Work Programme
Item 5 is to consider correspondence from Patricia Ferguson MP—sorry, I am giving you a different title, Patricia. I welcome Patricia Ferguson MSP to the committee.
It is worth noting that the committee has already agreed to revisit the issue of Scotland’s relations with the EU on publication of the Scottish Government’s white paper on the constitutional arrangements. With that in mind, it would be useful if members focused only on Patricia Ferguson’s proposal that the committee should undertake an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the issue of legal advice on Scotland’s relations with the EU post the referendum.
I will ask Patricia Ferguson to speak to the request in her letter, which was circulated to members in their committee papers. Thereafter, I will take soundings from every committee member, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to comment.
Convener, thank you very much and do not worry—I have been called a lot worse.
I am grateful for the opportunity to come along to talk about an important issue that has arisen. I recognise the keen interest that the committee has in all matters European, and I watch its proceedings with some interest, having been a relatively long-serving member of the committee in the past—I say that because I joined the committee in June, was off for the months of September and October through ill health and came back in early November to find myself the longest-serving member of the committee. Things can change very quickly, as we know.
On the substance of the letter that I sent, I understand that the committee has decided that it will look again at EU membership once the white paper is published, but one of the points of my letter was to ask the committee to revisit that decision and to consider looking into that issue now. A great deal of debate is raging in Scotland about the issue. The fact that the Scottish Government will come to a conclusion in a year’s time means that a very short timetable will be available to the Parliament for scrutinising the many matters that the white paper will raise. We need only look at the parliamentary timetable to see how tight it will be, given that the white paper will be published a year before the referendum takes place.
I encourage the committee to consider the issue earlier, because many of the matters relating to whether Scotland would be an automatic member of the EU—and, if so, what conditions would apply—are the kinds of things that will influence people’s decisions when they come to the ballot box in 2014. If I may say so, it is incumbent on the committee to help by trying to provide some clarity, if not on what the final position would be—there are many views on that—then at least to help to frame the debate. I hope that the committee will reconsider the timing part of its decision.
10:30
With regard to the first part of my letter, on how the discussion has been handled in the Parliament so far, I am acutely conscious that the Parliament currently has no mechanism for considering such matters, which might arise from time to time—although I hope not often or indeed at all. I thought long and hard about the issue before I brought it to the committee. Conflicting statements have been made and, given that the conflict is firmly embedded in the whole issue of Scotland’s membership of the EU, it seems to me that this committee, which is the committee with the most interest in the area, is the right place for an inquiry into the facts of the matter.
I realise that the First Minister has referred himself for consideration under the Scottish ministerial code. However, nowhere in the structure of things does the Parliament have an opportunity to consider the matter. As a point of principle, responsibility for such consideration should rest firmly with the Parliament, and in this instance with this committee.
I am looking at your letter and I do not see a request to the committee to revisit the decision to consider the issue in the context of the white paper.
I did not use the words “revisit the decision”, but I made the point that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the EU issue and I asked the committee to undertake an inquiry. That is the point that I am making.
I will let all members air their thoughts.
I have a few comments to make. First, it is inappropriate to summarise Mr Salmond’s response in three words, when that is clearly not the response that he gave. That is a distortion.
I found it difficult to follow the letter, because it jumped around two issues and therefore did not make a lot of sense.
On the timetable, I would be grateful for guidance from the convener and the clerk on how much time has been allocated for consideration; it is essential that we allocate appropriate time.
We will be in difficult waters if we stray into standards, which are a matter for another committee.
I am concerned about bringing the Lord Advocate into the political arena. The Lord Advocate has not been a member of the Scottish Cabinet since 2007, and we have moved towards keeping the Lord Advocate out of politics, whatever the Advocate General for Scotland at Westminster is doing. To vary that position would be to take a retrograde step.
I support Patricia Ferguson in her request, and my reason for doing so is clear. Throughout Scotland, one of the most vital issues that we face is the need to know the answers to key questions to do with whether we would automatically continue to be a member of the EU. The First Minister has not been able to give a categorical assurance on that. As far as I know, he has not even had discussions or correspondence with the European Commission on the matter.
An inquiry would help to bring that out. Before introducing his bill, the First Minister would then know with certainty what the position is with regard to other EU member states. We have seen opinion and speculation throughout the media about how other member states would regard Scotland’s position should it choose to become independent.
Would the people of Scotland want to join the EU? Would there be a referendum on EU membership? Many questions need to be asked, which is why it is important that the inquiry does not look at only issues of blame or where the blame lies for what has happened.
The road ahead is much more important. My children and grandchildren need to be certain of their futures. We need to know what the position on pensions, jobs and the legal systems will be. Would we be tied into the European concept? I am very pro-Europe and I would campaign for a yes vote should there be a referendum on EU membership.
