Official Report 278KB pdf
Good afternoon. I open the fifth meeting in 2005 of the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I welcome members to the committee. I have no apologies; I am sure that our colleagues will join us in due course.
Thank you. My colleagues are Susan Lilley, who is from our international development branch; John Henderson, who is head of the international division; and Rachel Gwyon, who is working specifically on the G8 and Africa on our behalf.
Thank you. For the benefit of members who have just arrived, this morning the Government published its international development policy, a copy of which has been issued to members. We have had limited time in which to consider the document's contents; notwithstanding that, we will ask questions on the matter.
As you would imagine, there was quite a bit of discussion with the Department for International Development in London about our involvement in the matter, because thoughts and perhaps even worries had been expressed, not necessarily by us but by other commentators, about whether the Executive should go down such a route. The Executive was very much of the opinion that the matter was one in which we wanted to be involved and to which we could add value and make a contribution. Our conversations with DFID therefore began on that basis; we explored what we might do, how far we could go and how we might best complement what is happening UK-wide, given that we are still part of a devolved settlement. As I said, there has been a great deal of discussion among officials and ministers around the issues. The First Minister has taken a particular interest in the matter and has had regular communication with his colleagues in the south. We will continue to work with our UK colleagues and I and the Secretary of State for Scotland will meet non-governmental organisations in about a fortnight's time to take matters further.
When did the dialogue start to go down that route?
I was not involved at the beginning, but I think that the process started last summer.
You said that you and the Secretary of State for Scotland will take the matter forward. What locus has the Secretary of State for Scotland in that?
He talks to Scottish NGOs and other organisations to see what further assistance he can give, as our representative in the Cabinet at Westminster. We make him as aware as possible of what we are doing and try to find out whether he can take further action that might complement our work.
Have you invited the Secretary of State for International Development to be part of that dialogue into the bargain?
The Secretary of State for International Development is aware of what we are doing and is supportive of our actions.
The part of the strategy that deals with fund allocation—which is on page 6 of the document that I have—states that there are
We are talking about direct funding, when NGOs or other organisations tell us about a particular project for which financial assistance might be of use, and support for organisations that might not be as direct as giving them money to allow them to do something—we might support them in other ways. That is what that section refers to.
If I understand the matter correctly, some money will be paid directly as a result of grant applications from specified NGOs, following a tendering process.
Yes—there will be a bidding process.
The other part of the fund will be allocated through the normal channel of public expenditure on public bodies. The example of health boards is given.
Yes. That part is not to fund bodies for what they do as part of their normal business, but to provide assistance to help them to contribute to the international development aspect of their work.
So public bodies will identify projects that they may wish to support, but which are outside their general area of activity.
Yes, it could be that.
Your international development policy identifies a range of stakeholders and a number of possible and existing projects whose work you would like to continue and expand. Among those, you mention international exchange programmes for teachers. People who are involved in such projects have expressed to some members the concern that Scottish teachers who participate in exchange programmes may lose superannuation rights. To encourage teacher exchange programmes with developing countries in Africa and Asia, could the Executive ensure that teachers who participate in exchange schemes do not lose superannuation rights?
Your question has not been raised with me before, but I am happy to consider whether action on the matter is possible. Mr Henderson might have heard of the problem.
We are aware of a problem in that respect for teachers and health workers. There is a good deal of enthusiasm among teachers and health workers to assist in developing countries, which we are pleased about. However, there are superannuation issues, although the fund could help to cover some of the costs.
Some NGOs—World Exchange springs to mind—send out young people who may be doing a gap year between school and university or within a university course. They are not qualified teachers, but they do a good job nevertheless, under difficult circumstances. We met some of those people on a recent visit to Africa. In the main, they teach English to African students in high school. They are not paid much—they get their board and keep and so on. However, a bit of leadership from senior and experienced teachers—possibly even head teachers or deputy head teachers—is sometimes required in those schools to encourage the educational system out there to develop itself, and a great number of qualified and experienced teachers will not be attracted unless there is a guarantee about their superannuation rights. I hope that you take what I say on board.
I entirely agree with what you say about the added value that properly qualified people can give and the contribution that they can make in such situations. I would be happy to look into the matter that you mention and to keep you informed about progress. We certainly do not intend that anyone who co-operates with us will be penalised in any way. I would be happy to consider the issue and to find out what we can do.
Thank you.
I thank the minister for her interesting presentation. Her paper states that Scottish ministers intend to appoint an advisory group. Will that group be a long-term or short-term working group? Will you say a little more about it? Will it be involved with funds?
We want a group that can advise us. We have regularly met representatives of NGOs in order to get as much information as we can from them about how best we can assist. That approach has proved fruitful so far, and we will maintain that dialogue regardless of anything else that we might do. However, we thought that it would be useful to have a group that would help to consider bids that we receive so that they are analysed and we can ensure that they will be effective and will add value to on-going work or, where there are new projects, that such projects will work in the suggested context. I think that the group will continue for as long as we are involved with such work. That is not to say that the same individuals would necessarily always be involved. Obviously, people tend not to work in the same field for their entire working lives nowadays, but we hope that there will be continuity. However, we cannot necessarily prescribe that at this stage.
The paper states:
We want to involve the Parliament in what we are doing in some way, and I know that the Presiding Officer has taken a keen interest in such issues for many years. The cross-party international development group of the Scottish Parliament is up and running and has developed expertise in the area in question, so it seemed the right forum from which to ask for someone to come forward and be involved.
