Item 2 is the Executive's response to the committee's report on Scotland's representation in the EU. In general, the response to our report has been helpful and positive. I am pleased that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has agreed to our recommendation to appoint someone in Brussels. I believe that an advertisement has already gone out to the press. That is welcome news.
Generally, I think that the Executive's response is positive, but I wonder about recommendation 7, on page 5, about the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's proposal for a comprehensive UK database. The Executive's response was:
We could ask the clerks to check the online source that has been given to us, to determine whether it meets the committee's requirements. Would that be a way forward? It would be difficult for us to cost such a database ourselves. Do other members have a view? I have not checked the website, so I am not certain how useful the source is and whether it is what we were looking for—I am a little bit in the dark. I do not know whether Stephen Imrie has checked the website or whether he has further information for us.
I would be happy to provide committee members with details. I know that the website operates at the level of the European Union, so, although it shows which legislation is forthcoming in Europe and at what stage it is in the European decision-making process, it does not mention at what stage the legislation is at UK level or in Scotland—there would be a lack of information in relation to the decision-making process internal to the UK or to the Scottish Parliament. I think that SEPA's proposal was for a comprehensive database at a UK level, which would track legislation from the cradle to the grave through the various decision-making processes. The website referred to by the Executive would not show that, because it is an EU website.
It might be worth asking SEPA for its comments on the Executive's response.
That is a fair point. I would be happy to do that.
It strikes me that one would not expect the Scottish Executive to have a UK-level tracking database. The idea is one of best practice. It would be a good idea to speak to SEPA, but it would also be good to kick the issue not back to the Scottish Executive, but to the UK Government and ask whether it has any plans to do something along those lines in the future.
I think that we agree that we should seek further information from SEPA and, if appropriate, write to the UK minister involved, drawing their attention to the committee's comments in the report and asking for a response. Would that be a reasonable way in which to proceed?
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any other comments?
I am sorry that Ben Wallace is not present, because he would probably feel the same as I feel to some extent. It was gratifying to be one of the two reporters who worked on the report on Scotland's presence in Europe. We are pleased with the fairly positive reaction to it, especially from the SPCB.
The clerks have pursued that recommendation and a network has been established. Corrie McChord was keen to develop that and all 32 authorities are involved.
That is excellent.
That is good progress. What you said was right. We record our thanks to you and Ben Wallace for the effort that you put into the inquiry, which is a good piece of work.
It is good news that the network is being established. Could we ask Andy Kerr, who is the minister with responsibility for local government, whether the Executive will support the network? I agree that the matter is for COSLA and the local authorities. They have taken the step, but, if they are to run the network, they must find funding for it, which will ultimately come from council tax. I think that that is part of our external affairs remit.
I asked Stephen Imrie whether the Executive was involved, but it seems that only the committee, COSLA and the local authorities have been involved so far. Perhaps the clerks could explore involvement with Executive officials and find out whether extending involvement or resourcing has merit.
The responses to what were pretty detailed recommendations are positive. Revisiting the matter in a year's time will be critical, to evaluate the efforts to provide more transparency and more up-to-date information for organisations—particularly some of the charities or NGOs that we have mentioned—that have less capacity to engage in European issues. We should see how the new approach follows through. The set of responses is good. I am particularly interested in the European members information liaison exchange network—there needs to be a debate on how EMILE works to co-ordinate matters or to provide an opportunity to discuss issues.
With those comments, can we agree to note the Executive's response? I understand that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning is now here, so I propose that we take a five-minute break to allow members to have a coffee and so that the minister can take his seat.
In paragraph 15, the Executive's response is:
I am not sure.
Could we ask the Executive about that?
The question about paragraph 17 has been answered to some extent by the SPCB, I think.
Paragraph 17 is about securing secretariat support for the Scottish Parliament's Committee of the Regions members. The Executive is saying that that would have to be debated in Parliament and carried by Parliament. I suggest that we could start the ball rolling by having a combined motion on recommendations 14, 15 and 17, if the Executive is in favour of them. The Executive says that they are matters for the Parliament. If we could find out whether the Executive would support such a motion, should not we try to lodge one?
I know that, in relation to recommendation 15, on the network of regional parliamentary European committees, the Executive has always been supportive in discussions—it has been keen for the committee to pursue such links.
In its response, the Executive seems to be saying, "If you want something to be done about this, lay something before Parliament."
I am not sure that that is what the Executive is saying. The Executive is saying that it is not commenting on recommendations 14 and 15 because they relate to the committee and the Parliament rather than to the Executive. The Executive has always been supportive of what we have been doing in those areas. I honestly do not think that there is a problem.
I do not think that there is a problem, either; I am thinking about whether we could action the matter.
I think that we can action it. We have actioned NORPEC—the committee has been going ahead on that. We have agreed the submission to the European convention on the future of Europe, as I shall mention in the convener's report. We have, as a courtesy, kept the Executive informed of the things that we are doing. We have always received positive responses from the Executive. There is nothing to prevent us from continuing with our proposed actions.
We could deal with recommendation 17 by lodging a motion before Parliament to provide secretariat support for the Parliament's Committee of the Regions members.
I think that the Brussels post will cover that; we will have support. That has been agreed by the SPCB, so we will have full support for the Parliament's Committee of the Regions members. We are already there on most of the issues. That is why I think that the report and the response represent a step forward.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—