Agenda item 2 is the consideration of applications for recognition of cross-party groups. There are three applications; members have copies of the forms that have been submitted.
I would seek a vote against the application on the ground that the group is not an all-party group in the normal sense of the phrase. As far as I know, there is no all-party CND group in the House of Commons, although obviously the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament expresses its view strongly in other ways and has plenty of meetings with MPs at Westminster. For that reason, I wish my vote of opposition to recognition of the group to be recorded.
We had this debate when we first considered the application.
Are there any other comments?
No.
We will vote by a show of hands.
Do we need to have a vote?
I would rather that we did not go to a vote.
My group would like me to record a vote of opposition to recognition of the group because a precedent might be set and we would be opposed to such a precedent.
We can note Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's disagreement to the proposal without going to a vote.
My group would like me to record a vote. I regret having to make that request—this might be the first vote that we have had in the committee, but it is a matter of principle. If the group was a multilateral disarmament cross-party group, there would be no problem, because the Conservative group strongly supports multilateral disarmament. Our objection is that the group is a unilateral disarmament group that cannot, therefore, be an all-party group.
The name of the group and the first purpose of the group seem to be slightly different. The name of the group is the cross-party CND group and the first purpose of the group is:
What are you suggesting?
I am not quite sure. It is just that the purpose of the group seems to be slightly different from what its name suggests. The purpose seems to be what Lord James Douglas Hamilton is describing—a discussion on the multilateral issues around nuclear disarmament—but the name suggests a unilateral approach.
To be fair, we asked the group to expand on its purposes, and that is the result.
Is point 4 within the remit of a cross-party group?
Yes. I am advised that point 4 is within the remit of such a group.
Could we be reminded of the wording of our guidelines for the setting up of such groups? Do the guidelines say that the groups must have all-party representation, or that they should have it?
I looked at the code of conduct just before the meeting. I shall read the relevant section, for the benefit of committee members. Rule 2 of section 8.3 of the code of conduct deals with the conduct of cross-party groups. It says:
There is no reason for the committee to reflect practices in the House of Commons, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no all-party group for the CND there, although the CND is a campaign group.
We must focus on what is right for Parliament and whether acceptance of the group would constitute an appropriate deviation from the rules. We are certainly allowed to make such a deviation.
This is the third or fourth discussion that we have had on cross-party groups. After every discussion, the convener has sent a letter to the proposers, asking them to comply and to forward further information to the committee. They have done so on each occasion and have satisfied the requests of the Standards Committee. It would therefore be appropriate to bring the discussion to a conclusion. If we have to vote on it, we will do so.
I wanted to ensure that all members had the opportunity to voice their views. If members are content, we will conclude the discussion.
I was not involved in the previous two discussions, as I had commitments to other committees. Should cross-party groups reflect the powers of the Parliament?
They must be parliamentary in nature.
This Parliament does not have power over defence issues. That is why I asked that question.
That definition would be too restrictive. The Parliament is allowed to discuss any issue.
That would call into question some of the groups that we have previously approved, especially on issues of poverty—benefits are reserved to Westminster.
I have no problem with saying that the rule concerning the political make-up of a group should be waived in this case. Although I have a lot of personal sympathy for the aims of this specific group, my concern is whether it is a cross-party group, as such groups are set out in our rules, or whether it is merely a branch of the CND in the Scottish Parliament.
It must not be merely a branch of the CND in the Scottish Parliament.
That is why I am concerned about point 4 in the aims of the group as they have been described. Point 4 talks about the group being
Are you saying that point 4 in the aims of the group is inappropriate?
Potentially.
I cannot agree with that interpretation of point 4. Most cross-party groups would operate in such a manner. I am a member of a couple of cross-party groups. Networking and support for the broad subject on which the groups are focused are part and parcel of the activity of the groups and are among the main reasons for setting up cross-party groups.
The real issue of contention is the name of the group. In our discussion on the proposed cross-party group on pluralism in education, the committee said clearly that that group's focus should not be on one organisation. Given that we have set that standard for that group, we must be careful not to say that it is okay to have a group that is based on only one organisation in this case, just because most of us agree with the general thrust of the CND's aims. We must be careful that we are not setting ourselves up to be knocked down.