There have been a number of welcome developments in the area. Those developments have evolved quite recently over the past year—perhaps they have escalated in the past six months, or in the three months since the tsunami disaster, which focused everyone's minds on what people in Scotland can do. The pace of change is quickening. Perhaps you could consider whether the European and External Relations Committee could be the interface between the Executive and NGOs.
I am happy to do that. We are conscious that the cross-party international development group has been working in the areas that you mention and has developed expertise over a few years; therefore it seemed the natural place to go. However, I am happy to listen to representations from the committee, if that is the direction in which it would like to go.
I have one more point. My constituency hosts the Malawi consular office. As the minister is aware, and as is noted in our papers, there is a strong partnership between Scotland and Malawi. Will that be one of the priority areas, or are we not identifying priorities in a geographic sense?
We have tried to develop thematic and geographic priorities, because we are conscious that we are a relatively small country and, given our budget, we do not want to spread our efforts too thinly. We are looking at sub-Saharan Africa generally, and at issues around education, health, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. In any case, Scotland has strong links with Malawi and, to begin with at least, it makes sense to concentrate some of our effort there so that we can get the greatest effect as quickly as possible, but also so that we can add value to the work that is already going on there, where appropriate. Malawi will be a priority for us to begin with, but I am sure that other areas will increase in importance as time goes on.
Mr Canavan will be pleased to hear that.
Following on from Irene Oldfather's point, South Africa does not appear to rank as an important priority in terms of Scotland's international trade. In 2002-03 there were 16 trade missions from the UK to South Africa and another 16 are in the pipeline, but there has been virtually no interest from Scotland. Can the Scottish Executive stimulate organisations' interest in participating in trade missions, because a good two-way exchange could be developed?
I do not claim to know much about that, because it is not my area, but I am happy to speak to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning about it to see whether anything can be done. I have heard comments like Margaret Ewing's before, but it sometimes transpires that Scottish companies have been part of UK missions. However, I am happy to speak to Mr Wallace and to get back to Mrs Ewing.
Those of us who visited Africa had the opportunity to visit three legislatures. Although the Scottish Parliament is younger than them, their stage of development is far behind ours. One issue that was consistently raised with us was that they do not have what we would broadly call a civil service. For example, a clerk in one Parliament was servicing five committees. Looking at the faces of the clerks here, I do not think that they would fancy that much. On the other hand, aspects of the Scottish Parliament's practice have been picked up by, for example, the Eastern Cape, whose petitions system is based on ours. How simple would it be for Scottish Executive ministers to examine the possibility of exchanges at that level to develop skills, so that people from there can come here and spend time with us and vice versa? How would that be processed by the Executive?
That is probably an area that we will want to explore as time goes on. You are probably aware that when we were trying to assist during the tsunami crisis, one of the interesting things that we were able to do was to second a member of our civil service to Sri Lanka relatively quickly. In that situation, a number of fortunate things came together. Not only had the individual already been seconded to an aid agency prior to the tsunami, which gave her an understanding of the kind of work that the aid agencies needed to do and were doing, but she was Sri Lankan herself, understood the Sri Lankan culture and therefore was well placed to go to Sri Lanka relatively quickly and help to advise on what was needed. We will have a continuing dialogue with and through her about what further assistance that part of the world might require as time goes on.
Margaret Ewing raised the issue of adding value to legislatures that are older than ours but which lag behind in their development. The minister made an important point about adding value and ensuring that we do not retrace the steps that have already been taken. As the UK Government is, I presume, involved in such initiatives, I am concerned that we do not do something that is already happening through the British civil service, of which the Scottish civil service is obviously a part.
That is a concern, but we would work closely with DFID to ensure that we did not do that. As I understand it, the commission for Africa has recommended that partnerships should be formed between legislatures to facilitate such work. That is something that we would be interested in considering in future.
Is an approach being proposed that will, in effect, do what the commission for Africa has suggested by establishing partnership arrangements between Scotland and a defined part of sub-Saharan Africa, where the focus of the policy appears to be most concentrated? Will you establish a partnership agreement that, for example, involves Scottish resources being invested in development projects in a particular sub-Saharan country?
I do not know that we would necessarily want to engage in something quite that prescriptive, but if that would work and if it was what a host country or region wanted to do, we would certainly consider it. I do not know whether there has been any internal discussion about that.
The point that the commission for Africa makes is a general point on capacity building in Africa. If Africa is to benefit from increased aid, that is one of the issues that need to be addressed, and one of the ways in which we can help to build capacity is to establish links between Parliaments. The commission does not say that links have to be with the Scottish Parliament, of course, because Parliaments in developed countries in general have much to offer. As the minister said, it is open for consideration whether that is a matter on which we would want to work with the Parliament.
Is there a difference in approach between the report of the commission for Africa and the Executive's policy, which seems to have a clear focus on sub-Saharan Africa and, in the short term, areas that were affected by the Asian tsunami. There seems to be a more geographical approach to assistance, rather than a thematic one. Where does the priority lie?
The approach is both geographical and thematic, because we want to focus on the areas in which we, as a devolved Government, can make a helpful intervention—for example, on education or health. I think that that answers your question.
Okay. We may come back to that in due course.
Like my colleagues, I have not had a chance to read the Executive's international development policy document properly, but it looks helpful and encouraging. My personal experience in the field has been with Edinburgh Direct Aid in conflict zones such as Sarajevo and Kosovo. I recall that there was a lot of good will and energy to be harnessed, but that there were difficulties with co-ordinating the work, in terms of fundraising, getting appropriate material to take, getting there, finding one's way around and getting through all the bureaucracy. The Executive could probably help a lot in those areas. I recall that some health boards rushed to make surplus equipment available, whereas others were uneasy because they were not sure whether the rules allowed for that. If the strategy will make it easier for the whole range of agencies to respond to such needs, that will be helpful. I take it that that is what the Executive has in mind.
