Scottish Executive European Strategy
Good afternoon and welcome to the third meeting in 2004 of the European and External Relations Committee. Apologies have been received from Irene Oldfather, but not from any other members. I am unaware whether a substitute member is appearing for Irene; no doubt, we will find out in due course. We have a relatively light agenda today, as the clerks have been busy preparing the background for the inquiries that are under way. We will not take any evidence today.
The first item is the Scottish Executive's recently published European strategy document. I hope that all members have had a chance to read it. As members will be aware, Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, is coming to the committee soon to discuss the ministerial priorities for the Irish presidency of the European Union. He has agreed also to address the new European strategy during that appearance. I hope that we will be able to ask specific questions about the strategy in a separate part of the meeting.
There are several issues around the strategy, which I am sure committee members will want to delve into. It is an important document, as it details the Executive's strategy for the next four years and one of our main priorities is to scrutinise the Government's activities in Europe.
Members can comment in two seconds, but I would like to say that I was slightly disappointed that the document was slipped out without a big event or announcement. I did not see any media coverage of the document, although I think that there were one or two small pieces.
I invite comments from members on the new strategy that the Government has announced.
I did not want to kick off the discussion, but as everybody is waiting to see who will kick it off, I will start.
The convener said that he was slightly disappointed, but I was very disappointed with the document. I will not go through all of the details that I marked as I read the document because I am trying to be restrained, but the phrase that kept coming back to me was: where is the beef? There is a lack of a strategy for delivery. Should there not be an action plan attached to the document? The Executive should ensure that it has procedures to report back to the committee and the Parliament. We should raise the issue with Andy Kerr, who must provide details of the exact nature of the delivery plans, for example in relation to advance notice of the joint ministerial committee on Europe, the disclosure of the Executive's recommendations to the European Commission and the linkage with the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, once it is up and running again.
The document makes a lot of worthy points, but there is no strong strategy for delivery back to the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish people. If we distributed the document to the people of Scotland, they would not find much of great interest in it. It is worthy, but we want to know about the delivery. As Andy Kerr wrote the foreword to the document, we should take up that point in our meeting with him, which I think is in a fortnight.
The minister will appear before the committee on 24 February.
I did not want to kick off the discussion either.
I have read the document once and I hope to read it a second time. It is a bit like a lot of Executive documents in that, dare I say it, it could probably be boiled down to about two or three pages. There is an awful lot of padding and I found it difficult to put my finger on certain issues. The document seems to deal more with mechanics than with strategy. It is all very well using buzzwords such as "mainstreaming", but the document does not say how mainstreaming will be done. I found other such words, but why bother mentioning them? I get the impression that the document has been thrown together—I choose those words carefully. It does not have a strategic thread, or even just a thread, running through it. That disappointed and concerned me.
I presume that we can pursue the issue with the minister. Many worthy points are simply not followed through. For example, the document states:
"We will increase our engagement with EU Consular Missions",
but it does not say how the Executive is going to do that. On the tourism aspect, the document mentions practical measures that are being delivered such as the Rosyth-Zeebrugge ferry and the new air routes. Perhaps this is just me, but I feel that the document has been put together in a rush. As it is difficult to pin things down on one read, I will probably have to read it several more times, after which perhaps some profundity that I missed the first time will sink in.
I do not share Keith Raffan's or Margaret Ewing's sense of disappointment. The document is mercifully short, and rightly so. In its 10 pages it skips through the Executive's strategy and clearly outlines targets and milestones on pages 9 and 10. Had a 50-page document been plonked before us, we would have said that it was far too long and convoluted. The document is short and concise and outlines broadly the Executive's European strategy.
I can speak only for myself, but I feel that it is up to members of the committee to question the minister and to come up with alternatives to the strategy or ideas to enhance and improve it. After all, that is the role of the committee and its members. As I said, I am glad that the strategy is a 10-page document, not some tome of 50 or 100 pages.
I feel that I have read all this before in various documents from Europe, the Scottish Executive and other places. It seems that the document merely puts together all the things one would expect to be included in it. It contains nothing that really surprises me or that stands out as being new, innovative or something that we should all get enthusiastic about. It simply states what I would expect the Executive to be doing.
As Keith Raffan and Margaret Ewing pointed out, the paper raises questions about the precise meaning of a few throwaway words that we will be able to get a response to only by querying the minister. That would be my only criticism; in fact, it is not even a criticism. I am simply saying that we need to ask questions about the document, which probably aligns me with Alasdair Morrison's position.
