Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate
We move to item 2, on the European Commission's plan D. Members will recall that at our last meeting on 8 November we had an initial look at the draft terms of reference for the inquiry into the Commission's plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate, which was launched in mid-October.
We agreed that further detail would be useful. Therefore, I am delighted to welcome Liz Holt, who, as everyone here will know, is the head of the Commission's representation in Scotland. This may be the last time that Liz gives us evidence in that capacity, as she will soon take up a new post with the Commission in Paris.
Oh, I did not know that. Congratulations, Liz.
I am sure that you will want to join me in thanking Liz for the tremendous assistance that she has given the committee and the Parliament over the past few years. Thank you, Liz.
I will ask Liz to speak briefly on why the Commission launched plan D and what involvement the Commission envisages from Scotland.
Elizabeth Holt (European Commission Office in Scotland):
Thank you very much. Thank you in particular for those kind words and for spreading the news. I am telling as many people as I can that I am leaving; however, I have been here so long that nobody believes me. I have been here for six and a half years, which is a little longer than the usual term for heads of office. They could not get me away from here.
I was lucky to be involved in the G8 meeting this summer. As a civil servant, that was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I was interested in doing that. Now I am reluctantly transferring to Paris for a change of scene. The move is part of the action plan on communication; I will probably work on plan D in Paris.
I will put plan D into context and help members to understand what the Commission is trying to do.
The Barroso Commission has made communication one of the strategic objectives for its term of office. Communication has for the first time been recognised as a policy in its own right. We cannot underline too much the importance of communication. In the committee's discussion with William Sleath mention was made of early warning and so on. That is all about communication. The intention is to make the mechanisms work better so that there will be better communication at the vital stages. I think that we can all agree that it is vital for the EU—and for the Scottish Parliament and any other similar institution—to get communication right. As I am sure members will know, plan D is about democracy, dialogue and debate.
A term such as plan D opens itself up to all sorts of comments and jokes—I am grateful that it is the letter D and not one of the other letters of the alphabet.
We want the dialogue to take place at all levels of the EU in all the institutions and at all levels in member states: national, regional, and local. Plan D came about after the negative votes on the European constitution in France and the Netherlands. Following those votes, the European Council meeting on 18 June 2005 called for a "period of reflection". That period has already been mentioned. The heads of state and Government in the European Council said that European institutions should "make their contribution" to this period of reflection
"with the Commission playing a special role in this regard."
Plan D is shorthand for the Commission's response to that request and its intentions as to how it will contribute to the period of reflection. I think that we all agree that reflection is needed. The Commission believes that we need a far-reaching debate on European policies, which will in particular give us a much clearer picture of what people need and expect from the European Union.
As I say, the objectives of plan D are straightforward: democracy, dialogue and debate. Plan D is emphatically not a rescue plan for the constitution. The constitution has been put to one side and I do not know what will happen to it. It is for the member states of the EU—individually and collectively—to decide what they want to do. The constitution may well be dead. The message that came from France and the Netherlands was that those votes stopped the constitution in its tracks. That is the situation today. Plan D is not about the constitution, which is out of the picture.
The votes showed that there are diverse views about where Europe is going, what it is for, and what people want and do not want from Europe. Plan D is designed to bring about a focused debate between the European Union institutions and people in the member states to try to find answers to those questions. It is about trying to define more accurately just what the criticisms are and what the solutions might be, and how Europe can work better and can mean more to the people who make up the 25 member states of the European Union. The aim, as I said, is to have a debate; not a referendum, but a dialogue in which we communicate with one another about what is really happening. That debate might take place in the context of existing initiatives, or new things could be put in place. One of the reasons why I want to talk to you today is that I hope that some new things can be put in place in Scotland.
The Commission's hope—and it is ambitious—is that there will be, to some extent, a reinvigoration of European democracy. It could be said that until now the European Union has operated remotely, certainly in people's minds. One member state differs from another, but people have not always felt particularly close to the European Union or that it has much meaning in their lives. You can see that in the turnout for European Parliament elections. Of course, that kind of problem is not restricted to the European Union. It is a problem that is faced by Government in Scotland and the UK, and by most Governments in the EU.
We hope that, by enabling the debate, we will help to build greater public confidence in the European Union. The UK has belonged to the European Union since 1973, which is 32 years. I say that with feeling, because I was married in 1973 and it is beginning to dawn on me how long I have been married. I personally sometimes find it a little astonishing that Europe is still something that people in this country feel uncomfortable with and that they do not feel that the UK is part of the European Union. That means that there is a job to be done to build trust and involvement with people. People must feel that they have the ability to affect how decisions are taken in Europe and they must understand how Europe genuinely adds value.