In part, yes, but a key part of what we are trying to do is to build capacity within the NGOs. Often, the NGOs are already working on the ground in the countries where there are problems and difficulties and we want to assist them in building their capacity. We also want to consider opportunities such as the one that you outline. I do not think that we would want to be the body that is responsible for organising what happens, but that is not to say that we would not help to facilitate such operations where they are required. We would have to consider that in the context of everything else that we are trying to do.
You can certainly help to reduce the confusion factor that tends to arise when a crisis of that nature takes place, because you have experienced people who know whom to talk to and where the materials are and who can help with training.
I think that that is a matter for consideration by someone else. All that I can say is that I am delighted to have the responsibility as part of what I do. I have a long-standing personal interest in the area and I am pleased that it has come to me. I intend to work hard to make the policy a success, as far as it is possible to make such work successful.
We might send a copy of the Official Report of this meeting to Bute House.
We are sending quite a few things there these days.
One of the key principles of the international development policy is
From day one of the fresh talent initiative, we have been at pains to say that we do not intend to take people whose skills and talents can best be used in the nations from which they come. We recognise, however, that both historically and in the present people often come here to train and to get expertise and we are pleased to be able to assist in that way. Nonetheless, the best place for those people to use those skills and expertise is often their home countries. The fresh talent initiative is a separate and very different programme. I sincerely hope that the two situations will not conflict and we will work to ensure that they do not.
I accept that, but people from developing countries come to our universities. Would it not be seen as somewhat discriminatory if we were to say, "Yes, we will take people from eastern Europe and other places, but we won't take them from those countries"?
I hope that we would never be placed in the position where we would have to say those kinds of things to anyone, but I do not honestly think that that is what the fresh talent initiative is about. As far as the developing world—if we can call it that—is concerned, we want to assist the work that those countries do and not stand in their way in any way, shape or form.
On a slightly different tack, how does the £3 million that you highlighted in the Scottish budget compare with what is available from the UK Government, to which we are part contributors? Is the Scottish Executive intent on persuading the UK Government to increase the amount of cash that it lays aside for third-world countries in particular? If so, has consideration been given to the effect of that on any future Scottish budgets, given the existence of the Barnett formula?
Those are big and complicated questions and I am not sure that I know the answers to them all. I am being reminded by my officials that the DFID budget for 2003-04 was £3,965 million, which was an increase of 19 per cent on the previous year. The UK Government is committed to increasing the amount of money that it spends in that way over the foreseeable period. That is to be welcomed. The funds that we have set aside are not intended to compete, compare or contrast with what the UK as a whole is doing on behalf of us all; they are simply a contribution that we feel we can make within our devolved responsibilities. In effect, we hope that the money that we put forward is indicative of our willingness to be part of what is important work. Much of what we will use that money for will be to add value to work that is already going on—we hope that it will complement work that is happening elsewhere.
I return to the point about specific programmes that are being developed by the Executive under the policy. What influence will be exercised by the Executive on formulating the type of programmes that will be supported primarily in sub-Saharan Africa?
That will work in two ways. One will be through the requests that we have from organisations to respond to their projects or programmes. That is where our expert advisory group will come in, because it will look at those requests in line with the criteria that we set. There might also be specific projects that we wish to associate the Executive with over time. I have already mentioned the importance that we attach to developing educational links and encouraging the spread of educational opportunities to people in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as the work that we think needs to be prioritised around HIV and AIDS.
I will deal with those two routes one by one. How will the specific projects that the Executive decides to pursue be identified?
Would Rachel Gwyon like to cover that issue, as she has been dealing with it?
There are a couple of strands. We are hearing from a number of organisations about work that they have already been doing that fits in not only with the themes relating to skills exchange, skills enhancement, health and education, but with the geographical themes. In particular, we are being told about how outcomes can be achieved that meet the millennium development goals. The overall focus must be to help countries in Africa to meet those goals.
So the Executive is waiting to receive ideas from people in other organisations, be they public sector agencies or NGOs.
Yes, although it is not a matter of waiting. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm —both out there and inside the office—to find the different bits of expertise within Scotland. There has not been a slow start.
I will now deal with the other range of projects to which the minister referred, in relation to which the expert group will consider applications. What is the mechanism for inviting applications?
I envisage that we will write shortly to NGOs and others in Scotland to set out what the policy is about and to invite them to come back to us, probably initially with a concept note—I do not want the whole sector to get involved in a huge bureaucratic paper chase and create mountains of paper when they have a lot more important work to do. We will look at the initial concepts to see which projects might go forward for further development. That is the way that we are likely to go in the bidding process. We give clear signals in the policy paper about what the geographic and thematic priorities of the Executive will be.
What will be the timescale for that process?
I am not sure that I want to commit ourselves to one.
We will carry out the process as quickly as we can.
Have you set a deadline?
The first thing was to get the international development policy established, as we have done. Tonight, we will host an event for the NGOs at which we will outline the policy to them. The next step will be to invite bids.
May we have clarification of Ms Rachel Gwyon's position, convener? I am not sure whether she is an employee of the Scottish Executive, DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the G8 secretariat.
I work for the Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department, alongside my colleague John Henderson, and for the minister.
The answer to that question is, in short, that you are a civil servant.
