We have circulated a private draft paper with some suggestions for the work programme. I do not want to take any decisions on the content of that paper today. Its purpose is to inform members and to stimulate suggestions. We can put any suggestions into a final draft, for decision making at the next meeting.
I shall advise the committee on the contents of the paper and how it was developed. Some 57 responses have been received as part of the consultation exercise; another 14 or so are still to come. The clerks have read the responses and highlighted some common themes. Members will find those themes in section 5 of the private briefing paper, on page 4. The next step, as I understand it, will be to invite a select group of the organisations to address the committee on the detail of the consultation, as COSLA has done today. That process will probably begin in the next meeting and continue into the early part of next year. There is little more for me to say on that, except to refer members to section 5 for the key issues that have been identified so far.
Any thoughts?
The timetable, which has to cover a fairly wide range of issues, seems to be rather truncated. Should we not perhaps be considering a two-year timetable?
We can bear that in mind.
On a similar point, the draft is heading in the right direction, in terms of covering all the issues that we need to address.
I hope that members will have suggestions about priorities.
I agree with Irene Oldfather and Cathy Jamieson. If we are to do justice to the suggested programme of issues in only six months, we should pick out perhaps three or four topics rather than eight or nine—even three or four might be ambitious.
We will make those decisions at the next meeting. Today we have the opportunity to suggest any topics that we think have been left out and should be included in the final draft.
I meant to raise that point with you. Are we not allowed to impinge on the work of the Council of Europe, as distinct from the European Union? One of the suggested topics is justice and home affairs. People imagine that many matters that have come before the Parliament, such as the removal of temporary sheriffs, emanate from the European Union, but that is not correct. There is a European dimension but, as I understand it, these matters emanate from the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights. Surely the European Committee can consider such issues.
That would depend on what the issues were. The standing orders state:
Perhaps we could get round it by saying—I think I am right—that every member of the European Union is also a member of the Council of Europe, so any decision that it takes impinges on European law as well as the law of each member state.
It would be hard to imagine that a matter for the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights would not be a matter for the European Communities or the European Union. The standing orders do not include the bodies that you mention, but I think that we can be flexible when required; if there is a problem, no doubt the lawyers will tell us. We can get advice on that, but it should not delay our work programme, and we will deal with any obstacles when we meet them.
I prefer the use of the term "engagement" to "consultation". We should include the draft national employment plan in our work programme. The rest of the draft is okay.
I have written to the convener about structural funds and additionality, asking for a joint discussion between the Finance Committee and the European Committee. All I want to say at this stage is that I would like to hold that idea in reserve, depending on whether it will be an area of work for this committee.
I know what you are saying on the broader suggested programme.
My point is that forward intelligence is obviously the key to influencing EU legislation, otherwise we are simply reacting to it.
That is clear—for example, we will have an item later on the EU budget, but it is obvious that, although we are asking people to comment on that, it is too late. We need to get into the process earlier, a point that Winnie Ewing made at previous meetings. We could strengthen that.
The first unnumbered paragraph on page 2 of the paper states:
We will consider whether there is another way of wording that.
On the "Suggested Programme of Issues"—that is, our work load—and paragraph 5.1, "Enlargement of the EU and the challenges facing Scotland", I am a bit worried about the institutional implications of enlargement for Scotland and, in particular, about the reduction in the number of MEPs. Scotland has a small number of MEPs compared with other small European countries; we might wish to consider that.
If we decide that those issues are priorities, whoever considers them will no doubt wish to take those details into account. We should not try to write a detailed report now. The paper contains suggestions for consideration only. Are you broadly in agreement with those topics?
Will the suggestions not debar consideration of further issues at a later date?
No, they are not prescriptive.
For the next six months, can we take on a big, specific topic, such as what is happening to the European Union? The last part of COSLA's submission said that enlargement would change fundamentally the very nature of the Union. We should consider what we mean by enlargement, as it is a big responsibility.
We are not deciding today which issues we will take on. I repeat: we have a list of suggestions for members to consider. If members think of issues that are not identified in the paper, they should suggest them now and we can consider them at the next meeting. However, Dennis Canavan, Cathy Jamieson and others have already suggested that some of those topics are so large that we would find it difficult to cope with them, to address your point, Margo. However, we will consider them and we will not be prescriptive. The paper suggests the type of issues that might be considered, but, no doubt, once rapporteurs have been appointed, other issues will be raised. We will try to be as specific as we can, but we do not wish to be prescriptive.
