European and External Relations Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Official Report 137KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Welcome to the 12th meeting in 2004 of the European and External Relations Committee. The bulk of the meeting will be taken up by a discussion of our report on regional funding, which will take place in private. We will spend the first 15 minutes of the meeting on the other agenda items. We have received no apologies, so I proceed to item 1, which is the convener's report.

We have received a response from the First Minister to our invitation to appear before the committee to speak about his current role as president of the regions with legislative powers group. Unfortunately, as members will note, the First Minister has declined our invitation and suggested that it would be more appropriate for Andy Kerr, the minister with responsibility for external relations, to speak to the committee about Regleg's activities. The response is self-explanatory, so I invite comments from members.

I find this dismaying. Frankly, the First Minister's letter is almost unintelligible. I do not know who wrote it, but it does not look like the work of a civil servant.

In the first paragraph of the letter, the First Minister states that

"the opportunity to address the Committee about the work of REGLEG that is already underway is timely",

so why the hell does he not take it? For the sake of the Official Report, I ask members to excuse my language. The second paragraph of the letter appears almost unrelated to the first.

It is disturbing that it has taken the First Minister so long to reply to us, given that he received letters dated 25 November 2003 and 25 February 2004. The issue of Scottish Opera cannot have been occupying his attention for all that time.

In the second paragraph of the letter, the First Minister states that Andy Kerr

"has portfolio responsibility for external relations".

However, the First Minister is the president of Regleg and he must be more aware than Andy Kerr could be of the detailed work that is under way.

Like Keith Raffan, I am very disappointed by the response. We are halfway through the presidency, but no report back has been made to the committee or to the Parliament. Will we receive an end-of-term report in another six months? That would prevent the European and External Relations Committee from having any input to the process.

Once again, I find it surprising that the First Minister is not prepared to appear before the committee. His decision seems fairly discourteous to the Parliament, of which the committee is a constituent part. Irrespective of that, I would like some information on this issue. I want to know how many meetings of Regleg have taken place; how many sub-groups the organisation has set up; who, besides the First Minister, has attended Regleg meetings; how many meetings have been attended by Andy Kerr; and what the First Minister and Andy Kerr regard as the positive outcomes of Regleg's establishment.

I invite Dennis Canavan to speak.

I did not express a desire to speak, but as you have invited me to do so I would like to express my disappointment that the First Minister has not accepted our invitation to appear before the committee to discuss these matters. It is not good enough to say that Andy Kerr could attend. If the First Minister is attending Regleg meetings, we want to hear what has happened from the horse's mouth—if "horse" and "mouth" are the appropriate words.

Although you did not indicate a desire to speak, you took the opportunity to do so. Well done.

This does not worry me as much as it worries other members. I am not sure how many Regleg meetings have taken place. When we discussed the matter at previous meetings, I said that I would be happy to receive an indication of Regleg's work load—to which Phil Gallie referred—and a written report. I was not too exercised about whether the First Minister should appear before the committee. If he did so, to be honest, I would want to ask him about issues other than Regleg.

I have listened to the points that Phil Gallie made and the questions that he asked. Frankly, it would be preposterous to expect the First Minister to take time out of his schedule to answer those legitimate questions. I am sure that the member is more than capable of penning a letter setting out those questions. Alternatively, the clerks could pen such a letter on the convener's behalf. If every committee expected the First Minister to turn up every time that there was a wee wheeze that it wanted to explore with him, he would do nothing but attend committee meetings.

This was our first and only invitation to the First Minister to speak to the committee.

Some of the usual synthetic indignation is being expressed. I have read the Executive's reply twice and I see no refusal by the First Minister to attend. All that the letter does is to volunteer an appearance by Andy Kerr. If it is ever appropriate for the First Minister to attend a committee meeting, there is no reason that he should not do so. However, I do not think that this is a big deal. The First Minister has not declined our request.

Not explicitly.

In that case, it has taken him the period from 18 November until now to produce a rather delphic response. If he had said either yes or no, we would be completely in the light.

My indignation is not synthetic. Parliament should come first—the Executive is accountable to Parliament. This is not "a wee wheeze", as Alasdair Morrison condescendingly dismissed it. Regleg should be, and is, a major thing for Scotland. We will probably not have the presidency of Regleg again for another 30 years.

I want to know what on earth is going on. We are halfway through the Scottish presidency and we have heard virtually nothing about it, apart from an answer to an occasional question in the chamber. The European and External Relations Committee has heard nothing and it is right for us to ask the First Minister to appear before the committee. Given Irene Oldfather's commitment to Europe, I am surprised that she thinks that there are many more important things than Regleg.

I rest my case.

I inform Alasdair Morrison that I did not set out with my earlier questions in mind. They simply came to mind following our invitation to the First Minister.

