Plenary, 24 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Official Report 359KB pdf

---

Committee of the Regions

We move on a little early to the next item, which is a debate on motion S1M-2340, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on membership of the Committee of the Regions, and one amendment to that motion.

As members know, the Committee of the Regions was established by the Maastricht treaty. It complements the three European Community institutions of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament. It has come to be regarded as an important body and, in the Executive's view, will grow in importance in the years to come.

Through representation on the Committee of the Regions, local authorities and regional Governments throughout Europe have been able to put their views into the European Community's decision-making processes. Through that process, they will play an important part in the debate on the future of Europe.

Members may be aware that the committee has 222 members and an equal number of alternates, all of whom serve four-year terms. The committee's responsibilities cover a wide range of areas. That allows it to monitor the implementation of Community law closely.

Previously, Scotland's representatives were drawn from its local authorities. However, as we know, we now have a new Parliament in Scotland and, importantly, a determined commitment to share power between our national and local authorities.

To underline and enhance that commitment to the principles of power sharing, we propose in the motion a Scottish representation that is split equally between members of the Parliament and members of local government. The Executive believes that Scotland's interests would best be served by selecting those parliamentary representatives whose existing remits give them substantial involvement in European Union business. Accordingly, we propose that Nicol Stephen, as a member of the Executive, and Hugh Henry, the convener of the European Committee, be our full members and that Jack McConnell be Nicol Stephen's alternate member. We are also happy to accept the Scottish National Party's nomination of Irene McGugan as Hugh Henry's alternate.

Why was the European Committee not consulted or even informed in advance of the contents of the motion? Is that not contrary to the protocol, which has been agreed between the Executive and the committees of the Parliament, on giving relevant information to committees? Is it yet another example of the so-called Minister for Parliament treating the principles of openness and inclusiveness with absolute contempt?

I accept Mr Canavan's warm words with all the good intent with which they were offered.

The motion is an example of an objective and sensible proposal from the Executive. I think that most members—even Mr Canavan in his darker moments—recognise that, in a Parliament with an important committee system, it is right and proper that consideration for nominations to a European delegation should include the individual who chairs the Parliament's European Committee. It is against that background that the nomination was formulated.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities submitted five names for consideration and we are grateful for the opportunity that that gave to consider a greater balance. After Parliament takes a decision on the names, the Executive will forward the proposals to the Foreign Office. Assurances have been given that the Foreign Office will ensure that the overall United Kingdom delegation will be as representative as possible in terms of gender, ethnic origin, political affiliation and disability.

We believe that the delegation provides a good balance of the interests between the various layers of government. It reflects a determination to share power and will serve Scotland well in its contribution to the Committee of the Regions.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the Executive's proposal to nominate as representatives of the Parliament Nicol Stephen MSP and Hugh Henry MSP as full members and Jack McConnell MSP and Irene McGugan MSP as alternate members on the UK delegation to the Committee of the Regions for the forthcoming session from 2002 to 2006 and notes that the representation from local government will be Councillor Christine May and Councillor Keith Brown as full members and Councillor Corrie McChord and Councillor Hugh Halcro-Johnston as alternate members.

Our amendment is clearly intended to define how we see the Parliament and its role within the European Community. Do we see ourselves and, more important, do we expect others to view us as a nation or as a region? Is this institution a national Parliament or a regional assembly? Do we see ourselves as the equivalent of Brighton and Hove City Council, home to UK delegation leader Kenneth Bodfish? Is the Committee of the Regions the summit of our aspirations or is the Council of Ministers our platform?

The amendment gives the Executive the opportunity to think twice about the bodies from which the nominees are taken. The issue is not with the individuals nominated. Should the Parliament reject the amendment, to further Scotland's interests—one of the SNP's aims—we would be more than happy to nominate Irene McGugan. Of course, if Scotland were independent, we would decide on double the number of representatives that is proposed in the motion.

When Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, addressed the Committee of the Regions on 20 September, he said:

"What we want today is a Europe built from the bottom up which takes full account of the various political levels. You, working ‘in the field', at the level closest to the citizens, are a direct link between Europe and the diverse realities of different areas."