I have sympathy for both Patricia Ferguson's and Karen Gillon's views. I want to approve the group, but I am concerned that if it acts as a CND branch of the Scottish Parliament, it might be very different from what it is intended that a cross-party group should be. We should approve the group, but we should say clearly that we do not expect it to be represented as a branch of the CND in that organisation's literature—that is clearly not what we are approving today.
I am under no illusions about the CND campaigning against the Government. There is no difference between what the Tory group thinks and the views of Labour supporters. To recognise the group would set a precedent that is quite different from any that we have set hitherto. My political group is whole-heartedly opposed to that. We are in favour of CND having the opportunity to come and express its views in a different form to MSPs, but we do not believe that that organisation is an all-party group.
The rules of the code of conduct allow us to deviate from the standard and we are allowed to approve the group if we want to. The question is whether it is appropriate for us to do so. If there is hostility towards approval from one political group, we must be very careful about approving the group. I hope that members will consider that.
Do you have a list of the organisations that are members of the group?
There is a list of its members in annexe A, which includes individual members of the Scottish Parliament, researchers, an organisation called Trident Ploughshares 2000 and a parliamentary liaison officer with the CND. I assume that an official from the CND will also be a member of the group.
My concern is that we should not approve groups that focus on one external organisation. It would not be appropriate to have a cross-party group on an issue that was identified with a single group. The committee must be careful not to set double standards. We rejected the proposed cross-party group on pluralism in education because we thought that it was a front for Steiner Waldorf schools. If we are saying that this is a CND organisation in the Parliament, funded by parliamentary money, we must be very careful that we are not setting double standards.
Would it be different if this were called the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, rather than the cross-party CND group?
There is a clear distinction between those two things.
I understand that the CND is an umbrella organisation that has a number of affiliates to it, similar to Age Concern. I am a member of the cross-party group on older people, age and aging, and Age Concern is closely associated with that group.
That is not quite the same.
No, it is not, but we are in danger of splitting hairs. I indicated at the outset that it might have been useful to change the name of the group to, for example, the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. That would be the most appropriate name for the group and that might allay some of the Conservative members' concerns about it.
That might deal with some of the concerns that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has expressed.
I make no secret of the fact that we are in favour of multilateral disarmament, which is taking place.
There is general concern around the table about the name of the group. Adam Ingram made the point that he is a member of the cross-party group on older people, age and aging. That is not the same as being a member of a cross-party group on Age Concern. Karen Gillon and I have expressed concerns about the fact that this would be a CND group within the Parliament, as opposed to a cross-party group of MSPs who are concerned about nuclear disarmament. In our previous meeting we inched towards the position in which we find ourselves at the moment.
If my memory serves me correctly, we raised two concerns about the proposed cross-party group on pluralism and Steiner Waldorf education. The first was about the name, and the second was about the inclusion of a reference to a specific organisation. To that extent, the discussion that we are having now duplicates the one that we had about Steiner Waldorf schools. We have to say to everybody else the same things that we said to the proposers of the cross-party group on pluralism and Steiner Waldorf education—that special mention of a particular organisation should not be made in the aims of a group.
I would like to draw the discussion to a close. It has been extremely beneficial to debate the issue at length again. If members are content, we will defer the application and I will write back to Dorothy-Grace Elder explaining the situation and offering to meet her to discuss it. The deputy convener, Tricia Marwick, might also want to be at that meeting. We will ask the proposers of the group to produce another application on the grounds that have been mentioned.
The second application is for a cross-party group on drug misuse, which has been circulated to members as annexe B. As no one has indicated that they would like to comment on the proposed application, I ask members whether they are happy to approve the proposal.
The third application is for a cross-party group on Gaelic, which members have as annexe C. Do members have comments on the application?
A specific organisation is involved, but it is not mentioned in the name or aims of the group. That is a good example of how applications should be worded.
Yes. The aim of the group is:
Yes.
Previous
Annual Report