The European Committee has requested an alteration to its remit. The recommendation is that, if we agree with the points that are about to be made by Hugh Henry—whom I welcome to the meeting—we should consider the basis on which we might alter the remit of, and the standing orders relating to, the European Committee.
The paper that members have before them is self-explanatory, but I want to raise a couple of key issues.
In principle, I am in favour of the proposal. However, I wonder about its impact on the committee. Hugh Henry said in paper PR/01/5/10 that such a change in procedure could be fitted in without causing too much trouble to timetabling. Might not that be a wee bit ambitious? I expect that such a change would have an impact on the European Committee's current business. Given that that committee is now made up of only nine members, would that be sufficient to cope with such a broad remit?
The size of the committees is a matter for others to determine. I am not sure whether the extension of Jack McConnell's portfolio will be sufficiently large to warrant another upheaval in committees. I do not anticipate a huge extension to our work. From time to time, we shall need to reflect on certain issues, for example, the Executive's policy on external relations. Given the European Committee's work load for the foreseeable future, discussing such matters with the clerks will not cause huge problems. However, resource implications for the clerks are probably more important than the size of the committee and such implications would need to be fed back through the appropriate channels. As yet, nothing that the Executive is doing suggests that such a change would be a burden.
There should be a mechanism for scrutiny of such matters, but should not we have more background knowledge before we make a decision? Is the matter suitable for an issues paper? I do not want to get to the point at which standing orders are drawn up on the basis of a three or four-minute discussion, which is the implication of the recommendation.
What background knowledge do you mean?
As Gil Paterson said, the change in the remit of the committee might have an impact on its work load—it might restrict the issues that members wish to raise. All committees have limited time in which to deal with matters. The European Committee was set up primarily to deal with the European Union and its impact on Scotland and the Parliament. If members wish to raise issues about that and other general external affairs, there will be competing interests.
Surely the point is that the minister's remit must be scrutinised. If evidence shows subsequently that the scale of the resource requirement for such work is beyond the remit of one committee, that will lead to further changes. It is not an argument for not extending the remit, given that the work load exists. It follows that such a remit must be scrutinised.
I am happy to agree with the principle of what you say, convener, but I am concerned about whether we have an alternative. At present, we are discussing a proposal and I am interested to know what alternatives are available to us to provide the required scrutiny. What would be the implications of that for our committee system? I do not want to rush matters.
I am inclined to accept Hugh Henry's reassurances and those of the committee clerk that consideration has been given to the work load of the committee and that it has been found to be manageable. I accept Hugh Henry's assurance that the issue of the resources of the committee would be taken up if that became a problem.
On Brian Adam's comments, if that scrutiny is not done by the European Committee, it should be done by another committee—scrutiny of the Executive is a fundamental principle. The arguments could apply to other committees of the Parliament that are equally hardworking and which are overwhelmed with work at times. Whatever we do, those issues will always exist, but the scrutiny of external relations would probably fit most conveniently with the European Committee.
Is there a sufficiently detailed and concise explanation of the minister's broader role in external relations that would help to shape the standing orders?
Not at the moment. Lloyd Quinan has asked the Executive when it intends to publish its policy and the Executive has indicated that it will try to develop something by the end of 2001. Links are already being made with countries and regions outside the European Union, some of which are applicant countries. Work is being done with the Czech Republic, for example. It is important that the Parliament ask the Executive what it is doing with the Czech Republic and what are the intended benefits. There are other areas in which the Executive has expressed interest, but which are currently not subject to questioning by the Parliament.
So, when the draft standing orders are presented to the Procedures Committee for approval, they will be framed in such a way as eventually to incorporate the minister's precise remit.
I think so; a form of words that is similar to the approach in relation to Europe would be helpful and consistent.
The paper seems to be in Hugh Henry's name. We do not have any information about what the European Committee thinks.
The paper is from the clerks—it is not specifically my paper. It has been discussed informally within the committee. One committee member did not entirely agree with the approach, but others—from across the parties—had no problems with it.
Did you say formally or informally?
We have discussed it privately.
I ask the committee to take a view. It is recommended that we approve the principle of extending the remit of the European Committee. The specific proposal is that, if we agree to the principle, changes to the standing orders will be introduced to give effect to that.
I would prefer to consider the matter further. I suggest that there should be an issues paper that gives us the alternatives and the background. That would perhaps allow the European Committee to discuss the matter formally. I know that the minister's remit has been extended, but we do not need to rush the matter.
I would like to clarify what I said, the European Committee discussed the matter formally in private—I apologise if I misled the committee.
I have what is, in effect, a motion from Brian Adam to the effect that we consider the matter further through an issues paper. Is that correct?
Yes.
Does the committee agree with that?
I am happy, on the basis of this discussion, to go ahead to decide on the principle. We can always debate the matter again when the suggested changes to standing orders come out. I would move along the lines that the convener set out.
That is an amendment from Donald Gorrie. Do we need seconders? We will have to vote on the matter, which is against all practice and precedent in this committee.
That is what you get for letting me on to the committee.
You are to the left of Lloyd Quinan, so what can we expect?
We have voted previously.
Yes.
For
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
That decision is in favour of the extension of the European Committee's remit. We were reassured by the advice that the European Committee had formally approved the report. There are potential further implications, like everything else that we discuss in this committee and which is subject to standing orders. If the change does not work, if it does not work the way that it is expected to or if other issues emerge, we will return to the matter and the job of fine-tuning will continue. I am sure that we will get this right eventually.
Meeting closed at 13:06.
Previous
Correspondence (Decision Time)