European Committee, 29 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 29, 2002

Official Report 192KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

There are a number of matters to discuss under agenda item 4. The clerks have provided us with a copy of Scotland Europa's briefing paper on the Laeken European Council, which we requested. I have also been asked to draw to members' attention the fact that the Scottish Parliament information centre intends to produce a briefing paper for our governance report. We should note those developments and that the date for the debate in the chamber is 27 February, as I have said.

The next matter is the proposed committee visit to European institutions. We discussed this at our previous meeting and investigated the possibility of going to Strasbourg. We have taken soundings from Dermot Scott and Liz Holt of the European Parliament office in Scotland and the European Commission Representation in Scotland respectively on the logistics and financial costs of getting to Strasbourg. After discussions, it was felt that we could have a useful trip to Brussels in the week beginning 4 March. I do not know how fixed that date is.

The date is not fixed. I have said to members individually that we will try to accommodate different requests about who members want to meet. We might have to consider different dates if the people whom members want to meet are not available. The week beginning 4 March is the likely date—that is our best guess.

Obviously, the visit to Europe will tie in with our future work programme. Before we deal with that, it is important that we deal with our current work programme, which goes back to the committee's beginnings, when we had many reporters. Much work has been scrapped and much of it has not, but not much is happening to it. When members move on, work either falls to the clerks or just floats around. It might be best to reconsider our current work programme—which has many gaps—and decide what we should scrap. There is no point in creating a new work programme if 50 per cent of the old programme was scrapped.

We discussed the work programme at the previous meeting. We noted that a number of reports remain outstanding, principally because committee members who undertook to act as rapporteurs moved to other committees. Tavish Scott's report springs to mind. We noted that those reports are outstanding, but I do not see why they should not be finished off, if the clerks have time to do it. Not long ago, I had a word with Tavish Scott and told him that I hoped that his report would be finished. Another report that we agreed to try to finish is Sylvia Jackson's review of the sixth environmental action programme. The committee should not simply abandon outstanding reports.

I am conscious that the report on the euro was handed to the clerks. The clerks must prepare reports, but perhaps members should do the reports that deal with political issues. We had the nightmare of going through every line of the report on the euro, which was partly my fault. Handing reports over lock, stock and barrel to the clerks—without someone to guide them—is not fair to them.

There is also the Laeken report to consider.

I am not sure whether you are volunteering for work or whether you want to do away with some of the reports that are on the committee's agenda.

We should decide who is going to complete the reports. Should the committee as a whole complete them, should we have a rapporteur or should we leave it up to the clerks to produce a draft that the committee then spends a number of weeks picking over?

At the previous meeting, we noted that a number of reports are outstanding. We agreed to write to the conveners of the subject committees to get a feel for the work that they will undertake during the following year. The Commission's work programme was attached to the letter. I hoped that we would have an early report on the future work programme, but we cannot do that until we have replies from the conveners of the other committees. When we have the replies, we can review the outstanding work. We discussed at the previous meeting the principle of rapporteurs. I would be happy if members were willing to take up any of the outstanding reports or to do follow-up reports. We could discuss that at the next meeting, at which I hope to have more information on the forward work programme.

We intend the work programme to be flexible until we have had further discussions in Brussels with European Commission and Parliament officials. After that, we can tighten up some of the areas that our inquiries might examine. As I said, I am interested in holding an inquiry on employment, but colleagues might have different ideas. We can firm up our ideas when we are in Brussels having meetings on subjects in which we have an interest.

I want to see what we can achieve. We have a large list, which includes two hefty reports. The work programme as it was drafted a fortnight ago is pretty big. Will we get through that programme by the end of this parliamentary session?

We need to assimilate all the information that we will receive from other committees' feedback, from the Commission's work programme for the year and from our meetings in Brussels. When we have done that, we can decide on our priorities. We might not be able to do everything, but we will at least set a time scale for our priorities. I would like to do that in accordance with members' interests.

