Standards Committee, 26 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000

Official Report 108KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

At the committee's previous meeting, the clerks were asked to provide a full list of cross-party groups that have been approved by the committee and those that have been referred back to the conveners of proposed groups. In reviewing the current status of applications for cross-party group recognition, the clerks have also taken the opportunity to revise the guidance notes and application forms that are sent out to the proposers of the groups. Those papers have all been circulated to members.

I think that cross-party groups 21 and 32 on the list are the same, but that neither title is quite right. It should be called the cross-party international development group of the Scottish Parliament.

Thank you, Des. You are absolutely right. Nothing escapes Des.

We must consider two applications for recognition as a cross-party group. The first application is a proposal to establish a cross-party group on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Members will recall that the committee agreed on 28 June to refer the application back to its proposer, Dorothy-Grace Elder. The committee felt that the group should consider renaming itself in order to distance itself from too close an association with an external single-issue interest group.

I have written to Dorothy-Grace Elder and copies of my letter and her response have been circulated to members. Members will note that Dorothy-Grace has proposed a new title for the group: cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on nuclear disarmament campaigning. I invite the committee to reconsider the application in the light of the new proposal. Do members have any comments?

I regret to say that I have to oppose this application on principle. I would not have the same objection if the title included the words "multilateral disarmament". I note also that the fourth purpose of the group is:

"To act as a forum for networking and support led by MSPs sympathetic to the aims of this group."

I am convinced that that would amount to lobbying in opposition to Government policy. The group would lobby for a purpose or purposes that were almost certainly opposed—not only by the Conservatives, but by the majority of MSPs. Such a group would be a front for CND and not, in my view, a properly constituted cross-party group. I have no objection to the group acting as a campaign group and holding meetings in the Parliament—arranged by colleagues who are sympathetic to its aims—but it cannot be allowed to campaign as a cross-party group.

Is your objection that the proposed group is still too closely linked to the interest group, despite the name change?

The fourth purpose of the group as set out in its application indicates that it would campaign for CND's purposes. Neither the group's title nor its purposes are clear enough to suggest that its purpose would be multilateral disarmament. The group would act as a front for lobbying in opposition to the Government's policy.

I am sorry that we are discussing this group again; I thought that we would be able to sort out the issue without having to bring it back before the committee. I disagree with Lord James about the role of the Standards Committee in opposing on principle a cross-party group. I do not agree with the aims of other cross-party groups that have been set up. However, it is not for me or the committee to pass judgment on the subjects that such groups want to discuss.

I have a couple of procedural issues to raise. I notice that the group is to be administered by CND. That suggests that the group will operate along the lines that concern Lord James. We should make it clear that that arrangement is not satisfactory.

I also note that the application says that subscriptions are to be paid by MSPs. I am not sure whether that is a verbal confusion, but the statement is certainly incorrect according to the terms of the guidance on cross-party groups. My understanding of that guidance is that all members—not only MSPs—should pay subscriptions. If members of cross-party groups do not pay subscriptions, they do not have voting rights within the group.

The other issue that I want to raise is a potential procedural weakness. I note that the group would meet on Wednesdays—it has been clear on that point and has e-mailed all MSPs. However, our procedure deliberately prevents cross-party groups from meeting between lodging of the application for approval to set up as a cross-party group and receipt of that approval. That is the weakness. We have referred back to the proposed group issues that concern its establishment. How can we expect the group to deal with those issues without meeting? That is something that we should consider in relation to the code for cross-party groups.

Patricia Ferguson's last point was well made. If we send an application back to a group it is obvious that the group needs to meet to address the points that we have raised. We must re-examine the guidance on that matter.

Could Patricia Ferguson clarify the first point that she made?

In response to Lord James's point, I do not think that it is for the Standards Committee to police the topics that a cross-party group might be set up to discuss. We might have concerns about the way in which a group operates, but I hope that any such group would abide by the code that we have created, which gives guidance on how groups should be run. My basic objection to Lord James's comments is that it is not for the committee to object to the topics or issues that a group has been set up to pursue.

Patricia Ferguson also said that she is uneasy that the group is to be administered by CND.

One of my concerns is that previous applications gave the impression that the proposed cross-party group might well be a branch of CND. That concern was expressed at our previous meeting.

As it stands, the proposed group is a bit closer to our understanding of what a cross-party group should be, but there are one or two issues that are outstanding. I wish that Dorothy-Grace Elder had taken up the convener's invitation to meet and discuss the issue. This is the third time we have considered this application; we are spending an awful lot of time on one application. It would have been better if Dorothy-Grace Elder had met the convener or the clerks to fine-tune the application. There is broad sympathy in the committee—with the exception of Lord James, who can speak for himself—for setting up such a group. As Patricia Ferguson says, it is not the committee's role to police the subjects of cross-party groups. It is, however, our responsibility to ensure that such groups meet the requirements that were developed by the Standards Committee and accepted by the Parliament.

There are still some outstanding points. Patricia Ferguson raised the question of subscriptions—she is right about that problem. I disagree with Lord James's point that a cross-party group must include a member of every political group in the Parliament. We have already dealt with that issue. Where there is broad support, a cross-party group need not have members from every political party. The Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party have also signed up to the proposed group—it therefore meets the requirements for cross-party support.

