Standards and Public Appointments Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Official Report 124KB pdf

---

Cross-party Groups

Item 2 is consideration of an application for the proposed cross-party group on Scottish writing and publishing. Members have copies of the application, and I am pleased to say that Chris Ballance is here to talk to us about it.

I begin by abusing my position as convener and drawing to the committee's attention the fact that we now have 56 cross-party groups. In the previous session, when the number of groups reached 38, the Standards Committee expressed concern about whether it was possible to maintain the parliamentary character of cross-party groups and whether we ought to be encouraging, if not directing, cross-party groups to have broader remits, to enable the bulk of applications for new groups to be accommodated within existing groups. In 2001, the Standards Committee turned down an application for a group on pluralism in education, and I am happy to make available to the committee the background papers on that.

The committee must consider the matter. Currently, we do nothing other than to decide whether groups qualify, and that might well be what we do with the applications that are before us. Having vented my feelings, I think that it is only right and proper to consider each application on its merits, rather than in a biased way. However, we should return to the issue and consider whether we need to seek authority to refuse applications on the basis that existing groups could cover matters.

As I knew that I was likely to make those comments, I spoke to Chris Ballance and invited him to talk to the cross-party group on culture and the media, which seemed to be the closest fit with his proposed group. Now, having made my comments and having been grossly unfair to Mr Ballance, I give him the opportunity to make his pitch. I acknowledge that his proposed group meets the criteria set down by Parliament, as interpreted by the committee.

I will be brief, in case members would prefer to ask questions. I have met Cathy Peattie of the cross-party group on culture and the media. Like me, she feels that a separate group is appropriate, partly because of how excluded Scottish writers have felt from the cultural strategy—the proposed group would redress the balance—and because the cross-party group on culture and the media should retain its overall remit of addressing culture issues. As the Cultural Commission is to report fairly soon, the group has quite a lot on its hands. In addition, on the media front, the group has been very involved in recent discussions about the BBC.

The proposed cross-party group has received much interest from MSPs and the public. I sent one solitary round-robin e-mail, as a result of which 14 members expressed a desire to join the group. The details are in the application form.

The initial meeting that we had to agree a purpose and to consider group officers was attended by, among other people, the chief librarian of the National Library of Scotland, the chief executives of the Scottish Book Trust and the Playwrights Studio Scotland, representatives of the Scottish Language Dictionaries and the Association for Scottish Literary Studies and the Scottish Arts Council's literary officer. We had support from other chief executives, such as Donald Smith of the Scottish Storytelling Centre and Robyn Marsack of the Scottish Poetry Library.

The cross-party group has attracted big interest. Many people feel that the work that the group could do is not being addressed by existing cross-party groups. Furthermore, although some cross-party groups might not be as parliamentary in character as we would want them to be, I have every confidence that the proposed group would be well attended by members of the Scottish Parliament.

I am happy to answer members' questions.

I am one of the people who signed up to the proposed group, which puts me in a weaker position. A slightly similar group might be that on the Scots language. Will you talk me through why that is separate?

Scottish writing and publishing by no means relate just to the Scottish language. The biggest Scottish writers, such as J K Rowling, are distinctly not writing in Scots. The biggest Scottish publishers, such as Canongate Books, see themselves as international publishers and not as Scots language publishers. Scottish writing is a different beast from Scottish language and interest in it.

I do not have a question but I want to comment on something that Chris Ballance said. It is certainly true that Scottish writers and publishers felt that the interim Cultural Commission report did nothing to address the issues in which they had a particular interest. I know from speaking to many of the people involved that they still feel that there is no particular remit for them in the Parliament and that they would like to redress the balance through a cross-party group, which I would certainly support.

That goes to the nub of the issue. My understanding is that cross-party groups are there to inform and edify members of the Parliament and are not primarily to satisfy external interest groups. Edifying MSPs should be their primary function, rather than providing a parliamentary platform for interest groups.

Yes, but special interest groups also inform MSPs who attend their meetings. If MSPs then want to do something with that information that is perfectly valid.

Would we, as a general principle, want to have control of the number of groups?

The committee has an obligation to revisit that issue. I have thought for some time that we perhaps have too many cross-party groups. I am slightly concerned that members sometimes sign up to cross-party groups but never attend their meetings. That means that that they are not cross-party groups but groups that operate in the Parliament, bear the Parliament's name and, quite often, have only one MSP and lots of representatives of interest groups in attendance. That goes against the principles on which cross-party groups were established. We have an obligation to revisit the matter to ensure that the groups are functioning as they should and that the work that they do is truly of a cross-party nature.

Any cross-party group that meets with only one member present is not operating as a cross-party group; a minimum of two members have to be present for the meeting to be valid.

Karen Whitefield has a point, but the issue that she raises is a separate one. It would be valid for the committee to consider it, but we would have to work out ways of measuring whether the groups were properly cross party and operating as such. Perhaps we could consider that further down the line.

Further to Karen Whitefield's point, it is important to remember that cross-party groups have the function of informing MSPs. They can do that on a totally cross-party basis despite the fact that only two or three MSPs manage to attend their meetings. I speak from experience as convener of the cross-party group on ME. We have managed to keep the issue before the Parliament, despite the fact that we often do not have more than three MSPs present at meetings. This is taking us away from Chris Ballance's point, but it is important if we are to revisit the matter. I accept that there are concerns. Given that all cross-party groups meet on a Wednesday lunch time, Wednesday evening or Thursday lunch time, it is impossible to get members who have signed up to 56 groups—possibly 58 groups after today—to attend in numbers; that is just not going to happen.

The form says that the purpose of the group would be

"To celebrate, encourage and promote Scottish writing and publishing".

