European and External Relations Committee, 20 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Promoting Scotland Worldwide Inquiry

Our inquiry into the promotion of Scotland worldwide is our major inquiry this year.

As members will see in the briefing paper supplied by the clerks—for which we thank them—we have had a wide variety of written submissions from bodies in Scotland and throughout the world, all of which are available on our website for public consumption. The next stage is to begin to give some kind of guidance to the clerks in relation to the scheduling of witnesses. I propose that we do not decide exactly whom we will have as witnesses now but do that by e-mail. I would appreciate an indication from members that they are broadly happy with the suggestions for some of the people whom we could invite as witnesses. You should feel free, in the next few days or couple of weeks, to e-mail the clerks if you think of new people whom you would like to be witnesses or if you decide that you are unhappy with any people who have been suggested.

Is there any indication of how many sessions that might take? It looks like a massive list to me. When I saw it, I wondered how we could ever hope to hear from all those groups in a realistic timescale.

Stephen, do you have any comment to make on that?

There is a suggestion in the paper that it might be easier for the committee to handle the witnesses in panels that would be arranged round themes, such as economic matters, European matters and issues relating to arts, sport and culture. If we did that and, as is traditional, kept ministers separate, we would have around five or six sessions.

I have added up roughly how many proposed witnesses there are. Being conservative and counting two people where plural witnesses are indicated, I estimate that there will be around 63 witnesses. That is far too many. We must bring down the number.

No one is suggesting that we would have 63 witnesses giving oral evidence to the committee. The idea was that we would have a broad selection and that, if we agreed to break down our evidence-taking sessions into themes, we could return to the proposals. Members are free to give their comments at any stage on the composition of the panels or the list.

You are right, convener. We should not have 63 witnesses and we should have panels covering the themes that have been identified, such as the arts, universities, businesses and so on.

My other committee, the Environment and Rural Development Committee, has been taking a lot of evidence in the past few months. To make the process more manageable, we have assumed that everyone has read their submissions and have therefore not allowed witnesses to make opening statements. If we had done that today, for example, we would have been able to have an extra 15 minutes for questions and discussion rather than hearing the statements, although valid points were made and it was not exactly dead time. If we want to take evidence from people, we should read the submissions and go straight to the question-and-answer session.

This committee's experience is also teaching us that we should do that. There is a convention that witnesses can make opening statements, but it is clear that they do not always stick to their times, despite the fact that the need for them to do so is emphasised to them. I would be sympathetic to the suggestion that we do not allow opening statements in this inquiry.

I support the point that Alasdair Morrison has just made. It is up to us to read the written submission, which should do away with the need for witnesses to regurgitate what they have already written. That will save time. The suggestion that we group witnesses is good. It might be that we will be able to cover a couple of themes within one evidence-taking session.

It is important that we consider what other countries do. That gets only one line in our paper. In passing, I should say that I am not sure how much the consular corps—some of whose members are honorary—will be able to contribute to the process. How we are perceived by other countries is very important, but we must also consider what other countries of comparable size, such as Ireland, do to promote themselves. It is important to take a broader perspective and be less parochial.

If we have four or five evidence sessions—as we would expect for a major inquiry—and we have two panels per session, I hope that that will be manageable. We will ask the clerks to e-mail all members with initial proposals for themes and witnesses. I emphasise that members are free to propose any other witnesses who are not on the list, or to offer comment on those who are. The clerks will liaise informally with members about our arrangements for overseas visits. We may come back to that later.

I want to be clear on this, convener. You are not proposing this entire list; you are saying that there will be a few themed panels.

Yes. As I said, the list has been prepared to attract comments.