Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, May 16, 2019

Official Report 518KB pdf

---

Cross-party Group

Agenda item 2 is consideration of an application for recognition of a proposed cross-party group on the USA. Dean Lockhart MSP is the proposed convener of the group. I welcome him to the committee and ask him to make a short opening statement on the purpose of the proposed cross-party group.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning.

The proposed cross-party group on the USA could make a number of important contributions across trade, foreign investment, education and cultural exchange.

On trade, the US is already Scotland’s largest export partner internationally, and accounts for about £5 billion of exports each year—roughly 18 per cent of Scotland’s international exports. Both the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government are looking to promote trade with the US, so the proposed CPG could play an important role in promoting collaboration between key stakeholders in trade between the countries.

In respect of education, thousands of students come from the US each year to Scottish universities and colleges, and the number of exchange programmes between the countries is increasing. Research collaboration is also increasing. I hope that the proposed CPG could encourage such trends in the future.

On cultural activity, there is a huge Scottish diaspora in the US and there is already significant cultural exchange between the countries. I believe that the proposed CPG could enhance that further.

Ellen Wong, who is the principal officer at the US consulate general in Edinburgh, took up her post six to eight months ago. The proposal is coming to the committee now partly as a result of a number of discussions with her, as she is keen to increase her engagement with the Scottish Parliament. Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce has agreed that it will, if the CPG is approved, act as its secretariat.

I believe that there is a lot of support for the CPG to be established in order to further the aims that I have just mentioned.

Thank you. I invite committee members to ask questions.

I thank Dean Lockhart for joining us, and I apologise for my voice. As you can hear, I am struggling a wee bit.

From what you have just said, much of the purpose of the proposed CPG involves just exchanges. That seems to be quite limited, although you did mention trade. Can you expand a wee bit on how often you think the group would meet, what other topics might be discussed and what organisations would be involved? Are there any Scottish-American organisations? There are Scottish organisations in America. I have gone blank on the names of them, but are there any similar organisations in Scotland that might want to join the proposed CPG in order to widen out the organisations that are interested?

Absolutely. I have spoken to a number of organisations; there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in that they have expressed real interest in joining the group once it is officially established. For example, I have spoken to the Carnegie institute, which is based in Dunfermline. I have also spoken to a number of universities that are interested in joining. If and when the group is established, they will come on board and take forward work in the areas that I mentioned.

On the aims of the group, there is a lot of interest in having trade missions to the US—not just missions to the US as a federal state, but missions at the level of individual states in order to increase business, cultural and education connections with specific states.

I believe that although the proposed CPG would not have execution capability because it would have limited resources, it could act as a platform at which to share information and bring together people who have interests across trade, education and cultural exchange.

In terms of the remit of CPGs in relation to informing members, I am interested in the kind of guests that you might have at the meetings and what topics you might cover beyond exchanges—if you have thought further than that.

I met the principal officer at the US consulate general last week. I do not necessarily want to go into detail here, but she has a number of ideas on how Parliament can get involved through the CPG and on how she can promote engagement with US companies.

The US is one of the largest single investors in Scotland, and she mentioned to me that there are a number of companies that would want to be involved with the cross-party group, both to expand business links and to enable the Scottish Parliament to have a better understanding of what is happening between the USA and Scotland.

Would the principal officer join the group? She is not listed at the moment.

Absolutely. She was one of the inspirations behind the idea of the cross-party group, so she would be a central figure in it.

09:45  

For clarification, does the US not have a consul general in Edinburgh any longer?

The US calls the post “principal officer”, so—

She is, in effect, the consul general.

Correct.

Why would she not join the group as a permanent member?

She will join it. She is waiting for the group to be established before she formally joins it.

Okay. Will you clarify the other individuals’ reasons for being there?

I am sorry—are you referring to MSPs or other members of the group?

I am thinking of Julia McIntyre, Thomas Heald and William Stirling.

Some of them are members of my office staff. William Stirling has a significant history in the US—he is Scottish, but has spent time in the US—and he wants to look at the trade aspects of the links between the countries. As I said, a number of other members, institutions and organisations will join once the group is officially established.

Good morning, Mr Lockhart. Will you comment on the opportunities in relation to the cultural links between Scotland and the American diaspora, and the benefits of enhancing those links here in Scotland?

Absolutely. When I looked at the number of events that take place, I was surprised to see that it is relatively limited. We have tartan day in April, which is the showcase cultural exchange between Scotland and the US. Given the huge Scottish diaspora across the US, there is an opportunity to increase cultural exchanges. I have discussed that with the principal officer at the US consulate general, Ellen Wong, and we have a number of ideas on how we can engage with organisations that are already involved in cultural exchange between Scotland and the US in order to encourage further promotion in that area.

