Official Report 176KB pdf
I seek the committee's agreement to change the agenda around slightly and take item 3 before item 2. Item 3 is consideration of the draft terms of reference for an inquiry into the possibility of a programme of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland and item 2 is on the European Commission's plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate. Changing the items around will allow Mr Dennis Canavan to attend another committee meeting that is important to him. Do members agree that we should swap those items round?
Special treatment again.
Mr Canavan is a very special member.
I thank the convener and members of the committee for agreeing to take my item now. I do not intend to bore the committee by repeating what I said when we discussed the matter at our previous meeting.
Does anyone have any questions for Mr Canavan? If not, I take it that everyone is perfectly happy to go ahead with the proposed inquiry. Is that agreed?
The proposal is sensible.
Thank you, Dennis.
Thank you. I hope to return to the meeting later.
We move on to what was originally item 2. At our meeting on 25 October, the committee agreed to consider the draft terms of reference for an inquiry into the European Commission's plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate, which was launched a couple of weeks before that meeting.
I welcome the aims that the clerks have set out and I thank the clerks for providing the communication from the European Commission on plan D, which is interesting. In the light of the discussion at our previous meeting about making the inquiry targeted and focused—and in the light of some of our previous inquiries—I have a suggestion.
We can return to the details later. The committee agreed previously that the inquiry must be focused. It is the kind of inquiry that could potentially go on for ever. We must also bear the timescale in mind. The Commission is looking for submissions by April. Considering the magnitude of the subject, that seems a ridiculously tight deadline for proper responses to be made from all over the European Union. Irene Oldfather makes a good point when she suggests that we cut down the witness sessions and focus them tightly.
I was, but I have an awful sense of foreboding about this, not least as a member of the Communities Committee, which, two weeks ago, devoted a Saturday to listening to representations from community councils from all over Scotland. As far as plan D and matters European are concerned, we might start with the best of intentions, as always, and put together a convention of the usual suspects, but they will say what they always say and it will turn out to be terribly predictable. There is nothing wrong with that—it is legitimate as far as it goes—but it means that we will not necessarily connect with the people of Scotland.
We could perhaps seek advice from the Scottish Civic Forum, for example.
I share John Home Robertson's sense of foreboding.
We are doomed.
Yes. I have read through all the papers that were given to us by the clerks, whom I congratulate on their work and research. However, we are not being targeted when it comes to the aims of our inquiry. I do not see where we are going. I thought that we were going to tie in specific areas of European policy, establishing how they might impact on Scotland.
Should we take the issue by the horns and decide what the committee thinks Scotland should get out of the plan? Should we ask the UK Government how it intends to make its submission and whom it is consulting? Should we ask the Scottish Executive how it is dealing with the matter? After all, this is supposed to be a nationwide debate about Europe. Should our focus be first on checking what the member state and its components intend to do, seeing whether that will benefit the people of Scotland and then deciding what representation would be most appropriate for us to make in the short timescale that is available to us?
The more that I read and reread plan D and the paper on the proposed inquiry, the more confused I became. Neither plan D nor the subject of the inquiry is clear. I do not see how we can engage the public in a discussion about anything if we cannot articulate in a sentence or two what we are discussing. The more that I read the documents, the less I understand what the inquiry would be about. As Margaret Ewing said, the term "Eurobabble" springs to mind. This does not seem to be a particularly attractive option for an inquiry. I am sceptical about it.
Perhaps we should tell the Commission that. After all, it is consulting.
I thought that Derek Brownlee and the Conservatives would be lining up to get into this issue and to tell everyone what is wrong with Europe. Regardless of whether we get involved, there will be a consultation across Europe. I understand that regions in other member states will want to be involved in it, and I am surprised that Margaret Ewing does not. We should recall what we have done before. I believe that we were the first regional Parliament committee in the United Kingdom to produce a report of an inquiry into the future of Europe, and our report strongly influenced the UK's submission to the convention. About 90 per cent of the ideas in the UK's submission came out of the work that the committee did. Jim Wallace will remember that, because he was the minister responsible at the time. We have an opportunity to influence the agenda and to connect with citizens. If we do not pursue the inquiry, that opportunity will be lost.
As you suggested, convener, it would be useful to find out what the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive are doing. There is no point in our going off at a tangent. We have a better chance of influencing what the UK Government proposes if we know what it is looking at. I appreciate that time is tight, but I think that we would be better informed about how to go about our deliberations if we had that information. By all means, let us have a questionnaire with six questions, but let us ensure that the six questions are relevant to the way in which the Government is going. We might have a genuine opportunity to influence what the Government proposes if we know the parameters of its work.
I am a bit disconcerted. I thought that we decided at the previous meeting, albeit with reservations, that we would do this, but some of the reservations that are now being expressed are along the lines of, "Should we really be doing this?" I do not relish the prospect of committee decisions being reversed at subsequent committee meetings.
