Official Report 695KB pdf
Welcome back. Under agenda item 3, the committee will consider an application for a proposed cross-party group on France. We are joined by the proposed convener of the group, Daniel Johnson. I invite him to set out the background to the establishment of the group, its purposes and the issues that the group intends to address, following which he will take questions from the committee.
Alors, bonjour, et je suis très heureux d’être ici.
I will do the rest in English, as I assume that that would suit the committee.
I refer you to the standing orders.
As you may have gathered by my attempt at French, the key premise for setting up the proposed group is that I am a lifelong Francophile. More broadly, thinking about cross-party groups in this place, the activities that we undertake and the global context that we are in, I believe that we need to think about our outreach and our relationships with other parts of the world, particularly as the globe faces points of political crisis. Some of the challenges that are being faced around the world are also being faced in France, which I think is a country that is worthy of the attention of, and being engaged with by, the Scottish Parliament.
There are, of course, historical links. France is Scotland’s oldest ally—that is a relationship and an alliance that goes back hundreds of years. More importantly, Scotland enjoys substantial economic links with France. France is the fifth-largest destination for outbound exports from Scotland, and Scotland is a geography that has attracted significant French capital. Some 160 French-owned companies that generate more than £8 billion in turnover have invested in Scotland. For example, Chivas Brothers represents 25 per cent of Pernod Ricard’s globally invested capital. Further, EDF has made significant investments in offshore renewables and other parts of the energy sector—I know that the convener will be interested in those investments. Perhaps most recently, we have seen the investment by VINCI Airports in Edinburgh airport.
For the historical and economic reasons that I have outlined, I think that there is good reason to have a forum in this place that looks at our relationship with France, at how we can build on those cultural relationships and how we can build understandings. Further, if you look at my other cross-party group memberships, you will see that I am particularly interested in how we can use cross-party groups as a vehicle to host people from other geographies with interests in Scotland.
The final point that I want to make is a more cultural one. I am very concerned about the decline in the number of young people taking modern languages qualifications in schools. I am interested in how we can improve cultural awareness and encourage people to learn French. For a long time in our history, French was the primary language that people learned in schools, and I think that we should try to encourage people to pick up French at any point in their lives. I just bumped into a colleague who told me that, every Tuesday evening, they take French language classes at the consulate on the High Street. Perhaps we can encourage other members to do that sort of thing, too.
With that, I will stop. I am happy to take questions.
Good morning. First, let me say that I love France and I completely agree with you about language teaching in schools. However, I will ask you a bit of a cheeky question. Do you think that there are too many cross-party groups?
Yes, I do. However, I think that we need to refocus on what we want them to do. We should also look at how we can encourage cross-party groups to work together. One of the things that we discussed at our inaugural meeting was that, if our group is to work, we will need to think about how we work with the other cross-party groups, especially the ones that have a European focus. That might be a more fruitful way of working.
I think that there are too many cross-party groups, but, given the current geopolitics, it is important that we have country-based ones. There is a pattern in terms of the types of cross-party groups that we have—I will not call out what it is—but I think that the geographic ones are useful forums for trying to encourage a bit of exchange and doing useful work, and it is important that we do that at this point in time.
You mentioned the overlap between Europe and your proposed group. Do you think that a merger of the geographic groups would be preferable, or would you rather keep the focus purely on France?
I would like to get the group up and running to establish its viability. We are close to the next parliamentary election and, as we look to what the group might seek to do in the next parliamentary session, under the stewardship of whoever is here to take it forward, I think that building relationships between the groups, possibly with joint meetings, might be fruitful.
I will pick up that thread. You said that you want to establish the group’s viability and do some work on that at this time. However, as you said, we do not have much time left before the next elections, and standing orders state that March is a line in the sand beyond which no new CPGs can be established. Realistically, what can you expect to achieve in the time that is left, given the obligations in relation to formal meetings and those sorts of activities?
We can expect to have at least three or four formal meetings before the next session of Parliament, which I think would give us a good opportunity to help to shape some of the discussions in the lead-up to the election. Matters of economic growth, investment and geopolitics are very apposite at this time.
I think that there is time to do things and to have meetings that could be useful and substantive.
I get why you think that there should be a specific cross-party group for a given country. One of my concerns would be cross-party groups on countries being seen as, in effect, an arm of a Government. I see that, within your purposes, you do not talk about the French Government itself; instead, you talk about
“the Assemblée nationale and Sénat”.
That feels appropriate, but what protections are there to ensure that this is about cultural and political issues, and not about Government as such?
10:45
That is a really good point. I am a member of other cross-party groups that have a country focus: I think that they must have a relationship with Governments. The consul general, if there is one, will be invited to meetings but is not a member of the group and does not provide the secretariat. That is the difference. They are invited to provide some input—absolutely—but they do not determine the agenda. That is the distinction that I would draw.
