Standards Committee, 28 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001

Official Report 96KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Our third item of business this morning is consideration of applications for cross-party group status. Do members have any comments on the first application, which is for a cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on chronic pain?

There is now a list of 37 cross-party groups, a considerable number of which deal with health issues. We might soon reach a situation in which there is difficulty in booking rooms because there are so many groups. The next application for a cross-party group that we will consider also centres on health issues. Although in principle both subjects are altogether worthy of cross-party groups, I wonder whether they should be the focus of individual groups or whether the proposed group should be merged with others. As for this application, I think that we should find out whether the sponsor would accept amalgamating the group with the group on palliative care, as the issues overlap to some extent.

I have raised—and will raise again—my concerns about the number of cross-party groups that are being established. As Lord James said, there are already 37 such groups, and we are considering another two today. I have been concerned about the attendance at some of the groups' meetings; indeed, I have found it difficult to attend meetings. We have only three slots a week when we can attend cross-party group meetings—Tuesday evening, Wednesday afternoon and Wednesday night—and there have been concerns that we are not giving the groups the support that the outside organisations involved might expect. We must examine that matter very carefully.

This is a matter not just for us but for MSPs in general. Although we all want to support organisations, it will not serve any of us well if organisations come from the length and breadth of Scotland to meet only the MSP who is the convener of the group and one other member.

There are clear crossovers between the proposed cross-party group on chronic pain and the cross-party group on palliative care. I suspect that we do not need two such groups and I suggest that, as a way forward, we invite the convener of the palliative care group to meet the sponsor of the chronic pain group to find out whether the two groups can merge and work together on issues that are common to them both. However, if enough MSPs want to establish a cross-party group on chronic pain—and if such a group conforms to all the rules—the Standards Committee should not stand in its way.

I agree with many of Tricia Marwick's comments. We should address the wider issue about the groups as a whole. However, there are many other issues to address. For example, if the groups continue to multiply in this way, they could bring the whole system into disrepute, which would not reflect well on the Parliament in general.

We have not yet established any criteria for distinguishing between what is and what is not a justifiable reason for a cross-party group, and this application provides a good example of that problem. Although there is an element of crossover with palliative care, I am sure that members interested in the issue of chronic pain would maintain that the focuses of the groups are different.

I would be happy to approve both groups, on the basis that they conform to the rules. We have no grounds, other than our own common sense, for suggesting that they should talk to each other. Is it not the case that they have already talked to each other? A couple of members are on both groups.

I am happy to approve the groups, but we could ask the Procedures Committee to address the issue. Cross-party groups are part of the structure of the Parliament, but they are not necessarily working in the way that was intended. The Procedures Committee could include cross-party groups in its current investigation into the principles on which the Parliament was founded.

The regulation of cross-party groups is fairly and squarely within our remit, so the issue is up to us. If members are happy with the suggestion, I could ask the clerks to review how active the 37 cross-party groups are. At the moment, all they have to do is present us with an annual report. Reviewing the activity of cross-party groups would be helpful when we discuss issues such as crossover remits. Would members be content with that?

That is a good idea. It is up to the Standards Committee to monitor the groups to ensure that they are working as intended. It would be useful to write to the convener or secretary of each group, asking how often they have met in the past year—if they have been set up that long—how many MSPs have attended each meeting and how many outside organisations or others have attended.

We shall do that.

I note that there is a cross-party group on older people, age and aging and a cross-party group on carers. For much of the time, those groups will be considering the same issues, although I appreciate that carers can care for people who are not elderly, so the groups do not completely overlap. Where cross-party groups are considering similar issues—if not the same issues—there could be a case for amalgamating them. That point should be put to them because, if there is a terrific multiplicity of groups on a host of smaller subjects, the groups will lose their clout.

Before we approve the proposed group on chronic pain too readily, it is only fair to put the case to the sponsors that it may be appropriate to amalgamate that group with the cross-party group on palliative care. If they come back to us and say no, with clear reasons, I have no objections in principle to approving the application, but they ought to consider that option, even if only to reject it.

