Official Report 290KB pdf
There are four items in the convener's report. I propose that we delay discussion of the first two, given that the papers have just arrived on our desks. We can discuss them briefly at the next meeting. I draw particular attention to Andy Kerr's response, following his appearance before the committee—there are a number of interesting issues there. That will be public information from now on, but if members are happy we will postpone discussion of it, given that we have not really had a chance to read it. Is that agreed?
We can go straight to the item on feedback from our visit to Barcelona. A delegation from the committee visited the Catalan Parliament, which was hosting a meeting of the network of regional parliamentary European committees. The minutes from the meeting are attached to the papers. I hope that members who were there agree that it was a productive and interesting—albeit brief—visit. I hope that we agreed on the way forward for NORPEC, and on whom we should invite to the one-day conference that we hope to host in Edinburgh later this year. I am talking about the Basque Parliament, the German Länder, the Flemish Parliament, as well as the Catalan committee. Do any members who were at the conference want to comment briefly on it?
The minutes are useful. There are two clear approaches that we could adopt. One is to include many regions, such as all the German Länder, in which case NORPEC would become a very diffuse networking body. The other approach is to be much more focused, and to include those with similar legislative powers. That would give NORPEC a much more effective focus as a network, lobbying on behalf of its members. The discussion on that was one of the most useful aspects. The general view is that we should go down the second route, which is sensible.
My comments go along the lines of Keith Raffan's. My impression was that we would aim not to invite people to join, but to advance the ideas and information about NORPEC and to accept people along the lines that Keith Raffan suggested—on the basis of strict standards. Acceptance would depend on making an application. We would not go out to search for members.
Apart from echoing other members' comments, I place on record my thanks to the committee clerks, who did a good job of organising the visit and the briefing paper.
Hear, hear.
I know that Nick Hawthorne prepared the paper, which I thought was very good. It gave a helpful description of the political complexion and background to previous meetings. I am sure that all members join me in placing on record our thanks to the clerks.
I thank Irene Oldfather for that. She has stolen my final remarks, which are to thank the clerks for doing all the work behind the scenes and to thank the Catalan Parliament for hosting the visit. People there went to a lot of trouble to give us a warm welcome, which the committee appreciated.
When Mr Shevlin asked our opinions, my opinion was that we should not have separate parliamentary involvement in Brussels and that we should instead draw on those who are there on the Executive's behalf. I do not see why the Executive cannot support the committee through individuals who are already in Brussels. The committee can send off a letter of approval, by all means, but I ask it not to send it in my name.
Does the committee want to send the letter? It is our policy to support the establishment of an office. We have said that many times.
Other groupings in the Parliament have a European connection. We should not hesitate to build that connection in a variety of directions.
Before Phil Gallie spoke, I thought that for presentation purposes we should talk about individuals in the existing set-up at Scotland House, rather than a separate office. Scotland House is where any base is likely to be located. Perhaps we should not use the word "office", so that nobody thinks that we are embarking on constructing at huge cost a major building by a European architect. Investment in a person or a couple of people would be worth while.
The issue is difficult. In the previous session, the committee spent much time on the subject and concluded that we supported a presence in Brussels. I do not recall that we agreed on where the presence would be located.
I suggest that we should leave that out of the letter and just reiterate our support for a presence in Brussels. Phil Gallie's comments are on the record.
I must make a further point, to contradict your comment. Ever since I came on to the committee, Terry Shevlin has been carrying out a survey. I have no problems with the work that he has done, and he was especially helpful to me last week. However, at no time did I realise that I had signed up in any way to having an additional appointee. I would like that to be recorded. Also, I hope that any letter from this committee would note that I do not approve of the project.
There will still be a committee view, but your comments are on the record.
May I ask that the letter be circulated to members?
It will be circulated.