European Committee, 18 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Official Report 199KB pdf

---

Future of Europe

The next item is to hear evidence from the Deputy First Minister on the Executive's proposals in relation to the future of Europe debate. We have been provided with a paper. We received the paper last night, but some members received it just before the committee meeting. Perhaps the Deputy First Minister will take the opportunity to make some introductory remarks.

I thank the committee for the invitation, which follows on from our informal meeting. Given the number of occasions on which we have discussed the future of Europe in this committee and in the chamber, I hope that it will be readily acknowledged that the Executive considers the debate to be of considerable importance to the people of Scotland. After all, the European Union is our largest export market and is vital to our future prosperity.

The future of Europe debate gives all Europe's citizens the opportunity to contribute towards the shaping of a more effective, more transparent and more accountable European Union that can be relevant to our everyday lives. The ambition to reconnect—some might even say connect—the European institutions to the everyday lives of citizens is an important objective, which we share.

I am delighted that the committee was receptive to the outline plan to involve civil society that we proposed at the informal discussion. It is useful to meet again so that I can report back on our discussions and on what we plan to do in the light of those comments. I found the process helpful. Indeed, it was a good example of how sitting down together and adopting a partnership approach can be useful. Later in the year, when we come to draft the position paper that we intend to send to the convention, we could perhaps follow a similar procedure.

The meeting on 30 May threw up some interesting enhancements to the original draft that we put forward. I hope that we have been able to reflect the vast majority of those suggestions in the revised paper. I apologise that the committee did not receive the paper earlier, but I hope that members have had an opportunity to see it, as I will now deal with some specific points.

The overwhelming majority of the points that were raised by individual members have been worked into the paper. Those that have not worked their way through have not necessarily been excluded. For example, Lloyd Quinan suggested that we should trawl academia and engage in discussion of the content of the conference pack, and John Home Robertson suggested that the Scottish Jean Monnet centre of European excellence should be asked to contribute to the pack. We have not ruled out those suggestions. The content of the conference pack that we intend to send to the smaller and medium-sized non-governmental organisations has not been finalised, so some of those ideas will be helpful when we put the pack together.

Members will note that we propose a joint launch with the committee of the Executive's plans for consultation. We aim to do that once we have had time to reflect on the arrangements for the forum and structured network that should emerge from the meeting of the convention that is to be held next week.

I will confine myself to those introductory remarks and will be pleased to learn of the committee's reaction.

On the consultation, does the Executive intend to prepare a white paper or something less formal than that?

I have not considered preparing a white paper. We could get into a discussion about the fine distinctions between different colours, but white papers often tend to be the last say in the matter before the introduction of legislation.

I have indicated that we want the opportunity to discuss our final submission with the committee before we present it to the convention. That final position paper may be the equivalent of a white paper. That will not mean that we have been slow in appraising ideas. Our response to the committee, the comments that I made when we had the debate in Parliament and the First Minister's speech in Brussels, earlier this month, have all put forward ideas with the intention of stimulating discussion and debate.

Do you intend to submit the paper through the Committee of the Regions, Peter Hain or the national parliamentary representatives on the convention? What is the formal mechanism for submitting the paper?

We have not yet decided how we will do it. Two of the routes that you mention are a possibility. I do not know whether we could give the paper directly to the convention—either to the president or to one of the vice chairs. At the moment, getting the content right is more important than how we deliver it.

We welcome the opportunity to work in partnership with you on this, so we are picking your brains for ideas.

Perhaps we should aim high.

The Executive's paper contains several good ideas about involving civic society in the debate on the future of Europe, but I am a bit concerned about the timing of the announcement and the limited amount of time that is left for organisations to arrange conferences and seminars or whatever. The deadline for submitting views to the Executive is mid-September. What has the Executive been doing all this time? Our committee report was published six months ago, when we made some of these suggestions, and it is 18 months since the Treaty of Nice, yet only now, rather belatedly and with a very constrained timetable, is the Executive producing proposals. Will you respond on that, please?