I understand members' reservations and agree with a lot of what has been said. Irene Oldfather is right to say that we must address the matter, and Charlie Gordon is right to say that we made a decision and that we should not reverse decisions. I suggest that we write immediately to the Minister for Europe asking what the UK position is and how the UK Government is engaging in order to be able to make its submission at the appropriate time. I suggest that we also invite the appropriate minister from the Scottish Executive, and perhaps someone from the Commission, to come along to a committee meeting, and I think that the meeting on 6 December is the best one to aim for. At that meeting, we can hear from them and consider the information that we receive from the UK Government. We will also have taken time to think about how we can approach the people from whom we want information. We can then make a decision about how to proceed.
When you write to the Minister for Europe, as well as asking generally about how the United Kingdom Government is taking the matter forward, would it also be helpful to ask what the United Kingdom Government would find beneficial as observations from a devolved Parliament?
I want to clarify that I was not suggesting that we should not engage with the exercise. I was concerned that it was so wide ranging that we could end up with a paper—this could bring me on to the issue of representatives—that did not have the tight focus that we want. We should not simply say that we want to play a part and submit a paper somewhere. I thought that our original plan, two weeks ago, was that our paper would be based on a specific policy aspect.
I think that that suggestion was made as part of a separate discussion on Jim Wallace's proposal for an inquiry.
Yes—it was a separate suggestion.
However, we certainly said that our inquiry on plan D should be tightly focused and it is important that that remains a central tenet of what we do.
Would the intention be to refine the aims of the inquiry in the light of what we learn? The nub of my reservation is the lack of meat in the aims of the inquiry.
That would be a natural progression. Given the short timescale that was available, we were anxious to make progress quickly, but you are right that the aims of the inquiry must be more focused for it to be effective.
I am sorry, but I did not think that we had finished our consideration of the plan D inquiry. Section 4.3.3 on page 10 of the Commission communication is about targeted focus groups, which I thought were a very good idea. It says:
That suggestion is made in the paper we have. All sorts of initiatives are going on. Yesterday I heard about a European youth pact, which I had not been aware of; I do not know whether other members had heard of it. Our Youth Parliament is involved in that. It is important that we engage our young people.
If the list of witnesses that is on page 4 of paper EU/S2/05/16/1, in the annex, is a list of people whom we would like to invite to give oral evidence, it is far too big. That is why I suggested sending a targeted questionnaire to the groups in the list and keeping a tight focus when we decide on those from whom to take evidence.
I suggest that we should issue a direct invitation to give evidence to an EU commissioner of our choice—or any commissioner. In many ways, the trade commissioner might be the most important person to ask because trade is fundamental to the Scottish economy, but I do not know whether Peter Mandelson would want to come to the Scottish Parliament. We should have a mechanism for contacting commissioners directly, as opposed to representatives who work in the Commission office here. Although Liz Holt does an excellent job, it would be good to hear from a commissioner. It would also be worth while to ask Douglas Alexander, the Minister for Europe, whether he would be prepared to give an indication—perhaps in the form of a letter—of what is happening in his department. Many of the people on the list appear at virtually every committee meeting, so it might be better if we invited a commissioner directly.
The list was intended to provide examples of people who might be able to give evidence or to take part in focus groups, conventions and so on. We have agreed to write to Douglas Alexander, although his schedule might not allow him to come to a meeting in the relevant timescale. We will keep Liz Holt on our list, but will consider the possibility of inviting someone directly from the Commission. You are right that that would give us a different perspective.
I agree with Margaret Ewing on that. Section 4 of the Commission document mentions visits by commissioners to member states. I am sure that Margaret Ewing will agree that we would welcome one of the vice-presidents of the Commission or one of the commissioners coming to Scotland as part of a visit to the member state. The Commission communication talks about involving the commissioner from the relevant member state, so perhaps we could invite Mr Mandelson. I see that David Martin MEP is watching from the public gallery; I know that he has very good relations with Mr Mandelson, so perhaps he could put in a word for us. We might be able to welcome Mr Mandelson along to the committee.
We are really quite a nice committee.
In our list of witnesses, it will be important to go beyond the usual suspects. If we are to invite a group of organisations that are likely to offer one perspective, we are not likely to get the debate and dialogue that the European Union considers so important. My colleague Mr Gallie has suggested that the omission of the Bruges Group is obviously a typo—although I suspect that it may not have been. However, the point about engaging people who may offer a different perspective is valid.
I would never pigeon-hole you, Derek.
That is very nice to know.
Margaret Ewing referred to the Scottish Youth Parliament and that made me think back to the convention that we held in our old chamber up the hill. Some of the most interesting contributions were made by school pupils from Denny. I do not know whether somebody had contacted the school, but it would be worth doing such a thing again. We could pick any school in Scotland, at random, and ask some interested young people to come and say what they think of the European Union and where they think it should be going. Hearing from school pupils was one of the most valuable parts of that convention, which was otherwise awfully predictable.
That time, we contacted loads of schools, and more people wanted to come than we were able to house in the Parliament. We had a huge response and I imagine that it would be the same again.
It is a rich seam; we should contact schools again.
Yes, quite right.
Yes, I will stay quiet now.
Previous
Item in Private