Mr Convener—I am not sure which title you intend to take, so I will call you Mr Convener for now—I concur with your opening remarks, apart from one point: the minutiae of legislation. In many areas, the details are extremely important. I can think of some matters that affect my constituency in Shetland about which there is real concern and debate on the need to scrutinise European legislation and proposals adequately. We need to balance the way in which the committee works to ensure that we concentrate not only on the wider picture, which it is right to do, but on the smaller points and issues, which are important in other ways—for the salmon industry in Shetland or for fish-processing businesses throughout the north-east of Scotland, for example.
I accept that there will be times when we need to look at things in detail, but the issue that I raised is relevant. We should not underestimate how bogged down we could get in totally irrelevant European detail. For example, the documents that have arrived that, technically, we must examine include the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation on the carriage of goods by road and rail and a council decision on the extension of the Common Position 96/635/CFSP on Burma/Myanmar. Those things are clearly of no specific interest to us. However, you are right that, to ensure that we are truly reflecting the needs of the people who elected us, we will have to examine the issues that affect Scotland.
I am not sure whether the questions that I have in mind relate to the remit or to the role of the committee, but they are milestones for the future and we need to consider them.
Those are all legitimate points. I was going to come on to topics for further briefings as the second part of this item, but a number of matters have been raised that we will have to consider; I am sure that others will be added to the list. At the moment, however, I want to look at our broader remit.
There is a wealth of experience on this committee, which I hope we can use to deal with issues as positively and constructively as they are—in my experience—in Europe.
The point about legislative scrutiny is essential. We need to get Scotland's voice heard before Westminster and Whitehall form opinions. The timing is critical. We must also hold the Scottish Executive to account. That role should not be underestimated, especially in relation to some of the matters that Bruce mentioned.
Can we make a decision—should we call you convener or chair?
Convener.
Mr Convener, like Irene, I am interested by point 4 of our remit. If we believe that it is part of our remit and duty to ensure that people get to love Europe or at least have a more realistic understanding of Europe, we must concern ourselves with—if you like—the pre-emptive strikes. We need to get involved as soon as the European Commission proposes legislation. There is quite a time lag before the legislation becomes real, and it is during that time that we get newspaper stories about bendy bananas and terrible straight Euro-bananas, with pictures to cut out and compare.
All MSPs have the right to attend the committee. Mr Harper has the right to attend and speak if he so wishes, but he does not have the right to vote.
No, but debates in this committee would not be toe-to-toe stuff.
MSPs have the right to come to this committee, and I hope that some will take the opportunity.
Finally and briefly, although we have a huge work load, and although it will take us a fair amount of time to work out how to select and compartmentalise what we are going to do and how we are going to do it, we must not lose sight of the fact that Europe is a dynamic confederation of peoples. If we, as Scotland, claim the right to be able to add something to Europe, we must consider the big picture. We have a huge work load and there will be terrible pressure on us—especially as this is the first Scottish Parliament—to do our very best and to do it earnestly. However, we lose sight of the big picture at our peril—Europe will come to mean absolutely nothing to the people who live in it and who turned their back on it at the elections. We cannot ignore the big picture.
Do we all agree that we want this committee to be a powerful voice for Scotland in Europe, reflecting the work of the Scottish Parliament? Do we also agree that we have a special role in scrutinising in detail relevant European legislation, especially before Westminster confirms any particular views? As Margo says, we need to promote the European agenda positively so that people understand some of the benefits of engagement with Europe and are not negative about Europe. Do we agree that we have a role in scrutinising and in holding to account the Scottish Executive, which we will do on behalf of Parliament, and that we need to forge links in the European Union with relevant bodies such as the European Parliament and Commission, and with other representative bodies? We will also consider the links that Tavish mentioned. Do we all generally agree?
I would like to build on what Margo said about making people in Scotland much more aware of Europe.
People must have a realistic idea about Europe. We all love to be good Europeans but we do not have a clue what that means.
Exactly. That has a lot to do with, for example, education for citizenship. I assume that this point would come under point 13 of our remit about liaising with the wider European constituency in Scotland. Can the points in our remit be altered? I do not think that point 13 says enough about the aspect that Margo mentioned and with which we all agree. Perhaps the remit should be slightly altered to mention promoting—although I do not know whether that is the right word—Europe in Scotland.
We get very po-faced when we talk about "deepening appreciation" and so on.
