European Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Official Report 177KB pdf

---

EU Governance

Agenda item 3 deals with our forthcoming inquiry into EU governance. Members have before them the draft terms of reference, and will recall that we have agreed to inquire into the future of the EU and the means by which it operates, and the role that Scotland can play. I point out that, tomorrow, there will be a debate in the chamber on Europe.

We have tried to firm up the ideas on which we should focus and to ensure that, as well as seeking answers to some of the questions about Scotland and the EU, our inquiry includes some innovation. The terms of reference include a suggestion that we establish a Scottish European forum some time in the autumn, so that the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament can be given to a body that pulls together various strands of life in Scotland from the public, private and voluntary sectors. We can add our weight to the encouragement of positive debate on Europe and are better placed to initiate that than any other body in Scotland. Clearly, we need to develop that role in conjunction with our MPs and especially our MEPs across the political spectrum, who have all been constructive.

We must also discuss the plans for a practical case study of how a piece of EC legislation is taken through the governmental system in Scotland and the UK. Having spoken to some of the officials in the European Commission, I am aware that they are interested in the work that is being done in Scotland and in our principles of access and their implications for the general debate on governance. The European Committee and the Scottish Parliament can contribute much to the general debate. As part of that process, we will have at our next meeting 10 or 11 representatives from the Committee of the Regions who are keen to develop their perspective on governance and to engage in dialogue with this committee. That meeting will be unusual, in that we will share much of it with a body that was set up to deal with European legislation and treaties.

Is it appropriate to discuss the scope of the inquiry, which is mentioned on page 5 of the draft terms of reference?

Yes.

I thought that our discussion of governance of the EU would tie into the European Commission's development of its governance arrangement. Some would call the arrangement a constitution—it is the framework on which we were briefed in Brussels. Some of the suggested themes could be part of a public relations exercise on how we get the message across about the role of the media in promoting a constructive debate. Should that be part of a governance inquiry? Would not it be part of an inquiry on how we present the role of the EU in Scotland? The draft remit seems slightly confused about the governance aspect. Are we talking about the governance that the Commission is examining, or how the EU governs in Scotland or implements law that affects Scotland? I would like to clear that up.

The Commission's work programme is referred to on page 1 of the draft terms of reference. To help address questions about governance, the Commission agreed to focus on six areas of work, which included:

"Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters".

The Commission considers that a significant part of the governance debate.

We must examine the concepts of governance, but our debate must contribute to the likely discussions in 2004 at the intergovernmental conference. What is being discussed in mainland Europe—but not in the UK—is not the Commission's role. Everything that I read in European newspapers suggests that the Commission is reaching the end of its life. It will change. It strikes me that our going over the ground of an organisation that may not exist in two or three years would be an ineffective use of our time. Our report would give a history lesson on what the Commission did and is doing but will not do in two or three years.

We must consider the proposals from the main European Governments about the development of a constitution in 2004. To be honest, our spending time trying to find out what the people of Scotland think about the EU would be a waste of resources, because we are not System 3 or MORI. We could not answer that question.

You are right—we are not conducting an inquiry into the Commission's future—but comment on the Commission must be part of an inquiry into governance, because in the short to medium term, the Commission will have a huge impact on everything that happens in Europe. However, I hope that our inquiry will go wider than that. Scotland's role in Europe must be the most important element.

Lloyd Quinan said that we must take account of events on the European mainland; I think that all members would agree with that. However, he also implied that such developments were not relevant to the people of Scotland and questioned why we should spend resources on ensuring that people are well informed and have the best information to help them to feed back their perceptions of events on mainland Europe.

Mr Quinan indicated disagreement.

Although Lloyd Quinan did not say those words, the meaning was implicit. I start from the premise that it is vital that we ensure that people throughout Scotland understand fully the real world in which the European Union and the Commission operate. Lloyd Quinan said that we need to understand what is happening in mainland Europe. When he says "we", does that mean just a select band of people in political circles, or people throughout Scotland? He implies that only those who are well informed can develop the debate, but it is vital that we ensure that the best information, about the facts, is available throughout Scotland. So many of us have seen the myths that are abroad—the straight banana syndrome.

