Cross-party Groups Review
We stay with cross-party groups for agenda item 3. At our meeting on 5 June, we agreed the format for our review of the operation of cross-party groups in the Parliament. Members decided that we should initially carry out a consultation exercise, inviting specific comments from the groups and from external observers. We also decided that it would be worth restating the purposes and objectives of the cross-party group system with a view to focusing the thoughts of respondents. At the end of the consultation period we will invite some respondents to the committee to discuss issues that are raised during the consultation process.
This morning we need to agree the content of the draft consultation paper that is before us. The floor is now open for members' views. I do not see everybody rushing all at once to comment. Has everybody had an opportunity to examine it?
I welcome the paper that is before us. It is important that, three years into the life of the Parliament, we review the cross-party groups. Those of us who were on the Standards Committee at the start were very clear that we wanted to achieve a different form of group to that which operates at Westminster. The all-party groups at Westminster are no more than lobbying fronts that are financed by private companies and staffed—by and large—by lobbying organisations. That is why we made it clear from the beginning that the cross-party groups should be Parliamentary in nature—they should contain a majority of MSPs.
The cross-party groups in the Parliament have evolved in the way that all organisations evolve. There are many different interpretations of what a cross-party group is. I said to Jackie Baillie earlier that I see no purpose in cross-party groups holding events. That is not to say that Jackie Baillie is wrong and that I am right, but there should be a genuine debate within the committee and the Parliament about the purpose of the groups. Once we establish the purpose of the groups everything else will follow from that. I am concerned about the amount of money and sponsorship that the groups are being given; I am not clear about the purpose of that money.
I am also clear that although many organisations are involved in the cross-party groups, I do not know what they expect to get out of the groups. We have to be clearer about why such organisations involve themselves in the groups. I would not like to think that outside organisations, whether private sector or public sector bodies, are involving themselves in and giving money to the groups in an attempt to influence them. We have been very clear about lobbying and the protection of the reputation of the Parliament. We must be absolutely robust in our determination that everything that happens in the Parliament is open and transparent. I am not convinced that all the groups are operating in that way.
Jackie Baillie has already said—we all know this—that some of the groups have perhaps only one MSP attending them, which is clearly not satisfactory. We have an opportunity before May 2003 to give to cross-party groups better guidelines than exist at the moment. The new organisations that are set up after the elections in May 2003 will perhaps be operated more consistently across the board. At the moment the cross-party groups are interpreting the rules and regulations very generously. If the rules need to be tightened up, we must take the opportunity to do so, because the reputation of the Parliament is paramount.
While other members consider what they want to say, I will comment. We decided last May that we would undertake a review of cross-party groups and it is appropriate that we have now done so. The clerks have handed out papers about the financial benefits that cross-party groups have registered. That information is in the public domain—it is available on the register of cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament—but I thought that it would be helpful to put it together so that we can see at a glance some of the issues that we are talking about. Substantial sums are involved. I do not wish to pre-empt the consultation exercise, which is a good one. I can go through each of the questions, but I do not want to draw out matters if members are content.
I am content, but I have one question on financial capping. Cross-party groups need enough resources to operate effectively, but they do not need massive resources. Should there be a cap? We should extend paragraph 31 of the consultation document so that it says, "Reasons for your views will be welcome." Detailed reasons would help because it would be useful to know why groups want more funding and whether their reasons are legitimate.
That is helpful.
The paper covers all the issues that we discussed. We agree that much needs to be clarified. The cross-party groups have evolved since they were set up and there is no doubt that, in the groups' interests—let alone those of the Parliament—procedures must be tightened up. For the cross-party groups to be effective, good procedures and discipline are important. There is a lack of awareness among many members about the way in which cross-party groups operate. We should make it clear that the motivation behind the inquiry is not suspicion that there is anything untoward in the operation of any of the cross-party groups, but that we wish to tighten up practice. We must ensure that members are aware of and follow the guidelines.
The issue of resources is important. The cross-party groups have various resources available to them, but most operate on a shoestring and with no support. That can lead to intense frustration and disappointment among the public who, I believe, come along to the groups thinking that the groups have the weight of Government swinging in behind them. People are sometimes rather crestfallen when they discover that individual MSPs must provide the support and help, in many cases with no back-up. At the other extreme, there are groups such as the one of which I am the co-convener, which held an extremely ambitious conference earlier this year and which, on paper, stands out as being well funded. It is probably one of the most cross-party of the groups. All its funding went into one extremely successful event. I welcome exploration of the issues.
