Official Report 287KB pdf
Item 2 is consideration of four applications for recognition of cross-party groups. The first proposal is for a cross-party group on Russia. The group was active in the previous session and, as members will see from the note before them, it met in September 2011.
First, I apologise that the 30-day rule was not adhered to. In mitigation, there was a cross-party group—as you mentioned, convener—that to my knowledge held only two meetings in the previous session. I was partly involved in the second of those meetings, and I had great difficulty in getting a list of the people who had participated, despite the fact that there was a full room for an address by the then consul general of the Russian Federation.
How often did the previous cross-party group meet, and how many people attended?
I was at only one of the meetings, at which around 30 people were present, of whom three were MSPs. At that time, Jamie Stone was the convener and Des McNulty was a member. Neither of those members returned this session. John Scott and I were the other two active members in the group at that stage. We had a small number of MSPs, but a large number of members of the public.
You held a meeting in September to set up the new group—or the renewed group, if you like. I know that some of the other groups that have in the past omitted to submit their papers in time have gone on to have another meeting and submitted within 30 days of that meeting. Is there any reason why the committee should not ask you to do the same?
If you asked me to do the same I would be happy to do so. It is a matter of form, and we will hold another meeting if you require that. However, the September meeting was a competent meeting, at which there were four MSPs from three parties, and there is now the interest that is being shown by groups, such as at the University of Edinburgh, which expect us to be active and to contribute to the general life of the Parliament on the subject.
I think that you remarked that the cross-party group in the previous parliamentary session had not met often. Is there a determination for this group to meet more regularly? I very much encourage the group, but we would want to know that a robust timetable of meetings was planned.
The intention is to have such a timetable, but formal meetings are sometimes not the best kind. For example, during the NATO Parliamentary Assembly two Russian generals who were in the Duma visited the Parliament and informally met the group’s MSP members. Also, at the beginning of this session—in September—we had a debate about the Russian Arctic convoys, and not only the veterans but the consul general of the Russian Federation were present. So, activities go on informally.
That is all absolutely valid and worth while, but can we take it that there will be a rather more regular series of meetings than just two in a parliamentary session, not least because I think that there is a requirement to have an annual general meeting?
There most certainly will be. I wish that I could remember an AGM in the previous session, but I most certainly intend to run things in an orderly fashion, within the rules. I apologised at the start for not meeting the 30-day deadline.
Do members have a view on this?
I hear what Mr Gibson is saying, and I accept his explanation. I know just how difficult it can be to follow all the rules and the regulations, but they are there, and we are their custodians. Nevertheless, I share Alex Fergusson’s view that we should encourage the work of the cross-party group and endeavour to be as positive and helpful as we can. I was at that meeting when the Russian honorary consul was there—perhaps you did not have me on the list, Mr Gibson.
Convener, may I just point out that Vladimir Malygin, the then consul general, is not an honorary consul but a full diplomat? There are 14 full diplomats as consuls general in Edinburgh. I just wanted to ensure that we give him, and his successor Sergey Krutikov, his full status.
Thank you very much, Rob. Following those explanations from the convener of the proposed cross-party group, I sense that members are inclined to accord it recognition. Am I correct in that view?
Thank you very much for attending.
Not at all—thank you for the invitation.
The second application for recognition concerns a proposed cross-party group on park homes. No such group was active in the previous session. Members will see that no non-MSP members have been listed on the registration form, which was the case with another application for recognition that we considered recently. We expressed some concern about that.
I would veer towards our accepting the application, because we did the same with another group that did not have any public members. However, I think that we will have to look at the issue as part of our review. Reference has been made to AGMs and other things that cross-party groups do. Groups might do a lot of work without holding meetings. On that basis, I would be prepared to accept the application, on the understanding that we will look at how groups set up and operate in our review.
What would happen if we accepted the application, but when Mr Beattie contacted the organisations in question, none of them was interested? Where would the CPG be then?
That is a good question. I imagine that, if the group did not get members, it would be difficult for it to function. I find it strange that the bodies concerned have not formally shown an interest.
I should declare an interest, as my name is on the list of the proposed group’s members.
It was Hanzala Malik’s proposed group.
Indeed. I leave it to members to decide, but I would have no problem with members putting the application on hold temporarily until it is ascertained that outside organisations want to take part in the proposed group’s work. I would be extremely surprised if no such organisations wanted to do so.
I know that Paul Wheelhouse wants to come in, but first I point out that, as members will have seen from the committee papers, our next meeting will not be until 27 March. If the group’s application was put on hold, it would therefore be a month before we could discuss it again. We should bear that in mind.
I apologise for arriving late. I conveyed to the convener beforehand that I might miss the beginning of the meeting.
You are right. Most if not all of us have residents in park homes in our areas. It would be useful to have the convener of the proposed group here so that we could ask him the questions that we have raised and let him clarify the position. We are stabbing in the dark and presuming things, so it is difficult.
Would there be a problem if we were to say that, because other applications are coming through that are not completed correctly, we will send everybody a message about cross-party groups and the information that is required to be completed on the form?
That is an interesting point. The problem is that the rules do not stipulate that groups must include outside bodies. We need to look at that closely in our review of cross-party groups. At present, it is legitimate under the rules for MSPs to set up a group with no outside bodies as members. It is just that we have expressed concern about that, and we got Hanzala Malik along to explain to us what he was proposing.
All the members who have spoken so far have made pertinent points. I particularly like Paul Wheelhouse’s point that we should ask that all local authorities be invited to join the group. We have park homes in my constituency in Fife as well. I am a little surprised that the list is as definitive as it is, so I favour that approach.
Thank you for that. Margaret Burgess wants to comment, and then Bob Doris.
I have a slight concern, following on from what Helen Eadie said. I am not clear what the committee’s role is. Should we be telling the conveners of cross-party groups who they should or should not have on their groups, or who they should invite to become members? Perhaps we should just suggest that they widen out who is involved. We have considered other cross-party groups that have just a couple of local authorities as external members, but we have never queried why there are no others, or asked whether the conveners have asked others to join. Have we ever delved into how or why people get invited to join cross-party groups? Perhaps the time to do that is during our review.
I should point out that I, too, was late for the meeting. I apologise to fellow committee members for missing the earlier part of today’s business.
Are there any other views? I am getting the feeling that members are content to allow the group to go forward. All our comments will be on the record, and we can consider the issue that has been raised in more detail in our review. Are members happy to allow the group to be recognised?
The third proposed group is the cross-party group on lupus, which was not active in the previous parliamentary session. Members have before them a note on its application, and they will see that it complies with all the criteria for registration. As members have no questions about the group, is the committee happy to accord it recognition?
The fourth proposed group is the cross-party group on oil and gas, which was active in the previous session. Members have the application before them. The group meets all the criteria for registration. As members have no questions about the group, are they happy to accord it recognition?
Next
Budget Process