Our last item is the beginning of evidence taking for our inquiry into Scotland's representation in Brussels. I am pleased to welcome Alan Wilson and Roland Diggens, from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. We have had good, constructive meetings with Alan and Roland in the past and we thank them for the detailed written evidence that they have given to us.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I shall say a couple of sentences about the SCDI, a couple about our European credentials, then a sentence or two about the recommendations in our submission.
In the past, we have welcomed the information and statistics that you have provided. I have used them in parliamentary debates and we hope that the information flow will continue. Our two rapporteurs on the subject are Helen Eadie and Ben Wallace and I invite them to lead the questioning.
My previous experience of dealing with the SCDI is that it is a first-rate organisation, and its submissions, too, are first-rate. The SCDI is known to talk straight. After four years on the European Committee, it is always refreshing to read submissions that are written in understandable language and get the point across.
I will have to put a stop to that.
I want to pick up on some of the points in your submission. First, it has been alleged—I use that word advisedly—that Scotland Europa does not have a medium or long-term vision of how the Scottish Parliament and the Executive should do business in the EU or how Scotland should represent its case. It seems that Scotland Europa works more on a six-month-by-six-month presidency basis. What is your view on that?
I am conscious that Scotland Europa representatives will give evidence next and that they will have strong views on that point. However, Ben Wallace asked for our opinion. Roland Diggens is the author of our report and I would like him to address the question.
At the moment, Scotland Europa's strategy is one of intelligence gathering, advocacy and lobbying. We expect that to be the case at present and in the future. It is worth mentioning that the SCDI comes at issues from an economic development perspective. No doubt the question is one that the committee will want to put to other organisations.
Are you saying that that is missing in relation to the strategic issues?
At the moment, the representatives are working hard to gather intelligence and lobby on those strategic issues. However, they are serving their audiences. For example, the Scottish Executive office in Brussels is looking after intelligence gathering and advocacy on behalf of the Scottish Executive. However, we might like a more holistic approach to be taken by Scotland and for us to arrive at a strategy that is acceptable to Scottish organisations in the long term. It is not that the work is not being done at the moment, but we would like the information to be spread more widely. We would like the ability of external organisations to nudge the representatives in certain directions to be strengthened.
Sometimes you prompt the Executive that an issue needs to be acted on and sometimes the Executive flags up an issue and asks you for your opinion on it. Is the balance right in that regard or do you think that you do more prompting than the Executive does flagging up?
The committee would be the first to recognise the sheer breadth and complexity of European issues. There is always a case to be made for external organisations to pick up those issues and ask the Parliament or the Executive to investigate them a bit more thoroughly. Equally, in the course of its intelligence gathering, the Executive will throw up issues and ask us for our opinion. The balance varies from issue to issue. Some issues are clearly strategic, such as enlargement and the euro, while some issues might not be natural subjects for the Executive to deal with in Brussels, such as corporate social responsibility, which was the subject of our conference last year. We have worked quite hard on that with other organisations.
Would you say that you spent more of your time prompting or being prompted?
It is our job to do the prompting a lot of the time. We respond to Executive consultations and to parliamentary inquiries, but we also have to reflect the views of our members. It is our job to point people in the right direction.
Also, because we are a small organisation with a fairly tight remit, we have the luxury of being able to be selective with regard to the issues that we try to understand and run with.
When the Executive consults you, does it do so through a consultation paper? Does it do so formally or informally? Does it write to you directly?
The Executive uses a mixture of methods, but we are mostly consulted using official consultation practices.
So everyone is consulted and you pick up on certain subjects because you are an interested organisation.
That is right.
That neatly takes us to the idea of the team Scotland approach. There are officials who are worried about the conflicting messages that could come out of any different form of approach. The West of Scotland European Consortium and Glasgow City Council are worried that you might have a sanitised approach to the arrangements rather than a more representative one. I would be interested to know your views on the strengths and limitations of the team Scotland principle. Is there anything that can be done to utilise the strengths without incurring too many of the weaknesses?
The team Scotland approach operates on different levels. The MEPs could be seen as team Scotland. Equally, civil servants could be discussing matters with other civil servants, and external organisations could be talking to other external organisations.