The First Minister has mentioned Greenland in the past. Greenland had a referendum on whether it would join the EU. Does the First Minister want to take us down that road?
On timescales, the white paper may not be published until the middle of next year. As far as I am aware, we do not yet have a precise date for when it will be published, although others may know differently; my supposition is that it will be published in autumn next year. That means that the committee would have relatively little time to inform the wider public. We would become informed as a committee as the bill went through the Parliament, but cascading out to the wider public what the questions and answers were would be a problem. That is why I believe that the sooner we undertake the work, which would be a major piece of work, the better.
On the committee being the relevant committee to do the work, if the committee does not agree that it has the time to do it, we should make time, as the work is so important. If the committee says that we will not make the time—which would be against my will—the work should be referred, through a motion from me, to the Parliamentary Bureau, which would need to look at all the aspects that are covered by all the other committees that are relevant to the work. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the Finance Committee and the committee that deals with transport would all have interests. All those committees have a relevant stake in what will happen and whether we would automatically have European Union membership.
If the committee does not agree to undertake the work, I formally propose that the matter be referred to the Parliamentary Bureau, and I hope that I get a seconder.
I would like to consider two points. In the first paragraph of the second page of her letter, Patricia Ferguson discusses EU issues and raises questions about the euro and the Schengen agreement. I agree that all those areas are likely to be discussed under the work programme, as agreed, when the white paper is published. I believe that that is the right paper for that.
I am a bit confused about Helen Eadie’s inquiry. The following paragraph of the letter mentions an
“inquiry into this whole sorry debacle to find out the truth about who knew what and when.”
That is not about European issues; it is about standards issues and what happened. The letter seems to hang on the position of the First Minister. Ms Ferguson took that position in 2003 in answering a parliamentary question by saying:
“By long-standing convention, the general policy of the Scottish Executive is that it does not disclose legal advice or whether it has taken legal advice.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 21 January 2003; S1W-32797.]
Time has moved on since the letter was written. In answer to questions, the Lord Advocate said last week:
“It was possible that the court would rule that this Parliament did not have the power to hold a referendum, in which case the issue would be academic. Following the signing of the Edinburgh agreement, there will be a lawful referendum, so that uncertainty has been removed.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2012; c 13131.]
With the signing of the Edinburgh agreement and the coming publication of the white paper, the timing for considering the issues is absolutely fine. Therefore, I do not support the request for a move in the timescale for looking at the European issues, and I certainly do not believe that the committee should consider the other areas.
Good morning, Ms Ferguson, and thanks for coming to the committee. Having looked at the content of your letter, I would say that it is a pity that you were not here earlier for our evidence session with Fabian Zuleeg from the European Policy Centre, who was asked by your colleague about Scotland’s position in relation to the euro.
One of the questions that you pose in your letter is:
“Would a separate Scotland be forced to join the Euro currency?”
Fabian Zuleeg’s response to the question was clearly that Scotland would not be forced to join the euro because no country can be forced to join it. In fact, a country is expected to meet certain convergence criteria and so on, and there are examples of countries that are not part of the euro, one of which is the UK. I think that it was Gordon Brown who put in place the four convergence criteria so that the UK could avoid joining the euro. Fabian Zuleeg did not see the issue as a huge one, and he certainly dismissed the notion that a country could be forced to do something that it did not want to do.
The question that you pose in your letter has been answered, even in the session that we had a few minutes ago with Dr Zuleeg. Like my colleagues, I do not see the need for an inquiry before the Scottish Government publishes its proposals. That point, when we are a bit clearer about the Scottish Government’s position, will be the opportunity for the committee to engage with the issues.
I welcome Patricia Ferguson to the meeting and thank her for joining us. The best way in which I can describe her correspondence is to say that it is an impression of opinion that she has put in front of us. Previously, I agreed with Helen Eadie that we should look into the issue and I have not changed my mind. I still agree with her that we should carry out a study or an inquiry into how our membership of the EU would be affected. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
I take on board the points that have been made about timing. Our inquiries might even help with the white paper by establishing facts. That would probably be useful, rather than unhelpful. I do not have a problem with the call for a study or an inquiry and I am more than happy to second Helen Eadie’s recommendation that, if we cannot agree today on what to do, we ask the Parliamentary Bureau to have a look at our timetable and see whether it can help and come up with a solution for us.
I thank members for those frank comments. I fear that there is no consensus in the committee, so I will go straight to a question. The question is, that the committee should undertake an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the issue of EU legal advice.
Convener, before we vote, as I am a relatively new member of the committee, can you clarify for me how much time will be allocated, under the existing proposal, to deal with the inquiry?
