European Committee, 07 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 7, 1999

Official Report 192KB pdf

---

Forward Work Programme

First for discussion is the forward work programme. We have attempted to sketch out some of the main areas that we will be required to examine over the coming year to 18 months, with the aim of trying independently to develop a European agenda, while at the same time looking at some of the scrutiny work that we will have to consider. We would like to set the agenda and push the debate forward on behalf of the people of Scotland.

The draft work programme suggests that we group work into blocks, and identify a lead person to take the work forward. However, one of the things that I spoke to the committee clerk about and on which I wanted to encourage debate was whether the person who is given a lead responsibility should be the only one to work on the subject. Indeed, it may be that members of other committees would contribute. We agreed that more than one person should be involved and that groups of people with lead responsibility would conduct hearings with different organisations in different parts of the country, on behalf of the committee. We do not need to do everything together, but we should engage as many people throughout Scotland as possible.

The paper suggests topics, groups and individuals for consideration. If we cannot agree, I do not want to start changing things name by name. If there are suggestions for changes, we will bring the paper to the next meeting. However, the paper is a starting point for today's discussion. We need to find out whether the topics, issues and time scales are right. Are members interested in the suggestions?

Speaking on behalf of the SNP, we are very happy about the topics that we have been allotted. You made an interesting point about involving members of other committees, convener. That is a good suggestion. For example, I imagine that we might want to hear what the Education, Culture and Sport Committee thinks about disseminating information to reach teachers and pupils.

If one member is the lead person on a subject, would they draft the report themselves or would the clerk help them? In Europe it was done mostly by the clerks and the members took the credit; it might not be like that here.

You mentioned hearings, convener, and that suggests travel. In some cases, it might be necessary to go furth of Scotland to meet European bodies. There could be a problem meeting the costs of necessary travel. We might have to have permission. Have those matters been considered?

Any travel beyond Scotland would require approval. It is a rigorous system. I did not envisage that we would be considering that type of travel in developing the reports. If there is a specific requirement, the case would need to be made, first of all to the committee and then to the relevant bodies. It would, however, be the exception rather than the rule.

It was always our intention to assist the members with their tasks as rapporteurs. We will have to consider the clerking resources, but we intend to work alongside the member in the production of the reports and in all the other tasks.

And, of course, we are all here as individuals, not as representatives of political groups.

I note what you have just said and what you said earlier about working together. That is the way in which Ben Wallace and I would like to proceed. Ben is keen to work with Bruce Crawford on his policy area. There are different views on that area and, without overly politicising an issue, this committee should reflect a balance of opinion.

I would like us to discuss ways to help Scottish business exploit the opportunities that Europe offers. I do not want to get bogged down in swapping around the roles that have been allocated at this meeting, but that topic is of great interest and I want to pursue it.

There are two ways of progressing that. One is through Irene Oldfather's portfolio, which relates to links through European networks. The other is through Ben Wallace's enlargement of the EU portfolio. If David Mundell is interested in that, he should ensure that those members know about it.

I agree with what Winnie Ewing said about the general focus of the report. It is spot on. There are lots of important issues in the report and the timetable that we have will allow us to raise them. Maureen Macmillan has an important area to deal with in terms of industries in the Highlands and Islands.

In many areas, we will need the help of the Scottish Executive and civil servants to understand what the Executive is doing in policy terms and how the situation is developing. Will our clerk be able to make those links for us? In my experience, it is heck of a difficult to get hold of the right civil servant.

I want to reassure members that I will help with all those sorts of matters. Access to civil servants will be arranged by the clerks using our departmental liaison officers in the Scottish Executive.

I want to ask about the role of the clerks. I am a rapporteur on another committee and I have a clerk with me to take notes at every meeting that I go to in that capacity. Is that what is envisaged here, or would the contact be more informal?

It could be a mixture of both. If you had arranged a hearing with groups from the salmon farming industry, you would want someone to take notes. If the discussion were informal, a clerk would not be required.

