Standards Committee, 25 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Official Report 156KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Item 2 concerns a proposal to establish a cross-party group on sustainable forestry and forest products. The application was submitted by Helen Eadie, but she is unable to attend today. I understand that Alex Fergusson might be in a position to speak in support of the application. If he wishes to make a few opening remarks, he is welcome to do so now.

Thank you, convener. Helen Eadie asked me to say a few brief words, as she is unable to be here, for which she apologises.

The proposed cross-party group on sustainable forestry and forest products has been some time in the making—it was spoken about even in the previous parliamentary session. As a rural member, I believe that there is a great need for the group. The proposal complies with the rules on the number of MSPs and the parties that they represent and, as the committee will see from the proposed non-MSP membership, there is a strong desire among the various agencies and organisations that are involved in forestry for the group to be established.

The group has a wide-ranging potential agenda, which includes: the possibility of feeding into the review of the Scottish forest strategy; the role of timber in the provision of affordable sustainable housing, which is particularly important; the role of the public forest estate; and biomass as renewable energy. Forestry is a wide-ranging topic that everybody who is involved in the proposed cross-party group feels has great relevance not only for rural Scotland, but for the whole Scottish economy.

I hope that the committee will look favourably on the formation of a cross-party group on sustainable forestry and forest products. Other than on affordable housing, it does not impinge on the work of any other cross-party group.

As no committee members wish to ask any questions and the proposed group complies with the current rules, as Mr Fergusson points out, is the committee content to approve the application?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, on behalf of the committee, I will write formally to Helen Eadie stating our agreement.

Item 3 concerns cross-party groups and the MSP membership rule. Committee members might recall that, at our previous meeting, we referred to a letter that we had received from Margo MacDonald, on behalf of the independents group, and we agreed that we would consider that letter at this meeting. Committee members have had the opportunity to look at the letter. Ms MacDonald was given the opportunity to be present at today's meeting but, unfortunately, she is unable to attend because of a prior engagement.

The code of conduct provides for cross-party groups, as opposed to all-party groups. When cross-party groups were established, the presumption was that the groups should have a strong representation from all the parties on the Parliamentary Bureau. However, as we have just agreed to the 55th cross-party group, such a rule inevitably means that individual members may be on a large number of groups. As Margo MacDonald points out in her letter, our rules perhaps therefore need revising in light of the change in membership of the bureau.

It would seem inappropriate to compel members of the smaller parties and of the independents group to join cross-party groups, as that would be extremely onerous. Our current interim interpretation of the code of conduct allows for some flexibility for the smaller parties and allows us to waive the membership rule so that no single party can veto a cross-party group.

Margo MacDonald suggests that we ought to adopt the same arrangement for cross-party groups as we have for the introduction of members' bills. That would mean that only a majority of the parties that are represented on the Parliamentary Bureau would need to be signed up to a cross-party group. That would be a further relaxation of the current rule.

The issue obviously needs to be given more thought. I have some sympathy for Margo MacDonald's position, as there is no doubt that the current situation was not envisaged when we started. However, I am not sure about her suggestion that it would be "logical and sustainable" to apply the new rules for members' bills to cross-party groups. There would be some simplicity in doing so, but no logic. I understand that the rule for members' bills was introduced so that, apart from anything else, the parliamentary authorities would have some criteria by which they could weed out bills that had no chance of success. The rule for members' bills was a threshold to stop those bills that had no chance of achieving the end-purpose for which they were designed.

The thinking behind the rules on cross-party groups is entirely different. Although the rules initially implied that the groups were all-party groups, the groups are in fact called "cross-party groups". Before any of us became members of the Standards Committee, the committee agreed that no single party should be able to veto a cross-party group. I agree with that.

At the same time, it is important that the groups are genuinely cross-party forums. There is no evidence to suggest that that is not the case, but there is no doubt that in practice most meetings of most groups tend to have only a small number of MSPs present. In effect, most groups are dominated by one big lobby. I am not saying that the groups behave in a partisan manner; I am simply describing how they operate.

We need somehow to keep that cross-party spirit at the heart of the groups without putting insuperable obstacles in the way. There is no doubt that all members of the small parties—and, frankly, all the back benchers of the other parties—are being stretched because of the pressure to be members of cross-party groups. For example, I do not know whether there was a delay between the initial discussions on and the registration of the cross-party group on sustainable forestry that Alex Fergusson spoke to, but such delays often occur because of the difficulty of getting across-the-board membership.

