European Committee, 24 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Members will agree that we had a successful conference, although, regrettably, it did not get much coverage in the press. On members' behalf, I thank the clerks, as a lot of work was involved in preparing the papers and arranging things such as the meal on the day. I think that everyone who was there appreciated the clerks' efforts. I thank committee members for the work that they did on the day, such as chairing the workshops, and for bringing people from their constituencies. It was a worthwhile exercise, which showed that we are interested in consulting and engaging constructively with civic Scotland.

We should extend our thanks to the people who participated, particularly the young people. I was particularly pleased with the delegation from Denny High School, several of whom contributed to the debate and helped to enliven the proceedings, which were in danger of getting a bit boring due to some of the contributions from seasoned politicians.

I agree with your comments. I believe that I said on the day that it was nice to see so many young people. A young person from my constituency who is on the Euro scholar scheme attended as well. It was great that young people not only came along but participated in the day's events.

I will represent the grey vote and say that I was delighted to see two elderly ladies from Johnstone, in the west of Scotland, who had decided to come along. I do not know what contribution they made, but they were certainly interested in the event when I spoke to them.

It just shows that our marketing for the event worked.

I agree that it was a good turnout. Although we did not get a huge amount of press coverage, we got some and I think that we managed to convey to people the fact that the European Committee is having an on-going debate about European governance. We have certainly raised more interest in the subject than we would have raised if we had not arranged the conference, which was the alternative. We have given people a chance to start engaging in the process. People can do so on many levels. It is difficult to be an expert on existing EU institutions, never mind the future opportunities.

It was well worth doing and I thank the clerks again as they put in a lot of work on what would otherwise have been a holiday weekend.

I thank Stephen Imrie, David Simpson and the other clerks for arranging the conference. I know that it was not the easiest thing in the world to arrange and that I was certainly not one of the easiest members to deal with in that regard.

I was surprised by how much the four pupils from Mearns Academy enjoyed the conference. They were not bored by some of the seasoned politicians, which was surprising because some of us were.

It was a good day and I hope that the end result is useful. However, there is much more to do.

The most exciting contributions that day came from younger people, because they did not come to the table with an axe to grind. If I hear another lunatic from the British Weights and Measures Association tell me that Europe is the evil empire, I think I will die.

The key statement was made by a girl from Mearns Academy and was echoed by a boy from Denny. They said that they feel that we do not understand that we have to start teaching about Europe—not the institutions but the countries, cultures and people—at primary school. The boy from Denny said that they have had a one-year crash course in modern studies, but they have a good teacher who has a great interest in the subject and that has led to them having a lot more information than they needed to pass the exam. They pointed out that most other kids are simply being given the information to pass the exam. Again, we are having conversations about the all-powerful and all-encompassing concept of Europe, while young people are saying to us, "Why don't you start talking, people to people?"

I suggest that, at the earliest possible stage—probably after the election—the committee should organise exactly the same conference but should keep the British Weights and Measures Association and politicians firmly away from it. We should simply involve school kids and ask them directly what they want.

Our Europe day event was successful. We invited children from all over Scotland and did workshops with them. Those of us who participated in that found it illuminating for all the same reasons. We should keep that on the agenda for the future.

It is important to recognise that we will take on board the comments that were made on the day. If the committee is agreeable, we should ask the clerks to draft a revised future of Europe report to take account of the comments that were made at the conference.

We have to decide what we want to do with the report. I recommend that we send it as a formal document to the convention for discussion, and copy it to the Scottish MEPs, ministers and UK Government ministers. People will then be able to see that we acted on the day and that it was not just a fun day; we did something with it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item is the draft opinion by the First Minister for the Committee of the Regions, entitled "More Democracy, Transparency and Efficiency in the European Union". The committee received a copy of the report and we circulated it to all members. I understand that the report will be discussed at the next constitutional affairs meeting of the Committee of the Regions. It has been provided to the committee for information. If anyone has any particular comments, I am sure that they could submit them to the First Minister for consideration.

The report does not question the existence of the Committee of the Regions. It talks about improving its processes, but over the past few months and years we have heard a lot of people talking about whether or not there should be a Committee of the Regions. It is interesting that that question is missing from the First Minister's opinion.

I am sure that my perspective on the issue is biased because I am a member of the Committee of the Regions, but I can assure you that any document that recommended abolishing the Committee of the Regions would not be approved. We have to talk about reform as opposed to abolishment.

