European Committee, 22 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000

Official Report 226KB pdf

---

Reporters

Bruce, would you like to speak to your report?

I would start off where I left off, but it would not be conducive.

First, those who have read the paper carefully will have seen a spelling mistake in the third sentence. It should read, "irrevocably set conversion rates".

As a rapporteur, I have been asked to consider the policy implications for Scotland of the single currency. On page 2, I have laid out the potential areas of the remit and how they might be taken forward. The paper is available for members to see, so there is no point repeating the material.

I have mentioned the organisations that will require to be consulted. I have dealt with the issue of travel requirements—I have used the words carefully, as suggested by the clerk. However, I may wish to revisit the issue of how we undertake those tasks properly or what travel may be required.

I have mentioned the potential for having a project team on this issue. Ben Wallace and Irene Oldfather might be helpful in pulling this piece of work together. The issue is of crucial importance because of the continuing public debate about the euro. I am privileged to be able to take on a rapporteur role in respect of that debate in Scotland. I hope to be able to narrow down what the specific implications are for Scotland, given that most of the information that flows from the various bodies tends to be from a UK perspective. It will be interesting to see what we find out from Scottish bodies.

I commend the paper to the committee.

I am well aware that the euro is an important issue. We always argue about who should be called to give evidence—that is inevitable—but I take issue with one of the bodies on the list: Business for Scotland is affiliated to the Scottish National party.

Is it?

It is in the circles in which I know it. However, I am sure that others might have different views. If you intend to use Business for Scotland as a reference, you should involve organisations such as New Europe, Business for Sterling and, indeed, Britain in Europe, to balance the equation.

That is an appropriate suggestion. Business for Sterling launched its Scottish campaign last week. There are other bodies that will happily take advice from members.

I will put that in writing.

I must apologise, as I was in Brussels last week and have not had time to read my papers in detail. I received them only just before the start of the meeting.

I welcome the paper. Section 2, in which Bruce Crawford has set out specific plans, covers a broad range of areas. I wonder whether we need to examine some of them in more detail. I do not think that Bruce has placed them in any particular order, but the last point, on considering the experience of other EU member states, is important.

I have done quite a bit of work on the euro in the European Committee of the Regions. When I started my work, we did not have the advantage of being able to draw on the experience of other member states. We are now just over a year into the euro project. Just before the meeting, I mentioned to Bruce that the Commission for Employment, the Internal Market and the Euro has decided to set up in May a symposium that will address some of these issues and the experience of municipal and regional authorities throughout Europe in relation to the difficulties, challenges and opportunities over the past year as a consequence of the transition to the euro. The symposium will consider ways in which to share that information and experience with countries that have yet to make the transition. I would be happy to report back to Bruce, if it would be possible for me to attend that symposium.

We should consider the wide range of countries. I notice that Bruce mentions Ireland and Denmark. I know for a fact that, even before January 1998, the French cities were closely involved in addressing the euro project and that some of the Italian regions have been involved in sharing experience throughout Europe. I would like to extend the list to all member states, so that we do not concentrate on just two areas, but I do not know how Bruce would feel about that.

I would be delighted to take that on board. I cited Ireland and Denmark not only because of the comparable size of those countries, but because they are quite close on the map of Europe. I thought that choosing Ireland and Denmark, which are only a stepping stone from Scotland, would reduce the travel burden of this remit and that it would be easy for us to discuss the situation in those countries in a meaningful way. However, with the committee's agreement, I would be happy to extend the remit to the French cities or the Italian regions. I had, in any case, intended to cover the wider issues in any report.

The way in which Bruce has worded the section would not rule out that opportunity. The section is well worded, and an extension of the remit can be undertaken if it is required. Bruce has already agreed to consider the point that Ben Wallace made.

I return to the point about organisations that are to be consulted, among which Bruce has listed the European Commission in Edinburgh. I am sure that it is appropriate to consult the Commission. However, the European Commission in Brussels also has an economic and monetary union preparations unit, which we might be able to involve in our work. It keeps a finger on what happens throughout the 15 countries in Europe and would provide a useful central point to link up with. The UK Treasury also has a preparations unit that has been involved in the national changeover plan, which I would want to involve in any discussions that we have.