It is unfair to say that the Executive has done nothing in the meantime. As you will be aware, a number of ideas have been put forward regarding initiatives that we wish to feed into the convention. In many respects, the constraint on the specific proposal and on consultation with civic Scotland has come from the convention itself. As I said in my opening remarks, the convention will not meet until next week to discuss the involvement of civic Europe and the input that it expects. When I met the committee informally in Aberdeen, I said—as we suggest in the paper—that we will not be able to firm up the proposals for the launch until we know how the convention wants the different member states, and areas and nations within the member states, to feed in the views of their civic bodies. Therefore, in some respects we are slightly ahead of the convention. Once we get the feedback from the convention's meeting of a week today, we will be able to launch the consultation jointly. We have until the autumn to get responses and make a formal submission to the convention.

Is mid-September a strict deadline? Supposing that, due to relative inactivity during the summer months, an organisation found it difficult to finalise its views for submission to the Scottish Executive until later in the year, would its views be given at least some consideration?

I certainly would want those views to be considered. We discussed a September deadline at the meeting in Aberdeen.

At our informal meeting, we highlighted our concern about the timetable. You said that you would reconsider it.

The Executive's paper states:

"the Executive intends to produce a draft of its position paper to the Convention by the end of October".

Is that why volunteer organisations and so on have to submit their views by mid-September?

That is right, if they want their input to be considered. However, that is not a hard-and-fast deadline. We discussed the relative timing of any conference that the committee might want to sponsor. My recollection is that the committee said that it would prefer such a conference to be held before the deadline. I am agreeable to that, which is why the deadline is not hard-and-fast. We must liaise on when the committee wants to hold its conference. I indicated informally—and will now do so formally—that we will be co-operative and want to ensure that anything that comes out of the committee's conference has an opportunity to be fed into the Executive before we produce our position paper.

I have a brief question about the groups that are listed in paragraph 8 of your paper. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is not a non-governmental organisation, but a part of government. The list is extensive, but could we add environmental groups to it? They are very active on the future shape of Europe and have a big stake in ensuring that Europe is able to take environmental issues on board.

I have no problem with involving environmental groups in the consultation. The larger groups would be covered by paragraph 8, but the smaller ones might want to seek grant assistance, as outlined in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the paper. I encourage major environmental groups to take part in the formal consultation process.

In paragraph 3, you indicate that the forum to the future of Europe convention and the involvement of civil society will be discussed at the convention next week. You go on to say:

"Scottish NGOs have been alerted to the possibility of registering with the Forum and of applying to attend that session."

Do you know whether any Scottish NGOs have registered or intend to register?

The most recent information that we have received indicates that only Europe-wide NGOs will be allowed to attend the convention. We flagged up the event to NGOs in Scotland. Although those organisations are not allowed to attend the meeting concerned, it may be a useful precursor to the wider debate that we want to stimulate.

When we met informally on 30 May, it was not indicated that the First Minister intended to speak at Scotland House. Did you know at the time that that was planned? Was your failure to inform us of the First Minister's speech an oversight, or had the speech not been arranged at the time?

Much was happening at the time. The original purpose of the First Minister's visit to Brussels was to inaugurate an exhibition at Scotland House. A number of possible meetings were also considered. At around the time I met the committee—I cannot remember precisely when—it was decided that the First Minister would take the opportunity while he was in Brussels to make more than the usual "I declare this exhibition open" speech. He wanted to make a more thoughtful contribution to the future of Europe debate. The content of the speech was not finalised until much nearer the date on which it took place. I had no intention of being discourteous towards the committee. It simply never crossed my mind to mention the speech.

So the First Minister's reason for speaking at Scotland House was not that he was unable to speak at the future of Europe convention.

No. People do not produce speeches such as the one that the First Minister gave simply because they did not get to speak at the future of Europe convention.

It was a little unfortunate that the committee did not have enough time to discuss the attendance at the afternoon session of the convention. I understand that the arrangements were made at short notice, but it might have been useful for us to discuss our representation at that session.