Most of the people whose views I will be canvassing are based in the Highlands and Islands. It would be easier to meet them up there than for them to come down here. However, that has implications for the clerks.

The questions of time, human resources and financial resources would be considered issue by issue. We intended to facilitate cases in which clerks would be needed to take notes of the meeting to be read in as formal evidence at a future meeting. It would be up to committee members to decide whether we were required to be there.

Although it needs a couple of changes, this report is great and is close to what we need to continue our work. I hope that we can agree so that we can begin to work out how we can undertake some of the activities. The chart says that some of our work starts as early as January.

On the issue of balance, every committee member accepts that we are acting as reporters for a group of people and are not putting forward either our individual or party views, which makes the clerking support even more important. I am not saying that the clerks will act as judge and jury, but they will have a useful role in ensuring that a reporter's strong opinions do not become overbearing. However, I am worried about resources. As there are going to be some timetabling difficulties with all this work, perhaps there should be a paper on how the work will be financed. Otherwise, we might find the time scale slipping.

Furthermore, it might be necessary for members such as Ben Wallace, as rapporteur on the issue of enlargement, to travel to parts of Europe to find out the views of other countries. I do not wish to make a rod for my own back, but it will be difficult to get involved in discussions about the policy implications of the euro unless we talk to the European Central Bank. There will be cases, admittedly limited, where the committee will have to go forth from Scotland. We will need to make a strong case for that to the SPCB. This committee, more than any other in the Parliament, will need to look beyond Scotland.

As for the time scales of the draft timetable, I have concerns about two areas. We do not envisage doing much about the area of enlargement until January 2001; however, the intergovernmental conference is expected to publish its views on enlargement by December 2000 and we might be shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Similarly, as the Portuguese presidency of the EU ends in June 2000, we will need to start work earlier on the implications of European law for Scottish justice, which is David Mundell's area. We need to tighten the timetable in those areas.

I have spoken to Stephen Imrie about the IGC and we will report to the committee on that issue next year.

As for travel, we cannot give the Parliament or others the idea that we are constructing a timetable of work that will require travel all over Europe. The advice that we are giving is that such travel will be the exception. We need to take a considered view on that.

Money is available up to the end of the financial year for advice and support from specialists. We might tap into that by grouping different areas of work. Other committees have started to appoint special advisers. We may have access to a budget for specific pieces of work.

The other thing that strikes me, which follows on from what Margo MacDonald said, is that some subjects could be grouped together and we could have co-rapporteurs. For example, Ben Wallace and Irene Oldfather could work together on enlargement, which Margo suggested might link with the areas that Irene is examining.

I want to get agreement on issues that could be combined, and to find out whether anyone is interested in the headings that we agree.

The issues are relevant and reasonable. One omission, which is not particularly urgent but could be added at some point, is European health initiatives by the Committee of the Regions. Because of the importance of health issues to regional Governments throughout Europe, we might want to put down a marker for a future report.

On the timetable, I agree with what Bruce Crawford said. We must dovetail a bit more with the European agenda, especially on enlargement. That might mean bringing the report on enlargement forward a bit.

I agree 100 per cent about combining issues. I had identified the enlargement of the EU as one of my areas of interest. Promoting links through European networks links with that issue, so I would be happy to work on those subjects if they were combined.

Can I sound a cautionary note? What struck me about the detailed paper was the volume of the prospective work load. With Margo MacDonald and others, I have been involved in the six-month inquiry by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the two important issues of local economic development services and workplace training. The sheer volume of representations that we have received has been overwhelming. The list of organisations that may submit oral evidence to this committee includes an even greater range of organisations, although there is a significant degree of overlap.

