Representation in the European Union
It was my intention to take our next three witnesses together, but Corrie McChord, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is in another committee at the moment. I invite Alex Wright, from the University of Dundee, to join us.
Thank you for your written submission. We were interested in the points that you raised. I invite you to make a short, introductory statement, after which we will ask questions.
Dr Alex Wright (University of Dundee):
I have been researching Scotland in the EU for about 10 years, but only yesterday managed to complete a review of all the records that are available in the Scottish Executive on Scotland's relations with the EU going back to 1961. Those are the files that are open. I have also undertaken extensive interviews with interest groups throughout Scotland. Much of that work predates devolution, although I have just completed a fellowship at the University of Edinburgh and have caught up with some people for interviews. I will be extremely brief, as members have my written evidence in front of them.
One of the most important things for Scottish interest groups, if they want to influence policy, is good, sound intelligence. It is easy to say that, but it is incredibly hard to get such intelligence, partly because the European Union is so multifaceted. A really professional interest group such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for example, would be looking to influence the Commission at the earliest stages of policy making—the soft pencil stage, as one lobbyist put it to me—and to get intelligence from members of the European Parliament. It would certainly be reliant on the Scottish Executive, which could fill it in on the positions of other member states' Governments and so on. Successful interest groups interact with different forms and levels of government all through the policy process and come back to the Executive at the implementation stage, when the Executive is quite powerful.
The second area that I considered was the need for adequate resources. That can be quite tricky. One of the things that struck me when I was interviewing interest groups was that some of them did not have a lot of finance. An example of that was the Scottish crofters. Resources are an issue for smaller, less well-resourced groups, because people sometimes need to go to Brussels and lobby. There is a problem, in that some interest groups have the resources to fly out regularly and others do not, although the crofters got round that to some extent. We should be thinking along the lines of having a more level playing field, which would mean less well-resourced interest groups getting a modicum of financial support from the European Union so that they could travel to Brussels. On the continent, it is relatively easy for members of interest groups to jump on the train or get in their car and reach Brussels within an hour.
I would like to spend a minute on the potentially contentious issue of Scottish officials and their London colleagues, because I think that it is quite important. In the past year, the Scottish Executive and the civil service in general have become the target of a lot of criticism. I refer not to criticism from MSPs, because that is quite proper, but from all sorts of other quarters. I feel quite strongly about that. From the word go, Scotland's civil servants have shown an enormous interest in defending Scotland's turf in relation to Europe. The first of the files to which I referred dates from 1961. In 1967, civil servants were debating how best they could influence the EU and we were yet to join.
Civil servants have had a formidable task in interfacing with the UK Government and with the EU and that can put an enormous strain on the Executive's resources. My research has found that, by and large, they have done extremely well.
For its part, the EU is highly mobile. Delors described it as a grand experiment. That is an enormous challenge for any bureaucracy, because nobody quite knows where it is going. It is hell for civil servants.
Having been sweet and wonderful about civil servants, I now introduce a caveat. When I was interviewing interest groups, some of them were concerned that they were not able to deal directly with the London ministries. That was not a common occurrence, but some groups felt that before devolution, there were Scottish interests that they felt mattered a great deal, which the then Scottish Office did not relay to London as it should have done. Some groups want to deal directly with London departments and have been told by them, "No. You have to go back to the Executive."
I can understand why they were told that that was how the system had to work under what was then administrative devolution, but the interest groups to whom it happened felt that they were disadvantaged. There is a danger in having the kind of decentralised Government that we have in relation to the EU, where people have to leapfrog the Executive to get to Brussels.
Another issue is the interdepartmental mechanism. Again, that issue is potentially contentious and I have to be very careful that I do not over-exaggerate. As a researcher, I have been faced with two perceptions. On a number of occasions, chief executives of interest groups and large companies said that they felt that Scottish officials were outgunned in interdepartmental meetings in London, which they felt was not so good. Again and again, I have put that to Scottish officials, and did so again only two weeks ago. They do not see it as an issue at all. Somewhere there is a problem of perception. I say that wearing my researcher's hat; I do not have an axe to grind.
Certainly, that may have been a problem, because the issue was raised in evidence that was given to the Royal Commission on the Constitution in the 1960s by the then Scottish permanent secretary, who said that our officials being outranked was a potential problem, because the Scottish Office was quite a small department, which sometimes had to face quite big departments, and it could not always have people of a certain rank for various sectoral policies. I have said enough on that; time is ticking away.
The EU encourages transnational networks. Europêche and the Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union—COPA—are examples of that. To an extent, transnational networks are useful vehicles for interest groups that wish to undertake lobbying, but they seem to work on the principle of the lowest common denominator. An example of that is the Iberian fishermen wanting access to the North sea and the Scottish fishermen saying "No, you don't." It is not possible for a transnational network to resolve that kind of issue. In such cases, interest groups tend to set up ad-hoc networks. In that case, the fishing communities around the North sea got together and issued declarations saying, "We don't want the Iberians in our waters."