We have not as yet set up the advisory group but, once it is in place, we will invite bids. In fact, there is no need for the bids to wait for the group to be appointed—the two things can happen in tandem. It is certainly our intention to begin the process as soon as we can and to make the money start to work as soon as we can. I do not know whether John Henderson has given any close consideration to timescales.
No. It is important to bear in mind what the policy papers say. Not all the money will go through the bidding process. We are coming into the process at a point at which lots of things are happening—in Malawi, for example—that we can support. There are conferences coming up to raise awareness in Scotland and there is capacity building in the NGO community that is active in Scotland. Those things must happen before a bidding process takes place. Not everything will involve the bidding process, but we want to get the process started as soon as possible and then move on. I am sure that the sector wants that to happen as well.
What proportion of the resources do you anticipate will add value to those existing projects, rather than waiting for the bidding process?
The split that we have made is that the bidding process will involve 10 per cent of the money and 90 per cent will remain at the centre for the other work.
So 90 per cent of the resources will be allocated through Scottish Executive decisions. Will the expert advisory group be responsible for those decisions?
No, I do not think that it will be. It is specifically responsible for the 10 per cent.
The advisory group deals with the 10 per cent, but who takes the decisions on the remaining 90 per cent?
Scottish ministers.
In a way, part of what I wanted to say has been covered. After the sifting process, how will the money that has been allocated be monitored? Who will have responsibility for monitoring to ensure that the Scottish Executive gets best value for money? We saw a lot of good practice in many areas under very difficult circumstances, but there seemed to be a lack of co-ordination in passing that best practice on.
Again, that is an area in which we are interested, because the issue has been raised with us. I hope that the committee does not get the idea that the process will be huge and involve lots of forms and over-the-top scrutiny. We need to ensure that the money will be well used and will support good initiatives, but we hope that we can simplify the process as much as possible—it is certainly our intention to do that. We also hope that we can build in a monitoring and evaluation process that will be robust but that will not create problems for the organisations that are in receipt of the money or for the projects where the money is being used. We have borne those matters in mind in designing what we are going to do.
Is it practical for that regime to be in place before everything starts on 1 April 2005?
There is no start point; the work has begun. We are taking things forward just now, so we are not sticking to rigid dates. I presume that you are talking about the budget allocation that has been made.
Yes.
There is no requirement on us to begin to spend the money on 1 April. That is just the date on which, technically, the budget begins to kick in, but we obviously want to get the money into the field and doing the work as quickly as we can. That is the imperative to which we are working. We are trying to put in place systems that will work and will be robust but that will not be overly onerous on the organisations that might be looking to use them. We are trying to balance all of that at the moment, but with a view to getting the money working as quickly as we can.
Will the moneys be spent over three years? Does the programme involve £1 million each year? What is the division of expenditure over the life of the project?
The expenditure is for the duration of the spending review programme, which is three years. It is £3 million per year during that period.
So it is £9 million altogether.
The moneys will probably be spent over four years now, so the expenditure will be more like £12 million over that time. We started the work a year earlier than had been budgeted for.
I notice that page 9 of the document states that
There are a few things that we need to do. We need to raise awareness in Scotland of the issues, the difficulties and the contribution that people and communities can make. We want to be part of raising awareness of the on-going problems in Africa. Most people in this room understood those problems, but we must still conduct an education exercise to allow everyone else to understand the problems and their importance. We want to spend some time, effort and money doing that. We are working on a programme of events that we hope to roll out very soon. In the first year, we hope that we will be able to contribute significantly by raising awareness. In our conversations, the NGOs have asked us to do that.
Of the £3 million or £4 million, how much will be spent on raising awareness rather than on projects?
The spending on raising awareness will come out of the 90 per cent that I identified earlier. It is part of the large budget at the centre.
If there is a budget of £3 million per annum and an allocation of 90 per cent for support for developing countries through NGOs, what proportion will be spent on awareness raising in this country and what proportion will be spent on project delivery in sub-Saharan countries?
We would not want to be rigid about that; we would want to respond to situations as they arose. It is possible that at the beginning a greater proportion will be spent on raising awareness than will be spent in subsequent years. We will want to balance and respond to need at the time. The point is not to set aside a specific amount or percentage of funding for raising awareness.
I am not asking for a rigid amount. Do you have a feel for whether a third will be spent on raising awareness and two thirds will be spent on programme delivery? I have no doubt that there will be a great appetite in Scotland for specific programme expenditure, but there will be unease if the money is spent on non-programme expenditure, whose benefits for people in circumstances different from ours cannot be seen.
We envisage only a small percentage being spent on raising awareness. We are not planning to use a large proportion of the money on it. We will keep the numbers down for as long as we can.
So spending on raising awareness is more likely to be around 20 per cent of the 90 per cent than it is to be more than that.
I think that it will be 10 per cent, at most.
So 10 per cent will be spent on awareness raising and 80 per cent on programme expenditure.
I do not think that the minister said that.
I did not. I do not want to be rigid about the figures. However, we will keep the amount of money that is spent on non-project work to a minimum.
There are no further questions on the international development policy.
I was not aware that the committee intended to go down that track. However, in tourism there is a tremendous opportunity for Scotland as a result of the G8 summit. We will have the world leaders and representatives of some of the countries that we have discussed this afternoon in our country for a period. It is a clichéed phrase, but I genuinely believe that the eyes of the world will be on Scotland during that time. The summit represents an opportunity for Scotland to show the best of what it has to offer, so that it can reap the benefits in future. We are very conscious of that and VisitScotland is particularly conscious of it as the date of the summit draws nearer.