I will make some points on that in our limited time.

I recall that, several years ago, during the preparations for the Parliament, Councillor Jean McFadden delivered a conference speech on Calton hill in which she warned that the Parliament could become a Trojan horse that would suck up local government's powers. In proposing members of the Parliament rather than councillors for the Committee of the Regions, we are removing the role that councillors hitherto had on that committee.

Will the member give way?

My time is limited; I have only three minutes.

Article 203 of the Treaty of Rome allows Scottish ministers to attend the Council of Ministers. The Committee of the Regions is consulted by the Council of Ministers, so by attending both—if ministers did that, as we would expect them to—Scottish ministers would consult themselves. It is clear from the proposals that the Executive prefers attending the Committee of the Regions to the Council of Ministers, but that is part of its attitude of not taking attendance at the Council of Ministers as seriously as it could.

The heads of the delegations to the 222-member COR from Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Sweden—many countries that compare with Scotland, apart from the fact that they are independent—are all members of local authorities.

I am a list MSP for the Lothians. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 defines eight regions of Scotland. We would be well served if we considered that reflecting the diversity of Scotland's regions is not necessarily best done by the Parliament's usurping what could be a useful role played by councils.

I move amendment S1M-2340.1, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"supports the Committee of the Regions as an institution of European co-operation based on the role of regional government and in promoting the regions of Scotland in that role proposes that the full and alternate members representing Scotland are elected members of Scotland's local authorities including Councillor Christine May and Councillor Keith Brown as full members and Councillor Corrie McChord and Councillor Hugh Halcro-Johnston as alternate members and instructs the Executive to return to the Parliament with four additional names of councillors as nominees."

It is a function of opposition occasionally to have to live with the crumbs that fall from the Executive table. It is unfortunate that the motion proposes a total of eight nominees to the Committee of the Regions, none of whom is a Conservative.

This is an opportunity for us to reflect on democratic representation, which the Liberal Democrat members often bring to our attention.

It is appropriate to offer our colleague some reassurance. In this Parliament, we have to take a wider view on nominations to European bodies. We are currently discussing the Committee of the Regions, but there are other instances in which further nominations will be made and I am sure that at some point in that process Mr Johnstone may feel that his position is better attended to.

I hope that that will be the case. It will seem ironic to many that, despite the fact that Scotland elected eight representatives in the European elections two years ago, two of whom were Conservatives, the motion contains eight names, none of whom is a member of the Conservative party.

But the Conservatives are against Europe.

We are of course very supportive of the concept of the European Union—I hope that Mr Russell realises that. In any event, we would wish the balance of numbers to be considered in future.

I will turn to the nationalist amendment. It is obvious from the manner in which it was proposed that it is an attempt to play the nationalist card yet again.

Will Alex Johnstone tell the chamber whether he believes that Scotland is a nation or a region?

I believe that Scotland is a proud region of the United Kingdom. I believe that most members of the Parliament would be proud to express their allegiance to that theory. [Members: "Let us hear it."] I must finish quickly.

When we talk about the Parliament and its representation, we should realise that we are part of the United Kingdom and that devices such as the SNP amendment aim to drive yet another wedge into the relationship between Scotland and England. The Conservative party will not support such proposals and will not do so in future.

It is often difficult to accept decisions that have been made in smoke-filled rooms, even in the Scottish parliamentary context, where the rooms are not smoke-filled. In this case, the Conservatives will vote against the SNP amendment and abstain on the Executive motion.

Before I address the motion, it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to those who have served on the Committee of the Regions representing Scotland's interests for the past four years. I mention in particular the alternate member, Councillor Dr Joan Mitchell, who represented the Liberal Democrats during that period. I know that people from all parties have done their best to ensure that Scotland's interests on that committee are fully heard.

I do not agree at all with the principle behind the SNP amendment.

There is a surprise.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone. The issue at stake concerns the Committee of the Regions as it is currently constituted and Scotland's place in it. Whether the SNP likes it or not, in the context of the Committee of the Regions, the nation of Scotland is a European region. It is only right that the national Parliament of Scotland should be represented on the Committee of the Regions. It would seem rather strange for it not to be. If SNP members consider other examples of devolved Parliaments representing nations within other European states, they will find that those nations are represented on the Committee of the Regions at a parliamentary level.

