Official Report 300KB pdf
We have letters from the Scottish Executive and the European Commission on the proposals for EU agencies. I think that we would want to thank the minister and Liz Holt from the European Commission in Scotland for their helpful letters. The one from the European Commission is particularly helpful, as it gives us a lot of information that we have been seeking for some time about EU agencies that are already established and others that are in the pipeline.
The European Commission document, by Liz Holt, is useful. For some time, I have argued that Scotland should be on the list of locations for EU agencies. In the past, I argued for the European Maritime Safety Agency to come here. Furthermore, I know that a languages agency has been proposed—although it does not appear to be on the list before us—and I think that Scotland would be well placed to bid for that to come here.
It is a matter of regret that, having bid for the European Maritime Safety Agency to be located in Glasgow, we did not get it. It is helpful to have the list, for which we are indebted to Liz Holt. It is interesting that Thessaloniki in the north of Greece has two regulatory agencies. Greece seems to be doing well, because another agency is specified for Greece, although not necessarily in the north.
This is one area in which I support European objectives. Where agencies are being set up within Europe, we should ensure that we are in there and fighting to get them here. Liz Holt's report is good, but I am concerned that the Executive does not seem to be aware of the extent of the agencies' potential. With the greatest respect to Liz Holt and the Executive, it is their job to be on top of such matters and I must ask why they were not up to the mark.
I share those concerns; we will come back to them in a second or two. Do members have any other comments?
The proposed agency for education and culture is mentioned, with a location of Brussels, but I do not see anything specific about the languages agency. I think that it is mentioned in a Commission proposal, but perhaps it is not included in this report because it is still at the proposal stage. It would be helpful if the clerks could check that for us and report back to the committee. I am sure that they will not have the answer right now, but perhaps they could look into the matter for us.
That is something that I have supported publicly in the past. Should an agency for minority languages be established, it would be appropriate for Scotland.
The agency's remit would include minority languages, but it would cover modern languages generally.
The only proposal that I have seen related to minority languages.
As we are pinpointing agencies, if there is one that is more important than any other, it is the proposed EU defence equipment agency. If we are considering a standing EU defence force as part of the constitution—
Are you in favour of that?
No. I stand against it.
But you want the agency.
I certainly want the agency if it is even being considered.
Are you not worried about defence being a reserved matter?
No. We should be thumping on the Commission's door.
That is Tory logic.
We should take every advantage.
I am not asking you to clarify your policy, but I ask you to clarify what you want the committee to do.
We should highlight the matter. At the moment, we have common defence policies with other countries in Europe, irrespective of the constitution. I am thinking of the Eurofighter, for example, which is an example of co-operation. At the same time, defence is extremely important and the UK is the lead country in Europe on defence—we have a major defence industry—so it is the obvious home of the defence agency, irrespective of whether we sign up to the constitution.
I am keen to encourage Phil Gallie to pursue that logic a bit further, because I am not sure where he will end up.
I like your new phrase, "peripheral Britain".
Welcome to Britain!
In future, the committee might want to track the campaign for the location of particular agencies as part of its work tracking European legislation and activity. In the meantime, I suggest that we send the Government in Scotland a copy of the list of agencies that the European Commission identified, ask for an update on its views and find out whether it argued for Scotland in every case.
We should leave the matter with this committee. I am a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and I think that the European and External Relations Committee is the right home for the issue—we raised it and we should pursue it.
I mentioned the matter only because there might well be a case for our considering the agency's remit. I understand that we received a letter in the past couple of days from a member of the European Parliament, seeking our views on the issue—the letter will be circulated to members shortly. Perhaps the matter should be considered in more detail, so that the member can be given a comprehensive answer.
You might be right, but it is not beyond the wit of this committee—this fine body of men and woman—to debate the remit of the agency.
That is the choice that I am putting to the committee. Do members want to refer the matter to the Environment and Rural Development Committee or to put it back on our agenda?
I ask for clarification. According to the list that Liz Holt supplied, the location of the Community fisheries control agency was decided at the Council of the European Union in December 2003—the agency will be located in Spain. Are we talking about a different agency?
No. We are talking about the remit of that agency, which has not yet been decided.
Are we not talking about the location of the agency?
No, we are talking about the agency's remit, not its location.
I see.
We have corresponded with ministers in the past about the agency and I think that the Parliament will be asked for its view on the agency's remit. The committee could investigate the matter, as Alasdair Morrison suggests, or we could refer it to the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
I seem to recall that one of the minister's letters made it clear that the agency's remit would be fairly narrow. Ministers are obviously aware of the direction in which matters are going.
The committee has done a great deal of work on the matter and there has been much to-ing and fro-ing of correspondence. We have done the background work, so it would make sense for us to follow that through. I am in favour of keeping the matter in the committee.
