European Committee, 14 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000

Official Report 122KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Cathy Jamieson and I had a meeting in Glasgow on 3 November with representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the House of Lords and the House of Commons who are involved in Europe related matters. All the participants found the exercise worth while. Some practical issues about how we cope with the type of work that we do were discussed. The interesting point was made, particularly by representatives from the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, that the Scottish Parliament is more effective in getting early warning of proposed European policy changes. The discussion was similar to our previous discussions about how to get such early warning and some suggestions were made on how we could use the resources and intelligence networks of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

More particularly, the officers supporting the three devolved layers of government were asked to pull together a paper that will consider how we might share information, combine areas of political interest and work together at a European as well as at a United Kingdom level. The paper will be a useful starting point for a discussion and the conveners of the European committees will have a follow-up meeting to discuss it. Perhaps we could look also at sponsoring some sort of joint session of the various committees of the legislatures to look at a common European strategy. A minute of the meeting will be circulated in the near future.

The second item on which I will report concerns the council of fisheries ministers meeting on 14 and 15 December, which it would be useful for the committee to discuss. The committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords have a process whereby ministers are asked to attend committee meetings for discussion both before and after council meetings. The December council meeting on fisheries will be a key date this year for that important sector of the economy. I suggest that we invite the relevant Scottish Executive minister to attend a committee meeting both before the fisheries meeting, so that the committee can make whatever comment it thinks necessary about the significance of that meeting, and, more important, after the meeting, so that the minister can report back to the committee about what went on. It is part of our remit to encourage the Executive at that level and to find out on behalf of Parliament exactly what is going on. Do members have any thoughts or comments on the matter?

That is an excellent suggestion. It has been clear over the past year that there is not an effective mechanism for that sort of report back. The process that the convener has outlined would allow that to happen and I hope that our proposed meeting with the minister will be the first of many. Of course, we are aware of the forthcoming fisheries meeting and the Executive's participation in it, but there are other on-going meetings of which we are not so aware. Perhaps, as a result of the next item that the convener will raise, we can establish a timetable so that such Executive pre and post-meeting briefing becomes part of business as usual.

I am sure that our colleagues on the Rural Affairs Committee will be interested. We will certainly make them aware if we get dates.

The idea of a pre and post-council briefing is excellent as far as the December meeting is concerned. I am slightly concerned, however, that there is a meeting this week, on 17 November, that will cover matters that are pertinent to the committee such as changes in fleet management arrangements, the impact of the rise in fuel prices and the stability of the fisheries undertakings. In light of changes in quotas there is also an important item on our future fisheries relationship with Morocco. We do not have enough time to ask the relevant minister to come and meet us before Friday, but I would like to know what level of communication the Executive will have with us with regard to the meeting on 17 November. I would also like to know whether, when the minister comes to the committee prior to the meeting of 14 and 15 December, she could come with a report of the November meeting.

That would be relevant. In the meantime we could ask for a written report on what has gone on this week. That could be circulated to the committee and may help us in our deliberations at a later date. I will write to the minister asking for the information requested.

The last point in item 3 on the agenda concerns the structural changes within the Executive. The committee will be aware that Jack McConnell has a new set of responsibilities. He will no longer be directly responsible for structural funds but will still have responsibility for European matters and external relations. It will be important to find out from him how the Executive intends to develop that portfolio. If, on behalf of the Parliament and of Scotland, the Executive pushes forward with initiatives such as developing links with the Czech Republic, the committee will need to know the rationale behind those initiatives, how they will be extended into the wider layers of Scottish society and how those relationships with other countries will be monitored. That will apply to any other links that are developed. The committee has touched upon those issues in the past. It would be useful, therefore, for the minister to come and explain how he sees policy developing.

Following the change in ministerial responsibilities, the Executive added a new factor—external relations—that is probably not part of any other committee portfolio. How will that area of responsibility be monitored? Who will the minister report back to in Parliament? The committee may want to ask the minister that and may also want to raise with the Presiding Officer the question of which committee will be monitoring that part of the Executive's work and whether the remit of any of the committees should be altered to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the Executive's work.

I agree. A good starting point for the committee, however, would be a definition of external affairs. We all have ideas about what we think external affairs means. The Executive must have a clear idea as to what it means, but I have not seen a definition written down anywhere.

We can ask the Executive for a definition in advance of the meeting. The only debate then is a tactical one as to whether we ask now who in Parliament will be scrutinising the Executive's work on external relations, or wait until we have heard what the Executive has to say.

The links between education and Europe present real opportunities for us. Some of the links are obvious, including those on the modern language agenda. I hope that we will be given an opportunity to explore that issue with the minister when he comes before the committee. As 2001 is the European year of languages, I welcome the opportunity that that gives for the committee and the minister to work together to promote the development of modern languages in Scotland.

We will ask the minister to attend a committee meeting to explain his portfolio. Our letter will also request that a definition of his external affairs remit be given to us in advance of that meeting. Once we have an understanding of that definition, I can make further inquiries, on behalf of the committee, within the Parliamentary structure, as to how scrutiny of the minister's external affairs remit will be undertaken.

I agree with that proposal. It would also be useful—not necessarily on the same occasion—to invite Mr Angus MacKay to appear before the committee to tell us how he sees his role in relation to structural funding.

When our report on structural funds was published earlier this month, I noted with interest that it was Mr MacKay who issued the Executive comments. In the past year, the committee has had to look at a number of issues relating to the time scale and operation of structural fund allocation. That has formed a large part of our workload, probably a larger part than we might have wanted. It is important for the committee to have an understanding of Mr MacKay's perspective and to establish a link between the committee and his department, in addition to our relationship with Mr McConnell.

One decision we made when we looked at structural funds was that we would regularly monitor and review the plans. That will allow us to write to the Executive asking for a response early in the new year as to how it will report to this committee. We can then agree with the minister on a timetable for carrying out that work.

We might want to raise other issues with the minister by that time: for example the letter I wrote to Jack McConnell on objective 3 funding that was circulated to committee members although Lloyd Quinan—as a new member of the committee—may not have a copy. That is an issue of concern to many voluntary organisations and if it is still a problem, we will need to ask Angus MacKay to appear before the committee so that we can look at that. That was a point well made, David.

On that point, under item 3 of the convener's report, I note that we are seeking "a mutually acceptable date" to meet Jack McConnell. I am led to believe that the minister is going to Europe at the beginning of next month. I am not sure what other members think, but I would like to know—prior to Jack McConnell going to Europe—what the Executive's strategy for Europe is. That would be similar to our decision under item 2 of the convener's report, to invite ministers to attend this committee pre and post European Council meetings.

The clerk and I are looking at a date—possibly at the end of this month—for the minister to appear before the committee in advance of any meetings he has in Europe. That date is not yet confirmed. Stephen Imrie, our clerk, is waiting to hear from the minister's private office. I will advise members of a date as soon as possible.