Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sure that a lot has happened since then.

Will you clarify that, cabinet secretary? Could it not also work the other way round? Something could be developed up here that might have an environmental impact that was then translated to another part of the United Kingdom. Surely it could work both ways.

We have quite a few more questions, cabinet secretary. Mark Ruskell has a supplementary question on that point, which might also prompt you to answer the next question.

Okay. We will return to Fiona Hyslop.

Liam Kerr has a quick question.

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

I have a quick question about the on-going discussions. I think that you said that the Scottish Government is expecting some response by the end of the month. Do you expect that there will be a satisfactory outcome and that there might be a subsequent LCM? What are your views on that? Will you give a general indication of how that is going, cabinet secretary?

I agree with Bob Doris. I have noticed a far more tribal approach to motions. The debates that are interesting are the ones in which members can inform themselves about an issue. There are issues about which I have no idea, but I will volunteer to speak in a debate on such an issue, because the debate will inform me about what is going on. Those are the useful motions: they highlight in the Parliament important things that are going on.

I agree with Bob that some motions that are lodged for members’ business debates are purely political. I think that that is wrong, but it probably reflects frustration about the lack of ability to debate such matters in other parliamentary time.

We should have members’ business debates not to make political points but to inform debate. The reason for such debates is to inform us and sometimes celebrate things that are going on.

I echo Bob’s views. We should have a wider inquiry into all those things and consider costings—that is important. We have all found ourselves settling down at 9 o’clock in the evening only to have a heap of motions flood into our inboxes—sometimes there are six motions from just one person. I am not saying that such motions are meaningless, but flooding members’ inboxes with six motions on quite minor issues is not a way to get parliamentarians informed or involved in processes.

I totally agree with that suggestion. In that letter, could you be quite firm in saying that we will continue to look at the matter? You might also offer CPGs that have not complied the opportunity to consider whether they wish to withdraw the group. As an MSP, once you get tied into a group, it is really difficult to say, “Maybe this isn’t working.” If you give those groups the opportunity to consider withdrawing, that might be useful to some members of those groups.

As I always do whenever we consider an application from a cross-party group, I will simply place on record my view about the number of cross-party groups in the Parliament. I know that we are coming on to that, but I will continue to say it until I believe that we have resolved the issue, and I do not think that we have yet.

I do not want to kick off; I want to have a reasoned discussion. Ever since becoming a member of this committee, I have voiced concerns about the amount of work that cross-party groups require from MSPs. In trying to support CPGs, some MSPs take on a huge number of responsibilities, and some feel pressurised into doing so. New members sometimes get themselves into a situation in which they are on several cross-party groups and cannot give any group their full attention.

The chart in the report is extremely interesting. The vast majority of groups are green-lighted—if that is the right description—in that they comply with the rules, but a significant number have one or more yellow warning lights and some have one or more red stop lights.

We need to do more work to consider how to resolve the problem. My gut feeling is that, if a group has two red lights, that is a clear indication that we need to ask whether it is fulfilling its role. The same applies if a group has two yellow lights and a red light.

I do not propose to go through the list—members can do that for themselves and come to their own decisions—but my view is that the committee has a role in helping cross-party groups to decide whether they have a future. We should be forthright in our questioning. We should encourage groups to fulfil the requirements, but, if they cannot do so, we should suggest to them that they drop out.

I say for the record that I do not want my comments to be taken as meaning that I am against all cross-party groups: I am not. I convene two cross-party groups and I give them my entire attention and work hard on them. A lot of MSPs work hard on cross-party groups. However, could I be a member of three, four, five or—as is sometimes the case—10 cross-party groups? I would struggle. I will leave it there.