Official Report 206KB pdf
The convener's report elaborates on some proposals so that we can ask the clerks to develop them further. The first point in the report is on the inquiry into the constitutional treaty, which Dennis Canavan raised. We have to discuss this now because, if it is a few weeks before we have our away day, we will have to seek permission now from the Conveners Group and the Parliamentary Bureau for certain expenses. Dennis spoke about convention II and the need to speak to the people of Scotland about the future of Europe and about the recommendations of the intergovernmental conference on the convention on the future of Europe. I hope that this committee will make the effort to speak to the people of Scotland during the inquiry, and we will have to give some thought to how we will go about that. Too often, the committees of the Parliament spend time speaking to paid officials of organisations who speak on behalf of the public, but we should do more to speak to members of the public directly. There are ways of doing that and we should certainly adopt them.
I have no objections, but we will have to ensure that the information that we provide is factual and balanced so that the people who participate can offer balanced views. Thereafter, it will be for the public to make up their minds and we will have to reflect those views. What will be the time scale? We have still to consider the details of the constitutional treaty.
We will ask the clerks to consider what time scales are feasible and to bring that information to the away day. It will clearly take a few months to hold, say, three or four meetings around the country.
The draft work programme proposes that, from September to June 2004, we analyse and come to terms with the convention on the future of Europe. That suggests to me that it will be several months before the committee fully understands the convention's implications and can do a roadshow on the subject. We should not think of hitting the road before the turn of the year.
I will certainly take that point on board. We must bear it in mind that it will take time to organise the public meetings, if they are to be conducted properly. Are members happy to accept the draft programme's proposal?
We will have an away day and the draft programme suggests that we have a familiarisation visit to Brussels. Would it be possible to combine those? When the committee previously visited Brussels, we found opportunities to discuss the kind of issues that are on the away day's agenda. During the away day we will get a talk from Terry Shevlin, who is based in Brussels. Rather than bring people over from Brussels in the month in which we go there, could we not combine the away day with the Brussels visit? The away day's purpose is to make us more familiar with the committee's activities and to network with people to get information on how the committee can develop its work. We could achieve the purposes of the away day and the Brussels visit by combining the activities.
We will deal with that shortly. If members are happy with the proposed consultation on the future of Europe inquiry, we can move on.
I have a query. The convener's report talks about engaging with the people of Scotland, which would be a major undertaking. What scale of operation are we talking about? How many visits are proposed?
I do not think that we can say just now. We first want to agree the principle so that we can—
That is the problem. Such proposals can grow arms and legs, if we are not careful. We all know that holding a meeting in, for example, the Caird Hall does not mean that we would engage with the entire population of Dundee. Only the usual suspects tend to turn up at such meetings. The proposal needs a bit of thought.
It needs a lot of thought. That is why—
We must consider how far we will go and what we hope to achieve. We probably need another briefing paper on the matter before we make firm agreements.
I agree. However, we just want to agree the broad outline today so that we have a briefing paper in time for the away day.
Aye, okay.
I have a point of clarification. Is the draft work programme suggesting having a major event in the chamber and three or four public meetings at other venues throughout Scotland within the next 12 months?
That is what we do not know.
Three or four public meetings in 12 months is quite a lot.
I do not think that we can decide today how many public meetings we should have. We should agree our options, decide what the committee can feasibly do and agree to that. Are you happy with that?
Yes.
The next matter to bring to the committee's attention is the Electoral Commission's consultation paper on the distribution of United Kingdom MEPs among electoral regions. For the purposes of electing MEPs, the UK is divided into 12 electoral regions, nine of which are in England. Scotland is classed as one region and we have eight MEPs. That figure might come down to seven because of the enlargement of the European Union. We must respond by 18 July to the Electoral Commission's paper. Again, we are up against a tight time scale. I hope that members have been able to read the consultation paper, which considers possible options for distributing the total number of MEPs among the UK's electoral regions. Clearly, that could have implications for Scotland. It is incumbent on the committee to consider the issue and to decide whether it wants to respond to the consultation on how many MEPs there should be and how they should be distributed.
Has the committee been invited to respond? If we apply the subsidiarity principle, it should be MEPs who respond to the consultation, as they are the people who would be directly affected by the proposals.