I want to follow up on Colin Campbell's point about the First Minister's pronouncement. The point of the forum is to get views and input on the future of Europe from civic society in Scotland. The Scottish Executive and COSLA produced a joint paper about 18 months ago, Tony Blair made a prime ministerial speech in Warsaw and, on 6 June, the First Minister made his announcement in Brussels. All of those involved predetermined views, which had been arrived at without listening to civic society in Scotland—the people whom we are told will be asked for their opinion in the next two months. I do not understand the point of that. Will you listen to civic society?

Did the Cabinet discuss what the First Minister was going to say and his views on the future of Europe? The Executive's policy on the future of Europe seems to change every few months. The Executive does not listen to anybody; it simply pulls ideas out of the sky or from whatever happens to be in the First Minister's mind. What is the point of discussing the civic forum if the Executive will probably ignore it?

I cannot accept those points. The Executive has a good record of listening and responding when it consults. Although what the First Minister said in Brussels was more fleshed out and took the argument further, it did not come totally out of the blue. His speech had a logical link to our discussions on the various groupings of sub-member state Administrations. The committee is familiar with those discussions through the Executive's response to the committee's report. Nothing in what the First Minister said was a major departure.

As the convention has called for ideas, I hope that we will not be inhibited from presenting them. Ideas should be encouraged. As I have said, a position statement will be made at the appropriate point in the latter part of the autumn. I have also said that, if the committee agrees, I am prepared to discuss the contents of the statement informally, in the same way as we discussed the paper on consulting civic society. We are far from being exclusive; we are going some way towards being inclusive.

Dennis Canavan said that we have not done anything. That would have had more force if we had not said anything on the future of Europe before now. The consultations and the encouragement to contribute—which is explicit in the paper that is before the committee—are indicative of good faith. We want ideas. I have never claimed, nor would the First Minister claim, to have a monopoly of wisdom on the issue. I do not doubt that the contribution of civic Scotland can improve our final position paper.

Let us talk about the ideas in the debate. Did the First Minister discuss with the Cabinet his announcement in Brussels? He did not go there as an academic or as a member of the Labour party, but as the First Minister. His proposals rejected previous ideas. He completely rejected an elected upper chamber, which Tony Blair talked about in Warsaw, and he completely ruled out direct or privileged referral to the European Court of Justice. Did he discuss those matters with the Cabinet?

I cannot say whether the draft text was circulated to all Cabinet members, but it was circulated to members who are interested in the issue, such as myself. I do not accept that the First Minister's speech was a huge departure. The Cabinet has discussed the Executive's general approach.

You said that the First Minister ruled out the Prime Minister's proposal for an upper chamber. I do not think that in any of the evidence that I have given to the committee I have tied my flag to the upper chamber. The approach to the European Court of Justice is consistent with our general approach, on which I recall giving evidence to the committee. I recall that the committee was anxious that I should move on the European Court of Justice. I expressed a number of reservations about that, not least about the time delay. Having visited the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg last week, I am perhaps even more persuaded that our approach to using it in the first instance to deal with an essentially political issue is along the right lines.

Are you saying that you have consistently ruled out privileged access to the European court? I remember that you said that when you appeared before the committee most recently. When we consult the Scottish Civic Forum in the next two months, it might say that it wants privileged access to the European court. However, you have just told us that you will not entertain suggestions other than those that Jack McConnell has made. What is the point in having a civic forum?

The Executive is as entitled as anyone else to express a view on privileged access to the European court. Along with the European Committee, the Executive has provided leadership in discussing such issues in Scotland. We would be criticised—legitimately—if we did not indicate what we thought was the right way forward and we have just explained the options. I do not think that there is anything wrong with our saying what we think is the right thing to do, for the reasons that we have given. If the Scottish Civic Forum can produce compelling reasons why we have got it entirely wrong, we would be prepared to listen to them.

Sarah Boyack, who sat on the Cabinet with me, will recall the decision not to include a religious question in the census in 2001. We reversed that decision after we sought the views of civic Scotland, because our position was untenable in the light of the evidence that came in.