Other people in other political arenas might want to discuss that possibility, but this is an opinion about the Committee of the Regions and so the objective is to consider how the Committee of the Regions can contribute in the future and reform in order to work better.

I will take a brief comment from Lloyd Quinan, but I am conscious that our witnesses are waiting and I do not want to keep them too long.

My comment cuts to the heart of the issue. I agree with Ben Wallace, and the convener's statement illuminated the self-perpetuating nature of the Committee of the Regions.

The majority of the membership of the COR wants to keep it going—that is a reality. There are also a large number of people who believe that it is so asymmetrical that it cannot work. The perpetuation argument affects the issue of guaranteeing subsidiarity if the Committee of the Regions is retained. Section 9 of the First Minister's opinion appears to support the continuation of the COR despite the fact that we have taken evidence from a great number of sub-state legislatures who do not believe that it carries out its function. The committee took evidence from the Basques, the Catalans and the Flemings.

In reality, such an opinion will allow the COR to exist and be maintained so that the UK does not get access to the European Court of Justice to guarantee subsidiarity, because the COR becomes the guardian of subsidiarity. To be frank, I think it is a cobbled-together shambles.

There is an opinion within the COR that the institution could be reformed, but not that it should be abolished. I have not heard other institutions say that the COR should be abolished.

I did not say that the COR should be abolished. I said that the COR in its present asymmetrical form is not sustainable. That is a direct quote from the Basque Government representative who spoke to us in the chamber less than a year ago.

I am aware of several proposals about the COR: for example, that it should just be a local authority body; that it should be a regional body; and that it should continue to be a mixture. However, I do not think that we should debate that issue at this meeting.

The point is not that the First Minister should be discussing the abolition of the COR, but that the draft opinion document does not address the issue of why the COR should exist. We have heard views on that issue from MEPs and others. Perhaps the First Minister's opinion document should state that the COR is good and that the COR represents the regions' vision and long-term aim of being part of Europe. The draft opinion document does not seem to address that issue. It does not seem to have the attitude of sticking up for oneself, I suppose.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, members are welcome to make suggestions to the First Minister for incorporation into his report. However, I think that it is a good report overall and that it will allow for substantial discussion at the meeting of the Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance—the CCAEG—at which all political parties will be represented and able to contribute to the debate.

Should not the European Committee have an opinion? That would involve us in a debate. Ben Wallace and I have kicked off that debate from different perspectives and the convener represents another view. Surely if the CCAEG is going to speak on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, the European Committee needs to debate that, rather than leave it to be discussed in another place.

If members of the committee wish to have a debate on that, we could timetable it for another time. However, I did not pick up from Ben Wallace that that is what he wanted.

Lloyd Quinan made a good point. Is the First Minister reporting on behalf of Scotland? If that is the case, he would be submitting an opinion on behalf of the Scottish Executive, or the Scottish people or Scotland as a European region. If he is submitting an opinion on the Parliament's behalf, the European Committee should have input into that.

The First Minister is acting in his capacity as rapporteur to the Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance. Therefore, he is responsible to that body for his report. There is cross-party representation on that commission.

So, as a rapporteur he would be taking evidence, I suppose. Have we been asked for evidence?

That will have been part of the process. There will have been discussions. When rapporteurs form opinions they do not always do so through taking evidence. However, they have discussions with interested parties and groups.

I have a point that follows on from what Lloyd Quinan said about subsidiarity and its policing. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the Executive document. It states:

"The Scottish Government believes that judgements on subsidiarity are a political issue, that would be best dealt with by a small body of Member State and Sub-Member State representatives. … Others have suggested that a judicial mechanism is more appropriate. The Opinion does not seek to put forward a definitive solution."

A body of representatives of sub-member state Administrations and Parliaments is not a judicial body as such, is it? It is a political body. Perhaps we should ask for clarification of the Executive's views on that matter. A school of thought says that there could be a political body at some stage in the policing process and a judicial body at another stage. However, there is an inherent contradiction in the Executive document.

We can certainly ask for clarification of the Executive's opinion. It will ultimately be up to the CCAEG and the COR to decide whether they want the First Minister's opinion to be open-ended or more specific; they might be happy with it as it is. The First Minister's opinion is ultimately still open for amendment in the COR. Therefore, I imagine that we can ask for clarification from the Executive. However, until the COR agrees the final opinion, it will simply be the First Minister's opinion and not the COR's opinion, which could be different.