Although I welcome that and I totally take on board Chris Ballance's point that Scots writing must be kept separate from Scots language—I say that in the light of a constituent's experience—I would have liked to have seen in the proposal an intention to inform members of the Parliament of the problems associated with the subject of the cross-party group. However, as far as approving the group is concerned, it meets all the required criteria and we should not stand in its way.

Perhaps Mr Ballance might like to take that last point on board on behalf of the group. Indeed, in any future applications to form cross-party groups, I wonder whether the clerks would care to encourage those applying to include the same phrase or something similar as a reminder of the group's function.

It was important to discuss the principle, but having thrashed the issue around and probably having been unfair on this group and on Mr Ballance in particular, are members content to approve the group?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to say that formally to Mr Ballance. I thank him for coming along today.

Thank you. I have noted Mr Fergusson's comments. I suspect that the first annual general meeting will be the first opportunity to incorporate his comments officially, but I will take advice from the clerk about that.

The next item under this heading concerns the cross-party group on crossrail. I do not think that Bill Butler has to move from his seat to speak about the group.

I think that he should.

The rebukes that I gave to Mr Ballance apply equally to Bill Butler, to whom I also spoke about the principle of whether we require a separate group on Glasgow crossrail.

You informed me of your concerns. I did not take that as a rebuke because you were, as always, polite and I took on board your concern.

The proposed cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail, whose nomenclature was changed to "Glasgow crossrail" at the convener's suggestion, has a specific purpose. That purpose is to press for the creation of a crossrail scheme for Glasgow and to highlight the benefits that such a scheme would bring to Glasgow and the west of Scotland. I see it as a short to medium-term cross-party group that seeks to inform and edify members about the benefits that would accrue if such transport infrastructure were implemented.

Members will note that the conclusion of the helpful briefing provided by Strathclyde Passenger Transport says that the project would be cost effective, that the cost would be minimal compared with other rail projects, that the project could be in place by 2009, which is one year after the proposed and agreed Glasgow airport rail link, and that it would provide benefits not only for Glasgow but for the west of Scotland, in particular Ayrshire. It can also be argued that the project would provide benefits for the transport infrastructure of the whole of central Scotland and possibly up towards Aberdeen and would ensure a connection between Prestwick and Glasgow airports and other parts of Scotland.

To be fair, Mr Butler, that is the purpose behind the proposal. We are concerned about whether it meets the criteria of a cross-party group rather than about the overall aim.

Absolutely. I was simply providing a brief—but perhaps not too brief—background, which the committee knows already.

I looked at the list of cross-party groups and noted that one group, which existed to promote the idea of Borders rail, has been successful in the short to medium term, so I hope that my proposal will be equally successful.

The Executive has been helpful in providing moneys for a feasibility study. At this point, the group would provide a parliamentary focus and a forum in which members could consider the proposal and press for its implementation in discussions with the Executive. According to the briefing paper, the proposed group meets the criteria that are set down by the Standards and Public Appointments Committee regarding the representation that is required. It also seems to meet all the other criteria that we, quite rightly, set.

You are correct to say that the group meets the criteria. I am just jealous that I never thought of establishing such a group for the Aberdeen crossrail project. Are there any other questions that members would like to ask?

I have a general question. Perhaps Bill Butler explained this—I might have missed a wee bit of what he said. Why could not the issue be considered by the cross-party group on sustainable transport?

There is a specific infrastructure aim for this particular project. It will be a short to medium-term cross-party group, in line with the cross-party group on Borders rail. The cross-party group on sustainable transport talks more about the overall strategy; this is a very project-specific cross-party group, although I would argue that its benefits would accrue to west central Scotland and, possibly, all of Scotland.

I think that the group qualifies. In fact, I will sign up for it myself if it is successful.

I agree that we should have a general discussion about cross-party groups, although I do not want to take sides in the argument. This group is specific and is lobbying for a visible bit of progress; the previous group just wanted to encourage a certain type of activity. Cross-party groups fall into both categories. Perhaps we should revisit what the purpose of cross-party groups is, but at the moment, the proposed group clearly qualifies and we should allow it to go ahead.

Although, as I have said, I have reservations about the number of cross-party groups, as the convener of the cross-party group on sustainable transport I do not think that it would be appropriate for this group to try to come on board with that group. We meet only four to five times a year and crossrail would be only one of many subjects that we would hope to consider, collect information on and advise MSPs on the benefits of. As Mr Butler has pointed out, the purpose of the proposed group is very different, with specific needs and objectives. For that reason, it deserves to be approved. It also meets all the appropriate criteria.

Karen Whitefield says that the intention of the cross-party group on sustainable transport is to bring under its wing some of the issues that the proposed group would discuss in more detail. That is quite a strong argument for not allowing the proposed cross-party group. If we had been discussing the matter six years ago, I could have argued strongly that the proposed group is more a lobby group than a cross-party group; however, the fact that we have the cross-party group on Borders rail—which has been extremely successful in raising issues of relevance to it—ties our hands entirely and means that we must accept that the proposed group would be a genuine cross-party group. If fulfils all the criteria so, despite the fact that we all agree that we need to discuss the purpose and relevance of cross-party groups in general, I would not want to stand in the way of this one.

There being only 129 MSPs, it is almost inevitable that members of the committee will be involved, as back benchers, in cross-party groups. Inevitably, we will have our own groups that we support. Currently, there is no reason why the committee should turn down the application, but we should hold a wider debate about what we should be doing in terms of guiding, approving or otherwise dealing with cross-party groups in future.

I remind members that last year we had the report that we commissioned from the Robert Gordon University on cross-party group arrangements in the Parliament. Of course, at that point, we were not at 56 or—as might be the case in a moment or two—58 groups. We will put the item into our work programme and get to it in due course. Are members of a mind to approve the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we will write formally to the proposed convener.

I am grateful to the committee.