Official Report 204KB pdf
Since we last met, the Scottish Affairs Committee has agreed to conduct an inquiry into Scotland and the European Union. We have a paper from the clerks that outlines the timetable for that, including the deadline for written submissions, which is 13 October. The four bullet points in the paper flag up what the inquiry will focus on. The most important of those points is the representation of Scotland's interests in EU policy making. There has been a kind of overlap in some of our discussions, although many of our concerns were about the relationship between the Parliament and the Government here in Scotland. However, there are issues to be discussed. The first is whether the committee wishes to make a submission. If we do, what would be the key issues for us to raise? Alternatively, do members just want to note the issue and leave it to the Westminster Parliament?
The first two items are definitely within the remit of this Parliament. Why the Scottish Affairs Committee is bothering with this, I do not know. I suppose they have got nothing else to do all day at Westminster. We have already covered all this.
What about the representation of Scotland's interests in EU policy making, in so far as they are filtered through Westminster and its departments? The problem in the past has been that, when a UK department has acted on a European interest, the Scottish Government's views have not been taken into account. Do we not want to raise that issue?
We have already raised that with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee. It is more an issue for that committee than for the Scottish Affairs Committee, which would just be raking over old coals.
That is not to say that they are not important coals. As Keith Brown said, we have discussed whether Scotland's interests are being fully represented, but the issues that we came across last session were the transparency of that representation, the status of the memorandum of understanding and to what extent the Scottish Government or anybody else is able to state openly what position it has argued for and how that may differ from the UK Government's position.
Why do we not send the committee a copy of the work that we have done, including an update on the discussions that we have had with Michael Connarty and the European Scrutiny Committee? He is chairman of that committee. We could then have an informal session with the Scottish Affairs Committee and ascertain whether it needed clarification on anything.
Are you suggesting that we make a formal written submission?
I would just send the committee information about what we have done, with a covering note, rather than make a special submission.
You mean send copies of the Official Report and so on.
Aye.
I have already spoken to the clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee and have done what members have suggested in that I have sent copies of our two reports on the transposition and the scrutiny of European legislation, which means that they are aware of that work. We can perhaps offer to have an informal follow-up meeting.
So we can have an informal meeting as a follow-up to the reports that we have already sent. Are people happy with that?
Meeting continued in private until 11:26.
Previous
“Brussels Bulletin”