. Thank you very much—it was instructive and helpful.

Do members wish to pick up on any points on the first pages of the report?

Page 4 states that one cross-party group is “currently in abeyance”. What does that mean? Is it a cross-party group or not?

I think that the group is considering its future—that is the issue. A cross-party group continues to exist until it ceases being one. We hope to hear from the group quite quickly to find out what its plans are for the future.

10:45

The report states that some groups have not met for a year, and it provides some recommendations to address that.

We can pick up on all the groups referred to in annex B and decide what action we wish to take in relation to them—a number of groups are not fully complying in different ways. However, there is generally a much better level of compliance now than there was previously.

I am pleased by how the review has worked. The fact that we do a six-monthly report now rather than an annual one has helped, as has the fact that the clerks have a more proactive role in ensuring that the groups do what they need to do. All of that is working together to improve the system, so I am very pleased about that.

I do not know whether this matter is dealt with in annex B, but footnote 5 on page 4 states that

“the Beer and Brewing CPG currently only has 3 MSP members”.

Is that then considered to be a cross-party group?

I think that that point is picked up in the annex as well, so we will come to it.

I have a general point on paragraph 21, which is that it is really good to see how many cross-party groups hold joint meetings. We should praise them for that and support them in doing so.

Absolutely. We should encourage joint meetings as much as we can.

We move on to annex B and the information there on CPG meetings. Members will see that 72 groups have met once in 2013, but this is obviously still early in the year, so a number of groups will have meetings that have been scheduled. A number of groups have not met this year at all and have no meetings scheduled, but they still have quite a bit of time in which to do that.

It concerns me that four groups have not met for over a year. The beer and the brewing industry group, which was mentioned earlier, has not met since it was formed on 29 June 2011; similarly, the co-operatives group has not met since—

But I believe that it has an annual general meeting scheduled—it says that further on in the annex. The AGM is scheduled for 29 May, which is next week.

Where is that information, Helen?

It is on page 11.

Oh, yes. Okay. The fact remains, though, that it is nearly two years since the group met, so—

No, I do not think so.

Annex B states that the group

“has not met since initial meeting on 29 June 2011”.

I am sure that that is wrong, because I am sure that I have been at a meeting of the group since then. Perhaps the paperwork has not been brought up to date.

Ah.

I am sure that I have been to a meeting of the co-operatives group. I believe that James Kelly has been to a meeting as well.

Since June 2011?

Yes.

We can check to see whether the group has met since that date. [Interruption.] The clerks have told me that they are not aware of that group having a meeting and have not been informed of one—it has not been posted on the website. If the group has met but has not complied with the requirements of the code, we need to deal with that.

The park homes group has not met since January last year, and the sexual health group has not met since February last year.

What do members feel we should do in response to that information? Obviously, we can check to see whether the co-operatives group has met. If it has but has not complied with the requirements of the code, do we want to write to the group to remind it as to what it should do and ask it to ensure that it complies in future?

It would be good to check the facts first, as my recollection is that the last big occasion that the CPG had was in the garden foyer last year and that it organised that. I would want that to be checked.

If it turns out that the information in front of us is correct, convener, you are right: people need to be advised. It would be right to write to the group to say that it needs to give an account of itself. If there is no intention to meet, the matter will then need to be brought back to the committee to decide what to do. However, the fact that the group will have an AGM next week shows that something is happening. I am certain that I attended the group last year.

Was that an event in the Parliament rather than a meeting of the cross-party group?

I am virtually certain that the cross-party group organised it, as James Kelly is one of its co-conveners. I think that I am right in saying that.

We can check with the group to find out exactly what has happened and get a report back to the next committee meeting.

The beer and the brewing industry cross-party group has not met for nearly two years. What do members want to do about that? I know that it has a problem with the number of its MSPs.

The note says that it has only three MSPs. It does not have cross-party support, so is it technically allowed to call itself a cross-party group?

I think that we should write to it, reprimand it for not having met, and basically ask it to clarify whether it wishes to continue as a group. If it does not get its house in order pretty soon, we should remove it as a cross-party group. Are members happy with that proposal?

I agree. In the first instance, we must write to all the groups that we have concerns about. If we are not happy with the written responses, we should invite the conveners to come and give us evidence.

Would you want to invite the conveners to come along to explain?

I think that we should give them the opportunity to respond in writing first. Inviting the proposed conveners of new cross-party groups to speak to us when those groups are being set up has been a really good thing. The cross-party groups are taking things really seriously. We should write to the groups in the first instance and give them an opportunity to respond. If we are not happy with the response, we should ask them to come to the committee.

Are members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. Let us do that.

As the convener of a cross-party group, I find one requirement of the code of conduct very hard. The code says:

“Groups must hold at least two meetings per year, and one of these must be the AGM. Meetings of a Group must be announced in advance via the Parliament website with meeting details notified to the Standards clerks at least 10 calendar days in advance of the meeting.”

My group nearly fell foul of that because a meeting that we intended to have was in the Christmas period, which is one of the busiest periods for the Scottish showmen’s guild. Members will appreciate that there are fairs all over at that time, and we had difficulty in pinning down a date.