Lloyd Quinan can make a final point. Witnesses are waiting, so I am anxious to move on.

I do not think that we have addressed the central point. When does the Scottish Parliament give its opinion? Is the opinion that we have before us the opinion of the Scottish Parliament, as presented by the First Minister of Scotland working as a rapporteur?

My understanding is that the opinion would be a Committee of the Regions opinion, not a Scottish Parliament opinion.

So the First Minister's job is to present the evidence of the Scottish Parliament to himself. Where is he gathering that information?

No, he is presenting it to the CCAEG. He has presented the opinion to us for information.

I understand that, but at what point did the First Minister, as rapporteur, ask for the opinion of this committee or the Parliament so that he could report as the First Minister of Scotland? Are we, on the other hand, not having a report from Scotland?

I imagine that members will, after today's discussion, be free to write to the First Minister to ask for clarification. However, the First Minister has certainly presented the opinion to this committee. It has not yet been agreed by the CCAEG, so if members wish to put points to him, they are absolutely free to do so.

Should not we, as the European Committee, offer input as the European Committee, rather than as individual members of the committee?

Well—

We could ask whom the First Minister has consulted in forming the opinion, and take it from there. If the answer is that he consulted Jack McConnell, we might be concerned.

Surely the question is: at what point does the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament input to the opinion of the rapporteur on the CCAEG? At what point has the Scottish Parliament, through this committee or the chamber, declared its opinion on the issues? Is our opinion being represented by the fact that the First Minister is the rapporteur? If so, that is not scrutiny.

All political parties are represented on the committees in the Committee of the Regions. I understand Lloyd Quinan's point and we have sought to bring the Committee of the Regions on to this committee's agenda; for example, we have listed all the opinions that are discussed at plenary sessions. Those opinions have appeared in our committee papers. This year, we have for the first time tried to incorporate the Committee of the Regions into the agenda of the European Committee. We might not have the detail quite right, but we are attempting to get there.

Irene, I think that you misunderstand me.

I will just finish my point. In the Committee of the Regions, a number of opinions will be given over the next few years by Scottish rapporteurs. Some may be rapporteurs on local government and some may be rapporteurs from the Parliament. The First Minister is obviously presenting an opinion in this case. Perhaps we could discuss whether we should discuss those opinions, but, at the end of the day, the opinion belongs to the rapporteur. We can make recommendations or suggestions, but it is not for us as a committee to force a change in anyone's opinion, whether it is the local government representative—

I am not trying to force anyone's opinion—I am merely asking a simple question. Who is reporting to the rapporteur the opinion of either the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Parliament as a whole?

There is an opportunity to do so today. We have the opinion in front of us, so we have the opportunity—if members wish—to contribute to that opinion. I have said on the record that it is a very good opinion.

I am not asking about the quality or the content of the opinion; I am asking at what stage the Scottish Parliament, through its structures, makes a contribution to that report?

We do not have a system at the moment for doing that.

So, would it be sensible to assume that the Committee of the Regions will accept the opinion of the First Minister of Scotland, acting as rapporteur, and that it will naturally assume that that is the opinion of the Scottish Parliament?

No. Nobody will assume that the opinion is the position of the Scottish Parliament.

They absolutely will not?

No. It is the First Minister's opinion, and through the political groups on the COR, there will be an opportunity for anyone of whatever nationality, Scottish or anything else—

It is not a question of nationality; it is a question of formal structure. At what point does the Scottish Parliament have an input to the discussion?

What I am saying is that there is not a formal structure.

I read the recommendation in the convener's report, which invites us to note the draft opinion and, if necessary, to agree to send any feedback that we have to the First Minister. It is, I presume, the committee's call whether we want formal input to the process and whether we want to offer our views. Ben Wallace suggested specifically that the opinion should make a case for the Committee of the Regions's being part of the future structure. I took that paragraph, which the convener did not read out, as a suggestion that there might be feedback from the committee. Lloyd Quinan made a fundamental point about the existence of the Committee of the Regions. I presume that it is up to this committee whether we want to engage in the process and accept the convener's recommendation.