So you are saying that there is room for manoeuvre, that the representative voices that are coming through—for example the West of Scotland European Consortium and Glasgow City Council—are suggesting that a team Scotland approach can still be adopted, and that a consensus can be brought to bear as far as lobbying is concerned.
That is true. There is some room for manoeuvre. If it can be achieved, having a common voice is very powerful and worth having.
The experience to date of the policy missions suggests that the existence of a team working for Scotland is almost tangible. That comment has been made to me by many participants, who have been surprised and relieved that everybody seems to be pulling in the same direction. That is the broad perception, although there will obviously be differences on individual policies. The fact that everybody seems to be pulling in the same direction should be recorded. It is positive and refreshing.
Your paper refers to one of the limitations of the team Scotland approach. It says:
I agree with the fact that it is a question of trying to share that information at an early stage. The most obvious example of what Dennis Canavan describes is a document called the "Forward Look", which is prepared every six months in connection with the presidencies of the EU. At the moment, it is shared among MEPs and the Scottish Executive. I am sure that the document is of a high quality.
You mentioned relations with the Executive. Have you had discussions or contact with COSLA's full-time officer in Brussels?
We have more regular contact with COSLA's staff in Edinburgh.
I want to discuss whether the Scottish Parliament should be represented in Scotland House. Your submission makes a case for that. The Scottish Executive, Scotland Europa and COSLA are represented in Scotland House, but the Parliament is not. Why do you believe so strongly that the Parliament should be there? What kind of staffing input would be required? You suggest that half of the staff time might be spent on relation building with EU institutions and that the other half would be spent on providing forward briefs for the European Committee. To what extent would that be a unique role that none of the other agencies in Scotland House carry out?
From speaking to MSPs and others who are involved, I understand that the main benefit of having a representative of the Scottish Parliament—which is a distinct organisation—in Brussels would be to provide direct and unmediated access to, and communications with, EU institutions. A representative would help MSPs by reducing the protocols that they must go through and by speeding up responses. Also, the move would allay any fears that MSPs might have that a third party interprets communications in some way. The principal benefit would be direct communication, which can be achieved only through a direct representative in Brussels. The best example of that is the Scottish Executive office in Brussels.
That is an important point. It is important to take the temperature on how others face up to potential directives or consultation papers. There are many issues to deal with. It would be interesting to listen to others on their priorities and how they approach issues.
That is persuasive. One issue that struck me in your submission was that of whether people duplicate effort. There are also the issues of the Parliament's profile and of direct contact. The officer would have to ensure communication between officers who are pursuing parallel tracks and report on that to the Parliament.
We agree with that point. We made it fairly clear in our response that we think that a parliamentary representative should be located in Scotland House. The other Scottish representatives in Scotland House would probably welcome that and would be happy to work together and share resources. I should not speak on their behalf, but I am sure that that is the case.
I want to expand on Sarah Boyack's question. Your view is that, if the Scottish Parliament had a representative in Brussels, it would have much quicker and more direct access to the European Commission, which would benefit you. However, you mentioned that you already have good relationships with the European Commission office and the European Parliament office in Scotland and that you work closely with a COSLA representative in Scotland rather than with the one in Brussels.
You are absolutely right. The SCDI works with those other offices regularly. For example, they help us to contact specific individuals and to keep up to date with what is happening. Nevertheless, when the SCDI is undertaking a piece of work—responding to consultation or lobbying in a certain area—we tend to speak to people directly. I suggest that MSPs would also prefer to speak to people directly. It is perfectly acceptable for team Scotland to work together and to share information. However, an institution that is as important as the Parliament is to Scotland should have a representative in Brussels to exchange communication directly.
You will get documents galore from the EC office, but you will not get interpretation or opinions, which is what you want from a Scottish Parliament representative.
Let us go off at a slight but important tangent. As you know, we had a debate on the future of Europe, which was not terribly well reported in the press. Paragraph 17 of Roland Diggens's submission suggests that there is limited discussion in the media here of what goes on in Europe. To an extent, what we are doing today and what goes on in Europe might as well take place in a vacuum as far as the great Scottish public are concerned. How could the press be better engaged with it? How could you or the other agencies encourage the press to take more interest in what is going on in Europe? What we get are the silly stories from the prejudiced press. We do not get much on Europe from the respectable media or broadcasters. How would you address that?
