European Committee, 18 Aug 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999

Official Report 232KB pdf

---

Further Briefing

Briefing documents on a number of subjects have been issued to the committee. Are there any other topics on which members would like briefing documents? They need not be related to our agenda.

A document on relations with Westminster would be useful.

That might not be a bad idea, as we will come back to the subject in a later discussion.

I would like to see a note of the European Scrutiny Committee's membership.

In the briefing papers that we have before us today there is information about the trans-European network, transport policy and the proposals that are likely to come up. I would like to be kept up to date with developments as they arise. It would be also helpful to have information about the Scottish MEPs and the committees they sit on.

I know that it is early days, Mr Henry, but do you have an idea of when we will start specialising and dividing up the subjects? There will be an enormous amount of legislation to scrutinise.

We can consider that.

When Jim Millard was here I raised a point about Community initiatives, which might come into our discussion on structural funds. Because Scotland does not have the same opportunities for cross-border projects as it does for transnational ones it is important that, on the INTERREG initiative, we maintain a strong lobby for trans national projects.

Do you want a briefing paper on the subject?

Yes.

After this morning's very good presentation, I think that we should have a more detailed briefing on the British Government's submission on objective 2 status. We will need to move quickly on that matter if we are to have any input as the submission will be made next month, I believe.

I appreciate your sentiments and I agree that we need to be able to exert some influence, but we are trying to consider briefings that the Scottish Parliament can provide. You are asking for information from the British Government, which is a different matter. I agree that we need the information that you mention. One way to get it would be to talk to Jack McConnell; the other way would be to talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not know whether our committee staff would be able to produce that kind of information as a Scottish Parliament briefing.

We have to be very well briefed if we are going to put hard, relevant questions and points of view to Jack McConnell and John Reid when they appear before us. After all, they are not coming here simply for a chat.

That is right, but you asked for a briefing on the UK's decisions about the matter and, at this stage, we do not know what those decisions will be.

We could have a briefing about the thinking that is going on behind the scenes on the criteria on which such decisions will be made. Perhaps we could also have a list of points to raise when the ministers come before us, which I hope will be soon.

We have already agreed that we will ask the minister to come to the next meeting. I think that we can agree to a Scottish Parliament briefing on some of the key issues and questions for Scotland and we can ask the staff to elicit some information about the UK Government's current thinking on the matter. However, I hesitate to consider their chances of success—I think that you have had more experience of trying to obtain such information than many of us, Dennis.

We will produce a briefing note outlining the key points of the structural funds debate and we will also get as much available information as we can from the UK Government, but I will not promise to deliver what the staff cannot access.

I am sorry to take up more time, but I want to emphasise Dennis's comments. We have a time difficulty; if we do not manage to intervene before the decisions on the map are made, we have to take what is handed down to us.

We have already agreed to invite Jack McConnell to our next meeting. At this stage in the agenda, we are talking about general background briefing notes that are not necessarily for discussion. You have already received some briefing notes that have not appeared on the agenda, which were to inform you and to help you to appreciate some of the wider issues. We have already agreed our tactics concerning structural funds. If we can produce a briefing note that gives a Scottish Parliament perspective on some of the main issues, we will do that. However, the briefing note as envisaged in the agenda is not the only way to obtain information that we need and that matter will hopefully be dealt with when the minister comes before us. We will ask whether we can be supplied with the key questions and information that Dennis spoke about, so that we can have a more focused debate with the minister.

I am not just thinking of Jack McConnell but, more important, of John Reid, if the UK Government puts forward the proposals to the EC.

At the moment I think it is appropriate for us to ask the Scottish Parliament's Minister for Finance to come before us. We spoke about a meeting on 31 August, which is only two weeks away and I would certainly be keen to see Jack McConnell within the next fortnight, if we can do that.

And what about John Reid? Westminster is not sitting at the moment. If he is sitting around doing nothing, perhaps we could get him more quickly.

As you know, there are issues of protocol. We cannot demand the secretary of state to come before us; we can ask whether he is available. We have a different relationship with the Minister for Finance. Before we meet the secretary of state, we have to ensure that the Scottish Executive has signed up to our agenda. There is no point bringing John Reid into a debate between the committee and the Minister for Finance when we have not formulated a point of view. We have already said that we will write to John Reid about some of our general concerns. At the next meeting, we need to talk to the minister and clarify our own views; then we can ask for a meeting with the secretary of state if that would be helpful. We need to get the sequence of events sorted out.

