European and External Relations Committee, 25 Mar 2003
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Official Report
111KB pdf
Convener's Report
Agenda item 3 is the convener's report. The first item of business is the monthly report by the clerk/chief executive and external liaison unit on the Parliament's external affairs activities. Members have a copy of the report.
In addition, there is a review of the first session, which is a useful document, and which spends a bit of time on the role of European affairs in the Parliament. I recommend that we note the contents of the report and welcome the information. Is that recommendation agreed to?
Members indicated agreement.
Members will recall that we had plans for a meeting on corporate social responsibility with Stephen Timms MP. Unfortunately, because of the time scale of the committee's employment and corporate social responsibility inquiry and Stephen Timms's diary commitments, the meeting had to be postponed. Since then, we have been in dialogue with Stephen Timms, who is interested in speaking to the committee. It would be helpful to have a meeting with him, but that will obviously have to be in the new session of Parliament. I recommend that we welcome the principle of a meeting and ask the clerks to arrange one, subject to the successor committee feeling that that would be a useful development. Is that recommendation agreed to?
Members indicated agreement.
Finally, members will be aware that the United Kingdom Government has recently announced proposals for a new framework for a regional development policy in the United Kingdom and how that might affect structural funding post 2006. Colleagues will recall that the committee produced a paper on the matter, but that was an early paper and was produced in advance of other key groups, including the Scottish Executive, formulating views on the matter. Stephen Imrie has circulated an information paper to members.
The difficulty is that the deadline for submissions to the consultation on the proposals is 4 July 2003. The proposals are an important piece of work and relate to work that the committee has done. Since this is our last meeting, the matter will be up to the new committee, but it might be helpful to have a recommendation on the way forward. If anything can be done between now and the new committee taking office, the clerks can begin to pursue that.
There are a number of options to consider. Given that the election will get a little bit in the way of the committee's business, we could ask for an extension to the deadline on the consultation, which would allow the new committee to take evidence and formulate a viewpoint on the matter. However, the clerks have tested the water and have found out that, although discussions will be on-going, the consultation is unlikely to continue beyond 4 July, as the UK Government would like it to be fixed.
Another option is that the new committee could deal with the matter as a priority and try to take evidence on it quickly. I do not think that there is anything to prevent the clerks from seeking written comments and evidence from groups that might be interested in the consultation or affected by the new proposals. Obviously, there is a range of actions that we could take. I am in the hands of members as to how best to proceed, but it is important that we make a contribution to the debate, one way or another. I am happy for members to express a view.
The most realistic options are either to pursue an extension to the 4 July deadline, which takes us into the recess and does not give much leeway for the new committee to take evidence, or to task the clerks with writing to interested bodies with a view to gathering information that the new committee could assimilate quickly. In that way, the new committee could at least make a basic response.
The situation is difficult because, after today, we will not be a committee any longer. We have done a lot of work on the issue and, if the clerks ask people for their views on the proposals, our successor committee could be presented with that range of views and the paper that we produced earlier. That would give the new committee a basis for getting into the issue and, I hope, allow it to make a response.
The matter is vital. As I understand it, the Government's proposals are fairly radical, so it is critical that the committee should discuss the issues and take a view on them. In the past, structural funds have had an important role in the life of Scotland.
I do not think that the proposed routes are mutually exclusive. It would be useful if the clerks could write officially to Westminster to highlight the history of the structural funds' importance to Scotland and to say that we regret the timing, which is causing difficulty that is outwith our control—the elections and the start of the Parliament's recess in July are facts. It is critical to consider the matter. I support Sarah Boyack's suggestion that, in the meantime, the clerks should write to interested people throughout Scotland to seek their views. The committee should recommend that the next European and External Relations Committee considers the issue as a matter of priority.
As no one is otherwise minded, the consensus is that that is the way to proceed. We will ask the clerks to write to ask interested bodies for their views on the new consultation document and we will recommend that the matter should be an urgent item on the first agenda of the European and External Relations Committee in the next session.