Work Programme
The next item, on which I suspect we will spend more time, is our draft work programme. I hope that members have had a chance to look over the paper. It builds on our discussion at the first meeting two weeks ago. Today we do not want to agree the final detail of the programme, but we want to agree the broad outline so that we can ask the clerks to fill in some of the details for our away day.
Members will note from the paper that suggestions include a single inquiry on the EU's constitutional treaty and the intergovernmental conference debate and its implications for Scotland, which could perhaps last from September until June. The external relations strategy and the priorities and activities of the Scottish Executive could be the subject of another inquiry—the clerks have pencilled that in for some time between September and December. Later next year, we could have an inquiry into the euro and the state of preparation and implications of possible membership for Scotland. We should also have an inquiry into the future of regional development in EU structural funds; we have just discussed that and agreed that it should be on our agenda, so we could set a timetable for that quite soon.
Can I have initial comments on the subjects for inquiries? My reading of the draft is that it covers most of the matters that were suggested at the previous meeting. If members do not see some of those suggestions in black and white, they could be incorporated into some of the broad titles for inquiries. For example, Dennis Canavan suggested an inquiry on tartan day at the last meeting—that could be incorporated into the external relations strategy.
The third item in table 1, which shows the draft work programme, reads:
"Euro: state of preparation/implications for Scotland of possible membership".
When we discussed this a fortnight ago, I thought that such an inquiry would be a good idea. Having taken receipt of the papers and seen the proposal in black and white, I would point out that a great deal of this work is already being conducted. There is a new impetus now, and freshly-led research is going ahead. That will cover every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. If we are to finesse the work programme and buy some additional time for examining another issue or for exploring in greater detail some of the issues already highlighted, then I would be quite happy for the proposed inquiry on the euro to be deleted from the list.
Okay; although I recall that, last time, there was general agreement that we should examine the implications of the euro for Scotland. Has anyone else had second thoughts on that?
Since our last meeting, I have had a meeting in Brussels. The Commission is about to produce a green paper on services of general interest, which concerns how public services are to be delivered generally in Europe. From the initial discussion that we have been having in Brussels, it seems that it will be a big issue over the next year, to year and a half. It would be helpful if the clerks could do a briefing on that.
I am sure that there will be widespread agreement that we did not pick up on the food supplements directive early enough. It had gone too far down the line before we realised the difficulties that it would cause. I would like to think that we could get an early briefing paper on services of general interest. That might have implications for the work programme of the committee. We cannot take a decision on it, however, until we receive a briefing from the clerks.
It was not I who suggested it before, but the European Committee did a paper on the euro in the first session. What particular added value would we be giving to that paper—which was done by Bruce Crawford—and what in particular would we be tackling? We should not be trying to reinvent the wheel. My views on the euro are well known, but if work is going on elsewhere, if the committee is pushed for time and if we already have Bruce Crawford's report in the bag, then I wonder exactly what we would want to focus on.
Both the third and fourth suggested inquiries, on the euro and on regional development, are quite hefty and difficult, at least to my non-economist mind. I am not all that fussed about doing either of them. I tend to agree with what has been said about a euro inquiry, but both those inquiries would be about the economics of the European Community.
I am particularly interested in the first and second suggested inquiries—on the constitutional treaty and the Executive's external relations strategy. I would like to get into those. Apart from considering the nuts and bolts and the money involved, we need to be considering how Scotland fits into European constitutional development and how Scotland takes its place in the European situation.
I quite like the second proposed inquiry, "The external relations strategy, priorities and activities of the Scottish Executive". It seems the shortest and easiest inquiry—that is perhaps why it appeals to me. I am not clear about what the Executive's "strategy, priorities and activities" are when it comes to external relations. I have much more knowledge of what the Parliament's external liaison unit does than of what the Executive does. I have a suspicion—although I would be delighted to find that it is unfounded—that we could be doing a lot better in how we handle external relations. I will be delighted when someone from the Executive comes along and tells me that I am talking rubbish, but I suspect that the matter is well worth investigating.
