European and External Relations Committee, 14 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Official Report 300KB pdf

---

Sift

The final item on the agenda is consideration of the sift paper, which, because we did not meet during the recess, is relatively big. As ever, the documents of special importance are highlighted for members.

I refer the committee to document 1335. Can someone explain the phrase

"required to further the political project proposed by the Commission"?

I understand that the Commission does not have any political projects as such.

The phrase that Phil Gallie cites is a direct quote from the Commission's paper. We would have to write to the Commission for clarification.

Can we do that and ask the Commission what its political project is, unless a member of the committee can provide an explanation?

I am not responding to Phil Gallie's point. It is fair enough if he wants to seek information from the Commission. However, I note that a UK Government explanatory memorandum is available. In the light of the committee's substantial work on structural funds, it would be helpful either for us to examine the whole document or for the clerks to produce a summary of it for consideration by the committee, so that we can discuss it, perhaps together with the Executive's response to the committee's report.

Would Phil Gallie be happy for the committee to proceed as Irene Oldfather suggests?

I would like to have a specific explanation of the words that have been used. We are told that the Commission does not have a political project.

I refer to document 1357, on education. The paper relates to the youth in action programme. I raised with the minister the issue of fostering mutual understanding between the different peoples of the European Union through young people and through exchange. I would like to know more about that paper.

I also highlight document 1263, which is entitled "Note from Netherlands presidency to the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs: EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012)".

I would like to make another brief point about the sift. During the recess, we were attacked by an MEP, who accused us of not doing our job in relation to the proposed Community fisheries control agency, I believe. I do not want in any way to damage relations with MEPs, but the MEP who attacked us was a representative of my party. I was very concerned about what happened and the way in which it happened, especially as I had tried to be helpful to her office in providing information. Although the press release was withdrawn, it reached The Herald.

It is important that, if MEPs are considering the work of the committee, they should first speak to the clerks and others to get their facts right. The incident also raises the question of our relationship with MEPs. The minister spoke about what the Executive is doing to build relations with MEPs and I fully support that initiative. However, we need to consider—apart from through EMILE and the joint forums where we meet MEPs—how we relate to them and build a constructive relationship with them. We certainly do not want to get into any more confrontations.

Subsequent to the issuing of the press release, we received a letter from the MEP concerned that made no reference to it and brought to our attention the issue mentioned by Keith Raffan. That was the proper channel to go down in the first place.

I was not aware of the incident to which Keith Raffan refers, but he makes a valid point about liaison with MEPs. It would be in the committee's best interests to improve that relationship. In the past, we have met MEPs on our annual trip to Brussels. For various reasons, it was mostly new committee members who went last time. We have spoken for some time about visiting the Parliament in Strasbourg when it is in plenary session, so perhaps the committee will consider that at some point. When we look at our forward work programme, we should try to timetable in some discussions with MEPs to ensure that we can work in tandem and in partnership on issues that affect Scotland. I support what Keith Raffan says, but we need to look for mechanisms to develop that process.

It is important that we work in partnership and in tandem with the MEPs and that we do not get into point-scoring exercises. That was not the intention behind the unfortunate incident of which we have spoken—we certainly do not want to repeat it. Strasbourg is notoriously difficult to get to and back from, which might create problems for us when it comes to whipping, unless we make the trip during a recess. It might be worth looking at that in the future.

I will ensure that the clerks take on board those comments and look for the earliest opportunity at which the committee can meet the new intake of MEPs.

As there are no further comments on the sift document, and before I draw the meeting to a close, let me say that it has been a pleasure working with the committee during the past year and a half. I have thoroughly enjoyed my position as convener of what is an interesting committee. I hope that we have fulfilled our obligation to hold the Executive to account and that, as a result, the committee has battled a little harder for Scotland in Europe and overseas. I hope that we have successfully raised the profile of the committee and European matters in the Parliament and the Parliament's profile in Europe and overseas. Finally, I record my thanks to the clerks, who have given me enormous support in my role as convener and I wish the committee all the best for the future. On that note, I bring the meeting to a close—

You cannot do that without allowing us some mutual back-slapping.

I am always game for a bit of mutual back-slapping.

The deputy convener might want to say something, but let me add that I was delighted when you were appointed the first convener of the committee in this session. You have fulfilled your role with dignity, despite the political banter that you have had to put up with at times. You have done well and I have enjoyed serving on the committee with you.

I endorse those remarks and thank you for the work that you have put in, convener. It has not always been easy, particularly when you have had to reconcile those who are extremely pro-Europe such as me and Europhobes such as Mr Gallie. You managed to keep us all together in a friendly mode. We wish you well for the future and your many years in opposition.

I was beginning to like you, Keith, until that last comment.

I echo my colleagues' comments. As deputy convener, I think that we have produced some good work in the committee. We wish you well in your new job and thank you for your work over the past year.

Thank you.

Meeting closed at 17:08.