In future, we might try to increase the availability of information. Earlier, when the committee was reviewing pre-Council and post-Council papers, someone spoke of the difficulties with receiving those papers early enough to get their head round them. We would prefer organisations that produce information, data and briefings to share them and make them commonly available throughout Scotland, through a common Scottish European forum. It would make journalists' jobs an awful lot easier if they did not have to work quite so hard at tracking down the issues but had a briefing paper on a common Scottish position and a list of contacts in organisations that felt strongly in particular areas. That would make it easier for the media to report on those important issues.
So you are saying that there should be some way of producing easily digestible, ready-made press releases, to which journalists might be able to add their bylines.
The spoon effect.
That is broadly what I am saying, although press releases would not be necessary. The ready availability of the documentation, coupled with a list of the organisations and individuals who would be prepared to comment on it, would be sufficient. That could all be put together through a Scottish European forum. It would make a good starting position for improving media coverage.
It is not only on European issues that one could say the press are not overly interested. If we do a survey on the euro or on the opportunities from enlargement, the first question in any article is—shock, horror—whether the result is for or against. How the article is spun will depend on who writes the piece and in which newspaper. As we all know, journalists are not interested in the opportunities that enlargement might create; they are interested in the threats. They focus on the jobs that might be lost and on all the negatives. We have to battle hard to get a balanced discussion going. It would be easy to say that business in the broadest sense should work harder to encourage balanced discussion, but in some respects business is just as divided as every other section of the community. How to engage the media in a positive way is an extremely difficult issue.
Members probably agree with your comments on the media. We understand your point of view. Thank you for coming along and for providing comprehensive written and oral evidence. I assure you that your evidence will be taken into account in our deliberations.
Thank you for the invitation to give evidence. I am the chair of Scotland Europa and a board member of Scottish Enterprise. Donald MacInnes is the chief executive of Scotland Europa and Scottish Enterprise's director of international operations. I will give a few words of introduction, after which Donald will refer briefly to some of the key issues in our evidence.
It is nice to be here. This is the first time that I have been in front of the European Committee, although I have been at Scotland Europa for five years. In that time, I have seen and overseen much change in the organisation's operations in Brussels, much of which has been occasioned by the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the resultant development of Scotland House.
Campbell Christie mentioned joint working and Scotland Europa and the Scottish Executive targeting different audiences. In Scotland House, are there opportunities for joint working with the Scottish Executive on legislative proposals, for example, or do you tend to work to your own clients?
Donald MacInnes will answer that question in detail. However, I can say that, in general, having Scotland Europa and the Scottish Executive office together is conducive to joint working. Often, the issues in which the Scottish Executive office is interested are the same as those in which Scotland Europa is interested, so there will be a great deal of joint working. However, we produce reports and information for our members and the Executive office has another constituency, in that its main function is to report to the Scottish Executive.
Essentially, we are apolitical and keep out of politics and policy development when we can. The Scottish Executive is responsible for policy and policy development in Europe whereas we are responsible for interpreting and analysing policy and policy development for our members and for providing an intelligence service to them that will keep them in the forefront of what is happening. The division is that the Executive is responsible for policy, policy development and politics whereas our job involves interpretation, analysis and intelligence.
You must therefore emphasise linking up with the Scottish diaspora in Brussels.
Yes, we do.
That brings us on to Dennis Canavan's area. He has a question.
Just before I ask my question, could you tell me whether Scotland Europa has a view on the suggestion that the Scottish Parliament should have a presence in Brussels, possibly in Scotland House?
We have not taken the views of our members on that. As a broad church, therefore, we do not have a view on the issue.
I want to ask about the Scottish diaspora in Brussels and Luxembourg. Scotland Europa gave us a useful list of Scottish people who live in Brussels and Luxembourg. Some of those people work in EU institutions. However, some of those on the list said that they heard little from Scotland Europa and were keen to get involved in events and the exchange of information. Could you tell us what use is made of the list of Scottish people who live and work in Brussels and Luxembourg? Could better use be made of that network of Scots? Has Helen Liddell approached those people as part of her friends of Scotland network?
The answer to the last part of your question is yes. Both Kirsty Macdonald and I were at the launch of Helen Liddell's friends of Scotland network. We are plugged into that project. We are also involved with our colleagues at the SCDI on the global Scot initiative—many of the people involved in that are in Europe.
