European and External Relations Committee, 23 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Draft European Union Constitutional Treaty

Item 2 is our proposed inquiry into the impact on Scotland of the convention on the future of Europe and the EU constitutional treaty. Before I discuss the meat of the paper that was given to members, I ask members to note that we have received a reply from Andy Kerr, the minister for Europe, who gave evidence at our last meeting. He discussed the intergovernmental conference and the constitution, and sent us a follow-up letter, which is on members' desks. I hope that members have had a chance to read it.

To put our forthcoming discussion into context, I should say that at the meeting the minister touched on issues such as his support for the Executive being involved in a national debate and perhaps attending the IGC. However, that does not seem to be the case in his follow-up letter and we may wish to take that into account. The letter indicates that only member state Administrations will be represented at the conference. There is no indication in the letter that the Executive plans to have a public debate. Given that we are about to embark on a discussion about our having a national debate, it is important that we are aware of that feedback from Andy Kerr and the Executive.

We initially agreed to have a civic debate to involve the people of Scotland and to heighten the profile of the future of Europe debate and the contents of the draft constitution. Our briefing paper suggests that we could have three to five public hearings around the country that would be along the lines that we initially agreed. We may need a third party, in the form of the Scottish Civic Forum, to help us to organise the hearings, which would enable us to engage the public—that would be the inquiry's core—and take evidence from relevant witnesses. If we move speedily, we could have the hearings in the next couple of months. Clearly, time is of the essence, so anything that we agree will take priority. The clerks and I would get things in train as soon as possible.

Other countries are consulting the public through various initiatives that are similar to what we propose to do. No other public consultation on the issue is on the cards for Scotland. If we support the idea of public consultation, it appears to fall to the committee to push it forward.

Peter Hain previously offered to come back to speak to the committee, if we wanted him to do so. We may wish to pursue that option, if we decide to have a short evidence-taking inquiry alongside the public hearings.

Members have had a chance to read the briefing paper, so I invite comments that will allow us to reach a conclusion about what form the consultation should take.

Obviously, there has been continuing work in this area over the past couple of years by the predecessor committee and the present committee. However, I am a little concerned about the timing of the public consultation, because the IGC begins next week.

I note from the briefing paper that many other countries have been doing during September what we propose to do. The predecessor committee did consultation work last year and the Executive did a lot of public consultation last year. I am not too sure what is to be gained at this stage by perhaps raising expectations by inviting the public in and asking them to look at the treaties and so on.

I do not think that there is much opportunity to influence matters at this stage in the game. The predecessor committee undertook quite a bit of work and, having consulted civic Scotland, gave pointers on what we wanted from the IGC. I believe that we now have two volumes of evidence on the issue. I would not like to raise expectations within the community as a whole about our being able to do something, because it is too late in the negotiations for us to influence matters.

I am always open to consulting the public. However, much depends on what we want to achieve with the public hearings. It is not a realistic ambition to consult the public with the intention thereafter of trying to change treaties. I want to know more clearly what the civic consultation is to be about. If the purpose of the consultation is to inform and discuss, that might be okay, but if the intention is to try to change things, we have left it a bit late. That is no criticism of the present or the predecessor committee, both of which have done a great deal of work over the past two years, as committee members will be aware. However, I am happy to hear what other committee members feel about the issue.

On the time scale, my understanding is that the heads of state will meet in early October and that the Italian presidency wants to wrap up the IGC by the end of the year. However, there is every possibility that the IGC may go beyond that. We do not know. There will be many meetings of the foreign ministers between now and the end of the year. It is September now, so time is of the essence. If we are to go down the road of an inquiry we must decide that today and start preparing.

I strongly agree with what Irene Oldfather has said. I am concerned that there is a slight contradiction in the briefing paper. It says that bids will take some time to compile and go through, and that

"the organisation of the civic events will take some time to arrange."

We are then told that the events are to run in October and November, but October is only just over a week away. The schedule will not work out, so we have a major problem there.