The case of mortgage credit is an example of added value. When people are looking for mortgages they want the biggest choice and the cheapest mortgage that they can get from a reliable institution on the best terms. You can see adverts in the newspapers from mortgage brokers that are designed to deliver just that. What the EU is doing in that part of the work programme is to widen the market, so that there is even better competition for what is delivered to people. If people thought that the European Union was giving them really good, cheap mortgages on excellent terms, they might think that it had slightly more purpose than they had perhaps believed.
We are also trying to reach new audiences with the debate. Most of the meetings that I go to that involve the public, involve the same people. I see you nodding, convener.
I am nodding vigorously.
We see each other at those meetings. It is a fact of life that it is often the usual suspects who attend.
The votes in France and the Netherlands showed clearly that there are many groups of people who have very different views; some are pro, some are anti, some are not sure and some are fairly neutral, but basically positive. There is a huge range of views among different groups of people. We must start a dialogue with those people and engage with the range of opinion that people have about the EU.
We will try to reach new audiences, and we want that to happen in places such as Scotland. We hope to get more of the discussion on television and to get better coverage of it in the new media—the important media that really reach people. We hope that the issues can be covered on television. The biggest weakness of plan D is its name; that is not the name that I would have given it. Perhaps it sounds snappy in Swedish—please do not show the Official Report of this meeting to Margot Wallström.
It is no exaggeration to say that the votes in France and the Netherlands have created a sense of crisis in the EU—a sense that we are not getting through to people and that that matters. Whatever happens about plan D—about dialogue—there must be a long-term commitment from the EU institutions and member state actors at local, regional and national levels. Fundamental to plan D will be a listening and learning attitude. Margot Wallström has used the word "humility" in a lot of her public pronouncements on the issue, and that is not an unsuitable word. The EU institutions should approach dialogue with a certain humility, as there has not been enough listening in the past. That will be absolutely vital. We want to assist the debates that will take place as much as we can. I hope that they will take place. There is tremendous cynicism about Europe—there always has been. I remember the cover of Private Eye that stated "The Great Debate Begins" at the time of the 1975 referendum. It showed people asleep in their deckchairs in London's Hyde Park.
I hope that all those issues will be examined, and I hope that the dialogue will involve ordinary people. It must take place at the appropriate level in the member states, and it must take place in a separate and coherent way in Scotland. I do not think that the UK can have this debate in London. Arguably, it is not a debate that the UK can have in a way that excludes places such as Yorkshire. However, I hope that it will be recognised that devolution means that the Scottish Parliament has a role to play in starting the dialogue in Scotland.
The Commission is planning what will happen regarding feedback. It will start to look at what is happening within member states and at the results of debates in April and May 2006, but I emphasise what I said before: this is a long-term process. If you choose to do something in Scotland and the results are not ready by April or May, it will not matter that you have missed a deadline, because there is no deadline for good communication. That is the point about communication—some things take time. I hope that my comments encourage you to think that plan D—or whatever you choose to call it in Scotland; maybe we can find another name for it—will yield fruitful and interesting results.
Thank you, Liz. You have made things a lot clearer in my mind, because many of my questions were answered by your presentation. It is clear that the Commission will welcome input from Parliaments such as our own. I was concerned that the consultation on plan D—which sounds awful—was to close in April, given that it is so ambitious. However, I am delighted that, as you said, it will be an on-going process.
Before I open the meeting to questions, I would like to mention the Executive's own consultation programme on Europe, called building a bridge between Europe and its citizens. Would it be acceptable for this committee to work in tandem with that programme and the plan D consultation to come up with the best submission that we can for the Commission, on an incremental basis? Rather than try hard to produce a submission for April, we could work hard for six, seven or eight months, then make one submission.
It is not for the Commission to tell anybody in Scotland, including the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, how they should proceed. You do things as you wish. The Scottish Executive's project predates all that we are discussing. It began to be talked about last November, when Margot Wallström came over for the meeting of the group of regions with legislative power—Regleg—at the end of the First Minister's presidency of the group. She had just been appointed vice-president of the European Commission in charge of communication, therefore the idea of a communication pilot project arose.