Could that be an untapped resource? I understand that the Irish are good at using everyone who is on their list. Could better use be made of your list?
We hold a lot of events at Scotland House and we have never been accused of not being sociable. We will continue to act in that way, I suspect. Whether we have to catch up with the Irish is for others to judge, but we promote Scotland in the way that we think is effective.
It would be fair to say that the global Scot initiative, which will include many of the people who are in Brussels or Luxembourg, is intended to make use of existing expertise to help Scotland. Scottish Enterprise has been developing that. I agree that we can certainly learn from the Irish and the way in which they come together to ensure that the Irish view is well understood. We would want the global Scot initiative to achieve that.
I was thinking beyond social activities. People always feel welcome in Scotland House but there are Scots who do important jobs in the Commission and the European Parliament. It might be helpful to tap into that system a little and to make use of that expertise.
We do that. The list of Europa Scots ranges from very senior people to junior people and those who have newly arrived. What they can contribute is diverse. One challenge for Scotland is using our diversity of people in Brussels and in Luxembourg. Some of our colleagues, such as the Irish, may be a little ahead of us on getting right into the range of skills that they have.
My questions are about team Scotland and conflicts. I understand that Scotland Europa is basically Scottish Enterprise in Brussels and that its members are a variety of bodies, which cover a wide range of interests and include public and private bodies, universities and industry. How does Scotland Europa value the team Scotland approach that we have heard about? How would it approach an issue on which its members had differing views and/or on which some of its members' views differed from the views of the Executive in Brussels?
We say to our members, and they accept, that if a common Scottish position exists, we, they and the Scottish Executive should be happy to promote that. The current arrangement helps our members that are resident in Scotland House and our other members by allowing for diversity, so they can promote themselves in their own way under the broad umbrella that I mentioned, rather than toeing the line of Scotland Europa, the Scottish Executive or anybody else. That approach gives us the opportunity to promote their interests and allows them to promote their interests in their own distinctive way. That is why we think that the current arrangement works well.
I will talk about the team Scotland concept and how Scotland House is conducive to developing it. I did not quite recognise the elite nature of the policy development or work in Brussels that the SCDI talked about. I acknowledge that, on some issues, the Executive's representation feeds back tactics and strategy to the Executive or to ministers, just as we do with our members. However, in general, because everyone—COSLA, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scotland Europa and the Scottish Executive—is together in the same building and often deals with the same issues, the arrangement is more conducive to establishing informal links, informal information exchange and ideas more positively than an arrangement under which we were not as close.
I will return to Dennis Canavan's question about the list of Scots who live in Brussels and Luxembourg. What do you use that list for?
As I said, that list covers a range of interests. Some people are very senior and some are junior. Some people want to know about social events and some want to know about business events that we promote. Others want to know about policy events.
So they are constantly being mailed.
Yes.
Have you assessed the input that you have as a result of that mailing list? A number of people who are on the list have said that they hear little from Scotland Europa, although they were keen to be involved in events and in an information exchange. Have you assessed how effective the list is?
We have not conducted a formal assessment of the list's effectiveness. We would measure the effectiveness of the list by the number of people on the list who use it as a network.
Does everyone on the list have a copy of the list?
Yes.
I realise that you cannot tell us whether your organisation supports the idea of Scottish Parliament representation in Brussels, as you have not asked your membership. However, do you think that it is vital that COSLA and Scottish local government be represented in Brussels?
More important than my view is the fact that COSLA believes it to be vital. Scotland House also serves as the home of the Scottish local government office, the West of Scotland European Consortium and the East of Scotland European Consortium. They have been with us in Scotland House from the outset and I believe that they regard their work as relevant and important.
What access to representation do the local authorities that are no longer members of COSLA have?
I understand that they are members of either the West of Scotland European Consortium or the East of Scotland European Consortium.
Do you agree that, logically, the missing piece of the jigsaw in terms of representation in Europe is the Scottish Parliament?
We are open to that idea. If I can put it this way, we will make room available to the Scottish Parliament.
Thank you.