Perhaps members could volunteer to take on—separate from our full committee inquiries—matters on which opinion has been expressed. Some members might have been put off by the volume of work that other members have had to endure. Dennis Canavan and Ben Wallace could comment on that—they have had to produce substantial reports for the committee. We need to balance members' interests with the key direction that the committee wants to take in the next year. However, I doubt that we have enough information today—some members do not have last week's papers with them. We need to discuss the matter when all the information is available to us. We probably cannot finalise arrangements until we return from Brussels. If members are happy, an interim report can be produced for the committee once we receive the feedback from subject committee conveners. That might help to inform our discussion.

Following on from what Ben Wallace and the convener said, although we have a fairly packed programme, matters will also crop up on which it is important that we are seen to achieve a tangible result this year. I refer to two things. First, the bid for Euro 2008 is clearly within the external affairs remit. That is an important issue for many people in this country. A decision will be made on the bid within the next month. The bid should be a priority for the committee, because it will be a subject of discussion among the lieges in the country. In the light of this morning's somewhat contradictory press releases from the Irish Government and the Executive, we need to get on top of the situation immediately—

Let me just stop you there, Lloyd. The Euro 2008 bid is not in our work programme.

That is what I mean. Euro 2008 is an issue that is of great importance to people. We need to do something practical about that.

I have a second suggestion. I have become aware that, although free movement of domestic animals is now allowed between the UK and the European Union, such movement is not possible from any port or airport in Scotland. The committee could usefully get behind that issue. It would be good for the committee and for the Parliament if we were to get a positive response, such as an agreement that free movement of domestic animals would be allowed from a port in Scotland that has a direct connection to Europe. At the moment, such movement is allowed from Gatwick, from Heathrow, via Eurotunnel, from Harwich, Dover and Hull, but not from Scotland. If we deal with that issue, we might achieve a practical and tangible end.

I do not disagree that we need to do something that is achievable, practical and relevant. That is one reason why, at our previous meeting, I suggested that we should examine employment. However, I feel that we might be straying somewhat. Perhaps Lloyd Quinan is indicating that he would like to develop that subject through meetings in Brussels. At the moment, we are supposed to be discussing our trip to Brussels. Would you like to explore that area during our trip to Brussels, Lloyd?

Both of the areas that I have mentioned need to be explored further. We must meet the Irish and find out what is going on. I also suggest that we meet the Austrians and the Swiss—well, perhaps not the Swiss, but definitely the Austrians, although we could meet the Swiss as well—to find out how confident they are.

I have a feeling that our trip is turning into a pseudo-football trip.

We are straying into the discussion that we had at our previous meeting. I suspect that we could add new current issues to the list every two weeks. I have e-mailed the clerks about my particular interests for our trip to Brussels—if, indeed, we go to Brussels—but what is the best process for organising the trip? To what extent will we have individual meetings? Is the purpose of the trip to interrogate people in Brussels en masse?

I would also like to meet people from other political groups when we are in Brussels, but I am finding it difficult to organise meetings, as we have not confirmed when we are to go. I would like to get a sense of the structure of the trip that we are putting together, as I do not want to arrange meetings that will clash with something that the clerks have arranged in good faith. Could we focus on how we are going to run the trip?

Sarah Boyack raises a valid point about which week we are to go to Brussels. The Committee of the Regions will meet during the week beginning 11 March—I have not mentioned that to Stephen Imrie yet. It might be useful to meet members of other European committees, regional governments and political groups. I know that political group meetings are always held during Committee of the Regions weeks. The meetings do not involve MEPs, who are in Strasbourg on the Wednesday and the Thursday; they involve regional and local government members. If members want to spend a couple of days watching how the Committee of the Regions operates, attending political group meetings and meeting counterparts from other regional governments, we could investigate the possibility of going during that week. However, I have not discussed that option with the clerks and I do not know how much planning they have done for the week beginning 4 March.

Perhaps Stephen Imrie could say a little about the interests that members have indicated. We should be able to combine committee meetings—that is, attending meetings as a full committee, perhaps on our governance report—with sub-group meetings. That approach worked quite well on our previous visit, when members indicated an interest in and attended meetings on employment or the environment. If time permits, and subject to the agreement of Commission officials, we could set up some pertinent and useful meetings. We propose to bring a draft programme to the next meeting; in order to do so, members must indicate their individual interests to the clerk, as we also propose to hold full committee meetings with colleagues who are interested in governance.

