European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, November 14, 2013

Official Report 451KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

We move on swiftly to agenda item 3, which is consideration of our “Brussels Bulletin”. Members will see that it is pretty comprehensive this month. We asked a number of questions and have received a number of responses. A number of actions have been proposed, on which we hope to get members’ agreement. I ask members to have a quick look at the bulletin and to suggest areas in which we should respond.

Clare O’Neill has—extremely helpfully—put together some recommendations; they are in bold. I ask members to go through them one by one. A number of proposals have been made for follow-up action. Do members have any comments or questions?

I apologise in advance to colleagues, because the committee has been considering the issue of trafficking for a while, but in relation to the UK Government’s proposed modern slavery bill—the title of which I hate—have we received details from the Deputy First Minister about what the risk assessment for the Commonwealth games said about the risk that existed in that regard? If we think that the Commonwealth games will be a big focus for trafficking—I think that we do—it is clear that the proposed bill will not get through in time to make a difference, so it will not be possible to legislate to deal with anyone who is found to be involved in such activity. Where are we with the risk assessment for the Commonwealth games?

That is a valid question, which Hanzala Malik pursued effectively with the cabinet secretary when she appeared before us. The clerks have just informed me that we have written to the Scottish Government on the risk assessment and that we are looking for a response. We are definitely on the case; perhaps we can chase up a response to see where we are.

Yes, I think that that would be wise.

The paper is very helpful. I think that we should follow through on the anti-trafficking agenda. The IT infrastructure investment issue has been hugely prominent in the committee’s work, so I think that it is very important as well.

I think that all the recommendations have merit, but I wonder whether this is the time to hand back, if we can, the foreign language learning issue to the Education and Culture Committee. The issue is now embedded and we have done the initial inquiry on it. I still think that it should be followed through, but I wonder whether the Education and Culture Committee should pick it up. I appreciate how tight our time is.

That is an excellent idea.

I am not sure about what Clare Adamson said about the foreign language learning issue. I would have thought that we should wait to see the Scottish Government’s six-monthly report in December and then take a decision from there.

You are echoing what Jenny Goldsmith just said in my ear.

Okay.

The point is well made.

Most of the recommendations seem sensible to me.

I am fully behind keeping our eyes focused on the IT infrastructure investment issue. I know that it will be of interest to colleagues in other committees, so I think that we should continue to take a close look at it. There are some comments in the bulletin about the attitude to that in Brussels that really surprised me. The picture is not clear at all, so I think that we could do with some help on the matter.

I want to emphasise what Willie Coffey said, given what came up from Kat Feldinger about Brussels not taking on board the fact that the UK needs money for digital infrastructure. I thought that that was staggering. I understand her reluctance to say it. However, if someone lives in a not-spot in Scotland in this digital age, equality goes out the window in every way. We must ram home that point at every opportunity.

We will review in our private session the evidence that we have heard today, so we can pick up that point and see where we want to go with it. However, I think that you are absolutely right.

I want to make a similar point, but I will go a stage further. We should establish that the committee will discuss the issue of IT infrastructure investment at every meeting until we succeed in getting what we seek, otherwise we will not get it. We have been discussing the issue for over a year now, but we have not got anywhere with it; that is not good enough. We need to discuss the issue at each meeting to measure exactly where we are on it, so that we can focus and ensure that we pursue the issue with more vigour than we have done. The issue is important not only from an industrial point of view, but from an education and social point of view. It is simply too important just to talk about it.

I suggest that we have the issue as an item for each meeting and that we have an explanation of who has done what since the previous meeting, so that we can progress the issue more vigorously than we have done until now.

That is quite a good idea, but we might get more benefit from holding an evidence session on the theme. We could go on forever asking the same questions about it at our meetings, so perhaps we should have an evidence session and get together some key players who know what is going on with IT infrastructure and how the issue affects member states and rural communities. That would be very welcome.

Okay. A six-monthly update is coming from the Scottish Government at the beginning of December. Given the conversation that we have had about the issue, perhaps we can post a wee letter to the Government now to say that in the six-monthly update we want quite detailed information on progress on the issue. That would allow us to get the issue on the agenda and discuss it in December after we get the update from the Government. If members are happy with that approach, it would allow us to have a more structured focus.

I am happy with that, but I also feel strongly that the issue should be an agenda item for each committee meeting. We have not succeeded on the issue for over a year. Quite frankly, there is no point in discussing issues if we are not going to succeed in dealing with them. The issue is just too important for us simply to talk about it. If it is an agenda item, the committee will focus on it and pursue it in a manner that wants progress to be made on it meeting by meeting. Hopefully, we will get somewhere.

10:45

I do not disagree with anything that Hanzala Malik said, but I think that within the past six months another parliamentary committee has undertaken quite a big piece of work on the whole IT infrastructure issue. I am not sure that it is for us to go down into the detail of what, where and how. Our focus has to be on how Europe supports what we are doing. We might want to review what other committees have done on the issue before deciding whether we want to go down the route that has been suggested.

Let us do that and see what other committees have done. We can then come back and have a discussion about it, and the clerks will do a bit of work on it for the next meeting.

I assume that we are happy for the “Brussels Bulletin” to be passed to the subject committees for their consideration. Are there any other specific points on it before we move on?

I note with interest that the issue of quotas in boardrooms is back on the agenda.

Excellent; I noted that as well. I thank committee members for that.

As agreed at the beginning of the meeting, we will consider agenda item 4 in private.

10:46 Meeting continued in private until 11:45.