I am aware that some committee members have served on the Committee of the Regions. I say what I am going to say with respect. I remember going along to the first COR meeting in Brussels with a great sense of optimism. It took five phone calls and calling in a favour before I even got my foot in the door. In the end, all that I saw was a television screen—I was not allowed into the room.
From that point on, the COR has been a disappointment. It is a purely consultative body; one that has not yet penetrated Scottish society. In interviews with interest groups, I asked whether anyone from the COR had been in touch with any of the groups. The answer was no, which is a problem. In a sense, I feel that the COR should be wound up, although I appreciate that those with experience of it might take a different view.
I may be in danger of sounding sycophantic, but having interviewed people in Edinburgh over the past few weeks, all I can say is that people feel that the Scottish Parliament European Committee is making a big difference. One interest group, whose name I cannot mention because of confidentiality, mentioned that it had received assistance because reference was made to a Scottish Parliament European Committee report in the European Parliament. That shows that, in a subtle way, what goes on in the Scottish Parliament European Committee can make a difference to people out there.
Thank you. We welcome your kind comments about the European Committee. I am not so sure about your comments about the Committee of the Regions.
Five members want to ask questions in this section and we will try to get them all in. Members may have questions for each of the witnesses, so I am aware that we may run over. I ask members to be brief.
Dr Wright has endeared himself to the convener this afternoon, although some people—I am thinking of Colin Campbell—might say that he was winding her up. I want to ask about team Scotland, which is the principle most often stated by the Executive and its officials in Brussels. They are worried about conflicting messages coming from Scotland and adherence to the UK's overall line in any negotiations. By and large, it is felt that, for lobbying to be most effective, all bodies that represent Scotland in the EU should try to have a common, co-ordinated message.
In evidence to the committee, Glasgow City Council and the West of Scotland European Consortium pointed out the possible limitations of the team Scotland approach. They said that future arrangements should support and facilitate representative voices rather than present a homogenised, and perhaps ultimately compromised, compound policy position on many issues.
What is your view on the strengths and limitations of the team Scotland principle? Can anything be done to utilise the strengths of such an approach without incurring too many of the weaknesses?
That is a very good question. It might not be possible to take that approach as a matter of course, but I have had experience of it. The example that comes to mind immediately is the widening of Highlands and Islands objective 1 funding to include the areas covered by the enterprise company's remit. In that instance, everyone—including the council and the enterprise company—sang from the same hymn sheet and the civil servants and people in Brussels were pushing the case. That was a good example of the team Europe approach.
It is difficult to envisage a team Scotland approach—the diversity of interests within Scotland is so great. If we take agriculture as an example, we have crofters, landowners and farmers, all of whom take a separate view of issues. The team Scotland principle is an ideal. I have not seen it happen often, which is why I remember instances when it does happen.
You mentioned the importance of intelligence and information. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry's submission focused on the need for more inclusive and transparent sharing of information and intelligence in Scotland. That might include regular meetings between interested groups and perhaps a facilitated extranet to develop more open policy and representation to Brussels. What merit do you see in those ideas? How would they work? How could the civil service be more open and sharing? What tensions would there be between sharing information and the need for confidentiality?
That was a lot of questions, thank you.
These are the brief questions, by the way.
From the civil service's point of view, there is a problem when third countries are involved, because there has to be a degree of confidentiality about the Scottish Executive's negotiating position. Its case might be weakened if the position were published. Getting involved in consultative arrangements is another issue for the Executive, because its resources are quite limited. I did not mention that earlier, but I should have. The Executive is already under strain so it might not be best equipped to get involved.
There was talk back in the late 1990s about Scotland Europa fulfilling the role that Nora Radcliffe outlined. There was a feeling that it was over there but not over here. When I interviewed somebody at Scotland Europa a few years ago, they said that they had set up forums and workshops so that people could have intelligence-sharing sessions, albeit that they were for its members. I agree with where you are coming from, but I am not sure whether the Executive would be capable of fulfilling such a role, given its work load. Scotland Europa might be better equipped to fulfil the role.
It is interesting that there is an embryo network that could be developed.
There is a host of networks throughout Scotland—I am involved in one or two of them. You are quite right that there would be an advantage in pooling the networks. The committee might recommend that in its final report.
This question follows on from the fundamental debate about whether we should have a Scottish Parliament office or officer in Brussels. I say Brussels rather than Luxembourg, which one of the other submissions that we have received mentioned. Let us assume that we are talking about Brussels. One of the questions is where we would locate such an officer. Would the officer work with Scotland Europa and the Executive as part of team Scotland, sitting in Scotland House? Alternatively, do we need to think about locating a Scottish Parliament office in the European Parliament? I want your reflections on where the gap is and how we can best fill it. Should we rely on what we have at the moment and tap into it or are we missing out on something by not being more directly tuned into the European Parliament?
