Item 3 is the convener's report. Do members agree to note the chief executive's monthly report?
I have a couple of points about the report from the external liaison unit. I see no mention of the Greek ambassador's meeting on Thursday. Is that still going ahead?
I was going to mention that later in my report, but I am happy to talk about it now. I understand that a difficulty has emerged this afternoon which means that, regrettably, all Greek ambassadors have been called back to Athens. Therefore, unfortunately, we must cancel the meeting on Thursday. I intended to inform the committee about that. The clerks will have to put out another flyer. We pursued the matter actively to ensure interest for the meeting and the news is a disappointment. However, the situation is unavoidable. Thank you for raising the matter, Dennis.
I have another point. Although it was not organised by the external relations unit, we should note another successful external relations event, which took place on 24 November, when Scotland beat Ireland 3-2 in an interparliamentary football match. Perhaps the reason for our success was that all members of the Scottish Parliament were invited to apply for membership of the team, unlike the secretive selection process used by the external relations unit.
We note those points. Do members agree to note the report from the chief executive?
That brings me to the next item in the convener's report, which is the statement and news release from the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions of Europe. I came across the statement and want to draw it to the committee's attention. I note from the statement that at the political bureau meeting on 2 and 3 December, the CPMR decided to request that the convention on the future of Europe should take account of the views of local and regional authorities. The final paragraph of the statement requests that a specific plenary session of the convention be set aside to debate the views of local and regional authorities in Europe.
That would be good. It would also be helpful to write to Xavier Gizard, who is the secretary general of the CPMR, to give the Scottish Parliament's view. That would add weight to the CPMR's points. The CPMR has grown in people's esteem in the past five years, prior to which it did not have such a good reputation. Nowadays, the CPMR carries a lot of weight in the circles that matter in Brussels. The Parliament should subscribe to the CPMR's view. In general, we should keep an eye on what the CPMR does, because it presents good policy positions on a range of matters that affect us because of our peripherality in Europe.
Is the convention bound to respond to the request from the CPMR?
I do not think so.
Giscard d'Estaing just says, "Merci" and that is that.
It might also be worth while to write to our representatives on the convention, such as Gisela Stuart, to ask them to raise the matter on our behalf.
When I went to the European Movement's study group meeting just down the road at the University of Edinburgh, Gisela Stuart said that she would be pleased to talk to the Parliament about a range of issues. Her working group is considering the role of Parliaments in the convention. Depending on diaries, she would value the chance to speak to the committee. Perhaps the committee should consider that.
We valued the contribution of Gisela and others to the conference in September. To get things moving before the Christmas recess, if the committee agrees, we could send a letter to the UK members of the convention asking them to support the CPMR's position. Is that agreed?
I was thoroughly impressed by Gisela. She is wonderful.
I take it as read that the committee has agreed to write to the CPMR and to the president of the convention.
Previous
Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)Next
Sift