The work programme is fairly ambitious, as is the 12-point suggested programme of issues to be considered. I have no criticisms of the allocation of duties and responsibilities within the overall remit, but I think that those issues require to be prioritised, along the lines that Bruce Crawford suggested. The time scale seems equally ambitious. We should discriminate between areas of Parliament in which we have a direct legislative responsibility—we should consider them in greater detail—and those in which we might have an interest but not a legislative role to perform. A couple of areas spring to mind immediately.

We should prioritise within groupings, as has been suggested. It is important that people work together to reach conclusions that will make a genuine difference to the people of Scotland. If we adopt a scatter-gun approach and try to cover too many issues, our energies and efforts might be too diffuse.

I will pick up on some points that have been made. This is an ambitious programme that covers a lot of areas. If we take on these roles, it is important that we are focused about what we are trying to achieve and that we do not try to replicate the work of any of the European institutions or of the whole of the Scottish Parliament.

We should take a focused approach to reviewing some of the information that is around. We should not reinvent the wheel, but suggest ways forward for future work in the Parliament, either, as Allan Wilson suggested, on a legislative basis, or in a wider policy development role.

I am quite happy to take on the area of interest that has been allotted to me. The opportunities to link in with the work of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee could lead to a new and exciting way for this committee to bring other people into its work.

I agree with the points that have been made about the timetable, but we must be clear about our aims. If we agree the work programme, the fact that a report is not due until later should not prevent people from starting to gather information immediately. The clerks can assist us in that work. I am concerned that the work allocated to me is scheduled for the summer months. That is fine for me, because I would have fewer parliamentary commitments then, but I would like to be sure that enough staff back-up is available.

Like Cathy, I wanted to mention duplication. I wonder whether the first stage of the programme will include an investigation of what information is already available in the various areas, because there is probably quite a lot. There may be an overlap, not only from a European angle, but from the point of view of other committees. In Maureen Macmillan's area in particular, work may already be under way.

My second point is about the time scale. If we all have separate areas, although we may be overlapping, why cannot we all start at the beginning? Is there some reason why we cannot start now to look at our areas? Stephen Imrie will no doubt tell me that there is a good reason.

You can finish your point first, Sylvia.

I just thought that there might be an advantage in our all starting at the same time. That way, we could all report together. We could share information and see where the overlaps are. As a scientist, I am happy with the area that has been allocated to me. However, sustainability is at its core and it will obviously overlap with a number of areas, particularly Tavish Scott's.

The practical answer is that the clerks would not be able to cope with everybody starting at the same time. Although we could manage it, it would cause insurmountable difficulties for them.

We can tap into a number of resources. For example, the information centre can commission internal and external research papers. We need to be clear about the fact that we are not conducting major hearings or investigations, as happened when the Health and Community Care Committee considered the Arbuthnott report. Other committees are required to react to the work of the Executive, but our work involves bringing forward our thoughts and comments to promote awareness and discussion.

Having done reports at European level, I know that much of that work can be done with one's own resources, by telephoning, faxing or e-mailing people before producing final reports. Some people think that we need to cover the whole country, but Allan Wilson was right to say that we must keep a sense of perspective. We must ensure that we can manage our work load, but some of the areas will give us the opportunity to combine the commitments that we made to external organisations.

David Mundell mentioned business and industry. If we were considering a report that was significant for business and industry, it would not be sensible to do so without consulting some of the organisations that we have identified. That would be their opportunity to feed back into the European Committee, without having to come to a full committee meeting.

On Cathy Jamieson's points, it would be sensible to talk to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Wise Group and others about their work; that would also represent an opportunity for such groups to influence the committee's work.

We need to be careful about what we think we can do. We also need to tighten up our work programme, which we will reconsider and confirm at our next meeting. However, taking on board some of the comments and suggestions that have been made on the implications of European law for Scottish justice and human rights, perhaps David Mundell and Dennis Canavan could work together. They may need to speak to members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. It is possible to produce a joint report, which could go to two committees, and members of that committee might want to comment. That seems to be a sensible link.