I have reservations about delegating the organisation of the events to the Scottish Civic Forum. The Scottish Civic Forum was, frankly, a disappointment to many of us during the first session. We had hoped that it would have a much higher profile and would do much more. In fact, it was nearly invisible. Notwithstanding the newsletter and papers that it circulates, from what I have seen of what the forum does, I am not confident that it is capable of organising the events on our behalf. There is a danger that we will organise the events in a way that is too rushed, with the result that they will go off at half cock, that hardly anybody will attend them, and that the whole thing will turn out to be chaotic. That could be detrimental to the reputation not only of the committee but of the Parliament. It is too late for us to affect events. Some other countries have interesting plans, which include conferences. Perhaps we ought to organise a conference once the final draft of the constitution treaty is agreed—which I think will probably happen under the Irish presidency in the new year.

There is a danger in trying to organise the civic events at this time, although they would serve to inform. I certainly think that we have a role there, especially given the lamentable, shameful and disgraceful situation in Scotland, where none of our national media has a permanent representative in Brussels or covers anything that is going on there, including the convention. There is a complete lack of knowledge here. I was in Lithuania last weekend, and the people there know far more about what is going on than we do. We know a hell of a lot about Posh and Becks, but we know bugger all—excuse my language; delete that from the Official Report. We know very little through our media about what is happening with the convention. It is a national disgrace, which reflects extraordinarily badly on our broadsheet, so-called quality newspapers, which are increasingly tabloid. We have a responsibility and a role to inform. I do not see how we can enter into a debate with the public until they know what is happening, and they certainly do not know what is happening from our media.

Indeed, the lack of coverage of European issues is a major factor in Scotland, which is perhaps an argument for more events taking place.

I do not share Keith Raffan's views about the Scottish Civic Forum. The forum has some experience and contacts that would be useful for helping to organise meetings throughout the country. I like the idea of a series of public meetings around Scotland. However, I wonder what the attendance at those meetings might be—despite the efforts of the Scottish Civic Forum. I suggest that we try to organise, either directly or through the Scottish Civic Forum, one major event, to be held in the chamber, similar to the one that was held in the previous session, which I think was one of the most successful events that we organised. We got good feedback about it, and it was not just the usual suspects who attended. There were people with differing views and of differing ages and some of the most positive contributions were from young school pupils. I think that something along those lines should be organised as part of our consultation process.

I will not try to emulate Keith Raffan's language, but I thoroughly agreed with what he said about the lack of information on events in Europe that reaches the public in Scotland. There are a lot of misperceptions among the public about what the European Union is about and what it can do for us.

I have been listening to what other members have been saying, and I was wondering if we might make a link back to the paper on European structural funds that we discussed as, inevitably, structural funds and constitutional change will be interlinked. I am much in favour of Peter Hain coming to address the committee. I like putting UK Government ministers on the spot if at all possible. I would also like to hear the views of Scottish ministers, including their views on regional funds. Could we combine the subjects of the constitutional treaty and structural funds, given the limited amount of time available? Irene Oldfather mentioned the time scale for the IGC earlier. If we could combine our efforts on those topics, that would probably be better for us, and it would provide the Scottish Civic Forum and MSPs with a wider picture.

I share other members' enthusiasm for public engagement, but I also share the concern expressed by Keith Raffan and Irene Oldfather. We may be too late. The clock is ticking and we may have missed the boat.

If we were to engage with UK ministers, it would be Denis MacShane who would come to the committee.

He is a nice guy.

He is very nice and very capable, and he is doing a good job of selling Europe. I would certainly support any proposal for Denis MacShane to come to the committee. However, it takes time to publicise meetings. If we are to have any meaningful engagement, the people who are organising the meetings have to have the opportunity to do a proper job, to do justice to the meetings.

I do not mind the work.

My only concern is that we have missed the boat.