In that case, I ask the clerks to produce a paper on the agency to enable us to discuss the matter. We might also take evidence from relevant individuals.
I agree that we should forward Liz Holt's extensive list to the Executive. Clearly, we cannot apply for every agency; we will get one. We failed to get the European Maritime Safety Agency. When we send the list, we should ask the Executive which agencies they intend to prioritise. It is obvious that some agencies will be much bigger than others. It is for the Executive to do the work, not us, but it should keep us posted on its priorities.
Okay, we will take those two courses of action.
The ministers simply got it wrong again.
Given that the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, appears to be on top of the issue and recognises the threat to the Glasgow underground, I suggest that we simply note the matter for the meantime and ensure that the other relevant parliamentary committees are aware of it.
We have recently had one or two visits related to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—last week we had the speaker of the Queensland Parliament and the president of the Legislative Council of Western Australia—but I understand that there has been a bit of a moratorium on visits until the Parliament has been officially opened. There will be quite a few visits in October, November and December, which will be a bit of a rush, so the earlier we know about them, the better. It is important that we are involved with the entente cordiale programme and the visit of the president of the National Assembly of Québec.
The next item in my report is an update on the scheduled witnesses for our inquiry into the promotion of Scotland. We agreed that we hoped to have all the witnesses before us by the end of the year so that we could start to put together a report.
On the sports panel, we are to have representatives from the Scottish Rugby Union and the Scottish Women's Rugby Union, which I applaud. However, although we have a representative from the Scottish Football Association—the chief executive, David Taylor—there is nobody from Scottish Women's Football Ltd. Given that, in terms of participation, women's football is the fastest-growing sport in the world, an invitation should at least be extended to either Maureen McGonigle or Sheila Begbie of Scottish Women's Football.
The clerks have reminded me that when the committee discussed the issue previously, we decided to invite representatives of one or the other women's organisation. Do you want us to make a special effort to get written evidence from Scottish Women's Football?
Yes.
The panel of witnesses on 23 November will be made up of politicians and former politicians with an interest in international development. The international development aspect is important. Those of us who went on the visit to Hauts-de-Seine in France saw the work that that region does on international development. I realise that we have already taken evidence from voluntary organisations on that matter, but we should explore the issue further, because it will be an important aspect of our report.
I agree with Dennis Canavan's point, especially given that I am the MSP who represents the Scottish girls football champions, the Nicolson Institute, which has a great record in girls football.
We will certainly put his name in the pot.
I thought that Alasdair Morrison was going to mention George Foulkes—he has had all the same posts.
I thought so, too.
Our meeting on 23 November will be quite close to the time of the Regleg meeting, which will be attended by the presidents and ministers of regions throughout Europe. Given that some of those people have particular experience in actively promoting their regions—for example, Tuscany is renowned worldwide—perhaps one or two of them, such as President Martini, might be willing to talk to the committee on how they do that. They might be able to give evidence at our meeting that coincides with the week of their visit. Perhaps the clerks could explore that possibility. I know that many ministers and presidents give receptions in Brussels, at which they invite people to try the local food, wine and so on. They could certainly explain to us the benefits of holding such events.
You are selling the idea well. I am sure that we will take on board that suggestion.
That might be a good idea, but we might need an extra evidence session for the Regleg conference.
The final point, which was also mentioned when the minister was here, is the planning for Scotland's role within the presidency of the EU when that is held by the UK next year. We raised the matter with the minister coincidentally, but I suggest that we write to him to find out further information on what is planned so that we can discuss the matter at a later date. I am sure that the committee will want to take a keen role in that.
I agree totally. As we are the European and External Relations Committee, it is important that we be kept posted about that. I know that a committee of Executive ministers and officials is examining the G8 meeting, which the UK will host early next July. It is important that we be kept posted about that as well.
The Committee of the Regions endeavours to hold at least one of its meetings in the country that holds the presidency. I understand that colleagues in the UK delegation are supportive of attempts to hold one of the COR meetings in Scotland during the UK presidency. I will keep the committee informed of any developments. I am sure that we all appreciate the support of colleagues in the UK delegation.
Irene Oldfather can keep us updated on that.
I want to raise an issue under the convener's report. During the recess, we all received a glossy leaflet entitled "Tourism—Promoting Scotland Abroad", which advertises a conference that will be held on 27 September. I am concerned that readers of this literature might gain the impression that the conference is being organised on our committee's behalf or with its official blessing. I suspect that the leaflet's format is specifically designed to give that impression to readers. Let me elaborate why.
I share Dennis Canavan's concerns. This is a serious matter. I remember something similar happening when I was at Westminster and it was reported to the speaker immediately. It was an issue of parliamentary privilege. The commercial organisation has abused this place and that should be brought to the attention of the Presiding Officer so that the organisation is stamped on immediately and the incident is never repeated. It is complete and utter abuse, and the organisation needs to be exposed.