The project has taken quite a long time to see the light of day. It was launched in the middle of April in Brussels, when the First Minister came over to visit Margot Wallström. I was in her office the day that they dealt with these matters. It is the Scottish Executive's project, and it is very much up to the Scottish Parliament how much it wishes to be involved. I have not the slightest doubt that any contribution by the Scottish Parliament to the project would be welcome and valuable. The Commission would be extremely happy to see the Scottish Parliament working on the project.
I do not know if it came out in the original press release but, on the day that we discussed the issue in Margot Wallström's office, it was clear from what she said that young people are a target group in terms of opinion. If you cannot communicate with young people these days, you have a problem politically.
I think that the Scottish Executive is hoping to organise some sort of youth event. I mentioned at the table that I had seen some of the events that have taken place in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament. I am thinking of the conference on the Commission for Africa report and other such debates. At yesterday's meeting of the European Economic and Social Committee, I found myself thinking again that the chamber of the Scottish Parliament is an excellent place to have a debate of the kind that I am proposing—indeed, it would be a fabulous place to have such a debate. Holding the debate in the chamber would also get the attention of Scotland. If there were to be a young people's event, it would be a marvellous opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to take part in some way. As I said, the decision about how much the Parliament wants to be involved is a matter for the committee and the Parliament.
Putting that to one side, none of the discussion should be seen in terms of a zero-sum game. Just because the Scottish Executive has happened to come forward with its pilot project, the Parliament should not think that it is precluded from doing something else. As I said, the pilot came out of political contact that took place in November 2004.
I would welcome a completely separate exercise involving the Parliament: there are things that a Parliament can do that an Executive cannot do. For example, MSP's are constantly talking to people and dealing with individuals as part of their constituency business. MSPs probably know better than anyone else in Scotland, including many journalists, what people are thinking about devolution, the Parliament and, indeed, the European Union. The committee could play a hugely important role in getting people's opinions, asking them to crystallise them and analysing the information.
As I said, there is no limit on the effort that can be put into the project—indeed, as far as the Commission is concerned, it is a question of the more, the better. The Commission is ready to help as far as possible on any initiative that the Parliament may have.
It is difficult to follow on from that. Every other time that we have discussed plan D, I have done all the talking. Today, Liz has done it all for me; you have made an eloquent case for plan D.
One of our reservations related to the focus of the Commission's initial communication on member states. You made it clear today that there is a role for regional Parliaments and Governments. When Commissioner Wallström spoke to the Committee of the Regions last week, I had an opportunity to speak to her afterwards. She made it clear that she sees a role across Europe for regional Parliaments. As you said, we are the tier of government that is closest to the citizens; we have a unique role to play in all this. You made the case very well.
I have a couple of observations to which you might want to respond. Obviously, communicating the message is very important, but I think that you said that listening is also important. I see a role for the committee in listening and feeding back to the Commission.
As a Euro enthusiast, I recognise that the vote in France and the Netherlands was a no vote. We have to take a step back, reflect and listen. I would have thought that people such as Mr Gallie would be queuing to sign up to plan D. He, and people like him, can tell us everything that we need to get right about Europe. I am sure that Phil Gallie will say that when he makes his contribution in a moment.
I hope that, if people are listened to, the right policies will follow on from that, as will a clearer identification of individual spheres of government and their role in the policy-making process. One of the criticisms of the Commission in the past has been that it has acted too much, although other criticism has been that it has not acted enough. It would be helpful for us to get a clearer indication of the spheres of policy making and where we all fit in.
I agree with what you said, Liz. I think that the devolution process in Scotland places us in a unique position because we have taken a new approach to decision making and policy making, and parliamentary committees and the Parliament have engaged in a new way with civic Scotland in our law-making process. We can perhaps bring in examples that we have shared with other regions that have visited us in the Parliament and have seen at first hand how we work. One example is our work with the Scottish youth parliament. You mentioned some of the work that you have seen in the chamber and the youth parliament is an example of that. This committee has also held a day in the chamber. We brought people in and said, "What is Europe for? You tell us." We actually put the outcome of that into our document on the future of Europe and communicated it to the Executive, the UK Government and directly to the Commission. Those are examples of ways in which the committee could develop the debate. I therefore agree with your point about that.
I will finish on this point. I did not know until I came in today that you were leaving us, Liz. I want to thank you for your opening remarks and for your support over the past six and a half years. You, Dennis Canavan and I have been through everything with this committee. We appreciate and welcome your contribution. We also wish you very well in your new post in Paris. Perhaps we will bump into each other there—I hope so.
