Convener's Report
We now come to item 5. I would like to comment on the European Committee's visit to Brussels last week. We met representatives of a number of European institutions. I would also like to ask a representative from each political group to make some comment about it later.
As convener of this committee, I think that the visit was very worth while. It was historic: it was the first time a committee representing this Parliament had visited Brussels. We were extremely well received and there was a significant level of interest from representatives of the European Parliament. There was also huge interest and support from representatives of the European Commission.
We also had a very long, well received meeting with the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, who gave us much more of his time than we had agreed. I think that that was a good reflection of the interest that the Scottish Parliament has created.
We met a number of senior officials of the Commission and had very good contact and meetings with the UK Government representatives in Brussels. We received good support from the staff at Scotland House, who did a lot to help us.
I would like to thank our committee clerks, who put a huge amount of effort and work into preparing the visit and facilitating the work that we did while we were there. Without their work, the visit would not have been productive. I would like to give special mention to Liz Holt, the European Commission's representative in Edinburgh, and to Dermot Scott, the European Parliament's representative in Edinburgh. They were very helpful in ensuring that we had contacts with the right people and in making the arrangements.
Many committee members found the visit a learning experience and useful contacts have been made for various committee reports. Beyond that, I was struck by the interest that people in Europe expressed about what is going on in Scotland and their willingness to make contact and work jointly with the Scottish Parliament. That sentiment was expressed not just by people based in Brussels but by people who represented areas throughout Europe. All in all, it was a very productive meeting that will stand the Parliament and its committees in good stead.
I echo most of your comments, convener. We all felt that it was a very worthwhile experience: we were introduced to the relevant officials and met European politicians. We are now aware of the importance of such contacts. The visit reinforced the need for the committee to get in early enough to influence what is happening in Europe, and not to wait until processes are under way when it is too late to do anything. Furthermore, we should recognise what the Scottish Parliament is doing well. I think that the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee stands up beside comparable work in Europe. I hope that we can continue to build on such work.
Bruce Crawford will comment on behalf of the SNP.
Anyone will clearly recognise that the outcome of our visit at least matched—and probably surpassed—our initial expectations and objectives.
We received some real nuggets about how the European system works; in particular, we were all surprised to find that the EC meets and votes weekly, which underlines the powerful nature of that part of the organisation and its effect on European legislation and indeed on Scotland, given the fact that 80 per cent of such legislation will influence domestic policy.
It was also interesting to have much more detail about the operation of the Council of Ministers and other ministerial meetings. Because of my interest in the euro, I found it particularly fascinating that 11 euro zone countries are having informal meetings to examine the issue; although it was emphasised that the meetings are informal, the danger of a two-stream Europe for the economy is clear.
We cannot overemphasise the need for Scotland to do its own networking in Europe; it is important that not only the European Committee but the committees that are concerned with rural affairs and environment issues understand the European decision-making framework and the necessity for networking. For example, it was constantly pointed out that the Irish are able to network and get involved in decision making; and, by God, if Scotland needs to learn any lessons from anyone, perhaps that is one.
Finally, at a luncheon engagement, the director general gave us a very striking signal that we should take this Parliament and its committees seriously; he said that on rural affairs issues such as hill farming and fisheries in general, our committees will be as important to Europe as Westminster committees. From my perspective, the visit was very worth while.
David Mundell will speak on behalf of the Conservatives.
I would like to echo the convener's thanks to Stephen Imrie, David Simpson and Christine Boch, and to Liz Holt and Dermot Scott. The visit was excellently put together and nobody could suggest that we did not gain the maximum possible benefit from our time in Brussels.
I found the trip extremely worth while. The Parliament—and people in business and other activities across Scotland—should understand the level of European interest in Scotland. This is a unique time and, in many ways, Scotland is flavour of the month just now. We have to gain the maximum benefit from that and take advantage of all the opportunities that will flow from it.
I welcome Mr McConnell's initiative in bringing together MEPs, this committee and others. I was pleased to meet our MEPs from all parties. It was clear that they genuinely work together in the interests of Scotland. This committee has to work very closely with them in future.
If we are to have any genuine influence in the process, we have to get in early. We gained a lot of information during our visit—for example, we learned about European freight railway services and were able to talk about such issues in a productive way. We will have to interact closely with the other committees of this Parliament so that they too can become involved in the process and benefit from receiving early information.
I was pleased to meet Franz Fischler, the agriculture, rural development and fisheries commissioner. It was a productive, useful and open meeting. That surprised me and was very refreshing. This Parliament would benefit from having similarly open exchanges with civil servants. Individual MSPs would appreciate that. If we are to develop a modern system of government in Scotland, we have to have a much more open dialogue between elected members, the Scottish Executive and civil servants.
During our discussions with President Prodi and others, it became clear that the e-Europe initiative will be a major part of the work of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Scottish Parliament and Executive, and this committee, need to address that. In many ways, the Parliament and Executive are already doing so. It seems to me that e-Europe is missing from the committee's current work programme. Given the emphasis that is being put on that initiative, it is important that this committee focuses on it.
That is a useful suggestion. Perhaps we can consider it when we review our work programme.
I will be brief because most of the points that I wanted to mention have already been covered. The visit was useful and informative. I recall that, during the reception at Scotland House, we were asked on several occasions why on earth it had taken us so long to arrange a visit. After all, we will soon have reached the first anniversary of the elections to this Parliament.
I suppose there is always the fear that the public perception of politicians who go on overseas trips is that they are participating in expensive junketing. If we behave as responsible members of this committee and if our visits are seen to bear fruit in the future work of our committee and the service to the people we represent, I think that those same people—and perhaps some of the media critics—will see that the visit was well planned, was hard work and was essential for us to find out what is going on in the corridors of power in the European Union.
We were privileged to meet distinguished commissioners—indeed, the head of the Commission, Romano Prodi—and the agriculture, rural development and fisheries commissioner, Franz Fischler.
I found that the most informative meeting was with Mr Currie, the environment director-general. He emphasised—as the director-general and as a fellow Scot—that, whether we like it or not, many of the decisions that affect the people of Scotland are taken in Brussels. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty not only to monitor those decisions but—he emphasised this point—to make some input before decisions are taken. He emphasised the importance of what some people call networking—or making personal contacts—and getting our views across to the people who will make the decisions.
I found that the woman from Neil Kinnock's cabinet was good value. She gave us an informative talk about what they are doing about the much needed reform to make the Commission more open, transparent and accountable following revelations last year and the year before.
The round-table discussion over lunch with David Martin, the president of the Parliament, was also very interesting. I found out in the subsequent briefing about human rights aspects, which I deliberately sought out because the committee has agreed that I be a reporter on that subject, that there is no guarantee that the charter of fundamental rights will be on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. Many people, including me, hope that it will be on the agenda; I hope that we, as a committee, can play some part in achieving that. I also found out that David Martin is a member of a working group that is preparing some material on the proposed charter of fundamental rights. I hope to arrange a meeting with David to discuss the work of that group.
Finally, convener—I hope that this does not cause you to fall out of your seat—I thank you and Cathy Jamieson, as vice convener, for the fair way in which you chaired the proceedings and allowed all of us to ask the questions that we wanted to ask. That was a good example of a parliamentary committee at work.
Thanks Dennis. Your point is well noted.