I know that we should not believe everything that we read in the press, but at the weekend it was suggested in some articles that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular was keen to "de-tartanise" the G8. I would hate to think that that was the case. We all take pride in the fact that an international event, which the UK is hosting, will take place in Scotland. Are you aware of moves to de-tartanise the event?
No, I am certainly not aware of any such moves. The fact that the G8 will take place in Scotland presents a great opportunity for Scotland to showcase itself. Perhaps Rachel Gwyon wants to add something, because she has been dealing specifically with the G8.
Joint work is certainly going on with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with colleagues in the Scottish Executive Justice Department, who are leading the co-ordination with the police about arrangements, as well as with Perth and Kinross Council, VisitScotland and Scottish Enterprise, to consider the wide range of benefits that might accrue to Scotland and how approaches can be joined up. I have witnessed such meetings in action and can say that the FCO has worked closely, co-operatively and very openly with the range of interests that are involved.
The logo for the G8 is a stylised thistle, which is a signal that the event is not being de-tartanised in any way.
That is reassuring. As I said, I do not believe everything that I read in the press.
I do not know how it is that Phil Gallie did not pick up on this, but the Deputy First Minister launched a G8 tartan just the other day.
Was it pin-striped?
I am thankful that the Deputy First Minister did us all a great service by not modelling a kilt in the tartan.
My view is that the G8 will be of most assistance to us in the longer term. We will not gain lots of money from tourists this year because of the G8, but I hope that people will see an image of Scotland that they find attractive, pick up information along the way and decide to come to Scotland in future. I am not sure that there will be a huge spin-off in tourism this year, but I am not sure whether more detailed economic forecasting has been done in the Executive.
Scottish Enterprise Tayside did some work on the matter. We might be able to provide the committee with more information about that.
What steps have been taken to ensure that the world's media are equipped with information about Scotland as a tourist destination?
There are two areas of attack. First, we must ensure that when the media arrive they have written material about Scotland in their press packs. That will happen. Secondly, we must ensure that journalists from key countries come to Scotland in the run-up to the G8, to build up a story about the country. Therefore, part of our strategy is to invite journalists to Scotland and show them aspects of the country, to ensure that there is a slow burn of stories about Scotland and that coverage is not focused just on a few days in July.
Who will take the lead in making that happen?
The Executive will work with VisitScotland and others to do that.
If there are no further questions, I thank the minister for coming. You will see the fruits of our work in due course.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I call the committee back to order. It is a pleasure for me to welcome, as our second witness, Professor Drew Scott, the professor of European Union studies at the Europa institute of the University of Edinburgh. Professor Scott is no stranger to our committee and its proceedings. We have invited him to give evidence specifically on the UK presidency of the Council of the European Union. I invite him to say a few words of introduction and explanation before we begin our questions.
It is a pleasure for me to speak to the committee today on this important subject. I have submitted a paper to the committee and I will say a few words by way of introduction. As you know, the UK presidency will kick off on 1 July and last for six months.
I thank Professor Scott for his paper, which I found interesting although—if I may say so—a bit negative. You suggest that the UK Government has no great vision or grand strategy for the presidency. Your submission states:
The two questions are related. In response to your first question, the extent to which any sub-state, or indeed member state, can fundamentally influence the agenda of the presidency is limited. The agenda is inherited. Most issues that the UK presidency will deal with were set out in the December paper. In a sense, that paper simply follows on from the strategic decisions that have been taken at Council meetings and summits of heads of state. For many years now, issues such as the Lisbon strategy, competitiveness and justice and home affairs have dominated the agenda, as the European Union has tried to wrestle with those issues to achieve particular outcomes. To suggest that we could somehow get on to the UK agenda a major issue of topicality that has not been part of the European Union's on-going process of decision making is to misinterpret the role of the presidency. We cannot expect to get on to the presidency agenda a major issue that has not been trawled for a number of years beforehand.
You mentioned that the Prime Minister has prioritised climate change and Africa. To what extent can he influence the agenda to pursue his objectives?
The UK Government can facilitate meetings on climate change issues. The problem is that those are global issues, although the European Union is a major global player in pollution. The Prime Minister can prioritise in the presidency's activities issues that relate to Africa and to the environment and the Kyoto treaty.
Your paper refers to political activity in the UK—to a possible general election—and to continued discussion between the presidencies of Luxembourg, the UK and Austria. If political change resulted from the general election, would the agreements between Luxembourg, the UK and Austria change?
I highlighted the election—I do not know when it will take place—because the Government is behaving as if an election were going to happen. It is keeping its options open. One protocol means that we cannot expect any Government to make statements about what it will do on some issues because it may be a hostage to fortune. Another complication is the constitutional treaty referendum, which we expect under the current political winds to be held late in 2006.
One continuing theme of recent EU presidencies has been the move towards the European constitutional treaty. Is it not the case that if the UK Government changed—that is just as valid a hypothesis as suggesting that there will be no change—there might be an early referendum on the constitution, the result of which might totally change the direction of the presidency?
One of the complications of the current phases of the presidencies is that over the next two years referendums will be held in one member state or another. For example, we cannot discount the possibility that, at the end of May, France might reject the constitutional treaty. There are no two ways about it: such a result would result in an inescapable crisis for the union.
Professor Scott, it is nice to have you back at the committee.
