European Committee, 17 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 17, 2002

Official Report 273KB pdf

---

Sift

Item 4 is the sift of EU documents. We are asked to note the list and pass it on to the appropriate committees. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Page 2 refers to working conditions for temporary workers. Is it possible for the committee to get a copy of the document, given our inquiry? I know that it will also be sent to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

We often refer such documents to the appropriate committees, but we do not monitor what happens to them. In March, or some time towards the end of the parliamentary session, could we follow a few documents to see what happens? I do not mean an extensive inquiry, but it would be a way of checking.

I raised the matter at the conveners liaison group. The conveners told me that they take account of what we send them. I have a feeling that discussions in committees are patchy and vary across committees. We must recognise that some committees have a very heavy agenda of primary legislation, which will obviously take priority. However, it would be helpful if we had a review session in private, perhaps towards the end of the parliamentary session in March, to examine how we have done things and what we could do better.

I would like a little more direction in what we send to other committees. That scenario could be developed, taking into account other recommendations that committees have made this session, especially about our representation in Brussels. If we had early intelligence about what the key matters on the agenda are, it would assist us in referring matters to other committees. Currently, we send a load of papers to other committees. They would welcome it if we could attach information and a priority to them, but we could probably do that only if we had further support and early intelligence from Brussels. It would be useful to develop that mechanism.

I very much agree with the idea of a review. Scrutiny is the meat and veg of this committee and has really begun to make a difference to transparency and in tracking issues. While I am happy for the committee to have the discussion in private, my only concern is that we should be quite happy for our conclusions to be made public. It might be diplomatic to talk through the realities of where the glitches are in the system in private, but it would be good if we could produce a document of some kind. It would not need to be a lengthy report or a work of art, but it should be something that can be passed to the next European Committee, so that the experience that we have gained in the first session of the Parliament is not lost. Such a review would feed into the discussions about the Scottish Parliament presence in Brussels and would be a good piece of follow-up work. I am sure that the clerks have their top 10 things to tell the committee to do or not do the next time, but it would be useful for us to steer some of that discussion.

I very much agree with that. As one of the newest members of the committee, my perception is that, from its inception, the European Committee has made a real difference to the work of Europe in Scotland. When I meet people who are interested in European affairs, they tell me that it is good that the Parliament is doing X, Y and Z in relation to European matters. That is to the credit of the convener and her predecessor, Hugh Henry. In trying to shape the way forward, we should remember that Europe will become, I hope, an even more important aspect of the Parliament's work in the future.

I support what Sarah Boyack said. Perhaps the whole discussion could be in public. That would ensure that any criticism that we made was constructive. The discussion would be valuable to whoever inherits the committee and to anyone watching from outside. I bid for the discussion to be held in public throughout, to follow the principle of minimising private sessions.

I forgot to say something important. One illustration of my train of thought concerns the World Development Movement, which is a hobby-horse of mine, as members know. The Health and Community Care Committee is examining that organisation's petition and I have learned in the past month or two that it deals with a really big issue for the University of Glasgow, but I see no work being done on the matter in the Parliament.

The petition deals with a big issue for a range of committees. The relevant deadline is rushing up on us and none of us has thought through the implications. We just need to speak to the University of Glasgow's principal to hear of the ramifications. I hope that the convener will give the direction to other committees now rather than later. Although the World Development Movement issue is for the Department of Trade and Industry, we can feed into it.

One reason why I raised the issue and mentioned discussing it in private is that I have discussed the matter briefly with the clerks. It is important to have their feedback, too, and that would be easier to do if we had at least a short session in private and an open review of four years of the committee.

At the end of the committee's first year, when Hugh Henry was the convener, we had an open and frank session and changed some of our practices as a result. We invited clerks and others to participate. Perhaps we could learn things about administrative matters, committee business and the agenda from such a discussion. It is important that we develop our ideas and that the ideas that result from the meeting are published. I would be more than happy to have that done.