Official Report 270KB pdf
We move on to our inquiry into external relations. The session with the minister was not part of our inquiry, which we have not yet started, but it might have given us some ideas about the subjects that we want to address. At our meeting on 24 June, we agreed that the inquiry would be a major inquiry and that we would conduct it very soon. We will examine the Executive's strategy for external relations and its efforts to promote Scotland world wide. The inquiry will be wide-ranging, so we will have to limit it to a number of key areas in order to keep it focused.
The Parliament's draft external relations strategy was circulated to us in June. From reading that document in tandem with the remit, it seems that we will miss out a whole chunk of external relations strategy. There are many inward and outward visits that involve the Presiding Officer and the committee. Paragraph 25 of the "Evaluation of the Scottish Parliament's External Liaison" says:
You touch on some interesting points, but our remit, which we agreed in June, is to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's external relations strategy. The inquiry must concentrate on that strategy and I do not want to muddy the waters.
I agree strongly with Irene Oldfather, because our small external liaison unit, which does an admirable job with few people, is often linked into what the Executive does, in the sense that its agenda is dictated by the people who come to visit the Executive. That is not true in every case, but a large part of its work is dictated by the Executive. I have additional points to make, but Irene may not have finished, and I do not want to cut her off in midstream.
My other point is about the inquiry that is already under way on tartan day. Has the report of that inquiry been produced? At what stage is it? Why would we hold such an inquiry as well?
The existing inquiry into tartan day by the parliamentary authorities is about Parliament's, rather than the Executive's, relationship with tartan day. Our job is to scrutinise the Executive, not Parliament. That does not prevent us from incorporating into our inquiry the information that is out there, whether it is gathered by the Parliament or anyone else, but our job is to scrutinise the Executive's external relations activities, which is what we agreed to do in June. Keith, do you want to come back in?
I have some other points to make, if I may. First, I hope that when we discuss the strategy we address resources, because the two are linked. The minister emphasised continually the point about having to concentrate on key objectives and being selective. To my mind, the Executive seems to work with an extremely small staff.
Every committee member is at liberty to send an e-mail to the clerks, adding to the list of people who should be invited to give written evidence. There is no limit to who we can ask for written evidence in the first instance. Are there any other comments?
I simply want to add to what Irene Oldfather and Keith Raffan said about the need to have regard to what the Parliament is doing in this field. It would be ridiculous if there was not proper co-ordination between the Executive's external relations strategy and that of the Parliament. I take your point, convener, that the remit of the committee is to scrutinise the work of the Executive, as distinct from the Parliament, but it would be appropriate to examine the work of the Parliament. In fact, we have already had a paper from the clerk on the Parliament's external relations work. It is important that the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body are properly co-ordinated with the Executive's external relations work. Although examination of the Parliament's external relations work could not go in the title of the inquiry, it should be implicit that that will be part of our line of questioning.
That is a perfectly fair comment. The issue of the Parliament and the Executive having the same agenda and co-ordinating their activities is perfectly genuine. I do not doubt that that will be built into the inquiry. The point is that the specific remit is to scrutinise the Executive's strategy.
I hope that our inquiry will cover certain aspects that are referred to in the paper. Naturally, external relations with European Union and other European countries are high on the Executive's list of priorities.
Lots of members are nodding their heads.
As others have said, we need to be clear about what the Scottish Executive and the Parliament do—I am sure that the Presiding Officer would be delighted to assist us in that. Dennis Canavan mentions the other regions, and the agreements and the memorandums of understanding, or whatever the proper term is, in relation to the other regions. Before we can recommend to the Executive anything on the accession countries, it is essential that we know what the current members are about, that we understand them fully and that we appreciate what the outcomes are. That merits further examination.
The document and the whole approach are good; when I first read the document I was quite up for it. I agree with other members' comments, in particular about the Parliament's strategy having to be included, although I accept the convener's point on that matter.
There is no reason why we should not.
That would probably be worth while. As we are interested in knowing how well we are doing quoad the European Parliament, it would be good to hear the view from MEPs' side.
Those points are very fair. We need initially a relatively broad outline but, if members agree, we will focus on those five areas. It should become easier for the committee to focus as the written evidence comes in. Gordon Jackson is right—the inquiry could grow lots of arms and legs.
It might never end.
It would be helpful if we could have early sight of the external liaison unit's review of tartan day. Although the paper that we have was circulated in June, it is dated February 2003. It sets us the objective of ensuring that tartan day represents value for money. Our objective is to assess the merits of tartan day and its potential; however, rather than reinvent the wheel, early sight of that paper might allow us to be more focused, to be clear about our objectives and not to go over the same ground.
It might help members to know that the review of tartan day is not complete—at least in so far as the Parliament is involved. I discussed with colleagues in the external liaison unit the draft terms of reference so that I could get an idea of where the Parliament fits into the process. I am happy to make inquiries on behalf of members about the tartan day review and to incorporate information into the committee's inquiry in a way that is suitable.
I hope that tartan day will not loom too large. I accept what Irene Oldfather says.
Can I take it from members' comments that they are in broad agreement with the five areas that have been chosen, that they are happy to sign off the title and that we can incorporate the emphases that members have placed on the various issues today? That will enable the clerks to open the inquiry by inviting written evidence; we can come back to the matter in the near future. Is the committee happy to proceed on that basis?