I am afraid that I have no experience of how other regions have handled the presidency. That said, I agree whole-heartedly that it represents an opportunity for participating in events and engaging in general diplomacy. The ultimate question is, what is Scotland's role in influencing the UK Government, which directly influences EU policy? At the moment, there is very little information in the UK about that. I am aware from discussions with civil servants that the joint ministerial committee on Europe has more or less superseded the Cabinet's European policy committee as a way of making UK policy on Europe. That might change if things change in Northern Ireland. However, the joint ministerial committee, which is chaired by the Foreign Secretary and involves the First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Administrations, has met frequently to discuss the UK's EU policy and has become important in influencing Britain's position on and attitudes towards particular legislative proposals and broader-based policy. The Cabinet committee has retained an EU strategy group, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and sets the overall strategy for the budget and other major political matters.
I appreciate what you say about an inherited agenda. Are you saying that the right way to progress would be for the Scottish Executive to pick one or two points on the inherited agenda that we feel strongly about—such as common agricultural policy reform, health or tobacco subsidies—and to work on them within the UK? During the last French presidency, I think that I am right in saying that maritime safety around some of France's southern ports was a big issue, and the French Government worked vociferously to take forward directives on that matter. Will there be opportunities for the Executive working in partnership with the UK Government to promote one or two priority areas of interest in Scotland?
First, that may be happening but, as I said, we have no way of knowing what the Executive is taking forward with the UK Government. Secondly, if it was possible to do what you suggest, the time to do it was probably two years ago rather than today. I intend no disrespect, but you are discussing the UK presidency three months before it comes into office. The opportunity might have been taken already, and it may be that the UK Government will ensure that certain matters are taken to the table with more rigour and enthusiasm than otherwise would have been the case, but none of us has any way of knowing that. However, if there was a time to systematically fashion a Scottish position on a particular theme, it has long since gone, because I suspect that the lead time for getting an item on to a serious agenda is a lot longer than the time that is left.
In response to Irene Oldfather's first question, you suggested that any input from the Scottish Parliament or Executive has to go through the UK Government. Will the European constitution change that situation, if we sign up to it?
First, the constitution will not affect the interaction with the presidency but, from Scotland's perspective, it is significant that it will make the acquisition of competences by the European Union more difficult. That is important, because Governments are like football managers, in that they come and go, but football teams and Parliaments stay for ever.
If only.
The impact of the European Union legislating in an area does not undermine a Government; it undermines a legislature. Were the constitutional treaty to become law, it would make it more difficult for the European Union to acquire competences.
Just to follow through the logic of what you said in response to Mr Gallie, once the constitution is approved, is it the case that we will have a much greater opportunity to influence future agendas than we do at present?
Definitely. Not only will we have a greater opportunity to influence the agenda, we will have the opportunity to influence the legislative proposals that appear before member state Governments. The expectation is that they will be seen and the comments on them heard.
Margaret, do you want to come in?
My point has been picked up.
We might be able to influence the agenda, but of course we cannot necessarily determine the outcome. I vividly recall sitting at an agriculture council under a Belgian presidency some time ago. Along with the Commission, the president state was in a situation in which it realised which way the qualified majority was going, so it stitched up a compromise and got its majority. The junior Belgian minister, for whom a civil servant was sitting in—the discussions were going on in the middle of the night, so no one noticed—said that it was all an outrageous sell-out and voted against it. That was absurd, but such situations can arise. That could be a big problem when a large member state has the presidency.
I would not want to be quoted as suggesting that the presidency can railroad anything. The role of the presidency is to broker consensus and to achieve an outcome that makes the EU work. The difficulty for any country that holds the presidency is that it wears two hats—that of defending the national interest and that of making the system work. Whether good or bad, it has to work.
I return to your comments about climate change and the African agenda. Do you think the Prime Minister has oversold what can be achieved?
The ambitions are enormous. We should remember that the European Union has a rigorous policy of trade and aid, providing technical assistance and marketing advice—we now have free trade with all the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. There has been a long-standing effort to energise economic development in Africa. Right now, the average European Union member state pays less than 0.3 per cent of its gross domestic product in external development assistance, but the United Nations set a target of 0.7 per cent in the early 1970s. Norway, which is not in the European Union, and Denmark are closest to achieving that. In Denmark, almost 1 per cent of GDP goes on development assistance to third-world countries. That assistance extends beyond Africa, but Africa takes the lion's share. The urgency with which the Prime Minister is addressing the issue is well placed. We need ambition to push it on to the agenda and to demonstrate the severity of the problem. The status quo is not acceptable to the Prime Minister and most other people.
As a new boy on the committee, I particularly appreciate your helpful paper and presentation. You have referred to the financial perspectives and structural funds being linked. There is a slight divergence between the interests of the UK Government and those of Scotland regarding regional development support. If, as seems likely, the discussion drifts into the UK presidency, will that give opportunities to Scotland? If the UK Government has to broker an agreement, it may be less fixed on its national position in the Council, which may give Scotland an opportunity to work with some of the other nations that are focused more on structural funds than on cutting the budget.
We are straying into politics, in which I am reluctant to get too involved.
I will allow you to be the judge of what you should say in response to the question.
I am not suggesting that Professor Scott make a judgment on whether the approach is right—I ask merely whether opportunities will arise as a result of the UK presidency.
From the discussion so far, two things seem to be clear. First, if the UK Government's line is ultimately successful in the European Union—I doubt that it will be—structural funds in the UK, including Scotland, will more or less cease. The UK Government has made it clear that, rightly, it sees the cohesion countries and new accession states—the eight central and eastern European countries that joined the EU last May—as the priority. If that line were to prevail, there is little question but that structural funds in Scotland and the UK as a whole would end.
