European Committee, 28 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999

Official Report 224KB pdf

---

Consultation Process

At the previous committee meeting, a consultation process was discussed. Members wanted a structured means of receiving material that would allow them to consider the key issues in relation to the European Union. We have drafted a set of terms of reference for the mailshot element of that process so that written evidence can be provided by respondents.

We have begun to think about streamlining both the issues and the organisations that we would approach for informal briefings. We had an element of that this morning. Once the committee knows which issues to examine and has had informal briefings, it can decide how to investigate those issues. Other committees are beginning to think about rapporteurs as a way of exploring issues in greater detail and of having further deliberations with outside bodies.

The paper sets out ideas about how the system of rapporteurs might function in the Scottish Parliament. Some committee members will be aware of how rapporteurs work in Europe, especially in the European Parliament or the Committee of the Regions. However, it is for the committee, not me, to decide that such a system would be a way forward.

I have two separate points. First, before our next meeting, we should circulate the correspondence that we intend to send out to external bodies. Secondly, we should concentrate on the briefing paper on our forward work programme and the use of rapporteurs.

Would the rapporteur report back to the committee as an individual or would there be any advantage in having a small group or sub-committee of members specialising in a subject? Such a group could be convened by the rapporteur to investigate the matter in question and then report back to the committee. In that way, rapporteurs would not be working on their tod, but would be speaking on behalf of a sub-committee.

Both options are open to us. As Winnie and Irene will know, rapporteurs in the European system do individual research and present their findings to the committee for the committee to reject, accept or amend. The final product then becomes the responsibility of the committee. Committees can get through a significant amount of work in that way, with members taking an individual responsibility.

On the other hand, we can do what Dennis suggested and have a group of members carrying out investigations. However, that would not be a formal sub-committee, because that would have to be raised with the bureau. For example, the Health and Community Care Committee has set up two sub-groups. Ben Wallace, Duncan Hamilton and I are on the first sub-group investigating smoking and we will return to the committee with a joint report. The other sub-group is considering community care and presumably the members of that group will divide up responsibilities between them.

The committee should determine what its subject priorities are and then allocate work to committee members. If we feel that a number of members should examine a particular subject, so much the better. The presentation on structural funds has raised a number of questions about women, equal opportunities and long-term unemployment.

Flexibility is one of the keys to getting the matter right. We will have to mix and match how we go about our investigations, depending on the subjects that we examine. I am quite relaxed about what has been outlined in the paper.

Just before I bring in Winnie, can we try to identify a range of topics that we would like considered, perhaps not for the next meeting, because I am aware that Jack McConnell will be speaking to us, but for the meeting after that? That is not to say that they will be the final topics, but members should tell Stephen what they are interested in, then we can start to decide what we can reasonably cope with, what the priorities should be, and who will co-operate on some of the topics.

When the legal basis of a subject is discussed in the European Union, that does not mean that one should not realise that the whole subject is a matter for discussion. To dismiss it and say that it is a question with a legal basis is fine, but the legal basis is not changed unless there is a need to change it in the terms of what the subject is.

You have lost me.

I was told twice by Ms Oldfather that it was just a matter of a legal basis. One of the issues was forestry, which is a vital matter for Scotland. They do not change a legal basis in Europe—

Hold on. Wait a minute. We have gone past that issue.

I know that we have gone past it, but I am asking a question about the legal basis.

We have finished that item. We have moved on to something different.

I am not talking about forestry: I am talking about the issue—

It is not on the agenda. The way the standing orders work—

Well, I will put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

We can consider that, but it is not on the agenda for the meeting this afternoon.

The legal basis is mentioned—

Winnie, we have finished that part of the agenda and we have moved on. We have a report to discuss. I have asked that we agree that the consultation letter be circulated for comments. I have also asked members to identify what issues they think should be priorities for this committee so that we can incorporate them into the committee's future work. Is that agreed?

Yes.

I have another little comment on the use of rapporteurs. I notice in the briefing paper that there is a caveat:

"Nevertheless, with a reporter/rapporteur system there is a risk that the output of a committee's work could become more biased than it would otherwise have done. The ability of lobbyists to contact directly one responsible member of the committee may result in the work of that committee becoming more vulnerable to outside influence".

Dennis, I am sure that you can resist all temptation.

I hope that we would have an understanding, if not a rule, in this committee that if a rapporteur is approached by a lobbyist, we have a frank declaration of that, so that we all know who is trying to influence us, directly or indirectly.

Dennis, if we buy you a drink, it is alright.

Dennis touched on a salient point, which is that when a rapporteur is attempting to produce a report, there will be limited parliamentary resources to rely on. When they are doing research, rapporteurs will have to go out and work with a range of organisations. We should have a procedure so that we know who the rapporteur is working with.

For example, there are people in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who have done a lot of work on the subject of European structural funds who I am sure rapporteurs will want to talk to. There are people in the voluntary sector who would have a lot to contribute. Perhaps we should get some guidance for rapporteurs on how they engage others to assist them, because the last thing we want to do is transgress without realising it.

I was thinking more of the influence of people like Mr Beattie.

I am not sure that you are on his mailing list Dennis, but if you are, no doubt you will let us know.

Dennis is obviously referring to lobbying companies and not organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, which may have a lobbying activity. It is a balancing act.

That is what I mean: there is a fine line.

It is all lobbying.

I am informed that the Standards Committee will consider the issue tomorrow. We need to be sure that we are operating under agreed procedures when we are working with someone who is—informally or formally—an adviser. We can appoint advisers to the committee with the agreement of the bureau, but we should get clarification about what advice rapporteurs can seek and whether they can appoint someone to work alongside them on an informal basis. It is not as clear as you might think, Bruce.

One of the advantages of the European system is the opportunity to identify an expert adviser to work with the rapporteur. We might need to introduce that here. It could be difficult for members to work on their own, without being able to draw on some expert support.

I am not clear, convener. Are you saying that it is at the discretion of the committee to adopt that system? Is it right that we do not necessarily need to have a Parliament-wide system in which committees have a set approach? We could have different types of rapporteur systems. We have considered the European model, but there are others and it is at the discretion of the committee which model it chooses to adopt. I take on board Dennis's point, but we should be accessible to interest groups. Whether they hire PR firms to represent their interests is another matter. The Parliament should be accessible to and transparent in its dealings with civic Scotland. Those key questions apply to the whole Parliament, not just to individual committees.

The appointment of rapporteurs is a matter for individual committees. We could decide not to use that system, but I think that we will get through much more work if we do. Whether the rapporteur works alone or with colleagues is a matter for the committee. Standing orders prevent us from establishing a formal sub-committee without the bureau's approval, but we can appoint a few rapporteurs to work together as a sub-group.

It is important that we use the system, because no minister is directly linked to the European Committee—as happens with the subject committees. When there are conferences and so on, a representative of the committee will be invited, but it is not for them to go in a personal capacity; they must bring back information.

The whole business of having a rapporteur who is going to tap into outside expertise needs to be set straight for the benefit of us all. It is perfectly all right to talk to someone as long as there is a record of who members have consulted and what ground was covered. We will need to talk to some people if we are going to monitor aspects of value for money in the new objective 3 programme.

Some of the people we want to talk to will normally be paid for passing on information and we will not have a budget. What is in it for them? How will we get the best quality advice and information on which to base our reports?

The matter is best left until the Standards Committee has considered it, at least in the first instance. We need to clarify some of those issues before we send anyone away to report back. Do we agree that we should get further advice on how the system will work? However, we should start to identify the priorities so that we can establish a relative order; we can think about allocating work thereafter.