You must have missed some of my comments, because that is a complete misinterpretation of what I said.

Hold on. The system cannot cope with two people speaking at once.

Yes it can.

We must engage in the debate as suggested in the draft terms of reference. How many schools engage in debate on Europe? We must ensure that school curriculums take cognisance of events in Europe, because schoolchildren are the stakeholders of the future and need to know how Europe influences them. More important, they need to know how they can influence the debate.

What is important is not us as politicians, but our ability to help people out there to engage in the wider debate. That is why I welcome that aspect in the scope of the inquiry and why I support the recommendations and questions in the draft terms of reference. The views of civic Scotland, how the measures or ideas might be developed to further the debate in Scotland and all the questions that are listed in the draft terms of reference are critical. I hope that members support that part of the inquiry.

Our debate probably mirrors the debate in Europe. Part of the problem is that governance means many different things to many different people. The Commission's latest work on governance arose from the difficulties that it faced in relation to fraud. The European Parliament held an inquiry into how the Commission allocated jobs, moneys and programmes. As a result of that inquiry, the Commission had to look at itself and reform itself, or it would have gone out of business.

That was the origin of the Commission's present governance inquiry, but the inquiry has broadened significantly. Other groups in Europe can contribute to that governance inquiry. I am in favour of having a tight remit, because otherwise we could do everything. Some issues that we rightly want to investigate, such as engaging civic Scotland, are valid, but we must decide what we mean by governance. We could make a valid contribution to the debate on some aspects, such as how we influence opinions in the Committee of the Regions, how we engage with other regional actors and how we co-operate with our MEPs and other players in Europe.

Many big questions must be answered. We need to be a wee bit careful about the extent of the remit. Having said that, regional government is the tier of government that is closest to the people, so we are uniquely placed to represent the interests of the people in the constitutional debate and other debates that are continuing in Europe. Perhaps we need to focus a wee bit more tightly and decide what governance means to the committee, because it can mean all things to all people.

After all that expansive chat, I will try to keep my comments fairly tightly focused. Everything that has been said has some validity. I will follow from what Lloyd Quinan said. Perhaps we should ask whither the governance of Europe, because Europe is moving all the time. It might be a little futile to get stuck with Europe's present position. We should ask whither the governance of Europe and whither Scotland in Europe, in whatever context it finds itself. How far we cast the net in the Scottish context is a matter of logistics, as well as of ambition and a willingness to consult everybody.

The point about Scotland's role is taken up in the suggestion for phase 2 of the proposed remit, on Scotland's role in Europe. You suggested asking whither the governance of Europe. The comments about keeping a tight remit would apply to that question.

It would be futile for us to speculate on every view that exists about how Europe should be governed. We need some parameters within which to operate and we must reflect on the current situation and the changes that are taking place. I do not disagree with Colin Campbell when he says that he wants to consider where Europe is going. I would, however, want to put a limit on that, because we could discuss it from now until the next century.

That is pejorative.

I do not think that it is pejorative.

The issue is whether it is worth debating. We should take the time that we require.

I am baffled at how you can think that what I said is pejorative.

I do not see how we can discuss, or indeed report on, the governance of the European Union without making specific reference to the present or future role of the European Commission, which is one of the most powerful structures in the European Union. We must consider what we approve and disapprove of in the various power structures that exist, and how we can make them more accountable. I am talking about not only the Commission, but the European Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Justice. I hope that we will consider those institutions and comment on how they are working and how they can be improved. Obviously, when we are considering their future development we should take into account enlargement and qualified majority voting. I hope that we will consider the various institutions and power structures in the EU with a critical eye.

Also, in view of the fact that we are one of the youngest Parliaments in the European Union, I hope that we can put great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. Our Parliament is an example of subsidiarity in practice. If there were more subsidiarity around the various institutions of the European Union, there would be more democracy and accountability.