If issues relating to the financial framework are not resolved by 30 June this year, are they likely to be resolved during the UK presidency?
That is a difficult question. Agreement was reached on the previous financial perspective in Berlin in March 1999, in the final year of the budget. The Berlin settlement was obviously a political settlement: everybody who wanted money got some and could go home and say, "We've got our money." In my experience in Europe at least, politicians will not take difficult decisions until and unless they are forced to do so. The British presidency might not have to confront the problem that you mention, but it is conceivable that it will. I have no way of looking into the future.
From our discussions in Europe in the past couple of weeks, everybody seems to be absolutely preoccupied by the financial framework. If issues are not resolved by 30 June, the suggestion is that the financial framework will continue to dominate discussions for the remainder of the year. The ability to pursue priorities or the opportunity to pursue objectives to do with Africa or climate change will therefore become secondary to resolving an issue that threatens the European Union's ability properly to exercise its functions.
What I am going to say is anecdotal or informal. Anybody who goes often to Brussels knows that the British voice is periodically not heard because the British position is seen to be anti-communitaire, which diminishes the UK's influence as one of the key players in the European Union. That is not a value judgment—it is merely an observation, but I am sure that officials and people who go to Brussels on informal trips will tell the same story.
As there are no further questions, I thank Professor Scott for appearing before the committee and for his lively presentation of his evidence. We look forward to seeing him again.
I am one of those animals who are happy to confess that they are particularly excited to have the opportunity to speak in the Scottish Parliament building and to the European and External Relations Committee.
I will begin by raising a wider issue about the European Parliament than its office in Scotland. To what extent can Parliament engage in trying to influence the agenda of an individual presidency? What procedural mechanisms or opportunities exist for parliamentarians to express preferences about the direction the presidency should take?
The most obvious and direct opportunity is presented when the presidency, usually in the person of the head of Government or the foreign minister, presents its priorities to the European Parliament in Strasbourg at the beginning of the presidency, as the Prime Minister of Luxembourg did in January. A representative of the British Government will do that either in the mini plenary in Brussels in late June or in Strasbourg in early July. That is the point at which the debate takes place at formal level. However, as people look ahead at forthcoming presidencies, they might want to ensure that certain issues are placed higher up the agenda, because they think that those issues will get a fairer wind from a certain presidency. However, the formal debate at the beginning of each presidency gives parliamentarians the chance to address ministers directly.
Drew Scott said that, in effect, unless someone has decided two years in advance what to lobby about, there is no point in their bothering. Is Parliament engaged in forward lobbying, or are components of Parliament—such as committees—or other organisations involved in pre-emptive lobbying to try to change the direction of the Commission? You described a format that seems to present a fait accompli: the presidency turns up and says, "This is what we're going to do"; parliamentarians say what they think and that might be the end of it.
Obviously any presidency is composed of a series of proposed legislation that the presidency is keen to progress. Many pieces of proposed legislation will be going through the European Parliament at a given time, so in that respect it is always pushing its priorities through committees, rapporteurs or whatever. The emphasis might change during the course of a presidency because of the Council or the European Parliament not agreeing as proposals are passed back and forth. That process goes on all the time; proposed legislation is introduced but is not necessarily much affected by the six-month wave pattern of presidencies.
How influential is that wave pattern? Does it change the direction of the Commission?
Are you asking about the Parliament's impact?
If a new presidency is the subject of parliamentary pressure or scrutiny, can the direction of the Commission change?
Certainly—that is the purpose of the formal relationship between a presidency and the Parliament: the Council and the presidency exist to listen to the directly elected European Parliament. It would be difficult months down the line to assess the impact of that process on legislation. Much negotiation about the presidency's relationship with the Parliament goes on before a presidency begins. That is already happening in the current context. I was in Strasbourg last week and the Foreign Secretary was there already talking about some of the UK's priorities.
You mentioned that the presidency will be setting out its stall in the European Parliament; indeed, I recall that every six months the Scottish Parliament tends to have a visit from the ambassador for the country that has the presidency. Will there be any opportunity to highlight the fact that there have been constitutional changes in Britain? In the context of the presidency presentation to the European Parliament, has Parliament or the Scottish Executive made any kind of a bid to set out its stall?
Not that I am aware of—I would not be party to that. However, you can rest assured that the seven Scottish MEPs are already talking among themselves about how to make the most of the presidency as a showcase. They will be coming at the matter from their different directions, but they have the advantage of being called MEPs for Scotland, rather than MEPs for the United Kingdom who happen to be elected in Scotland. That geographical tag gives them an opportunity to brand themselves during the presidency. I know that they are taking that on at the moment.
Under the heading "UK Presidency" in your submission you state that
If I understood what Professor Scott was saying, it was with regard to influencing the agenda of the individual presidency at the time. What the submission talks about is the chance to raise awareness in Scotland of the role that the European Parliament and MEPs have year to year and month to month in forming and passing European legislation. The presidency gives us an opportunity to showcase that. If the presidency system stays as it is, that opportunity will not come round again until 2017. We are keen to remind people what the Council presidency means and to take the chance to say, "This is what the Council is doing, this is what the Commission is doing, this is what the European Parliament is doing and this is what the devolved Administrations are doing." What we are doing is not aimed specifically at the content of the presidency but at bringing UK management of the EU home and reminding people what it means for them.
It sounds as if it is a bit too late for us now. We should have been doing that over a longer period. However, looking to the future, we will to a degree lose that national input when we have an elected permanent European president. What will be the Scottish Parliament's input then? How will we be able to affect directly the elected president's position on issues?