On enlargement and links to European networks, I do not know whether there is a clear business link, but I ask the clerks to consider that as we could work on those topics together. Are there any other obvious areas where there could be co-operation?

Work on enlargement would tie in with the policy implications of the single currency. There will be an enlargement of the European Union concept, with some countries in the euro zone and some not. The differences that we might have to cope with are important.

That is true.

Whether or not you take on enlargement as an issue, Ben, the debate on the single currency will have to be faced up to. We are discussing the preparations for a debate on the single currency. Enlargement will either happen or not, and will certainly have implications for the single currency, but they are separate issues.

When I put enlargement on the list of priorities, I had in mind the challenges and opportunities facing Scotland, in terms of both the links between public sector bodies and the opportunities available to business as a result of enlargement, with an additional 100 million consumers. Enlargement is a big topic on its own and I do not think that it should be tied in with a report on the single currency.

My point is that the new markets, which I hope enlargement will bring, will be tied inextricably to the euro. Those new markets will not be part of the euro zone at first and it is important that we establish links with them and identify what will inhibit or help us and them. I believe that the issue of the euro is linked to enlargement.

I am interested in your faith in the inevitability of the single currency, but that is another matter, Ben.

All those countries that will be part of the enlargement process will not be part of the euro zone.

Competition will certainly increase for British business, in the light of enlargement, whether that involves intra-trading or inter-trading blocs. A key aspect of our ability to compete in those expanding markets will be our take-up of the education and training initiatives. That topic seems to dovetail entirely reasonably with that of community economic development and the role of the EU. Cathy Jamieson and I could work together on both those policy headings and produce a combined report.

I will run through some of the headings and the expressions of interest to see whether we can agree. We will return to this item at our next meeting for final approval.

I want to reach the stage where we agree the issues and the members who will tackle them. I will bring a report to the next meeting that will incorporate, for example, Allan Wilson's suggestion and some of the points that were raised by Ben Wallace and Dennis Canavan, to see whether we can refine the work programme.

Did we agree that the justice issue would be punted up the timetable a bit?

I will come back to the timetable, as I would like to have a further discussion with the clerk about when and how work will be done and about how support will be provided. We should have time to do that either by the next meeting or by the first meeting in January. Are we agreed that we should consider the policy implications of the European Commission's sixth environmental action plan, and that Sylvia should take the lead on that? Is there anything else that would fit in with that?

Logically, agriculture would fit in with that.

I should add that the paper that you just gave me, convener, refers to sustainable development and integration of environment policy with other policies, so there is quite a big link.

I wonder whether Dr Jackson would help the official report by specifying which paper she is referring to.

I am referring to Adrian Colwell's paper. It is a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities briefing note on the European Commission's sixth environmental action plan.

Tavish, are you saying that there are links with the agricultural sector?

Yes—in terms of the wider sustainability agenda. The Agenda 2000 programme is coming down the track and we still do not know what it contains; we will probably not know until 2000. However, there will be a lot of—to use the agriculture jargon—cross-compliance between the environment and agriculture.

Could we reasonably put the two together?

Where there is a need to separate them, we can agree to do that.

I am not sure to which paper Sylvia was referring—I do not think that I have it.

It is a paper that COSLA produced. I suggested at the start of the meeting that if we agreed on what the committee wanted to consider, the paper would be a useful starting point for our work on the issue.

Is the issue that Maureen Macmillan was to deal with totally separate from those that are being handled by Tavish Scott and Sylvia Jackson?

I think so.

Yes, it is very precise.

That is fine.

It is proposed that Bruce Crawford deal with the single currency. Are there any links that can be made there? I know that Ben Wallace has made a suggestion, but I do not think that it is a useful way of taking the matter forward.

The euro zone will be established across the vast majority of European Union countries—and probably here—before accession takes place. From Ben Wallace's perspective, the main issue will be the implications of the euro for the countries that join the European Union. I am not sure at this stage that there are links between the two issues that we will deal with.

