European and External Relations Committee, 07 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Official Report 206KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Item 4 is my report, which contains two items. The first is an exchange of correspondence between me and the principal private secretary to the First Minister, intimating that the First Minister advises that Tom McCabe will appear before the committee in relation to our inquiry on the fresh talent initiative. I am somewhat disappointed that Mr McConnell has decided not to appear before us on an issue that has his personal imprimatur all over it.

Has Mr McConnell ever appeared before any committee of the Parliament since he became First Minister?

No.

Never?

No. I made an inquiry about the possibility of the First Minister appearing in front of a committee of conveners, just as the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons to have a general run around the houses a couple of times a year. I was surprised to find that, when that proposal was put to the Conveners Group—before I became the convener of this committee—it was rejected. I am advised that the First Minister was prepared to appear before the Conveners Group, so I may take the matter up with the group again. On an issue such as the fresh talent initiative, however, it would be beneficial to hear from the First Minister.

I quite understand that it is right that the relevant minister should be the first port of call for any committee. Equally, I quite like your suggestion that the First Minister could usefully appear before the Conveners Group.

The danger is that the First Minister technically has responsibility for everything and so every committee of the Parliament could issue invitations to him. That is what ministerial portfolios are for. Personally, I do not have a problem with that.

We can acknowledge that the First Minister has all those responsibilities, but he has made the fresh talent initiative a personal issue and we are conducting an inquiry into the initiative. We have already heard a lot of evidence and we have a lot of evidence to read. I think that we should be quite firm and should ask again that he come before us—in a private session, if necessary—so that we can pursue some of the points that we have picked up in our investigation.

Convener, it is interesting that although you wrote to the First Minister, the First Minister did not reply to you, but got his principal private secretary to reply to the clerk.

I had noticed that point and was irritated by it.

The PPS cannot even spell "convener" properly.

Yes—he spelled it wrongly.

To say the least, the fact that the First Minister did not respond personally is a breach of parliamentary protocol. However, a more important point is that the First Minister has taken a great personal interest in the fresh talent initiative, which has been described by the media and others as one of his flagship policies—the policy was his idea and his stamp is on it. I agree with Margaret Ewing that we should pursue the matter and see whether we can persuade him to come before our committee.

I am not sure that a private session would be in order, given that there is nothing confidential about the fresh talent initiative. The First Minister has shown great leadership on the matter and I, for one, strongly support the initiative. It is not as if we are going to give him a hard time. We might want to ask some difficult questions, but I would hope that the meeting would not be confrontational. Perhaps if the convener and other members who have greater influence with the First Minister had a personal word with him, he might be persuaded to appear before us.

On the subject of members who have influence with the First Minister, I see that Mr Home Robertson wishes to comment.

If only.

There is a bit of humbug going around. It is entirely appropriate that we should take evidence in the first place from the relevant Cabinet minister. After that, if an issue is outstanding on which it might seem relevant to go back to the First Minister, that is the time to think about doing so. I can understand why the First Minister is reluctant to set a precedent by coming to the committee early in the process, when he has a perfectly competent Cabinet minister who takes responsibility for the issue.

Competent?

Yes. That is Mr McCabe.

Mr Canavan rightly mentioned that the First Minister has taken a personal interest in the fresh talent initiative, but he has also taken a personal interest in a raft of other issues, such as sectarianism, Malawi, the G8 summit and legislation on passive smoking. However, the ministers who have responsibility for those issues should give evidence to committees first. I agree with John Home Robertson that, if there are outstanding issues that cannot be resolved with the minister, it would be fair enough to ask the First Minister to give evidence. We have written to the First Minister and we have an indication that the minister with the relevant portfolio responsibility is willing to come to the committee. I am happy to accept that.

I agree that Jack McConnell has pinned his flag to many policies, but, in contrast to passive smoking and other issues, the fresh talent initiative is about growing the Scottish economy, which is part of what our investigation is about. There should be flexibility in the First Minister's office to allow him to come along and talk directly about the initiative. We have asked a few questions in the chamber and there is the occasional small debate on the issue, but given that the First Minister has made the initiative a flagship policy, he should come along and talk to us openly, as Dennis Canavan says, about how he sees it progressing.

One difficulty that I have is that we have received conflicting views from many organisations that have given evidence about how they think the initiative will work out, which is why we must get back to the First Minister's office and ensure that he comes to the committee. He can pick and choose with other committee requests—he does not need to set a precedent. Anyway, as far as I understand it, precedents do not exist in Scottish law.

I will draw the matter to a conclusion, although it is obvious that we have a divergence of views that we will have to resolve. However, I will make a point that I feel is significant and which shows why it is important that the First Minister should come to the committee. When the fresh talent initiative was announced to the Parliament, the First Minister delivered the statement, but when the ban on smoking in public places was announced to the Parliament, the Minister for Health and Community Care delivered the statement. That shows a big distinction in the First Minister's degree of involvement in a policy. The First Minister has—appropriately—made statements on only a handful of issues, such as the programme for government, for which he is responsible. He made no statement about antisocial behaviour.

He made a statement on Malawi.

