Item 3 is consideration of the committee's external affairs remit. Members have a copy of Jim Wallace's letter. Members will remember that the Procedures Committee agreed in principle that our remit should be extended, but we have been waiting for a response from the minister.
Would it be possible to ask for clarification? The definition of the European Union and the European Commission seem to be clear, but what is the meaning of the line
We have waited a long time for the letter.
Exactly.
Might it be better not to ask what it means and simply interpret it in its broadest and most generous spirit?
I am not sure that we can do that, given that—
Oh, yes we can.
The word "Europe" is self-evident. The phrases "Scotland overseas" and the "Executive's international activities" would probably cover more than the EU.
The key issue, which Colin Campbell is missing, is that the letter refers to
I suggest that we push ahead on agreement to extend the committee's external relations remit. We can invite the minister to an early meeting, at which we will explore with him the remit as outlined in the letter. Is that a reasonable solution? We could try all day to interpret—
That is what I am saying. I do not want to interpret it; I am not interested in that. I am sure that, when Jim sat down with his minions to write the letter, they decided on the sentence
It seems fair to assume that the relations relate to the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. It must mean the European Union; it cannot mean NATO, as we have nothing to do with defence—
It is not NATO, it is—
One person at a time. John has not finished his point.
As the convener said, the letter has taken a long time to come. We now have a summary of the minister's European and external affairs remit. That includes, in the final bullet point:
The alternative would be for us to send a letter back to the minister, which would hold up things again. The sensible way for us to proceed is on the basis of the definition that we have. We should try to get the extension of our remit tidied up through the Procedures Committee and then invite the minister to a meeting at which we can explore the detail of the definition and other matters.
I agree. Lloyd Quinan's point about the meaning of "Europe" is interesting. Relations could be not with individual countries but with organisations, such as the Nordic Council, where there are fishing or tourism overlaps. There are interesting issues that we could explore with Jim Wallace.
Is it agreed that we recommend to the Procedures Committee that our remit be extended to mirror the minister's activities in relation to external affairs and that we return to the question whether that amendment is temporary or permanent? We are a mandatory committee, rather than a subject committee, which means that there will be a European Committee after the next election. If the responsibility for external affairs is added to our remit now, should it continue to be a mandatory part of that remit after the next election or would we want the bureau to regard it as a temporary addition to our remit? That is something else that we must refer to the Procedures Committee.
I understand that, under the Scotland Act 1998, a vote in the House of Commons would be required to change the remit of a mandatory committee.
Yes. That is a point. Perhaps the clerk can help.
To change the remit of a mandatory committee under the Scotland Act 1998 would require a vote in the House of Commons. That will throw up another interesting debate.
We might need to take legal advice on that. I understood that we could amend standing orders to add external affairs to our remit.
I would caution members against that.
Let us take advice from our legal adviser.
What we are talking about is not in any remit that is defined under the Scotland Act 1998. Responsibility for external affairs is not part of the devolution settlement.
The Scotland Act 1998 does not contain anything about mandatory committees, which are regulated by the standing orders. Although I am a legal adviser, I advise only on European Community law. The person in the legal office who prepared the options paper that the Procedures Committee requested on the extension of the European Committee's remit is not here today. She is giving evidence to the Local Government Committee.
You seem to be saying that your understanding is that the committee's remit could be amended by standing orders. That would be within the remit of the Parliament.
Yes. The standing orders are made by the Parliament and can be changed by the Parliament.
That may make the process of change a lot swifter.
In fairness to the convener and Christine Boch, we should consult on the matter. It is mandatory that there should be a European Committee—we all know that. The question is whether we can add on this extra, peripheral function without causing problems. We should agree to that amendment subject to clarification of the matter by the lawyers.
It makes sense for the committee to have one remit rather than one part of the committee's remit being mandatory and one part being temporary, at the discretion of the Parliamentary Bureau.
The function of the European Committee is clearly defined. However, the external affairs brief is not referred to in the Scotland Act 1998. My concern is that, if a power is added to a mandatory committee of the Parliament, there is the potential that it would suffer a judicial review. That concern was thrown at me by an advocate not two hours ago.
Why do we not ask for clarification? Am I right in interpreting that the committee's view is that we would prefer external affairs to be added to the remit on a mandatory, permanent basis if that is possible?
Mandatory committees are established under standing orders for the duration of the parliamentary session. Their remits can be changed only by the Parliament's agreeing to change standing orders. That means that the change would have to go through the Procedures Committee and a report would have to be made to the Parliament. If the change were agreed by the Parliament, the new remit would endure until the end of the session. However, it would not necessarily have any impact after the election. The remit could be changed by the Parliament after the election.
That confirms what most of us understood.
That clarifies whether Parliament can amend the remit or whether the matter is covered by the Scotland Act 1998. We can proceed on the basis that external affairs be added to the mandatory remit of the committee.