I support Dennis Canavan 100 per cent. I was shocked when I saw the leaflet. I checked my diary and our timetables to see when I had received an invitation to the conference, but I could find no record whatever of having been invited to attend. I wonder what contact the organisation had with the committee, because as deputy convener I do not recall anything to do with it. Where has all this come from?
Dennis Canavan raises a serious matter, particularly when he points to the fees that are being charged for community groups, voluntary organisations and students, which he rightly says are not socially inclusive. I am concerned that at 9.40 on the day of the conference, convener, you are down to outline the remit of the inquiry; it is your prerogative to do that in any forum, but the main forum for our inquiry is this committee room or other committee rooms or other parts of the country or world—wherever this committee decides to go. I would like to establish what the convener's role was in liaising with the organisers. Why were we not involved in deciding whether it would be appropriate for the convener to attend or to participate?
I thank Dennis Canavan for exposing this matter. I had not heard of the event, seen the leaflet or heard of the organisation. What has been read out at this meeting makes it sound like the most extraordinary enterprise, which should be dealt with firmly by the full Parliament.
Alasdair Morrison is right. I am not getting at you, convener, but it is important that in future the committee is notified and consulted and then decides on the commercial conferences at which the convener should speak. The organisation is clearly piggybacking on us, and charging extortionate amounts of money, which is complete abuse.
I saw the leaflet, although I did not read it in detail. It is a bit much to suggest that members of the committee will be in and around during the day if the organisers have never approached a member of the committee other than the convener.
It is outrageous.
I make no criticism of the convener for agreeing to speak at such a conference, but I would expect us to be kept informed—perhaps the recess had something to do with why we were not informed.
I thank Dennis Canavan for bringing the matter to the committee's attention. It raises a lot of serious and pertinent issues.
If I recall the situation correctly, the event will be held in the middle of our inquiry, therefore we will not have finished taking evidence. It would be inappropriate for a member of the committee to attend when the committee has not taken a decision or reviewed all the evidence. We would be very limited in what we would be able to say. Attending the conference would mean taking matters that are being discussed in parliamentary committees into a forum before the committee has had an opportunity to discuss the evidence and agree on conclusions. That is a dangerous precedent to set.
On a point of clarification, I understand that a representative has been invited to outline the remit of the inquiry for 10 minutes or so: their role is not to provide feedback from the inquiry or to discuss conclusions that the committee has reached.
I am grateful for that clarification.
I think that the issue is for the Presiding Officer rather than the chief executive. It should be brought to the Presiding Officer's attention today as it is a matter of urgency and raises issues about members, the Parliament and in particular conveners. The convener is right to say that we should bring the matter to the attention of the Conveners Group. We are being used and abused commercially. We are totally innocent in this. Guidelines need to come from the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officers—through the Conveners Group—on conveners' attendance at conferences. Think-tanks and such groups are fine, but it is completely and utterly wrong for us to be used for other people's commercial profit.
I am particularly surprised to learn that other members of the committee have not been invited to the conference, given that—as Dennis Canavan pointed out—they are supposed to be available to speak to delegates.
It is not only those on the committee who have fallen into supporting the conference. The event appears to have been approved and perhaps sponsored by VisitScotland, the Scottish Tourism Forum and other bodies, some of which are Government bodies or quangos. If people look at the leaflet and see that Philip Riddle, for example, is on the agenda and that VisitScotland is mentioned on the front, that seems to give an official seal of approval.
Given what Phil Gallie has just said, was there no contact between those organisations or the conference organising body and the committee other than the invitation to the convener to give an opening address? Has there been no other contact?
If members do not know about the conference, I suggest that the answer is no.
The glossy leaflet was probably sent to every MSP, not only to members of the committee, as well as to people in the world of tourism—in other words, to potential delegates.
I will draw a line under the discussion and suggest that we take advice from the Presiding Officer. Is that agreed?
On a point of information, did you agree to attend for the whole day? The leaflet states not only that you will open the conference at 9.40, but that you will sum it up at 16.10. That is very generous of you, convener, but it seems extraordinary to me.
All that is currently in my diary is the opening remarks. Thank you for informing me of my extended role.
I will ask a final question of you, convener; I hope that it does not embarrass you. I take it that you were not offered a fee for speaking at the conference.
I was not offered a fee. I can put that on the record.
Thank you. It is important that that is on the record.
I spoke at the Scottish Centre for Public Policy last Friday—I think that all members were invited to that event. Conveners are asked to undertake a number of engagements. My policy has always been to be as accessible as possible to the people of Scotland. However, as has been raised today, there are other issues that we should take into account. That is why we should seek guidance from the parliamentary authorities.
Is it not the case that that forum charges for attendance at their meetings?
No. Attendance at that meeting was free—it was sponsored by the European Commission. That was made clear on the day.