On reflection, I think that it would be more appropriate to have an office in the European Parliament. I did suggest that the office be located in Scotland House, which is perhaps a rather naive suggestion given the role of the Parliament and the need for distance between it and the officials in Scotland House. I certainly think that there would be advantages in our having somebody stationed in Brussels, because, quite apart from anything else, they could network and get information way before it reaches us here.
I have a follow-up question about what you think is missing at the moment that our having an office or officer in Brussels would provide. What additional benefit would that bring that none of the organisations that are out there at the moment supplies?
The Parliament as it stands is extremely adept at securing information about the European Union—the Scottish Parliament information centre is extremely adept. I am not suggesting for a moment that SPICe is not up to scratch, because it is jolly good, but we cannot beat having somebody on the ground. Brussels is an informal society; it is extremely open and people can talk to almost anyone over dinner. It is possible to find out what is happening long before the Commission produces policy. Although there is a very good research facility here, it is geographically and politically some distance away from the charnel house of Brussels. Somebody there would be better informed.
When the Scottish Office reviewed in 1991 how it could improve Scottish representation in the EU, it told officials to stay an extra couple of days and network. It recognised that human contacts counted for a great deal. Although the Parliament has an efficient research network, it would be beneficial to have someone on the ground, because they would be able to pick up information that was hot off the press in an informal way.
Nora Radcliffe will ask a quick supplementary, then Dennis Canavan will ask about the Committee of the Regions.
We received a submission from someone recently who asked, "What about Luxembourg?" They pointed out that the European Investment Bank and other institutions are there. We concentrate all our efforts in Brussels. Should we have an egg or two in different baskets?
I must be careful, because I am not a professional lobbyist—I am a humble academic. I will squeeze out of the question by saying that most people who want to influence policy and to learn about what is going on are situated in Brussels rather than Luxembourg. If one were to say, "Let us have some people in Luxembourg as well," one would run the risk of following the MEPs and having a permanent road-train. I have nothing against Luxembourg—it is a lovely place—but Brussels is where the action is.
I will return to your suggestion about the relationship between civil servants here and civil servants in the UK. You said that Scottish officials are sometimes "outgunned". What effect does that have on the creation of a distinctive Executive policy on European matters and what could be done to resolve that situation? If the civil service in Scotland is bound by hierarchical limitations, is there a way round that?
I must answer that question with care. When I asked what would happen if they did not succeed in getting their argument across in a meeting in London, every civil servant whom I interviewed replied that they would take the matter to their minister. The minister would get in touch with his colleague behind the Speaker's chair and, if necessary, the matter would go to the secretary of state. These days, we have the First Minister.
I do not think that there is an effect on the policy. I felt that there was cause for concern simply on the ground of what interest groups had said. There is an issue to do with having a united UK civil service. Perhaps there are grounds for arguing that the civil service should be split, so that Scotland has its own civil service. Some might say that that would be a terribly bad thing—indeed, the officials might say that it was an awful suggestion, because so much intelligence and cross-fertilisation of ideas come from London. The fact that there is a concern about the civil service in Scotland being too deeply engaged with the UK civil service perhaps means that there are grounds for detaching the two. I am sure that civil servants down in Victoria Quay will be laughing at me for saying that—it is just a thought.
In your introductory comments and in your paper, you were scathing about the Committee of the Regions. I tend to agree with some of your remarks. Is there a case for reform rather than outright abolition? Is there an alternative structure that would give the regions of Europe an effective voice?
Although I was optimistic about the Committee of the Regions, I was concerned when I interviewed people such as the Local Government International Bureau in London. Initially, the bureau was encouraged by the Committee of the Regions, because it thought that, at long last, local government had been brought formally into the policy process in the EU, which represented a substantive step. However, there was a dilemma about for whom the Committee of the Regions was speaking. I put that to a former president of the UK's Committee of the Regions team. I asked whether there could be a Scottish voice. He said that there was only a pan-UK view.
People who have been involved in the Committee of the Regions are welcome to correct me, but my understanding is that the Committee of the Regions must articulate collectively the views of the regions. As we cannot have just one narrow national view, we are back in a manner of speaking to the lowest common denominator.
With municipalities on the one hand and Länder on the other, the diversity of the committee is also a problem. The question is, what does the committee itself represent?
I will try to be brief, because I know that time is rolling on. We now have the group of constitutional regions, the Flanders and Liege declarations and so on. Although some might claim that such declarations are simply tokenism, others might say that, if nothing else, it is good to have such declarations of principle. Maybe such groups should have some sort of representative organ because, after all, they represent the interests of assemblies that have legislative powers. We should remember that the Committee of the Regions is an organ of the EU.
