European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Official Report 545KB pdf

---

Committee of the Regions

Agenda item 7 is consideration of paper 6, which is a proposal for a system for reporting on the Committee of the Regions. I am keen to get members’ ideas on it.

One thing that came to light for me is that our parliamentarians who are members of the Committee of the Regions take their guidance from the Local Government Association, whereas the local authority members are linked to COSLA. The Local Government Association is a London-based organisation, and there is perhaps a concern about how we take forward the conversation.

The clerks have put together an idea for how the Committee of the Regions members could report back to this committee and I am keen to get members’ ideas on it. I refer members to the conclusions in paragraph 9.

I understand point 9a and point 9c—they seem to make perfect sense—but I am not sure what scenario is being anticipated in point 9b, as distinct from points 9a and 9c.

I was trying to capture the idea that the COR members could participate specifically with the subject committees. Perhaps I did not make that as clear as I could have done. It struck me that there would be merit in a subject committee discussing a particular issue and the COR member being either ex officio around the table, or a provider of expert knowledge. This was about the subject committees in particular. There might be occasions when this committee is involved. That was the rationale.

That makes it quite clear, thanks.

I will clarify that point.

Is it prudent for membership to be for just one year at a time?

We do not control that.

Okay. It is just that, to have stability, you really need longer than that.

Members are appointed for the entire session and they can carry over if they secure re-election.

Does each party have a member?

No, but proposals to adjust the representation have been discussed. The idea is that there would probably be—[Interruption.] The notes have very helpfully been brought out. The plan would be that there would be one member each from the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Labour Party and two alternate members: one each from the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The idea is that there would be two full members and two alternate members; the full members would be from the SNP and Labour, and the alternates would be from the Conservatives and the Lib Dems.

I support the conclusion, now that I have understood point 9b. That makes sense, and it would be workable. It would be informative for the COR representatives and for the Parliament’s committees.

I concur with what Annabelle Ewing has just said. It is imperative for the Committee of the Regions members to be able to report back to this committee and it is also a good idea for them to report back to our subject committees, to ensure that we maintain continuity.

I think that you are right. I did not like the light touch element. There has to be some sort of reporting back, albeit not as part of any tight, formal mechanism. We have moved on, yet nothing has changed since 12 years ago. If we want our committees to be much more interactive, we need to encourage that element.

Are members content to pass this to the Presiding Officer?

Members indicated agreement.

We will move on to agenda items 8 and 9, which we agreed to discuss in private.

16:38 Meeting continued in private until 17:00.