European and External Relations Committee, 20 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Official Report 131KB pdf

---

European Commission Growth and Jobs Strategy Inquiry

Item 2 is the committee's inquiry into the European Commission's strategy for growth and jobs, or the Lisbon strategy as we know it. When the committee agreed the remit for the inquiry back in April, we agreed that the general call for evidence would be based on information supplied by the Scottish Executive on the targets it is using to measure its progress against the Lisbon targets. That information has now been received and is attached at annex A to paper EU/S2/06/10/1. The call for evidence is framed around a number of questions seeking views on the Executive's progress against those targets.

Our next step is to agree the call for evidence. It is intended that the call for evidence will be posted on the Parliament's website, but we should also write specifically to some relevant organisations to invite them to respond. Members have received an additional paper, EU/S2/06/10/1a, which sets out a number of organisations that we could consider inviting. It has been suggested that we stop taking written evidence on 22 August. After discussion with the clerks, I suggest that we bring the deadline forward to 15 August—that gives us seven weeks, which is ample. We should also give some thought to whom we would like to take oral evidence from in the autumn. The paper sets out a provisional timetable for that, along with suggestions for witnesses from whom members may wish to hear. Do members have any comments on the report and the paper?

We could bring the deadline forward to 15 August, but I would like to think that we are flexible enough to accept late contributions. Outsiders—let us say—have holidays as well. We should take account of that.

The deadline would give us time to get the bulk of the evidence together before we come back after the recess. As always, any additional evidence could be taken into account.

That is fair enough. Looking at the list of possible witnesses, particularly on research and development, I wondered whether the Royal Society of Edinburgh would have any useful input. My other suggestion is Prospect, the trade union for managers and scientists, which is very much involved in research and development. Even as a Tory, I suggest that the committee might like to consider inviting Prospect along to give us its views.

I have a comment on possible witnesses to give oral evidence. There is specific reference to Universities Scotland in the list, but I do not see any reference to the colleges of technology and so on. There is an umbrella group called the Association of Scottish Colleges, which has an office based in Stirling. That group should be invited too.

I think that everyone would agree with that.

I agree with Phil Gallie that we should get information from Prospect; the Scottish Trades Union Congress generally would be a good idea, as would the chambers of commerce, to ensure that we plug into that particular group.

I have the STUC down as well, so I agree with Bruce Crawford that that is quite important. We have written a European dimension into the call for evidence and although we are putting it on our website, we wanted to have a comparator with another member state or region, and I do not know how many member states or regions might look at our website. I wonder whether we should target that a little bit more and ask for specific information.

I am also aware that the Local Government International Bureau, which represents local authorities in England and Wales, is doing a significant amount of work on sub-national strategies, so we should speak to it.

Would we want to invite someone from the European Commission? We could ask it what role it believes that regional Governments and Parliaments have and then put that to the Executive. I think the Commission would be quite supportive.

Perhaps we could ask someone from the Commission to give oral evidence when we have the panel of witnesses giving evidence on the regional dimension.

Members will notice that paragraph 7 of the additional paper says that, during the recess, the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre will undertake some comparative research on member states. It would be worth while to ask people for submissions as part of that research.

Convener, you might have answered my point when you said that some comparative research is being undertaken, but I remember that we discussed our remit for this investigation and it says that we are to

"compare the performance of Scotland with other constitutional regions within the EU and comparable Member States".

That comparative dimension is not clear in respect of some of the people to whom we are writing. I do not know whether consular representatives would be able to speak about that, but perhaps someone from their embassy in London would.

I hope that the research that SPICe and Emma Berry will do will show that up. The research might suggest whom to ask for evidence and we could invite someone to a further oral evidence session to give us that information. That is an important part of it.

That is important.

As there are no other comments, we will publish the call for evidence before the summer recess. Jim Wallace, did you have something else to contribute?

Are you doing the draft call for evidence separately?

No, I am putting it all together.

Can I make a point about the draft call for evidence?

Yes, of course.

I am looking at annex B of paper EU/S2/06/10/1, and the paragraph under the heading "Regional dimension". When I first read the question

"How much consultation did the Scottish Executive hold when in dialogue with the UK Government",

I took it to mean the exchanges between the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government, and the chances of us getting some insight into that are fairly remote. No doubt the person who drafted the paper will tell me whether I am right, but perhaps the intention is to find out how widely the Scottish Executive consults to inform its dialogue with the UK Government. Could that amendment be taken on board?

I see what you mean; it could be read either way.

That has just reminded me of something. The Committee of the Regions did some research into the views of regional and local government on the strategy, and it might be worth getting a copy of that to help the clerks to undertake their research over the summer.

On Irene Oldfather's suggestion about inviting representatives of the European Commission, it is the Commission's strategy that we are looking into. If we are going to invite Commission representatives to give oral evidence, can we ensure that we do not invite them to come right at the beginning, so that we can formulate some views first? As well as that, can we not put them at the very end? Perhaps we could invite them to come about two thirds of the way through, when they could be very useful.

I am laughing because when you started talking, Phil, I was about to suggest that we invite them to come for the third session, then you said that you did not want them to come at the very end either. It sounds like you want them to come for the second session.

It will have to be.

I can see what you are saying. It makes sense. We will juggle the three sessions to obtain optimum benefit from the witness from the European Commission. I understand what you are saying. That should not be a problem, if everyone agrees to that.

Do members have other comments? I should have made it clear that we are discussing the original paper and the additional paper. If everyone is happy, we are on the way with that inquiry, which is good. We will take evidence in the autumn.