I will advise members on our latest thinking and on the e-mails and expressions of interest in meeting people that I have received from members.

As the committee has yet to make a decision, I cannot say that the subjects for inquiry are definite. I took it from the previous committee meeting and from previous discussions that there was an interest in employment, the intergovernmental conference and follow-up work on the future of Europe, as well as in post-2006 regional development structural funds and the potential reductions in budgets for Scotland. That suggests that the whole committee should attempt to meet Commissioner Barnier, who has responsibility for the IGC and regional development, and either Commissioner Diamantopoulou, who is the commissioner for employment and social affairs, or the director general for employment and social affairs. Those are the areas in which members have indicated a collective interest. Sarah Boyack has expressed a particular interest in environmental matters—her e-mail is the only one that I have received.

I propose to put together a programme and send it to members in the next day or so—we have some drafts available. If a number of members—in other words, not just one member—are interested in following up the extra issues, we will break the committee into sub-groups and will take small parties away.

We can do two things with an individual area of interest. As clerks, we are happy to try to open doors to the people whom members would like to meet. We could accommodate members by taking minutes and notes and by helping to bring the meeting about—by making introductions, for example. However, we suggest that members who wish to follow up a personal or party matter should do that off their own bat.

We are deliberately putting large chunks of free time into the programme to allow members to undertake one-to-one meetings with MEPs or representatives of non-governmental organisations in Brussels whom they have a personal interest in meeting. I have taken on board from previous visits a request for flexibility in the programme to allow members to undertake off their own bat separate meetings on areas in which they are interested. The clerks are available to open doors for members. We will also try to ensure that the programme allows flexibility.

That seems reasonable. Are arrangements still flexible enough to allow us to go either in the week beginning 4 March or in the week beginning 11 March? I go to the Committee of the Regions regularly, so I will be in Strasbourg during the week of 11 March. Would it be useful to go that week or would people prefer to go the week before, when they could meet parliamentarians?

We can hear back from members about the work of the Committee of the Regions. As we discussed when we put our report together, we are well aware that the Committee of the Regions will not necessarily exist in a couple of years.

I doubt that.

It is good to have feedback on what the Committee of the Regions is doing at the moment. However, as the IGC is my particular area of interest, I am less interested in the Committee of the Regions than in the 29 individuals who will be part of the convention for the preparation of the constitution. I believe that the names of those individuals were announced on Thursday of last week.

On Friday, I attended a meeting in Brussels of groups that are interested in the IGC. I get the impression that, although it would be useful to meet the commissioner, it would be more useful to try to meet the individuals who will be part of the constitutional convention, because they represent a fairly broad political spectrum. Such a meeting might give us ideas about how we might access the constitutional convention. The principal concern of the meeting that I attended in Brussels was how stateless nations, autonomous regions and so on will be able to access the constitutional convention.

I ask only that we speak to the Commission. Elizabeth Holt was very helpful last time. We should find out the practical implications. If it is harder to access Commission members when the Committee of the Regions is on—because they might be answering to the Committee of the Regions—I would suggest the week of 4 March. If it makes no difference, I am happy with either week. Access is the key for us—we want to meet the right people so that we can find out the right things.

In that case, we will leave it to the clerks to sort things out. They will e-mail us as soon as possible. The key people whom members want to meet appear to be those in the Commission and the European Parliament. It sounds as if the week of 4 March is the most likely, because the following week those people will all be in Strasbourg. We will get Stephen Imrie to investigate that and to confirm the date with members. I repeat that, if members would like assistance with anything, they should e-mail the clerks as soon as possible.

That brings me to a point that I wanted to mention to members. It is actually under item 4 in the convener's recommendation document but I would like to discuss it now because it relates to the Brussels visit. It is suggested that we send the letter in annexe A of the document to the chairs of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee of the Flemish Parliament and the Permanent Committee on European Union and External Co-operation of the Catalan Parliament. The letter follows on from discussions that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have had in this area. Members will recall that President Pujol visited Scotland last year and extended an invitation to members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to go to Catalonia. The Presiding Officer took that invitation up and I accompanied him at the weekend to Barcelona—

Not bad.