I would not like to place a bet on which of you two would win if we had a competition. Before either of you start speaking again, I ask Mr Gallie to speak.
First, thank you very much, Liz. I have enjoyed our exchanges on Europe in recent times. If you have failed to promote Europe in the minds of the Scottish people, I cannot think of many other people who could enthuse them about it to any greater degree. I wish you well in trying to convert the French.
At the beginning of your comments, you offered a challenge when you thanked heaven that we had chosen to call it plan "D" rather than another letter. Having read through the document, I would say that "D" is a good letter if it stands for drivel. I regard the document as going down that line.
I could support the objectives if I honestly believed that the constitution had been killed off forever. Then I would believe that plan D had some real meaning and that the European Commission really wanted to hear the views of others. You suggested that the constitution is dead, but I hark back to a week ago when the President of the European Parliament was here. He suggested that the constitution is far from dead. He said that it had been laid aside but that it was to be considered again in the future. That indicated to me that the constitution would be resurrected.
Yesterday, Jack McConnell attended a Regleg meeting. He came to a conclusion that I have been driving at for ages, which is that without a European constitution, Scotland, as a regional Parliament, cannot have an input to the European Commission—that has been my argument all along. The Regleg agenda said that the constitution has in effect been laid aside—for the moment. If you want me to get involved in plan D, can you assure me that the constitution is dead and will not be resurrected?
You are listening to a dialogue that has already begun. I have given you my opinion as a Commission official working in Scotland and knowing what I do from contact with people and hearing views on the constitution. What I have said is my opinion on the constitution. I do not think that there will ever again be reform of the treaties without referendums. We have seen that it will be very difficult to reform the treaties in the way that was attempted because some member state among the 25 will vote no. Therefore, there is a huge debate to be had about how Europe will work in the future.
The President of the European Parliament is a Catalan and I am sure that I do not have to tell Mr Gallie that Europe is seen differently in Catalonia. The European Union institutions are seen differently there, too, and the European constitution was probably recognised for what it was—just the next reform of the treaties, such as happened at Maastricht and Amsterdam. There was nothing qualitatively different about the document; it is just that, for various reasons, it got called the European constitution. The name of something can be quite misleading.
Mr Gallie should welcome the fact that an opportunity has arisen to hold a genuine debate in which we can talk about whether the constitution has been put on one side for the moment or is dead. Believe me, there are many people who agree with me, just as there are people who agree with Mr Gallie. Whatever debate about Europe we have, I hope that it will be not just a knee-jerk debate or a punch-up, but a constructive debate about how, in the future, the European Union can be of use to the millions of people who live in Europe.
I accept what you say, and I make just one point in response. In reference to the constitution, you said that the name of something can be quite misleading, but it was not the constitution's name that was the problem. For me, the contents of the constitution were what was difficult to accept. I think that you will agree that I have a little knowledge of the constitution's contents.
I take what you said in a positive way. One of the lessons that we must learn from what happened in France and Holland—which could happen elsewhere—is that the voice of politicians is not always the voice of the people. We must try to take the proposed dialogue away from those who are involved in politics and get it into the women's guilds, the women's institutes and the various church groups that hold discussions. The question is how we seek the views of the people who are involved in those organisations without allowing politicians such as Irene Oldfather and I to exert influence on either side of the argument and to force our wills on people. We need to obtain honest opinions from people; we want them to tell us what Europe means for them and what they want from Europe. How can we achieve that?
You tell me how we can do that.
I am asking you as an expert.
I could not agree with you more. Everything that has happened with the constitution has shown that there is a disconnection between what the political classes have been saying and what the people think; that was certainly true in France. I do not use the phrase "the people" ironically. Democracy is hugely important and it is vital that we listen to what people are saying.
Mr Gallie might be quite surprised by what is sometimes said about the EU in women's institutes. I have talked to quite a lot of women—I am a woman myself—and I have sometimes been quite surprised by the views that have been expressed. We should take the debate into new areas so that we can make the European Union something with which people in general, rather than just the politicians who go backwards and forwards between Brussels and the capitals, can identify.
I wish Liz Holt well in her future appointment and thank her for all that she has contributed during her six years here.