Another problem with there being so many groups and functions in the Parliament is that it is getting harder to get a room here at a particular time on a particular day. I wonder whether the notice period of 10 clear calendar days should be shortened, as meetings have sometimes been cancelled and others have been organised at short notice when we have been able to get a room. By not meeting the 10-day requirement, I am technically in breach of the code. I flag up that issue for possible consideration later.

Perhaps through the clerks’ contact with the committee’s convener or the cross-party group conveners, members could be encouraged to set up a calendar for the entire year. My cross-party groups have done that. That way, people can flag up difficulties in the first meeting of the year in a discussion about the calendar of meetings. One would anticipate that some members would know whether there are likely to be difficulties. That would be a good time to raise any such issues, and it would enable conveners to put the information in their diaries.

One other benefit would be that members could avoid conflicts with other cross-party groups that they are keen to attend. If members see that there are two meetings on the same night of groups that they are really keen on, they can perhaps try to switch the meetings round.

Yes—we should encourage all groups to arrange their programme of meetings very early. There will be occasions on which a cancellation has to happen, but if things are planned well in advance, that should not be a problem.

I am not sure that reducing the 10-day notification period is a good idea, given the need to inform the public and others who may be interested in attending.

I just wanted to flag up the issue, convener.

Okay. We will move on to the next point.

A number of groups, which are listed at the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10, did not provide notification of their meetings. They have all been reminded that they should provide the 10 days’ notice to which Richard Lyle referred.

Do members feel that such a reminder is sufficient at present, or would we want to write to the groups as a committee to remind them?

I am glad to see that the group that I mentioned is not the only culprit. However, the CPG on families affected by imprisonment, of which I am a vice-convener, meets regularly in the Parliament and we know about those meetings in advance. One factor may be that we are not reminding ourselves enough that we need to inform people—either by passing out minutes or by setting out particular dates as Helen Eadie suggested—so that we meet the standards.

Are we happy to leave that issue at the moment? The clerks have already written to the groups, and if the groups continue to slip up, that will be brought to our attention.

Members indicated agreement.

I will make sure that I do not slip up in future, convener.

I am glad to hear that.

The next point concerns annual general meetings. Groups are required to hold an AGM once every 12 months. Members will see from the paper that, of 82 groups in total, four are not yet required to hold an AGM, and 32 have held AGMs and submitted their annual returns as appropriate. The clerks have written to the other 46 groups to remind them, and 26 of those groups have now held AGMs and provided their annual returns forms.

Page 11 notes that a number of groups will have held their AGMs by today, so if those meetings have all gone ahead the groups will have complied. Other groups have AGMs scheduled in the next few weeks. Again, we come to the cross-party groups on beer and the brewing industry and on sexual health, to which we have already agreed to write as they are not complying with any of the requirements.

The CPG on park homes has said that it is awaiting the introduction of legislation before continuing its work, but it has been advised that it needs to hold an AGM regardless. It seems rather bizarre that a group would be set up in anticipation of legislation when members do not know when that legislation is going to be introduced. That particular group needs to consider why it has been set up. If there are no on-going issues for it to deal with, why does there need to be a group?

Would members be happy for the committee to write to that group, as the clerks have already advised it? [Interruption.] I have just been told by the clerk that the group has scheduled an AGM for 4 June. Given that the group has scheduled an AGM, are we happy to leave it at that just now and to keep an eye on what the group does?

We could remind the group anyway, as it is one of the groups that are mentioned on page 9.

Yes, that is true.

The CPG on Scots language has been in abeyance since December, and it is considering its future as a group, so we will wait to hear what it has to say.

The CPG on dementia was due to hold its AGM on 22 May, but it was cancelled because of the resignation of the convener, Mark McDonald, who stood down as a list MSP to take part in the Aberdeen Donside by-election. The group still has a sufficient number of members: it has a minimum of five, even without Mark McDonald. The group will reschedule, and we will be happy to allow it a wee bit of time to do that.

The CPG on lupus has dissolved.

11:00

I think that lupus comes under the category of musculoskeletal conditions. I am not certain about that, but I extend an invitation as convener of the cross-party group on musculoskeletal conditions to the members of the dissolved group. If they want to switch, we would be glad to take them.

I would be happy for you to do that; it is a very positive suggestion.

Going back to the recommendations on page 5, we have considered all the general issues. Are members content with the annual returns form in annex C of the paper? Do you wish any changes to be made to the form, or are you happy with it as it is?

I think that it is okay as it is.

Members indicated agreement.

The second suggestion is that we should issue supplementary guidance with the form to specify the type of information that is required.

As I said, I only got as far as the CPG on China, but it was interesting to see how many groups said that the benefit-in-kind section did not apply. When we saw who their secretariat was, we realised that they should have put something under that section, so guidance is needed on that.

The clerks can provide guidance and present it at a future meeting, and we can consider it.

I think that we have dealt with everything in the CPG review report. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now move into private session for the rest of the meeting.

11:02 Meeting continued in private until 11:18.