However, we are agreed that the single currency is an issue that we need to address. Bruce is happy to take that forward.

Allan Wilson has suggested that the work for which he has been pencilled in should be brought together with that to which Cathy has been assigned. Is there anything else that would reasonably fit with that? Are we agreed that those are issues worth considering?

It is difficult to see how education and training initiatives could be considered apart from economic development.

That is fine. Is there anything that could readily be combined with tourism, culture and sport?

Holidays. As long as we get to San Remo—

The links between tourism and economic development cannot be ignored either.

However, sport and culture do not fit neatly with those.

We will have a look at that. I will talk to Stephen Imrie about Bruce Crawford's suggestion.

I will make a point about sustainability. Now that we are broadening the scope of that, there will be an overlap with Allan Wilson in terms of economic development.

There is a limit to what we could cope with. We will consider Sylvia's comments.

I mean that we should do that at a later date, not now.

We have already spoken about European networks and links between that subject and enlargement of the European Union.

The committee's role is to promote links with European networks, so all of the groups will be involved in that.

Community initiatives on business link-ups have connections with enlargement. I would be happy to work with Ben Wallace.

The implications of enlargement are a specific issue, but that also links with how we use European institutions and networks and the opportunities that will come with enlargement.

We have spoken about human rights and European law. Winnie Ewing is our reporter on the provision of information on European issues in Scotland.

We will refine that programme, if we agree that the list of topics is useful. Members have indicated their interest in and willingness to work in those areas.

Can members of the committee have a role in other topics?

If, in the next week or so, members indicate to Stephen Imrie the issues that they want to work on with the reporters, we will try to incorporate that into the programme.

The paper is private at the moment, but do members agree that we should release it as the view of the committee?

We should understand what is being said—the enlargement issue and European law and its implications for Scottish justice will be reconsidered, which will affect the timetable.

We are not agreeing to a timetable. We are seeking agreement about the issues and about which members want to examine particular issues.

In that case, I still need to reserve my position on structural funds and additionality. We still have not had the advantage of discussion between Andrew Wilson, Mike Watson—convener of the Finance Committee—and Hugh Henry.

We either agree that those are the topics that we will examine or we do not. If there is a caveat, we will hold the programme back until we agree on the detail. We cannot go forward.

We are not deciding the timetable today.

Yes, but we are deciding on the issues, and that can be put back if we do not want to decide yet.

The point that I have raised does not involve any member in time-consuming work. I was talking about the usefulness of a discussion.

Are you not talking about the forward work programme?

Yes, I am. If we are to examine structural funds and additionality, that will involve some members of the committee in work. However, the first part of the process was to have been a discussion between me, the convener of the Finance Committee, Andrew Wilson and you to agree on how we might address that. We have not had that meeting yet.

We will consider that as a separate issue. Do members agree that we can release the forward work programme?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask members to send their expressions of interest to Stephen as soon as possible.

On page 4 of the forward work programme document, there is a list of the various organisations that we thought it might be useful to consult. We should include training organisations with either business and industry, or with education and information. Allan Wilson, who perhaps has an interest in that area, might know of some training organisations.

Once we get into the detail of the programme, we will return to that. The committee will have to agree on the remit for each bit of work for the reporter. Although the reporters will go away and do that work, they are doing so on behalf of the committee, so the committee will have to consider a suggested work programme.

We are probably all trying to give some structure to the actions that we might have to take as part of our particular responsibilities, and for Sylvia's information—and for everyone else's—Allan and I have spoken to heaven knows how many folk who know about training. There are now written records of evidence that has been given to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Before you line up anyone else, let us see—

We will cross-reference.

It comes back to what I was saying about the fairly exhaustive list of organisations. If we were to listen to oral evidence from them all, there would be a sizeable dent in our work programme well into the new year. To lighten the load, so to speak, we could usefully take written evidence from some and oral evidence from others.