Official Report 312KB pdf
Item 4 is on applications for cross-party groups. The committee will take evidence from Jean Urquhart on the proposed cross-party group on adult learning, and from Malcolm Chisholm on the proposed cross-party group on rare diseases. Welcome to the meeting; we are grateful to you for being with us today.
You have provided a comprehensive form with lots of information. I note that you talk about Scotland’s Learning Partnership providing £1,000 to support adult learners to attend meetings at Parliament—which I think is great—but you also say that it will provide the proposed group’s secretariat, so I wonder why you have not ascribed a material benefit under that heading.
That is a good question; I am not sure that I can answer it. I suppose that we should do that. I have only recently become aware of the financial implications of cross-party groups. I guess that the group would have to agree to that.
Could you get Scotland’s Learning Partnership to ascribe a value to the benefit that you would get from that provision?
I would be very happy to do that.
We have no further questions. You are being let off very lightly, Jean.
Good morning, Malcolm, and welcome to the meeting. Thank you for coming here to answer questions. I invite my colleagues to ask Malcolm questions about his proposed cross-party group.
I have a few questions for Mr Chisholm. We are very conscious that there are many health-related cross-party groups. The committee is asking prospective new groups to say why they need to be a stand-alone group rather than joining another group. It would be interesting to hear an explanation of that.
I am certainly very conscious of the fact that there are several health cross-party groups. I know that Helen Eadie is convener of one of them. I am convener of three others: the cross-party group on health inequalities, the cross-party group on cancer and the cross-party group on mental health. From my experience of those and other health cross-party groups over the years, I do not think that I can recall one meeting that has focused on rare diseases, which make up a group of conditions that are often forgotten about in health policy—drugs for their treatment are sometimes called orphan drugs—and I think that that is reflected in the agendas of cross-party groups.
Thank you.
We have certainly not decided that; it is simply that I know that many organisations were keen to be members. I am sure that the group will have individual members as well, although some of them will be associated with those organisations. Many people who suffer from the diseases in question will be members of, or associated with, those organisations.
I have one final question—it is the one that I asked Jean Urquhart. Can you put a financial slant on Rare Disease UK’s provision of the proposed group’s secretariat support?
In many cases, the secretariat that is provided for cross-party groups is provided by voluntary organisations that work in the field. Understandably, they regard it as being part of their work to engage with MSPs. I have asked that question and Natalie Frankish, who is the worker for Rare Disease UK in Scotland and who will, in effect, be the secretary of the group for Rare Disease UK, says that she thinks that it would be two days a month. I do not know whether she can translate that into a financial benefit, if that is what you want. That is what she told me when I asked the question.
As we said in relation to Jean Urquhart’s application, it would be useful for us—
How does that work? Do we just have to work out one fifteenth of her salary? I do not quite know what is expected. I find this quite a difficult issue.
I understand that that is what most organisations do. They work out that the work will take, for example, two days per month, and they say what they would pay the person for two days per month, which is the material benefit.
If that is what is required, that is what is required, although that will make what she earns rather public. However, if that is what has to happen, that is fine.
I imagine that not only that aspect would be looked at. Postage and other things that the organisation might provide would also be counted.
Yes—such things would obviously be considered as well.
Those things would include the cost of stationery and any other add-ons that would be necessary for organising a meeting. Parliament does not provide those, so someone has to provide them, which costs them.
I know that I am not supposed to ask you questions, convener, but what is the thinking of the committee in relation to requiring that a financial sum be attached?
The committee has a policy that a sum should be assigned. I see, out of the corner of my eye, a hand going up.
That practice was not suggested in the beginning, but a template was laid down by Margaret McCulloch when she started her cross-party group. I do not think that what a person earns needs to be detailed exactly, but it should be stated what it would cost to run the group—£1,000 a year or whatever.
It would be good to have the clarification that we need on the matter. It is one thing to add up the cost of the materials that would be required—that would amount to a relatively small sum of money—but a 15th of somebody’s salary is a much larger sum.
I will ask the clerks to write to you with clarification. My understanding is that the sum would also include the hospitality budget for teas, coffees and so on. I am sure that the committee clerks will be most helpful in that regard and will send that information to you.
Thank you very much.
There are no further questions. Thank you for your attendance this morning, Malcolm. The committee will decide whether to accord recognition to the group and you will then be notified. I cannot pre-empt what my colleagues are going to say, but I imagine that the fact that answers to the questions are awaited will not cause a problem.
I seek clarification on whether I can take part in the decision on the cross-party group on rare diseases. I also see that George Adam has signed up for the cross-party group on adult learning. Given that we have signed up to be members of those cross-party groups, would it be better for us not to take part in the decisions on them?
I will take advice on that from our clerks.
That is for members to decide—there is no rule on it. It is down to whatever you feel is appropriate.
In that case, I am happy to decide.
Do any other members have questions or comments to make, or do you simply want to agree to accord recognition to the cross-party groups? Are members content to accord recognition to the cross-party group on adult learning?
I have not signed up for that cross-party group, but I think that it is required. I agree with the suggestion to pass the application.
I, too, agree.
That is excellent. We agree that the proposed cross-party group on adult learning be accorded recognition.
I have a slight reservation about the group in that it seems very focused on a current event that is going to last about a year. That is my only reservation. It would be a cross-party group whose purpose would be perhaps too narrow and very specific, and that is not what we are trying to encourage. However, it may grow.
It could just be a finite-term working group, which the Parliament might want to encourage as well. That would help to reduce the number of cross-party groups if there were light at the end of the tunnel and there were no longer a requirement for a group. When we write to Malcolm Chisholm on the issues that have been raised, we can ask him that question. In the meantime, are members content to give the proposed cross-party group on rare diseases approval in principle?
I see heads nodding. That is agreed.
Before we move on, convener, may I make a general comment on the applications and the comments that we received from the applicants?
Yes, certainly.
The question on our form about the financial benefit or other benefits is quite clear, and somewhere in our work programme we will consider the provision of guidance to go with the application forms. It will be interesting to discuss that guidance, because I thought that our form was quite clear about, for example, material assistance such as secretariat support. I would not have thought that that would have caused the problem that it did today.
I would not have thought so either, but there we are.