Item 2 is to discuss the Executive's briefings pre- and post-European Council and Council of the European Union meetings. The clerks have prepared a paper on this for us, of which pages 1, 2 and 3 provide background information. The main proposals are given from page 4 onwards. The proposals would enable the committee to do two things. First, as we said, we want to place in the public domain material on Executive activities that take place before Council meetings. Secondly, we want to involve this committee a bit more and to enable it to pick out items with which we want further involvement. I ask members whether they are generally in agreement with the proposed procedures as outlined from page 4 onwards.
Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are about having briefing papers prepared and giving the committee advance notice of the dates of European Council and Council of the European Union meetings as far in advance as possible. The suggestion is that notice of at least a calendar month should be given. We accept that last-minute changes might be made to meeting dates and agendas, although provisional agendas would be helpful as such information would assist and inform the committee. Do members agree to the recommendations in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18?
It is important that we get advance notice of those meetings, so that we can pick out what issues we might want to prioritise. Paragraphs 18 and 19 mention the attendance of Scottish ministers at Council of the European Union meetings. It is not so important to know a month in advance whether a Scottish minister will attend because that decision may not be made until the final meeting agenda is known.
I understand that things sometimes happen in the Parliament and that a judgment would have to be made on whether it would be more important for a minister to be here—for example, for a vote or an item that is relevant to the minister's portfolio. I am sure that there will be such exceptional circumstances. However, in the main, the principles in the paper are the right ones.
I understand the point that Sarah Boyack is making. Sometimes there are unforeseen circumstances and a minister who intends to go to a meeting may not be able to go. However, paragraph 18 is fairly flexibly worded. It says that the information
It is important that we can, within reason, insist on paragraph 19, although that will not always be the case. That is addressed later, in paragraph 22. We will probably come to it in the course of the discussion. In the interests of transparency and of the Executive's being seen to be as transparent as it can be, it is important that the minister can be brought in to fill us in on what is coming up.
I agree with the concept that the ministers should indicate whether they intend to attend Council meetings. However, I also agree with Sarah Boyack—the idea of a framework or time scale should be removed. We should expect them to inform us before going to Council meetings, whether that is six weeks or two weeks in advance. The idea of imposing a timetable of at least one calendar month is impractical and inflexible, although I think that we have a right to expect to be told in advance whether they are going to attend.
We are all agreed on the principles and we acknowledge that circumstances can change. If we agree the paper today, we will forward it to the Executive for comment. We will listen to any pertinent comments that the Executive has.
I understand what paragraph 22 is trying to achieve. However, I do not want it to be perceived that there would be a presumption that the minister would not attend unless specifically asked. I notice that paragraph 22 says that
That is fair enough. I would be happy to add a sentence to that effect, which is in keeping with the practices of other devolved administrations. I was not able to be at the meeting with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, but I understand that those were the kinds of matters that came out of that meeting. It is important that we exercise the same accountability that is being exercised in other Administrations.
Do members have a preference for direct reports or for the use, for example, of parliamentary questions? Obviously, there are different ways of doing this. The Welsh Assembly does it differently from the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee.
The information published should be easily accessed by MSPs and members of the public. Something should be put on the record after each Council meeting that can be made widely available so that people know what has happened at Council meetings. I am less concerned about the mechanism, but the information should be publicly accessible and regular.
Ideally, the form of information should be at our discretion. Sometimes when ministers discuss something that might hit the headlines they want to come back and make a statement about it. Conversely, there may be occasions when they would rather not say anything. There is something to be said for giving the European Committee some say in whether a report is oral or written.
I find the use of parliamentary questions for such purposes a very Westminster thing to do. It seems a ridiculous and unnecessary mechanism.
I agree. A letter or a report sent directly to the committee and then—following Sarah Boyack's point—placed in the public domain is the way forward. Perhaps we could amend the paper to reflect that.
Hold on. There is a slight contradiction between Nora Radcliffe's comments and those of Sarah Boyack. A parliamentary question might be pedantic, but at least it ensures that the information is universally accessible and that people know where to find it. A letter that is sent to the committee clerk might not be as easily accessible. Let us pause and think about that.