Yes, but it is that aspect that I do not think is quite included in point 13.
The standing orders detail the remit, but we have flexibility in our interpretation of it. As long as we are agreed on the direction that we want to take, we can move things forward.
I want to raise a similar point to the one that Sylvia made. The standing orders may be set in stone and unalterable but, following on from what the convener has said, I am quite happy provided that we can interpret the standing orders widely. The remit does not give us the latitude, within the European framework, to have influence and to lobby on behalf of Scotland and there is nothing about how we will liaise with MEPs and discuss issues with them. The remit talks about the
I will talk about MEPs separately in a minute. If we feel that our ability to promote Europe and to influence debate is being impeded, we can look again at the remit. However, that would need to be done through the Parliamentary Bureau; we cannot change the remit unilaterally.
I will also ask the clerks to come back with some suggestions on scrutiny and how we can set priorities. There are things that we will need to scrutinise, things that other committees will need to scrutinise, things that the Parliament will need to scrutinise and things that may not need to be scrutinised at all. For future reference, it would be helpful if we set things out in tables; if we want to alter the clerks' recommendations, we can do so. We should do that at an early date, and we will have some suggestions ready for the meeting in August. In August, we will also have to examine the issue of structural funds.
It might be helpful for committee members to understand the key current priorities in Europe. The European Commission produces an annual legislative programme; there is one in place for 1999 and the 2000 programme is under discussion. If the programme could be brought to the next meeting, members could be informed and advised about the current debate in Europe. That would give us a useful opportunity to think ahead about how we want to influence the debate next year.
We should consider moving the committee around the country to a certain extent, rather than always meeting in Edinburgh. I realise that there would be cost implications, but it would be helpful if we had a meeting in the Highlands, for example. If we want to promote Europe in Scotland, we must take the committee to different parts of the country.
I am more than happy to discuss alternative locations for meetings. From my previous work with COSLA, I know that we will need to address specific issues in the Highlands and Islands. While we could accommodate the suggestion of alternative locations, I do not want the committee to become a travelling circus, with every second meeting in a different location. If an alternative location aids the committee's work and helps the wider body in Scotland to appreciate that work, by all means we should consider it.
If the proposed meeting was at a relevant time for the area concerned?
Yes.
No, I am afraid not.
Any formal meetings of the committee have to be agreed in advance by the Parliamentary Bureau, but we will deal sensitively with the location of meetings.
Thank you, convener. I almost called you Hugh—I presume that we can all drop the formal approach and call each other by our first names.
In terms of both European legislation and Scottish legislation that has a European dimension, I hinted earlier that I would like the clerks to produce recommendations about the categories into which legislation might fall. It would then be for us to accept or reject those recommendations. We need assistance with setting the legislation into some kind of order.
I very much welcome the proposal for a seminar to broaden the discussion so that we can get a better idea of who, in Scotland, is interested in Europe. The body of interest is broader than we often think and, in my experience of Europe, I have come across groups that have small offices, or small representations, or that fall under larger umbrella groups. Part of the seminar exercise would be for us all to understand who in the Scottish community is already directly interested in Europe and what they are doing. We would also discover what they, and others, identify as their current issues with Europe.
We have the opportunity to invite a range of people to address the committee and I hope that we will consider doing that. We also have the opportunity to bring in advisers or specialists to assist the committee's work and, at the next meeting, we might start to consider how to do that.
Does the range of people that we can invite to discussions or to give evidence include UK ministers, officials from UK departments, MEPs—who may be in the European Executive—and members of the European Commission?
We can certainly invite a broad range of people, but whether they can attend is another matter, as many such individuals have a heavy agenda. At times, we may want to invite some of the people that Bruce Crawford identified, but, as with other issues, selectivity will be the key point.
The briefing paper gives us a focus to remind us that our priorities ought to be the issues that are particularly important to Scotland and that have a greater relative significance to Scotland than to the rest of the UK. That is helpful, and if we do not bear it in mind, we could disappear under a mountain of paperwork and the electronic mail that we will receive once the database—which I welcome—has been set up.
We have already addressed the issue of location. I wondered whether Allan was making a bid for Millport as the standing home of the committee.
That links to networking and possibly to a briefing paper. I was trying to think of an action point for the next committee meeting. Would it be possible to get a paper examining the links with Europe? That was suggested as the starting point in the briefing paper we have here.
