Official Report 681KB pdf
Our second agenda item is consideration of an annual update on cross-party groups’ compliance with the requirements of section 6 of the code of conduct. Members have a note from the clerks that sets out the extent to which each group has operated in compliance with the code. I invite comments from members on the annual report and the state of some of our CPGs.
The report is hugely disappointing, given the number of cross-party groups that are not complying with some basic requirements. A cross-party group should not be able to continue to exist without having an annual general meeting. There are some fantastic cross-party groups, but the cross-party group model is clearly not the right model for some issues, so the Parliament and the MSPs involved need to find a different way of progressing those particular issues outwith the cross-party group. If a cross-party group does not have an AGM, it does not have a convener or a secretary. The report is really disappointing. However, there are other options for such issues to be progressed in the Parliament.
I associate myself with Joe FitzPatrick’s comments. As members, we all know that there are a lot of CPGs and that we have competing priorities, but it is disappointing that so many of them are not complying with so many things. Some are not compliant in relation to cross-party membership, and some have not had a meeting since 2023. The committee now has the opportunity to take a harsh and critical look at how sustainable many CPGs are. I am deeply disappointed, but the report does not come as a surprise.
I entirely agree with my colleagues. We are talking about the basic requirements that cross-party groups are expected to meet. It is not an onerous task. If they cannot meet those requirements, we have to look seriously at their viability. It is a shame, because they exist for very good reasons, but I am afraid that, if they cannot comply with the rules, we have to take a different view.
I do not disagree with any of the comments that committee members have made. I note that, on 10 January this year, we had 119 cross-party groups. CPGs form an important part of how people outside the Parliament can engage with their MSPs. Indeed, the groups often allow people to engage with the Government and to give their lived experience, expertise and views when decisions are made. However, the annual report is a really challenging and disappointing read, given the failures.
Does the committee agree to deal with the question of whether we continue to accord accreditation to those CPGs at a later date?
Members indicated agreement.
Our next item of business is evidence from the Scottish Information Commissioner. I suspend the meeting to allow for his attendance.
09:04 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Scottish Information Commissioner