Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Official Report 416KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

The next item on the agenda is consideration of applications for recognition of three cross-party groups. Before we do that, I note for the record that since our last meeting Mark McDonald MSP has provided a revised purpose for the CPG on dementia. The purpose has been approved by the committee and the group has been accorded recognition.

The first application is for the proposed cross-party group on arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions. As the committee will see from the clerk’s paper, the group complies with all the registration criteria. Do members have any questions?

I have not so much a question as an observation. Given that the group seems to have the bare minimum of MSPs, I am concerned that it might regularly fall short of a quorum.

Indeed. If a group does not have two MSPs in attendance, it cannot have a formal meeting, take any decisions and so on. I am sure that the members are well aware of that, but I take the point and I think that we will examine the issue in our review of cross-party groups.

I declare an interest as convener of the proposed cross-party group. I assure members that in informal meetings that we had before we started the group, and in subsequent formal discussions, we have been lucky in terms of MSP representation. There seems to be an appetite among MSPs to get involved.

Thank you for that. Is the committee happy to accord recognition to the proposed group?

Members indicated agreement.

The second application is for the proposed cross-party group on science and technology. Members will note from paragraph 12 of paper SPPA/S4/12/5/1 that the second part of the group’s purpose does not seem to be relevant. Are members happy to suggest to the group that it leave the part that is italicised in that paragraph out of its purpose but, given that it complies with all the criteria, to approve it and accord it recognition?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerks will contact the group about its purpose.

The third application is for the proposed cross-party group on the Scots language. Members have before them a note of the application, and they will see that it complies with all the criteria. Do members have any questions about the proposed group? I have to declare an interest: I would be its deputy convener.

What I will say is just to hold my convener to account, of course. He will understand that. It is just an observation.

There will be 71 non-MSP members of the group, which is perhaps testament to the demand for it. Obviously, it should be parliamentary in nature, but there is a potential management problem if all those people are keen to be active in it. That would be a challenge.

We are, of course, conducting a review of cross-party groups, and we might want to return to their composition and the balance between MSPs, non-MSP individual members, and relevant bodies and organisations. I say “fair play” on demand for the group, with 71 non-MSP members being listed, but it is a matter of getting the balance right to keep it parliamentary in nature.

They dinna a’ come alang. The point is taken. We need to look carefully in the review at the matter of CPGs being parliamentary in nature. Does that relate to the content of what is discussed or to the people in the group? A range of issues will come up.

The point is a good one. We are talking about producing a reform paper, and there is an issue that we have certainly been concerned about. When there have been very good attendances at group meetings—in heart disease and stroke CPG meetings, for example—the room has been full and there has almost been standing room only. The physical layout of committee rooms is a constraint for cross-party groups. The heart disease and stroke cross-party group had one of the biggest committee rooms in the Parliament, as heart and stroke issues are obviously a big concern for everyone, and it clearly has an agenda that is pertinent to the business of the Parliament. That is an example of the type of management issue that can arise when there is very good support from patients, clinicians and parliamentarians. Dave Thompson was the deputy convener of the heart disease and stroke cross-party group until recently; I think that Dennis Robertson has now taken on that role.

Bob Doris was quite right to raise the issue. I am concerned about it, too. What can we do to address it? That is not to say that it negates any of the work, but the question is how we can manage such problems.

That is true. We will have to go into such issues in detail in our review of the groups.

Actually, I am still a deputy convener of the heart disease and stroke cross-party group. Apparently, Dennis Robertson and I are both deputy conveners of it, so you are lumbered with both of us.

Excellent; I can go away when I want and leave it in good hands.

That is right.

As there are no further questions about the proposed cross-party group on the Scots language, are members happy to accord it recognition?

Aye.

Members indicated agreement.