Certainly. We do not usually set the work programme so far in advance but, when we had the initial discussions about putting the inquiry into the work programme, we decided as a committee to make that commitment. There is little scheduled around that, to allow us the maximum amount of time to take in all aspects of Scotland’s future place in Europe.
So we will be able to deal with the issue in significant detail and depth at that time.
I plan to give us the maximum possible amount of time. Helen Eadie’s and Patricia Ferguson’s points that we need to look at the issue are well made. I just believe that we need to do that when we get the white paper and we see the proposals.
Will you clarify when we are likely to get the white paper? Also, does Patricia Ferguson have any right of reply to the points that have been made this morning?
We will go straight to the vote. I have given everybody airtime on the issue.
On the timescale, I do not know much more than you do, but I believe that the plan is to publish it in the spring, so we will see it then, which will give us an opportunity to prepare for our inquiry and set its length. I think that the final recommendations will go to the Parliament in the autumn next year.
Are you saying that we would start our inquiry the moment that the white paper is published or that we would not start it until September or October next year, barely five months before the referendum takes place?
10:45
It might be helpful if I provide some procedural advice for the committee. The committee has agreed to undertake the inquiry. When the white paper is published, the clerks will produce an approach paper setting out possible timescales, witnesses and so on for the committee to consider.
Can you clarify what those timescales will be? Will the inquiry examine only the bill or will it examine questions of European Union membership? Will it also consider the euro currency issues and the referendum issues that the people of Scotland might have regarding Scotland’s membership of the European Union—or our non-membership, as was the case with Greenland?
The publication of the white paper is a matter for the Government and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that. The content of the approach will be a matter for the committee to decide once the white paper is published. The committee will have to make those decisions.
With respect, you are still not answering my question. If the white paper is published in the spring, will our inquiry start in the spring?
An approach paper will be produced for the committee and it will be up to us to decide that then.
I ask for clarification. I understand that time has been set aside in the work programme for scrutiny of the proposals in the white paper, but did we use the word “inquiry” in our work programme? I would like to have that clarified as it is an important point. We have not agreed to an inquiry; we have agreed to scrutiny of the white paper.
That is correct. Whether the approach would be an inquiry is for the committee to decide.
I query that. My memory is that it was about relationships with the EU, which is not the same as looking at the bill or an inquiry. The title of the work was “relationships with the EU”, which is nowhere near the issues that have been raised by Patricia Ferguson this morning.
Maybe circulation of the Official Report of what was agreed will answer those questions for us.
Yes, the clerks will circulate after the meeting the wording that was agreed. We are happy to do that.
I am just saying that the title on the document was “relationships with the EU”. That was the precise wording of the title in the work programme.
There was detailed discussion on that. I want to get as much information as possible on that to clear up any vagueness.
Do we have a commitment from you, convener, that the committee will look at this the very moment that the white paper is published?
The committee has agreed that, as soon as the white paper is published, we will receive an approach paper from the clerks. We will be able to decide where we want to go with it from there.
It might be helpful if I read out the wording that has been agreed. It is:
“Upon publication of the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence ... consider approach to exploration of an independent Scotland’s relations with the EU.”
That is the wording that has been agreed.
It is “relations with the EU”, so I was right in what I said.
Yes, you were absolutely right.
It still does not cover the issues that have been raised by Patricia Ferguson’s letter.
Okay. Let us move straight to the question. Should the committee undertake an inquiry into the—
If it is possible, convener, I would not mind responding to some of the points that have been made.
Okay.
I will address them in reverse order. I apologise to Willie Coffey that I could not be here for the entire meeting, but I am also on the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, which is meeting at the same time. I have had to crave the indulgence of the convener of that committee in order to pop out.
In some way, Willie Coffey made my point. The gentleman who spoke with expertise at the committee this morning obviously had a point of view, but a different point of view has been expressed by many other eminent people—both politicians and officials—who work in the area. The point that I am making is that we do not know. In my view, the more discussion and debate that we hear around the issue, the more helpful that will be.
Clare Adamson also made my point to an extent, because we do not know what will be in the white paper. We do not know what it will say about relationships with the European Union or, for that matter, with any other organisation. That might not be covered in the white paper, because it will be about the law surrounding the issue rather than about further negotiations. That is important.
I apologise to Roderick Campbell if my letter did not make sense. I sometimes find to my chagrin—particularly when I read back what I have said, rather than what I have written—that enthusiasm can get in the way of good structure and even good grammar.
The position of the Lord Advocate is slightly more complicated than Roderick suggested, because the Lord Advocate frequently comes to the Parliament and to committee to answer questions. Not that long ago, the Lord Advocate came to a committee to explain what the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill meant. The Lord Advocate is in a hybrid position—in part, it is a political appointment. We want to safeguard the Lord Advocate’s independence, but he has commented on the issue. I do not think that his comment clarified anything; I think that he added confusion to the situation, which is one reason why I mentioned him in my letter.