He made a statement about Malawi, which is important. It would have been ridiculous if Tom McCabe had made a statement on the First Minister's behalf about his trip to Malawi, because the First Minister made the trip there. If it is appropriate for the First Minister to make a parliamentary statement, a substantial point arises about what he chooses to advance as his principal concerns, for which he should be accountable to committees. The invitation was offered to him utterly constructively on the committee's behalf. I am disappointed by the way in which his office has handled it. I am anxious to close on the point and to move to a decision. We have divergent views.

My final point is that Tom McCabe might not be able to answer detailed questions on aspects that fall outside his ministerial responsibilities. For example, we heard complaints about housing matters today. We have also heard evidence about employment matters. Interdepartmental responsibility throughout the entire Executive is involved and the head of the Executive is the First Minister.

We have had an exchange of views. There is a proposal that the First Minister be invited again to appear and an alternative view. We can only vote on those positions.

Before we vote, I suggest that a constructive way forward exists. We can have a session with the minister with the relevant responsibility—Tom McCabe—following which we can take a further sounding if we feel that he has not appropriately answered questions. I would like us to do that.

If we vote, it will be the first time that the committee has voted in about two years. If a constructive way forward exists, I would prefer to take it. I am not saying that I would not be willing to reconsider the matter after hearing from Mr McCabe, but I would prefer to proceed constructively.

No one is trying to underplay the importance of the initiative or the First Minister's role in it. The one point that we can be certain about is that the fresh talent initiative's success is not contingent on whether Jack McConnell appears before the committee. What is important for our inquiry is having available to us the best information to allow us to pull together a coherent and cogent report that makes all the necessary recommendations and observations.

I agree with Irene Oldfather. In the unlikely event that Tom McCabe was not on top of his brief or could not respond to our satisfaction on all the issues that witnesses have raised and the concerns and matters of delicacy that members have about fresh talent, I would happily endorse the position that was just outlined of inviting the First Minister to clarify or expand on the points.

I appreciate why people want to hear from the First Minister about the initiative, which is hugely important to all parts of Scotland. However, we must all appreciate that the fresh talent initiative's success is not contingent on whether Mr McConnell sits at the witness end of the table.

I will finally express a view. I say openly that I have some regret that the First Minister has said that he will not appear. I am not over the moon about that. I accept totally Irene Oldfather's point that individual ministers deal with individual matters, but the convener makes the legitimate point that one or two issues are slightly different. I do not know whether the First Minister has thought the matter through. It is slightly regrettable that he will not come to the committee to deal with the initiative.

Having said that, I am not all that minded to make a huge confrontation out of the matter. I would go along with the idea of letting the minister who deals with the fresh talent initiative come. That would leave it open to us to ask the First Minister again, although we should make it clear that we would have preferred him to have come in the first place and that there is a degree of regret among committee members that he is not coming.

I sense that the committee is minded to follow the route that Irene Oldfather suggested, which I very much regret, because we will not establish the correct and appropriate channels of parliamentary communication if we do not stipulate the way in which we want to pursue a particular issue and allow ministers to pick and choose when and how they wish to do so. If the committee is minded to move in that direction, we will hear from Mr McCabe but reserve the right to hear from the First Minister at a later stage. We will also express our regret that the First Minister has not acceded to our request to come to the committee.

Convener—

No, I am closing the discussion.

I just want to make it a bit tighter.

We will hear from Mr McCabe as part of our inquiry and, if we are dissatisfied with the evidence that he has to present, we will reiterate our invitation to the First Minister. We will also express our regret at the fact that the First Minister has not accepted our invitation.

The second item of my report concerns a letter from Alyn Smith MEP, who was a substitute member of the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013. As committee members will recall, the financial framework for the European budget 2007-2013 predominated during our visit to Brussels earlier this year. Alyn Smith's letter is effectively a covering letter for a report prepared by Mr Böge—whom we met when we were in Brussels—charting a compromise position of an EU budget that is 1.07 per cent of EU gross national income. The letter also contains some caveats around that. I understand that the European Parliament will discuss and vote on the issue tomorrow. Does any committee member want to raise any points on that report?

The report is obviously complicated and contains a considerable amount of information. Without having been party to all the detailed discussions that have resulted in the compromises that have been proposed in the report, I find it a little difficult to comment on it. Moreover, the political groups in the Parliament have not yet taken firm decisions on the report. I welcome parts of it, feel that I could use further clarification on others and am not entirely happy with others, so I find it difficult to give the report a blanket endorsement, although I recognise the amount of work that Mr Böge has put into trying to find a compromise. I will be interested to see what happens over the next week, because I imagine that further negotiations and discussion will take place today and tomorrow.

The report obviously helps to inform the committee's background deliberations. We will watch the matter with interest in the next few days. The issue will obviously spill over into the European Council meeting and, if Mr McCabe is able to appear before us on 21 June, we will hear further updates on it.

Through the meetings of the European members information and liaison exchange network, we have encouraged a team Scotland approach on the matter. Therefore, I assume that all our Scottish MEPs are getting together to discuss the report and to ensure that we have a team Scotland approach to it.

I am sure that there will be some dialogue in that respect.

As there are no other points on that matter, I close the meeting. We meet again on 21 June.

Meeting closed at 15:39.