I am genuinely not concerned about the opinion. I am merely asking a simple question: When, where and by whom will representatives in the Scottish Parliament be given a forum at which to present their opinion?

We are working towards a new system. For the first time, the Parliament—

Is the answer that they will not have such a forum?

For the first time, the Parliament has representation on the Committee of the Regions. That has been put in place only this year. We are working towards a new system. For the first time ever, a draft opinion for the Committee of the Regions has been sent to the European Committee. If we want to reform the process, that is fair enough and if we want to make comment, that is also fair enough. What do we want to do and how do we want to proceed? The suggestion is that we note the opinion and send any comments that we have to the First Minister.

Do we send our comments as individuals rather than present a committee opinion?

If there were agreement on specific points within the committee today I would be willing to write a letter on behalf of the committee.

Sarah Boyack and the convener have made the point well. It is open to us to propose formally certain actions today. If we are proposing that a letter be written, that is entirely reasonable. I infer from what Lloyd Quinan is saying that we are not prepared to do that.

I am not saying that.

There seems to be a presumption on Lloyd Quinan's part that people are either willing to engage or they are not happy to participate in presenting feedback to the First Minister. The convener has made it abundantly clear, as has Sarah Boyack—with whom I agree—that members can note the draft opinion and, if necessary, agree that feedback be sent to the First Minister. The recommendation could not be clearer. It does not invite us to comment as individuals; it asks whether we, as a committee, want to provide feedback. There is nothing to stop us writing individually in addition to that. We all have that option all the time. If members want us to go ahead and make a contribution, we can do so, through the committee.

I suggest that if there is general agreement on Ben Wallace's point we should include at the beginning of the opinion some sort of draft statement on justification for the Committee of the Regions as the tier of government that is closest to the people. Would members prefer to submit individual comments, or is there general agreement in the committee?

There are points to be made on both sides. Let us try to establish whether the First Minister has submitted the draft opinion party politically. Did he use Scottish Executive officials to draft it? If he did, he should include in it a statement that Scottish Executive officials, authorised by the Parliament and using its finances, have drafted it. If he is on the Committee of the Regions wearing his party political make-up—as the Labour party nominee—I suspect that the opinion will have been drafted by a member of the Labour party, rather than by a member of the Scottish Executive. It might have been drafted by the secretariat support to the Committee of the Regions. It is perfectly fair to ask how the First Minister formed his opinion, who was involved and in what context he is presenting the opinion. If all parties are represented on the Committee of the Regions, I suspect that the First Minister will be presenting the opinion on behalf of the Labour party. If he is presenting the opinion as the head of the Scottish Executive—

He may be speaking on behalf of the Scottish Executive, rather than the Scottish Parliament. We can seek clarification on that point.

Once we have received that information, we can make progress.

I am not saying that the opinion is not right. None of the points that I have made have anything to do with the content of the paper.

I understand the point that Lloyd Quinan is making about having a forum for discussion of opinions in future. We may need a paper from the clerk on that.

Jack McConnell's situation is unique, because he is the First Minister.

I do not think that his situation is unique. All Scottish members of the COR present opinions. Would an opinion presented by Corrie McChord have to come before the committee? We must consider the issue of how we deal with COR opinions that are prepared by Scottish members.

That is particularly true of opinions prepared by the First Minister.

I do not think—

Is the First Minister the same as the rest of us?

The Committee of the Regions includes representatives from Scottish local authorities, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We may decide that all opinions should be presented to the European Committee for comment. Whether we could or should impose a view on local government is a separate issue. I am not sure that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would be happy if we did that. We might be invited to comment, as we are part of a system.

That is not what I meant.

You are suggesting that we put in place a system. I am mooting different ways in which we could do that. The only valid role for this committee might be to comment on papers or opinions that are presented by members of the Parliament. We need to have the matter clarified. If Irene McGugan or I presented an opinion to the COR, it would be valid for the committee to comment on that. However, I am not sure that it would be valid for us to recommend changes to an opinion that Corrie McChord presented. I will have to give further consideration to the matter.

I am not thinking about that. I am concerned only with the First Minister.

The Scottish delegation to the COR consists of three parts—local authority representatives, Scottish Parliament representatives and Scottish Executive representatives. If the committee wishes, a system for considering opinions will be put in place. However, I am not sure that it is our role to comment in detail on opinions that are presented by local authority and Scottish Executive representatives. It might be, but the matter requires further consideration. We should ask the clerks to examine it.