My only worry is the EU's tendency to throw a bauble such as the COR at regions and stateless nations. I would not want Scotland to get foxed again by something that appears to have an awful lot of influence but in fact has none.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities delegation has arrived. Would it be appropriate to follow up that point with its members, who will no doubt have a different point of view on the matter?
Absolutely. I look forward to hearing it.
Now that the COSLA witnesses have arrived, I want finally to ask Dr Wright whether his arguments make a case for reforming the COR by beefing up its powers.
I agree entirely with the suggestion that, instead of having a consultative role, the COR should have more decision-making powers on policies that relate to substate matters, such as structural funding. I do not think that that will happen, but the argument is perfectly reasonable.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your written submission and your comments this afternoon, which we have all found stimulating and interesting. We appreciate your positive comments about our committee and will certainly take your contribution to our inquiry into account.
I now welcome the COSLA representatives to the meeting. I understand that Councillor McChord has already had a busy afternoon in the Parliament. We appreciate your making it to the meeting.
Councillor Corrie McChord (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities):
Thank you, convener. I trust that you will be much more gentle with me than the Social Justice Committee was. I am joking, of course.
The committee obviously recognises that local government's position on Europe has changed over the years. Some committee members will remember that, before reorganisation in 1996, our relations with Europe were based mostly on the regional councils. After the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, the arrangements for interaction with Europe changed again. I hope that, since that time, we have moved away from seeking transitional funds to attempting to influence policy in Europe. Although that has been difficult in the early days of the Parliament, it has been no less so than was trying to influence the UK Government from a local authority perspective before 1999. The current conditions in Scotland will make it much easier and more appropriate for us to influence policy in Europe than it might have been in the past with the UK Government.
Kathy Cameron will make an opening statement about how COSLA sees its relationships in Europe, after which we will answer some questions.
Kathy Cameron (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities):
COSLA has had an office in Brussels since 1993. Although it was located initially in the Scotland Europa centre, it moved to Scotland House in July 1999. The office has been an important feature of COSLA's European work. It provides the association and its member councils with information and intelligence on key European policy developments; promotes greater contact between European institutions and Scottish local government; and allows COSLA to work more closely with other national, local and regional authority associations. There are more than 160 regional offices in Brussels. The facility that we have in Brussels promotes a useful dialogue between local and regional government in the European Union.
The reorganisation of local government in 1996 and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 had a major effect on the way in which local government is represented in Brussels. All the Scottish representative offices are now based with Scotland Europa in Scotland House. COSLA, the West of Scotland European Consortium, the East of Scotland European Consortium and the Highlands and Islands Partnership Programme have office space in Scotland House.
The COSLA Brussels office is now branded as the Scottish local government Brussels office, which aims to carry out the broad representative functions of a national local government association and cater for the needs of individual councils or groups of councils. It is obvious that there are similar interests in Brussels between COSLA and individual councils and that their work is complementary. The construction of a representative office allows COSLA and its member councils to create effective synergies and economies of scale. The aim is to build on the success of the COSLA office, which had and continues to have a high reputation with the EU institutions and with the offices of EU local and regional government that are located in Brussels.
The key aims of the Brussels office are broadly deemed to be as follows. First, it provides a reference point of the institutions of the European Union so that the views and objectives of Scottish local government, regional consortia and individual councils are represented in EU policy developments. Secondly, it aims to advocate the views of COSLA, the regional consortia and individual member councils on major EU policy issues to the EU institutions and to promote the work and interests of Scottish local government in Brussels. Thirdly, it aims to develop closer links with other local and regional government representations to facilitate the development of networks that respond to EU policy developments, the promotion of best practice in local and regional democracy and the identification of partners for transnational projects. Finally, it aims to support Scottish local government politicians—including Scottish local government members on the Committee of the Regions—while they are in Brussels and other centres of EU activity.
The institutions of the European Union are important partners for COSLA and Scottish local government. Many of the competencies of Scottish local government are shared with the EU and the Scottish Parliament. All spheres of government—local, regional, national and European—have a role to play in the major policy issues, such as employment and social inclusion. COSLA believes that a close relationship is needed between those spheres of government so that effective action can be taken. We continue to believe in the value of Brussels-based representation as a means to develop and maintain such a relationship.
Helen Eadie is one of our reporters on the inquiry, so I invite her to pose the first question.
It is particularly nice to see Corrie McChord. We have done some work together and I know that he has achieved a lot through his work in Europe. He is held in high regard throughout Scotland for his commitment to the work that he does in Europe.