I am not sure that it is the job of cross-party groups to promote trade between countries. I thought that they were more to do with cultural issues and stuff like that.

How many of the four individuals who are listed work in your office?

Lesley-Anne Campbell, Julia McIntyre and Thomas Heald are listed primarily as people who will help to run the cross-party group in terms of administration. The form should probably list more individuals, but I assure you that there are a number of people who will be involved in the group if it is established.

The universities of Edinburgh and Stirling are listed. Do they have student organisations?

Yes. I met someone from the University of Edinburgh yesterday to discuss the subject and they have a number of ideas as to how they can involve student groups in the cross-party group. We will take that forward.

There are currently no student organisations relating to the United States.

There are, but they have not yet engaged with the cross-party group because I thought that it would be premature to reach out and engage before the group was established.

What are the names of the organisations at the universities of Edinburgh and Stirling?

I do not know the individual names. I could have listed the University of St Andrews as well, because I have spoken to it and there are a huge number of American students there. Once the group is established, I will reach out and engage with them.

Historically, the part of Scotland with the most people from the United States has been the north-east, through the oil and gas industry. There is nothing about that in your application.

That is true. We can work on that once the group is established. As I said, if the group is established, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, which has a number of planned trade activities to aid the Scottish Government’s ambition to increase trade with the US, has agreed to act as the secretariat. Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce will add a powerful voice to the cross-party group not just in relation to trade, but by providing business links.

I agree that the role of a cross-party group is not to increase trade, but part of its role could be to increase business connections, which is all about collaboration, sharing ideas and increasing the network of people who are engaged in improving links between the US and Scotland. That also applies to education and cultural activities.

I see the cross-party group as a platform for enhancing interaction between Parliament, MSPs and stakeholders who are involved in the Scotland-America relationship.

I appreciate what you have said about what comes first—the chicken or the egg—and that setting up a cross-party group will lead to individuals and organisations coming on board. However, I am a bit surprised by the initial list of individuals, most of whom are members of your staff team. Will you provide the committee with letters and notes of interest from the US consulate and the other organisations that are listed saying specifically that they are interested in joining the group and describing the contribution that they would make to it?

You have talked about potential, but I do not see a firm list of groups that want to come together to work with you and other MSPs to further the understanding or opportunities that engagement with the US presents. The case looks a little weak at the moment, so will you convince us with evidence that the cross-party group will be robust and useful?

I will happily do that. To give you—

I am sorry. Can you provide the letters, emails, notes of interest and phone commitments to join the group now?

I cannot do that now. I did not know that that was a formal requirement of a cross-party group application, but I can easily provide the committee with that information.

The committee probably remembers that I was here five or six months ago to set up the cross-party group on Japan. To provide reassurance, I point out that that group at first had a similar number of individuals who were involved, but 35 people were at the first meeting of the group and now a large number of organisations are involved. I believe that the cross-party group on the USA will follow a similar pattern. However, if Mark Ruskell would like the paperwork, I will be happy to submit it to the committee.

That would provide reassurance about the group’s direction and remit.

Will there be links with other groups? Is there an all-party group at Westminster that focuses on trade with the US and other such issues?

There is not. Historically, I think that there was a group, but I understand that there is not, for whatever reason, one in the current Parliament at Westminster.

Such a group would be a natural place for trade issues to be discussed.

Yes.

Will there be links with other cross-party groups? You will be aware of the burgeoning number of cross-party groups. In many ways, they are the victim of their own success. There are now moves to seek greater collaboration between groups; the joint meetings that I have attended have been very successful. What would be the proposed group’s shared agendas with other cross-party groups?

There is definitely an opportunity for collaboration and for holding joint meetings with other cross-party groups that focus on education. If the group were established and we were looking at education, we would definitely engage with other cross-party groups that are involved in education. Likewise, we could involve other groups in sessions on business development or trading links, to ensure that we use parliamentary time in the most efficient manner possible by not doubling up the workload or using up resources to hold two separate meeting.

I declare an interest as co-convener of the cross-party group on food. Would food policy and trade be considered?

The cross-party groups on Scotch whisky and food are ideal examples of groups with which we could work. The US is our biggest market for food and drinks exports, including Scotch whisky exports, so if the cross-party group on the USA were having a session on exports or food and drink, for example, we could naturally involve two or three other cross-party groups in the meeting.

The US is a big area to cover. Do you anticipate concentrating on particular states, or do you think that you will make a broad-brush attack?

That is a good question. I think that the approach would involve engagement with federal and state organisations. If Scotland’s economy was ranked alongside those of US states, we would be the 25th state in terms of economic size. That gives you a fair idea of how big the Scottish economy is in comparison with the economies of individual US states. We are bang in the middle of the average economic size—I am talking in terms of gross domestic product per capita. Five or six states already have strong links with Scotland, and we would look to build on those links but also to develop new links with other states.