As a civil servant, I will not stray into what the UK or Scotland's influence might be. However, under the constitution, although the format of the presidency might change, the fact that the European Parliament, Westminster and Holyrood have day-to-day responsibility for EU legislation will not—that will continue. In fact, as the committee has proved with its links with other committees throughout Europe, the element of early warning and pre-legislative scrutiny that is already happening will, in theory, be more important under the proposed constitution. Therefore, the committee is probably enhancing its ability—
Given the discretion of the national Governments, why is there any change?
As a civil servant, I am not necessarily suggesting that there is any political change; I am just saying that, as our report about the constitution said, there is potentially greater transparency simply because bodies such as the Scottish Parliament can be involved at that stage. Whether that happens is up to the Scottish Parliament and the member state Governments, but it is a fact that, aside from the rhythm of the presidency, the legislative process continues whatever happens. The role that national assemblies and regional sub-national assemblies will have in influencing the process is entirely up to them.
As you rightly say, the presidency gives an obvious opportunity to promote what the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are doing in Scotland, so that people are made more aware of exactly how the EU operates. Conversely, it could be argued that the presidency gives Scotland an opportunity to promote to Europe the existence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive and how we fit into the situation, so that we can ensure that Scotland's influence in Europe increases under future presidencies.
Yes. On the political side, I know that the Executive and the Parliament have already discussed that. Indeed, the fact that before too long the Parliament will have somebody permanently on the ground in Brussels will also make a difference. As I mentioned, the seven MEPs are considering having some kind of permanent, physical presence in Brussels where Scotland could be talked about, which might involve taking exhibition space in the European Parliament building in Brussels or elsewhere and holding events around that, as we did in Scotland week in 1999, at the start of devolution. At the moment, activity is focused on trying to do something on the ground to remind MEPs and other people who pass through the institutions and Scotland House about the changes that have taken place.
Could more be done in that respect? What you described seems rather modest, however welcome exhibition space is. Surely we want to factor Scotland into an opportunity such as this.
As Drew Scott pointed out, the opportunities to do anything in the six-month period are relatively limited because of the huge administrative load of co-ordinating the presidency and the fact that one of the months is August, in which very little happens at all. The presidency also coincides with the lead-up to some important events in December like the council meeting and the World Trade Organisation events that are happening elsewhere.
Notwithstanding what Professor Scott said about the importance of managing the business efficiently, which all of us would agree will be a priority for the UK presidency, do you have a feel for whether the range of sectoral meetings that have been identified as coming to Scotland during the presidency is reasonable or whether we could do more in that respect? Do you have any basis on which to make a comparison with how previous presidencies involved other regional legislatures?
No; we have not examined that. My personal experience of some of the presidencies of other big member states is that they have been less regional, if you will excuse the word, than those of the UK have been—in previous UK presidencies, final summits have taken place in Cardiff and Edinburgh, for example. I do not have any empirical evidence of that, but members can consider the geographic and sectoral spread of events that will take place during the UK's presidency. Some of them might appear terribly dry, but the technical activities that will happen and the bilaterals that will take place across Scotland and elsewhere in the UK remind us that the presidency is not just about getting people—whether they are wearing G8 tartan or not—to stand in a photograph at the end of the event, but is about the whole series of business events that will happen over the presidency. I do not mean big business; I mean the business of running the institutions and events involving customs officers, fishery patrol people or whoever. However, I do not have a score sheet to mark us against other member states.
I sense that there is an enthusiasm for bringing meetings to Scotland. In the Committee of the Regions, there is real openness to bringing our commission for economic and social policy—ECOS—to Scotland. Is the feeling the same in the European Parliament?
Absolutely. As I suggested, there is one large event that we are keen to attract to Scotland if we can. As the clerks know, we have put together a small working group, as we did for enlargement, involving us, our colleagues in the Commission, the Executive and the Scottish Parliament, to ensure that we do not duplicate events during the six months, that we make the most of people who are coming over, and that we get out to as many different people as possible. As with our work on enlargement, so far that work has been encouraging. It usually is. Speaking as a former Scotland Europa employee, I can say that it is genuinely a far easier job to get people enthused about such things here than some of my colleagues find it to be elsewhere.
You mentioned earlier the situation with regard to the ACP-EU congress. By coincidence, we bumped into John Corrie when we visited the European Parliament two weeks ago. Is there any indication that the congress is likely to come to Scotland? There seemed to be some dubiety around the costing of the proposal, certainly from the point of view of the capital that would be involved. Has anything been done by the Executive or various organisations to try to encourage that delegation to hold its assembly in Scotland? That would tie in nicely with everything else that will happen in Scotland later this year. It happened once before, in Inverness, but because of the current Eden Court situation, it could not go there.
I cannot say too much about the situation, as the delegation is still looking for a venue and deciding whether to bring its assembly to the United Kingdom at all. The reasoning will always be based on cost and whether we can do it within the budget of the ACP delegation of the European Parliament. However, the discussions that we have had with potential venues, the Parliament and the Executive have been helpful and encouraging. That message has gone back through individual MEPs to the delegation, and we await events. If the delegation does not hold its assembly in Scotland, it will not be for want of trying.
Have you approached the Aviemore conference centre?
A general call has gone out to everywhere that might be big enough. We are talking about 600 to 650 people—
The conference centre could do it.
Absolutely. There are several places here and in England and Wales that could host the assembly; it is simply a case of whether it would be practicable given the cost of living in the UK, of getting people here and of translation services and everything else.
Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your evidence and will reflect on it in the course of our inquiry.