Official Report 126KB pdf
Paper 2 seeks the committee's agreement to establish two new cross-party groups, and to re-establish three cross-party groups that operated during session 2 of the Parliament.
Thank you, convener—mine was a short appearance, but very welcome.
The next proposed cross-party group for consideration is on coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. I welcome Margo MacDonald to our meeting today as vice-convener of the proposed group. Do members have any questions for Margo on the purpose or any other aspect of the proposed cross-party group?
I notice that an organisation called the Newton Consultancy that is represented by Yvonne Murray is involved. Can you tell me anything about that organisation?
Briefly, no. I am sorry for that, but I will ensure that Hugh O'Donnell gets information on the Newton Consultancy. I do not know about it, so there would be no sense in saying that I do. I have worked with Yvonne Murray and I am absolutely convinced of her bona fides in this field. I would be very surprised if there was any conflict of interest related to her involvement with that consultancy—I would find that hard to believe. I can find out if you want me to. I do not know what you want to do, convener.
The clerk is advising me that—although Hugh O'Donnell is right about the entry—the person is listed as an individual member of the cross-party group and not as a representative of that organisation. Is that correct?
If it is clear that that is the case, then I am content. I just wanted clarification. Perhaps at some point I will ask Yvonne Murray what the connection is.
If there are no other questions for Margo, are we agreed that the cross-party group on coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis be established?
Thank you Margo—we will get the information to Hugh O'Donnell subsequent to this meeting.
I have no interests to declare relating to this committee. They are already on the register.
We have still to consider applications for cross-party groups that were established in the previous session of Parliament. Is the committee happy to agree that those cross-party groups can be re-established?
I might have misinterpreted this, but section 6 of the registration form for the proposed international development cross-party group indicates that subscriptions to the group should be £5. I might have missed something, but I seem to recollect that we should be told somewhere what the subscription is to be used for—I do not see that in the form.
That is a good point. The clerks have advised me that we can write to the group and ask it to clarify what the subscriptions will be used for. We have done that with other cross-party groups: if you are happy with it, we can do the same with this group.
If doing so satisfies the requirement, then that will be fine. Given our discussions on cross-party groups, I just want to ensure that everything is tight and in accordance with the rules.
Just to avoid further delay, if we write to the group for clarification on that point and if the clerks are happy with that, is the committee happy for me to write to confirm that it is okay for the groups to go ahead?
I thank you, convener, and I invite everyone to come our group's next meeting, at which we will have the Scottish rugby team.
I suspect that there will be a queue at the door, Margo.
There was the last time.
Thank you, Margo.
I do not have any objections. However, what does a cross-party group have to do to register? Most of the groups that we have discussed can say who their convener and members will be—how can that be agreed if the rules say that the groups cannot meet before they have had this committee's approval? Can you remind me what arrangements are in place?
The groups are entitled to a first meeting before sending in their registration form. Perhaps that meeting helps them to agree their purpose and membership.
Okay. However, you do not think that that covers what Roseanna Cunningham's letter requests.
Yes—because the letter indicates that the group will meet unofficially. To be honest, I am not sure whether that is different from a normal meeting. The letter states:
I am a member of the group, so I have an interest. It strikes me that if a group meets informally as a group of members and other interested people, that is none of our business, to be frank. Perhaps we should just tell them that what they do in their private lives is not our concern, even if it is done in Parliament.
I second that.
So, we are saying that we have no role if the group chooses to meet unofficially. The clerk has pointed out that, in that case, the meeting should not be described as a meeting of the cross-party group on rural policy.
The danger is that that would create a precedent that is contrary to the current rules.
We can make that clear in the letter that we send to Roseanna Cunningham.
Just for clarification, is the group short of a party member or something? Is that the reason for the hold-up?
No. The group did not submit its application in time in the first place, but no reason was given for its lateness. Obviously, the group is up and running now, because it has had its first meeting.
The last thing I would want to do is hold back a rural policy group. That would be a negative thing to do.
As Alasdair Morgan says, we do not really have a role in the matter if the group chooses to meet informally. We will write to those concerned, saying that to them. The decision whether to approve the group will be made by the committee on 20 November.
Previous
Interests