When most parties and most MSPs are lined up sympathetically, the reluctance of members from smaller parties to commit their time should not be an obstacle. Members might be reluctant to commit their time to a group but they might not want to stand in the way of the group being established. Somehow, we need to get that balance right. When the Standards Committee in the first session of Parliament considered cross-party groups, I suggested—although my suggestion was not a goer—that groups could have two classes of membership: active membership and passive membership.

That is a reflection of reality.

Yes. The issue is difficult. When we are asked to sign up to a cross-party group, there is always an expectation on us. Someone will say, "Why didn't you attend that meeting?" We can explain that we joined the group because we were interested in and wanted to receive information about the subject, although we do not have time to attend meetings, but that is not good enough for some people.

I do not think that my suggestion is the answer, but we need something along those lines. I am sympathetic to Margo MacDonald's suggestion, but I do not think that it is the answer, either. Perhaps we need a variation on the system that is already in place, which would require that at least four—if not five—of the groups that are represented in the Parliamentary Bureau have to be represented.

Margo MacDonald suggests that four groups should be represented.

That does not make sense, given that she suggests that the rule for cross-party groups should be the same as the rule on support for a member's bill proposal—is that not her suggestion?

Yes.

In that case, perhaps five groups should be represented.

Standing orders require that a final proposal for a member's bill must be supported by members of

"at least half of the political parties or groups".

What is the interpretation of that?

It means four groups, because seven parties and groups are currently represented on the Parliamentary Bureau.

So that includes the independents.

If the number of parties and groups changes, the expression "at least half" allows the flexibility to recognise change. When the standing orders were drawn up, only four political groups were represented on the Parliamentary Bureau and dealing with matters on that basis was straightforward. The situation changed substantially after May 2003, when we had six groups. Since June 2004—I think—there have been seven.

We have been asked a legitimate question and this is an appropriate time to consider the matter. The question was stimulated by a discussion about a particular cross-party group, the proposed convener of which was a member of the independent group. We coped with that because the current system allows us to waive the rule, but the establishment of the group was delayed. Because of the broader political groupings in the second session of the Parliament, we might continue to have to deal with such cases. It might be much more difficult to ensure that someone from each of the seven groups on the Parliamentary Bureau is represented. The current arrangement also has the effect of raising the minimum number of members required for a cross-party group. We should consider the matter.

That clarifies the situation. Margo MacDonald's letter does not make clear whether she thinks that cross-party groups should have a minimum of five members. I support a minimum of five members, who would represent four groups. That would be a fair compromise.

That would deal with the current situation, but the form of words that Margo MacDonald suggests would allow more flexibility. If we specify a minimum number of members but not a minimum number of groups, we might not have to revisit the matter. For that reason, the requirement that a cross-party group should have five members, who represent at least half the groups, has an attraction.

I appreciate Margo MacDonald's concerns about the matter and she is quite correct to bring them to the Standards Committee for consideration. However, I am not convinced that the current system is not working. It is important to remember that cross-party groups need the membership of MSPs. When the Standards Committee considered the matter in the first session, Des McNulty said that there was an important and particular role for MSPs in cross-party groups and that such groups would not just be interest groups, which could be set up outside the Parliament. If that is the case and cross-party groups are to involve MSPs, it is important that groups reflect the Parliament's wider membership. When we considered the rules and regulations pertaining to cross-party groups last year, we took cognisance of the fact that the shape and make-up of the Parliament had altered since the first elections in 1999 and that members of new parties and independent members had been elected to the Parliament. We recognised that we could not put too much of a burden on those smaller parties by expecting them to be represented on every cross-party group.

I think that our existing rules have not prevented the establishment of any cross-party group. We may have to revisit the matter in the future, as none of us knows what the future holds. I would be slightly wary of following up on Margo MacDonald's suggestion simply because it is attractive that we would not have to revisit the issue. We must evaluate whether that is the right thing for us to do and whether there is a need for us to make any changes. I am of the view that that is not necessary at present.