I understand that Scotland House is doing a huge amount of work on networking. Reading in your report about the practical results of networking, such as economic development and twinning arrangements, I noted that the fact that the Czechs had moved into Scotland House had cemented the relationship with them. Part of the idea of our inquiry is to come up with ways in which we can develop Scotland House and make it more effective. One of the pleas that was made by business representatives at our conference last week was for more support to allow them to operate in Europe. The network in Europe seems to be working effectively, but questions arise about how that can be communicated back here and how people who are not part of a network can get into one.
That is a hugely important issue, particularly because of the way in which the European Commission likes to deal with trans-national projects, whether in relation to funding or alliances for economic development purposes or whatever.
I am trying to understand the relationship between Scotland Europa and the Executive. We have a written submission from SEPA, which is one of your members, about its representation within the EU. SEPA's submission states generally that it follows the Executive line because it is a Government body. Many of the residents of Scotland House are Government bodies.
The Scotland Europa written submission represents the broad view of all our members. We would like to ensure that that broad view is communicated to the European Committee, which is why we were keen to make our independent submission. We were also keen to show the committee that we work effectively with the Executive and the other residents of Scotland House. That was why it was appropriate for us to co-sign the Executive's written submission.
I want to expand on that. I regard Scotland Europa's role as that of a facilitator, a conference host—to which your submission refers—and an exchange that brings people together. However, Scotland Europa is also an intelligence-gathering organisation, which is what I find odd. We often hear it said that the Scottish Executive and the Foreign Office are not good at consulting more widely than the close-knit circle of Whitehall. However, some Scotland Europa members are part of the Scottish Executive.
Your point reflects the argument for having the broad church that we have in Scotland House. Scotland needs that diversity of representation. If we were just one team, we would not be able to represent individual interests—organisations want to do that independently—and have a Scotland-wide view. We work effectively with the Executive, but we also work with other organisations such as UKREP, non-governmental institutions and the Scottish Parliament. We try to influence Scottish interests wherever we can, whether that is with the Scottish Executive or any of the institutions. That is why we operate in the way that we do.
It is like trying to draw an elephant and recognise it when you see it. It is difficult to institutionalise and constitutionalise the benefits of working together in the way that we do and of reporting in different ways to different constituencies.
We do not wish to be complacent, but we have been amazed and encouraged by the number of nations and regions throughout Europe who have come in to see us and have wanted to talk to us about the Scotland House model. There is a continuing high level of interest in Europe—in Brussels in particular—in devolution and the Scottish Parliament. If somebody would pay me, I could spend all my time making presentations to other nations and regions in Europe about the Scotland House model and what it is all about. We think that the model is effective. We want to develop new ways of making it flexible and more effective to meet the big challenges that lie ahead.
Are you financially independent of the Executive? I noticed from your submission that you receive a wide range of EU funding.
Yes. We get no finance directly from the Executive.
So you are responsible to and accountable to your client base.
Yes. Our members have to keep paying their fees every year. If they did not, we would be out of a job.
What would happen if there were a conflict of interests? One of your members is the Scotch Whisky Association. Would your primary role be to represent its interests if there were, for example, conflict with the water framework directive?
Yes. That is right.
We are for the Scotch Whisky Association, all the time.
On representing our members at a practical operational level, the Scotch Whisky Association, for example, will be a member of numerous other umbrella organisations and trade associations. The Scotch Whisky Association will use Scotland Europa as one vehicle to input into what it needs to do at a Brussels level in relation to legislation or policy development.
Are you financially independent of Scottish Enterprise?
No. We depend to a large extent on Scottish Enterprise. Since we started, about 50 per cent of our funding has come from Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise uses us as its Brussels arm because it represents the small and medium enterprise community in Scotland and it also operates with the big industry sectors. The other 50 per cent of our funding comes from our other members and the events that we put on.
Does not that put you in a situation where a conflict of interests arises?
No.
Not yet.
We will let you know if we are in such a situation.
Thank you very much for your presentation and for your written evidence. We appreciate the time that you have taken and thank you for your comprehensive report. We look forward to seeing George Calder, who is coming in two weeks' time.
Kirsty Macdonald should get the credit for writing the report.
That was the last item on the agenda. We will meet again on 8 October and fortnightly thereafter until Christmas. The main items of business at our next meeting are to hear from Ross Finnie and to continue our discussions and deliberations in our inquiry into Scottish representation in Brussels.
Meeting closed at 16:15.
Previous
Sift