It was all arranged before I became the convener of the committee. I was just filling in a slot.

I met the chairs of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee of the Flemish Parliament and the Permanent Committee on European Union and External Co-operation of the Catalan Parliament. Their ideas about collaboration and close working are interesting. I told them that we intended to visit Brussels in March and they expressed an interest in examining whether it would be possible to develop further links between other subject committees. I would be keen for any links that were developed to have demonstrable practical benefits to the people of Scotland in relation to tourism, jobs and the sharing of best practice. We can explore the possibilities for making those links when we go to Brussels.

I am asking for the committee's approval to send the letter in annexe A with a view to setting up a meeting with the members of the Catalan and Flemish European committees when we go to Brussels.

I would like the opening line to be changed slightly so that, instead of "Catalan Parliament", it says "the Generalitat", which is what it is known as.

When I was in Barcleona, we all spoke about the Catalan Parliament, but we will check that and ensure that we address the body in the correct way.

Who was talking about the Catalan Parliament—those who spoke English or those who spoke Spanish and Catalan?

"Generalitat" sounds to me like it is in trade union language.

Catalunya has an exceedingly right-wing Government, Ben, with which you would be very happy.

Who visited the Catalan Parliament? The letter says, "our recent visit".

The delegation was led by the Presiding Officer. There were a number of officials, including Paul Grice, Stephen Imrie and Sarah Davidson, who is working on the Holyrood project.

It is interesting that this is the first that I have heard of this trip. I do not recall it being approved by the Parliament. Was it one of those things that are cooked up by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body?

As I said, it was all arranged before I became convener. Perhaps Stephen Imrie has information that he can give to the committee on the matter.

It is not for me to comment on the procedures by which such delegations are put together. However, I understand that the matter was discussed in the Parliamentary Bureau. The report on the visit is available on the Parliament's intranet and contains notes of meetings and details of who went on the trip. The invitation was extended to Hugh Henry in his capacity as the convener of the committee.

Who extended the invitation to him?

I believe that it was extended by the Presiding Officer.

At this point, we should be asking ourselves whether the proposed visit will benefit the people of Scotland and fit in with our work programme.

Are members content to send the letter and to meet with the chairs of the Catalan and Flemish European committees when we go to Brussels?

I am whole-heartedly behind the proposal. I just make the plea that we do not confine ourselves as we appeared to do last year, when we had discussions with the Flemings and the Catalans only. Our connections with Catalunya are only in the area of financial services. We could learn a lot more from other regions of Spain, especially those that are post-industrial, much like us, and operate in the same areas. In the past, we have been in competition with those regions for structural funds. We should be aware of the asymmetrical nature of the devolution settlement in Spain. The settlement is different in relation to the 17 autonomous regions and the emphasis on Catalunya can give a false view of the general attitude in Spain to the European Union. The Catalans have a specific approach.

I do not disagree with the principle of extending the meeting to include other regions. A delegation from Sachsen-Anhalt visited the committee and the Parliament and representatives from a number of states and regions, including Sweden and North Rhine-Westphalia, gave evidence during our governance inquiry. There are a number of potential links and it might be that, as we decide on our priorities for next year, we will want to form links with some regions rather than others.

We must remember that the Galicians gave evidence to the committee via satellite link. As we have already made a link and asked them for something, it is important that we give something back and maintain the link. That link also relates directly to issues such as the environmental side of the fishing industry.

We need to consider what criteria to use for making links and decide how to fit those around our areas of interest. Sachsen-Anhalt is one of the regions that are linked with enlargement to the east and that have received demonstrable benefits from Europe. I would be interested in exploring some of those links.