I am getting a feeling, from the questions that are being asked, that members believe that having a cross-party group on the United States could be advantageous, but I believe that there is also a feeling on the part of a number of members that further information on the areas that have been inquired about might give us more comfort about the establishment of the group.

I suggest that the committee send you a note of the areas that have been asked about—I do not expect you to remember them all. You could reply to us and then come back to the committee in the not-too-distant future, so that we could go over your responses. Hopefully, that would give us a feeling that establishing a cross-party group on the USA is a good idea. Do you agree to that suggestion?

I am happy to proceed on that basis.

Okay. I thank you for your attendance. The committee will consider whether to approve the application for recognition, and we will inform you of that decision. As I said, you can expect us to get in contact with you.

That is fine. Thank you.

Does that seem reasonable and fair to committee members?

I think that it is fair, but I also think that it is a bit of overkill. In my experience, we have set up cross-party groups with a lot less evidence being required from them. I think that the group is an outward-looking one. Since the beginning of the Parliament, tartan day has been the one thing that this Parliament has gone out of its way to support. I am surprised that we have not had a cross-party group on America before, and I am surprised by the apparent antipathy towards the suggestion. I know that Elaine Smith has been to tartan week, and I am glad to encourage such cultural links. I think that Dean Lockhart’s proposal is positive, and I propose that it be approved.

I do not have any antipathy towards a cross-party group on the USA, but I think that the answers to some of the questions that we asked were not readily available. Given that this committee has to make a decision, it would make sense to send Mr Lockhart a note to get the answers to those questions. I am not suggesting that we will refuse the request to establish the cross-party group, but I think that we should put off the decision until we receive those answers, which might take only a couple of weeks.

I am certainly not turning my face against a cross-party group on the US. John Scott is perfectly correct to say that I attended tartan week. That is why I asked about the societies—I wondered whether there are societies that are similar to the societies that I saw in the US, as they might be interested in the cross-party group. I suggest that waiting until we receive the information to make a decision would be the wise thing to do.

I, too, am quite surprised that we do not already have a cross-party group on the US. We have as much evidence before us today as we have had in relation to groups that we have previously approved, in my limited experience. If we are going to agree to the proposal anyway, it seems a bit unnecessary to put in place additional hurdles. Having that additional comfort blanket will not necessarily change the decision.

10:00  

It is important that cross-party groups are established in a thorough way. I see strong evidence that, on the whole, they are, but there are questions about the initial membership of the proposed group on the US. It is clear that Mr Lockhart has gone to some trouble to reach out to some organisations, but I would have liked to see a letter from the US consulate or substantial reassurance that organisations such as the Carnegie Trust and the various universities and student bodies would participate. I do not think that it would be particularly onerous for Mr Lockhart to secure that, but it would mean deferring consideration of the proposal for another few weeks until he provided the correct evidence.

It is not for us to run the cross-party group before it has even been established. However, the general mood—notwithstanding what John Scott and Tom Mason have said—is that, although we would almost definitely be in favour of the group being set up, it would be useful to gain further information on how it would be established and who would be members of it. Given that we already have 106 cross-party groups and we have talked about rationalising the number of groups that we have, it would do no harm to ensure the viability of the group before it came into being.

It is important not to limit new groups simply because of the number of groups that have already been set up. I declare an interest: when I set up farmers markets, a long time ago, I knew that many would make the endeavour but that not all would succeed. The best farmers markets were the ones that continued and prospered, and the same is true of cross-party groups. All proposals for CPGs should be encouraged. The best ones will succeed and the ones that fall by the wayside will do so because of a lack of interest or because they are not sufficiently well managed.

I do not wish to be presumptuous, but I do not think that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee should set out to prevent new groups being set up simply because we already have more than 100 CPGs.

That is fair enough. I do not want to spin out the discussion for too long, because we have other business, but I believe that there is a general mood that a cross-party group on the US is quite a good idea, although a majority of committee members would like to see further information so that we can be satisfied that the proposed group would be successful. Does that seem reasonable?

The proposal is focused very much on the central belt. Given that there is a large American population in the north-east, I would have thought that Mr Lockhart might have reached out a bit further than the central belt.

If we defer a decision on the proposal, what will the timescale be?

The general feeling is that we would like to ask Mr Lockhart to come back to us with further information. Members’ views have been recorded and we will follow up on the matter. We hope that Mr Lockhart will be able to provide us with further information in the not-too-distant future, including information about the geographical areas that the proposed group will cover, and that it will go on to be a successful cross-party group. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.