We are well past the time to change the proposed constitution. The President of the European Commission has made it clear that only minimal changes will be acceptable. Members have mentioned other countries. Not only are other countries consulting but they are looking to hold referendums on the issue. Somewhere along the line, the UK Government may also decide to do that. If that were to happen, it would be important to ensure that people in Scotland were informed about the contents of the constitution document. We carried out a little local survey that revealed that people do not know what is in the document or what its effects will be. A large question mark hangs over the constitution. People will say right off that they do not approve, but I do not think that that is a good enough argument for not informing people. We must give people more information to ensure that any judgments that they make are informed. We cannot change the document, but this committee can induce an element of knowledge among the public about the constitutional changes that are coming up.

I share the anxieties that Irene Oldfather, Alasdair Morrison and others have expressed. It would be a mistake to create the illusion that we can change things at this stage. It would be fundamentally dishonest to organise an event, or a series of events, that could be interpreted as a vehicle for changing the terms of the treaty. We should not do that.

If we have one task over the next four years it will be to try to ensure that the phrase "we are too late" becomes redundant. It is a phrase that we have heard several times, even over the past four meetings.

Can I turn to—

May I make one point? It was only in June this year that the proposed constitution for Europe was issued. Anything that was done before that time was done without the knowledge of what would be contained in the convention's final proposals. The problem does not lie with this committee; the problem lies with the European organisations.

I accept your point. The committee will have to consider how to persuade other people to create mechanisms into which we can input.

I think that—

I do not want to open up a debate.

Well, I think that—

I want to reply to that point.

Okay. Keith Raffan had his hand up.

You were about to go on to the minister's letter but I—

No, I was not.

Well, okay, but I still have two points. I do not understand the situation. This is a draft treaty. The IGC is on 4 October and the Italians will want to wrap the matter up by December. However, we all know that it is likely to go on into next year. If this is a draft treaty, surely things can be inserted as well as deleted. I do not understand why the Executive seems to have thrown in the towel with regard to the Hain paper on Europe and the proposals for reform of the Committee of the Regions. I would like our minister to be pressed on this issue. He says that we will pursue matters outside the treaty process through the work of Regleg—the group of regions with legislative power. I would like clarification about what exactly he intends to do. If we have not got what we want in the initial draft, let us try to get it put in, for goodness' sake. Our minister should be pressing the UK ministers on that. In addition, I am concerned that we will not have observer status at the IGC.

The minister seems to have passed the buck back and forth—that is buried in a letter of civil service-ese. What he says is wonderful:

"you asked whether the Executive has any plans to resource and promote a national campaign across Scotland on the implications of the draft Treaty."

He states:

"I know that you have been considering a series of roadshows on the IGC."

It is like a tennis match in which he bungs the ball back into our court. The Executive has not said that it will not do anything, but it is clear that it will not do anything much.

I shall not repeat my earlier diatribe against the national Scottish media, but someone must do a roadshow and inform people. Whether we are talking about a tidying-up operation or a major step forward—which I increasingly think it is—that may require a referendum, someone ought to inform people. It is absolutely incumbent on us and a duty of the Parliament to ensure that the Scottish people know what is going on. The buck should not be passed back and forward.

Irene Oldfather will have the final word before I wrap up the debate.

It is important for the record that I correct one or two things that Phil Gallie said. The process that we are discussing has been the most democratic way of reforming treaties since the 1986 Single European Act and the Treaty on European Union, negotiations for which were conducted when the Conservatives were in power. National Parliaments were involved and a convention process was set up, in which the Conservatives were represented. Indeed, with respect to the draft papers, the thinking that was involved and the academic input, the process has been the most democratic way in which treaty revision has been conducted in the history of the European Union. We might not have got everything that we wanted to get out of the process and we might still need to argue about some changes that we want to make, which I hope we will do over the next few months; however, that is a slightly different matter from what we are discussing today, which is whether we should go out to civic Scotland to consult again when we have already done so. We need to record in the Official Report that the committee went through a consultation process last year, as Dennis Canavan rightly said. We were quite successful in involving people other than the usual suspects, which Dennis Canavan also said. Therefore, we should say not just that it is too late but that it is too late for what the paper suggests, as a lot of what it suggests has already been done.