My question is about the team Scotland approach. The Scottish Executive and people in Brussels are worried about conflicting messages coming from Scotland. The phrase "team Scotland" is commonly used. All the bodies that represent Scotland in the EU should try to have a common and co-ordinated message, to be most effective in any lobbying. However, Glasgow City Council and the West of Scotland European Consortium point out the possible limitations of that approach and have stated that a future arrangement ought to support and facilitate representative voices rather than present a homogenised—and ultimately compromised—view from Scotland on many issues.
What are your views on the strengths and limitations of the team Scotland principle? Can anything be done to utilise the strengths of that principle without incurring too many of the weaknesses?
Yes. The last part of your question is very appropriate. A homogenised approach is not necessarily bad as long as it gets the individual messages through properly. My experience of the Scotland facility—right back to when it was in Square de Meêus, before it moved to the Schuman area of Brussels—was that I had little contact with any arm of the organisation apart from the local government arm, although they run nice functions, for example.
There is an endemic problem with policy making and policy influence in the United Kingdom: we are always reactive. Rather than get involved in the first instance and try to influence the policy, when directives come through, we try to change the rules. That is a real problem.
We are not effective. It has got better since 1999 and people know each other more than they did. Obviously, the Scottish Executive was not involved before 1999. The local enterprise company network was involved, as was local government in a number of manifestations—ESEC and WOSEC, as well as COSLA. The situation has improved, but I would like a facility for integrated working in Brussels. That has not been visible in the times that I have been there since 1988.
In some respects, local government led the way and pioneered the making of contacts in Europe, although it met with a lot of resistance. I recall that the perception was that councillors were junketing, whereas people such as Corrie McChord, Irene Oldfather and others were trying to do a genuine job of ensuring influence and getting intelligence. Corrie McChord has met many people, particularly in the North Sea Commission area. It is pleasing that he laid down those good contacts.
Nora Radcliffe has a question on liaison with external groups.
My question is based on the SCDI submission, which focused on the need in Scotland for more inclusive and transparent sharing of information on European matters. The SCDI suggested regular meetings between interested groups and possibly a facilitated extranet to develop better, more open policy and representation in Brussels. What are the merits of that idea? Could the civil service be more open and sharing? How should we deal with the tension between openness and transparency and the need for confidentiality?
Over the years, COSLA has been involved in a range of groupings to discuss European issues, the majority of which have been officer based. The groupings have taken various forms and have sometimes included the civil service. In many cases, representatives of the civil service chaired the meetings. Discussion and dialogue among the various organisations that have an interest in EU policy making are valuable. We have attempted to establish such groups in the past, but with varying degrees of success. It would be safe to say that the degree of success was down to the resources that were available and that there is no lack of will to develop a dialogue.
The European members information liaison exchange—EMILE—network has the potential to do what Nora Radcliffe suggests, given the appropriate resources. Such a scheme should not be restricted to members who are active in Europe, whether they are councillors, MEPs, MSPs or MPs. There might be seats at the table for organisations that have an active interest in Europe. There is a potential for building on EMILE.
COSLA has had a full-time officer in Brussels, but even with that officer I am sure that there were difficulties in sharing resources. Do you have access to sufficient information and intelligence?
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on that, as I have not been the Brussels officer. Members will know that the officer recently left COSLA. During the next six months, we will review the work of the Brussels office and appoint a secondee from one of the councils or from outside to take on the post on an interim basis. That will allow us to evaluate exactly what the post should involve. We will also evaluate our networks in Brussels and beyond and try to find ways of strengthening them or, if necessary, establishing new ones. We also aim to tie up the links between the COSLA offices in Brussels and Edinburgh.
You will have your own view, convener, but I feel that the Local Government International Bureau has been pretty fair in its support for COSLA. In 1996, COSLA took the decision—I know because I chaired the committee—to come out of the LGIB to save £150,000. Since then, the LGIB has been fair to us and supplies a service, but we need our own service in Brussels.
We will return to that issue in a moment. Dennis Canavan has a further question about the Committee of the Regions.
I am sorry that you were not here earlier to hear what Dr Alex Wright had to say about the Committee of the Regions. He was none too complimentary. I will read out an extract from his paper. He states that the Committee of the Regions
"lacks decision making powers in relation to EU policies and it appears far too wrapped up in its own affairs. For the most part it is an irrelevant entity as far as Scotland is concerned and in so doing it raises the question as to whether this body should remain in situ as presently constituted."
Would you like to respond to that? In the new mandate, Scotland is represented by ministers and MSPs, as well as by councillors. How can we make our membership of the Committee of the Regions more effective and beneficial to the people of Scotland?
It is unfair to say that the committee lacks decision-making powers—it was not set up as a decision-making body. However, we should make the committee more effective. Towards the end of the previous mandate, the COR started to recognise some of its internal shortcomings. It is now trying to address those.