We should not get hung up on this. Other sub-member state regions with legislative powers have made their views known collectively in, for example, the Flanders declaration. It would look odd if the Scottish Executive were the one body that did not express views on the matter.

Most of the other bodies expressed views nearly 18 months ago, rather than with two months to go.

We were involved in the Flanders declaration, which was made 13 months ago.

We will have to move on, because we want to cover a number of other issues. We were interested in clarification of some of the arrangements for publicity.

I will pick up on that point. I agree with a certain amount of what Ben Wallace said. It would be fair for the Deputy First Minister to accept that there is a very fine line in these circumstances between contributing to the debate and directing the argument. With a two-month consultation period ahead, any Executive involvement in or statement on issues such as preferred access to the European Court of Justice for matters of subsidiarity in effect closes debate in that area.

If people want to advance that case with compelling arguments, they will not be deterred from doing so.

When we have a two-month, or limited, consultation period, like the consultation periods that we have had on other matters, any statement from the Executive that can be termed a statement of position becomes more than a statement of position; it becomes a direction of position.

I would not interpret the situation in that way.

The Deputy First Minister has indicated that persuasive arguments would be listened to. I am pleased that he listened to the arguments in our committee report on the upper chamber. I hope that he was persuaded by some of our views. We may yet get round to the question of the courts.

Lloyd Quinan has a question on publicity.

It is on housekeeping stuff, really. Paragraph 11 of the Executive paper on the future of Europe debate refers to publicising conferences locally and in the Parliament's daily bulletin. With whom has the Executive consulted on this initiative? Who will pay for it? How extensive will the signposting of events be in the bulletin?

The paragraph continues:

"Events will normally be confined to half a day in order to reduce costs and to enable more applications for funds to be granted."

That is to be done so that the bulk of the costs are not devoted to catering—which, simply, fails to acknowledge that this debate requires quality not quantity. The minister is suggesting that two, three or four half-day meetings, round the country, will suffice. We well know that events that are scheduled to start at 9 o'clock do not start until 10 o'clock and that they wind down by round about half-past 11. To devote two and a half hours to the contribution of civic society to an issue that affects us all is to head down the road of quantity not quality. The minister must reconsider.

Paragraph 11 seems to be about reducing costs, but we should be talking about the extension of democracy. I think that it was a Liberal who said that the Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Outrageous.

Totally outrageous—I admit it. It might well have been said by a Liberal who used to be a Tory.

Because of the potential effects of this issue on civic society, it is wrong to keep meetings down to half days, using costs and catering as reasons. The impression of quantity is being given, but the meetings will be short—an introductory speech and a little chat before everyone goes home. That will not contribute to the debate, nor will it be proper consultation. The Executive has to consider holding conferences that can properly address all the issues. We have been wrestling with these issues for three years. Do we expect civic society to wrestle with them for three hours and then make a meaningful contribution? This country is at least 18 months behind the debate on civic society in mainland Europe, so this proposal is tokenism in the extreme.

I hear what Lloyd Quinan says, but I did not hear him say it on 30 May when one member of the committee suggested that half-day rather than full-day events should be encouraged and that we should advertise the events in post offices and health centres, as well as in the business bulletin. I listened to what was said and took it on board. If I am now being criticised for that, I plead guilty to listening to consultation. I take the point that—

Repeating something that was said during an informal meeting is not appropriate.

Well, I think—

No, I am sorry, it is not appropriate. If it is, I will start quoting from notes that I have of that meeting.

I was at that meeting and it was my suggestion. I was glad to hear that the minister had actually remembered what I said and had noted it. It is not my fault if colleagues were perhaps not at those meetings—

Nobody said that it was your fault, Helen. I did not even mention you.

You are being unfair.

If we try to be co-operative and take on board a suggestion that was made in good faith—and was not, as far as I recall, challenged at the time for having all the shortcomings that Lloyd Quinan now attributes to it—and if we try to incorporate the suggestion, it is unbecoming for us to be criticised for that. We tried to address issues that were raised with us.