As Keith Raffan said, we have the presidency of Regleg for only a short time, so it seems to me that, if Regleg is all that important, it would be only courteous and responsible for the First Minister to come and explain to us exactly what Regleg is about and what is hoped for it. I recognise that we could write to the First Minister. However, we are a committee of the Parliament and my understanding is that when a person who is in a senior position—I presume that the presidency is a senior position, and not just a matter of kidology—is invited to come along and tell us about it, they would be expected to do so.

I want to make a correction. I have never dismissed Regleg as a wheeze—

A wee wheeze.

I have never dismissed Regleg as a wee wheeze or a big wheeze. Regleg is important. If Keith Raffan and Phil Gallie have been greatly exercised by these issues over the past few months, I fail to understand why neither of them has written to the First Minister in those terms, urging him to write to them as individual MSPs. Irrespective of what the committee as a body corporate wants to achieve, I would have thought that waiting for a response since 18 November was quite a while to wait.

Exactly—that is why I want the First Minister to reply.

Irrespective of the views of individual committee members, the committee previously expressed its view on the matter and urged the First Minister to attend a committee meeting. As John Home Robertson pointed out, the First Minister has not given an outright refusal to do so; nor has he given an outright acceptance. Members want to ask a number of questions. I suggest, therefore, that we put a separate item on a future agenda to take evidence from a minister on Regleg. I also suggest that we reply to the First Minister and invite him to come along—or for a minister to come along, if he does not want to—to answer questions on Regleg. Would that be a suitable way forward? Does anyone disagree with that suggestion?

The committee has valid and legitimate concerns about the work of Regleg. In our previous discussions, I have said consistently that it is right and proper to ask questions about Regleg. However, I do not think that I have ever said that we need to have the First Minister at a meeting. We have urged the First Minister to attend a meeting but I have always expressed my concerns about that, while saying that I would be happy for the questions to be asked. The response in the First Minister's letter is that Andy Kerr has portfolio responsibility for Regleg. Andy Kerr has always indicated willingness to come to committee meetings and if we are going to get him along to the committee, we might want to deal with other issues as well as with Regleg. I would welcome Andy Kerr's attendance at a committee meeting to speak on Regleg as part of a more general session.

As convener, I appreciate that not all members will agree 100 per cent with any proposal. However, given that Regleg is a substantive issue and that all members agree that it is so, it would be worth while having a separate agenda item on Regleg.

We could write to the First Minister and ask whether he is willing to attend a meeting and, if he is not, whether one of his ministers will attend in his place to answer questions. I suggest that as a compromise. I am not demanding that the First Minister comes to a meeting; we would just be asking him to do so. If anyone disagrees fundamentally with my proposal, they can suggest an alternative to the committee.

I am happy for us to proceed along those lines, but I think that, in advance of any meeting, we will need a full briefing in answer to the questions in your letter of 7 May to make the meeting thoroughly worth while.

I am not particularly concerned about the First Minister attending a committee meeting; I am particularly concerned about the president of Regleg, when he is sitting on our doorstep, attending a meeting. That is the point.

We have written to the First Minister—indeed, I think that we have written to him twice—and we have received a reply from him. I am not clear what is to be gained by writing to him again. If our interest is in Regleg, we should follow the suggestion that the First Minister makes in his letter and write to Andy Kerr.

Okay. I was simply responding to a number of comments from members who are unhappy with the First Minister's stance. I am perfectly relaxed about whether we write to the First Minister or to Andy Kerr, but Regleg deserves to be a separate item on our agenda. I suggest that we write to Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, to ask whether, if the First Minister is unable to attend our meeting, he would come in the First Minister's place.

As John Home Robertson pointed out, the First Minister has not declined. We should write to the First Minister, as the convener suggested. If the First Minister declines the invitation and sends Andy Kerr, so be it. Andy Kerr appears regularly at the committee and he does well when he comes before us. The issue is not about Andy Kerr; it is about to whom we should send the letter. We should send it to the First Minister.

In that case, the remaining question is whom we should invite. I think that we have agreed to invite someone and to make a separate slot on the agenda for Regleg. Our final decision is whether we want to invite the First Minister. I would be happy to write to him on the understanding that we say that, if he is unable or unwilling to attend, Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, can come in his place. If another member wants to make a counter proposal, they can do so.

I will not force the issue.

In that case, are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item in the convener's report is the monthly report on the Scottish Parliament's external relations activities. Once again, we have the report on inward visits to and outward visits from the Parliament.

I note that a delegation went to the United States of America for the tartan day celebrations. The delegation does not seem to have been very representative of the Parliament. I have heard complaints that no women were included and that there was no representation of any of the three smallest parties, or indeed the three independents. I knew nothing about the selection of the delegation until after the event, when it appeared in the newspapers.