She talked about the big debate that was held on the 1975 referendum, but I remember that a big debate heralded the work of the convention on the future of Europe, which drafted the constitution. Efforts were made to connect with the people and the same sort of language that is being used today was used. As the Executive minister who had responsibility for European matters at the time, I met the committee's predecessor committee and received constructive ideas about how we might more effectively involve the people, most of which we took on board. We held a great launch, which was attended by the same people who always meet each other on European occasions, but that was not followed by an avalanche of mailbags brimming with ideas and the e-mails did not exactly buzz in. In fact, the initiative died a death. With the best will in the world, I have not heard anything today that persuades me that this plan will be any different. Can Liz dissuade me from that opinion?
One could be cynical. When I turn on the television at night, what I really want to watch is "Strictly Come Dancing", not a discussion about the EU. If I think I am still at work, I will watch the discussion about the EU, but I am generally itching to watch something else. It is unfortunate that Europe has become a bit of a turn-off. I do not suggest that that will suddenly change overnight and that people will be gripped and will run up to each other in pubs to ask, "What do you think about the EU?" One cannot run a perpetual campaign, as I am sure you all know.
I hope that more people who have views about the EU, even if they do not know it, will get the opportunity to make those views known to people who are in a position to act on them and, in the end, to ensure that those views feed through into decision making and the policies that are agreed at European level. Irene Oldfather mentioned that.
The aim of plan D is not just to listen; it is to ensure that the sort of Europe that people want is the sort of Europe that they get. We have election campaigns for the European Parliament, but people are not terribly engaged. One aim of the plan might be to find out how to build that engagement, which might not be in the conventional way. It is up to the imagination of people whose job it is to connect with others and, in a sense, we are all in that game. The job is not to find out how to make Europe interesting, but simply to tap into people's engagement.
One just needs to take a holiday in the EU and fall sick to find out that one can get medical treatment whether one is in Poland, the Czech Republic, Spain or France. One can now get a health card—rather than a form from the post office—that will make it easy to be treated by a doctor in other EU countries. When one tells people that that is possible because of the EU, they might think that the EU has some purpose. The thing is to find ways of making that link in people's minds.
I, too, thank Liz Holt for her assistance to the committee over the years and wish her well in the future.
My question relates to what we have just been discussing, but perhaps we can hear more specific suggestions. The general problem seems to be that too many people feel alienated from Government and politicians and the result is low turn-outs at elections and so on. That is a problem in many countries, but it seems to be a particularly acute problem in the European Union. Plan D proposes to listen to Europe's citizens. That is all very well, but how do we go about it? What opportunities will exist for an ordinary individual citizen to make his or her voice heard and what steps will the Commission take to encourage people to express their views individually and/or collectively? I am thinking in particular of someone who is not a member of any political party, the women's institute or any similar organisation, and is perhaps not inclined to attend the type of event that might be organised by the Scottish Parliament, the Commission or whatever.
How can such people be encouraged to express a view? If they want to express a view, how will they go about it? Will they have the opportunity to write to or to e-mail the Commission? Will there be a website? Many people in the Commission have political experience at elected level. Surely some thought must have been given to the specific steps that the Commission will take to encourage people to respond in various ways.
Thank you for your kind remarks. That is a fair question. The Commission is going to do things, and representation offices such as mine will do things differently. As far as we can, given the size of the office and security concerns, we will open up to the public. Margot Wallström would like representation offices to open up to the public once a month, so that people can come and express their views. In Sweden, one of the EU information organisations—the new one called Europe Direct, which is going to be launched in the UK early next year—has a policy of responding to e-mails within 24 hours. Depending on the resources and how many staff an organisation has, that could be done. Representation offices must be much more responsive to public inquiries.
The Commission is also planning for commissioners to get out much more into different parts of the member states. The President and Margot Wallström will, together, visit all 25 member states as part of that exercise, to signal a change of approach. Like MSPs, commissioners are enormously busy and it is difficult to get them to spend any length of time anywhere. That said, I hope that, when they come to Scotland, people will come and talk to them. I hope that MSPs, members of the public and a range of people will make contact with the commissioners. It will not be me, but my office and similar places in other parts of the EU will organise many more events at which that kind of dialogue can take place. It is about facilitating expression of the different views that people have about the European Union.
One other thing is important to mention. Plan D is about beginning to talk more and to get people's views, with the emphasis on listening and going local. Margot Wallström is working on an important white paper on communication. It will be an ambitious white paper that will investigate how the Commission communicates, who the stakeholders are and whether the Commission is getting to the right stakeholders. It should be published in December. I hope that the committee will consider it, think about it and respond to it by telling the Commission who is in the game, who the actors are and what the issues are.