You are right to point out that we are looking at parliamentary relationships, but I think that the interesting issue with France is what happens at the sub-national level. Forty years ago, France embarked on a quite radical process of devolution from what was a very centralised unitary state. I think that there are lessons that we can learn from the French regions, both historically and recently, with the creation of the unitary authority in Lyon. I am thinking about administrative links as well as parliamentary links, but understanding the difference between Government and those institutional links is important.
I have a couple of questions about the proposed group. First, I note that secretariat support will be provided by an individual in a personal rather than professional capacity. Is that right?
Yes. That aspect is very much being driven by this individual and his eagerness, and I am very happy to accommodate him.
Elsewhere in the paperwork, the individual alludes to relationships with the Franco-Scottish Society. I think that we will need to look at how the secretariat works as we move forward. I know from the scars that I bear from other cross-party groups that that is the critical link, so we will need to reflect on the issue quite early on. If he has capacity, that will be fantastic, but I think it would be best if the work of the secretariat were borne by an organisation.
That brings me to my second and possibly slightly more challenging question. As the group’s proposed convener, you would have the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules that are set out. In this session, a number of cross-party groups have been very challenged by the rules, including one of your own—the cross-party group on the USA. Can you assure us that you have the capacity, both as an individual MSP and within your office, to meet the obligations of the existing CPGs that you are attached to and to take on this new CPG as well? After all, responsibility rests with MSPs personally.
Sure. My remarks about the secretariat are born out of what we attempted with the cross-party group on the USA, which, frankly, did not work. It is really important that an organisation takes that work forward.
I will be very frank with the committee about my experience with cross-party groups. For a start, I did not seek to reconstitute the cross-party group on social sciences from the previous parliamentary session. I do not think that there is any harm in looking at whether there is any appetite to establish an agenda, but if there is no such appetite, there is no harm in winding up cross-party groups or not continuing them into new parliamentary sessions. I will be very comfortable if that is the case with this proposed group, but I think that there are good reasons to explore whether there is an appetite for it. The window of time that we have before the election will allow us to establish that, and then we will take a view.
Rona, would you like to come back on that?
I have just a very brief question. I was intrigued to see one of the deputy conveners—Stéphane Pailler—listed as “Honorary”. I have never seen that before. I am looking at the convener. Is that acceptable? Obviously, he is not an elected member.
The responsibility and obligation rests with the MSPs, and the group’s structure is very much up to them.
That is fine. I just had not seen “Honorary” listed before.
Thank you. The winding up of CPGs is certainly music to my ears, as it is appropriate.
Daniel, thank you for attending. We will consider the application under the next agenda item, and the clerks will contact you in the normal way. Thank you for your attendance today.
Merci beaucoup, et à bientôt.
I look forward to the translation for the official record. Très bien.
Agenda item 4 is consideration of the application for the proposed cross-party group on France and a decision on whether to accord it recognition. I open the matter up for contributions.
I am satisfied with Daniel Johnson’s responses. There is an on-going inquiry to look in the round at cross-party groups. However, I do not think that we should apply future rules to this application, so I agree to the cross-party group being formed.
I am probably not on the same page as Joe. He spoke of the existing overlap, and there are a lot of other opportunities for the organisations that he mentioned, whether it be EDF, VINCI or others in that area, to work with other cross-party groups.
I am concerned that the timing and closeness to our red line mean that the group will not be substantive, and Daniel Johnson spoke a lot about making it more viable in the next session. Therefore, I am sorry, but I am not in a place where I can support its establishment.
I agree with Joe. Daniel Johnson was realistic in what he said, and I am satisfied with his answers. On reflection, I think that, in the light of Brexit, it is important that we maintain relations with other European countries, and France is a very important one. I am content for the CPG to go ahead.
I echo that view. I am satisfied that he understands what his obligations would be.
Although this is technically not part of the process of recognising the CPG, I note that the committee has expressed significant concerns about MSPs’ workloads. Daniel Johnson’s frank comments about the secretariat were helpful.
Looking at the proposal for this cross-party group, I would have had absolutely no problem with the CPG had it been proposed in the early months of the parliamentary session; I see its benefit. However, to speak to your point, Sue, when we come to our inquiry, it should perhaps be recognised that a decision needs to be made about what the cut-off date for CPGs is.
With that in mind, are committee members inclined to consent, or do you want to make it more formal than that?
I would like to make it more formal.
I am content to put it to a vote.
The question is, that we agree to the formal establishment of the CPG on France. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
We agree to the formal establishment of the CPG on France.
Air ais
Ethical Standards CommissionerAir adhart
Petition