Is forestry included under agriculture? When will we know how we will go about appointing the reporters? I nearly said rapporteurs.
We will discuss that at the next meeting. The committee clerks are still working on agriculture and fisheries issues, which will include forestry.
Forestry is quite important in European legislation.
Yes.
May I ask the clerk, through the chair, whether, in the submissions that we have received, any groups have questioned the rationale of this exercise or have a different view of how we should progress it?
Are you referring to views on the process of developing our work programme?
Yes.
The answer is no. There is a broadly similar view, with few exceptions, on both the committee's general role and the issues that it should be considering.
This document is a brilliant start. I am sure that we would not have been able to proceed so quickly if the first draft had not been so good.
I agree. I have made notes about point 6—language issues—because I have asked questions in the Parliament on some of the matters listed there. There is quite a big overlap between the remit of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and point 6 of the document. If our aim is to mainstream, perhaps we should be tackling these issues rather differently.
Irene Oldfather's point does not apply only to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, as point 6 asks
We will need to be careful. At previous meetings, we expressed the aspiration to be involved in some of the broader issues, not just to refer things to the relevant committee. If we say that all education-related items are a matter for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, or that all enterprise items with a European dimension are a matter for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, we will narrow down our role. This is all about getting the appropriate balance and the appropriate working relationship with other committees. I think that Sylvia Jackson is making a slightly different point.
Yes. My point was that point 3 on page 4 needs to be expanded. It deals with the process of mainstreaming, but Margo Macdonald is asking more about how we can get at the nitty-gritty of the key issues with other committees.
I think that, to some extent, we have taken a decision to speak in tongues. We have decided that it is a good idea for people to do business in the same language as the Greek with whom they are trying to do business. That means that we have to tell the business folk and the educationalists that they have a job of work to do. We are the lead committee on this and we are saying that they must come up with ideas.
There will be occasions when we want to work with other committees—there is an item later in today's agenda on which I will suggest that we work closely with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. What we have attempted to say in this document is that it is legitimate for this committee to assume a broader advocacy role in European matters. Our role should not be purely reactive, or limited to giving views on matters that are put before us. We want to encourage a better understanding of the European agenda. That means that we must foster debate and engage actively with and promote European issues. We probably need to use a stronger word than dissemination to indicate the direction that we want to take.
The third point, on page 2, should perhaps be called advocacy.
We will reword that.
As I have explained, there are two or three issues here. This is a terrific first draft, with very clear thinking. [Members: "Hear, hear."] The spelling is right as well.
I am struggling to understand the change to the paper that will encapsulate your comments.
On point 6 of section 5, I know that a modern languages working party has been examining the teaching of modern languages in secondary schools in Scotland. I asked a question on the prospect of a pilot project on the immersion teaching of foreign languages.
The concluding paragraph of section 5 states:
I think that, as Sylvia Jackson said, points 5, 6,7, 8 and 9 of section 5 link with point 3, on page 4, about mainstreaming European issues. It would be simpler if, rather than going into all the detail, we made those points into subsections of point 3. That would solve the problem of how we dealt with the matter in the paper. We can discuss the detail later.
Section 2 should contain a fourth point on our relationship with other committees.
We will see whether we can add that. We will also consider Cathy Jamieson's comments.
Is it the intention that we produce a short, medium and longer-term programme in which we prioritise the range of issues to be discussed?
Yes, we could do that.
If we have long-term, on-going monitoring and discussion at the same time as—in the shorter term—we ask for information from, or joint meetings with, other committees of the Parliament, we will be running to two different time scales. Is that how we will both establish the over-arching philosophical approach to our role in the new enlarged Europe and work out how to teach the weans to speak French?
Or Gaelic.
The paper is not meant to resolve all the details immediately. After we have set the broad objectives, we will start to allocate work. As part of the process, we need to consider how we engage with other committees and how they can help us to fulfil our broad objectives. A number of useful suggestions have been made about where the emphasis should be and about some of the detail. We will have another chance to go through the document when the paper is redrafted. Is there anything else?
