We move to item 2. Susan Deacon has submitted the appropriate documentation on behalf of the proposed cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on sexual health. Is there anything further that you would like to say to us in support of the proposal?
I thank the Standards Committee for giving me the opportunity to attend the meeting. It is quite nice, if slightly intimidating, to be back at the Standards Committee, although it is not for a bad reason. I hope that the papers that members have in front of them are self-explanatory. Patrick Harvie and I are proposed as co-conveners of the cross-party group, and we would be happy to clarify any matters in the papers.
The couple of meetings that we have had so far to discuss the proposal to establish the group have been very successful. We have the makings of a vibrant and active cross-party group.
Do committee members wish to ask questions of the proposed co-conveners?
This is more of an observation than a question. I certainly support the application, but a quick look through the list of cross-party groups reveals that 11 of them cover different aspects of health. I wonder whether it might not be better for some groups to be consolidated. Like other members, I am over-committed to membership of cross-party groups and am not always a brilliant attender of them. Perhaps the people involved in different aspects of health could give some consideration to amalgamating some groups. However, those remarks are not directed at this application, which I think is very fair.
Would the proposers of the new group care to respond?
Both Susan Deacon and I would argue that sexual health is a particular case, in that it has no vocal patient advocate group nor is it likely to have one. Particularly for sexual health, there is a need for a cross-party group to take forward some of the issues. I am sure that Susan Deacon would agree with that.
For the benefit of Donald Gorrie and everyone else, I should say that work on the future of cross-party groups is on-going. I know that the group of which Alex Neil is convener has already absorbed some predecessor cross-party groups, so it may well be that Donald Gorrie's suggestion is taken on board.
This issue also arose when I was a member of the Standards Committee, so I am aware that work is on-going. My view is the same now as it was then. Approaching the issue as co-convener of the proposed group, I do not think that there can be forced marriages—or perhaps I should say forced partnerships—between cross-party groups, but there is room for synergies and joint working. For example, in a few weeks' time, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on children and young people will have a meeting about the sexual health of young people. Members of our proposed group have been invited to that meeting. I think that we will be keen to explore that kind of joint working.
As the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on ME, I endorse that comment. We are keen to pursue working with other groups, such as the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on chronic pain and other groups with which we might have some synergy. Although I understand Donald Gorrie's point about the fact that there are at least 11 separate health-related groups, I think that they all have a relevance. However, there are huge opportunities for working with other cross-party groups in a rather closer way. Although we may be getting off the subject slightly, that is an important issue that we will probably discuss later.
Are members content to accord recognition to the cross-party group on sexual health?
I thank Patrick Harvie and Susan Deacon for coming along. They will receive a letter from the clerks that will restate the committee's decision and formally recognise the new group.
I am a member of that group—or at least I think that I am.
You are, and so am I. I was a member of the cross-party group on drug misuse in the previous session and I have continued my membership, although I have the difficulty that it always seems to meet at the same time as the cross-party group on ME. As Donald Gorrie said, there are so many cross-party groups, it is difficult to attend them.
I notice that the group has provided the original application. As a member of the group who attended its meetings, I can say that attendance was always pretty difficult because, although people wanted to attend, several other meetings often took place at the same time. From the application, I notice that the treasurer, like a number of the members who are listed, is no longer a member of the Parliament. Although I support the group and have no desire to see its valuable work not continue, I wonder whether it might be appropriate for the committee to write back to the group to ask for confirmation of its membership, as there seem to have been a number of changes.
I understand from the clerks that that has already happened.
Just before we move away from Karen Whitefield's point, I should point out that the membership list in question includes two people who are no longer MSPs. Do we assume that they are simply deleted from the list?
What we have is simply a reflection of the group's initial application rather than its current position, which has been notified to the Standards Committee. Does that clarify things?
Yes. I am obliged for that, convener.
As far as the application before us is concerned—
I think that we should support the application to extend the group's remit, because the relationship between drugs and alcohol is now well established. Instead of having a separate cross-party group on alcohol, which I am sure would be the consequence of not approving the proposed extension of the remit, we should be sensible and bring these closely related subjects under one umbrella.
I, too, agree that the remit should be extended. In the previous session, I made an abortive attempt to find support for a cross-party group on alcohol. However, I should point out that I was not suggesting that we should have something like the beer society at the House of Commons.
That sounds like a better idea.
Well, it is the most popular body at the House of Commons. [Laughter.]
You surprise me, Donald.
At that time, we agreed informally to go along with the cross-party group on drugs. It would be helpful if we formalised the proposal that the group should cover both issues.
In that case, I seek the committee's agreement to approve the proposal. Are members agreed?
Have there been any difficulties with compliance as far as the cross-party groups that have re-registered are concerned? Will we examine that matter in our review of cross-party groups?
The clerks have checked all the membership requirements of all the cross-party groups that have re-registered and we are ironing out one or two difficulties.
But that does not apply to this cross-party group.
That is right.
Previous
Item in Private