Official Report 205KB pdf
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the third meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in 2007. I have received apologies from Irene Oldfather and Gordon Jackson, who are unwell—separately unwell rather than together unwell.
The mind boggles.
Item 1 on the agenda is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Under item 4, the committee will discuss its priorities for the European Commission's legislative and work programme for 2007. Do members agree that we should discuss those issues in private?
No, convener. As you are well aware, I am happy to have discussions in private when the committee is considering its reports, but consideration of the Commission's work programme is a different issue altogether. An excellent paper has been prepared by our European officer, which lays out the key issues that Europe will be addressing in the coming year, and our views on those issues should be made public. I cannot see any excuse whatsoever for the committee wanting to hide behind an internal discussion.
We will not be discussing anything that has already been agreed by this committee; we will be discussing information that has been provided to the committee by officers and deciding whether we agree with it.
It is a very good paper and I can see nothing wrong with discussing it in public. Has the paper been published along with the other committee papers?
It will be published once it has been agreed by the committee. The only reason for not publishing it would be if the committee fundamentally disagreed with it.
Does the author have a problem with its being published?
It is not up to the author whether the paper is published or not; it is up to the committee.
In the longer term, it would be completely legitimate to publish the paper. However, in effect, we will be negotiating on someone's job description. We will be talking about a particular piece of work that an individual will be asked to do. When we get to the end of that negotiation—after having considered what influence we can have and what constraints will be on us—that might be the time to publish information on the workload of the particular officer. However, we should not do that when we are still trying to agree what that workload might be.
I was reasonably relaxed about holding a discussion on our priorities in public. However, taking into account both the nature of the paper and Bruce Crawford's point, I would not go to the stake over it.
I do not want to prolong this discussion, as the minister is waiting. Do we have a consensus on what to do?
No, we do not have a consensus. Bruce Crawford's comment about this being consideration of a work schedule for the European officer is nonsense. The paper is a list of priorities that have been set down for the European officer to address. He already has his job description and is fully aware of it. I originally opposed the creation of the post, but I regret that now. It is obvious that he is doing a good job across there and that it is necessary to have him there.
Rather than talking any more about this we should move to a vote. Mr Gallie, are you proposing that we do not take item 4 in private and that we take it in public?
Yes.
The question is, that we take item 4 in public. Is that agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 2, Abstentions 3.