We have as much influence as we are prepared to exercise. Currently I am the rapporteur on the thematic strategy for soil protection, which is part of the sixth environmental action programme. The issue is very important to Scotland because, in the past, soil has not been protected in its own right—unlike air and water. It has been protected only indirectly. I have received great support in my work. I have been able to speak to the European Parliament rapporteur and the European Commission desk officers on the issue. The only resistance that I have encountered has come from Scottish Executive civil servants.
That is a problem. If ministers, parliamentarians and local government members are all in the same boat and are trying to influence policy in Europe, they should receive broadly equal support from Scotland. There should be an understanding that we are signed up to the same policy decision making. We should not argue about policy in the European arena. We should get our act together before we go to Europe.
What can be done to raise the profile of the Committee of the Regions and to make the people of Scotland more aware of its activities? If you were to ask the average person in the street in Denny, Bainsford or Raploch what they thought about the Committee of the Regions, they would not know what you were talking about. What can we do to make the committee appear more meaningful to ordinary people?
That is not a problem. The issue is not raising the profile of the Committee of the Regions, but raising the profile of a citizens' Europe. It is important that people should understand that there are channels that will allow them to influence European policy. People recognise the Committee of the Regions as much as they recognise what the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers do. We must raise the profile of citizens' involvement in Europe. The Scottish Civic Forum is the organisation that should be resourced to do that. The forum has done good work in the past. If it had more resources and greater clout, it could help to increase understanding of Europe among the citizens of Scotland.
In my work on the Committee of the Regions, I receive tremendous support from the Local Government International Bureau. However, I do not pay the bureau for that. There is an anomaly in the system. I would like Scottish members to be resourced better to meet the demands of servicing the Committee of the Regions. Do you agree?
Yes. The LGIB is more than fair to us in the services that it provides. It sees the UK delegation as a single delegation. Sometimes we have to depart from that view in order to highlight Scottish interests, but, for the most part, we sign up to the UK's interests as a whole. The Local Government International Bureau is very fair, but we need our own resource, wherever the money may come from.
That concludes our questions for COSLA. Thank you for your attendance and for your written submission. I assure you that your evidence will be taken into account when we write our report.
I welcome the Scottish Executive witnesses, George Calder and Jane Aitken, who are from Scotland House, and ask them to come to the table. Thank you for your written submission. Does George Calder wish to make a few introductory remarks?
George Calder (Scottish Executive European Union Office):
Thank you, convener. I am the head of the Scottish Executive EU office and Jane Aitken is my deputy. We are an integral part of the Scottish Executive's finance and central services department and are accountable to Scottish Executive ministers. We work as a team with our colleagues in the departments in Scotland and with ministers. Departments and ministers are responsible for policy on particular EU proposals and for the implementation of those proposals once they have been agreed.
In Scotland House, we work closely with Scotland Europa and its residents. In the paper that we submitted, we set out our comments on our Executive office, for which we are responsible. The paper also set out the views that we share with Scotland Europa—that is, joint views held by Donald MacInnes and me—about how Scotland House works and how it should work. We also work closely with, although we are not accountable to, the UK permanent representation to the EU.
The office has four main functions. We provide operational support to the Scottish Executive, ranging from advice, training and support for visitors to the provision of hotdesk facilities. We also undertake information gathering for the Executive and seek to influence EU policy and decision making. Finally, we promote Scotland.
The third anniversary of the formal opening of Scotland House takes place at the end of this week—some of you were present on that occasion. It has been an exciting three years for Scotland House—there has been a period of rapid innovation and change. In Brussels, there is enormous interest in Scotland, devolution and what we do in Scotland House. Hardly a day goes by without a visit from officials or politicians from another region or country who want to find out what we do and to consider possible areas of co-operation.
We set out in the paper our view that Scotland House is a good model for representing Scotland. It allows a plurality of approach: the organisations that are located in Scotland House have the freedom to work independently but the opportunity to work together.
All of us in Scotland House have evolved rapidly, but we are still learning new ways of doing things, experimenting with different ways of innovating and seeing what works and what does not. We must build on what has been achieved so far and continue to seek new ways to improve the services we offer.
Thank you, George. Nora Radcliffe will ask the first question.
You may have heard me ask previous witnesses about the SCDI's view that information sharing in Scotland should be more inclusive and transparent. I presume that you heard the question earlier and that I do not need to repeat it. What is your view of that idea, given your perspective of being on the outside looking in?
As far as the Executive office itself is concerned, our main clients are Scottish Executive departments and ministers; we are set up to provide information to them. One of Scotland Europa's key functions is to allow other organisations in Scotland to tap into its information services and to have a resident in Scotland House if they want direct access to institutions and so on. We share information with Scotland Europa and others, including the committee and the EMILE group. The forward look that we described in our submission is very much at the heart of that. We share that with our main partners and sit down with them in Scotland House to consider the particular areas in which we have shared interests and on which we want to co-operate and exchange information.
