Cross-party Group
We move to item 2, which is on cross-party groups. We have a proposal to establish a cross-party group on learning disabilities. Members will recall that at our most recent meeting we agreed that it would be helpful to revert to our original practice of inviting potential conveners of proposed cross-party groups to attend the meeting at which the Standards Committee considers their proposal. Accordingly, we have invited Jackie Baillie to attend the meeting and we welcome her.
When first we considered the application there were certain areas that members felt required clarification, so I open the floor to questions from members to Jackie Baillie.
I want to ask you about the money from Mencap City Foundation and the sponsorship from United Distillers and Vintners Ltd, which totals £9,500. Will you explain what the money is for?
Absolutely. Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to come along to the Standards Committee; I am conscious that the committee is undertaking a review of cross-party groups, so it is appropriate to consider each one on its merits.
The money is really for two purposes. We were conscious that a number of voluntary sector organisations provide support for other cross-party groups, but that that support is listed as in-kind support, which stretches the voluntary sector's resources ever more thinly. We were keen that in the case of Learning Disability Alliance Scotland, which pays a member of staff two days a week and therefore does not have huge resources, we should secure resources to pay for that member of staff to work additional days to support the cross-party group. Therefore, we sought additional funding, which is probably over and above what most normal cross-party groups would have.
The second purpose is that it is important, in setting up a cross-party group on learning disability, to involve those who have learning disabilities. That should not be done tokenistically by perhaps including one or two people on the committee; rather, we should ensure that we hold inclusive events for MSPs and the learning disabled throughout Scotland. Such events need funding and appropriate transport is necessary to get people to the events—that is what we seek to provide. Those are the two reasons why we sought sponsorship. We felt that the cross-party group should keep in touch with people who have learning disabilities.
I support the creation of the cross-party group. Perhaps I can come in at a more appropriate moment.
We have regularly approved cross-party groups. I will read out rule 3 on cross-party groups so that my question has a proper background. Rule 3 states:
"The group may contain members from outwith the Parliament, but the overall membership profile of the group must remain clearly Parliamentary in character, with attendance at group meetings compliant with rule 10 below."
We are saying that you can have outside members of cross-party groups, but the overall membership profile of the group must be parliamentary. Your application is consistent with other applications that we have previously approved. However, I am conscious that, although 10 members of the group are MSPs, a majority of its members are not.
I raise the matter because the information about cross-party groups that we have considered over the past two months indicates that MSPs do not attend cross-party group meetings. Many meetings take place with only one MSP in attendance. I am concerned that, if we approve this cross-party group, we will continue the process in which the majority of people who attend cross-party groups' meetings are not MSPs. I am concerned that that does not fit with rule 3. How do you feel about that?
We adopted our approach with a view to learning lessons from existing cross-party groups. Although the group might well include representatives of more external organisations on paper, the reality is that the MSPs who are listed on the application are those who have agreed voluntarily to came along. They have not been coerced and they have not added their names to a list. It has happened that members have signed up in a moment of enthusiasm but then never go along to the cross-party group.
I am quite clear that the MSPs who are listed have all made a commitment to attend at the group and have not been coerced into doing so. In practice, you will find that the group is truly parliamentary.
Although Learning Disability Alliance Scotland is the umbrella group for learning disability organisations in Scotland, there are a number of organisations on the ground that deal with different aspects of learning disability. We will not improve knowledge and awareness among MSPs if we exclude such organisations. We therefore felt it important that those organisations should be represented, but it is not the case that the group is made up of one MSP and a whole lot of external organisations.
I acknowledge the concern, having been to a number of cross-party group meetings at which I found none of my colleagues, which was fairly disconcerting. It is also not good for the organisations that give of their time in order to attend the meetings. When I went round my colleagues, it was very clear which of them were going to be committed to the group, or who had the time and were going to make sure that they come along. Three quarters of the MSPs on the list on the application form volunteered when we had the launch of the intended cross-party group.
That is helpful. I am primarily concerned that MSPs should turn up for meetings. It will be Jackie Baillie's responsibility as the sponsoring MSP to ensure that that happens. I do not want to penalise your application when we have approved so many others and I do not want to pre-empt our review.
I welcome the openness with which the application has been submitted and find it difficult to pass judgment on such an application. It has provided more information and been more honest about the number of MSPs who are involved and about financial backing than many other cross-party groups have been. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our investigation, but perhaps this application is a model that we should work towards. The MSPs who support the group must work within the current rules of cross-party groups, as other MSPs do. When the Parliament was established and cross-party groups were set up, we had intentions for them, but they have evolved in a certain direction and we must all be conscious of that.
I, too, support the application. Jackie Baillie referred to supporting learning disability groups that will be involved with the cross-party group. Perhaps in six months or a year, it would be helpful for the committee to revisit the group and monitor its effectiveness. When we considered the application, I did not take into account that Jackie Baillie would require some additional support for those with learning disabilities so that they can be part of the approach. Perhaps that was ignorant of me, but it would be helpful to revisit the cross-party group and monitor its effectiveness.
As part of our review, we will not call everybody, but we could perhaps call witnesses from the cross-party group on learning disability to find out how it is functioning, because it will be the latest to be approved. I do not want to put Jackie Baillie on the spot, but perhaps we could consider calling witnesses from the group when we consider the matter in September. That might be useful.
I have a general comment. Those who have learning disabilities are complex and have differing needs. Therefore, the case is special. Often, cross-party groups are funded on a shoestring, but the expenditure is justified in this case because of the differing needs, complexity and sensitivity of those who are involved. I support the application.
I welcome what Jackie Baillie said. She is bound to feel that we are focusing on money in particular, but this is the first application that I have seen in which sponsorship has been mentioned. Part of the problem is that some cross-party groups have received sponsorship since completing their applications and being approved.
Jackie Baillie might think that we are asking unfair questions, but that is because there is concern and there will be a review. As part of that review, we need to consider what cross-party groups are for. I do not think that cross-party groups should hold events, for example, but that issue is for the future. I would certainly not like the group to be disadvantaged by our not approving it, but issues that have been thrown up by the application and other applications will fit nicely into the review of cross-party groups, including their purpose and whether they should be sponsored by outside bodies. Such issues should be borne in mind, but I support the application. I am satisfied with Jackie Baillie's explanation about the money and I find the application entirely consistent with the rules. There is no reason why we should not support it today.
If all members are happy, I will leave the issue there. Do members approve the application?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. I see no need to write to the convener of the group about the decision. I thank Jackie Baillie.