Convener's report
We now move on to item 4 on the agenda.
On 3 February, the European Commission announced that European car-free day 2000 will be held on 22 September. The aim of the day is to encourage local authorities across Europe to organise a car-free day, and nine member states—unfortunately excluding the UK—have signed a pledge to organise the initiative. The Commission is asking other member states and municipalities to join up. Does the committee agree to forward the interesting document that we have received to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its views on the initiative and, if that committee is suitably disposed, to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ask whether any Scottish local authorities can participate? Furthermore, does the committee agree to forward the document to the Minister for Transport and the Environment and the Minister for Finance for their interest and consideration?
Yes, provided that it is done in the context that was mentioned last week in the chamber. It is not practical for people in rural parts of Scotland such as Eskdalemuir or Caithness to adopt such an initiative, even though they might aspire to its principles.
Your point is well made. Does the committee agree to my proposals?
Members indicated agreement.
We are seeking to appoint a committee reporter to investigate the issues raised in the document "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Community participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations" (SP 634, EC Ref No 13536/99 COM(99) 564). As Maureen Macmillan had expressed an interest in this issue, does the committee agree to appoint her as reporter?
I do not mind doing that, but I need to know what the time scale for my report will be. I will see the clerk at the end of the meeting.
Thank you, Maureen.
David Mundell participated in a videoconference with the Finnish Parliament.
Yes. I took part in a video link between the Scottish Parliament and the Finnish Parliament. I took part from Dumfries and other participants were based in Edinburgh, which shows that one does not have to be in Edinburgh to participate in such events.
We had an interesting discussion with the Finnish Parliament's Committee for the Future, which considers the future of Finland as a country and the future of the democratic process and all other processes. I hope that this Parliament might aspire to have such a committee.
The Committee for the Future is particularly interested in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. It perceives the Scottish Parliament as a modern and forward-looking institution, although we did not get into detailed discussion about that. We considered the positive possibilities for the Parliament and the way in which it might develop—for example, by using technology to become more accessible. We had an interesting discussion about whether technology was inclusive or exclusive, in terms of how people interact with it. We also discussed how the Finnish Parliament had linked itself to Brussels—the committee told us that it had held a number of videoconference meetings. It had also participated in the sort of on-line, web-based discussion in which Sylvia Jackson has participated.
The session concluded with Paul Grice, who was chairing the Edinburgh end of the discussion, and the convener of the Committee for the Future agreeing that the Parliaments should keep in contact. That will enable us to learn about each other's experiences and to provide information to the Finns so that they understand and can give feedback on the evolution of the Scottish Parliament.
We can learn a lot from Finland, especially as it has a similar geographic spread to Scotland. It has become the most successful country in Europe in using technology both to underpin economic development and to develop devolved democracy internally. I was particularly interested in how Finland twin-tracks issues. For example commercial changes are twin-tracked with changes within the Finnish legal system. When the Finns realised that they could do much more business electronically on the internet, they adjusted their legal system. We can learn from that attempt at joined-up government, which provided a fascinating insight. There is great scope for us to continue the relationship between the Finnish and Scottish Parliaments.
Thank you, David.
That report raises a number of issues. It would be useful if the clerk could investigate some of David's fascinating technical suggestions. A number of our reporters might find such information useful when they access information from other countries and organisations. David's participation in the link-up from Dumfries also interested me. Were the facilities already available in Dumfries?
Yes. I participated from the Crichton campus, where the facilities are available to the public.
I recently attended the Procedures Committee for a discussion on videoconferencing, the use of which I encouraged throughout the work of the Parliament. The convener of that committee undertook to draw up a list of the videoconferencing facilities that are available to the public throughout Scotland, from which members, committees or witnesses could connect to the Parliament. The meeting showed—Stephen Imrie was involved in another part of it—that there is nothing preventing us from having a two-way, three-way or even four-way videoconference as long as the event is properly managed. Videoconferencing is not necessarily a matter of just two people at two locations.
I am interested in this as part of our work. We have said that we want to meet a range of organisations on specific issues. The role and brief of the reporter gives us opportunities to get out and meet people. However, I wonder whether, for our internal discussions in Scotland, some of that work could be conducted in the way that David Mundell described so that we can engage people, test out the system and encourage use of it. I also wonder whether we could use it to ensure that some Scottish organisations, as well as Europe-wide bodies, can be linked into the process. If the technology is not applicable to any of the specific reports, I will ask the clerk to see how, as part of our on-going consultation, we can use it to help us.
This point is not entirely related to videoconferencing, but it is similar. I participated in a live internet link between Brussels and a school in Magdeburg in eastern Germany—in Sachsen-Anhalt, in fact. With other politicians in Brussels, I was questioned by schoolchildren in Magdeburg. Anyone anywhere in the world could have gone to that website and participated in our discussions. The technology is overtaking us in many areas, and it would be useful to find out about it. Sachsen-Anhalt is very much ahead of the game on information and communications technology and we can learn much from other regions of Europe.
That is a good suggestion; I will ask Stephen Imrie to get us some information on that.
The University of the Highlands and Islands and the commerce network of the Highlands and Islands have extensive videoconferencing links, as does Highland Health Board. I am sure that we could easily access the systems that have been set up.
One positive thing about the Finnish experience was the fact that people were willing to try things. If those things did not work, they were not repeated. There was no resistance to trying new and different approaches to operating committees and institutions.
That is excellent, David. That has given us some ideas to consider. Thank you for that.
The next item in the convener's report is the meeting that Winnie Ewing, Tavish Scott and I had with the Bavarian state minister for European affairs, Reinhold Bocklet. The meeting was very useful—some similarities between Bavaria and Scotland were highlighted. The Bavarians expressed some dissatisfaction about their representation in Europe-wide organisations; to some extent, they seemed envious of Scotland's influence. They have some fears about what enlargement might mean for areas such as Bavaria, not just financially but constitutionally, in relation to representation in Europe. The meeting was certainly useful and there will no doubt be further contact. It was another indication of the significant interest that exists throughout Europe about the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
The last item in the convener's report is the proposed visit by the Norwegian Parliament Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs.
I can advise members that I have received some details of the prospective programme from the deputy private secretary to the Presiding Officer. According to the latest version of the programme, the Norwegian committee is coming on Thursday 27 April until Friday 28 April. The slot between 11.15 am and 12.15 pm on the Thursday has been timetabled for members of this committee to discuss matters of common interest and the handling of EU business. I will circulate further information on the full remit of the committee's visit.
Thank you, Stephen.
We should take the last agenda item in private, but I would like to take some soundings from the committee. Working procedures are an important issue which I do not want to gloss over. Considering the time and the attendance, I have a feeling that we would not do the subject justice if we considered it now. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
As members agree, we will take that item at a future meeting. If there is nothing else, let me thank you for attending.
I know, convener, that you asked us to speak to the clerk at the end of the meeting to request European documents, but I would like to request some on the record. Document SP 735 was on the pre-approval of the European budget. I think that it would be interesting if all members of the committee received that document, as the budget covering the committees has implications
for future policy. I would also like to ask for documents SP 769 and SP 744.
Meeting closed at 16:10.