I come back to the point about criteria. There are two sorts of criteria. The first involves governance issues, including the issues that we are going to pick up on in Brussels on the IGC and on where Europe is going and how some nation states or regions relate to the national states as they are recognised by Europe. Secondly, there are the subject issues where there might be cross-regional interests—employment, our transforming economy and cracking the problem of recycling, for example. We might like to link with different regions in different ways. One of the issues that I would be interested in picking up when we are in Brussels is how the relationships between Parliaments are structured and to what extent we link into the European Parliament. I have found that MEPs are interested in issues that they pick up from their committees but that are relevant to our Parliament.

I would support the proposals in the letter but there are other issues and I would not like the committee to create those links exclusively. Over time, the Parliament will want to build broader links and we have to work out what the criteria should be and how they should guide us so that we are more focused. When people come back from holiday, for example, they have a list of ideas of places that they would like to go to again because they looked interesting. Our challenge is to be a bit more focused. Perhaps that could link into our work programme, when we get around to considering it. We need to decide with which European states or regions we could do good work.

I agree with those points.

On the possibility of our joining COSAC—the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union—I do not recall why our suggestion was turned down the last time. Was any specific reason given as to why the French presidency turned down our proposal? If we are going to persuade the powers that be to think again, we ought to be aware of the arguments that were used against us last time. If such arguments still prevail, we might be as well going for the other option, which was to seek the formation of a network of legislatures within devolved Administrations.

I can see the advantage of that. I think that the argument was that membership was restricted to member states, as opposed to sub-member states or regions. There is merit in Dennis Canavan's suggestion, which is included in the report. We could spend a long time arguing about the principle but, as Dennis Canavan says, perhaps the thing to do is to get on and make links with those regions that are interested in the same things as we are.

That has been a useful discussion. I would like to note the launch date of Ben Wallace's excellent report on EU enlargement.

I have one point to raise on that. Was the venue as well as the date of the launch decided at the December meeting? I am grateful to Liz Holt for offering us the use of her offices and a light lunch, but we are a parliamentary committee and we have a duty to monitor European institutions and to be critical where necessary. Parliamentary reports should be launched from a Parliament building. I wonder whether it is wise to allow a European Union institution to host the launch of such an important report. We do not want to appear to be the mouthpiece of any EU institution. I expect that it is too late to do something about the venue this time, but perhaps that is something that we should bear in mind in future.

More consultation on the date might have been helpful, because I know that it is posing problems for several people. I am in Brussels on Thursday and will be unable to attend. I understand that the Commission offered its offices to host the launch and it was felt that the flags and so on would make the location rather photogenic. However, I take your point, Dennis.

We are in the same situation in relation to the date and the venue; we did not discuss either at the December meeting—they were decided by e-mail.

In the game of enlargement, the Commission plays the role of the referee; in effect, it is neutral. I would not feel awkward about it, because the Commission is simply the structure that allows the member states to negotiate with the applicants. The Commission does not have a position. Although it thinks that enlargement is a good thing, it does not have any views on which countries should come first or last. That is decided by the member states in conjunction with the applicants.

I agree with Dennis Canavan's point that we should be much more cautious in general. However, on this issue, the Commission is neutral, although there will be elements of our report that the Commission will not agree with.

Surely not.

The arrangements were partly dictated by the fact that the Estonian ambassador was going to be in Scotland on that day, which might prove helpful in the launch of the report. I have taken on board the points that members have made. In future, we should ensure that members have an opportunity to comment on proposed dates. I hope that as many members as possible will be able to make the launch, which is at 1 o'clock on Thursday 31 January in the Commission offices on Alva Street. I am sorry that I will be in Brussels.

I will not—

Where is Alva Street?

How long have you been here?

What is—

Have you not bought an "A to Z" of Edinburgh? It is pathetic. Alva Street is at the west end.

Lloyd Quinan has an "A to Z".

It is at the west end.

The west end is Leicester Square.

Colleagues, the official report is trying to record several different conversations at once. Please address your comments through the chair.

I asked the clerks to bring us the dates of the forthcoming European Council of the EU. As we have discussed, can members bring proposals to an early meeting of the committee to discuss pre-Council and post-Council briefings? We have the list of meetings and we need to discuss agendas. The clerks can bring us more information about what might come up, so that the committee can decide whether to invite ministers along in order to investigate any items with a Scottish perspective.