When we write to the secretaries of the groups, we will include the list of cross-party groups and suggest that they consider amalgamating with some of the other groups.

Until we have an overview of how active the groups are, it is hard to judge whether the new applications are needed or whether they can be accommodated in the existing groups. There are three or four groups that could amalgamate if the individuals who set them up were courageous enough to concede that there should be an amalgamation; however, given the difficulty that we have with Scottish football clubs amalgamating even when the case for it is self-evident, we may have the same problem with cross-party groups. For example, this week's cause célèbre is the rape court case. There are probably three groups whose members would be concerned and could take up that issue.

We need a consensual approach on amalgamation. We should first take an overview. We should say that we are minded of the commitments that people have on their time and that, although we are not saying that any groups are invalid, we want to examine whether the number of groups can be reduced. The evidence on the activity of groups might compel people to take action. People find it easy to set things up and harder to wind them down.

When a cross-party group is being set up, it is easy to give support. I am a member of several cross-party groups, because they are worthy and involve organisations with which I wish to be associated and which I want to do what I can to help. The difficulty is in attending meetings. I suspect that I am not alone in having that difficulty, which is why I am concerned.

Most of that concern is based on my wish to be associated with several groups and on my experience of helping the former all-party Scottish housing group at Westminster. It was frustrating for voluntary organisations to be involved with that group. Their representatives went to a great deal of trouble flying down to London, but when they turned up at the meetings perhaps only two members of Parliament would be present.

I know the effect that that experience had on the organisation for which I worked, which is why I am concerned about the number of cross-party groups that are involving people from outside the Parliament. Those people will hope and expect to meet MSPs, and we will not be there. That worries me. We must consider the position of the cross-party groups. Perhaps we could have two systems. Some groups could simply register support for organisations and others could involve active membership. We must be clear about what giving our support to a cross-party group means. I am concerned about the effect on the Parliament's reputation of not bringing those concerns to members' attention as quickly as we can.

I suggest that we proceed with what was proposed for the cross-party group on chronic pain, perhaps by asking the conveners involved to consider what has been suggested. I reiterate that the cross-party group on chronic pain meets the criteria for a cross-party group, so there is no reason not to approve it. However, we could suggest that there might be a better way forward. There is no reason not to approve the group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I propose that we approve it.

We started by considering only the cross-party group on chronic pain, but now we will consider the group on ME, too. After hearing what members have said, I suggest that we launch a review of the activity of cross-party groups, with a view to asking their sponsors to consider amalgamation. I will write to Dorothy-Grace Elder with members' suggestions but I point out that her group meets the criteria. I am conscious that we have written to Dorothy-Grace Elder about another cross-party group.

I am not clear about the proposal for a group on ME, because we have not discussed the issue. Would it be appropriate to write to John McAllion, who sponsors the group on ME, to ask him to consider amalgamating his group with others?

If we received an application for a group on multiple sclerosis, would that subject be sufficiently close to that of the proposed group to allow amalgamation?

No. I think that the subjects are different. However, that does not prevent them from being linked. The concern is about the growth in the number of cross-party groups and the dissipation of support from members.

We have no option but to support the establishment of the group on ME, but I think that we should proceed with the group on chronic pain as suggested. I realise that the task that I am about to propose would be fairly onerous for the clerks, and I am loth to ask for it, but I think that it might be worth while. Concerns relate not just to how many people turn up for meetings, but to forward work plans. What do groups plan to do and how will they implement their plans? That may be how we could find out about opportunities for amalgamating groups. I realise that we receive annual reports, but they cover what has happened. We would be most interested in what the groups plan to do. It might be useful to obtain that information, if possible.

We could approve the group on ME and say that we are sympathetic in principle to the other group and are minded to approve it, but that we would be grateful if its supporters considered whether there is a sufficient case for amalgamation with the cross-party group on palliative care.

As members are content, we will proceed on that basis.

Our final item of business is the consideration of a draft report that sets out our proposals for a committee bill to establish a standards commissioner in the Scottish Parliament. As agreed at the beginning of the meeting, we will move into private session. I ask the public, press, official reporters and broadcasting staff to leave the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 10:36.