There are many things wrong with how we communicate politics, but that does not mean that we cannot start to do things in the right way. In EU terms, the white paper will be seminal. Plan D is relatively straightforward; it is just about a wider dialogue and a listening stance on the part of the EU institutions. The white paper will be a substantive document and I very much hope that the committee will respond to it.
I said at our previous meeting, or perhaps it was the meeting before that, that it was absolutely vital that we respond to the white paper, so I am glad that you have mentioned that. Margot Wallström said that she hoped to visit Scotland early in the new year, so there may be an opportunity for the committee to issue a formal invitation to meet her to consider progress and discuss matters further.
On identifying how to reach people, one idea that I suggested to the committee was to have a short, sharp questionnaire. Might that be a way of getting to people? It would be a way of gathering information from people who, as Dennis Canavan said, might not feel confident about giving evidence at a parliamentary committee but who would be willing to fill in a questionnaire on the internet.
You are right to say that, just because we have had difficulties in the past, that does not mean that we should not do something again. I do not suppose that, a year ago, any of us would have imagined that the G8 summit and the work on poverty in Africa would have happened as they did. It is a question of mobilising people, particularly young people. They are the European citizens of tomorrow and what they think is important to the debate. I have always found young people to be willing to participate in such dialogue with the committee, so I hope that we can target our discussions towards that.
I thank Liz Holt. I reiterate everything that members have said about our gratitude to you for your work over the past six years. I am sure that you will not be a stranger and that we will see you again.
I will not be a stranger. I am sure that we will meet again.
We have talked around the issues before, and today's evidence has made much clearer what is expected and what we can contribute. I would like feedback from committee members on how they think we should progress.
My initial thought about Elizabeth Holt's evidence is that some things that we do here are quite good. There is a level of accessibility to this Parliament that people from other Parliaments and other parts of Europe and of the world seem quite pleasantly surprised at. Perhaps we should start off by considering what we do, and then go further and try to check out the effects of what we do. For example, I have been present when young people have given evidence to the Public Petitions Committee. How about finding out from them how they feel now about having engaged with the committee and what they got out of it? We have the Scottish Youth Parliament, as Irene Oldfather mentioned, and perhaps we should be talking to people from it about how they feel they engage with us.
John Home Robertson mentioned before talking to schools. Irene Oldfather talked about a questionnaire, but we have to work out whom that should target. We have something to offer the inquiry that the Commission is carrying out, and I feel that we should be looking to compile a package of measures that we think would be of use to others. What do members think?
A few years ago, not long after the committee was established, we ran an event in the old debating chamber up on the Mound. From memory, I think that the subject was the future of the European Union, and there was good participation in that debate. It was like a forum for people from organisations and for individuals, including young people from schools and colleges. It certainly gave people a great opportunity not just to visit the Parliament but to participate in a debate about the future of the European Union. I wonder if there might be merit in conducting a similar exercise at some stage.
We could think carefully about the theme of that exercise and how people could engage.
If we were to go down the road that Dennis Canavan suggests, we would want to listen, not inject the views of either side. I would like it to be a kind of open forum that does not include people from the Commission or elected representatives. It should be for individuals to come along and give us their views of what Europe is all about, as they are at the moment, from a neutral position, based on their interpretation of the Community and not on ideas that they have picked up here or because they have been brainwashed by others.
I rather rudely suggested to Elizabeth Holt that the document should be called plan D for drivel. Irene Oldfather referred earlier to one of the reasons why I said that. Nation states are supposed to respond to the document by April of next year. If we genuinely want to know what people think and to get grass-roots opinions, with the greatest respect, I do not think that we are ever going to achieve that by April next year in Scotland, so how will we manage it right across Europe? Elizabeth Holt was right to say that the dialogue will continue on a longer timescale. It would be much more realistic if the document was based on that longer timescale. Getting rid of that date and being more realistic would be a starting point for me.
I think that everyone was concerned about that. Liz Holt clarified that the date was a bit overambitious and erroneous. The responses that we are talking about would be given in the longer term, from what we have heard today, which would seem to be more acceptable.
I like the idea of the chamber event almost being a starting point. It would not be about having the usual suspects or people who are likely to come with preformed ideas or who have picked up ideas along the way and are coming to regurgitate them.
The last time that we did such an event in the chamber, it was successful and influenced the paper that we submitted to ministers. Jim Wallace referred to it earlier.