The Executive's proposal offers an ingenious solution, which ensures that local government is fully represented. A shared membership is proposed, with two members each from the Parliament and local government and with full members and alternates at both levels. That is right and will result in Scotland making a good, balanced contribution to the Committee of the Regions.

It would be wrong of me to participate in this debate without indicating the Liberal Democrats' concern about how the motion has come forward for debate today. We feel that consideration needs to be given to the way in which such issues are dealt with in the Parliament. It is rather strange that the Executive should simply come forward with a proposal. There was certainly no discussion with the Liberal Democrat group about who the Liberal Democrat nominees should be. I have no doubt that Nicol Stephen will be an excellent full member of the Committee of the Regions and that he will put the case for Scotland there very well. However, it would have been nice to be asked before the decision was made that he should represent the Liberal Democrats.

Wider issues to do with Scotland's representation on the Committee of the Regions should perhaps have been discussed with the European Committee. It has been asked whether ministers should serve as a member of the Committee of the Regions. It can be argued that they should not and that the Parliament's representatives should be drawn from the back benches.

I do not question the merits of any of the people who are proposed as candidates for membership of the Committee of the Regions and the Liberal Democrats will support the motion. However, I urge the Parliament, the Executive and the parliamentary authorities to examine how we deal with nominations to such bodies in future. The Parliamentary Bureau and the Procedures Committee may want to consider that matter fully in due course.

We now move to the open part of the debate. There will be three speeches of three minutes each.

I do not disagree with the principle that Iain Smith advanced about the need for discussion with the European Committee. A wide range of European issues needs to be discussed with the committee, such as the Executive's strategy and the direction that it is taking. Indeed, the committee has asked the Executive to present its proposals to members for consideration. In the fullness of time we can discuss how the Committee of the Regions and the other bodies that have been mentioned fit into the wider picture.

It was strange to listen to the criticisms that SNP members have advanced. I am sure that, had the minister proposed today that all the nominations to the Committee of the Regions should come from Scotland's local authorities, they would have been on their feet shouting about the slight that been given to the Parliament and the Executive's hypocrisy in ignoring it.

I will not take an intervention from Fiona Hyslop. I have only three minutes.

I also find the philosophy that underpins the SNP's arguments bizarre, as it runs contrary to the line taken by the SNP's nationalist counterparts in places such as Flanders, where nationalists who are Government ministers play a full role in the Committee of the Regions. The same is true of other parts of Europe. The Executive's proposals are consistent with the practice in countries such as Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Germany and Spain. There is no reason why this Parliament should not be represented in the Committee of the Regions.

Fiona Hyslop asked whether Scotland was a nation or a region. The United Kingdom, of which Scotland is still part—even though the SNP may not like that—is doing the same thing that other countries in Europe are doing. It is nominating representatives to the Committee of the Regions from an appropriate level of regional government. Scotland has a regional Government that represents the nation of Scotland.

Will the member give way?

No.

Fiona Hyslop said that we are acting against the advice of Jean McFadden and reducing the role of councillors. Historically, there was recognition of the different layers of government in Scotland. When we had regions and districts, both were represented on the Committee of the Regions. In recent times, we have had only unitary authorities. The Executive is now recognising the new constitutional settlement in Scotland and it is to be congratulated on that.

I finish by making a couple of points for the future. We have an opportunity to make our influence felt in the work of the Committee of the Regions. I am glad that that opportunity will be available to the Scottish Parliament. The stature of the Committee of the Regions is growing, but the committee must reflect on its effectiveness. It must examine what it has achieved and what it is capable of achieving, instead of merely doing more of the same.

In Scotland we must continue to work as a team. Local government and Scottish Parliament representatives must work together on the Committee of the Regions. I hope that the Scottish delegation to the Committee of the Regions will have the full support of the machinery of government and that it will have access to the resources of both the Executive and the United Kingdom Government. I also hope that this Parliament will create the time to allow our representatives to play a full role in the Committee of the Regions, rather than just taking up places.

