European and External Relations Committee, 16 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Official Report 312KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

The next item on the agenda is the convener's report. The first point under this item is a briefing paper outlining the options for the committee to mark the enlargement of the EU in 2004. We have discussed the matter before. The clerks have helpfully given us more indication of the possible options. Members will note that we have already agreed to be as ambitious as we can in marking enlargement, within the time scales and resources that are available to us. There are five options before us. Some of them would not require much time, but others would require time and resources. I invite initial comments on the options.

I thought that when we discussed the matter previously we more or less agreed that we would try to showcase Scotland while embracing enlargement and that we would do that in partnership with the Commission and the European Parliament. I am not sure which of the options listed here that is, but from the previous discussion I thought that that was where we were going. I thought that, as well as recognising and celebrating enlargement day, we would arrange a joint conference or seminar, along with the Executive, the European Parliament and the Commission, to which business would be invited.

That is still the objective. We have provided a brief outline of the options, rather than the details. The business community and others will be involved. I suggest that we agree all the options in principle and allow the clerks in due course to indicate to us any pressures on time and resources.

Do we have a budget for this?

If we are not careful, this could be big. We are talking about rather elaborate gatherings of people from all over the European Union. We need to be careful and to target our activities as effectively as possible.

I agree. However, until we start to work out some of the detail, we will not know what resources are required. There have been on-going discussions with the European Commission and others about funding assistance, to which we have referred at previous meetings. That is the key to determining what we can achieve. Some of the options will not require much time or many resources, if we are happy for them to proceed.

I have no problem with that, but I thought that option 1 might be more than we could get away with. I may be wrong, but it seemed a big deal and rather ambitious.

I like options 2 and 3 and think that they could be combined. There is no reason why we cannot hold an event that brings in diplomatic missions, consular corps and so on—option 3—and representatives of communities from the accession countries who are in this country. Those options do not seem to be separate and mutually exclusive. We could hold one extremely good event, without the huge expense and problems of bringing people here from all over Europe. That is fine if it can be done, but option 1 strikes me as a bit over the top. Perhaps my vision is too small.

We definitely agreed to option 1 at a previous meeting.

I thought that we discounted it—that is my recollection of the discussion that took place. The argument articulated at the time was that if we want to engage with the citizens of Europe, business and so on we do not want an event that is about politicians and committees; we want one in which there is wider involvement. I thought that on that basis we discounted option 1.

I agree with Gordon Jackson that there is considerable merit in options 2 and 3. I welcome the information that the clerks have provided, because I am aware that a number of organisations are holding events. I know that the University of Paisley is hosting a major conference and is looking to organise satellite seminars throughout Scotland. It would be good if committee members could participate in some of the events that are taking place across Scotland. I welcome the suggestion that some events need not be held in Edinburgh and hope that committee members will undertake to do work out and about in Scotland—we do not want everything to be concentrated in the Parliament and to be about committees and politicians. It should be about a wider Europe than that.

That point was made and agreed at previous meetings. I do not have in front of me the minutes of the meeting at which we agreed to option 1, but as I speak the clerks are checking to clarify exactly what we agreed. I understand that we did not discount option 1 and agreed to pursue it, provided that it was possible within the time scales and resources available to us.

Can we discount it now?

Is the committee content to allow the clerks to progress options 2 to 5?

I am not sure that option 4 is terribly productive—the Commonwealth is the Commonwealth. I am trying to be helpful.

That option was suggested by Keith Raffan and agreed by the committee at the time. Unless we want to start going back on all our decisions, I suggest that we leave it on the list.

Do we agree to allow the clerks to progress options 2 to 5, to provide us with more details on option 1 and to clarify the minutes of our previous meeting?

We are not asking for more details on option 1. The committee's view is that we do not want to pursue that option. I do not want to be difficult, but I want to make a point about option 5. I recognise that it would be nice to have a chamber debate on enlargement in committee time, but I am aware that the committee has also asked for a debate on the intergovernmental conference. It would also not be a bad idea for us to have a debate on the Commission's forward work programme. I do not want to agree to option 5 if it means that something else has to go. It would be helpful if we had an overall picture of committee bids for time in the chamber. I am not opposed in principle to our seeking a debate on enlargement.

I intended to mention before the end of the meeting that 21 January has been mooted for a European and External Relations Committee debate in the chamber. We have requested a debate on the IGC—any debate on enlargement would not replace that.

That is fair enough.

I know that we are planning to have a debate on the IGC. In the back of my mind, I am wondering whether the need for that debate now is the same as it was before, given that history has moved on. I know that it would give Phil Gallie a wee chance to do some grandstanding against the IGC, but I am not sure whether the debate is particularly relevant anymore, given that things are in such a state of flux. There are other issues that we could debate.

Phil Gallie could dust down his speech again over Christmas.

I will.

We will discuss the debate once we have finished discussing the options and have taken a decision on them.

It has been proposed that we dump option 1. I suggest that we wait to find out what we agreed before, given that there is dispute about that.

The committee has agreed today that option 1 is very ambitious.

We should let it go. There is quite enough in the other options.