Do you mean that this is none of our business?
I was just wondering.
It is for the committee to decide whether it wants to respond. This is a public document and it is within our remit to respond to it.
Irene Oldfather raised the issue of subsidiarity. Local councils are asked to respond to reviews of constituency boundaries both for this Parliament and for Westminster, so it is relevant for us to express a collective view, if we have one.
This is a fairly simple document. However, details about population sparsity and geographical location seem to be missing from the overall UK approach. The number of MPs and MSPs representing places such as the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland does not necessarily correspond to the size of the populations of those areas. In the Parliament we make special arrangements that recognise the differences between island communities. It is all very well to start with the premise that there should be three MEPs per region, but the Electoral Commission needs to consider the issues of geography and sparsity of population in some areas, and the difficulties involved in covering them. On those grounds, Scotland might retain eight MEPs. The logic of the proposed reduction is that the number of Scottish MEPs would drop to seven.
No one is telling us how the new system would work in practice for Scotland. I want someone to tell us that one method would leave us with eight MSPs, whereas another would give us seven. I suspect that all the options would produce the same result, but I do not know the answer.
We should issue a robust response on this subject. Colleagues have identified some of the issues pertaining to it. From paragraph 14 of the paper, I note that once the European Commission has made a decision on the number of MEPs to be allocated to the UK
It is worth a try, but if everyone does the same the consequences would be a much bigger European Parliament. If Scotland succeeds in getting another MEP, every other nation or region in the enlarged European Union will pursue the same objective.
No.
That is inescapable.
I have listened to John Home Robertson, but I am not sure that I follow him. As I understand the matter, the Electoral Commission and the Lord Chancellor are deciding how the UK allocation is to be divided. The number of MEPs that Scotland has would not affect people in Belgium or anywhere else. If we get more MEPs, presumably somewhere else in the UK will get fewer MEPs. Europe will hand down a total for the UK, and the Electoral Commission is simply looking at how that total will be divided. We need to say to the Electoral Commission, "Look, you have been very clever in giving us the four methods of calculation, but what practical difference would they make to Scotland?" They might not make any difference.
That is a good point.
I have no idea, but we might have seven MEPs no matter which method of calculation is used.
The number of MEPs in the European Parliament is increasing to 732. As Gordon Jackson said, the Electoral Commission's paper is about the distribution of the UK allocation.
Absolutely. The issue is how we distribute the UK allocation.
I think that the proposal is that the United Kingdom's seats in the European Parliament would be reduced from 87 to 78.
The document says that the number is being reduced to 72.
Okay. There is a proposal that Northern Ireland's three seats should be ring fenced. That means that the reduction from 87 to 72 must come from England, Wales and Scotland, which will have important implications for us. My initial reaction was to let the MEPs fight their own corner, but if the committee is to comment on the proposal, it is important that we note that the knock-on effect of that ring fencing will be that Scotland will have to fight for its position. Another point that might be worth mentioning is that Scotland got none of the six additional seats that the United Kingdom received in compensation after the reunification of Germany in 1992.
We want eight MEPs.
Yes.
There is a rallying call from John Home Robertson for eight MEPs for Scotland.
I agree with the points that Irene Oldfather made. Another point is that a reduction in the number of Scottish MEPs from eight to seven would make it a bit more difficult to achieve proportionality between the parties.
That is a fair point.
My concern with the methods that the Electoral Commission has suggested is that they all come down to a straight definition of seats per elector. From my reading of the document, the decision will be based on a numeric count and will not take account of other factors. My original point was that we should say to the commission that it should consider other factors rather than use a purely numeric count.
That will be quite difficult to argue, since it has been established that the number of Scottish seats at Westminster should be cut so that there is the same number of electors per MP in Scotland as in England. We have lost the need for a separate Scottish ratio because we now have a Scottish Parliament. Having cut the number of Scottish MPs, Westminster will find it quite hard to argue a special case for the number of MEPs for Scotland. I do not say that it is a bad idea to try to argue that case, but there is a sense in which that parcel has already been sold.
The debate is helpful, so I will allow it to go on for another couple of minutes.