I am reluctant to knock back the application yet again, but perhaps the convener could suggest a meeting with Dorothy-Grace Elder to fine-tune the application so that we could rubber-stamp it at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.

It is not my purpose to police groups in every detail. However, the title of the proposed group makes it clear that it is a group on campaigning. CND has campaigned against successive Governments and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to do so. I do not think that that should be the role of an all-party group. My second question is about who will administer the proposed group.

I will write to Dorothy-Grace Elder again to ask for a meeting. The group's new title is the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on nuclear disarmament campaigning. Is it the word "campaigning" that you object to, Lord James? If that word were dropped, would that satisfy your concerns?

I made it clear in my opening comments that I would have no difficulty with the group if the words "multilateral disarmament" were used in its title. MSPs across the political spectrum support multilateral disarmament.

Would you be satisfied if the word "campaigning" were removed?

I take my stand on multilateral disarmament. I see Tricia Marwick shaking her head. I have no doubt that she believes in the purposes of CND.

I shake my head because it is open to Lord James to set up a group on multilateral disarmament if he believes that there is a need for such a group. There are MSPs across the political spectrum—excluding the Conservative group—who are happy to support unilateral disarmament. It is right and proper that they have a voice and forum for that support. It is equally open to those who share Lord James's point of view to set up their own group.

The title of the proposed group does not specify unilateral disarmament, but refers simply to nuclear disarmament. I assume that multilateral disarmament falls into that category. I cannot agree with Lord James's interpretation.

I agree with the points that Tricia Marwick and Adam Ingram have made. It is not for us to suggest to cross-party groups alternative titles or alternative topics for discussion. I am conscious of the fact that, although there may not be any cross-party groups that say in their title that they are campaigning groups, most of the groups that we have approved involve some element of campaigning. Indeed, the second group whose application we will be considering today clearly states that its purpose is to campaign. The convener should meet the convener of the proposed Scottish Parliament cross-party group on nuclear disarmament campaigning to sort out the outstanding issues. Those are issues of process rather than principle. We can then rubber-stamp the application.

I am seeking clarification from the one member of the committee who has objections to the establishment of that group, because I would like to reach unanimity on the issue.

I oppose the application on principle. I do not regard this as a cross-party group that is engaged in lobbying on various issues. It has a clear theme and is associated with a campaign that has been under way since the 1960s. There is no evidence that the group would support multilateral disarmament. I believe that it would campaign against the Government and the wishes of the majority of MSPs. One group in the Parliament would be excluded from membership—perhaps of its own choosing, but excluded nevertheless.

I understand that CND campaigns for both multilateral and unilateral disarmament. It would be better if the word "campaigning" were not included in the proposed group's title. Campaigning is explicitly one of the purposes of a number of groups, including the groups on tobacco control and autism, but we have not approved a group that includes the word "campaigning" in its title. It would be better if that word did not appear and if this were entitled the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. That makes clear what it is about; the word "campaigning" is probably superfluous.

The procedural issues should be addressed in the way that Patricia Ferguson suggested, so that we can approve the application. We do not want to be seen as too picky, but it is important that we do our job and deal with the outstanding issues. Lord James has raised a genuine issue of principle, which we will not be able to deal with without dividing on it. However, the will of the overwhelming majority of the committee is that this group's application be approved, subject to the changes that we have suggested.

I will contact Dorothy-Grace Elder again to say that we have deferred a decision on the application until our next meeting. We will work with Dorothy-Grace to address the three problems that have been identified. The first issue is that of subscriptions; the second is the perception that this group would be administered by CND; and the third is the use of the word "campaigning", which does not appear in the title of any of the other groups that we have approved.

The second application is for a cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder. Do members have any comments on the application?

At the risk of being picky again, I wish to draw the committee's attention to a couple of procedural points. The first relates to the number of outside agencies that are involved compared with the number of MSPs. The second point is that the group's officers include only one MSP and not two, which is the minimum that is set down in our regulations.

Would it be appropriate to ask the clerks to conduct a preliminary vetting of applications, to ensure that procedural issues are dealt with before applications come before the committee? That would avoid the unnecessary delay that results from our having to defer decisions. We would find that helpful.

Do members have any other comments?

The point about there needing to be a balance on groups between MSPs and external members has been made before. I tend to think that, provided that a significant number of MSPs are actively involved in a group, it does not matter whether many other people wish to be involved. We are not seeking an arithmetical ratio between MSPs and others. We simply have to assure ourselves that there is significant interest in a group from MSPs. My main concern would be if we ended up with a group that was made up of only two or three active MSPs and a series of other people.

I seem to have glanced at this application too quickly and to have made a mistake. I notice now that one of the vice conveners is an MSP, so there are two MSP officers. I was thrown by the fact that two vice conveners are listed.

I was just about to bring that to members' attention—well done, Patricia. Nineteen MSPs have indicated their willingness to serve as members of this group. When applications come in, the clerks should ensure that there is a balance between the number of MSPs and the number of other members of a group. Are members content to approve this application?

Members indicated agreement.

I will write to the convener of the group to inform them of our decision.