Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

European Committee, 27 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 27, 2001


Contents


Convener's Report

Item 3 on the agenda is the convener's report.

Do members agree to note the response of the Scottish Executive to the committee's report on football transfer fees?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

I ask members to agree that the clerk should analyse the Executive's detailed response to our report on infectious salmon anaemia and come back to us with recommendations, should follow-up be required. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

I propose that a delegation from the committee visit St Timothy's Primary School in Glasgow, which has invested significantly in encouraging a European perspective among its pupils. The school has raised awareness and uses European issues as educational themes. Some of the initiatives developed at St Timothy's might help us to make Europe more relevant to young people, by allowing us to consider how European and international issues can be integrated into the curriculum. I ask members to agree my proposal in principle. Thereafter, the clerk should establish which members are interested in joining the delegation and identify suitable dates. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Did the school submit the proposal or has the committee been trawling for schools with an interest in European matters?

The Convener:

The school approached the committee. However, following some of the committee's decisions, I asked the clerk to consider ways in which the committee might engage with young people and other sectors of the community. Indeed, the clerk is working on a series of proposals that we considered to bring together the various players who are involved in European issues. It is important that the committee tries to engage with young people. There might be something to be gained from a visit to St Timothy's that we would be able to apply elsewhere or to make recommendations about.

When the committee first began its work, I remember that we discussed holding a conference. Is that conference still in the pipeline?

The Convener:

Yes, we are still considering it. You may recall that, way back at the beginning, this committee was the first one to consider such an initiative, but funds were not available at the time. As we would have had to consider other ways of financing a conference, we decided against that initiative. Now that funds are available, the clerks are working up a series of proposals, which I hope they will bring back to the committee fairly soon.

All members of the committee are concerned about the way in which the LEADER + programme has developed. We received the programme's report late in the day and have not had an opportunity to comment on it. To be frank, it would have been a waste of time if we had tried to absorb and comment on it. We must find out from the Minister for Finance and Local Government what happened and why. Once I have received his response, which we are waiting for, I will bring the matter back to the committee so that we can decide what to do next. Is that course of action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

I ask members to note the developments in relation to the Executive's plans for the transposition of the European water framework directive. I am trying to keep up to date with progress and I am sure that the Transport and the Environment Committee will consider the directive when it conducts its inquiry. I will ask the clerks to liaise with that committee to identify areas of interest to this committee. Is that course of action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to note the developments in relation to the landfill directive? The clerks will keep us informed of progress.

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Like other committee members, I thought that the committee's visit to Brussels was worth while and productive. A number of individuals and organisations gave us a considerable amount of time during our visit, which led to contacts that we are keen to develop. For example, Jim Currie, who is from the environment directorate-general, indicated that he would be happy to visit Edinburgh, the Parliament and the European Committee; I am sure that other committees would also be interested to meet him. We had useful discussions on issues such as football transfer fees and it was clear that the Commission had considered our report in detail. I thought that the trip was successful, and I invite members to make relevant comments.

I put on record our thanks to the staff, who did a marvellous job of shepherding us around, finding us and getting us to the right place.

Did not the clerks lose Ben?

Colin Campbell:

He was not lost—he knew where he was.

The trip was interesting, from the point of view of the contacts that we made. On protocol, when next we approach somewhere that might produce two saluting gendarmes, we should go in a bunch, rather than in a straggle.

The Convener:

Yes—visiting the Flemish Parliament was a cultural shock.

Although we met only a limited number of people at the Flemish Parliament, I spoke to one of the Flemish ministers on Saturday, who made it clear that our visit had an impact and generated an interest that the Flemish are keen to follow up.

The reception and catering at the Flemish Parliament was of a standard that would be well worth imitating at the Scottish Parliament for visiting delegations and dignitaries.

You can write the press release, Colin.

Would Colin like to report his views to the Holyrood progress group?

Elizabeth Holt from the European Commission office in Edinburgh was extremely helpful, as was Dermot Scott. Without their help, we would not have made such good contacts.

The Convener:

Elizabeth Holt has left the room, but Dermot Scott is still here. Once again, they were very helpful and spent a lot of time liaising with the clerk and his staff. We do not see the efforts that are put into making the arrangements behind the scenes. Our staff did a great job, but we should also thank both Dermot and Liz for their contribution to making the trip such a great success.

I want to make a small point. While, in general, all the people whom we met made us very welcome indeed, the European Parliament could learn some lessons about openness from the Flemish Parliament.

I do not think that Dennis has quite got over waiting outside in the cold to gain access to the European Parliament.

I ask John Home Robertson to report back on the meeting of the UK chairs of European committees.

Mr Home Robertson:

I went to Belfast on 16 March with David Simpson. The meeting was chaired by Ewin Poots, who chairs the Northern Ireland Assembly's Committee of the Centre—I would not call it the centre, as both he and his deputy chairman are from Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party—which looks after European affairs.

Jimmy Hood from the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, Lord Tordoff of Knutsford from the House of Lords European Communities Committee and Val Feld from the Welsh European Affairs Committee also attended the group meeting. The discussions were useful, and those attending agreed to future co-operation on a wide range of issues so as to avoid duplicating inquiries. Our clerks are developing good liaison with the other committee clerks, which should be helpful.

It was suggested that we identify areas where one of the Parliaments' committees could take the lead on a UK basis. We have just been talking about fisheries: that is an obvious area where the Scottish Parliament's European Committee would be likely to take the lead, as we have the predominant interest. There will be other areas where that will also be the case.

We also discussed our experiences of structural funds and of the Committee of the Regions. I had better not say too much about the latter, as I am flanked by two of its members. In particular, we discussed the importance of sharing with group colleagues intelligence that we glean in Brussels and elsewhere. The Queen's University of Belfast institute of European studies gave us a presentation that was pretty academic.

The next group meeting, to be hosted by our Welsh colleagues, is scheduled for some time in the late summer; it may be held in Brussels. That would allow the convener to combine the meeting with other visits, including a briefing from the UK permanent representation to the EU—something that we could all do with.

The Convener:

I thank John Home Robertson for his report.

Moving on, I recommend that we agree in principle to seek to take on an adviser to support our work on the inquiry into governance. If that is agreed, I suggest that we ask the clerk to put in process the necessary recommendations, including the creation of a shortlist of names. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

We have set a trend of inviting a representative from the country that is to take on the presidency of the European Council to make a presentation. The Belgian ambassador has therefore been asked to make a presentation and has informed us that the only suitable time is 29 June. If we can confirm that date, do members agree that we should arrange a wider programme of activities on that day? That could establish a model for future incoming presidency representatives. We could perhaps consider mounting something in the Parliament with a theme—in this case, the focus would be on Belgium. We could invite members of other committees to participate. Is that course of action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

It seems that the telecommunications council will make a decision on the proposed reforms to the postal service directive (97/67/EC) by 27 to 29 June. Do members agree to put our concerns to the presidency of the European Council and to make representations to key MEPs, so as to keep plugging away at the issue?

Members indicated agreement.