I was suggesting that such a letter would form part of the committee papers and would therefore be in the public domain.
A letter could be recorded in the minutes of the committee meeting. If there were any substantial shortcomings, they could be followed up by PQs to get specific information.
That ties the committee into the process in a helpful way. Parliamentary questions can be asked by any member.
I agree with John Home Robertson that there is a point to parliamentary questions. When a member lodges a parliamentary question it starts the clock ticking. The member puts down a marker about when the question was asked and when an answer is expected. We are all used to the process taking more than two weeks, but if the report were to go through the committee we might be left wondering where it is or when it will arrive. We would have to check the reasons why it had not come to the attention of the civil servants or had not got to us in time. However, once a member has lodged a parliamentary question it is in the public domain and it has to be answered by a target date.
I would prefer the letter or report to come to the committee because a parliamentary question is not always effective. I prefer to write to the minister and get a letter, because I always receive a more fulsome response when I do that. Often, when a member lodges a PQ, it is only the member concerned who notes the answer. I would like the committee as a whole to be linked to the responses.
I am not in favour of using PQs, although I appreciate what members are saying. In order to the make the system work, the PQs would have to be lodged by the convener of the committee, for the information of the whole committee. That would establish a precedent to be used by all committees.
It is important to tie the answers back to the committee and to put them in the public domain. It may be that in some cases it would be easier to use a parliamentary question and we could ask for a report in other cases, where we would like more detailed information. We could use both methods.
It is something that you could suggest at the conveners liaison group, convener. I am sure that other committees are discussing whether there should be a mechanism whereby a convener could lodge a PQ on behalf of a committee, which would be subject to different rules to those for parliamentary questions lodged by ordinary members.
I think that we have general agreement on two principles: first, we want to put the information in the public domain and secondly, we want the committee to be able to review European Council and Council of the European Union meetings. The process may be one of trial and error. The paper contains a recommendation that the whole thing is subject to review after six months.
Last week, I managed to go along both to hear Jim Wallace being interviewed by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and to the informal session afterwards. The view was expressed during the informal session that it would be quite useful if the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and this committee had a means of coming together from time to time to discuss issues that relate to the agendas for the IGC or the Council meetings. I know that the chairs of committees already meet, but the feeling was expressed at that meeting that it would be useful if the two committees could meet collectively.
We could learn a lot from other committees. The difficulty is the practicality of that. A meeting of the chairs of committees is coming up next month. Perhaps at that we could discuss possible opportunities for that kind of liaison. It is certainly a good idea that the clerks keep in touch with what is happening on the other committee agendas and that there is a great deal of sharing of information, even when it is not practical for all the members of the committees to meet. When opportunities present themselves we should certainly try to take them up.
If we adopt the procedures outlined in the briefing paper, it will improve scrutiny and the position of the committee. It should make us better than any of the other UK European committees, as we have looked at some of the best practice from the Welsh and from Westminster. Those procedures will get us closer to decision-making, which is done at the Council of Ministers. This procedure will be good for the committee. I hope that we get everything that we want in it and that it will become even more useful.
I agree with Ben Wallace's comments. This is a step forward for the committee. I am delighted that consensus has broken out. Can we formally agree the paper?
The introduction in the briefing paper mentions the accessibility of the explanatory memoranda. What is the process for our seeing explanatory memoranda? I know that we receive scrutiny documents and that those are passed on to other committees. Are you in possession of explanatory memoranda at that point? Do the explanatory memoranda go to the committees that are asked to consider the issues?
We used to get explanatory memoranda for priority scrutiny items when we undertook scrutiny under the headings of priority scrutiny and routine scrutiny, but we have changed the way that the committee works. Perhaps the clerk will say something about the information that is available.
I confirm that when we bring a document to the attention of another committee, it receives the whole document and the explanatory memoranda. A complete set of European documents and explanatory memoranda is held in the Parliament's documentation centre on the ground floor of parliamentary headquarters. The clerks also hold a set. I can certainly make explanatory memoranda and original European Community documents available to any member. Other committees receive the complete set of documentation.
Previous
Item in Private