Our first function is to scrutinise. The draft report suggests an early warning system, or forward intelligence network, in Brussels so that we are not left merely scrutinising something when it is almost a fait accompli. Perhaps the clerk can advise us on how we could set up such a network. Would it be done through Scotland House, the European Parliament and its committees, the European Commission in Brussels or through the Commission's offices in the UK? The Commission has an office in Edinburgh. What is the best way to proceed?
Stephen Imrie suggests that it could be done through all those bodies. The other issue that needs to be considered is the fact that we have a different role from the Scottish Executive. While we appreciate the co-operation that the Scottish Executive has given us so far, not only in Edinburgh, but in Brussels, there will be times when it is appropriate for us to have access to our own support. At some point, we may need to consider having a representative office in Brussels so that we can get independent analysis and information. Perhaps we could work in partnership with COSLA, helping it to invest in or expand the work that it does. I do not want to belittle the work carried out by the Scottish Executive, but we need to recognise that there will be times when our roles have to be different. We may need to put down a marker and come back to this issue. A discussion with COSLA could be helpful.
In one of our previous meetings—in August or September—I suggested that we examine the European Commission's legislative programme. At the time, the Commission was planning next year's programme. It would be helpful for the committee to have that information.
I hesitate to inundate the committee with a huge volume of information, not all of which will be relevant. We may occasionally need to examine the work of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions to get advance warning of what is relevant. The committee should discuss its relationship with a range of organisations and how we can feed into them.
If we want to expand our general strategy to include a fourth strand, covering our relationship with other committees in the Scottish Parliament, could not we extend it to include our relationship with other organisations in Europe, as Dennis Canavan suggested?
We have agreed that we will ask for a document that indicates what all the different bodies in Scotland, the UK and Europe do. At some point, it would be helpful for someone to take us through that. Today, I gave Stephen Imrie a flow chart produced by the Local Government International Bureau in London, which shows the decision-making process in Europe. It will be to the good if, as part of our learning process, we have another discussion about this so that we can begin to find out when decisions are made and—as Irene Oldfather says—to feed information in from the Commission, the Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and others. Dennis Canavan's point can be covered by that.
I heard someone say that, next week, we would be talking about reporters and considering who would do what.
If we can agree the detail of the document, we could start to look at that. If we cannot get round to it, it would need to slip to the meeting after next.
I want to know what process we will use to get there; a discussion about who will do what could be interesting. I do not know how we are going to manage it. Has any one given any thought to it?
Yes, I have given some thought to it and—in the spirit of the Parliament—we will be as fair as we can. The priority is to agree on the principles and programme and—if necessary—to take a step back and agree on the principles of how we allocate the work. It will not help if we squabble over who does what. At the same time, we need to agree on the process.
As long as you give us what we want, I am sure that we will not squabble.
I have seen you in action before, Bruce. I know exactly what you mean.
That is jumping the gun, is it not?
Sorry?
We could all express an interest if we thought that now was the appropriate time, but I did not know that people had already done so.
I am puzzled, Winnie, because we have at least twice asked committee members to express their interest. It is possible that that has not registered, but everybody has had the opportunity to express an interest. I will say it a third, if not a fourth time. The fact that people have been asked to express their interest does not mean that any decisions have been made.
To be fair, Hugh, we did not have a chart that laid out the areas before.
We suggested that people could express their interest in broad terms. It is rather petty to start making complaints about that, as everybody was in the same boat. The people who responded have clearly used some initiative, but that does not mean that they will get the area in which they have expressed interest. The suggestion was an attempt by the clerks—quite rightly—to gauge people's interests. I do not think that it was jumping the gun.
I did not receive a letter from the clerks about that.
We discussed it more than once, Winnie. I am sorry.
That is what you get for being polite, Winnie.
I am not polite. I just wait until I see what the subjects are before I say which one I would like. That is quite reasonable.
Let us leave it at that—we are quite clear about what we have asked. The intention was to try to extend some courtesy and to engage members. If that has not worked, that is unfortunate. The committee will make the final decision at a future date.
Previous
PrioritiesNext
Scrutiny