Equal Opportunities Committee, 21 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Official Report 133KB pdf

---

Reporters Groups

Item 4 on the agenda is reporters groups. We have had a rather patchy response. Some people have not put their names forward for any groups. Members could volunteer for groups now, or we could leave it for another week—we cannot have groups that comprise only one person.

We have four main areas and we must ensure that those are covered. I think that we should allow another week for members to indicate in which groups they are interested so that we have reasonable representation on each group. I will speak to members individually. Some members have perhaps forgotten to submit their preferences.

Given the submissions so far, perhaps we should we say that people can be members of two groups. That might be difficult to timetable, but it is clear from the choices that have been made that the distribution is not very even. I do not know how members feel about cross-party representation on all groups, but we should discuss whether it is necessary.

Members may have a first preference and they might feel aggrieved if they cannot join that group. Equally, they may be quite keen to work on something else. I am floating that as a possibility, because, from the way things are turning out, there may be a slight problem of balance.

Obviously, not every party can be represented on the working groups. However, I would prefer it if each group did not consist of just one party. I see no reason why people should not be on two groups, as some of the groups will meet only in the short term to look at specific areas. The problem will be in organising meetings to avoid giving people two commitments at the same time. That may be complicated, but I see no reason why we should not do it.

Would members like to leave it to me to sort out the matter with people over the next week?

Members indicated agreement.

Can you clarify whether we were expected to put our names down for two sub-groups?

I do not think that we specified that.

I think that some people were confused about first and second preferences. Certainly, when I put my name down, it was for both groups.

Did we specify that?

No. I have prepared a chart of the responses so far, which I have given to the convener, but not every member of the committee has a copy.

Would it be a good idea to list the four groups in order of preference?

If people want to do that, that is fine. If I can have a week in which to speak to people, we may be able to get some sort of equal representation on each of the groups. All four areas are equally important, so I think that we should have reasonable representation on all of them.

What number are we aiming for in a group? Three?

Three is the minimum. Any bigger than four or five and we have half the committee; any smaller and there would not be enough people to get the work done. How many were on the race group?

Five.

Three would seem adequate.

Right. We will get that sorted out for next week.