Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 23 January 2013
23 Jan 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
“Review of Cross-Party Groups”
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
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 Commi...
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
SNP
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Graeme Pearson, with up to four minutes.16:46
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 c...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
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.
Graeme Pearson
Lab
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,...
Fiona McLeod (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
SNP
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 ...
Helen Eadie (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Lab
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 w...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
Name them!
Helen Eadie
Lab
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
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,...