European Union Reporter
Agenda item 4 is on the appointment of a European Union reporter. On 9 December 2010, the Parliament agreed to introduce a Parliament-wide scheme for European Union engagement and scrutiny, including the introduction of an early warning system for EU legislative proposals, which requires subject committees to be responsible for appointing EU reporters and for scrutinising EU proposals within their area.
Following Aileen McLeod’s move from the committee, it is necessary for us to appoint a new EU reporter. I refer members to paper 6 for today’s meeting. At the committee’s previous meeting, two members expressed an interest in the role and it was agreed that we would defer a decision until today. Can I invite nominations from members? Nominations do not need to be seconded.
I nominate Jim Eadie.
I nominate Margaret McCulloch.
We have two nominations, therefore it is necessary to vote.
Can we have a discussion?
Yes.
This is a difficult decision, as both members are able, competent and well-qualified people for the post. We are in an enviable position in having to have a vote on such a matter. Apart from my colleague Margaret McCulloch’s great competence and interest in the area, the fact is that the last two reporters have been members of the governing party. Given the stated wish of the SNP to govern as if it were a minority Government, that is a relevant consideration as members cast their votes today.
Does anyone else want to make any observations?
My only observation is that it is good to have some competition for a change. We have generally had to twist somebody’s arm to come forward for the post.
One of the reasons why I feel I should stand is that it would give a better balance to the committee. At the moment, the convener is a member of the SNP and we have another three SNP members on the committee, as well as me, Malcolm Chisholm and Alex Johnstone. The First Minister has said that he will operate the Government as if it were a minority Government, so I had hoped that, in this case, that would prove to be the case.
I endorse Malcolm Chisholm’s earlier comments about the suitability, capability and expertise of the two candidates. [Laughter.]
I am aware and fully supportive of the increased emphasis that Parliament has placed on scrutiny of EU legislation over the past two or three years. EU laws can be of significance to many policy areas for which MSPs have responsibility, and that is certainly the case regarding this committee. I am thinking specifically of public procurement, broadband and state aid—the digital agenda—various transport issues and water, to name but a few.
It is interesting to see the number of European initiatives and laws across the range of policy areas that dovetail with the legislative and policy agendas of both the Parliament and the committee. For example, we will see initiatives and legislation on public procurement coming from Parliament at the same time as they come from the European institutions. That is as topical and relevant for this committee as it is for all the parliamentary committees.
As I am a relatively new member of the Scottish Parliament and the committee, I hope to bring a fresh and inclusive perspective and approach, as well as an open mind, to working with colleagues across all the parties. I am mindful of the points that members have made about the need to recognise that this is a Parliament of all parties, not just one. I therefore offer reassurance to the committee that, if I am successful, I will seek to meet other members of the committee from all parties and will work collaboratively with them in taking forward the issues.
To finish off, based on what Jim Eadie says about working in partnership, I would have been happy to work in partnership with Jim Eadie, sharing the role with him as had initially been agreed. However, for whatever reason, the convener decided that that would not work. I just want to emphasise that I was more than happy to share the role and for us both to be EU reporters.
I checked to see whether that was the situation in any of the other committees, but no other committee has joint EU reporters, so I think that it would probably be rather messy.
I do not think that we should conflate the Government and the Parliament. The committee structure was well laid out by the Parliamentary Bureau when Parliament was set up, and the composition of the committee reflects what the bureau agreed. How the Government approaches legislation is different from how Parliament operates.
I regret the fact that we are in this situation. Maybe it is my fault, because I had not noticed that Margaret McCulloch had a particular interest in European issues. We have two members who are interested in the job and should go straight to a vote.
The question is, that Jim Eadie be chosen as the committee’s EU reporter. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Adam Ingram (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gordon MacDonald (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Against
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Margaret McCulloch (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Jim Eadie will be our EU reporter.
That ends the business for today. At our meeting on 14 November we will hear from Scottish Water and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, and we will have our first consideration of our draft budget report.
Meeting closed at 12:31.