The suggestion is to delete "in Edinburgh" after "European Commission", and to add the UK Treasury to the list.

I wanted to suggest that the Treasury be included, given its internal UK preparations. I believe that a similar operation is going on within the Scottish Executive, which we might want to take cognisance of in respect of what it has done or plans to do.

I took all those organisations as prerequisites. Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific about the broad range of bodies that I am suggesting. I supposed that they would be consulted automatically and did not think that I needed to mention them all.

A range of organisations will start to become evident as Bruce and his team undertake the work. We should not try to be unnecessarily prescriptive just now. Today we need to agree the broad outline of the work plan. Are we content with what has been suggested?

I am really knocked out—I am very impressed. I do not think that there is the slightest chance of finishing that consultation.

I would like to put in a final sentence to say that the time scale may need to be reviewed—April to September will be quite difficult to achieve, given the work load. However, with the assistance of my able helper, Pauline Archibald, we might get some way down the road.

Bruce has included the Federation of Small Businesses on the list. Perhaps we should also include the Forum for Scottish Business.

Rather than take up the time of the committee trying to identify every organisation, members should contact Bruce directly with further suggestions.

Are the principle and outline of the proposal agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The second reporter is Dennis and we must decide the terms of reference for the inquiry on the proposed European charter on fundamental rights and the development of a Scottish perspective.

Thank you, convener. I would like to comment on the paper of which members have a copy. The title of the report would be, "The Proposed European Charter on Fundamental Rights: development of a Scottish perspective".

Last year, the Council of Europe agreed that the creation of a charter of fundamental rights is essential and that the matter will be on the agenda of the intergovernmental conference to be held at the end of the year. I refer members to the distinction between the European convention on human rights and the European Union: the ECHR is a child of the Council of Europe, but the EU and the council remain distinct bodies. Nevertheless, all EU member states are parties to the convention. However, in 1996, the European Court of Justice ruled that accession by the European Union to the European convention on human rights would require an amendment to the treaty.

A House of Lords select committee has already undertaken work on this important issue. The chairman of that committee is Lord Hope of Craighead. I hope to consult Lord Hope and other members of the committee. Its inquiry focuses on the status, scope and content of the proposed charter, whereas our inquiry would focus on the Scottish perspective. Our aim would be to ascertain the views of a cross-section of Scottish groups and individuals, to take evidence on specific policy areas and to consider ways of promoting policy developments on fundamental rights if and when the European Union creates a charter.

Listed under the sub-heading "Specific Plans" are 10 areas on which the inquiry should concentrate. The list is not exhaustive and I would welcome suggested additions. The inquiry should last approximately seven months. Work on general promotion of the fundamental rights debate could be usefully undertaken in late autumn. We would like to input the decision-making process before the intergovernmental council summit meeting. The idea would be to feed into the Scottish Executive and the UK Government decision-making processes before the UK line is agreed.

Towards the end of the paper I have listed organisations to be consulted. The list is not exhaustive and I would welcome further suggestions. We are probably going to Brussels towards the end of next month and I hope that we can meet experts on human rights while we are there.

Thank you, Dennis.

When is the IGC going to consider the matter?

I think that it will do so in November or December. Has the date been set yet, Stephen?

My understanding is that it will do so towards the end of this year. I have no specific date. I will try to find out, as a matter of urgency, when the UK negotiating position is decided. The committee will be informed as the timing of its work will be affected.

Am I right in thinking that the only way for us to get involved is through the UK delegation's negotiating position?

That would be the formal way, but we have access to the process through our MEPs.

Last week in Brussels, the Committee of the Regions discussed the principle of the European charter on fundamental rights from a regional perspective. It arrived at an opinion on how the regions should react to it. I would be happy to pass a copy of that opinion to Dennis to help him in his deliberations. It was drafted by the president of the socialist group, so I am sure that Dennis will welcome dialogue in that direction.

Thank you, Irene.

I had intended to get Dennis a copy. A number of amendments were tabled so the final report will not be available for some time. However, it would be useful.

Can we agree the brief as proposed?

Members indicated agreement.