European and External Relations Committee, 04 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 4, 2003

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

You have before you a paper that gives you a quick update on our work programme and provides a tentative schedule for evidence taking in relation to our inquiries.

We might have a full debate in the chamber on the CFP and the December meeting of the fisheries council. If there is such a debate, there could be a bit of duplication of effort.

Last week, Ross Finnie said that he intends to hold a full day's debate on the CFP—

If given approval. It is not a 100 per cent commitment. Perhaps we could bring our influence to bear on the business managers.

The issue is important, but we might be in danger of overkill. If there is going to be a full day's debate in the chamber in which members can ask questions of the minister and provide information that will reinforce his position in the coming negotiations, is it really necessary to trawl over the same territory in this committee?

I appreciate your views. I had planned to discuss this issue separately later on, but I am happy to have that discussion at this point, as it relates to our work programme.

I appreciate that the date of the debate in the chamber was not known when we discussed the matter and invited the ministers to the committee. However, the situation is that we have invited the ministers and I am keen to draw a distinction between the role of this committee and that of the chamber, given the differing atmosphere in which scrutiny takes place in the two contexts.

I think that we consulted the Environment and Rural Development Committee in relation to this matter. In the past, the job of scrutinising these matters has fallen to that committee. In the previous session of the Parliament, the European Committee produced a report on the CFP because the Rural Development Committee was weighed down with primary legislation. However, that decision was taken on the basis that we would deal with the matter in exceptional circumstances rather than as a matter of routine.

You make a distinction between this committee's scrutiny of the matter and the chamber's role in that process, but I am not sure that this committee is the best place for that function to be carried out. The Environment and Rural Development Committee should normally be the place where the CFP is considered.

The convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, Sarah Boyack, indicated to me that that committee would be unable to fit the matter into its agenda and was keen for us to pursue it.

I am a member of that committee and can tell you that we have a heavy legislative burden.

In that case, we should go ahead with the planned meeting with the minister. As you say, convener, a committee is able to push the Executive and investigate matters but, often, a debate in the chamber merely gives members of all parties an opportunity to make bland statements that go unchallenged. That cannot happen in a committee, however, as it is an inquisitory forum that can play a valuable role.

Far be it from me to take any pressure off Ross Finnie—it would be out of character for me to do that—but having been on the ministerial side of this issue I know that ministers have a hell of a busy time in the month before the December fisheries council. The problem is that there is now only one minister with responsibility for fisheries. When I was a minister, responsibility was shared between the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs. I gather that Ross Finnie is now dealing with all fisheries matters himself. He will take part in meetings with fishermen and fishermen's organisations around the country and will be involved in very important negotiations with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in London, both directly and through his officials. If there is to be a debate in the Parliament, is it really in our interest to take another day out of his time at that pressure moment? I am not sure that it is.

I appreciate your comments. We are trying to be as flexible as possible. We have a tentative date for the minister to appear before us in early December.

I see no reason why there should not be both an appearance by the minister before the committee and a chamber debate. That happened in September and October 2002 and again at the beginning of this year, when Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley gave evidence to the Rural Development Committee and there was a debate in the chamber on 19 February.

At issue here are the scrutiny rights of the European and External Relations Committee. As Phil Gallie said, members of the committee are often in agreement. We should press for both an appearance by the minister before the committee and a chamber debate. I appreciate that there are time pressures on ministers, but the arrival of a December fisheries council is not exactly the world's greatest surprise or Christmas gift. I have already indicated that the Ben Bradshaw inquiry will not be able to report until after the fisheries council. One of the main questions that we as elected members should ask is, "Why not?"

It is the Tony Blair inquiry.

Yes, but it is headed by Ben Bradshaw.

I sense that members are relatively happy to proceed with the proposal, given that we are the only committee that is currently able to take evidence from the minister. Other committees are not in a position to do that.

Earlier, you referred to flexibility. If it becomes apparent that we will be retracing our steps, we should not invite the minister to appear before the committee. If such a meeting will add to the process and be of assistance to the minister as well as to us as scrutineers, by all means let us take the belt-and-braces approach. However, if it is simply a matter of retracing steps we should waste neither the minister's nor the committee's time.

We accept that we do not want to waste the minister's time. At the moment we have a tentative date on which to take evidence from the minister, which we hope will be okay. If not, we will have to play things by ear.

The next item is the monthly report on the Parliament's external liaison activities.

Before we move on, I draw your attention to point 3 in the convener's report, which relates to the nordic states and institutions.

That is a separate item. We are still going through the report.

Do members have any comments on the Parliament's external liaison activities? Once again, I thank members of the committee who have taken part in such activities in recent weeks. Last week, I had to pull out of a couple of events due to personal circumstances, but that was unavoidable.

You were changing nappies.

The next item is correspondence with the Executive on the IGC and on links with the nordic states and Nordic Council. I recommend that we thank ministers for their responses and note them. Keith Raffan, who has a specific interest in the Nordic Council, is not here.

I draw the committee's attention to the meeting about two weeks ago of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which Alasdair Morrison and I attended as members.

Have you sobered up yet?

Irish hospitality is something else.

Let us not go there.

I am a member of Committee B of the BIIPB, which deals with European affairs. The committee is working on a report about relationships between the UK and the Nordic Council. A visit to Oslo is planned for December and an attempt is being made to arrange a meeting with the Baltic Council of Ministers. Although the external liaison unit is dealing with that, it might be helpful for our clerks to have an update on that report, because there is no point in our recycling everything if we can pick up information from that.

As members have no more comments on the subject, we will move on.