As we mentioned in our submission, there are some constraints on what information we can provide. One is the simple resource consequences of preparing information. Another is the confidentiality constraints that we have mentioned. I should say that many of the confidential details of negotiations are not always what Scottish interest groups want to know, but if many people would like to tap in more to the information that we hold, we can examine the possibilities.
What the Scottish Council for Development and Industry was getting at was that you have quite a good model worked out in Brussels and it was looking for better information sharing within Scotland—among people on this side of the Channel, if you like. We could perhaps learn lessons from your experience if we are trying to have better and more transparent information sharing within Scotland.
That is an interesting reflection. Various networks exist, including the European relays. Perhaps more could and should be done. In my experience, people are not so much looking for information, but an enormous amount of information is available on the web, there are tonnes of papers and people want to be warned about what is coming up. They want analyses of the implications for their organisations of what is coming up, but that is often difficult to provide until we see drafts. In order to get to that second stage, we have often to involve the organisations themselves or their representatives in analysing impacts. It is not a matter only of accessing information, which is on the web in enormous quantities; it is also about the analytical process, which is more difficult.
You have spoken about liaison with other groups and about having meetings in Scotland House. Is your job to provide information to the Executive or is it wider than that?
Our job is wider than that, although our primary responsibilities are to the Executive, of which we are part and which we have been set up to represent. Like the Executive, we have wider responsibilities. We like to make ourselves available to anybody from Scottish society who is in Brussels and who wants to see us and to ask us questions. We represent Scotland in a general sense. We have a wider role in both those senses in addition to representing the Executive.
Does it say that in the job description that Andy Kerr has given you?
I would have to check what my job description says.
It would be splendid if it says that.
We certainly operate that way; I always have to stress that we do so within the resources that we are allocated.
Is it clearly part of your remit to provide information to wider Scotland as well as to the Executive?
Jane Aitken (Scottish Executive European Union Office):
We are part of a department in the Executive and we provide a horizontal service for departments in the Executive. That is our main target for information but, as George Calder said, we spend a lot of time talking to other bodies in Brussels and back here. We do both.
I should have added that mainly we feed back information to Executive departments, which in turn draw on our information and other sources of information and interact with people in Scotland.
Do you recognise anything of what Councillor McChord said about the co-operation that he has had from the European Parliament and other bodies, and his opinion that he does not feel that he has had such co-operation from the Scottish Executive?
I would like separately to ask Councillor McChord what happened. Normally, we work closely with local authorities—there are many examples of that. A review is being undertaken of the briefing system for Committee of the Regions members, because of the new membership. Perhaps we have not got that right yet. At present, we do not have a COSLA representative at Scotland House. The matter has not been raised with me and I do not know about the case that was mentioned.
Do you consider that it is your office's role to provide members with information that could allow them to try to amend other opinions in the COR? Has that been done?
We need to discuss the arrangements to see how we can how best service members. I do not see why we should not—within our resources—help COR members to represent Scotland.
The Scottish Executive's European Union office only recently appointed one full-time parliamentary officer whose job it is to monitor and report on European Parliament proceedings on Scottish-interest dossiers. That information is shared with the UK permanent representation to the EU, but not with the Scottish Parliament.
The development is welcome, but it might be seen as too little, too late given that the office has been up and running for nearly four years. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Parliament's codecision-making powers have grown markedly and, in addition, at least one full-time European Parliament official has told us that he has had no professional contact with the Executive's EU office, which might call into question the office's focus on that EU institution.
Do you accept the importance of the European Parliament in the decision-making process? Why does the office appear to have taken so long to appoint a specialised parliamentary officer? What grade is that officer? Do you need to increase markedly the number of staff who have that critical function? What does European Parliament monitoring consist of? Does it give rise to a brief? If so, to whom does that go? Will intelligence be shared only with ministers or will it be made more widely available, for example, by coming before the committee? I can repeat some of those questions if they are too much to take in at one fell swoop.
You certainly asked one or two questions. The Executive office takes the Parliament extremely seriously. One of my functions is to draw to colleagues' attention the Parliament's importance. All of us who deal with policy work closely with MEPs, depending on the committees of which they are members and the subjects in which they are interested.
The European Parliament has the central co-decision-making function in legislation and people ignore that at their peril. Much interchange takes place, such as discussing negotiations or talking about a Scottish issue and how to handle it. We have done that from the outset and had regular meetings with MEPs. One of my functions as office head is to talk periodically to MEPs; all my staff do that.
