“Review of Cross-Party Groups”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05402, in the name of Dave Thompson, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on the “Review of Cross-Party Groups”. [Interruption.] Could I have order in the chamber please, Mr Johnstone?
Mr Thompson, you have a maximum of six minutes.
16:40
I am pleased to open this debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s review of cross-party groups. As CPGs are formed within the context of the changing people, preferences and politics that shape each session of the Parliament, they keep changing. Therefore, with the benefit of three sessions of experience behind us, the committee has set out changes to the CPG system that will take account of that context while maintaining effective CPGs.
Throughout the committee’s consideration, the value of CPGs to MSPs and to organisations and individuals outwith the Parliament was made abundantly clear to us. The changes recommended for the regulation of CPGs are intended to enhance that value.
However, before I describe those changes I wish to place on record the committee’s thanks to those who took the time to provide written submissions and give oral evidence. I also thank the clerks, who looked after us very well during the inquiry. The perspectives and experiences of the witnesses were of great use in informing the committee’s recommendations.
One of the first things that the committee turned its mind to was the definition of the purpose of CPGs. In the revised code, the purpose has been set out simply as follows:
“Cross-Party Groups provide an opportunity for MSPs from across the parties to engage with external stakeholders, primarily to enable the sharing of experiences and information on a particular subject and to raise awareness of issues relevant to MSPs’ parliamentary duties.”
It goes on to elaborate on that so that the purpose is clear.
Other changes recommend that details of the planned frequency of meetings and proposed key topics of discussion in the forthcoming year are provided at the point of registration. Annual returns will now ask CPGs to provide details to reflect the breadth of their work in terms of the topics discussed at each meeting and any reports that may be published by the group.
In addition to knowing what CPGs do, a clear understanding of who supports the work of a CPG is vital in ensuring that CPGs operate in an open and transparent manner. The revised code requires a CPG that receives secretariat support worth more than £500 from an external organisation to register that support, as it is a material benefit.
It should be noted, however, that most of the financial benefits received by CPGs do not amount to vast sums of money—unlike the all-party groups at Westminster. Most registered amounts are less than £1,000, although the largest amount registered this session was £10,000 from Novartis for the CPG on visual impairment. At face value, that is a significant sum. However, on examination it transpired that the bulk of the money was to be used to support the provision of information in alternative formats to suit the needs of visually impaired CPG members. I am sure that members would agree that that is entirely reasonable.
The revised code will introduce a new requirement that external organisations providing secretariat support must agree to provide, if requested by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, information about clients or donors.
In that respect, it is worth while emphasising that we envisage requests being made only where concerns have been raised about a particular CPG—for example, if a complaint was made to the committee or if the group was failing to provide details of financial assistance.
The committee looked at the period in which CPGs can reregister following an election and decided that it will remain at 90 days. However, that period will no longer include any recess of more than four days, which will end the need to cram meetings in before the summer recess. Reregistration criteria are explicitly stated in the new code and we are seeking to bring consistency into the information that is available about CPG meetings by introducing a single advance notification period of 10 calendar days for all meetings.
There will also be a requirement for CPGs to provide minutes for publication on the Parliament website and—in another change to current practice—groups will now be able to publish draft minutes. That means that anyone who is interested in the work of a group will be able to learn about that work with the minimum of delay.
So far, I have set out the main changes that the committee has proposed, which require more from CPGs. However, the committee report is not all stick and no carrot. We also hope to reduce bureaucracy in a number of areas, for example, by enabling the submission of documents electronically and by enabling MSPs to delegate permissions to staff members to submit information.
A more clearly defined role for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerks in providing guidance and advice to assist CPGs to comply with the code is also proposed, and the committee itself will take a more active role in considering twice-yearly updates on CPG activities. That will allow the committee to identify and acknowledge good practice and also to deal with any group that is failing to operate effectively.
Taken together, the committee believes that the changes in procedures and practice that have been outlined will enable the cross-party group system to continue to offer value to MSPs, to the Parliament and to organisations and individuals throughout Scotland, while ensuring appropriate monitoring of the system.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 9th Report, 2012 (Session 4), Review of Cross-Party Groups (SP Paper 227), and agrees that the changes to the Code of Conduct set out in Annexe A of the report be made with effect from 24 January 2013.
I call Graeme Pearson, with up to four minutes.
16:46
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I hope that I will not need four minutes.
First, I thank Dave Thompson and his committee for their valuable work reviewing the cross-party group arrangements for the Parliament. As someone who was recently elected to the Parliament, the work and the commitment of cross-party groups are new to me. As convener of the CPG on China, I have come to learn the value of CPGs to the Parliament, to the general public and to those with very specific interests—in my case, interest in China in the round.
The report is right to indicate that we need to take care that CPGs do not become another means for lobbyists to influence the work of the Parliament and to try to gain unfair access to those who have the right to make decisions within this chamber and elsewhere. The report sets out a healthy approach to the relationships that should exist across the Parliamentary groups and their work within the cross-party arrangements.
The request for annual returns from all CPGs is common sense. If the CPGs are to work effectively, one would expect that there would be an annual report from them, setting out what has been achieved and what the vision is for their future work.
The ability for the Parliament to request specific information about the support that groups receive from the private sector is an important power to offer and the introduction of draft minutes opens up that whole environment to further comments.
