European and External Relations Committee, 26 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Official Report 250KB pdf

---

Co-operation with Ireland Inquiry

Item 5 on the agenda is our inquiry into co-operation between Scotland and Ireland. Of course, this is Dennis Canavan's inquiry, and members will note that the Conveners Group has approved our request for a chamber debate on the issue. The debate has been scheduled for 4 October.

We have also received a response from the Executive. Dennis, I am happy to hand over to you for your initial views.

Before I deal with the Executive's response, I must draw the committee's attention to a serious discrepancy between the text of the report that was approved by the committee and the text that was printed out as a final version.

I have distributed copies of what was approved by the committee. From the Executive's response, members will see that the Executive picks up on a particular matter that shows that it has misinterpreted my report. The Executive responds to paragraph 39 of the report, quoting it as:

"The Scottish Executive should take immediate action to prepare for the introduction and provision of support for a programme of co-operation between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland."

However, in the version of the report that the committee approved, paragraph 39 does not refer to Scotland and the Republic of Ireland but to Scotland and Ireland. Similarly, paragraph 41 of the version that the committee approved refers to co-operation between Scotland and Ireland, whereas the version that went to the Scottish Executive refers to co-operation between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. There is a difference. It may cause offence to some people in Northern Ireland if they feel that they are being excluded.

During the compilation of the report—especially its conclusions and recommendations—I was at pains to ensure that the terminology was accurate and that when we were referring to Northern Ireland we would call it "Northern Ireland", that when we were referring to the Republic of Ireland we would call it "the Republic of Ireland" and that when we were referring to all 32 counties of Ireland we would use the term "Ireland".

The Executive has criticised my report on the ground that it refers to a programme of co-operation between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. However, my report specifically referred to co-operation "between Scotland and Ireland", meaning the whole of Ireland—Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is not just a pedantic point; it is a very important political point. I would like the clerk to examine how on earth that discrepancy arose, because that was certainly not what I drafted for the conclusions and recommendations and certainly not the draft approved by the committee.

You have reasonable cause for concern, Dennis, and I would be happy to task the clerks with finding out and reporting back exactly what happened. Somewhere along the line, something has gone wrong. Are the clerks happy to do that?

Yes.

Turning to the Executive's response, I have no quibble with it, apart from the beginning of its response to paragraphs 39, 40 and 41, where it says:

"We have no plans to introduce a separate programme of co-operation between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland".

I never suggested that we should introduce such a separate programme. Whoever came up with that response has been misinformed about the contents of my report, and as such the response is more critical than it would otherwise have been. I made it clear that there should be tripartite co-operation among Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

To a large extent, that devalues the Executive's response and perhaps changes the wording that it would like to use in response to Dennis Canavan's comments. We have a committee debate in the chamber next week, and rather than have the clerk find out about the mistake, we should point it out to the Scottish Executive. It might not be intentional, but it is significant. We should return the report on that point and, I hope, get it addressed before next week's debate.

When I read the response, I could not remember our calling for a separate programme, and I thought that I would have to look again at the detail of the report. When I re-read the report, I still could not align the response to the paragraph that we had written.

I was confused by the Executive's response to one or two of the points, so I think that we should draft a committee letter in the convener's name to the Executive to seek further clarification on the points that we have raised. It would be helpful to ask for a response in advance of the committee debate next week, so that the Executive has the opportunity to strike the right tone and so that committee members do not raise spurious points that, had the report been read and understood properly, would not have been required. Are members content that we proceed in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

By and large, the Executive is positive about the principle of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland, although it comes out with another slight criticism of the report. We said:

"The Scottish Executive should seek representation on the Special European Union Programmes Body".

The Executive replied:

"This would be inappropriate. SEUPB does not have a board as such."

However, if it has representation on or access to the programme monitoring committee, that is much the same thing and, in principle, is what I was proposing.

I met the chief executive of the SEUPB in Belfast, and he told me that the body had been set up by acts of the UK and Irish Parliaments specifically for co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I was a bit concerned that both acts would have to be amended to secure Scottish participation, but he pointed out that that would not be necessary and that Scotland could participate in, be a member of or have input into the body—whichever way we want to put it—without amending the legislation. If the Executive got representation on the programme monitoring committee, that would meet the purpose.

You could legitimately raise that point in the debate in the hope of getting a response from the minister on it.

On the other point, about extending the designated areas to include North and East Ayrshire and the Western Isles, we should ask to be kept informed of what is happening. Through my informal discussions with officials, I got the impression that there was—and possibly still is—a good chance of the whole of Ayrshire being included, rather than just South Ayrshire. As I pointed out in the interim report, the Western Isles are, in many respects, at the forefront of Scottish-Irish co-operation, especially in terms of Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic culture. I hope that we can persuade the Executive to pursue the extension of the designated areas. Although the Executive points out that non-eligible adjacent areas may qualify for some funding, that would be limited to a maximum of 20 per cent.

I thought that we were right to include that point in our report. I am encouraged that the Executive seems to be saying that, although those areas do not, strictly speaking, meet the qualifying criteria, they will be able to participate on the ground of adjacency to the designated areas. I think that that is good news, especially as my constituency is in North Ayrshire. Again, however, it is a matter on which we should seek confirmation from the Executive during the debate.

Do members have any other points to make?

Once the clerks get back to us on how the misprint or whatever it is occurred, it might be worth while to inform the people to whom the report has been sent, especially those in Northern Ireland who might feel offended if they think that they are being excluded.

In summary, we want a letter from the committee to the Executive, asking it to take careful note of the points that have been raised, especially in relation to how Ireland is described, and for a response to that. The letter should also address the issue of the separate programme, as that was not what we were asking for at all. I hope that we will get a positive response on those points. We will ask the Executive to respond as soon as possible and, as soon as we receive that response, we will circulate it to committee members. It would be reasonable also to circulate that response among those to whom the report was sent. I do not know whether the Executive's response has been sent to anyone other than the committee.

Not that I am aware of, although it has been published with the committee's papers. We can make any further response that we get from the Executive public as well.

That seems reasonable. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.