We started with six staff and we now have nine. Quite a long time ago—after about a year of operation—we decided that, instead of sending our policy officers all the time to listen to committee proceedings, we should employ a member of staff whose main role was to listen to and report on European Parliament committee proceedings.
That is not the only thing that we do about the European Parliament. Influencing and consideration of the legislative function are shared among all those in the office who deal with policy. I have put that function in context.
You did not answer my questions about the information that you receive from monitoring the European Parliament. Does that give rise to a brief? If so, to whom does it go? The most important question is that intelligence be shared only with ministers or made more widely available, for example, to the European Committee.
That intelligence leads to a report, rather than a brief. That report is shared within Scotland House and among departments. If the Parliament would be interested in seeing those reports, I can certainly put that to ministers to ascertain whether they feel that that would be appropriate.
If those reports follow the activities of the European Parliament, they are—I presume—a matter of public record, so it would be a matter of drawing the information together. I am pleased to note that you would be willing to share the information with us, which would be helpful.
Let me ask about the next stage. You have been in your role for three years under the current set-up, and you have been expanding. Now that there is a Parliament in Edinburgh, your focus has changed. How do you see the office developing over the next few years? What will be the next challenges as you consolidate your position? Will you become involved in more proactive representation and lobbying, and in less intelligence collection? How do you see that balance resolving itself?
The balance between intelligence gathering and lobbying and influencing will remain broadly the same—both are important, given the pivotal role of departments in Scotland in acquiring information on the basis of which either they, we or whoever can carry out lobbying activity.
I feel that we have learned an awful lot, that we are still learning, and that we have a lot more to learn yet. I expect and hope that we will become that much more proficient in using our influence. I am sure that we will aim to continue to improve in that area. We gather a lot of information and the trick for us is to give the right information to the right people; it is not just about sending back great reams of information. We will explore how we can get smarter in how we use and share information.
Links with other regions is an area of our work that has expanded considerably since we started. There are about 170 regional offices in Brussels, so the city is something of a marriage bureau for the different regions. There is a lot of camaraderie between the regions, so links and joint projects with other regions, and sometimes agreements, are often initially brokered in Brussels.
We are now also involved in a lot of regional networks, including the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, or CLRAE, which comes under the auspices of the Council of Europe; the Committee of the Regions; and the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe—the CPMR. The departments in the Executive are examining increasingly the experience of other regions so that we can share best practice in policy development and set benchmarks against that. We often play a role in facilitating such contacts.
If we have a similar discussion in three years' time, I do not think that we will be reporting to the committee a steady state in which nothing has changed. Things are evolving fast and I expect them to continue to evolve fast, although it is not possible to predict exactly how things will go.
Enlargement is the next big issue.
Yes. Enlargement will—of course—have a big impact. There will also be the outcome of the future of Europe debate.
The question of how we will develop over the next few years will depend very much on the direction of policy development in Europe; for example on what happens in the forthcoming structural funds debate. It will also depend on our priorities and on how the policy debates in Brussels develop.
Do you have a time scale for any specific proposals for change? Are you just thinking that things will emerge over the next year or so?
There is not as yet a specific date for a review. We will be very interested to hear what the committee has to say, because this is quite a good moment to be looking at things again. After the Scottish parliamentary elections will no doubt be a good time to take stock and to consider how we will move forward. We are innovating all the time and that is one of the reasons why the work is exciting. We are constantly trying and discovering different ways of doing things.
Paragraph 32 of your written submission states:
"Staff in the EU Office regularly represent the Executive as part of the UK delegation at Council Working Groups (and sometimes Councils themselves)".
Which three Council working groups have your staff attended most recently? Do they speak at and actively participate in those meetings or do they just observe? Do they attend in addition to or instead of, in any circumstances, the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union and Whitehall civil servants?
A final question has occurred to me; perhaps I should know the answer to it. Does the First Minister have an external relations adviser and, if so, who is that person?
I will turn to Jane Aitken in a moment because she might be able to talk about some of the recent Council working groups that either our staff or Executive staff have attended.
The question of whether people speak at the working groups is agreed within the UK delegation. Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not and whether they do depends upon circumstances. The important things are that they are there, that they are contributing to the UK line and they are involved in the discussions.
On whether staff ever attend such meetings in place of people from Whitehall departments, it happens sometimes, although it is fairly rare.
There is an external relations division in the Scottish Executive and the First Minister has perhaps two special advisers who take particular interest in international and external affairs issues.
I can talk only about the working groups that I have recently attended. In the past two weeks, I have been working quite intensely on the reform of the common agricultural policy and have been to three working groups on that. I do not have at my fingertips the details of all such meetings that our other desk officers have attended.
Could we obtain those details?
We could try.
I know how to do that.
We could try.
Thank you.
That concludes today's questions. We hope that this will the first of many visits to the committee and we thank you for coming along.