European and External Relations Committee, 06 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

Improving Engagement with the European Union

Agenda item 2 is on recent Executive initiatives on improving engagement with the European Union. We had a lengthy discussion about the European Commission's plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate at our previous meeting. We still have to work out a definitive approach. I refer members to paper EU/S2/05/18/2, which details the three separate initiatives in related areas—plan D itself, the Commission's white paper on communication and the Scottish Executive's building a bridge between Europe and its citizens project.

Members will have seen the November letter from the First Minister to the Presiding Officer, which is included as an annex to the paper. The letter gives an outline of the Executive's project. Members might also remember that Irene Oldfather has met Commissioner Wallström and discussed plan D in outline. As I found out in Brussels last week, when we met Marta Múgica Inciarte, a representative of the Commission's directorate-general for press and communication, the Commission is taking a close interest in what we are doing in Scotland and has proposed a follow-up meeting on how plan D can be taken forward here. That proposal is down to Elizabeth Holt in some respects, as she has been enthusiastically talking in Brussels about what we are doing in Scotland.

I ask members to consider the recommendations in paragraph 4 of the paper and Douglas Alexander's letter about plan D. In particular, I refer to what he says about the possibility of our being interested in a visit from Commissioner Wallström when she comes to the UK. We should take up that offer.

We must give a steer on the terms of reference for our inquiry. I am keen not to end up simply duplicating what the Executive wants to do in its building a bridge between Europe and its citizens project. I picked up a wee bit of confusion in Brussels with respect to the Parliament and the Executive in that regard.

I am thinking about what people have said previously. Our work must be tight and focused. I therefore have a suggestion to make. We could agree in principle to considering the three initiatives, but perhaps Irene Oldfather and I, as the committee's deputy convener and convener respectively, could get together for a discussion with the clerks before the next meeting, or perhaps before the meeting after that, as our next meeting will be fairly busy—the minister will be discussing two issues. Irene Oldfather suggested that we could invite academics from the outside to give us a fresh view. We could get together and agree the terms of reference for a submission on plan D, bearing in mind what everyone else is doing.

I see Phil Gallie grinning away at me. He obviously has something big to say.

I have something extremely negative to say about plan D. Plan D is a communications and propaganda exercise that shows everything that is wrong with Europe. People in Europe do not seem to have taken on board the message that the French and Dutch people have given. The French and the Dutch want to see positive things and successes coming from Europe. The committee's job is to analyse issues such as how the Commission's work programme will affect Scotland. We should by all means emphasise to people in Scotland the benefits that can come from European legislation and regulations, but we should not navel gaze in the way that the paper suggests. I say with the greatest respect that I went through every page of the European Commission's paper and found it to be total waffle. We will waste the committee's time if we engage in nothing more than a propaganda exercise.

Talking about the proposals for another hour would be counterproductive—navel gazing would be a danger. However, a small group could get together with outside assistance to discuss what would be useful not only as a response to the Commission, but for us. We should aim for that and do something constructive rather than navel gaze.

I am sorry, but I do not think that considering the paper is worth the time and effort. We could be considering many more important things that are going on in Europe. The letter that we have sent to David Thompson and the letter from Jack McConnell deal with issues that will affect Scotland in the long term. If we want to use our time usefully, we should consider the things that Europe is intent on doing and provide reasonable feedback on them, as was suggested with respect to postal services.

With respect, Mr Gallie, we have already agreed that we will respond to plan D. The question is how we do it. I have to say that, at our previous meeting, you were the one who wanted to tour the whole of Scotland to find out what people thought of Europe.

I said that that would be the way to proceed if we wanted to examine the general principles. It is not for us to determine the issues; it is for the people outside to do that. I have brought with me a copy of the Official Report of our previous meeting. Never at any time did I agree that we should take part in a report on plan D. I just took part in the discussions with Elizabeth Holt and others.

We agreed previously that we should respond to plan D. I am suggesting that a small group of us gets together and decides on the best way of responding to the benefit of the committee and, I hope, of those who are looking for a response.

Without any commitment to taking the matter forward at this stage.

We will bring the terms of reference to the committee to agree—

Without any commitment to taking it forward at this stage.

As I said, we will bring the terms of reference to the committee to agree. We have already agreed that we will take part and respond.

I have placed on the record what I wanted to say.

You are always on the record.

I was up a mountainside in Kashmir during the committee's previous meeting, which, given the circumstances, was probably just as well. We all know where Phil Gallie is coming from, but most of us who live in the real Europe recognise that there is a need to create a better and newer structure to take matters forward. Uncharacteristically, convener, just this once I am with you.

So you are not setting a precedent.

Let us take a focused approach and come forward with constructive ideas. Notwithstanding what Phil Gallie has said, I hope that the whole committee will agree to go forward on that basis.

It would not be helpful if I said anything at this point other than "Agreed".

Do we agree to do what has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.