I agree entirely with Karen Whitefield. I am not at all sure that the system that we have in place now is not perfectly adequate. It has addressed the changes in the Parliament's make-up. We are talking about cross-party groups, not majority-of-parties-represented-on-the-bureau groups. There is a need for the make-up of the groups to reflect the Parliament's wider make-up to a certain degree. By introducing the waiver, the committee has already shown that it is flexible enough not to allow one party to have a right of veto. Ken Macintosh was quite right to say that at the time. I agree with Karen Whitefield that the present system is quite acceptable and perfectly adaptable, and I think that we should continue with it.

Although I am a fairly new member of the committee and was not part of the previous discussions, I broadly agree. There is no logic in comparing the requirement for membership of a cross-party group with that for the introduction of a member's bill. That is a red herring, as the issues are completely different.

It seems to me that what the committee has agreed in the past can still be made to work, especially as it has been made clear that a particular political grouping should not be able to block the formation of a CPG. I do not know how the committee has dealt with such situations in the past, but I have not heard any great screaming about the system or noticed any petitions to have it changed. It seems to me that it has worked fairly well and I hope that it will continue to do so.

I am concerned that discussion of certain subjects by CPGs could be stopped because of a veto, but we would have to consider such cases individually. If the committee had to investigate a case in which two of the major groupings refused to join up and support the establishment of a CPG, we would have to discuss matters and perhaps consider revising the rules, but until that happens, there is no point in changing them.

It might help members to have a list of the groups that exist because we have applied the waiver and a list of those that are teetering on the brink of not fulfilling the criteria because of recent changes. I am sure that Donald Gorrie will not be averse to being identified as someone who is often willing to sign up to a group, even though he will not necessarily be an active member of it.

Although our current system has coped, that has happened as a result of good will rather than good management and good practice. Five of the 55 CPGs exist because the rule has been waived. I know of at least one group that has existed since the inception of the Parliament that is in some difficulty, as it is short of members from two of the four larger parties. I hope that it will be able to address that situation. I cannot deny that the system has coped, but I do not know whether we need to do anything further.

Can I clarify a point that was raised earlier? Margo MacDonald's suggestion varies from mine not just in the number of parties that would be represented. At the moment, the stipulation is that cross-party groups include members of the larger parties. The requirement is not just for representatives from four or five parties but for representatives from the larger parties plus one of the smaller ones. Margo is suggesting that we get rid of that stipulation, and that is the difficulty. Ultimately, if a cross-party group contains members from only four of the small parties, it could be representative of just a quarter of the Parliament's membership. That proportion is too small.

I do not think that we should be unfair. Smaller parties need to be protected, so we should not be too harsh on them. They need to be treated fairly. However, cross-party groups need to demonstrate that they attract cross-party and cross-parliamentary support. If the parties that are represented on a cross-party group account for only 34 out of 129 MSPs, that is not a huge proportion. It sounds as though members want to stick with the status quo, which seems a good idea. Is this something that we could put in the code of conduct, when we come to it, or would it not be dealt with in the code of conduct?

The matter is in the code of conduct, which can be revised. The onus is on us to interpret the rules as they are at present. To make the system work, we have—I think sensibly—been asked to look at the matter again. We have that opportunity today. You are right to say that we can revisit it under the last item on today's agenda. We should, perhaps, resolve the matter one way or another today, in the light of our experience.

I do not think that it is our job, in coming up with the criteria that apply to the formation of a cross-party group and the rules pertaining to it, to guarantee that everybody who has an idea for a cross-party group is able to turn that into a cross-party group. Over time, cross-party groups will come and go, according to the issues that they consider. Some, with a shared agenda or shared vision on a specific subject, may combine. I am the former convener of the cross-party group on carers, which addressed a very important issue. However, some issues do not always need to be pursued by a cross-party group. In the first session, carers' issues were at the heart of the Executive's policy and there was a need for those issues to be pursued. There was, therefore, a much greater need for that cross-party group to exist.

We do not always need cross-party groups to consider issues and we must be careful not to lower the threshold just because a cross-party group has difficulty in getting numbers. That will not always be in the Parliament's best interests. Our job is to ensure that cross-party groups can function properly, are truly representative and can fulfil the obligations that are placed on them. They should not exist just because somebody has a good idea. MSPs have many other avenues open to them by which to pursue interests and concerns about specific issues.

