Official Report 631KB pdf
Agenda item 4 relates to a cross-party group’s application to approve a change of purpose. The cross-party group on deafness applied for a change to its purpose to include a reference to deafblindness. Members will recall that we considered the request at our meeting on 26 June and agreed to seek further information from the convener of the group, particularly in relation to any potential overlap with the work or the purpose of the cross-party group on visual impairment.
A response from the convener has been included in the papers and will be published. We have also received correspondence from the convener of the CPG on visual impairment that indicates that the group has no objection to the proposed change of purpose for the CPG on deafness and affirms that
“the two groups collaborate on issues of mutual interest.”
The question is whether we are going to agree to approve the change of purpose. Do committee members have any comments?
I do not object to what is proposed. However, looking at what has happened, I wonder whether it might be a good example for our committee to examine when we look at the operation of cross-party groups and their rules.
Indeed, and perhaps we could look at whether we need to rely on more than just decisions on whether there is overlap.
I recognise what Ruth Maguire said, but I am reading the letters from both conveners and I still think that the two groups should be one CPG. The letters mention how they work together and do everything collaboratively, so, to me, it should be one CPG. I am not sure how the rest of the committee feels. It is a good example, as Ruth Maguire has just pointed out, but duplication on the topic is happening everywhere.
I do not entirely disagree with what Sue Webber says, but, at this stage of the parliamentary session, it might be best to let things flow and use this as an example of how to proceed in the next parliamentary session.
I agree.
I thank the members for their contributions, and I think that you are right. If we allow it to flow, it can be an example in our inquiry. We can look in more detail at the details of where overlap is and who takes responsibility for pointing that out. It is interesting that the correspondence talks about the groups having so much in common.
Are we content to allow the change of purpose, which has been indicated to us, as required by the rules on cross-party groups, and that we will write to the CPGs and invite them to contribute to our inquiry in the new year?
Your remarks might be seen as a warning shot. It is partly due to where we are in the parliamentary session that the CPGs are being permitted to carry on as individual CPGs. Perhaps you could be a bit firmer in your communications.
That is eloquently put, and it is on the public record.
Are members therefore content to approve the request to change the purpose of the CPG on deafness?
Members indicated agreement.
I am grateful. I now move the meeting into private.
10:18 Meeting continued in private until 10:30.Previous
Subordinate Legislation