European Committee, 26 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Official Report 158KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

We move on to item 5, which is the convener's report. I have a few items today, the first of which is to note the latest developments in our timetable for visiting Brussels. I am not proposing that we discuss the matter now, but members could perhaps let the clerks know of any comments that they have, as time is marching on. I know that the clerks will be happy to accommodate any last-minute changes if necessary. If members cannot attend meetings because they are making their own arrangements, perhaps they could keep the clerks up to date with the things that they will be doing separately from the committee.

I am sure that most members now know that our report on governance will be debated in Parliament on Thursday morning, 28 February, instead of tomorrow afternoon. I think that our debate will have more time by being on Thursday morning. I suppose that that is a bonus for us. I hope that committee members will be willing to come along and contribute to the debate. If members let the clerks know whether they will do so, that will make it easier to work out how much speaking time members might have. I am assuming that most committee members will be able to come along and participate.

Are we now getting the whole of Thursday morning?

No. I think that the Standards Committee has an hour of the time. Perhaps the clerk has an update.

My latest understanding is that the Standards Committee debate and our debate will share Thursday morning. I will update members if the situation changes.

Will the time be shared equally?

Possibly not. The Standards Committee debate might take only an hour, which might leave about two hours for our debate, but that is only a working assumption.

Long speeches will be required.

Just before I came to the meeting, I was told that it was more likely that our debate would have two and a half hours, for some reason. Will the convener or Ben Wallace open the debate for the committee?

I intend to open for the committee.

Will Ben Wallace close the debate?

As far as I know, John Home Robertson, as deputy convener, will do that.

Will Ben Wallace speak in the debate?

I hope that all committee members will speak.

For clarification, will Ben Wallace be speaking for the Tories or as a committee member?

Well—

That is a difficult question. I just wondered whether anyone knows.

I do not know. Part of the reason for putting the matter on the agenda was to check whether people were willing to speak in the debate so that we can plan the time accordingly. I assume that all members of the committee will speak.

Obviously, the SNP will be taking part in the debate, but you cannot expect Colin Campbell and me to endorse the entire findings of the report, although we were very kind and—

Well, you agreed to it all.

We did not, actually.

I certainly did not.

Some of the wording with which we seriously disagreed was not changed in the final draft, but that is another matter. We chose not to produce a minority report or to press matters to a vote but that does not mean that we agreed with everything in the report.

All members of committees feel the same about reports. We all give and take and negotiate in the interests of producing a report to which the whole committee can sign up. Everyone is in the same position. Fortunately, we had no divisions and the committee agreed the report.

I hope that members will speak in the debate and, as I have heard nothing to the contrary, I assume that Ben Wallace will be there as well.

The next item on which I want to update members is the European members information liaison exchange network—EMILE—meeting. We had a useful debate about the reform of the common fisheries policy and agreed that we would try to raise the matter when we go to Brussels next week. I hope that John Home Robertson will lead that delegation so that we can take a team Scotland approach on the issue of fishing. Sarah Boyack and Lloyd Quinan were at the EMILE meeting as well. Would either of them like to add anything?

Jim Wallace was more positive than I expected him to be on our getting advance notice of issues that will come up at meetings of the Council of Ministers. We have been discussing how we can scrutinise what is happening in Europe from a distance when, by the time a directive is finalised and must be implemented, all the negotiations have taken place. We need to track issues that we are interested in and so we must hold Jim Wallace and his officials to that offer of working in dialogue with us.

That reminds me: we have arranged for Jim Wallace to come to our meeting on 26 March. He will give us information on the state of play of the situation between the UK Government and the Spanish presidency.

Something that I became aware of when I was the minister with responsibility for fisheries was that other member states are becoming uneasy about the operation of the Hague preference, which guarantees a share of the total allowable catch to Ireland and the United Kingdom. From what Ross Finnie has said recently, I gather that that feeling of unease is building up and that a number of European states now want to revisit the Hague preference. If that agreement were watered down in any way, it could have a serious impact on our fishing interests. It is useful that the issue has been flagged up and I am sure that the minister is doing work in relation to it. We should be properly briefed and I hope that the clerk will be able to get some up-to-date information so that we can discuss the issue with officials next week.

That is a good point. We have already asked Ross Finnie's department to provide us with a briefing to ensure that we are absolutely up to speed when we go to Brussels next week.

The Danes take over the presidency of the EU in July 2002 and, around that time, we will invite the Danish ambassador to speak to the committee about the priorities of the presidency. We have done that for previous presidencies. We will keep members up to date.