You are right. Several cross-party groups have disappeared and some, such as the cross-party groups on the economy, have merged. Nevertheless, the number of cross-party groups is at a record high at the moment.

I basically support Margo MacDonald's proposition but, clearly, the committee as a whole does not, so I will not push it. It would be helpful for us to examine the issue intelligently in the future. Would it be possible for the clerks to give us—without an undue amount of hassle—a list of cross-party groups and the MSP members of each, so that we have a feeling for the numbers?

Rather than printing it, if that information is available, it could be circulated electronically to committee members. That is not unreasonable. I, too, am broadly sympathetic to Margo MacDonald's position, for sheer practical reasons. Because a group had to request a waiver from us, it took some time to set that group up. I suspect that that situation might arise more in the future than it has up to now.

I do not agree with the proposal to require there to be MSPs from a majority of the parties that are represented on the bureau. Currently, groups can seek a waiver. I might be more sympathetic to the proposition that it would be enough for a group to have five MSP members from five of the seven groupings that are currently represented on the bureau, although that might mean that two of the larger parties are not represented. I would prefer not to force people into having to request a waiver. There are 50 Labour members and 25 SNP members but, under the current arrangement, if each group has one Liberal Democrat member and one Conservative member, each Liberal Democrat and Conservative member has to be on three cross-party groups.

I wish I was on only three cross-party groups.

And the reality is that many members are on many more groups than that and are struggling.

I can see where you are coming from with the suggestion for representatives from five groups out of the seven. Should we be considering that option? I was not aware that we were doing that today.

It is up to us.

When I read the papers, all that I looked at was the model that was put forward by Margo MacDonald. However, I am happy to consider the issue and other options more broadly.

I am quite happy either to make the decision today or to defer it and address it as part of the review of the code of conduct under item 5.

It sounds as if there is not a majority in favour of changing the rules today, so we should stick with the status quo, on the basis that the status quo has never prevented a group from being formed. We have never turned down an application for a waiver. We could revisit the issue. It is important that we do not just tinker with the rules to adapt to individual circumstances but get some idea of the principles behind the rules.

When cross-party groups were first started, there was a strong feeling not to copy the all-party Westminster model, for good and bad reasons, some of which still hold. We might think that cross-party groups have shown their worth in other ways. There are principles that we should capture. My fear is that if we weaken the rules in different ways, we could see the party politicisation of cross-party groups. It is important that the groups maintain their cross-party nature and are genuinely consensual. There have been a couple of examples where they have not been, but most of the time they are genuinely cross-party groups. Once we go down the route of minimising the thresholds to form them and reducing the number of parties that are signed up and the total number of MSPs that have to be represented on them, we are in danger of fragmenting the Parliament and losing the principle. We should at least consider the matter in the round. At the moment, that is not the thrust of the committee's views.

That is a reasonable statement of the views that have been expressed round the table. Are members content to stick with the current arrangements? Are they content to revisit the subject as part of our review of the code of conduct, which will give us the opportunity to obtain feedback from our peers outwith the committee and the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I tender my apologies for the rest of the meeting. I must go to another engagement.

Agenda item 4 continues our consideration of cross-party groups. The item concerns links on the Parliament's internet site, which the committee considered at its previous meeting, when members had more questions than I thought that they would. We have a paper that contains responses from the Parliament's business information technology office—BIT—to our questions. Members were invited to submit further questions and I note that no one chose to do so. If members have more questions, they can ask them today. Are members inclined to ask further technical questions?

I think that all the questions in the paper are mine.

I was not looking at anybody in particular.

You can tell me if I am wrong, but I believe that having many links on a site makes it more prominent in search engine results.

Some search engines evaluate sites by the amount of cross-linkage, but adding a few links would not change our Google ratings much. The Parliament's site already contains hundreds of thousands of links.

So that is not really a factor.

We have with us Hazel Martin and Emma Armstrong. They are technical people who will act as our advisers.

Are you content with that answer? Do you have more technical questions?

All my questions were in the paper and have been answered, so I am content.

Having received the answers, we must decide how to dispose of the matter. Do we agree to a limitless or restricted number of links? I assume that we accept the recommendations from our technical people that any maintenance issues will not be the Parliament's responsibility, that it should be pointed out to groups that maintenance is their responsibility and that it should be made clear that the content of links is not the Parliament's responsibility or endorsed by the Parliament. The Parliament's firewall will prevent access to inappropriate sites. I look for approbation. Have I got that right?

