European Committee, 09 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 9, 1999

Official Report 235KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Will David give a report on the meeting with the foreign affairs adviser to the Dutch Prime Minister on 27 October?

The meeting went well, although I saw the thank you note and I did not make the same impact as Cathy. It was a useful meeting and, judging by the adviser's response, he found it useful too. The meeting helped him to understand the extent to which we are still evolving and gave him a greater understanding of the UK's unwritten constitution. Matters are not the same here as they are in the Netherlands and other countries that are accustomed to a firmer concept of relationships—I am thinking of relationships such as those that exist between the Parliament and United Kingdom institutions, and therefore between ourselves and Europe. In the main, we conveyed to the adviser the evolving nature of the arrangements here in Scotland and he found that useful.

Thank you, David. I will not ask about the comments to Cathy. We will leave that to her. Cathy, will you report on the contacts with the Spanish representatives?

Due to members having other commitments that afternoon, I was the only person able to meet the Spanish delegation. That was a bit unfortunate, as it meant that they were given a rather personal perspective on a number of matters, including the football, about which we had a long discussion. It was a useful meeting, as it highlighted the level of interest of the delegation in the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, how that relationship is evolving, how we can look to the future to make links between the regional Parliaments in different areas and how those links might proceed.

My meeting with the two delegates from Valencia went on at some length. The deputy mayor of Valencia was in one of my groups. The delegates were very interested in Scotland and everything that we are doing here. Valencia had a war with Spain in 1707, when it lost its independence, and it seems to identify with Scotland because of the year 1707. I have been to Valencia and met the gentlemen before. They were fascinated by the evolving situation here.

We have dealt with the request from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The Scottish Executive has also requested that a member of the committee attend a function at Edinburgh castle on the evening of 17 November with a visiting member of the Dutch royal family. Is anyone available?

Western Isles Health Board is visiting that night.

I am available on 17 November.

That is the night of the Scotland v England game.

You are obviously not a football fan, Ben.

At what time will the function be, convener? I can speak Dutch.

What time is your appointment, Winnie?

Sandy Matheson from Western Isles Health Board is coming at 6 o'clock that evening.

Ben, would you be happy for Winnie to go to the function?

Yes.

My appointment with Western Isles Health Board comes first. It will be a question of timing. First things first.

We will find out the time of the function. If Winnie is unavailable, Ben will try his utmost to be there.

I will try to get back from Hampden in time.

The game is at Wembley, which will make that more difficult.

Ben Wallace will be at Hampden while everyone else is at Wembley. I will not comment on politicians being out of touch with the wider electorate.

A delegation of Swedish MPs will be visiting on the evening of 16 November. George Reid will host a reception. Who is available to attend? Sylvia Jackson, Margo MacDonald, Allan Wilson, Ben Wallace, Winnie Ewing and Maureen Macmillan are available. Winnie, do you speak Swedish as well?

No.

You can speak Dutch to them and get some practice in for the next night.

Anyone else who is interested should contact the clerk.

I cannot attend the function, as I am going to Prague next week on other business. However, I have indicated to the clerk that if there is anything useful that I can do while I am there, I will be happy to do it.

I am sure that that will be noted.

We have received a letter from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to which I have drafted a reply. The letter follows up our discussion of the draft plan for the area. Are members happy with the draft reply and agreed that it should be sent?

Members indicated agreement.

I have already touched on one aspect of the recent meeting of the conveners committee. We also discussed research facilities for committees. There is a feeling among conveners that the committees need more resources to enable them to do their work adequately. A contrast has been made with the support that the Executive receives. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will consider the matter and I will report back once I have details.

We have already touched on the issue of travel. We hope to firm up our intentions for the next few months at the next two meetings.

A specific sum of money has been allocated to the civic forum to develop partnerships between wider Scotland and the Parliament. It would be useful to have a report at a future meeting on what the European Committee can gain from working in partnership with others.

The final item is a rather bizarre one. As convener of this committee, I was asked to participate in a question and answer session at the East of Scotland European Consortium conference. Four members of the committee were also invited to attend the conference and we had identified our nominees.

Since the Standards Committee's recent inquiry, advice has been given to all committees on hospitality and advocacy. We are advised that any committee members who attend events as members of the Scottish Parliament and receive cups of tea, for example, will have to pay for them. If they do not, they will have to declare them. Members will not be able to accept lunches. We cannot accept the invitation for me to participate in the conference on behalf of this committee, and members cannot participate on behalf of ESEC. No budget is available for sending anyone from this committee who wishes to go; anyone who wishes to go will have to pay for it themselves.

In the circumstances, I think that we should politely decline until the matter is resolved. I know that the issue has come up in other committees. It is getting to the farcical stage that we will not be able to meet outside bodies in any way, shape or form. I think that the rigid rule is starting to bring the parliamentary process into disrepute. Far from protecting us and the wider public from excesses, it has reached the other extreme. I regret having to say that we should decline the invitation, but unless anyone wishes to pay for this and other events themselves, we have been advised that we cannot participate.

I have been trying to take up the issue on behalf of the committee with the Parliament's legal office and other members of parliamentary staff. As the convener has said, any of you may attend the conference. If you do so and your fees are waived, the potential issue of paid advocacy arises. You can either reimburse the organisers and carry on as normal, or if you do not reimburse them and the fees are still waived, you will have to register that as a new interest and declare it. That would curtail to an extent what you may talk about during proceedings of the Parliament.