Some of what you are suggesting could usefully be dealt with in the seminar that was mentioned earlier. A range of bodies would be invited to that and we could talk about how the links have developed and who does what.
The committee could link in with that.
Yes. We could look at the possibility of an outline paper that would help us to work towards that process. I do not want that to replace hearing about the other bodies and what they do. The other thing that we will need to look at—whether through a briefing paper or a discussion—is the role of EU institutions and how they work. As a committee we need an understanding of the labyrinthic way that some of the institutions operate. That could be added to the programme.
May I call you Hugh, Mr Convener?
Aye. I have been called worse.
Me too. I am thinking about what Sylvia said. Would it be possible to have a list of the organisations—which we trust the clerks to identify—that receive European funding of some sort? It may be invidious to mention them by name, but I can think of a couple of outfits that receive some European funding and that would be quite pleased to link in some way to the functions of decision making and scrutiny. That relates to what Cathy asked about how we get help in deciding what goes to the top of the pile. Some of those organisations may be able to help in that respect because they already get specialised or special interest briefings, or they have links established that we might duplicate.
There are bodies who have, as you indicated, some expertise in European matters. Some of them are involved with wider representative bodies. I would hesitate to say at the moment that we should do as you suggest because there is a huge number of bodies in receipt of European funding, all of which have different expertise. We really do not have the time to invite every body in Scotland that receives European funding. It would frighten people to realise how significant European funding has become. If there is a way that we can tap into the expertise that, for example, the voluntary sector has accumulated, and that of the housing sector and the private sector, we would want to avail ourselves of that.
Most European funding tends to be distributed through partnerships, even in the private sector. The way to access the expertise in which Margo is interested would, perhaps, be through Strathclyde European Partnership and East of Scotland European Consortium.
I want to go back to Cathy's point about linking with other committees and with our colleagues in other parts of the Parliament. I noticed that there was a suggestion in the briefing paper—and whoever wrote it has produced a very good paper—that we appoint reporters, or rapporteurs as I suppose we should call them in the European Committee. They would liaise between this and the other committees and could be drawn from those of us who sit on other committees. I, for example, sit on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and Cathy has an interest in transport. I do not know what committees other members of this committee sit on. Would it be possible to have some ideas put together about how that might work, if at all, in practice?
That is something that we will need to look at. It has been mentioned in the documentation and it is a system that works well in Europe and to which there will be some advantage. As with everything else, we must proceed cautiously and find out what our agenda and work load will be like. We must examine the areas of expertise and find out what experts and advisers we can bring in so that we can evolve towards that. It will have a place in our deliberations.
I am quite happy with the short-term programme you have outlined. We have a good starting process.
We will need specific briefings on some of those matters from people whom we bring in to do that.
I wondered about bringing in young people through links to the education committees. If we are to promote Europe, we should use the willingness of young people to be involved with Europe. There have been good educational schemes that made links with Europe but a lot of them seem to have died off. Have we a role in promoting that sort of thing, or is our role more to examine legislation?
Our work is not just about examining legislation and considering how European policy will affect us. As Margo said earlier, it is also about having a wider influence. We have to set a positive agenda and encourage people to form bonds and relationships across Europe. Much of what is happening in Europe can improve the quality of life in Scotland, but it is a two-way process and the reverse can happen. Sometimes, Scotland is a bit slow to proclaim what it does well. There should be an exchange of views.
I endorse what you say, convener. Since reorganisation, many unitary authorities, such as North Ayrshire in my area, have developed excellent links with schools in Europe. Educational exchanges have been a positive development of the past three or four years. In my constituency, a school that could be considered to be in a deprived area is linking up with a college in Pisa in Italy to do art project exchanges. There are further excellent examples of such initiatives throughout Scotland. We should promote that sort of exchange and make information available to authorities that do not know how to take up such opportunities.
Is there any other business?
I would appreciate it if we could arrange an informal meeting—not a formal joint meeting—with the Scottish MEPs. I met the ones that the Conservative party now has but I have not met the others.
We have already said that we want to establish links with the MEPs and we will come back with proposals in August about how to do that. During the next month or so, very little will happen.
The press release says that the committee has 13 members. Are there not 12 members?
There are 12 members on the committee but 13 places.
A process is under way to resolve that situation by the end of the week.
Does the committee endorse the press release? [Members: "Yes."] I thank members for their attendance and look forward to seeing them at the next meeting.
Meeting closed at 10:25.
Previous
Convener