I refute Gordon Jackson's argument. I recognise the principle and what has been done, but Westminster's view is that there are now 129 MSPs to do many of the duties that were formerly carried out by MPs. That is why we will lose that imbalance. However, despite the change that has been made, geographic differences will still be recognised. I am not sure—perhaps Alasdair Morrison will correct me—but I think that recognition will still be given to the Western Isles and to Orkney and Shetland, as happens in the Scottish Parliament.
That is certainly true as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned. In the current exercise, it has decreed that, even after issues that other members have raised are factored in, the situation in the Western Isles would remain unchanged, although there are fewer people there now than there were two years ago. Indeed, I think that there are fewer than 30,000 people there.
If there is time, it might be worth while to carry out a comparative study on the distribution of seats in other member states. For example, is it the case that the rural or highland areas of Germany or island areas in other member states receive favourable treatment and that the size of the population per elected member in those areas is considerably smaller than in the more populated urban areas?
Thank you, Dennis.
I think that we want to keep the number of MEPs at eight. However, the chances are that, with any of the methods of calculation, the number will be mathematically reduced to seven. I want to ensure that one of the four calculations does not reduce the number to six. We must never allow that to happen.
We will try to find out that information as soon as possible. Is the committee happy for a letter to be sent out before close of play on Thursday? Unless any member wants to make some input, I suggest that members look at the letter. Are we agreed?
We are up against a lot of deadlines, so we have to do things this way. I hope that we will back on the straight and narrow after the recess.
They will be good for bonding. [Laughter.]
Dennis, would you like to define "bonding"? I suspect that we would all define the term differently, but I accept that one of the purposes of the away day is to bond and to ensure that we meet all the clerks and other staff involved with the committee. Are members agreed to allow the clerks to proceed on that basis and to consult members about appropriate dates?
In my many years of working in the House of Commons, I visited almost every institution in Brussels. However, we should bear in mind that this is an election year for MEPs. We all know what it was like here in the run-up to the May elections. As a result, I suggest that any specific meeting in Brussels should take place earlier rather than later in the session. That said, I do not have any dates in front of me—perhaps I have missed them.
I do not know whether this is a matter for the away day or for the Brussels visit, but I think that members should identify the issues that they need to be briefed on. For example, members in this room know about regional development funds, either because they have been involved in Europe or because they have a constituency interest. However, although it is obviously going to be one of the big topics for the committee, I do not understand how such funds work. I need someone either in Brussels or in the Parliament to sit down and explain the matter to me. I know that this seems like a back-to-front process, but members need to identify what they need to know.
That is a fair point. Indeed, briefings for some subjects might have to take place outwith the away day and the Brussels visit.
I want to put down a marker for a briefing on regional development funds, because I am aware that I badly need one.
That is a fair point and we will certainly take it on board.
My experience of previous visits to Brussels is that that is how they work. The people in the Commission are extremely helpful. If individual members want a briefing on a subject, that can be set up, provided that people give fair warning.
I remind members that they are entitled to travel to Brussels independently, if they want briefings on any such issues. I encourage members to take that up. Members can also ask the clerks at any point for briefings on any of those subjects and we can feed some of those ideas into the away day.
I am sorry to keep talking about the matter. I appreciate that I can go independently to Brussels, but can we make links through the clerks? Can we say to the clerks, "I really need to understand this subject and I am going to Brussels today. Can you get somebody to tell me about it there?" Is it okay to do that?
Within reason and bearing in mind the resources that are available, we are always delighted to help members or to point them in the direction of someone who can. As much notice as possible is always useful, but if committee members need information, the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre or the legal office will try to help.
The final item in the convener's report is the monthly report from the clerk and chief executive to the Parliament and the Parliament's external liaison unit. The report contains information on visits to and from the Parliament.
No. The draft of the Parliament's external relations strategy and policy was given to the convener, but the idea is for him to distribute it to the rest of the committee and to ask the committee to comment informally on the Parliament's plans and priorities for external relations in the next four years.
I will ensure that the document that I received and read last night only—it is 30 or 40 pages long—is copied to all members, whom I encourage to provide responses.
Previous
Work ProgrammeNext
Sift