I would see Mr Quinan's point if we had stuck with a suggestion that had immediately been shot down by the rest of the committee, but that is not my recollection of what happened. We have tried to reflect a number of things that were said to us. I plead guilty to that. I am sorry if we have unnecessarily caused further difficulties.

The intention is that we should allow as many people to contribute as possible. I accept that the sum of money that we are allocating is not huge. We are trying to facilitate a debate, in a way that is not yet happening in other parts of the UK. Paragraph 11 of the Executive's paper states that events will

"normally be confined to half a day".

It does not exclude the possibility of—

All I said to you, if you were listening to me, was that you should look at it again.

Lloyd.

If the minister wants to extend what he terms to be criticism by using the notes from an informal meeting in an open public meeting of a parliamentary committee, I think that that is unacceptable.

Lloyd, we are going to have to move on. The Deputy First Minister has confirmed the committee's viewpoint at the informal meeting. Other members of the committee agree with that position and we must move on.

I am sorry. Wait a minute. Do you, as convener of the committee, think that it is perfectly acceptable to deploy arguments from unminuted, informal meetings? Are you saying that that is the way in which we should proceed from now on?

We all agreed to an informal meeting with the Deputy First Minister and we attended that meeting. You were present, I was present and Helen Eadie was present. The Deputy First Minister has confirmed that we had a discussion on what would be the best way to proceed on the matter and whether the events should be full days or half days. The Executive has taken on board the view of the majority of the committee.

I am sorry, but I do not remember that. What happened was that Helen Eadie made a suggestion. Nobody criticised it because at the time, in an informal meeting, it was a perfectly correct suggestion, with which I did not disagree in any way.

Lloyd Quinan is trying to diminish the value and importance of what has been a genuine and sincere attempt by the minister to be as informal and as helpful as possible to the committee. The minister has time and again said that he is willing to co-operate and willing to take forward not just our agenda as a committee but the agenda of the people of Scotland. It is shameful that Lloyd Quinan is trying to diminish that.

Do you have a point?

Whether my suggestion is taken up is not material. It is open to all of us to make suggestions. If they represent the consensus of opinion of members, I will accept that; if they do not, I will also accept that. Lloyd Quinan does not seem to be willing to do that.

To be perfectly honest, I do not see what that has got to do with what I said.

I always expect members of the committee to treat each other and witnesses courteously. That is very important.

I have been at some very productive three-hour meetings and some unproductive day meetings. We must bear in mind that for people with caring responsibilities a half-day meeting is often much more accessible than a full-day meeting. There is room for a variety of mechanisms.

I will ask about some of the practical things that we suggested might be done. We suggested using local newspapers to publicise the consultation. What, if anything, has been done to firm up the intentions of the Executive as to how it would carry the process forward?

We have not yet systematically considered how we would place advertisements. Dare one say that placing articles might be a better way of getting money to go further than placing formal advertisements? We obviously want to be careful that we are not seen to be pre-empting any discussion. We intend, when a meeting is being held, to ensure that local newspapers have press releases that announce the meeting, try to put it into context and indicate how open the meeting will be to public involvement. If an NGO holds a meeting, it might not be a full public meeting; it might just be for people with that particular interest. We want to take the opportunity to maximise local publicity in a number of ways.

The question was probably premature, in that you have already said that you are not firming up the proposals until after next week's meeting. I am a bit disappointed about that. I had hoped that we might have got a wee bit further ahead in our own planning prior to that, but that is just an opinion.

I have said what I wanted to say.

We have gone a little bit over time, minister. We appreciate that you have come in and we appreciate the opportunity for dialogue and partnership. We hope that it will continue.

It is obviously the committee's view that the meetings on the convention—our own meetings and, we hope, your meetings—should be as open and inclusive as possible, and that discussions on the formulation of papers should not take place behind closed doors. We would like the Parliament and the committee to play a role when the papers start to be formulated. In your opening remarks, you said that you want to work with the committee on that. Can we have an assurance from you that you will bring to the committee or the Parliament any submission for discussion and debate before it goes to the convention?

