Official Report 447KB pdf
10:16
Agenda item 5 is consideration of a committee paper on party requirements for cross-party groups. Section 6.9 of the code of conduct for MSPs explains that a
“CPG must have at least 5 MSP members including at least one MSP from each of the parties or groups represented on the Parliamentary Bureau.”
Our paper speaks for itself, but it discusses the need to strike an appropriate balance between ensuring that, on the one hand, the “party representation requirement” is not too onerous and, on the other hand, is strong enough to ensure that all CPGs are genuinely cross-party.
My suggestion, which is based on our paper, is that we use the committee’s power to require new or re-registering CPGs to have members drawn from at least four groups represented on the bureau. The requirement to have at least five members overall would remain unchanged.
I seek your views on that proposal.
I will be careful about what I say, because cross-party groups are very useful. I have been in the Parliament for only two and a half years and I see great benefit in them. However, I also recognise that MSPs can engage with people inside and outside of this Parliament in a broad range of ways, and nothing prevents them from starting up groups that are less structured than a cross-party group.
It comes back to the fundamental point that cross-party groups should genuinely be cross-party. There is a benefit in being able to say that, in the eyes of the Parliament, we are all working as one when we consider the establishment of a CPG. Otherwise, there is a risk of ending up with a large number of groups that are not supported across all parties.
I would argue that it is best to leave the arrangements as they stand rather than make changes. The existing approach forces us to all come together, explain exactly why they we want to establish a CPG and work cross-party to get the necessary approval.
Okay. Thanks, Tim.
This parliamentary session is unprecedented in that six political parties are represented on the bureau. Some parties are larger than others, and, in this session, setting up cross-party groups will require securing at least one member from each party. That will be particularly challenging for the smaller parties, placing the onus on them to field members for multiple groups; otherwise, those groups cannot be established.
I am inclined to agree with you, convener, that requiring CPG membership to be drawn from four of the six parties is not unreasonable and would be welcomed by those who engage in cross-party groups.
Thank you. Mark, do you have any comments?
No, I have nothing to add.
I have oscillated on this issue. I have a lot of sympathy with what Mr Eagle said, in that there should be a high bar. I am new to this Parliament, but I have experience in other legislatures of seeing a mushrooming of what, in the case of Westminster, are called all-party parliamentary groups.
The process tends to be that, at the very beginning of a session of Parliament, when there are lots of new members and everyone is excited—perhaps before they have got into their committee work—a lot of cross-party groups start springing up. However, many later wither on the vine.
I was struck by the session 6 legacy report that our predecessor committee produced, which stated that around 20 groups were struck off during that session.
My starting point, therefore, is that there should be quite a high bar for establishing a cross-party group. We need only look at the list of around 120 CPGs in the previous session to see some pretty clear overlaps.
I realise that saying that may not make me popular, but sometimes it is better to be right than popular.
On balance, based on Mr Eagle’s argument, I am minded to suggest that we keep the current arrangements so that the bar remains high. I appreciate that there are challenges in the current session of Parliament; we are all aware that polarisation exists. There is therefore an onus on us, as MSPs, to work together, and, in time, that will bottom itself out.
My starting point is that we should have quite a high bar to ensure that people can get the numbers that they require for CPGs. I note that I am not convinced that the 120 cross-party groups that we currently have are all required.
Thank you for your comments. There are other ways of looking at how we ensure that we have the right number of CPGs—another suggestion is to limit the number of CPGs of which an MSP can be a member.
I feel very strongly that we need to ensure that we have a broad range of CPGs in the Parliament that cover difficult topics that perhaps not every party supports. Given the balance of the Parliament, and—as Jackie Baillie mentioned—the smaller size of some of the parties, enabling members to attend different CPGs could become even more onerous.
My view, therefore, is that the starting point should be representation from a majority of parties on the bureau. That is the right way to go.
I hear what you are saying; you have probably put it slightly more eloquently than me. However, under that approach, a massively broad range of cross-party groups could be set up. I get your point about what the cap would ultimately be, but nothing prohibits an MSP from having a group outside the cross-party group context.
We are talking about trying to ensure, as I think that you were saying when you mentioned a high bar, that, where we have a cross-party group in the parliamentary setting, it is set up—this is not a popular thing to say—not to cause conflict or disagreement between parties, but to genuinely foster cross-party support and work on the key issues that we absolutely need Parliament to focus on.
I recognise that there are some very difficult topics that it would be beneficial to discuss, but that can still be done—there are other options for doing that.
Why four out of the six parties? At present, all six parties are required to sign up. I think that four out of six is too few. I personally think that it should be all parties, because that constitutes a genuinely cross-party group. I could be persuaded by five out of six, if we were not to agree to six, but I think that four is too low, as that would allow for much more division than just accepting that setting up a group requires at least the vast majority to agree.
