Seòmar agus comataidhean

I go back to my original question about the Scottish Government introducing a national standard to try to placate people about some working practices. As you have identified, this is taking place not just within your council area but across a number of graveyards in various locations at different times.

The witnesses have made some very valid points about where we are and how we have ended up in this situation. It is primarily health and safety considerations that have created this situation.

There are guidelines and standards, but what are your views on the Scottish Government introducing a national standard to ensure that processes are followed and that there is communication with families who have memorials? As you have explained, standards have been in place for one type of headstone, but they are now being used for something very different. If a national standard was introduced, would that be of benefit in resolving some of these situations?

That is the issue. There are historical headstones that have stayed where they are for generations; there has been very little movement in any way, shape or form. However, there are more modern ones that are much more at risk of being targeted and knocked down. That becomes a problem.

Those are sensible suggestions, convener.

At stage 3, we have groupings of amendments, so it might be advantageous to announce something at the beginning or end of each group to the effect that proxy voting will take place. That would cover all the votes in the group, which might alleviate the timescale issue. Such a suggestion could be thought about.

I understand where we are with all this, convener. It is an important issue. At the outset, we said that we needed to be sensitive to members and to understand how the scheme would work in practice, and it is now working in practice. That is giving us an insight into the complexities that require to be managed when someone is in circumstances in which they need to use the scheme.

Like Bob, I think that we should be realistic about what we are trying to achieve. We are not trying to put up barriers or to set areas where we think that the scheme should not be used. At the same time, we need to be sensitive to what is required not just for the Parliament but for the member.

As Bob said, the scheme should provide the opportunity to not have to rush back to do things and continually think, “Is this going to happen?” Having someone who you know and trust to give you that support takes some of the pressure off. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to alleviate the pressure on the member so that not only can their work be done, but they can have the confidence of knowing that they are supported with regard to voting and the practical side of things, and that that is being done on their behalf. That is what I wanted out of this whole process, and that has been achieved.

Graeme Dey makes some valid points about the structure and type of motions, but I also acknowledge that motions are a great opportunity to highlight worthwhile causes. We just have to look at the amount of information that is transmitted to see that motions can be a way to recognise an individual and an organisation within a region or a constituency as well as nationally.

However, I acknowledge that there seems to have been an erosion of some of that and that it would be a better conclusion for everybody if there was a standard that members would be expected to always reach when lodging motions, and a level that goes below the bar, if a bar has to be produced to suggest what we would expect. That would be a useful guide for staff and MSPs. In reality, nine times out of 10, a staff member might be putting together the motion on behalf on the member, and that needs to be considered. A bit of training might be required when it comes to what researchers, communications officers and managers within the Parliament are trying to do.

All of that needs to be looked at, and, if we can capture that, it will be easier for everybody to manage the process.

Thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Beattie, for a good synopsis and an introduction to where you are in the process. You have identified the gap in the market where the Parliament can be actively involved.

What are your initial plans? You have a huge amount of information and many organisations involved, so how do you plan to streamline that to capture what is required of such a progressive industry? You have already identified a massive market and opportunity, but you need to streamline that so that the CPG benefits from that early in its existence.

As Edward has indicated, time is precious for MSPs, but we have spoken about the need for cross-party groups on a number of occasions in the past and there are some very worthwhile groups. CPGs provide a great opportunity to ensure that the Parliament recognises and supports many organisations and individuals. However, there are issues when it comes to workforce, timing, the focus of the groups and parliamentary business, all of which have an impact on cross-party groups. I am a co-convener of three cross-party groups, and I know how much time that takes. I need to ensure that I manage my work-life balance in order to do that work.

I am concerned about the number of yellow and red warning lights that appear in the annual monitoring report, because that is a red light to us that there is a problem. The problem might well be related to timing, work focus and parliamentary business. The presence of warning lights might be an indication that the cross-party group has run its course and needs to be re-thought, if it is to continue. It is important for us to analyse some of the groups in question and to consider their focus and procedures, if they have got to that stage.

There is also the discussion about how many cross-party groups’ remits overlap, which can dilute their work. Maybe we do not need three groups that cover one area each but one group that deals with that whole area. The report is a useful document, but there is a lot more work to be done to ensure that we get the best out of the CPG system. As I said, I am a great supporter of cross-party groups, as many members are, but they need to be relevant and progressive and must fulfil the standard that we set in the committee and the Parliament. If they are not doing that, they need to be looked at.

I am content to close the petition, because we know what the answer will be and extending our investigation would only prolong the situation. Where we are with the matter is clear cut.

As you identify, this is an interesting petition. We should seek more information from stakeholders on where they are on the issue. It would be useful to write to CELCIS, Shared Parenting Scotland, The Promise Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and the Scottish Child Law Centre to seek their views on the issues that are raised. As the convener rightly identifies, the current situation seems to require a complex on-going process.