I recall that we made up posters for the event and had them put up across Scotland. Five ladies who saw the poster at a bus stop in Johnstone phoned in and asked for tickets to the event. We did have some of the usual suspects and there was an introductory panel who expressed views for and against Europe, but we reached a lot of civic Scotland as a result of that event. It was the first public event ever to be held in the chamber and it was generally recognised as having been a success.
We ran parallel events in different parts of the country and each of us undertook to do events in different geographic areas. It was a lot of work, I have to say. We just went out and spoke to people and reported back to the clerks.
For some people, coming to the Parliament is an issue because they have mobility problems. Dennis Canavan is right that we should be trying to ensure that people who come to the event are representative of the wider public. A questionnaire would be a good way of supplementing a chamber event. It would also not restrict participation to people in the greater Edinburgh or Glasgow areas; people on the islands could respond, which is the way we would like the debate to go.
There is an onus on the committee. We have already decided to do something, and we can structure an effective debate here. That was made clear to Margot Wallström last week in Brussels by representatives from European regions, city mayors and so on, who said that the D should stand for decentralisation. After all, now that we have a Europe of 25 countries and 500 million citizens, unless the Commission gets this right, we are not going to get our policies right. I have to say that Ms Wallström openly accepted that and expressed regret at not thinking about the matter before the document came out. She said that she would certainly take that dimension into account in discussions, dialogue and speeches from now on. After that, I was very enthused and felt that I had to come back to the committee to get everyone on board. I am glad that Elizabeth Holt has proved a helpful ally in that respect.
We need a bit of clarity about what we are doing. Jim, can you give us some?
I am not sure that I can. I think that two options are emerging. First, we could do what we have previously discussed and produce something to submit as our parliamentary contribution to plan D. Secondly, we could be the facilitators of a response not even from civic Scotland but from Scottish citizens. That latter course has a lot to commend it. However, I am not sure that we can choose both options, because we will simply get things confused.
I certainly think that things are a bit confused at the moment.
In previous discussions, we have wondered about how we can grasp something specific in this matter. I believe that Elizabeth Holt said that Margot Wallström is producing a white paper on communication, which would be different from plan D. If we put together a response to that white paper, it would not contradict our facilitating role in having a debate in the chamber, sending out a questionnaire or doing something else that allows us to hear Scotland's voices.
We are still a bit confused about our objectives. Are we trying to find out what people think of Europe—which has been done before—or are we examining the things that we do in Scotland that people in Europe might find useful? Those issues are different. One is very big, but the other is fairly specific.
If we are going to have a dialogue with people, we should find out what they think and want. As Jim Wallace has rightly pointed out, it would help to separate out the two matters, and I support his proposal in that respect. We should keep to one side our efforts to find out what people think and want, and examine the white paper on communication when it is produced. Such an approach would allow the committee to discharge its responsibilities.
Could we leave the white paper aside for a moment? I am trying to define exactly what we are trying to do, because the clerks need to know what we are thinking before they can work things out for us. We are still talking about two different issues; however, that does not mean that the committee cannot carry out two pieces of work. We can certainly examine the things that we do in Scotland that others might find useful, but we should not assume that what we do is brilliant and is loved by everyone. We should also check with the people at the other end whether what we have done has been effective and has engaged them. The first question is whether we can contribute anything to the wider debate in Europe about how things are done; the second, much bigger question centres on finding out what people think about Europe. Does the committee want to look at both issues? The white paper on communication is a separate matter that the committee could track anyway.
We should examine both matters. Jim Wallace is right to say that they are separate. As I said at our very first discussion of the matter, I would like to carry out a consultation with civic Scotland and, at the time, suggested that we could send out a questionnaire instead of inviting a lot of witnesses to give evidence to the committee. I think that Dennis Canavan's proposal of supporting that consultation with a chamber event is very good. Indeed, that approach has been successful before.
We have discussed the white paper before. It has not yet been produced, but we have already said that we want to respond to it. Indeed, when we see the paper, we might find that we are able to put a Scottish brand on matters such as transparency, accountability, decision making, law making and so on and explain our approach to them. However, until we see the shape of the white paper—which will be on not only communication, but, to some degree, better legislation—it is difficult to know. I do not see why we cannot do both. In responding to the white paper, we might take evidence from the Executive and others who have been involved in the Scottish dimension of legislation and decision making. The Scottish Executive states in its press release that in its contribution to plan D it intends to cover some aspects of Scottish decision making and where devolution has been a success in Scotland.