I said that, when we have a draft position paper, we will want to discuss that draft with the committee before finalising it. I give the committee that assurance. It is not for me to suggest what parliamentary business will be, but I am sure that, when we have reached a final position, that will merit debate in the Parliament. However, that is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau to decide.

Thank you very much.

Can we submit questions to which we want answers in written form and have the minister reply in writing?

I thought that we had covered most questions.

No. The important one, which I was going to ask, was about the joint event with Parliament. Apparently you did not consider it important.

Can we submit written questions to you, minister?

We are talking about a joint launch of our respective consultation. We must liaise to identify where, when and how best we can do that. If the committee wants an open session in the Parliament involving civic Scotland, the Executive ministers and officials will co-operate with the committee as much as we can to make that event a success and to promote involvement in it.

The next two items that we are about to discuss relate to the way in which we will proceed on that. Perhaps we can write to you after the meeting about how we can co-operate on the event.

Item 3 is consideration of a draft paper that was produced by the clerks on the future of Europe debate. Members will know that it is not intended to be a final version of the paper, but a working draft. We should throw in our own views and ideas today. We are not attempting to answer the questions that are posed in the report; we are considering whether those are the broad issues that we want to address over the next few months. I have a few comments to make, but I am happy to open up the debate to committee members. The paper already addresses the broad issues that we should discuss, although it might be useful to add a couple of things.

I agree with the broad structure that is set out. There are, however, a few gaps where the paper says:

"Members are requested to consider this question and advise the clerk accordingly."

How do you want us to do that? I presume that that is not required today.

I do not think that we need the answers today, but I hope that we can have some suggestions for discussion at our next meeting. It would be helpful if members could let the clerks know the sorts of areas that they are interested in adding to or expanding in the paper. For example, I feel that more attention could be given to the role of local and regional government and to the Committee of the Regions. I would like that issue to be expanded in the paper. Do you have any specific areas that you want to mention today?

No. I want your advice on how we will put those comments in.

The clerks will take a note of any comments that members make today. Members are welcome to submit written comments over the recess and a final version of the paper can be brought to the first meeting of the committee after the recess. Would that be okay?

That ties in with what I just asked the Deputy First Minister. Given that we hope to hold our conference in September, perhaps the answers to our questions should wait until after we have listened and learned at that conference. Our next meeting is in September and we would be delaying finalisation of the paper for only two weeks, until we had heard what the different organisations had to say. Our position is pretty clear in our original report. Any changes would come from what we learned at the conference. I do not think that our submitting an interim paper between now and then would do any good.

My intention was not that the follow-up paper should answer questions. You are right. We should discuss those at the conference. I want to ensure that the questions are the questions that we want to ask. There is a dearth of information and questions about the Committee of the Regions and the role of regional and local authorities, for example, and I would like such information and questions to be added. I am not going to answer such questions, but they should be included in the report for discussion.

Should any other areas be discussed or clarified at the conference?

You are right, convener. There still seem to be black holes in respect of where the Committee of the Regions and the regions will fit in. It is probably right to refocus along the lines that you suggest.

Are members agreed that paper EU/02/09/2 be approved? Do members want to add any further points to the paper for consideration?

Is the committee being asked to approve annexe A?

Yes. However, it should be borne in mind that the paper is a working draft.

The paper states that

"in the UK, surveys showed out our citizens"—

there is a misprint there—

"to be the least supportive of the EU whilst at the same time being the least well-informed of its work."

To which surveys does the paper refer? Does it refer to the people of Scotland or of the UK as a whole?

The clerk will clarify that.

The paper refers to the Eurobarometer survey in particular, which, I believe, is undertaken by or on behalf of one of the EU institutions across Europe. Such surveys are done on a national basis—that is, on a member state basis—so the paper refers to citizens of the United Kingdom.

We should therefore explicitly point out that surveys show UK citizens to be least supportive of the EU, otherwise it could be thought that Scotland's citizens are living in some kind of backwater and, even compared with those who live south of the border, are less supportive of the EU and less informed about its work, which is not necessarily true.