Option 1 is probably for the longer term, once the states are in the EU. I suspect that the accession states do not have European committees as such at the moment—although they might have a temporary committee, they will not have a full-time European committee. Option 1 should not be dismissed totally, because we have experiences to pass on.

Sure. Do we agree to leave option 1 on the agenda for the longer term?

Let us leave it on the back burner.

I am slightly concerned that we are not organising a major event, which was the plan to which the committee agreed.

The point that I was trying to make was that, although it is great to invite people to get a wee trip to Edinburgh from various places, we already have links with people in this country. I was speaking to a guy the other day who will become the Slovak Republic's consul in Scotland because of the links that he has into that community. We could plug into the existing communities in this country in a big way. The event does not have to be a major one, although it would be fine if people want to send a representative from their own country.

That is covered in options 2 and 3.

I do not want the convener to suggest that we want to do away with something that could be an important and significant event. In my view, it would be wrong to do so.

I take that point, if we agree to hold one event. Option 2, however, contains lots of little events, which is something that we can ask the clerks to take on board. Option 1 is on the back burner.

I back what Gordon Jackson just said—I am sorry, Gordon; I realise that that is the kiss of death. The suggestion is sound. There is real value to be gained in it and I back it 100 per cent.

So we believe that options 2 to 5 are goers. We will ask the clerks to work them up. Option 1 is on the back burner for the time being. We will see whether we can find an appropriate occasion to invite other European committees to Scotland. I hope that we will not make too much of a habit of reversing past decisions.

In working up options 2 to 5, we must take account of resources. The clerks are trying to deal with a number of issues that the committee has identified as priorities in relation to the IGC, the Commission, the work programme, structural funds and the inquiry into promoting Scotland. It would be helpful for us to clarify that what we are asking the clerks to work up can be done within our resources.

My understanding is that we have discussed and agreed that that is the case.

I wanted to put it on the record today.

It is on the record, as it has been several times.

The next item on the convener's report concerns the transposition and implementation of EC/EU obligations in devolved areas. The clerks are continuing to hold discussions with the Executive about improving how that is achieved and monitored. I suggest that we acknowledge that work and encourage further improvements.

Members indicated agreement.

The next item on the convener's report is the update on the network of regional parliamentary European committees. Do members have comments?

I welcome the update. On a point of information, a few weeks ago I bumped into Luc van den Brande, the head of the Flanders delegation. He wanted me to tell the committee that he was most impressed with the work that had been done in setting up the internet site and the newsletter. He emphasised that he felt very positive about NORPEC in the longer term and about the involvement of Flanders in it.

Okay. The next item on the convener's report is the monthly report from the clerk/chief executive and the external liaison unit on the Parliament's external relations activities. Do members have comments to make?

For what it is worth, I note that the chair of the Catalan committee has "MCP" after his name. Does that stand for what I think it stands for?

Just on a point of interest, MCP stands for member of the Catalan Parliament. The former convener of that committee is no longer the convener. He has gone on to greater and better things—he has become the clerk.

In case anyone is wondering, I have no ambitions in that direction.

The final convener's report item is feedback from John Home Robertson and Phil Gallie on the meeting of the European members information and liaison exchange that they attended.

The meeting took place on 8 December in the chamber and was attended by about 30 or 40 people from various organisations throughout Scotland, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions and voluntary organisations.

The gathering had been convened by the Minister for Finance and Public Services, but no ministers were present at the meeting, which was embarrassing. It is tragic that Andy Kerr's father died during the weekend before the meeting, but it is bizarre that nobody from the Executive was present to explain what had happened. What is more, the deputy minister was not at the meeting and the Executive official who was meant to be present was not there either. The stand-in chairman was George Calder, who is the head of the Executive's European office. The Executive's involvement was a bit shambolic, which was embarrassing. Somebody should have explained what was going on. I do not understand why the deputy minister was not present.

A range of issues was raised and both Phil Gallie and I participated in discussions. The subjects included energy, oil, the chemical industry and structural funding. The gathering was worth while, but I hope that the Executive or somebody took a note of it and that a report of the meeting will be circulated, accompanied by a proper explanation of what happened to the minister. I hope that those comments were helpful.

Are you suggesting follow-up correspondence from us?

No. It is incumbent on the Executive to undertake that, because it was responsible for the meeting. We filled the gap for it.

It is all the better for the committee that both committee members were present.

In the circumstances, we must accept that the situation was unfortunate. However, lessons must be learned. As we met in Edinburgh, another minister could have come along to apologise and explain the situation. Andy Kerr's absence was fully understandable. Tavish Scott was absent because of problems with travel arrangements—given that we are talking about travelling from Shetland in the winter, perhaps that could have been anticipated. The Executive could have done better.

The meeting was good. John Home Robertson highlighted the key issues that the audience raised. Once again, Mrs Holt of the European Commission emphasised her disappointment that the work programme did not contain more. However, George Calder pointed out that progress had been achieved on only 40 to 45 per cent of the previous year's work programme.

The work programme was premised on a successful outcome of the constitutional discussions, so it might now have been thrown into disarray. That point was made at the meeting and perhaps we should take it into account in future.

I thank the members for their report.