It is, of course, for the committee to decide how to structure any inquiry and from whom it should take evidence. It is worth making the point that we do not know what the white paper will say on the European issues, but I am grateful for what I think was clarification of when the white paper will emerge; I now understand that it will be in the spring next year. I have to say that that is a surprise, because it is not what is being said elsewhere.
Okay. I ask committee members whether the committee should undertake an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the issue of EU legal advice.
I am sorry—could you put the question again, convener?
The question is, that the committee should undertake an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the issue of EU legal advice. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 0. Therefore, the recommendation has been defeated.
I have taken a wee bit of advice from Jim Johnston on Helen Eadie’s proposal concerning a motion to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Bureau. He will give us all some advice on that.
In the preceding discussion, the committee noted its previous decision to consider its approach once the white paper has been published. The issue is whether the committee wants to review that decision in the light of what Helen Eadie has said.
That does not mean anything to me.
Technically, I am correct. It says quite clearly in standing orders—I checked last night—that any member of any committee may request that any inquiry or piece of work that requires to be done be referred to the Parliamentary Bureau. Given the nature of the issues that have been raised, which relate to the future of the EU, it would be entirely appropriate for the bureau to consider whether a number of other committees should undertake strands of work, in the same way that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee worked in collaboration with the Presiding Officer on reform of the Scottish Parliament. Different parliamentary committees could undertake scrutiny of forthcoming issues. The matter should be referred to the bureau for its consideration to clarify which other committees may have an interest and which of them should be asked to undertake strands of that work.
That is fair enough. If the committee wanted to do that, that would be a matter for the committee to decide.
I do not agree with Helen Eadie’s position on the issue. Every committee has a European reporter. I would expect that the structure that is in place would result in the European reporters bringing any areas of concern to their committees’ attention, and that they would make a decision about what their work programmes should be.
Thanks, Clare. We have obviously not reached consensus on the matter. I could retake the vote, but it is pretty clear where we are.
No—the vote that the committee has just had was clearly on Patricia Ferguson’s specific request for an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the issue. The committee will have to decide on Helen Eadie’s request to refer the wider issue to the Parliamentary Bureau.
If I may say so, convener, I said formally that I wanted to move a motion. It was seconded by Hanzala Malik. If the committee does not agree to the request, Scotland will perceive that a Parliament that is controlled by your party does not want the issues to be raised—
Right, I will go straight to a vote, Helen.
—or to be discussed—
Helen, would you not speak over the chair, please?
It is another—
Would you desist from speaking over the chair?
It is another example of you, Christina, in the chair, trying to gag me on the issue.
Helen, I have given you a fair hearing again this morning.
You have gagged me again, Christina.
Helen—
It might be helpful if I offer some procedural advice. Rule 11.8.1 of standing orders states:
“the convener … shall determine the time at which members shall take a decision on any item of business.”
It is for the convener to determine when to take the vote.
Okay, so I will go straight to the vote and ask members whether they are content—
On a point of order, convener. I am looking for clarity. I am not aware of the rule about taking a matter to the Parliamentary Bureau. Does it need to go via a committee or can it go via a member?
The standing orders say that a member may refer an item to the Parliamentary Bureau. I studied them last night.
In that case, we do not really need to go to a vote. Am I right? Please, somebody, guide me.
Perhaps that is my job. If an individual member wishes to raise something with the bureau, they can do that via their business manager. The issue is whether the committee wants to refer the matter to the bureau. My understanding is that that is what the member was asking for.
Yes. I was asking for the public to have the right to have the information that they require to make their decisions. If you do not want the public to have that right, that is fine.
I am just trying to get to grips with the matter. It is clear to me that there are two possibilities: either, as we have raised the matter at committee, the committee could refer it to the bureau or, if the committee decides not to do that, Helen Eadie will have the right to do it as an individual. Am I right about that?
Yes.
If that is the case and it is not for the committee to take a position on the motion, we do not need a vote, and it will be up to the individual member to take forward her proposal.
Oh, no. I have moved a motion and I would like that motion to be voted on.
Okay. The question is, that the committee refer the request for an inquiry to the Parliamentary Bureau. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 0. The motion is therefore defeated.
I will quickly move on, because we are running out of time. I thank Patricia Ferguson for coming to the committee. I say to her sincerely that, when we come to consider the matter, we will benefit from her experience and input to the process.
We agreed to take item 6 in private, so I ask for the public gallery to be cleared. I thank people for coming along today.
10:58
Meeting continued in private until 11:08.