The other difficulty is fitting in with the timetable of the Committee of the Regions. The First Minister's opinion will be considered on 4 October. To table amendments to an opinion, one needs to be a member of the committee in question and to be present at the meeting when it is considered. I am not sure that there is a member of the Parliament on the Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance.

I am not talking about the Committee of the Regions. I am asking where the rapporteur got his information.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking how we can comment on opinions. That is not as straightforward as it seems. Do we want to comment on all opinions? Do we want to comment on all Scottish opinions? There are many questions attached to your suggestion. This is not a simple issue and I suggest that we ask the clerks to consider how we may input constructively to opinions.

Today we have made a good start. The First Minister's opinion has been included in the committee papers. We have asked for comments and suggested that we will pass those on to the First Minister, if there is agreement.

Do we agree to note the opinion? Do we agree that if members would like to make specific comments they should write directly to the First Minister with those comments? Do we agree to task the clerks with examining how in future the committee may consider opinions that are prepared by Scottish members of the Committee of the Regions?

That is not the point that I was trying to make. Where in Jack McConnell's report is the opinion of the Scottish Parliament or of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament? If that is not included, the report is incomplete.

I do not agree. Rapporteurs prepare their own opinions, which are then agreed by their committees. This is not the opinion of the Scottish Parliament nor of the European Committee; rather, it is a rapporteur's opinion.

From where in Scotland did the First Minister take the evidence in order to develop that opinion?

We have already agreed to ask for clarification on that point. At the end of the day, you are asking for the European Committee to have some input into an individual's opinion.

Are you saying that he did not have to take any evidence from anyone?

I am not saying that.

So, do you think that the European Committee or the Parliament should not contribute to the debate directly through the rapporteur, or that he should have gathered evidence in Scotland to present as part of his opinion?

I think that we have already discussed the matter. We have the paper; individual members have an opportunity to comment on it and we will consider a system to deal with future papers. However, rapporteurs are individuals who are accountable to their committee and the Committee of the Regions. That is my understanding of the system.

Let us move on to a briefing that was requested by Ben Wallace. The Local Government International Bureau has provided information on the central local partnership working group on the future of Europe and related governance issues. We should note the information that has been provided, in particular the news that a conference will take place at the end of November. It would be appropriate for the committee to be represented at that conference. If members agree, I suggest that we write to John Prescott as chairman of the committee and ask for representation at the conference.

The paper says that there is a meeting on 11 October. Perhaps we should ask whether we could also be represented at that.

I notice that the intention was to involve the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. However, I am not sure how we were missed out of all this. Perhaps someone else in the Parliament is representing us.

I note that COSLA is part of the task force.

There is also an issue about who would represent us and what their commitment would be. However, if members agree, we could first write to John Prescott expressing our interest and asking whether a member could attend the conference.

The document says that there will be

"a Forum with local government lawyers on 11th October to address the potential impact of the Charter on Fundamental Human Rights on local authorities, should it be incorporated into any future EU Treaty. A representative from the Scottish Parliament would be most welcome to attend the event, or we can copy you in on the preparatory papers and outcomes of the meeting."

I know that committee members are particularly interested in this issue. Would anyone be willing to volunteer to attend the conference? Lloyd, will you volunteer?

Lloyd Quinan indicated agreement.

I hope only that Lloyd consults us about any opinions that he might express.

You went to a crap school, John. [Laughter.]

I found out about the working group only after a conversation with someone from LGIB and I suppose that I wanted to find out, in a subtle way, whether the minister knew about it. It is clear that Scotland has been dropped out of the loop, although not on purpose. Now that we have a heads-up, let us hope that the minister also has the same.

As the paper mentions an intention to involve the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, it would be appropriate to find out where contact was made in the Parliament and to ask the Executive whether it has received any information about the working group. We will ask the clerks to look into the matter and report back to the committee.

Would it be possible to get copies of the minutes of the working group's first meeting on 20 June? The paper mentions that the clerk received them.

I noted that. That is a good idea, Helen.

The final item of the convener's report relates to the European Police Office—or Europol. Members will recall that we asked for further information from the Executive, but I am afraid to report that we have not yet received that information. As a result, I suggest that we write to the Executive to advise it of the time scale on the matter and to say that we would welcome the information as soon as possible. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.