Official Report 274KB pdf
The next agenda item is to take evidence from Alex Johnstone MSP on the proposed cross-party group on Japan, and then from John Mason MSP on the proposed cross-party group on rail. I welcome Alex Johnstone to the meeting and invite him to say a little about his proposed group’s purpose.
Thank you, convener. This is not my first time in front of a Parliament standards committee, but it has been a long time, and I have behaved myself a lot better, since my first visit.
Thank you very much, Mr Johnstone. I hope that your assistant does not learn Japanese from his wife, as I understand that the male and female forms of the language are somewhat different.
Indeed. I have been informed of that.
Do colleagues want to ask any questions of Mr Johnstone while we have him before us?
Thank you for your presentation, Alex. I would like to check something regarding the section of the application on financial or other benefits. We are determined to be completely transparent about the funding of cross-party groups, whether they receive direct funding or funding in kind. How can that section be left empty when, as you have mentioned, you hope to have a reception? I presume that it will cost money.
In 2006, we successfully held a reception that was dealt with entirely in kind—there were no costs associated with it. I am not sure whether that would be possible in the current environment. However, it is our intention to ensure that the cross-party group is not about trying to attract funding but about promoting the interests of those who wish to become members in a much broader sense. It is my aspiration to avoid its becoming simply an organisation that stages events for which it must find funding, because that is an area in which some cross-party groups get rather bogged down.
You say that, in 2006, you managed to hold a reception through gifts and funding in kind. We would still expect such funding to appear in that section of the application. Can you give an idea of what you think the reception would cost?
It would be extremely hard for me to give a figure now, but I could attempt to get one for you.
I think that we would probably want that. Thank you.
Having been a frequent visitor to Japan on business, I know that the Japanese are very generous—more than other people—in giving receptions and things like that. Those things tend to be funded by the consulate and by Japanese companies that are trying to promote their wares. Is that the intention? When you say that the reception will be self-funded, do you hope to get sponsors who want to promote their products—beer, food and so on? I find Japan to be very self-funding; they are very keen to throw money at such things. As Fiona McLeod does, I wonder whether the reception will be sponsored and whether it will be open and transparent.
I assure the committee that everything will be open and transparent. However, I repeat that in setting up the group we are not trying to get money out of people to do things. We want to keep costs down and ensure that our main aim is not simply to attract funding from potential sponsors.
What is the object of the group? Is it to discuss trade or culture?
We would try to balance trade, culture, education and sporting links, and we have been involved in a number of those areas already. As I said, we had a cultural reception recently, and more recently we were involved in promoting the tour of the Japanese cricket teams when they visited Edinburgh last year. We are keen to ensure that the group is balanced and is not overtaken exclusively by trade as a priority. We do not want to exclude trade, because we know that there are significant trading links between Scotland and Japan, but we want the group to be involved with culture, education and sporting issues in at least equal measure.
Thank you for coming, Mr Johnstone. We will have the clerks contact you once the committee has reached a decision.
I thank the committee for agreeing at short notice to hear my proposal. Usually on a Thursday morning I attend the Equal Opportunities Committee, so today is a suitable day because that committee is not meeting. I am glad to say that I came through by train yesterday and stayed overnight in Edinburgh, so I had less of a problem.
John Mason may remember that I attended his inaugural meeting. I do not see my name on the list as a member, but I would like to declare my interest as a member of that group.
I apologise for that. There are one or two omissions from the list, including Allan McLean, who appears on the list as the secretary but not as an individual member, and your colleague Mary Fee, who was also there. We shall go through the list again. My hope is that membership will increase. I apologise for the fact that we seem to have missed out one or two names.
We heard from Alex Johnstone about the costs of his new group; are there likely to be costs associated with the proposed cross-party group on rail?
I hope that there will not. I was keen to get a secretary who would be neutral—and perceived as being neutral—and not from one of the rail companies. We will have to continue to look at that, but at the moment we have Allan McLean, who has retired from the rail industry. He used to be with Virgin and has worked elsewhere and is widely respected. I hope that we will not incur expenses or have receptions. We can look at that in the future, but that is my intention to start with.
Thank you, Mr Mason. We will let you know of our decision via the clerks.
On the cross-party group on Japan, if we agree to record its recognition, I would like that to be conditional on Alex Johnstone’s fleshing out the benefits in kind section of the form.
Just to be clear about the process, we either approve or do not approve today. Once a group is approved there are requirements on reporting. Do you think that that would meet your need, or are you suggesting that there is a barrier to approval today?
I think that there is a barrier, because we really have to be transparent. As Alex Johnstone said in reply to me, he held a reception before, which covered its own costs through gifts and hospitality. That is exactly what the section on financial or other benefits asks for details of. If he is talking about having another reception, I would have expected him to have gone back to his previous one and put in projected costs.
What I am hearing is that you are suggesting that we cannot approve the group today, but neither will we reject approval.
The Japanese are well known for sponsoring everything—that is what I was trying to get at—and I am sure that what is proposed will not cost us any money. I agree with Fiona McLeod that transparency is important, but the Japanese are probably the most generous of people for sponsoring. They are very keen on culture and sporting links: there is the Japan Cricket Association, for heaven’s sake. That is laudable, but I think that it is more about culture and trade, and the Japanese love Scotland. Therefore, I do not think that there will be a problem with the finance, but we need to be transparent. However, I would not hold that as a barrier. I think that it will be okay.
I agree with Fiona McLeod. I think that Mr Johnstone did not understand her question. It is well and good that there are companies and organisations that will be involved, but it is important that we have a figure of sorts so that we can say that in the real world, it would cost £X. That is the whole point, and the point that Fiona McLeod made, but Mr Johnstone did not quite pick up on it. Even when Cameron Buchanan tried to press him on it, he still did not pick up on it. Fiona McLeod might have the right idea. It is probably better if we ask Mr Johnstone for a wee bit more detail at this stage.
The sense that I am getting from committee colleagues is that we should not approve the proposed group today and that we should require Mr Johnstone to provide the necessary financial information, but our expectation is that we will be able to approve the group at a future meeting. Is that what the committee is saying?
Absolutely.
That would be consistent with what we have done with previous applications.
It is important to include a rider to say that we will approve the group.
I think that the correct phrase would be that “We are minded to approve the group.”
I do not disagree with that approach. We need to flesh things out a bit. Alex Johnstone was rather vague. A reception that was sponsored by the Japanese has already been held. That is slightly unusual before a group has been approved, is it not? I do not know.
The reception was in 2006.
Right.
Okay. We will not approve the proposed cross-party group on Japan today. We will write to Mr Johnstone, who will be able to read the Official Report of the meeting. We are minded to approve the group, but there is a requirement to be met first. We will invite Mr Johnstone to provide that information in very early course so that we do not disrupt plans.
I would normally have asked about the financial benefits not being applicable, but John Mason answered that question in telling us that the secretary is a retired person, so there will not even be anything in kind. The man will do things entirely off his own bat, which is amazing.
He must be a keen rail man.
I know the individual and think that he most certainly is a keen rail man.
I am sorry, convener, but I have one small rider. Margaret McDougall picked up that her name was not on the form. We really need the forms to be filled in absolutely correctly.
Okay. Are members minded to approve the group.
That ends the public part of the meeting.