Unlike the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which follows a laudable practice of openness and accountability in that it invites all interested members to apply for membership of its delegations, other delegations that go out from the Parliament—including the tartan day delegation—are formed by a method of selection that seems to be rather secretive and not very accountable. How were the members of the Parliament's tartan army or tartan team selected and what criteria were used? I suggest that we write to the Presiding Officer to that effect. The subject of tartan day has cropped up as part of our investigations into matters such as Scotland's role in the world and Parliament's relations with the rest of the world.

I do not disagree with the points that Dennis Canavan makes, but I remind members that our remit does not extend to the Parliament's activities. The composition of parliamentary delegations is not part of our remit. It might be more appropriate—

You could ask.

I will take soundings from the committee.

A lot of areas are reserved to Westminster, but that does not stop us debating them. I agree thoroughly with Dennis Canavan, who is largely responsible for the openness of the CPA. I remember that it was Dennis's motion at the CPA annual general meeting that set out the way in which members would receive application forms for delegations by e-mail.

I did not even know who from my own party was part of the tartan day delegation. I have a slight feeling that selection might be the result of leadership patronage—perhaps I should be more rebellious and then I might get an offer to go. The selection process should be done openly. In view of the fact that there is now a six-party system in the Parliament, the process should be opened up. Perhaps we should suggest to the Presiding Officer that six people should go and that one of the delegation should be from the smaller parties one year and from the independents the next year.

Dennis Canavan made a valid point about the representation of women. If we write to the Presiding Officer, we should point out that that aspect of the delegation was rather disappointing.

We can send a letter from members of the committee to the appropriate authorities. Under the circumstances, I think that that would be the best way of proceeding. Are members happy with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Members will be able to see the letter once it has been sent.

Perhaps I should mention a bit of private enterprise. Ten days ago, I met Yasser Arafat and took the opportunity to express concern about the situation in that part of the world. I also expressed Scottish support for a fair settlement in Palestine.

Thank you. For the Official Report, would you briefly clarify the nature of your trip and confirm that it was not made for the Parliament?

I was there with Edinburgh Direct Aid.

Thank you.

The next item under the convener's report—

I have one issue to raise.

You should be brief.

The paper mentions the plenary session of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body on Sunday 18 April to Tuesday 20 April, which Margaret Ewing attended. The Nordic Council and the Executive's somewhat ambivalent stance towards it have previously figured in our discussions. Can we get a copy of what was said in that debate?

I can acquire copies without any difficulty through the external liaison unit. The document was interesting and two MSPs—Murray Tosh, who was the leader of the delegation, and David McLetchie—spoke to it. The feedback that we received from the Nordic Council about its interest in Scotland and Ireland in particular, and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, was interesting. It was interesting that England was not mentioned at any point in the evidence. The report is good and is a worthwhile read. I will make a note and get copies of it.

Thank you. If you could send a copy to the clerks, they will distribute it to committee members.

The next item under the convener's report is a proposed committee away day at some point during the summer or autumn to take stock of the first year of the new parliamentary session. All committees are being encouraged to have an away day at least once a year. If members are happy with the proposal, we can agree in principle to have an away day; a suitable date can be agreed soon.

Getting round the table is always a good idea and we could consider our forward work programme for the next year. It would be helpful to have as much consultation as possible. I know that the clerks will consult committee members. Trying to accommodate everyone's holidays over the summer can be difficult, so early autumn might be better than the summer for an away day.

I would like to put down a bid. In the past, we have said that Ayrshire is a nice venue for away days. I know that the committee has tended not to get out much, but we would be pleased to welcome members to Ayrshire. I know that my colleague Phil Gallie will support that proposal.

Getting to Barra would be easier.

I am sure that we would all be happy to meet in Arran, if that is what is being suggested. Perhaps we will discuss that matter further at some point soon. I am sure that all members will want their constituencies to be put in the hat.

Perhaps a meeting after Parliament has opened would be better. When does it open?

On 9 October.

When are we back after the recess? That is what I meant.

Around 20 to 30 August, I think.

We will not agree dates at the moment—we will return to that matter. We will simply agree in principle to the proposal.

The final item under the convener's report is a proposal for another taking stock meeting, specifically on our promoting Scotland overseas inquiry. We have agreed in principle to hold such a meeting. The clerks will e-mail everyone in order to choose a date in June and we will simply pick a date—most likely a Wednesday—that most members can make, if that is appropriate. We should have the meeting sooner rather than later.

I have a suggestion to make.

Is it that the meeting should be held in Ayrshire?

No—I was not going to suggest that.

By the time that we agree a date, we will be into June. If the meeting were to be held towards the end of June, we could have a half-hour to 45-minute session and then have a committee lunch. We could end on a positive note, which might be nice at one of our last meetings.

I am willing to make two promises to the committee. Our last meeting before the summer recess will not be on 10 June—it will take place later in June and there will be a lunch. We have been discussing the arrangements and I am happy to take on board members' comments.