Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Official Report 384KB pdf

---

Cross-Party Groups

Item 3 is on cross-party groups. We have eight groups looking for recognition.

I should declare that I propose to be a member of two of the groups concerned: the group on armed forces veterans and the group on rural policy.

I declare that I am a member of the group on volunteering and the voluntary sector, which is applying for recognition.

I am a member of the health inequalities group.

I am a member of the visual impairment group and the armed forces veterans group.

Has everyone declared everything that they are involved in?

I think that I am on the group on tobacco control, too.

Okay. We can check that as we go along.

The first application before us is for the cross-party group on armed forces veterans. The group was active in the previous session of Parliament as the cross-party group on supporting veterans. Members have the application in front of them. As there are no questions in relation to the group, are members happy for it to be approved?

Members indicated agreement.

The second application is for the cross-party group on China, which was active in the previous session and meets all the appropriate criteria. As members have no questions on the group, are they happy for it to be accorded recognition?

Members indicated agreement.

The third group is the proposed cross-party group on health inequalities. The group was not active in the previous session, but it complies with all the criteria for cross-party groups. As there are no questions, are members happy to accord recognition to the cross-party group on health inequalities?

Members indicated agreement.

The fourth group is the proposed cross-party group on rural policy. The group was active in the previous session and complies with the various registration criteria. It will receive support from the Scottish Agricultural College, including secretarial assistance and help with reasonable costs for speakers and so on, but we have been given no figure for what that support might be worth. Does the committee want to ask for a value to be put on that support, or are we content to leave it?

We should ask for that.

You think that we should ask for an estimate of what the support might be worth in a parliamentary session.

Yes. It would be dreadful if, further down the line, we discovered that it was an amount that we felt was unreasonable.

Okay. Is the committee happy to accept that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

As there are no further questions on the cross-party group on rural policy, are members happy—subject to getting a value for the support from the SAC—to accord recognition to it?

Members indicated agreement.

The fifth group is the proposed cross-party group on the Scottish Showmen’s Guild. Members have the application in front of them and will see that all the criteria for registration have been met. My only comment relates to the purpose of the group. The second sentence states that it is:

“To make proposals to introduce or amend legislation concerning the Scottish Showmen’s Guild.”

Obviously, cross-party groups do not have any legislative authority or powers to deal with that. I wonder whether we should ask for that sentence to be removed. Do members have any questions about the group?

Members: No.

Is the committee happy for us to accord the group recognition on the condition that that sentence be removed?

Members indicated agreement.

The sixth group is the proposed cross-party group on tobacco control. The group meets all the criteria for registration. As there are no questions on it, is the committee happy to accord recognition to the cross-party group on tobacco control?

Members indicated agreement.

The seventh group is the proposed cross-party group on visual impairment. The group meets all the criteria for registration. However, in the application, the different people who will be involved are listed under the group’s purpose. That list is not really relevant to its purpose, and we get the same information again in the list of organisations and so on further down the page. There is also an issue to do with the amount of support that the group will receive.

Are members happy for us to ask for the second paragraph of the group’s purpose to be removed? It is not of any relevance to its purpose, and its removal will make the application tidier.

Members indicated agreement.

I asked the group to provide more information on the support that it will receive, which you will see is pretty substantial—£10,000 a year. Most other cross-party groups will be looking at them with envious eyes, especially those that get no support from anyone. It is a substantial sum.

We asked the convener, Stuart McMillan, to explain the support. He has written back with an explanation, which is in annex G of the papers, relating to general secretarial support, agendas, minutes and other documentation. In particular, all the paperwork for the cross-party group will be provided

“in alternative formats of Braille, audio, Large Print, tape and digital as well as standard formats.”

The group is also looking to host some parliamentary receptions and occasional dinners and lunches. Do members have any views or questions?

It is a substantial amount of money. I wonder how many other cross-party groups have been funded to that level.

Are cross-party groups required to produce accounts to show how they have used their funding? I can understand that getting material printed in different formats will cost the group more than some of the other groups will spend, but are there any rules on that? Will the group be required to keep records to show how it spends the money? The funding will be going via another organisation, and I wonder about that.

The clerk has helpfully pointed out to me that rule 10 of the cross-party group rules states:

“Cross-Party Groups must hold an Annual General Meeting and submit an Annual Return Form. The Annual Return must include the following details:

a note of all membership changes in the last year;

a financial statement, including details of all donations or assistance of a value which exceeds £500”.

We will therefore see a full report of what the money has been spent on at the end of the year.

Okay.

I do not have a problem with what is suggested to us. I say that for a number of reasons.

In my experience as an MSP over the years, there are a variety of ways in which cross-party groups have been given a secretariat. Sometimes it is done through the office of an MSP who is kind or brave enough to volunteer to do the work, and in those cases the MSP’s team does some of the work. Sometimes it is done through other organisations. An example is the cross-party group on heart disease and stroke, in which the British Heart Foundation and some other volunteers are involved. The proposed cross-party group on visual impairment has perhaps been more open and willing to share more information than other groups have thought to do. That is perhaps a failing of the system, although I am not saying that it definitely is.

A separate point is that equality costs money. No matter what part of life someone is in—be it a local authority, the Government or whatever—if they are going to take measures and adopt policies that create equal opportunities, there will be a price tag at the end. Particularly in the case of blind people, there is a cost involved in making information available in different formats. Perhaps the group is leading the way for us; the other cross-party groups should also be providing information in those formats, because we should be mainstreaming equalities.

I do not have a problem with the application, and I would be happy to endorse the group. I do not think that I am a member of it—I have been to one or two of its meetings, but I have never signed up because I am now cautious about signing up to cross-party groups—but I support its work, which is extremely important. It has made good progress over the years. I seem to remember Bob Doris convening one of its meetings previously. Is that right? Perhaps I am mixing him up with one of his colleagues. If so, I apologise.

I have certainly convened many meetings over the years, but not of that group.

Anyway, the group does commendable work, and it has my absolute support.

I agree with Helen Eadie. The group is also well attended. Many people with visual impairments go along and they require quite a lot of support.

Are we happy to accord recognition to the cross-party group on visual impairment?

Members indicated agreement.

The eighth and final group is the proposed cross-party group on volunteering and the voluntary sector. Again, the group meets all the registration criteria. Do members have any questions about the group?

I register my interest in that one as well.

Thank you, Margaret. The clerks have noted that. Are we happy to accord recognition to the cross-party group on volunteering and the voluntary sector?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move to the next agenda item, it is worth pointing out that MSPs sometimes put in apologies to cross-party groups if they cannot attend the first meeting, which can be intimated as an intention to join the group. I see my name on the list for the proposed cross-party group on health inequalities. Although I was not fully aware that I was joining that group, I can confirm, for full transparency, that I am delighted to be a member of it. Everyone else has declared interests, so that is now on the record.

Thank you.