Official Report 234KB pdf
Item 3 is consideration of the Executive's response to the promotion of Scotland inquiry report, which we published in February. Some members did not receive the response with the papers for the previous meeting; there was a problem with its postal dispatch. We have had the debate in Parliament about the report, which I thought was good, although it was slightly irritating that it was so short; we could usefully have discussed a number of other issues.
I do not know. I think most members raised in the debate some of the areas of agreement that were welcome, and one or two of the areas of disagreement. The agreement about co-ordination was welcome. The Scottish international forum will have a monitoring brief. As I said in my summing-up speech during the debate, the disagreement centred on structures and whether we should have one minister for Europe. That was the main area of disagreement, as far as I can recall.
I apologise for not attending the debate last Wednesday—unfortunately, I had to be in London. I am a little unqualified to comment on the report, because I was not a member of the committee during the inquiry. However, I feel that it would be appropriate to build into our timetable an opportunity to review progress in a year or so. We could get an update from the Executive on its progress on the recommendations in the report, with which it agreed, by and large. We need to check progress in the future rather than take action at present.
On disagreement, members will recall that I agreed with the minister on the European budget. That apart, I agree with Iain Smith that we should monitor the situation. In the debate, I mentioned that the Government's external relations strategy should be kept under review. The minister said that the Executive would do that, but the committee should keep an eye on the review and run through it at some time in the future.
I have an idea that I have discussed with the powers that be in the Parliament. I agree that we should review progress in about a year but, given the amount of work that is being done, we should pursue the concept of a specific question time for European and external affairs, rather than lose those matters in general questions. That would be one way of pinning down the Executive. Dennis Canavan, other members and I have a huge interest in international development, but European issues also merit a specific question time.
One of the recommendations in the Procedures Committee's most recent review of question time—I assure members that that committee is not going to conduct any further reviews—was that the Parliamentary Bureau should consider during the summer whether the initial rota for questions and the subject areas are still appropriate. Margaret Ewing's suggestion could be fed into the bureau's review.
The most appropriate action for us is to consider progress against the strategy. We have said our bit and the Government has said its bit; on some issues there is common ground, but on others there is dispute. However, I am not keen to leave the matter for a year, because there would be a danger of drift. We should invite the minister for a meeting in six months and ask for a paper to be provided in advance that charts progress on the implementation of the international and European strategies, and progress on the response to the recommendations in our report. We could have a hearing in six months and another in 12 months. That would give ministers a clear signal that we want pace in its progress. Let the Executive prove us wrong on some of the issues on which there is disagreement and let us see the progress that the Executive can make. If the committee agrees, I will write to the minister to say that we would like an update on the European and international strategies and the response to our report in six months and again in 12 months.
I am happy with that. In my summing-up speech in the debate, I made the point that it is important to have concrete measurements, on which the minister agreed. The committee should follow through on the issue.
I will go along with the convener's suggestion, but some of the timescales in our report were over the top with respect to the minister meeting the deadlines. I would not like to set criteria that would overstretch the Executive. I agree that we should have a six-month review, but after that we could consider whether we need another review in 12 months or whatever.
The minister made it quite clear that the Government wanted, in the second term of devolution, to intensify what it was doing in respect of European and international strategies. It is undeniable that the Government has increased the pace of what it was doing, but we have to judge whether it is fast enough for us. If we have a hearing in six months, we will not be saying to the Government, "Do this, do that, do the next thing within six months." We want to ask what the Government has done in six months and then judge whether we think that what it has done is reasonable.
I am quite happy with that for the first six months.
Previous
Annual Report