We must ensure that we recognise that plan D is separate from the white paper; they are not one and the same thing.
I think that we realise that.
Fine. Let us ensure that we all know where we are starting from.
I do not see the forum suggestion as completely separate from our response to the white paper. Some ideas may come up in discussions at the forum that we will want to pursue and incorporate in our response to the white paper. They are not completely separate entities; there is a potential overlap. It would be far too optimistic to imagine that a consensus would emerge on every issue in the forum—that would be impossible—but major criticisms or suggestions might emerge that inform our thinking on these important matters, and we might wish to convey those views to the Commission.
I am happy to listen to everything that everyone is saying, but we have talked about this at two meetings already, and everybody has said, "We don't want to do a major thing. It's got to be very small and focused." Now the committee is saying that it wants to cover every aspect. Can we work out a way to do that? Irene Oldfather came up with the idea of the questionnaire. We would have to work out what to ask, because we would not want it to be overcomplicated. Should we have a questionnaire for civic Scotland then, based on what comes back, have a public forum?
What is your definition of "civic Scotland"?
That is the problem; it is a phrase that we bandy about, but I do not think that there is a definition of "civic Scotland". We could write to every community council and non-governmental organisation, but would we reach the people who are not already aware of what is going on? That is the problem. Perhaps we need to think about schools.
What are we talking about? We are talking about how we reach the people of Scotland. A session in the chamber will not capture the overall view.
We have to do various things.
I go along with Irene Oldfather, because we might need to move into other areas. If I wanted to get a feel for what people thought, I would use the national media to advertise the fact that we are looking for opinions on Europe. The public could be given guidelines and a questionnaire, but then we should let them make their points. We could analyse the responses, put them in a big tub, rattle them around and pull out at random the names of those who will attend a gathering. That way, we will not know the opinions that we will get, virtually everyone will have a chance to register a view, and we will get the views of people from around Scotland. I appreciate that it is a massive task.
Our aims are getting bigger all the time.
It might be worth while contacting the Scottish Civic Forum. I know that it has a funding problem. Does it still exist?
It will for a short while.
It must have a database of contacts throughout Scotland. It would be worth finding out who is on its list.
We can consider all those things, but it is still not absolutely clear to me what people want to achieve from this. We are talking a lot and coming up with good ideas, but what do we want the end result to be?
We want what the people in Europe who have put plan D together want: the opinions of the people of Scotland. Although I respect the Scottish Civic Forum, there is an element of the usual suspects about it, and I do not want that. I want honest views from people across Scotland, and that is what Europe wants.
We need to learn lessons from what has happened in the past. When the referendum went to the people in the Netherlands and France, a view was expressed. We must learn from that. We need to know where people feel the problems are, what is working well, what is not working well enough and where people feel the benefits are. People often know a lot more about Europe than they realise. They go on holiday and use the European health card, which, as Liz Holt says, they can carry with them to give them access to emergency treatment. The European Parliament is considering safeguarding airlines and producing blacklists of airlines that do not meet the safety requirements. There are all kinds of benefits for everyday citizens and, yes, there are areas in which we get things wrong or do too much. Much of it comes down to the better regulation agenda, which is political-speak that citizens do not recognise. We should speak to citizens in ordinary terms and ask them what Europe is about for them, where it is going wrong, how it can do better and what they are looking for from government and from Europe.
So we are talking about holding a series of events. We will have to think about how we can reach people who would not normally attend such events. We might find that out through a focused questionnaire, and we need to consider how that would get out there.
We could use the website. Loads of young people go on to websites all the time. We could use the website and new technology.
We need to give the matter more thought; we cannot decide everything today. I would like the clerks to come back with a structured paper on the debate.
Obviously, they would have to do that.
I am sure that we would all be happy to have input to that. In my community, the churches are a great resource. I have regular dialogue with all the churches in my community and often use them as a base when I want to take soundings on things. There are all kinds of organisations in communities that we could use to get out to ordinary citizens. Constituency MSPs—and list MSPs, too—have organisations with which they can enter into dialogue, and which we can use as a resource.
Okay. It is obvious that members feel quite strongly about the possible ways forward. Therefore, I ask members to fire off a quick e-mail to the clerks giving their views on how to proceed, rather than have the clerks try to formulate a paper from the discussion that we have had. We have gone a bit tangential at times—that is not like us, is it? Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.