I hear exactly what you are saying. However, I think that, at this point, in a new session of Parliament with six different parties in the chamber with quite varying numbers, we must initially look at how we get the right CPGs set up. That is part of the responsibility.
My personal view, which I think reflects Jackie Baillie’s view, is that putting the limit at six, with a member from each party, may make the bar too high for certain areas in which we require CPGs.
I have worked with CPGs across parties, and Tim Eagle is right that there is a huge strength in that. However, by setting the bar so high, we may be losing CPGs that cannot achieve that breadth but could still be established to work with parliamentarians and challenge the Scottish Government.
I get that. However, if a group cannot command the support of five of six of the parties, I would find myself asking, “Why is that? What is it about that subject?” Take topics such as rural policy, brain tumours or crofting—we can naturally see why everyone would support a CPG that examined those areas.
If, however, we are talking about controversial topics such as Palestine or Israel, for example, we need to ask ourselves whether there is a benefit to having that cross-party group. If it cannot be genuinely cross-party in the Parliament and has only four of the six parties supporting it, what will that group achieve? Is it beneficial to the Parliament at that point?
I use those purely as examples, but I am not sure whether such groups are necessarily helpful in that context, or whether those are discussions that we should have outside Parliament, or ones that parties need to come together in order to consider what the remit of that cross-party group would be.
There should be a high bar for cross-party groups, because the whole point of them is to foster relationships between parties, not to divide them into different parts.
To bring a practical note to the discussion, cross-party groups have 120 days in which to set up, not including recess, so the clock is ticking. A number are already struggling, for two reasons. First, some members are saying that they want to wait to see what happens before volunteering to join cross-party groups, which reduces the pool. Secondly, we have placed a cap at 10, so, in reality, once members have committed to 10 cross-party groups, they cannot get involved in any others. They can, of course, attend them, but not as members.
We will also be interviewing all of the cross-party groups, if they are not simply repeats of previous ones, so we will have an opportunity to test how cross-party they are.
I would be very reluctant to require membership to be drawn from all six parties, because that would hand a veto to a particular party if it disagreed with a cross-party group’s topic. Much as I believe in consensus and working together, there are occasions when not everybody will agree, and that does not mean that the issue should not be highlighted. Therefore, I would absolutely reject the requirement being set at six. I am prepared to discuss my preference, but it cannot be six.
Ms Baillie might be leading me towards the compromise position that Mr Eagle outlined. I am not on the right of politics; I do not have any candle for it. However, if we end up in the proposed situation whereby at least five MSPs are required, including one from each of the four parties, we will, in essence, have the four parties to the left—broadly and relatively speaking—in this Parliament and. With respect to our colleagues from the Conservatives and Reform, they will not be represented.
In the interests of compromise—if, as a committee, we continue to take that approach, I would be very happy—my proposal is that the requirement should be one MSP from five parties. That way, we would ensure that at least one party from the right is part of a cross-party group and, whether from the Conservatives or Reform, that MSP would add a degree of plurality to the group’s voice. Otherwise, we will simply end up in a situation in which some CPGs will be set up with a combination of Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrat and Green MSPs, and those conversations will give us a centrist left voice. If we do not have members from the Conservatives or Reform in support, we will not get a plurality of voices.
The compromise position would be to require members from five parties, which would ensure that at least one party from the right is represented. I accept Ms Baillie’s point that six is simply too high a bar.
From experience, I would say that the most successful cross-party groups have been those that involved members from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the SNP—they worked together on a cross-party basis.
10:30
I am still very new here, so I am trying to understand exactly how all these things work. I completely agree with David Linden about having a high bar for cross-party groups. Tim Eagle touched on the point that they need to be truly cross-party groups—they are called cross-party groups, so having that level of representation is important.
I also took on board what Jackie Baillie said about a requirement for the six parties on the bureau to be represented effectively giving smaller parties a veto on cross-party groups. Having listened and taken all the points on board, I think that five would be a fair landing point.
Okay. I think that there is a consensus for five parties to be represented in the membership, but, as Jackie Baillie said, that will not stop members of the sixth party from attending.
We should be clear—when colleagues come before us to establish groups—that it is our hope that the groups will involve all six parties. We recognise the political reality in this place, but, when it comes to the message that is put out, I think that the expectation should be for all six parties to be involved. However, with regard to what is written down, I can live with five.
Good. I started my opening remarks by talking about collaboration, and that was a very helpful example of where we can openly discuss decisions that we have to take.
Do members agree that CPG membership should include at least one MSP from five of the parties represented on the bureau?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our formal business in public.
10:31
Meeting continued in private until 11:14.
Previous
Conduct in the Chamber