Cross-party Groups
I welcome everyone to the 11th meeting in 2005 of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. I invite members and others to switch off their mobile phones. We have received apologies from Linda Fabiani and an indication from Bill Butler that he may not make the meeting. Although he is endeavouring to get here, the difficulties with train transport today mean that he may not be able to make it.
Under agenda item 1, we have a proposal for a cross-party group on rural policy. The application was submitted by Maureen Macmillan, as the convener of the proposed group. Unfortunately, she is unable to attend today, but we are lucky enough to have here two members of the proposed group: Mr Alex Fergusson and Ms Mary Scanlon. Does either member want to say something in support of the material that we have before us?
I am happy to make a brief contribution in my capacity as a vice-convener of the proposed group.
In the first session of the Parliament, we had a cross-party group on agriculture and horticulture. I make it clear that the proposed cross-party group on rural policy is not a replacement for that group. As section 2 of the registration form points out, the group seeks
"To act as a forum for discussion on rural policy".
We say that on the clear understanding that rural and urban policy are not always the same thing and that rural problems do not always need the same answer as their urban counterparts do.
We have held one informal meeting, in which we agreed to set up the group, but I can say that there is considerable scope for debate and discussion. As set out in our application, we also want to exchange information and expertise.
The secretariat for the group will be provided by the University of the Highlands and Islands, which plays an active part in the field. I welcome its offer. However, my desire to be involved in the group was driven by the fact that quite a lot of lowland Scotland comprises rural areas, one of which I represent. I do not want the Highlands and Islands to run away with everything, as often seems to be the case.
I think that we have conformed to all the requirements for a cross-party group. I hope that our application will be granted.
Do you want to add anything to that, Ms Scanlon?
No. My colleague put forward the case thoroughly and comprehensively.
Does any committee member want to comment on the application?
I welcome the application. I recognise that all the Standards and Public Appointments Committee has to do is to ensure that the application conforms to the rules that are laid down for cross-party groups. Nonetheless, in common with many other members who represent urban constituencies, I also represent a considerable number of people who work in the rural economy in the periphery of my constituency. The proposal for a cross-party group on rural policy is excellent.
Is the committee content to approve the application?
Members indicated agreement.
I note that that is cross-party group number 62. Our next step will be to write to it to grant it approval.
Agenda item 2 is consideration of an application for recognition of a cross-party group on fertility services. The application is a little different from other applications that have been made, as it is for recognition of a short-term cross-party group. The application was submitted by Mary Scanlon, whom I welcome to the meeting and invite to make further comments on it.
Setting up cross-party group number 63 is a dubious honour that I did not want to have. The difficulty is that many members, including me, sign up for cross-party groups and then find that they cannot give them the commitment in the long run that they want to give them. In the first parliamentary session, I asked oral questions and submitted written questions about fertility services. In this session, I secured a members' business debate on the issue in which the minister promised me that there would be a consultation, which is now taking place. I have taken a long-term interest in the matter and so have got to know many people who work in the field. It has been suggested that we should get together simply to find out whether we can reach a consensus view, and forming a cross-party short-life working group seemed to be the best idea.
We are optimistic that the Executive will listen to the concerns of patients and many others. The consultation will close on 8 December and we hope that the proposals and recommendations that come out of it will be totally satisfactory and that we will have done our job. I hope that the group will last until around June next year.
Members of the Scottish Parliament need to be involved with the issue. Men and women who have fertility problems are embarrassed by them and do not want to speak about them. I asked some of my colleagues whether they would support my members' business debate and whether they would speak in it. Nearly all the members who spoke in it were women. One of my colleagues said that they would rather discuss their bank balance than talk about fertility.
That was not me.
That was not Alex Fergusson.
MSPs need to be involved, as patient groups can be embarrassed. The consultation is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get things right and I hope that the committee will consider my proposal sympathetically.
Members do not have any questions for Mary Scanlon.
Yesterday, I attended an interesting conference on drugs. Apparently, one side effect of methadone treatment for opiate addiction is increased fertility. Quite a lot of drugs that are used for a certain purpose can stimulate other things. I am not suggesting for one minute that we should take methadone, but it might be useful if we could identify the part of it that has positive effects and get rid of some of its other effects. It has been discovered that an interesting side effect of some transplant drugs is the stimulation of hair growth. Drugs can have many beneficial effects and many inadvertent discoveries have been made about them—serendipity is the word. You might be able to come up with something interesting from that; you never know.
I wish your group well. The fact that you are setting it up as a short-life working group is to be commended. Perhaps others could follow that example.
Is the committee minded to approve the application?
Members indicated agreement.
In the light of your remarks, convener, do I have to declare any interest in relation to hair growth?
No, my point went back to my days of doing an MSc.
That is enough of that. As the committee is content, I will write to Mary Scanlon in due course.
If everything goes according to plan, I would like to come back to the committee in June to tell you that the group is no longer on-going. At the beginning of the second session of the Parliament, I did not enrol for the cross-party groups of which I was a member in the first term, but it was assumed that I was still a member. I find that, once you have joined a group, you seem to be there forever. Will you explain to me the process by which I can advise you that the group no longer exists so that it can be taken off all the parliamentary websites and so on?
Send me an e-mail. More important, send the clerks an e-mail—they maintain the list of cross-party groups and the membership lists. If any member no longer wishes to be a member of a cross-party group, they are duty bound to notify the secretary of that group and the clerks of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, so that we may maintain appropriate records.
Any cross-party group that reconstituted itself after an election would have had no right to automatically assume that you wished to continue to be a member; it would have needed your agreement to do that. Like the committees, the cross-party groups do not continue beyond the end of a parliamentary session.
I am grateful for that clarification.
It will now be in the Official Report for the benefit of any other member who chooses to look it up.