Official Report 591KB pdf
The next item is consideration of a request from the cross-party group on deafness to change its purpose. Members will see from the clerk’s note that the convener of the CPG has explained that the group has worked to support people who are deaf and deafblind and that the group now wishes to amend its purpose
“to reflect our work more accurately and respect the preferred language of all our members.”
Do members have any comments or questions on this?
We already have a CPG on visual impairment, and we have many discussions in this room about duplication of CPGs’ work. If the group is seeking to expand its remit, I suggest that the groups perhaps consider merging.
My initial reaction is that I am delighted that the change is happening. Deafblind Scotland is based in my constituency, and it is a fantastic organisation. It is good that the dual sensory impairment is being recognised, so I am absolutely for the change. I am not opposed to the idea of the CPG merging with the one on visual impairment, but I am absolutely happy about changing the purpose of the CPG on deafness.
To pick up on what Sue Webber and Rona Mackay have said, shall we seek some more information? It is not that we are in any way saying no to the change, but perhaps we should ask what exploration has been made of whether an overlap would occur and ask whether a merger has been considered or why the separate CPGs should still stand. We are absolutely not saying no; we are just concerned about infringement—is that too strong a word?—on another CPG’s purpose.
If the CPG on deafness was to include visual impairment, there might be an obligation on the organisations that attend the CPG on visual impairment—such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People—to attend the other CPG as well, and it might also put more pressure on small charities and people who are interested. I know that the CPG on visual impairment is doing some specific work with Stuart McMillan, its convener, which I have been involved in through my work on floating bus stops. We are aware of their impact on deaf people and people with visual impairments.
I am really concerned by the prospect of expansion, and I recommend being a bit more firm, convener.
Would the committee be content for me to write to seek further information on the exploration of the crossover between the two CPGs? Once we had a response to that, we could see what the situation was and make a decision at a later committee meeting.
I am happy with that.
I propose that we be clear that we are not doubting or trying to claw back from the proposed change but are very supportive of it. Sue Webber makes a good point—I agree with it—but I am worried that it might be perceived as us saying, “Oh, we’re not sure that that should happen,” when it should happen.
I concur with that. Asking for more information in no way means a predetermined decision that we do not want the change to happen. However, there is a requirement that this committee oversee the purposes of CPGs, which should reflect the work that they do. I am incredibly grateful to the cross-party group on deafness for having come to us in a positive way about the matter. I am merely suggesting an exploration to see whether an element of cross-party work has not been noted. I am sure that that is not the case, but we can seek an explanation of that and then return to the matter. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Finally, members might recall that, in January and February, we considered an update in relation to CPGs’ compliance with the rules. We indicated that we intended to withdraw recognition from the CPG on shared parenting on the basis of a failure to comply with the rules on submission of the required documentation. Following discussions with the convener of the group, Fulton MacGregor MSP—I thank Fulton for his engagement on the matter—it was agreed that the CPG could be given an opportunity to catch up with the missing documentation but that it would be for the committee to indicate whether to continue to afford recognition to the group.
The group has now provided all the required documentation, and I thank Fulton MacGregor and those who support him for doing that. I invite the committee to decide whether it is content for the group to continue for the rest of the parliamentary session, because it is in compliance. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 09:24.Air ais
Subordinate Legislation