Good morning, colleagues. I have received no apologies, so I assume that Ben Wallace is on his way. Welcome to the 15th meeting in 2001 of the European Committee. It might be appropriate to convey our congratulations to Hugh Henry, who has departed the committee to join the Executive. It is my pleasure to welcome Sarah Boyack, who is joining the committee.
Hear, hear.
I am sure that she will enjoy herself.
I have nothing against Irene, as she well knows, but could we have some clarification of how she emerged as the Labour party's nominee? Was it a democratic decision of the Labour group or was it the diktat of the First Minister? I would hate to think that the Executive would try to control the convenership of the European Committee or of any parliamentary committee. It would be helpful if we knew how Irene's name emerged.
I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into the details. There were consultations among the Labour members and we are all happy to nominate Irene. I hope sincerely that all members of the committee will be happy to work with her as convener.
Naturally, we are happy with Irene as a human being, but we might question the method of her selection by the Labour party.
You have made that point.
I have a simple point of clarification: is Irene Oldfather the nominee of the committee's Labour group or is she the First Minister's nominee?
She is the nominee of the Labour party. There was widespread consultation, not only among the European Committee's Labour group, but further afield.
Do you mean the Labour party in London as well?
No, I mean members of the Scottish Parliament. Your paranoia is getting on top of you.
You said the Labour party.
I welcome Irene's nomination. She has the background and the skills to do the job and is an excellent choice for convener.
Irene Oldfather was chosen as convener.
I am happy to move over. Good luck to Irene in the chair.
I am delighted to accept the convenership and I thank colleagues for their support. The European Committee has done a great deal of good work in the past two and a half years; we have worked together in a positive and constructive fashion and I hope that we can continue that work. Members will know that I have had a great interest in European matters over a long period—at least 10 years—so I am delighted to accept the nomination.
I congratulate Irene Oldfather on her elevation. However, a pressing matter results from the reshuffle—the handing of the Europe and external affairs brief to the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice. Given that the European Committee carries out scrutiny in one area of that brief, we should have been consulted. Have we been given a proper definition of the external affairs brief? We have been requesting that information for some time. We should deal with the issue today.
We have to accept that it is not normal practice for committees to be consulted on Cabinet appointments or on changes in portfolios. I understand from the clerk that we have not received the definition of the external affairs remit that we requested. The committee will want to pursue that point, but not today, as the Deputy First Minister is with us for only 30 minutes. If we want to finish our governance inquiry, which is our priority for this year, I propose—
On that point—
If I could just finish—
If the minister has just been given the brief, and there is no definition of the brief, how can we question him today and expect him to add any great weight to what, at this stage, is a good report?
The fact of the matter is that the subject of the report that we are discussing is European Union governance, which is in the minister's brief. A great deal of time has been put into the inquiry. The Laeken summit is to take place on 14 and 15 December. If we want our report to be considered in those discussions, we should spend the full 30 minutes trying to get to the bottom of the issues that are involved in our inquiry. I hope that committee members find that suggestion acceptable. I assure the committee that, in January, we will return to the point about the remit. I know that committee members seek answers on that point. We intend to pursue the matter.
I agree with the convener. The Deputy First Minister is before the committee to talk about our EU governance inquiry. However, we should seek an assurance from him that we will receive an answer by a certain date. Over the past three months, we have tried three times to get from the Executive a simple definition of the remit. Surely there is no harm in saying, "We are not going to question you on that subject today, but can you give us a date on which you will return with, or forward, exact details of your remit?"
It might be difficult for the minister to give us a date. I am happy to say to the minister, in my preliminary remarks, that we are looking for a speedy response. I am also happy to say that we hope that he can make that response early in the new year.
With respect, it is not unreasonable to expect a date. The minister is in the job. He should know what his job is and its parameters. The job is new and he has just been handed his brief, but he should understand what he is doing. The Executive has, on three occasions, signally failed to answer that question and it is time that it did so. It is time that we said that we would like the response by a certain date.
I agree with members that we need to have the definition of the brief. We have been seeking it for some time and it is now a matter of urgency. I am happy to write to the Deputy First Minister, on behalf of the committee, asking for the definition of the brief as a matter of urgency. A copy of that letter will be sent to the First Minister, who continues to have a Europe and external affairs remit.