I want to return to something that Lloyd Quinan said. The key is the IGC conference in 2004. Page 1 of the committee paper talks about the Commission's work programme. The two key issues for us are covered on page 2. One of those, the Union's contribution to world governance, is too broad a subject for us. However, the other issue is

"the integration and strategic dimension of policies across the continent"

and how we, as a region, fit into that. What is Scotland's position, when it comes to 2004? How do we, as a region, play a role in a reconstructed EU? It is the role of the Government to promote the EU to the public and the role of the Commission to pick up on public opinion and promote its policies. We, as a region, should be able to contribute to the Commission's examination of its relationship with member states prior to 2004. Our position will then be clear.

I want to return to the comment that the convener made when I suggested whither the EU and whither Scotland. It would give immediacy to the contributions of some of the best-informed bodies that have been involved with the agencies of the EU if we could get their suggestions about whither the EU. We should not discuss that at length and discuss nothing else, but we should not leave it out. We are going somewhere, but we do not quite know where. This is an opportunity for the people of Scotland to feed into that.

I do not disagree with you. What I said was that if we start that process, what we are doing must be clearly defined so that it does not drift on indefinitely.

I agree with some of what Ben Wallace said, but this is not about us conducting a poll of what people think about Europe; it is about where we—as the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament—see the Scottish Parliament fitting into the governance of the European Union. It is up to us to make up our minds, through debate and through convincing one another of where we want Scotland to be in a future, expanded EU. We talk about 2004 as though it was some faraway time, but it will be on top of us before we know it. Our inquiry has to be based on the contribution that we think we can make to the current debate, not on our analysis of the situation that we find ourselves in.

We have to know, therefore, what the other countries and sub-national Parliaments are doing to contribute to the debate on governance that will come up at the IGC in 2004. The UK Government is not in the least interested in debating that, but everyone else is. Our Sunday newspapers are full of it. The UK is 10 years behind in the debate, because we did not accept Europe in the first place. If the Scottish Parliament is to make a proper contribution, that contribution must be agreed on by the committee and by all parties and it must concern the Parliament's position in relation to the governance of Europe, not what people in Scotland think about Europe.

To pick up on Lloyd Quinan's point, if we want to involve civic Scotland in the debate we should involve it in the forward-looking debate, rather than the debate on where we are now.

How we engage civic Scotland is what I was envisaging when I spoke. I visited a couple of the universities recently and spoke to students and professors who were very interested in European matters. They were dying to have some kind of liaison with the Scottish Parliament. We have people all over Scotland who are bursting with ideas and enthusiasm and who want to be engaged. Lloyd Quinan and I differ somewhat on that. I am always an optimist—I believe that the glass is half full and not half empty. The people of Scotland have embraced Europe. What is perhaps controversial is the euro—that is a different matter altogether.

Scotland, and the UK at a national level—certainly my own party—have positively embraced Europe. I agree with much of what has been said by colleagues about being focused, but I would be sad if we lost that element of how we present the facts to the people of Scotland, as well as listening to what they have to say. That is critical to our assessment of where we are at the moment and how we engage with the mainland players in Europe. That point was made by Irene Oldfather, Lloyd Quinan and others. We need to ensure that we are part of the big game that goes on in Europe. We have always advocated that we need to be in there, playing with the big players, standing up for Scotland and being well informed about the views of the people of Scotland on the matter.

If we all had to identify one big question that we would like the inquiry to address, for me it would be to clarify and consider the role of the regions in an enlarged Europe. That is an important question for Scotland. In an enlarged, culturally diverse Europe of 27 or 30 nations, as opposed to 15, we will increasingly need to define what role the Committee of the Regions, for example, will play in EU law-making. How we engage in that will be important.

