European and External Relations Committee, 11 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

European Union Reform Treaty

The fourth item on the agenda is consideration of correspondence from the Scottish Government. Members will recall that, at its meeting on 30 October, the committee considered a paper by the clerk on the EU reform treaty and agreed to seek clarification from the Scottish Government on a number of issues. Copies of the committee's letter and the response from the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture are attached as annex A. The paper from the clerk proposes certain action. Do members have any comments on the letter from the minister or the clerk's paper?

I am happy with bullet points 1 and 2 of the recommendations. However, on bullet point 3, I notice that the deadline for submissions to the House of Lords committee's inquiry is 14 December, and I wonder whether we have discussed the matter enough to make a submission as a committee.

Perhaps we could ask for an extension.

I would be happy with that. At the moment, all that we have is the minister's letter, which contains some mixed messages. For example, she says:

"there are no uniquely Scottish points of substance"

and that

"The Scottish legal system's interests … coincide with those of the other jurisdictions in the UK".

However, she makes a different point—one with which I do not particularly agree—on marine biological conservation. Also, we have the joint ministerial committee on Europe, which would provide an opportunity for the Government to articulate its views on the reform treaty, so I am not clear what we would highlight as the committee's concerns, as opposed to the minister's concerns.

Perhaps "submission" suggests something bigger than what is intended. My understanding—the clerk can comment in a moment—is that the recommendation relates to the fact that consultation with the Scottish Government has not been mentioned. Will you clarify that, Jim?

In its initial letter to the minister, the committee raised concerns about the absence of reference to the devolved Administrations in the UK Government's white paper and the explanatory memorandum that the UK Government presented to Westminster. The intention was to flag up both those points.

It is a specific comment rather than a detailed submission.

If it is a specific point, that is fair enough.

Do members agree with the recommendations as set out in the clerk's paper?

Members indicated agreement.