Official Report 226KB pdf
Under agenda item 2, we will consider the paper that has been provided, which highlights a proposed new approach to scrutiny by the European and External Relations Committee and provides information on issues relating to this committee's remit at European level. I remind members that we are going to Brussels shortly. I invite comments on the paper.
The European and External Relations Committee was at pains to point out that its approach would not cut across this committee's remit on issues such as the common fisheries policy and reviews of the common agricultural policy. However, the question was rather left hanging as to how preparatory fact finding would be undertaken, who would be spoken to and on what basis, and how information would be fed back to this committee. The committee will wish to consider such advance engagement. When it was here recently, the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development invited us to feed in our views in a more timely fashion. If a mechanism could be found to make that work, that would be fine, but I am not entirely clear what that mechanism would be.
I am glad that Liam McArthur said that, because I had similar reservations when I read the paper. The intention is not to duplicate work, and I can understand why the European and External Relations Committee wishes to be involved, but there is a danger of duplication arising. It should be the role of this committee to highlight things and do the fact finding, rather than have a rapporteur do it. The relationship between this committee and the European and External Relations Committee is not entirely clear to me. I have similar reservations to those of Liam McArthur, but I am comparatively relaxed about the situation, so long as a way can be found to address them.
I share those reservations, although I welcome the intention. There is no question but that having an input to pre-legislative elements is vital—we are certainly lacking in that in the Scottish Parliament. The intention is absolutely fine, if a way can be found to make things work.
The proposal reflects a difficulty that the European and External Relations Committee has: as soon as it gets into any substantive issue other than one that is simply about the processes within the European Union, it cuts across the remit of some other committee. There is a limit to how long it can consider processes within the EU but, as soon as it moves outside that envelope, it is bound to get into that kind of difficulty. Having been a member of the European and External Relations Committee, I sympathise with its problem.
There is a lot of expertise on the CFP and CAP among the clerks and, indeed, the members of this committee. Some of us have spent three years—or, in my case, much longer—considering them. I am apprehensive that, notwithstanding the European and External Relations Committee's best intentions, it will somehow go beyond what is proposed and cause overlap and duplication. What is the point of that? However, if we can achieve a way of flagging up issues and allowing this committee to input into prelegislative proposals, that would be welcome.
Would it be possible for the European and External Relations Committee to act like a secondary committee and provide us with a report on which we could act? That would ensure that it did not bypass us but still got the chance to play the role that it wants to play.
I have sympathy with what the European and External Relations Committee is trying to do, but there would be a big danger of two committees of the Parliament speaking with different voices and commenting differently on the same issues. We might take a different line from the European and External Relations Committee.
It could be the other way round: the report could be from us to the European and External Relations Committee.
The letter refers to "an EERC Reporter". When only one individual is involved, an extra danger is that the balance of opinions might not be reflected in their conclusions.
From my experience of dealing with EU issues, the European Commission in particular tends to play one side off against the other if there is not complete overlap in what is said. Rhoda Grant is right to pick up on that. On fisheries, we found that the Scottish fishing industry was told one thing but Scottish Government officials were told something slightly different. Different member states have different agendas, so it would be unfortunate in the extreme if the Scottish Parliament appeared not to speak with a unified voice.
How about if I meet the convener of the European and External Relations Committee, thrash those issues out and report back to this committee? I agree that we should be the lead committee on agriculture and fisheries. I suspect that they form a big part of the European and External Relations Committee's business.
Members indicated agreement.
This might be a good point to discuss our visit to Brussels. Members were sent a proposed agenda, which we will discuss later. Do you wish any information or background papers from the Scottish Parliament information centre in relation to this before we go to Brussels?
What do you mean by "in relation to this"?
I mean any of the subjects that we are going to bring up on the visit and that may come up in our meetings. I would like background information on the CFP and perhaps a short briefing on less-favoured areas, although I have been trying to read up on that subject.
The fact that the CFP green paper coincides with our visit leapt out at me. The Commission has been fairly vocal on a number of issues, not least the possible end of relative stability, which is crucial to our industry. I assume that there will be briefing papers on issues that are on the agenda anyway.
We will get a briefing on the CFP.
I am afraid that I have missed the proposed agenda for our trip to Brussels, but a short briefing on all the issues would be beneficial to us. I am talking not about 10 or 20 sides of A4, but about one or two, if that is possible.
Okay.
The agenda for the day's visit is tight and rather packed. Perhaps we could have suggested lines of questioning so that we can focus our questions. That would be helpful, given the amount of work that is on the agenda for the visit.
What level of involvement will Scottish Government officials have in the preparation of the briefings? If we take a different approach from the Government in our lines of questioning, we should at least be aware of the Government's line. The team Scotland approach has long been identified as a strength and an asset, so we want to play along with it.
That is a good point.
We will ensure that the Government's line is included in the briefing.
Meeting continued in private until 12:35.