Can we ask the clerks to get us a full list of the proposed meetings between the Executive and the Irish Government on the bid for Euro 2008? It is a matter of urgency, as a decision will be taken at the end of February.

I am not sure that that is in the committee's remit. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee may be responsible.

This is exactly the kind of issue that I had in mind at our previous meeting when I asked for clarification of the committee's remit in respect of external affairs. If the issue is a political hot potato for certain elements in the Parliament, that is fine. However, if we are to scrutinise external affairs, it is essential that we are aware of every element of the joint bid, which will take money out of the Parliament for a tournament that comes under the rules not of the European Union, but of another European structure. Admittedly, the other country that is involved is a member of the European Union.

The matter has not been off the back, front or inside pages of our newspapers for nearly four months and interest in it will increase. If we are saying, as a committee that has just asked for the right to scrutinise external affairs, as we have the agreement of the Executive to do—

Just a minute, Lloyd. We do not yet have that remit. The matter is with the Procedures Committee.

Will we have that remit following the Procedures Committee's debate on Thursday?

We will have to check. I was not aware that the debate would be held as soon as that. The remit would have to be agreed by all committee members, because the matter is being thrown into the pot as part of our work programme. At our previous meeting, we agreed that we would write to the conveners of the subject committees, assess the information when it came back and decide our work programme from there. I suggest that we wait until we receive responses from the conveners of the subject committees before we decide what to do.

I take on board what the convener says, but there is some merit in Lloyd Quinan's suggestion. It remains to be seen what decision the Parliament will take on the possibility of the committee having a wider role with regard to external relations. There is certainly an external relations element in a joint bid by Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. Participation in Euro 2008 is much wider than the member states of the European Union. However, if the Parliament decides that the committee should have a wider role with regard to external affairs, and if the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is not enthused about taking up the matter, there may be a role for the European Committee.

Lloyd Quinan, Colin Campbell, John Home Robertson and Ben Wallace all want to contribute. Before I bring them in, I want to say two things. First, the clerk has clarified that our altered remit will not be brought before the Parliament in the Procedures Committee debate on Thursday. That matter is still outstanding and will continue to be after Thursday. Secondly, we have never undertaken an inquiry that has encroached on another subject area without consulting—

What about football transfers?

That was discussed with the relevant committee first—that is my point. We also discussed fishing, but, again, we did so with the agreement of the relevant committee.

We have an informal agreement with the Executive for the committee's remit to be extended. It would be legally correct to say that we do not have responsibility for external affairs at this stage, but we might take on that responsibility before 28 February, the date on which the decision will be made. I am not asking for an inquiry to be undertaken; I am suggesting that we should simply ask the clerks to contact the Executive and ask for the details of the meetings that are being held in relation to the bid. In that way, we can scrutinise the Executive.

The problem is that we do not have the remit to perform that scrutiny. If we had that remit, it would be different.

Please let me finish what I was saying. I prefaced my remarks by pointing out that, in a strictly legal sense, we do not have that responsibility. However, given that our remit is up for discussion, I suggest that it would be insensitive of us not at least to conduct an element of scrutiny prior to confirmation of our role in covering and scrutinising external affairs. The press may well be interested in whether the committee wishes actively to take on the role that it has sought.

I think that the press would also want to know what will be happening with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which we would need to investigate, to be fair.

We are anticipating the actions of the subject committees at the moment, are we not?

We are.

How soon can we get those committees to expedite their responses? What we are discussing is fairly urgent, whether we decide to go into the matter or not. Once in a while, we have to drop out of our work programme and pick up and run with what is very current. The bid will involve tourism, the economy and jobs, which are quite relevant to what the committee is about and to our relationship with Europe.

The fundamental point is that the Euro 2008 bid is a major initiative that was announced by the First Minister last week, or whenever it was. It might cost a lot of money and have substantial significance to Scotland. Self-evidently, it should be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament and the appropriate committee. The debate at this stage must be about which committee conducts that scrutiny, and in what format.

I propose that, at this stage, the convener should speak informally to the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. That committee may well want to conduct some sort of investigation or a one-off evidence session with the minister. If it does not want to do that, we could fill the gap. However, I would suggest that course of action at this stage.

