European and External Relations Committee, 06 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 6, 2006

Official Report 330KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

The next item is my regular report to the committee. The first item in my report is correspondence from the Scottish Executive on the items that Phil Gallie raised under pre and post-EU Council scrutiny in relation to the single free trade area in south-east Europe. Do you wish to comment further on that, Phil?

The Executive's response is interesting and I can understand what those who are involved are trying to do. My point was that Romania is going to come into the European Community and that there could be a repeat of what has happened with previous new entrants to the EC.

Do any other members have comments on that?

Members indicated disagreement.

The second item in my report is further correspondence from the Scottish Executive on the House of Lords European Union Select Committee's inquiry into further enlargement of the EU. We wrote to the Executive to ask whether it will respond to the inquiry; it has confirmed that it will not.

Do members have any comments?

I am surprised that the Executive will not respond to the inquiry. In effect, Westminster is our voice on European issues and the inquiry is an important investigation. Irene Oldfather acknowledged that the House of Lords produces many interesting reports. It is a shame that there will be no response to the inquiry from the Executive. Perhaps the committee would like to make a response.

I am with you on that, Mr Gallie. I was surprised by the answer because I thought that the Executive would respond to the inquiry on behalf of us all.

I guess that the rationale is that there are members of Parliament on the appropriate House of Commons committee—which, I presume, will respond—and that because the matter is reserved that would be the appropriate channel. I think that that is noted in the Executive's response.

I remain of the view that the House of Lords is undertaking useful work that I will certainly watch with considerable interest. I cannot remember the detail of the questions, but it may be that some are not appropriate to the Scottish Executive. There were a number of questions about citizens from new member states and so on. It might be that the Executive does not keep that information and that the matter would be best dealt with by the UK Government. We can only guess.

The committee should certainly keep a watching brief on the inquiry because it will produce a lot of useful information.

I did not plan to comment on the matter, but Phil Gallie is right to raise it. Two of the states in any potential enlargement are Romania and Bulgaria. One of the major concerns about those countries is their level of organised crime. Given that we in Scotland have fully devolved responsibility for crime, we can legitimately say that Scotland has an interest in that area and that there might be a particular Scottish aspect that could be fed into the House of Lords inquiry. Whether that is done directly by the Scottish Executive or through the UK Government, I would have thought that at least some views would have flown from Edinburgh to the inquiry.

If the Executive told us that it was involved and that its voice was being heard through the UK Government, I would understand that. That is the settlement that we have—I might not like it, but it is the reality. I would prefer that involvement to be much more visible and to include a direct approach to the House of Lords inquiry, but I accept the constitutional framework in which we live. However, I thought that at least some response would be forthcoming.

It may seem strange, but I support the Executive. A democratically elected body such as the Scottish Executive should not give credibility to a non-elected body such as the House of Lords and should not give it status that it does not deserve.

Have we reached an impasse?

We are divided.

Not really.

We are not really divided. Views have been expressed, but Irene Oldfather is the only member who has suggested that we do anything, which is to keep a watching brief. Do members agree?

I will add to what Bruce Crawford said. Another important element is the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative. Without a doubt, resources are liable to come from places such as Romania and Bulgaria. There are many clever people there who have a lot of knowledge and technical ability. That affects us from a fresh talent viewpoint. However, I go along with Irene Oldfather's suggestion.

I sympathise with that. Lately, I have felt that although the committee tends to do excellent reports—the fresh talent report was excellent—we do not have a mechanism for following them up, for adding to them or for keeping on top of them. Perhaps we should discuss that in the future.

In the past, we have been quite proactive, particularly with reports that we have sent to the European Commission, and we have often been commended for the work that we have done. I am not sure, but the more Phil Gallie talked, the more I thought that if the timescale were not so tight, it would have been good for us to become involved.

The timescale is too tight.

Given that the recess is coming up, the timescale is too tight. The best that we can do is perhaps evaluate the results.

The fourth item is to ask committee members whether they would like to bid for chamber time—[Interruption.] Oh no—I have missed another item. My head is either all mince or all structural funds—I am not sure which. What would I do without Nick Hawthorne?

Members will remember that John Home Robertson asked us to write to the European Commission about public sector pensions and the rule of 85. The third item is just to note that we have not yet had a response.

The fourth item—am I right, Nick?

You are.

The fourth item is to ask committee members whether they would like to bid for chamber time in September or October. We hope to publish two reports before the summer recess—the first will be on structural funds and the second will be on co-operation with Ireland. I suggest that we bid for a slot to discuss the structural funds report—we could pull in the Ireland study in discussing that—because we will have the Executive's response to the structural funds report by September or October. I would like us to bid for two slots, so that we could separate the reports, if possible.

I go along with that. We can bid for two slots. If we do not obtain them, we can combine the two reports in one debate.

Is that acceptable?

The second report also relates to structural funds.

Yes. A debate that focused just on co-operation would be interesting.

The final item is to update members on the latest position on petition PE804, which is that we still have not received a response from Ben Bradshaw. We agreed to await a response from Mr Bradshaw before proceeding to hear from the petitioners—the clerks will continue to press Mr Bradshaw's office for a response.

Where are we with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill?

That was supposed to come up today. When will it be considered?

It will be considered at the next meeting, which is on 20 June.

That delay was at the Executive's request. I think that the timetable at Westminster has slipped, so the Executive wants to wait until further statements and decisions have been made there. George Lyon will appear on 20 June, when we will have another long meeting.

That brings the public part of the meeting to a close. As we are moving into private session, I ask the public and official report staff to leave.

Meeting continued in private until 18:04.