It is important for John Reid to meet us, because the European dimension is decided at Westminster—at Cabinet level—and John Reid is the man at Westminster. Although Jack McConnell can put his imprint on the Scottish Executive, the redrawing of the map will be done at Westminster and John Reid is the man there.

The problem is that if we do not agree with the Scottish Executive, we could find that the members of the Scottish Executive pay no heed to what we say because we spoke to John Reid before we spoke to them. We need to sign the Scottish Executive up to our priorities and then meet John Reid together—I hope with the committee and the Scottish Executive in tandem. From the Scottish Parliament's point of view, we need to get our act together and our views clarified. We have said that we will send John Reid a holding letter that expresses our concern. The appropriate way forward is to give the minister his place and then to seek a meeting—if appropriate—with the secretary of state.

With respect, Mr Henry, it would be most appropriate for us to meet the secretary of state because the UK Government will make the submission to the European Commission. I would suggest that this committee instructs the clerk to try to arrange meetings with Jack McConnell and with John Reid. It may very well be that we want to have the meeting with Jack McConnell before that with John Reid, but we are running out of time. If we are to have any influence whatsoever in the drawing up of the objective 2 map we must move very quickly indeed. We were told this morning that the proposal by the UK Government will probably be finalised next month. Next month begins in 13 days.

I have no problem with asking for a meeting with John Reid. It is up to him to say whether he is available to meet us. He may want to meet representatives of the committee or he may agree to meet the whole committee. I do not know what his timetable is, but I am more than happy to ask that this committee has a meeting of some form with John Reid. That was always in my thoughts or I would not have suggested that we write to him. Before we do that, however, we need to have Jack McConnell before this committee.

You are absolutely right to say that there must be contact between the Secretary of State for Scotland and this committee in some shape or form.

I propose that we try to meet Jack McConnell on 24 August as there are such pressures on time.

We can check our diaries. We should agree to meet on 31 August and, if possible, as a committee to meet Mr McConnell a week earlier than that. I do not want to start making arrangements that will mean that half of this committee cannot attend, because it is so important that as many members as possible are present. If it is humanly possible, Sylvia, we will try to meet Mr McConnell next week. Failing that, do we agree to meet on 31 August? We must still agree on that and after that it will be appropriate to contact the minister.

Whether we meet on 24 August or 31 August, are we now moving to afternoon slots?

No. On those dates we can still meet in the morning. There is a separate issue about timing that I want to come to. Would members prefer to have our next meeting in the morning or the afternoon?

It seems that members would prefer the afternoon.

We are agreed that we will seek a meeting with John Reid and that we invite Jack McConnell to the next meeting of this committee, which will be on either 24 or 31 August.

At the end of this meeting, would members give the clerk an indication of whether they will be available on 24 August, as I would not want to go into a meeting such as that with only half the committee.

A couple of members raised the general issue of whether meetings will be held in the morning or the afternoon. Some have raised the issue of the day on which we meet. Sir David Steel has asked for a meeting with all the Scottish Parliament's committee conveners to discuss areas of common interest and to try to resolve demarcation issues, and so on. Ahead of that meeting a timetable has been produced that suggests times for particular committee meetings. One of our difficulties is that if we decide unilaterally to meet in the morning, and the clerks have put out a timetable that suggests that our meetings will be in the afternoon, that will have a knock-on effect on other meetings. I do not know whether we can, at this stage, get some of those other meetings shifted. I think the meeting with Sir David is next week and I will raise that.

Do members have a general preference for morning or afternoon meetings? There is an even split, so we will clearly not satisfy everyone. Similarly, we will not be able satisfy everyone regarding the day of the week on which we meet. I will try to establish with the other conveners whether there is any flexibility. Each committee determining its own meeting times would create anarchy, because we are often dependent on the same staff and facilities. The decision may be out of our hands, but I will do what I can.

Is there anything—other than the issues that we have identified through this meeting—which members would like to be considered at the next meeting?

As there is not, I thank members for their attendance at what has been a good and fruitful discussion.

Meeting closed at 13:01.