I want to go through some of the issues that members have raised. I am still trying to reconcile Keith Raffan's two passionate speeches, one of which was about our not having enough time to consult, whereas the other was about the importance of consulting.

There is a difference between consulting and informing.

Two or three themes have emerged from the debate. I take it that there is consensus around the table that we should take evidence on the constitution and the IGC. Is that agreed?

I do not know. Is it agreed?

Every member said that it would be good to have the UK ministers here.

I think that Margaret Ewing suggested dealing with other aspects of Europe, too. I do not know whether—

Two or three members supported taking evidence and that suggestion was not opposed.

I would be happy to invite a UK minister.

We might want to address other subjects at the same time.

I accept that, but there was no opposition to taking evidence from ministers.

We need clarification of points raised in the minister's letter. I am not happy with some of the things that are buried in it. We need to ask the minister a range of questions. Has the Executive thrown in the towel on the proposals in the Hain paper on Europe relating to the Committee of the Regions? We need to find that out. What will be done to try to reinsert them? What does the Executive intend to do through Regleg?

Okay.

As far as I could see, there was a consensus that time scales are too tight for a series of roadshows throughout the country that could have a genuine input into the IGC, although there was support for having some kind of event. Previously, the committee agreed that one of our duties is to raise the profile of European issues, such as the issue that we are discussing, and to involve the people of Scotland in European issues as much as we can. Dennis Canavan suggested holding another event in the chamber. Perhaps we can use that as a starting point, but that does not mean that we will not hold events elsewhere to provide information.

That is a starting point, but we are talking about involving the people of Scotland, and I am not sure whether an event in the chamber achieves that.

Members should be involved, first.

Such an event might involve members from different parts of Scotland, but I hardly think that the good people of Barra or the Butt of Lewis will feel part of an event that is held in the chamber. We must be careful with the language that we use. I support a short inquiry during which we take evidence from Andy Kerr and Denis MacShane, who could sit together at the table, but we must think about the time scale for civic engagement and how to involve people.

Are you in favour of civic engagement?

I am in favour of the principle, but I think that we have missed the boat.

We have had civic engagement already.

Yes, we have done it.

We have not had civic engagement on the IGC and the constitution.

We have, actually.

We had civic engagement on the convention on the future of Europe.

I will clarify my suggestion. I do not oppose in principle a series of public meetings throughout Scotland, which would include places such as the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland. However, I foresee difficulties with logistics, because of the time constraints.

I suggested an event in the chamber not as an alternative to such meetings, but to supplement those meetings, which would probably be smaller public events. We should have one big event in the chamber, but if we have time and if the Scottish Civic Forum is confident that it can organise a series of public meetings throughout the country, such meetings would be a good idea.

I thought that the consensus was not on consulting, but on Keith Raffan's point about informing the Scottish people. That is important. I approve of having meetings in the venues that were suggested or in other venues. If we are to bring ministers on board, I would like to hear from people who have different views on the constitution. A minority report was produced on the constitution, and David Heathcoat-Amory has views on the constitution which might be just as important as Peter Hain's.

Perhaps there is a way out of the situation. The consultation has happened. If we hold meetings, they should be informed. That does not mean that people should not hear the debate, but it is too late to consult. Would it not be better to wait for the IGC's outcome, and then, like Germany, bring together members of the European Parliament, national politicians and academics to debate the outcome? We could debate the IGC's outcome at a conference after the IGC is over. That would be appropriate and would give us a long lead-in time.

Similarly, we could launch five meetings around the country. They would be useful, but they should debate the IGC's outcome and inform people at that stage. That would give us more time for organisation. The only problem is that those meetings might coincide with the European Parliament election campaign. My proposal would prevent us from being in a rush and allow us to plan, which would mean that the events stood a better chance of being successful.