That is the current advice. I know that other committees are addressing this matter. Staff of the Parliament are aware of it, and it is being treated as a matter of urgency and priority, because it impacts on the ability of members to carry out their business.

I am absolutely in favour of transparency and accountability, as are, I am sure, all members of the committee. However, it seems that the ruling impedes people's ability to do their job properly and to participate fully in the committee's work and in constructive engagement with others involved in European matters in Scotland. I trust, convener, that you will take that view forward to the conveners liaison group and pursue it until we get a better resolution that would allow us to undertake this type of engagement. We should involve ourselves with groups of people who are interested in Europe.

I am well aware of this matter. What is required is for the Executive to change the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scottish statutory instrument pertaining to members' interests. The difference between ourselves and Westminster is that we are subject to the Scotland Act 1998 and can be held against it, whereas Westminster is a court and cannot be challenged on its procedures. I agree that it is ridiculous. If the conveners make a representation to the Executive, the Executive can simply amend that legislation, which can be undone. I am advised that that is how we must proceed.

I understand what Ben is saying, and he is right about where the problem emanates from. However, there is also an issue of interpretation. We need to consider what remit people from the legal fraternity are given when they are asked to provide an interpretation. Surely we can have a rational look at this in the Standards Committee and arrive at an interpretation that is rather more flexible. I, for one, have been offered a cup of tea, and I am going to take it. I will be interested to see what people do about that.

We can buy a corporate flask.

The advice is for your own protection. Members can go to the conference and pay their own way. However, if they attend at the request of ESEC, the advice is that they will have to declare that and that it could affect them if they wish to speak on any issues pertaining to ESEC, which could include structural funds and other such matters. That could be very significant for members who represent areas covered by ESEC.

As has already been said, we have descended into a farcical situation. I am concerned that this problem is being reported through this committee, as in my day-to-day work as a member of the Scottish Parliament representing my constituents I am invited to attend conferences. Last week, I spoke at a young carers conference. Are we now saying that, because I had lunch there, I am not allowed to speak on carers issues in the Parliament? That would be nonsensical. I have received nothing in writing from anyone connected with the Parliament to clarify this issue. As a matter of urgency, we should say that, if a ruling has been made, we need to see it in black and white. I want to see it before Thursday this week, when I am due to attend another conference on behalf of the British Cooperative Movement.

The suggestion that we ask for written advice is a good one. I will also take the matter back to the conveners group. However, we need to decide what to do about the ESEC conference. As things stand at the moment, those members who have been nominated to attend must either pay their own way or, if they go at the request of ESEC, declare that, which could have implications for their future participation in related debates. We should write back to ESEC saying that we have some difficulties and that everything depends on whether individual members can resolve those. However, my feeling is that we should decline the invitation.

Everyone else has rehearsed the arguments, and I am sure that we are of one mind on this. We would make ourselves look absolutely stupid as a Parliament if we wrote to the folk at ESEC to say, "We are awfully sorry that we can't come, but if we close our ears and do not listen to the bits that we might be interested in, would that be all right?" Can we ask for a ruling on this as a matter of urgency, using this conference as the prototype? It is important that we attend.

The problem, if it is a problem, has arisen because of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999. It might be difficult to change the order in time for this conference. We have raised the matter on the committee's behalf with the Standards Committee, which is examining the code of conduct and so on. However, the nub of the problem is the interpretation of the order.

With respect, could we not have some sort of interregnum until this is sorted out? We cannot sort it out completely ourselves if it is part and parcel of the Scotland Act 1998.

No, because nobody has the authority to overrule legislation that is still in place.

I have already attended an ESEC event, at which I was given food and listened very carefully to what was said. The same applies to a number of members of the committee. We are getting on to some of the more bizarre elements of this. However, I am sure that the four members who attend the conference will be invited along as delegates representing Parliament. How about them attending purely as observers, with no fee attached? Would that not overcome the difficulties?

There is still an issue to address. I will ask Stephen to find out what the options are. In the meantime, we will tell ESEC that there is a potential problem and advise the individual members concerned, who will need to make their own final decision.

For my own clarification, is this simply a matter of interpreting the legislation or is the problem with the legislation itself? It is important for the committee to understand the issue.

The legislation is quite clear on this matter. However, we will raise the matter with the conveners group and Stephen will bring it to the attention of the Procedures Committee and the Standards Committee. This strict ruling will affect much more than this particular conference.

We should point out that the conference is an important event. A short-term solution might be for Stephen or some other parliamentary official to attend as an observer to show that the committee is at least interested in the event. We do not want the organisers to think that we are not attending because we do not want to.

ESEC is aware of the problems. We will await further information.

I will suspend the proceedings for a couple of minutes to allow our German guests to join us.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

Stephen, can you give us some advice about the technical aspects of the simultaneous interpretation?

I have in front of me a note about how to use the translation equipment—simply plug in the headphones and press the start button, which is the green button on the front of the apparatus. English speakers should select channel 2 and German speakers should select channel 3. Members of the committee should indicate any problems to me and I will try to resolve them as we go along.

Thank you, Stephen.