Should we add a footnote that says where the information came from?

We could, or we could simply reword the paper to say that surveys show UK citizens or nationals to be the least supportive of the EU.

If members think that any other areas should be expanded on or any other questions should be considered at the conference, they could submit comments to the clerks.

Do members approve the paper as a working draft for the conference in September?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item for discussion is paper EU/02/09/3, which was prepared by the clerks, on the plans for the conference. Today, we need to agree the mechanism for the conference. We have discussed the matter and are more or less agreed that it will be held in Edinburgh in the chamber. The paper suggests how we can proceed with the conference.

We have not agreed or confirmed the date of the conference. The paper suggests a number of dates. Do members have a preference? In paragraph 18, the suggested dates are 2 September, 9 September and 23 September. I wonder if the clerk could say why 16 September is not suggested.

I will come back to you on that, convener.

The difficulty with 23 September was the holiday weekend, but there is no such difficulty with 16 September and it would allow us to have a committee meeting to discuss final arrangements. Therefore, 16 September might be a good date, although there might be a good reason why it is unsuitable.

There might be something on in the chamber.

If we chose 2 September, the Edinburgh festival might mean that we could draw in a crowd of people from the rest of Europe and the world. A different press corps would be in town at that time and it would be gone by 16 September.

There are probably enough shows full of clowns.

We could win a fringe first. I am sure that Helen Eadie would get it.

The clerks are checking whether there is a problem with the chamber on 16 September, or another reason for that date not being suggested. Would members prefer 9 or 16 September?

What is wrong with 2 September?

It is too early.

That is a good reason.

We would have to organise the convention through correspondence.

If the convention were held on 2 September, we could not have a meeting before it. It would help to have the convention when the Parliament is not in recess, so that we can informally, if not formally, have an opportunity to discuss final details.

When is our first meeting after the recess?

It is on Tuesday 10 September.

A meeting before the convention is crucial, because we need the chance to review last-minute arrangements. It would be nonsense simply to submit comments to Stephen Imrie. We would have no opportunity to meet and agree on the comments that colleagues have fed in.

Shall we agree to 16 September, unless there is a reason why that date is unavailable, in which case the fallback would be 9 September?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not mean to be controversial, but I have comments about the invitation list. The criticism that is often levelled at the European Union and debates on it is not that they are one-sided, but that they are cosy. We have talked about the usual suspects. I am no friend of the ultra-Eurosceptic organisations, but if we are to have a debate, we need to include people who will put the arguments of such organisations or to involve people who will say, "I'm not interested in this," or "I'm interested in that." I hope that our guest list includes such people.

I will forward to the clerks some suggestions of mainstream Eurosceptic think-tanks or groups. We cannot not invite Eurosceptics. The convener smiles, but the reality is that the public are Eurosceptic. If we do not show that we are having a debate, the public will remain Eurosceptic.

It is difficult for all committee members to support an event if its content is not broad based.

The committee might like to consider inviting representatives of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee. The convention is another opportunity to make a link between Scotland and that committee.

The list is not definitive. If members have suggestions, they are welcome to submit them to the clerks. I am not convinced that everybody whom we invite will attend. We need a fallback list, too, in case any vacancies emerge at the last minute. I am sure that that will not happen, but you never know.

Do we agree to the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

Can we see an invitation list in advance?

I will ask the clerks to circulate the list.

Will people receive travelling expenses for attending the convention? Is there a budget for that?

We have applied to the parliamentary authorities that deal with the civic participation funds. The conveners liaison group, which normally meets to discuss such funds, was scheduled to meet today, but will instead meet on Tuesday next week. The application contains some paragraphs on travel budgets to enable smaller organisations or members of the public to have some or all of their travel costs repaid. We are attempting to be as inclusive as possible and to operate that arrangement in the same way as the witness expenses scheme, but of course that is all subject to final approval of the budget. It was our intention to make some funds available to cover such costs.

If we are to be inclusive, that is important. It could be quite expensive for people from further away to attend.

I agree. I will make those points at the conveners liaison group meeting.