I will add to that suggestion, which is sensible. We are in danger of thinking that we are the only people who are interested in the subject, but there are various organisations—both pro and anti—out there. Could we ask what the European Movement and other organisations are doing to provide a civic forum? As parliamentarians, we should not consider providing civic forums to be our role alone. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament information centre could produce a compact disc or DVD that showed both sides of the argument. We want the debate to be balanced, which is fair enough. I think that we will be taking on too much responsibility if we think that we are the only people who can inform people about the IGC.

Okay, perhaps we should draw the discussion to a close. One option might be not to take decisions today but to produce a further options paper on how we will inform the people of Scotland about the IGC. Am I right in saying that there does not seem to be any support for consulting, because of time scales?

Members indicated agreement.

However, there was an agreement that we should have ministers before us.

We could take evidence from ministers, which would serve the purpose of allowing us to inform the public about the issues that are at stake. We could also produce options for a programme of information events, which we would have to put to the vote in two weeks' time, if we could not reach a consensus.

I would like some clarification on whether the decisions that are made at the end of the IGC are irrevocable or whether the member states are given time to sign up to those decisions. I would also like to know what the relevant time scales are.

I can provide members of the committee with further information. It is my understanding that, with any treaty that is agreed in the European Union, different member states have different ratification processes. Some member states might have a public referendum and vote on the treaty; others go about treaty ratification in a different way. There will be different timetables for that. Unless Aileen McLeod from SPICe has anything to add, we will be happy to gather information for members on the processes vis-à-vis treaty ratification that are followed in each member state.

It is certainly the convention within the United Kingdom that any treaty is always ratified in the House of Commons.

The imperial Parliament.

That is likely to be the procedure once there is agreement at the IGC. Treaties normally go to the House of Commons for ratification.

I am happy with that. That was my understanding. I would be interested in the time scales.

I want to wrap up the discussion by saying that we are agreed that we will take evidence from the relevant ministers, that there is a case for a series of information events and that we will have more options on the nature of those events at a future meeting, at which we can take final decisions. Do we want to open up the issue to the public by calling for evidence?

I do not think so.

We will proceed after we have heard from ministers. I will give Margaret Ewing the final word.

Irene Oldfather spoke about member states' different ratification mechanisms for treaties. In that context, I wonder whether the clerks, when they provide details of how ratification is achieved in all the member states, could indicate what significance has been attached to devolved Parliaments, and what their say has been, in other states. That is an issue for the European and External Relations Committee. As far as I can recall, the constitutional treaty will be the first major treaty since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. I would like us to have a voice in some element of the ratification process.

I have another query. When you referred to ministers, did you mean Scottish Executive ministers or UK ministers?

I take it that we will have both.

If we invite UK ministers, I reiterate that I would like David Heathcoat-Amory to be involved.

He is not a minister.

As a parliamentarian, he was involved in putting together the democratically arrived-at constitution. He produced a minority report. If we want to inform the people of Scotland, they should have all sides of the argument.

Phil Gallie's point is a fair one. I want to put a final question to the committee on the subject. We have mentioned ministers but, of course, other people have been involved in the discussions, such as those who attended the convention on behalf of Scotland and the UK. Do we want to involve such people as well?

That depends on the objective. Are we taking evidence or are we having a procedure whereby ministers report back progress at the IGC and the committee holds them to account? I understood that ministers report back and the committee holds them to account. That reflects Keith Raffan's comments about the minister's letter. If that is what we are doing then we have to hear from ministers, otherwise we will open up the debate on the convention again.

We are informing. I thought that we had agreed that we are going to—

Hold on a moment. Irene Oldfather has made a relevant point. Andy Kerr has indicated that he is not going to the IGC so I suggest that we take the line that Irene Oldfather has proposed and that we invite only UK ministers, not Scottish Executive ministers.

I do not necessarily agree with that because Scottish Executive ministers are involved in discussions.

I will take some brief soundings. At the moment we have agreed on UK and Scottish Executive ministers. No one else seems to support Phil Gallie's point that we should broaden that out.

In that case, if you are putting it to a vote, I will record my vote against on the basis that we are not being democratic.

I am not putting it to a vote but your views will be recorded. We look forward to receiving the next paper on options for information events from the clerks.