Hazel Martin indicated agreement.

The answers to the questions in the paper helped members. I thank Ken Macintosh for asking all those questions on behalf of those of us who are not quite as familiar with the modern world of information technology as he is.

The clerks' paper gives us a couple of matters to consider. Should we allow cross-party groups to put links on the Parliament's website? Yes. As long as a cross-party group completes the necessary waiver that makes it and not the Parliament responsible for the links, no difficulties should arise. As long as cross-party group conveners are aware of that completely necessary waiver, I hope that no difficulties should occur.

I am in broad agreement, but I have some concerns. If we agree to the recommendation, as well as there being a disclaimer on the website, the convener of this committee should send a letter to all the conveners of the cross-party groups to say what is expected of them and what is deemed to be reasonable use of the Parliament's IT facilities. We should point out in clear terms that it is the responsibility of the cross-party group—and, ergo, of its convener—to maintain its web pages. All too often, members get an agreement like this to sign and do not realise that they are responsible. I foresee potential hassles and inappropriate expectations being placed on IT staff. Right from the start, there should be no doubt about what is expected.

The position is that any cross-party group is entitled to apply to make reasonable use of the IT facilities. It would not necessarily be helpful to invite them to do so.

Yes, there is that aspect.

The current position is that if any cross-party group wishes to make use of the IT facilities, it needs to ask to do so. I suggest that it is at that point that the advice should be given to conveners. The advice can come either from the Standards Committee clerks or from BIT.

You are right. I had not thought of that aspect—all of a sudden, all 55 conveners could say, "Link me up." That said, I am keen that a strongly worded letter should be written to any convener who applies. In that way, there would be no doubt that the responsibility is theirs and that they should be reasonable in their expectations of what Parliament staff will do to maintain or monitor their web links.

Just for clarification, no cross-party group should go directly to BIT. They should make contact with our clerks, who will process the request. Our clerks will point out the responsibilities that the convener of the cross-party group has to undertake.

My concerns about the implications for BIT have been addressed. Although there may be a little bit of work, it is clear that the problems are not insurmountable. Unless BIT becomes inundated with requests, it will be able to support the cross-party groups in this way.

My only other concern, which was raised previously, is that inappropriate links might be placed on the Parliament website. That would mean that, in effect, the Scottish Parliament authority and reputation would be used to endorse the body to which the link was made. I am concerned that some unsuspecting person who was surfing the Parliament website in the way that people do by going from one link to another could end up on a suspect site. I am concerned not about the number of links but about the content of the sites to which the links would be made. I am not sure what our safeguard is in that respect. As long as we make clear to the convener of each cross-party group that it is their responsibility to sign up and vet the content of sites—not to do so personally but to be fairly clear that the link is being made to a normal, safe site—I have no objections to the links being made.

A standard disclaimer will be made that says that the Parliament is not responsible for the content of any of the sites to which links are made.

Absolutely, but we should ask conveners to be a bit more proactive than that. Let us take the example of a cross-party group with half a dozen MSPs and the same number of interest groups. If links are to be limited in number, to which of the interest group websites will links be made? I can envisage that those decisions could cause problems. Although we have to be fair, we do not want cross-party groups to make unreasonable demands of BIT by asking for links to a huge number of sites.

If interest groups that are represented on a cross-party group want a link, they should have to ask the convener of their group to sign something that says that he or she has seen the website to which the link is to be made, considers it to be fine and asks for a connection be made. As I said, although conveners should not have to check every detail of the sites, they should be able to sign something that says that the site is safe and that it is run by a reputable organisation. If conveners had to make that sort of proactive statement, they would have to think about the link and not just say, "Yes, it's fine." That is the sort of safeguard that I would like to see the Parliament put in place.

I suggest that we agree that it is consistent with the rules in the code of conduct that we have links, because that is the sense that I am getting from members. We will not place a limit on those links, but we insist on a letter of agreement being signed and on the other technical measures that BIT has sought. Are members content for us to proceed along those lines?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Hazel Martin and Emma Armstrong for answering our questions today and previously. I am sure that if there are problems you will be quick to draw them to the clerk's attention so that we can revisit the issue.