Tricia Marwick said that she was concerned about groups holding events. We must explore that. Cross-party groups are not resourced—we do not want the taxpayer to pay for such events. However, if the events are worth while and if they are genuinely cross-party events that take account of the interests of all concerned and reflect well on the Parliament, we should not put obstacles in their way.
The paper addresses all those issues. I hope that for the next intake of MSPs we will start off on a sound footing and continue in that way.
Ken Mackintosh mentioned the public, whom I am keen to involve. Are members of the public generally aware that they can be part of cross-party groups or are only select members of the public who happen to network with the organisations that organise cross-party events aware of that? Are tenants associations in Springburn or wherever aware of cross-party groups? How do we go about making people aware of the cross-party groups?
Access is an issue. It is clear that cross-party groups have not established an interface with members of the public and are communicating only with interested parties. If cross-party groups are interest groups, they should say so and they should say that they are not open to ordinary members of the public. The consultation paper has to draw out that issue.
I am acutely aware that MSPs have to drive the issue of cross-party groups. I am sure that the cross-party groups of which Kenneth Macintosh is a member ensure that people obey the rules. I am also sure that at least two MSPs are present at every meeting and that the groups hold annual general meetings and so forth, although I am not sure that that happens with every group. It is up to the MSPs who are involved in cross-party groups to do what Paul Martin said and publicise the groups. MSPs need to drive that process.
The fact that cross-party groups are based in Edinburgh leads to access difficulties. If the groups are going to continue to be located in Edinburgh, as is probably the case, we have to be realistic. Busloads of people from Aberdeen or Springburn will not to be able to come and spend time at cross-party group meetings.
That issue is part of the debate that we need to have about the purpose of the cross-party groups. We need to ask what status the groups have within the Parliament. Clearly, cross-party groups are not committees of the Parliament; they are something else.
We need to consider where the groups fit into the system. We need to be clear about their status and we need to reach consensus on their function. We will then be able to answer questions about who becomes involved in the cross-party groups and whether the groups should meet only in Edinburgh. Until now, because of their parliamentary nature, the groups have met only in Edinburgh. They have done so also because MSPs have to fit the meetings into their timetables on a Wednesday evening or a Thursday lunch time.
As the cross-party groups have evolved over time, we have to ask what they have evolved into. Has the concept changed from the one that reflected the views of MSPs when we were drawing up the rules at the beginning? I think that they have. The questions that we need to answer before May 2003 are how far they have evolved, how far we want them to go and what role they should play. If we do that, we can set the groups off again on the right footing.
I reiterate what Ken Macintosh said. Although we are conducting a review of the cross-party groups, absolutely no one is suggesting that anything untoward is happening within them. Committed people are involved in the groups and, by and large, the groups do a good job. However, the committee has a responsibility to MSPs and to the people who have expectations of the groups—we must ensure that their expectations are met and not dashed.
That is why we need to hold our review and to put clear guidelines in place before 2003. We need to recognise and acknowledge that a lot of good work is going on in the cross-party groups. We do not want to rein anyone in; we want to ensure that the cross-party groups, in whatever final form is decided, are made as effective as possible.
The clerks have produced a comprehensive consultation document, which covers all the issues that we want to be raised. We have taken on the comments that Lord James made. I reiterate that the Standards Committee will invite written submissions to be made by 30 September. That gives individuals, organisations, cross-party groups, MSPs and everyone who has an interest in the matter all summer to submit comments.
We will probably take oral evidence during October. The committee will reflect on the written and oral evidence in November, with a view to publishing a report to be debated by the Parliament in late November or December. That would fit in with the committee's intention to introduce any required revisions to section 8 of the code of conduct before the next parliamentary session in 2003. That is a tight deadline, but I think that it is achievable.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but it might be useful, for the purposes of clarity, if, under the section that deals with the purpose of a cross-party group, we added a paragraph on Paul Martin's point about access, which Tricia Marwick echoed. The issue of access probably goes to the heart of some of the arguments that have been raised. The cross-party groups play a valuable role and provide access to Parliament, but there is a question about whether that access is fair to all or gives privileges to lobby groups and groups that are situated locally.
Thank you for that point, Kenneth.