Standards Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 31, 2000

Official Report 129KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Item 3 on the agenda is the consideration of applications for recognition as cross-party groups. There are five applications before us. The first is for a cross-party group on agriculture and horticulture.

The application appears to meet all the requirements as set down. I am happy to support it.

I should declare that I am a member of the group.

Do we agree to approve the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

The second application is for a cross-party group on palliative care.

I declare an interest as a member of the group.

So do I.

Did I notice you also declaring an interest, Patricia?

Sorry, convener, I thought that I was a member of the group, but my name is not on the list, so I do not have to declare an interest at this time.

It appears that we can accept this as an appropriate cross-party group.

Is everyone content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The third application is for a cross-party group on crofting. Members will find that application in annexe C. Do members have any comments?

It seems perfectly in order, convener.

Do we agreed to accept the application?

Members indicated agreement.

The fourth application is for a cross-party group on men's violence against women and children. That is outlined in annexe D. The clerk has been advised that Adam Ingram's name has been missed from the original application and should be added.

I think that the application should be approved, but I make the point that violence against women and children is not perpetrated only by men. I hope that there will be objectivity in the proceedings.

I do not have any problem with accepting this group, but it seems to contain a significantly lower number of MSPs than it does of outside organisations. We may wish to bring that to the group's attention.

I attended the initial two meetings of the group, although I notice that my name is not on the list. The fact that Adam's name is not on the list either might indicate that more MSPs are involved. I think that Karen is correct to make her point, but I am not sure that the list of the MSPs who have declared an interest in being a member of the group is complete.

Do you wish me to write to Gil Paterson?

It would be useful to get a full list of the MSPs involved, given the number of outside organisations that are—appropriately—involved in the group.

I will get that list. Is everyone content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The fifth application is for a cross-party group on pluralism in education, which is outlined in annexe E. Members will recall that this proposal came before the committee at our meeting on 5 April. We agreed to defer decision in order to obtain clarification of the purpose of the group. Members should have a copy of the letter dated 12 May from Brian Monteith, who would be convener of the proposed group, in which he elaborates on the group's purpose. In the light of Brain Monteith's comments, are members now happy to approve the proposal for the group?

I do not seem to have a copy of Brian's letter.

It is attached to the private briefing, with the introduction for this agenda item.

I declare an interest as a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I am concerned about the fact that the group contains few members and about the narrow approach that, in my experience of the group to date, it has been taking with regard to Steiner Waldorf schools. I would be concerned if the group was a lobbying body for those schools. Although Brian says in his letter that that is not the group's purpose, that is what its focus has been. That is not, however, pluralism in education and it is not what we should be about. I would like to see something more from the group about what it intends to do. Its aim is very narrow at the moment. I believe that it was set up in response to an appeal from a certain group of schools, and I think that it would be useful to get more information on what the group is about.

I refer you to the fourth paragraph of Brian Monteith's reply. It says:

"However, the group's focus would also seek to cover other curricular approaches to education, including home education and schools special in particular subjects or fields. Therefore, the group will not exclusively deal with Steiner Waldorf schools, although this undoubtedly will form a significant part of our activities."

Under "Purpose of the Group" in annexe E, the Steiner Waldorf schools are specifically mentioned. That gives me considerable cause for concern. One section of a pluralist agenda is mentioned; other sections are not. To mention one school and not other forms of pluralist education among the aims of the group is a matter of concern.

The advice that I have just been given is that the letter accompanied the forms originally supplied by Brian Monteith. We will suggest that he rewrite the application on the basis suggested.

The forms are the documents that are on record for public viewing: as they stand, they give a clear impression that the group is set up with a specific interest in Steiner Waldorf schools.

I think that Brian Monteith and the group should be asked to reconsider their position entirely. His letter conflicts with the purpose as outlined in the original form. The form says:

"The main purpose of the group is to achieve pluralism within the state education system through including Steiner Waldorf within the maintained sectors."

That is not what Brian implies in his letter. There is a conflict in that, and I agree with Karen Gillon that we do not want a group whose purpose is to promote one kind of education system that it happens to believe in, for whatever reasons.

It is the wording following "education system" in the description of the purpose of the group that is causing a problem.

I have sympathy with the views that have been put forward. I am a supporter of Steiner schools, but I think that the title of the group—"Cross-Party Group on Pluralism in Education"—is misleading if the group is actually about Steiner schools. If it is about other aspects of pluralism, that should be reflected more accurately in its title or purpose. I think that Brian has to be asked to make a resubmission. As Patricia Ferguson says, an issue is likely to remain even in the event of resubmission. I do not think that the proposal could be allowed through without much greater clarity about the purpose.

I share the concerns that have been expressed. We raised this matter at a previous meeting and I am not yet convinced that the proposal satisfies the rules for cross-party groups, certainly not as the form has been submitted to us. Moreover, I am not comforted very much by Brian Monteith's letter. I suggest that the committee writes to Brian Monteith asking him to reconsider and greatly clarify the purpose of the group. I have concerns that the group continues to highlight one type of school, Steiner Waldorf, and I do not think that that is helpful or what we are aiming for with cross-party groups.

I agree with Des McNulty's point that the application should be consistent with the terms of the letter. It is appropriate that any reapplication should be strictly consistent.

Another potential problem should be brought to Brian Monteith's attention. On the application form in the annexe, the secretary's name and the treasurer's name are listed, but they do not appear on the list of members on the previous page. We have no indication of who these people are—they are not MSPs and their reason for being part of the group is not clear.

The name and the aim do not sit together. It is stated:

"The main purpose of the group is to achieve pluralism within the state education system through including Steiner Waldorf schools within the maintained sectors."

That is not how pluralism is achieved within education; it is the inclusion of another form of education, but it is not pluralism. We have to be very clear the group cannot have the name that it has while it has the purpose that it has. I know that one of the people named is a member of the board of a Steiner Waldorf school. As Patricia Ferguson said, that is not clear in the list of members.

For clarity's sake, we have to state that a lobbying group is a lobbying group, whereas a cross-party group is a cross-party group. We need to be clear which one this is and Brian Monteith needs to be a bit more clear about what he is saying and doing.

To conclude this agenda item, I will take on all the points that members have just made and I will write to Brian Monteith asking him to make a resubmission, bearing in mind members' comments.