Mr Pearson, could I stop you for a moment? Will members who are having conversations please do so outwith the chamber? Thank you. Mr Pearson, please continue.
The one observation that I offer from experience is that the complete absence of an ability to fund some measure of small hospitality can be, to some extent, debilitating. Not having the opportunity to give people who come to the Parliament of their own accord in the evenings a cup of tea or coffee and perhaps a biscuit—or some form of refreshment short of luxurious—is debilitating and makes us look, on occasion, a bit cheap-minded. It is a question of courtesy—if we are hosts in this building, we should be able to offer at least some level of hospitality.
I understand the economics of such things and I also understand that, on occasion, that opportunity could be abused. I would like to think, however, that with the proper supervision we could at least begin to offer a measure of hospitality to those who come to the Parliament and, at the same time, conduct our business.
On the whole, as I indicated earlier, the work that Dave Thompson and his committee have done is entirely valuable to the Parliament and keeps us on the right side of integrity as we conduct our business in the chamber and in the environment of the cross-party groups.
16:50
I echo the words of the convener and Graeme Pearson.
The cross-party groups are an incredibly important part of the Parliament. They are part of the way that we engage with wider Scotland, transfer knowledge into and out of the Parliament and share knowledge with interest groups to inform MSPs in their parliamentary duties. As such, they are incredibly well respected throughout Scotland and they work very well.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee undertook a review of cross-party groups not because there was a problem with them, but because of the high standard of their work and the high respect in which they are held. We decided to review the code of conduct so that we could maintain that level of integrity.
The convener has already alluded to some of the revisions to the code of conduct that the committee proposes. One of the important ones about which he talked is section 6.1.1 of the revised code, in which we set out the general purpose of cross-party groups. Some people would ask why that is necessary after all these years—we are in our fourth session of the Parliament—but it is necessary to write down what a cross-party group is for.
Also, at section 6.1.2, we state what cross-party groups are not: they are not official committees of the Parliament. It is important that we lay that down so that people who come to the Parliament and engage with it through the cross-party group mechanism understand the informality of the process.
In section 6.3.2, we talk about the need to outline the issues that the cross-party groups plan to consider over the next year. That is all about engagement with wider civic society and the rest of Scotland. We hope that, if the website says what the cross-party groups hope to consider over the next year, we will garner more information and knowledge through the cross-party groups and that there will be more participation in them.
In the same vein, section 6.4.9 says that the minutes and agendas will all be on the Parliament’s website. It seems amazing that we have not done that before now. That is about engagement and transparency.
Section 6.4.5 says that two MSPs must be at a cross-party group meeting to make it quorate. That is an important point. Cross-party groups are cross party. Therefore, cross-party representation must be present for them to be quorate and make decisions on various issues.
I hope that the well-respected cross-party groups will continue to inform and engage outwith and in the Parliament for a long time.
16:53
I am happy to close the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
As members will be aware, the vast majority of MSPs who are eligible to be members of cross-party groups are members of cross-party groups. In fact, I think that there may be only one eligible MSP who is not a cross-party group member. I will resist any temptation to name names.
Name them!
No names, no pack-drill. If I have learned anything in my life, I have learned to avoid pack-drill.
To me, the fact that the vast majority of MSPs are members of CPGs clearly indicates the interest that will exist across the chamber in the future shape of the cross-party group system.
The committee considers that the changes to the system that it has recommended will be of benefit and believes that they merit the support of members.
In undertaking the review, the committee sought to balance the need for some regulation and bureaucracy with the importance of not creating a system that involves needless burdens.
In making my views known, I agree absolutely with Graeme Pearson’s point about hospitality. I took on board his point that there should be an appropriate measure of hospitality; that is not a question of being lavish. On a cold night such as tonight, when we will host events as cross-party group conveners, it would be good to offer a cup of hot tea or coffee or a glass of orange juice.
Fiona McLeod was right to say that cross-party groups are not official committees of the Parliament. Cross-party groups are intended to inform MSPs and provide the opportunity to connect with civic Scotland. It is important to keep that in mind when we have cross-party group meetings. The issue is how we can be best informed in producing motions and other items in the Parliament.
Agreeing to the changes that are set out in the report will be the first step in delivering an effective system. However, as is always the case, the system will need to adapt to new experiences. As the report says, the committee is clear about the importance of developing and sharing best practice and advice. We will explore that with cross-party groups in the remainder of the parliamentary session.
There has been recent interest in cross-party groups, as anyone who read Scotland on Sunday a few weekends ago will know. In evidence to the committee, Chris Carman outlined the position of bodies that are similar to cross-party groups in other legislatures, including the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Parliament. In that evidence, Dr Carman—now a professor—identified what he saw as the benefit of the
“Parliament’s traditional openness and the amount of information that is available”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 8 May 2012; c 390.]
about cross-party groups. The system that will be put in place through the revised code will allow the Parliament to continue that tradition.
I thank the committee’s convener and the clerks for their diligence and I thank colleagues on the committee for all the hard work that has gone into producing the report.
Before we move to the next item of business, I remind members that they should not conduct conversations in the chamber during debates or use mobile devices, unless they are using those devices to participate in a debate.