There is no disagreement that at some point in our inquiry we must refer to Scotland's role in Europe, the influence we have and the implications for subsidiarity. That is covered in the proposal for phase 2, which also touches on some of the things that Irene Oldfather mentioned, such as the role of the Committee of the Regions and whether there should be a second chamber. In a sense, that is beyond Scotland's role, but nevertheless there is an opportunity to reflect on it.

The proposal for phase 1 touches on some of the points that members have spoken about. There is no doubt that we have to talk to other people across Europe in

"a series of dialogues with key players in Scotland, in the rest of the UK and throughout the European Union."

We have to find out what governance means to them, as Irene Oldfather said, and look at ways in which to encourage key stakeholders to participate.

As Dennis Canavan said, we have to refer to enlargement and its implications. I agree with what has been said about the Commission. Irrespective of what one may think of the Commission at the moment, and irrespective of what one may think about its future, it exists and it is hugely influential, so we have to address it in anything we do.

I want to know whether we agree on the way forward. I suspect that the remit may change slightly over the first month or two as we begin to roll out the inquiry, but broadly, are we agreed that we should examine Scotland's role in Europe? Are we agreed that we should take a broader view: not just consider where Europe goes, but consider the role of the Commission, enlargement and the role Scotland's other representatives play? Is the inquiry the appropriate opportunity, as page 3 of our draft terms of reference says, for us to let others know what we are doing in Scotland and the contribution we can make not just to subsidiarity, but to the general process of governance, which is what the paper is trying to say? Are there other views on those issues?

As I said at the beginning, the inquiry should not be too broad. I think that we should just address phase 2. We would be biting off more than we could chew if we did phase 1 and phase 3. The meat of the inquiry is phase 2. How often have we seen ourselves bogged down in other things? We should narrow down and home in on phase 2.

We could go round in circles for ever. We have already agreed that we will appoint an adviser to consider how we proceed with the case study, which is phase 3. We are agreed on phase 2, so the only question is should there be an investigation into the issues beyond Scotland's role in Europe? From the soundings that I have taken, I think that there is agreement that the inquiry should be broader than just phase 2. Colin Campbell, Dennis Canavan and Helen Eadie have referred to that. I accept what Ben Wallace said about being focused, but at the moment I am at a bit of a loss—

Phase 1 is a legitimate thing to do, although I do not know whether it should be part of the inquiry. Engaging with young people in schools and with the media in relation to Europe and becoming involved with civic Scotland is all very useful and should be accorded quite a high priority, but I wonder whether doing that would hold back the results of the governance inquiry if at the same time we were trying to conclude what we hope will be a meaty submission to coincide with the work of the European Commission and presumably other regions and actors across Europe.

The thing that I am struggling with is the fact that on the common fisheries policy, for example, we said that we would like to find out how relevant people feel Europe is to them and the practical implications of the CFP. I cannot see how asking for the views of people in other regions and nations in Europe on governance could fail to add to the work that we do. The whole question of—

I have no problem with that, but what is listed in phase 1—

Hold on a minute, Irene. One at a time. That is what is suggested in phase 1.

In terms of phase 2 and phase 3, if we want to be in a really strong position and to be able to convince others on mainland Europe and elsewhere that our report is important, the very fact that we have done the basic work of going out to our communities to find out their views on what the way forward ought to be would only strengthen our final submission. I know from my dealings with them that people across Scotland are very positive about Europe, but they would like to know what is taking place in Europe and how they can be part of it. Whatever our report recommends, I hope that we will be able to recommend to people throughout Scotland the ways in which they can play a part in Europe.

I suggest that we are agreed on Scotland's role in Europe. We have already agreed to the case study and taking on an adviser for it. We agree that it would be helpful to have a Scottish European forum and that we should take a lead in that, but the series of visits and other areas of dialogue should be refined. We will come back to them. I cannot help but think that we need to engage in dialogue not just in Scotland, but elsewhere. Parameters have to be placed on that. Colin Campbell is right: we have to look at where Europe is going, but we also have to examine the role of the Commission.

