European and External Relations Committee, 28 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Official Report 209KB pdf

---

European Commission Work Programme 2006

The third agenda item is an update on issues that are of interest to the committee in the European Commission's work programme for the year. Annex A to committee paper EU/S2/06/3/3 contains a brief update on the services directive following its first reading in the European Parliament earlier this month. As we have discussed, the main point of the annex is to let members know that the European Parliament voted against the country-of-origin principle and agreed a list of services that the directive will cover. The Commission has said that it will take the Scottish Parliament's views into account in redrafting the directive. When we visit Brussels, we will be given a more detailed briefing.

Annex B is a note on the various EU and Scottish initiatives that focus on communication between the EU and its citizens. Members will see that, since our last meeting, the Commission has published its white paper on the European communication policy, which gives us the opportunity to consider it along with plan D for democracy and debate, the Executive's building a bridge between Europe and its citizens project and what the committee can do. Now that we can compare plan D with the white paper, it is clear that plan D sets out how the Commission intends to facilitate in member states debate on the future of the EU.

The white paper, on the other hand, is explicitly consultative and asks member states, regional and local governments, non-governmental organisations and citizens to contribute ideas on how to close the gap between Europe and its citizens. The Executive's project envisages some coverage of the Parliament's innovative practices, but it will not report until the autumn at the earliest. The white paper's consultation period ends in July.

The work that the committee has agreed to do so far is covered by paragraph 20 onwards of annex B of our issues paper. It suggests a way forward in the light of the communication white paper. I ask members to consider the recommendations with a view to agreement to them.

May I make an observation, convener?

Of course you may.

We asked our representative in Europe to attend a plan D conference, and his report on it has been submitted to us. The plan D conference was attended by 400 representatives from all over Europe, so that they could give their views and progress plan D. The time for debate during the conference was about two and a half hours, spread over three sessions. I suggest that if that is the level of communication, comment and consultation that we can expect from plan D, it is absolutely worthless. I found, having read our representative's report, that the basis for that was that the French and Dutch people simply do not understand what Europe is all about. It is totally insulting to go into a consultation with that approach. It is a typical European nose-in-the-air attitude to the treatment of citizens. I can say here and now that plan D is not worth commenting on. It should be dispatched to the rubbish bin and people should think again on the matter. Those views are backed up by the report that was issued by our employee in Brussels.

So, are you saying that you agree with our stance that it should be the communication white paper to which we respond?

We should perhaps respond to the communication white paper and we should make the strongest representation that plan D is an absolute shambles. It is a mask—God knows what it is a mask for, but it is just a mask.

Right. Are there any other comments?

I think that we are in violent agreement.

Do we have to be violent, Mr Gordon?

This is great.

Are you in violent agreement, Mr Wallace?

I concur with your recommendations, convener.

Let us get this right. We will continue to prepare a report on this Parliament's engagement with citizens, but that is for the white paper consultation, rather than in response to plan D. However, we still need to know the views of the UK and Scottish Executive ministers with responsibility for Europe. We need to get more information from them on the UK's activities under plan D. We would like confirmation that the UK Government is talking to the Executive on the matter. We must also remember the building a bridge project and so on.

What I have said, and what Charlie Gordon has backed me up on, is that plan D is an absolute waste of time. If anything, we should simply point that out to the Executive and the UK Government.

That will be pretty plain when it is published in the Official Report, Mr Gallie.

I would like it to be a bit more than that: let us tell them.

Perhaps I had better apologise for my use of cryptic irony. I was reflecting on the fact that, for all the violence of his language on plan D, Phil Gallie was in fact agreeing with the recommendation that is before us.

Rather colourfully.

Our paper refers to the response of the Scottish Executive and the UK to plan D. Perhaps we should also get some indication of their responses to the communication white paper.

Yes. We have also still not heard from the Executive about the building a bridge project, although I understand that representatives of the Executive are coming to explain it all to us on 14 March. That will be wonderful, won't it?

The wonder will be untold. [Laughter.]

Is that agreed?

I want to make one more point.

You are determined.

It is a very small point.

He is not going to take yes for an answer.

I would hate to think that my earlier comments might be viewed as having been "violent". I would say that they were strong.

They were robust.

They demonstrated a certain strength of feeling—

—and great fortitude.

That strength of feeling was based on the accuracy of my condemnation of the situation, as it was reported by our employee in Brussels.

Fine lad that he is.