Standards Committee, 29 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999

Official Report 111KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

We will start with item one, which deals with the regulation of cross-party groups. At the previous meeting we discussed a draft scheme on the regulation of cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament. The underlining on the briefing paper indicates new or amended text.

Convener, were you not intending to make a statement at the opening of this meeting?

We agreed yesterday that that would happen at the beginning of the next item on the agenda.

I assume that everyone has had time to read the documentation on cross-party groups. I would like to address action points by the committee. First, the committee is invited to consider the attached drafts and to agree the texts. Let us turn to the text on cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament. How would members like to play this?

Can we go through this page by page, convener? I would like to make a number of specific comments, but before I do so I would like to congratulate the clerks on doing the difficult job of drawing together the strands of this particular paper very well.

We have set up our cross-party groups very differently from those at Westminster. The committee's intentions for carrying this forward have been put into reasonable shape. Any points of detail that I want to raise or highlight are in the context of welcoming something that has been done thoroughly and effectively.

Des would like to take this page by page. If we consider the first page, members will see that there is a large amount of new material.

Do you have any comments on that first page, Des?

I am quite happy with it. It expresses what we wanted it to.

Do other members have any comments to make?

If not we will move on to the second page, starting with item two.

I would like to say something about item four on that page. For the sake of clarity, the third sentence should say "elections for office bearers" instead of "the elections".

We should consider a period of 10 days' notification in advance of a meeting, as it is normal to give a lengthier period of notice before a meeting at which there will be an election of office bearers than for a normal meeting. Ten days would be fairer to everybody.

Are members happy with that?

Yes.

In item seven—which refers to members being charged a subscription—we should include in brackets the words "e.g. to cover administrative costs". That would illustrate the purpose for which a subscription might normally be required.

Yes.

We should relax item 10 slightly and say that both MSP members of the group "should be present" rather than "must be present" at meetings of cross-party groups. I would not want meetings rendered invalid because MSPs intended to attend and then found that they were unable to. Intention is the important issue.

That seems reasonable to me. Are members happy with that?

Yes.

Are members happy with paragraph 11?

I would like comment on item 12. It is reasonable for cross-party groups to use the e-mail facilities in the Parliament to notify people of their business. That is not being facilitated by item 12 and we should amend the item to allow that to happen.

I read that as well, Des. We discussed at the previous meeting that it would be unreasonable for MSPs to be unable to use e-mail and telephones in pursuit of good cross-party purposes.

I have been advised that we can recommend that to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.

I think that we should do that.

I would like to say more about item 12. I think that it is reasonable that cross-party groups be allowed to use the Scottish Parliament information centre, but they should not be allowed to use it in a way that will generate costs for SPICe. It is reasonable for people to go and examine material in the library but not necessarily to cause additional costs to the facilities.

They should have access but not incur costs. That is a good point.

Are there any other comments on this page?

I would like to comment on the bullet points in the section on registration of cross-party groups. I am not sure why "certain" is used in the penultimate point. I would miss that word out.

That would make the point more explicit.

I have been advised that there is a threshold of £250.

We could make that threshold explicit rather than using "certain".

Would members like to make any other points relating to that page?

I have no more points to make in relation to the rest of the document.

Is everybody happy with the next two pages?

Yes.

We can agree on those.

Is everybody happy with the registration form?

Yes.

That is approved.

Is everybody happy with the "Declaration on Establishment of a Cross Party Group in the Scottish Parliament"?

Could I have a copy of the papers?

Of course.

Thanks, Mike.

Shall we approve the declaration?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee might want to be more explicit about the criteria that it will use to evaluate the purpose of cross-party groups. The rules state that groups

"must be Parliamentary in character"

and that their

"purpose must be of genuine public interest".

Alternatively, we could take a case-law approach and wait and see. It might be a good idea to obtain a list of the cross-party groups that have already been proposed. More detail on the criteria would help people who are considering proposing the establishment of a group.

As long as we bear in mind that the committee remains the arbiter in this matter.

I have been passed information that relates to Des's point about access to SPICe. Providing papers and so on may incur costs. We should monitor those costs to determine whether they are reasonable. We will recommend that to the corporate body.