European and External Relations Committee, 06 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Oh gosh, we are on to the final item, which is the convener's report. We may have an opportunity to have a committee debate in the chamber in the near future. As agreed at the last meeting, the clerks e-mailed members about their preferred choice of topic. The choice is for a debate either on the fresh talent inquiry or on the Commission's work programme. There may be another slot, so we will try for two debates. Four members voted for fresh talent as their first preference and three voted for the work programme. If we get one slot, it will be for the fresh talent report.

Looking over your shoulder, I see that it looks as though I am down for fresh talent. I thought that I was down for the work programme. Have you counted me in the fresh talent votes?

You voted for fresh talent with the work programme if we had two slots, as far as I can remember. I can check.

I probably intended to vote for the work programme.

That would make it three each, and as I did not vote, I will vote for the fresh talent inquiry.

I was not here, so I will vote for fresh talent.

Okay; I do not need to use my casting vote.

It is you and I again, Irene. We are on the same side on this, too.

That is three in a row for you two; I am getting seriously worried.

We want to get to grips with the substance of the Commission's work programme and discuss and debate it.

Let us hope that we get two debates; that would be good.

Has a provisional date been set yet?

No; the debate will probably be in February, but we do not have a provisional date as such.

I know that I did not participate in the discussion about the fresh talent report and was not party to the deliberations in the latter stages because of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, but is not such a report usually submitted to the Executive, which then responds?

It has not done that yet.

Obviously, it would be better if the Executive responded before we had the debate.

Absolutely.

The convention is that the Executive responds within a certain time—about eight weeks. Because the report was published quite recently, there might not be enough time for the Executive to respond before we have a debate in February.

There is time, if you work it out. The Executive should respond in early January.

Can our fallback position be that if we do not get a response from the Executive we will debate the work programme?

The Executive should respond well before February. If it has an eight-week window to respond, we should get the response at the beginning of January.

When did we publish the report?

It was published on 17 November and the Executive's response is due on 17 January. That should be the eight weeks.

That was a good try, Phil.

I am very trying.

What a good double act this is.

You should separate the Ayrshire mafia.

You should sit at the other end of the table at the next meeting, Phil.

The second item concerns a report by the Cabinet Office on the better regulation conference that was held in Edinburgh in September. The whole report of the conference has been appended to the papers. No doubt you have all read it very closely. Would anyone like to say anything about it? If not, we will just note the report and thank the Executive for getting it to us.

The next matter is a letter from Sandy Mewies, who is chair of our sister committee in the National Assembly for Wales. She tells us that her committee has been invited by the Committee of the Regions to participate in a subsidiarity test project. That is a separate channel for subsidiarity from the one that Lord Grenfell mentioned in his letter that we discussed at our last meeting. That channel would operate through the Westminster European committees, and although we are not involved in the European Union Committee of the Regions test, that channel is open to us too.

Perhaps Irene would like to say a few words as a member of the Committee of the Regions about the detail of the subsidiarity process.

We thought that the convention had sorted everything out, but we have now had to rethink it all. I meant to ask colleagues from the National Assembly for Wales who were here yesterday about this. The subsidiarity test has not come to the commission for economic and social policy, which is my commission of the Committee of the Regions. I imagine that it will go through the commission for sustainable development. Corrie McChord represents Scotland on that commission.

The Committee of the Regions is looking at early-warning systems, subsidiarity, how regions and local authorities can get involved early in the process and what mechanisms are necessary for us to do that. There are also thoughts about pilot projects. In this case, the pilot project is about one specific theme that has come through the commission for sustainable development. As I say, I am not a member of that commission, but I am happy to find out a little bit more about the matter and to report on it at our next meeting.

The idea is to learn lessons. Once the pilot has been done, the process will be open much more widely. I am sure that any input that we made to the pilot would be welcome.

We should thank Sandy Mewies for her letter and for keeping us informed. We should also monitor developments on the issue. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

At our last meeting, we considered a letter from Lord Grenfell about the subsidiarity and proportionality monitoring system. Westminster committees can give their views to the European Commission if they consider that a legislative proposal raises an issue of subsidiarity.

Lord Grenfell's letter asked us whether we would be generally willing to alert the Westminster committees to any European proposals that we thought might have subsidiarity or proportionality issues. He also asked us whether we would like updates from the Westminster committees on their work with other member state European committees on the issue. I suggest that we reply yes to both suggestions so that we keep ourselves informed about the debate.

Perhaps members would like a briefing note. When Alasdair Rankin and I were in Brussels, we had a meeting with Alasdair's equivalents from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

They were Ian Duncan's equivalents—the representatives of the Lords and Commons in the UK national Parliament office in Brussels.

A short briefing note on that to supplement Irene Oldfather's information to the committee will probably be useful.

The fourth item concerns an e-mail that followed up points from the previous pre and post-council reports, specifically those raised by Phil Gallie on energy and the pharmaceutical industry. The e-mail went to the Executive and it and the response are in members' papers, at annex C of paper EU/S2/05/18/5. I ask members to note them.

I am grateful to the clerks and to David Thompson for supplying information that I felt was missing. They have been very helpful. If the Executive has concerns about problems in the pharmaceutical industry, it might want to get in touch with you to raise them. However, we will leave that to the Executive rather than go fishing.

Talking of fishing, the next item is a letter from the Executive regarding the agriculture and fisheries council of 22 to 24 November. Margaret Ewing asked us to write to the Executive to find out its baseline for the negotiations.

The Executive has sent a response. Do members want to respond?

No. We had a debate in the chamber last week, so there is not much point in commenting on it. All the points were made in the chamber.

The last item is to ask members to note that the letter that the committee agreed to write to the European Commission about its complaints procedure in respect of procurement has been sent.

The issue arose when Ferguson's Shipbuilders tendered for a Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency vessel and lost out to a yard in Poland. The Commission has not yet responded, but I will report to members when it does.

Would it be appropriate for the committee to write to the Executive to ask for an up-to-date organogram? The committee has looked at structures in the Executive because it is our responsibility to hold the Executive to account. There have been a significant number of changes in the personnel of the Europe division of the Executive in Brussels and in Scotland.

Tim Simons used to observe at committee meetings, and the last meeting that he attended was his last in that capacity. I am not sure whether his post has been filled or who fills in for him, so it would be helpful to have an up-to-date organogram of posts in the Executive—the divisions, branches and who works in them.

We will get that for the next meeting.

That concludes today's meeting. Our next meeting is on Tuesday 20 December, when we will hear from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, on structural funding and the proposed European institute of technology.

I thank everyone for attending.

Meeting closed at 14:46.