Lloyd Quinan made a good point, and I also agree with John Home Robertson. I would have expected the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to deal with this matter, because, whatever happens to the bid, and whatever the political failures or successes, we must be in a position to learn how we can improve such bids in the future. I think that the matter belongs in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's remit, because that committee will be able to identify what may have failed or otherwise. I agree, however, that if the Education, Culture and Sport Committee does not take up the matter, we should consider it.

The point about the timing of the addition of external affairs to our brief is valid. Technically, the Executive need not reply to us about such issues. However, the matter requires to be handled with some urgency. It is interesting that the change will not be covered during the forthcoming Procedures Committee debate. The delay lies at the feet of the man who is now First Minister, who got the external affairs brief when he became Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs more than a year ago. He never replied to the committee to enable us to match his responsibilities. If such a reply had been forthcoming—the committee pursued the matter on three occasions—we would at least know where we stood and the Parliament would be able to take part in the process.

I am not sure of the exact details—is the bid that must be in by the end of February the formal bid?

It is the full, formal bid.

The decision to submit a formal bid must be made by the end of February. A decision will be made on the bid some months later—in July, I think.

I am also convinced—

Just for clarification—

We cannot have three people talking at once. Ben Wallace is speaking and Dennis Canavan kindly gave him some additional information.

That is what I am trying to do.

Lloyd Quinan may come in after Ben Wallace has finished speaking.

I am giving Ben Wallace the confirmation that Dennis Canavan just kindly gave him. At the end of next month, we must name the stadiums for a joint bid. Because it is a joint bid, we must detail the split; if it were a single bid, we would not have to do that.

Where the stadiums are put is not a European issue—it is a Scottish sports issue.

Except that some of them will be in Ireland.

I have completely lost my train of thought. However, I think that the Executive has not yet worked out how it will put together the bid. This is a fresh announcement, which was made only last week. I know how slowly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and diplomatic circles work, so I would be surprised if there is anything in place for us to scrutinise. I have dealt with the Irish Government, which is not always particularly straightforward. However, we could do this work, if the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is not interested in doing it.

And if it is in our remit. We are dependent on the Procedures Committee processing our request that our remit be extended to mirror the minister's external affairs brief. That has not yet been done; the matter is in the hands of the Procedures Committee. I do not want us to spend a great deal of time discussing matters that are not yet in our remit. However, I take on board what members are saying about the possibilities that exist if the Education, Culture and Sport Committee does not want to deal with the matter, and if the Procedures Committee extends our remit timeously.

I would like clarification of what we are talking about. I simply asked for the clerks to ask the Executive for a diary of events relating to the bid that is to be made at the end of February. I did not ask for an inquiry; I asked for some straightforward information. What is the problem with that?

If committees of the Parliament asked for information that was outside their remit, there would be a problem.

Are you, as the convener of this committee, saying that, even though we know that we will be confirmed as the committee of the Parliament that is responsible for external affairs, you are not prepared to do something that you consider to be technically outside our remit? Is that your position, despite the fact that the Executive and the committee have agreed to the extension of our remit, and despite the fact that, as Ben Wallace pointed out, the previous Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs spent a year failing to come up with a definition of the external affairs remit? That delay, in effect, put back by a year our ability to expand our remit.

I want to abide by the standing orders and rules and regulations of the Parliament. That is not unreasonable. It is the job of a convener to do that.

You have probably said this already, but if the Procedures Committee confirms the extension to our remit, will there be time in our work programme to deal with this matter, even in a modest way?

That is a reasonable suggestion. The matter is in the hands of committee members. I would not want to take such a decision; I would be happy to consult members of the committee on doing what Colin Campbell suggests, provided that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee decides not to deal with the matter.

I support John Home Robertson's proposal. Through the convener, we should seek clarification from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee of whether it wants to chase this issue. That would be the fastest way of dealing with the matter. In two weeks' time we can take a view on what happens next.

I think that we are all agreed.

I thank members for their attendance and note that the next meeting of the committee will be on 12 February.

Meeting closed at 15:29.