European Committee, 19 Jun 2001
Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001
Official Report
165KB pdf
EU Governance
Item 2 is on our inquiry into Scotland's role in the governance of the European Union. Members will recall that, at our previous meeting, we agreed to ask the clerk to revise the proposed terms of reference for our inquiry. That request centred on two concerns: a reduction in the emphasis on asking the public for their views while remaining inclusive and accessible; and an attempt to incorporate the wider process and debate in the lead-up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I hope that those concerns have been addressed. Do members have comments on the terms of reference?
May I comment on the accompanying briefing paper that was prepared by the clerk?
Yes.
The briefing paper says:
"The idea would be to ‘shadow' an actual EC draft Directive/Regulation through its various stages to show how the draft legislation is treated and what advantages the Scottish approach has for accessibility, consultation, inclusiveness etc."
That is an excellent idea.
We should make our report as readable, interesting, relevant and meaningful as possible, not just for fellow politicians, academics and others who read our reports but for the citizens of our country and of Europe. We should be selective about the draft directive or regulation that we pick to shadow—we should pick something of relevance to the people of Scotland, to which they can relate. The draft directive or regulation might deal with a devolved matter, but under agenda item 5 we will consider the directive on informing and consulting employees in the EU, which was of great relevance at the time of the Motorola crisis and is still relevant. We should aim to make our report more readable for a wider audience. If we are careful when we pick the directive, our report will be more interesting and worth while.
Do members agree to take into account Dennis Canavan's comments and consider whether the directive to which he referred is relevant to that process? If it is relevant, we could examine it, but, if not, we could pick something equally relevant.
I also ask members to note that the Jean Monnet European centre of excellence is planning a major conference in September on governance and the future of Europe. I will ask the clerk to keep in contact with Professor Burrows of the University of Glasgow. Once we have received further information, we will return to the issue.
I apologise for being late, convener. I was held up in the corridor.
On the draft terms of reference, I considered in depth the terms of the Gothenburg declaration and of the Council meeting in Luxembourg on 11 June. I hope that we can consider Scotland's position in relation to referendums and EU policy. Our inquiry is about how the EU relates to the UK and other member states and about the EU's future. Whatever people's views on the Irish referendum are, the attitude taken by the EU after the referendum seemed at odds with some of its proposals. For example, if we are going to talk about governance and how the EU links to member states, surely we should also talk about how the EU respects referendums in member states. That will be an important issue for us in future.
There should be an opportunity to consider that. If the EU is going to consult and take the views of member states into account, its policies should reflect that approach. There is no doubt that that issue will come up during our deliberations and I do not think that we need to build it into the inquiry.
As there are no further comments, can we agree the revised terms of reference?
Members indicated agreement.