What will be the parameters on who we will speak to? Are we going to speak to national parliaments, sub-national parliaments, parliaments with the same powers as us, parliaments that have more power than us, parliaments that have been going for 25 years, or parliaments that have been going for five years? Will we go to Northern Ireland? Will we go to Wales? What about the variations in the Spanish state? Will we speak to the Länder? Will we speak to Denmark? It is so vague.

I have already said that we will come back with a clearer definition of who we will speak to and when. Lloyd, we could have that debate on just about everything we do. We could have had that debate on the common fisheries policy or structural funds. On every issue, there could be a never-ending debate about who we should speak to. That would be a recipe for getting nothing done. We have agreed on the principle of governance. We have to move forward. I suggest that phase 2, on Scotland's role in Europe, must be developed. We have already agreed phase 3 in principle. I also suggest that we should adopt the proposal in phase 1, for a Scottish European forum, but beyond that, once the adviser is in place, we will come back with specific proposals on how we should promote dialogue and take evidence as we go forward.

Your proposal for the next meeting is good, convener. It would move phase 2 forward. I would not want to suggest that we should not take evidence. In fact, it will be crucial to phase 2 to take evidence from people such as members of the Committee of the Regions, and to build into that a geographical and political spread. I do not have a problem with that. There is some overlap, for example in the emphasis on the series of visits to schools and so on. That is a useful thing to do, but should perhaps take second place to what we have agreed.

I have already accepted that we will try and work out the dialogue process as we move forward. That is not fundamental to the rest of the report—it is a mechanical detail that we can resolve.

Members of the Committee of the Regions are coming. Will we be speaking to the Assembly of European Regions?

No. We have the Committee of the Regions, which is recognised in European treaties. There is a problem with the future of the Assembly of European Regions. I know that several bodies have withdrawn from it and there is some internal debate about its future. The AER is not recognised in the way that the Committee of the Regions is.

You could say that about the Scottish Parliament, which is also not recognised.

Except for the fact that we sit here. If we are going to say that we do not recognise ourselves—

I am not talking about our point of view. I was assuming that you were talking about being recognised by the European Union, convener.

There is a plethora of bodies in Europe that we could invite if we applied that logic. We could be here until this time next year talking to them all. The Committee of the Regions has a certain status. There are issues about its role; the minister and others have made some suggestions about how it may be reformed. Those suggestions, although fairly controversial, are part of the political discussion.

Members of the Committee of the Regions are coming to give evidence. If at some point we think we need to talk to a range of other European bodies, we can consider that, but at the moment that option is not on the table.

Sometimes, when a member says something in a debate such as this, another member misunderstands what the first member said. When I talked about young people, I did not intend that members should go round schools; I meant that we should invite representatives of young people to come here and give evidence.

I understand what Lloyd Quinan is saying about the Assembly of European Regions. The only thing I would add is that there might be some merit in inviting some of the other local government organisations in Europe that have a very high standing, such as the North Sea Commission, which is well respected by the Scottish Executive and local authorities across Europe. There might be some value in considering the longer term and hearing from bodies that have been around for 20 years or so, such as the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe and the North Sea Commission.

I am sure that we will be able to contact some of those bodies.

Do members agree to the broad terms of the remit, reflecting the discussion that has taken place? We will spend some time trying to refine phase 1 and ensuring that we refer to the role of the Commission, as Dennis Canavan suggested.

What timetable do we have in mind, bearing in mind that the European Commission is publishing a white paper in a couple of months' time?

The suggested timetable is on page 8 of the briefing.

Will we get a copy of the revised remit before we agree on it?

Yes.

Are we confident that our timetable will dovetail with that of the Commission? We would want to feed in before firm decisions are taken on the future governance of the European Union. We do not want to be left commenting on a fait accompli.

The white paper will be published during the recess. If we can prepare our plans before then, we will be able to consider what comes out in the white paper and reflect that in our work.

I dare say that there will be enough headings and meat in the white paper for us to comment on.

No doubt.