That said, the one thing that I want to know is whether anyone has done their sums and found out the actual costs of achieving the aims that have been stated, of any additional civil servant involvement, of travel and accommodation and so on. I am sure that achieving those aims will incur costs and would be interested to know what is entailed.
I would have thought that a Scottish Executive document would contain more emphasis on the opportunities and challenges of enlargement and the new markets that will present opportunities for trade and for Scottish business. Towards the end, the document says:
"Through our Fresh Talent initiative and the activities of VisitScotland, we will actively promote Scotland as a place in which to live and work and to visit";
however, enlargement also presents a new opportunity in that respect.
Indeed, I think that the United Kingdom Government itself might have neglected or underestimated the possibility that some people—including I hope some who are very skilled—will come to the UK and Scotland to live and work either temporarily or on a more long-term basis. We hear a lot about the skills shortage in certain areas in Scotland and more thought should be given to the implications of enlargement in that respect.
Does any member who has not yet spoken want to comment?
I missed the earlier part of the discussion, but I gather that everyone got out of bed the wrong side this morning. I have not heard such crabbit muttering for a long time.
On Dennis Canavan's point, enlargement is referred to in the document. Paragraph 7(i) says:
"It is critically important that the focus and range of activities of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International reflect Ministers' strategic European priorities, including securing economic benefits for Scotland from EU Enlargement."
The reference is very brief. It should be fleshed out to let us know exactly what the Executive means.
In order to allow us to establish areas of questioning, I ask for members' comments on the strategy's general thrust. Gordon, do you have any comments?
No, I would not want to disrupt this wonderful unity in any way. [Laughter.]
Perhaps we should reconsider the committee's seating arrangements.
Part of the problem is that the document has been called a "European Strategy". I do not think that it adds up to a strategy; it sets out some useful stuff about mechanisms and mechanics, but I would want it to contain more vision and more of a strategy.
Dennis Canavan raised a number of important points. I have lodged a number of questions about trade and developing our relations with the countries that are being admitted to the EU, particularly in view of the huge, regional development aid-funded infrastructure contracts that will be forthcoming. I have been pursuing the issues but I do not find that the Executive is really buzzing or keen to make the most of them. I would like to see ministers leading delegations to Lithuania rather than to Houston. I do not see vision, drive, energy or imagination. If there is to be a document called a strategy, let it be a strategy and not a list of things that are being done, policy areas and mechanisms.
I do not know what side of the bed John Home Robertson got out of today
The happy side.
It might be a four-poster, I do not know.
After listening to the various comments, I want to make a recommendation to the committee. The general consensus is that the document is good but does not have the action plan that we would all want. I recommend that, when we meet Andy Kerr, we concentrate on sections 12, 13 and 14. Those seem to be the sections in relation to which we could try to get more information about what the action plan for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive might be. The sections raise a series of issues—making a reality of subsidiarity, debates in the Scottish Parliament on Europe, mainstreaming EU policy and so on. Once the document has been read for a third time, those areas become the key areas and the rest of it becomes background information. We should concentrate on the key areas with the minister.
I would go along with Margaret Ewing, although I would say that paragraph 12(b)(ii) jumps the gun, because it presumes that the European constitution will be signed up to. If I did not make that point, I would not be doing my usual duty.
Dennis Canavan made a very positive comment, but there is another side to the issue. Yesterday, the national news covered the movement of Roma people from Slovakia to the United Kingdom. Opportunities arise from job experience coming into this country, but there is also a threat. Other European countries have recognised that and have applied limitations on people coming in, to use their benefit systems, I presume. The UK Government may have been negligent and the Scottish Executive should take account of such matters when considering issues that are within our remit such as health and education.
That was useful. Members have flagged up areas of concern about which we can question the minister. If members agree, this process could form a central plank of our scrutiny role over the next few years and into the foreseeable future. We will return to these issues time and time again. As Alasdair Morrison said, it is up to this committee to hold the Government to account for its strategy. I hope that we can get our teeth into that. We will have to cover the many aspects of the strategy paper.
I suggest that the Scottish Parliament information centre considers the strategy paper for us and highlights areas that we might have to delve into with the minister to get more information. We have agreed before that we do not want to be given questions to ask but that some background information on individual areas would be useful. I hope that the minister will put aside a reasonable amount of time for questions. There will clearly be a lot of interest in the matters that members will want to pursue.