Official Report 532KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is on cross-party groups. We are asked to consider a change of purpose for the proposed cross-party group on independent convenience stores.
Paragraph 40 of section 6 of the code of conduct requires that any proposal to change the purpose of a group must be drawn to the attention of the committee, and the committee can then decide whether the group should be accorded recognition. Paragraph 6 of the clerk’s paper sets out the purpose of the group in session 5, and paragraph 7 sets out the proposed new purpose. There has been a change, and I am very grateful to Gordon MacDonald, who is the convener of the group, for providing an explanation for the change, which is set out on page 8 of the paper.
Before I invite comments, I want to float a challenge that I see developing. In setting out its purpose, the cross-party group stated various facts, and those facts have now changed. As a result of that, the convener has—rightly—written to us to say that things have changed and, therefore, the group’s purpose needs to come back before the committee. I think that it would be beneficial to discuss whether, going forward, we should provide more guidance on that aspect of setting up a cross-party group, to prevent a factual change—be it in the number of people who visit an area, the produce that is landed somewhere or even a style or fashion—requiring the matter to come back before the committee, for discussion of the reasons why the MSPs have formed the group, and whether the purpose of a CPG should be set at a higher level.
I invite comments on the application that sits before us on the change of purpose.
Convener, I seek your guidance, and we can probably get guidance from the clerk as well. I attended the first meeting of the CPG on independent convenience stores, but not as an office bearer. I arrived at the meeting late and was not party to the discussions. However, we should probably take a view on whether I should take part in this discussion—I want to check that.
The second point that I want to make, before we get on to the discussion, is about our own role in CPGs. We will all be involved in various CPGs—maybe as members, maybe as conveners—and I think that, for the clarity, openness and transparency of this committee going forward, it would be good to discuss our own positions as either conveners or members of CPGs and to have guidance on that.
Absolutely. I have spoken to the clerk about my role as the convener, and I have indicated to a number of CPGs that I will not take part in them simply because of that role. That is not a requirement; it is just something that I feel would be beneficial, so that CPGs understand that there is an even-handedness.
Attendance at, and membership of, a CPG by any member of this committee is perfectly fine. I think that it is good practice to point out—exactly as you have, Paul—when you have a specific interest in something that is before us, but that certainly does not preclude your involvement in the discussion.
Okay. Thank you.
Convener, you make a very important point about putting statistics, data or facts that change over time into the purpose of CPG. Gordon MacDonald was quite right to draw that issue to our attention and to seek permission to change the group’s purpose.
I note that the sector employs 47,000 people, has sales of £4 billion and contributes £40 million in gross value added to Scotland’s economy per annum. I am delighted to put that on the record for my colleague Gordon MacDonald, but I suppose that it is also a snapshot of time. What if a new report comes out and that data changes? If we have such data within the purpose of a CPG, should there be a reference to the nature of those figures? They could be from one year ago, two years ago or a report that was published last week—I have no idea. So, as soon as we approve the purpose—and I think that we should do so—they may be out of date.
My second point is about the procedure. If such things are put into the purpose of a CPG and the statistical data changes but the group wishes to keep that information within the purpose of the CPG—in this case, I think it is to draw the importance of the sector to the attention of Parliament quite clearly up front, and I get why they wish to do that—we could simply note the change and it could be a procedural matter rather than needing to be a formal agenda item. However, I am not sure of the process around that.
I hope that those two points are helpful.
That is very helpful. The only thought that I have about pushing that forward is that monitoring such things and providing guidance on them would be a very heavy draw on the committee’s resources.
I echo your thanks to Gordon MacDonald on this, but is there not a process by which we could have the purpose of a CPG plus the ability, which a lot of CPGs require, for it to call out from the highest mountain the benefits of that group?
10:45
Specifically on this group, it is only right and proper that there is the change. I concur with and accept that. However, you make a very valid point, convener, about the resource and timescale that we have. There are a large number of CPGs, and they are quite diverse in their roles and responsibilities and the curriculum of activity that they may get involved in, depending on the topic.
It would be best practice if we had some structure that meant there would not be a tsunami effect on the committee clerks in having to manage it. Perhaps we can tailor a structure in which some formulation is put in place that helps the CPGs but that also helps the committee and its officials to manage the process. I am aware that they put a lot of effort into all of this, and we cannot have them being engulfed. We have hundreds of CPGs. If they all did this, we would spend our complete working lives dealing with it, and that cannot be the case.
Absolutely. That was very succinctly put.
Is there any desire among committee members not to allow the CPG to reregister? I see no suggestion of that, so I formally ask whether members agree that the CPG on independent convenience stores should still be accorded recognition with its new purpose.
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. My apologies—Edward Mountain wants to speak.
I definitely agree—I am not going to disagree—but I just want to make the general point that CPGs are a way to get people to involve themselves in the Scottish Parliament and what it does, so it is very difficult for us to ever say no to them. However, I am with Alexander Stewart on the need for a formulaic process that would allow them to continue, because it would be only in very exceptional circumstances that we would stop people engaging with the Parliament, which I think is our priority and the priority of all parliamentarians.
Thank you. We now move to the next agenda item, which the committee has agreed to take in private.
10:47 Meeting continued in private until 11:08.