Lots of members were nodding their heads when you were saying that, Gordon.
Like Alasdair Morrison, I do not necessarily believe that this would be the right place to investigate the implications of the euro at this stage. However, I would like to know how much time and effort the Scottish Executive is putting into preparations for the euro. I am aware that the health service, for example, has spent quite a bit of cash in making such preparations. It would be interesting if we could have some information on that.
That apart, Irene Oldfather has managed to frighten the socks off me. I thought our local authorities and national Governments were delivering public service facilities, but here we go again—Europe seems to be taking over everything. So I congratulate Irene Oldfather on picking up on that; it would be a major issue for the committee to address, given her words about the food supplements directive.
Although I would appreciate a briefing on services of general interest from the European dimension, should we be the lead committee on that particular subject? It should belong to the Finance Committee—I do not know what its work programme is like, but surely that issue should form a major aspect of its work.
I see that consideration of the euro has been marked down for May and June of next year. We therefore have time for that and we do not have to start a load of work on it at this particular stage.
Like Gordon Jackson, I am confused about the Parliament's external relations strategy. I have worked in organisations such as the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, when I liaised with Vanessa Glynn and Craig French. They seemed to know what they were doing but sometimes I have no feeling at all that the Parliament knows what is happening.
For example, Irene Oldfather has spoken several times about the Committee of the Regions. I do not know how members of that committee are appointed by the Scottish Parliament. I know how COSLA does it, but not the Parliament. Is it done behind closed doors or does the committee do it? If I am showing ignorance, that is because I have not been involved in those procedures before and would like to know how we ensure we have more effective representation on all such bodies. Scotland is trying to have a voice in the international community and I would like us to give that a great deal more scrutiny.
The four subjects mentioned in the briefing document represent a fair summary of what our priorities should be during the next year or so. I am interested in the suggestion that there should be a second Scottish Parliament convention at some stage. One of the most successful events that the previous committee organised was the convention on the future of Europe that was held in the chamber. There was good participation from various organisations, including voluntary agencies from throughout Scotland and young people from some of our schools.
That exercise would be worth repeating because it would not be only MSPs sitting round a committee table trying to come to a conclusion as to what our collective view should be. We should be a listening Parliament and a listening committee. If the committee is going to do a report on the implications of the constitutional treaty and the IGC debate for Scotland and for the people of Scotland—
That discussion will form part of the next agenda item.
My other point is about the Parliament's external relations work, which was also raised by Margaret Ewing and Gordon Jackson. At the meeting that we had with Paul Grice, it was made fairly clear that the Parliament's external relations unit was going to be accountable to the clerk of the Parliament and the Presiding Officer, rather than to the committee. I think I am right to say that the amendment to standing orders referred specifically to the committee's role and its responsibility for scrutinising the external relations strategy and activities of the Scottish Administration. I do not think that, as yet, we have the same responsibility with regard to the external liaison unit of the Parliament. I would like us to have that responsibility.
We will touch on that point under the next agenda item.
There seem to be no further comments on the suggested work programme. I take it that we are keen to make progress on at least three of the four main topics that are listed for us—the constitutional treaty, the external relations strategy, and the future of structural funds. We can leave the euro on the list for the time being and perhaps revisit it later.
There are other elements to our work programme. We have the duty to sift European Union draft legislation initiatives. At our away day, we will no doubt discuss how best to do that. Pre and post-Council scrutiny will also take up some of our time, as will—in light of our discussions on food supplements—scrutiny of the implementation and transposition of EU legislation. I ask the clerks to draw up further details—such as time scales and means of approaching the issues—for the away day, which we will organise shortly.
I want to pick up on Dennis Canavan's point. There is a lot of overlap between the work programme, the visit to Brussels and the away day. A recommendation in the paper to be discussed under the next agenda item is that we have briefings from the Commission on the legislative programme. Some of those issues are intrinsically linked. It is difficult to agree the work programme without considering the proposals in the next paper.
We are simply having a general discussion to agree broad principles. For the away day, we can certainly ask the clerks to consider timings.