The SNP position on membership of the Committee of the Regions has been clear and consistent and is reflected in our amendment. We believe that members of the Committee of the Regions should be elected members of Scotland's local authorities, because we believe that that is the appropriate level for membership.

Alex Johnstone and Iain Smith should note that the present Scottish membership of the Committee of the Regions is entirely made up of councillors—Hugh Henry was appointed to membership of that committee as a councillor. With that in mind, SNP councillors have been involved in a democratic process to elect one of their own as the SNP nominee on the Committee of the Regions. We are confident that Councillor Keith Brown will be a credit to the nation of Scotland.

Tom McCabe said that the Parliament shares power with local government in Scotland. It is not the role of the Parliament to suck up powers and responsibilities from Scottish local authorities, yet that is what the Executive motion proposes.

The Committee of the Regions has a vital role as a protector of the principle of subsidiarity. Policies should be developed and implemented as close to the citizen as possible. The Executive's motion to remove local councillors from the Committee of the Regions runs counter to the committee's legitimacy and to its role as a defender of local democracy.

My final point addresses the proposal that two Executive ministers should represent Scotland on the Committee of the Regions—one as a full member and one as an alternate. We are led to believe that occasionally Scottish ministers will be allowed to lead UK delegations. Given that that is the case, it is a constitutional nonsense for Scottish Executive ministers to attend both the Council of Ministers and the Committee of the Regions, as that would mean that they were consulting themselves.

Even at this late stage, I urge the Executive to put aside personal interests and to ensure that the level of representation for Scotland is appropriate—that is, at the local councillor level.

I suspect that all members are obliged to Tricia Marwick for that speech and the evidence that it showed of a fall through the gap in the time fence into pre-devolution Scotland. However, I will bring us back to 2001 and speak to the motion. I recognise that the nationalists' amendment has nothing to do with the Committee of the Regions or with the membership of that committee. There are members who want to ensure that the interests of Scotland are represented, but every debate in the chamber must be distorted by the only thing that obsesses the SNP.

Vicente Alvarez Areces, the President of the principality of Asturias, Bert Anciaux, the Flemish minister for culture and youth, Carlo Andreotti, the President of the autonomous province of Trento, Francesc Antich i Olivier, the President of the Government of the Balearic islands and Werner Ballhausen, the state secretary of the Land of Sachsen-Anhalt, are all full members of, and participate in, the Committee of the Regions. Those who do not understand the trends in the development of the institutions—

Will the member give way?

I am happy to give way.

Perhaps Brian Fitzpatrick will answer my question: are we a region, or are we a nation?

That is not a hard one. I am a Scot, and I am happy to be a citizen of the United Kingdom.

SNP members, who fail to understand the developing and evolving nature of the regions, nations and member states of the European Union are, for once, on my left. There is a curious symmetry between them and their Conservative friends, who sit on my right and who also do not understand Europe. We are told by one of the Conservative spokesmen that they may understand the concept of Europe, but they really do not like the reality of Europe. Therefore, the "Can we go back to 1972?" brigade sits on the Conservative benches, while the "Can we join in 3002?" brigade sits on the SNP benches.

Those who believe that the Parliament must have a wide discussion on European structures, as evidenced in the debate in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee this morning, will welcome the valuable insights that we will get from membership of the Committee of the Regions. We hear today another echo of the debate about the political declaration, but we do not hear much about ensuring that Scotland's interests are represented at every appropriate level of European affairs. I have no hesitation in commending the motion and urging members to reject what is yet another spurious nationalist amendment.

What a dreary whinge we have heard from Alex Johnstone, Iain Smith, Hugh Henry and Brian Fitzpatrick. What dreary whingers they are. Their lack of ambition for Scotland is conterminally confused by the fact that they are always doffing the cap to the union.

I will count in Mr Monteith if he so wishes. He, too, is a dreary whinger on this matter.

What terminal confusion and lack of ambition. The reality is that the members of this Parliament, except those who sit on the SNP benches, have no ambition. Only the SNP members talk about Scotland as a nation. How revealing it was that each time one of the dreary whingers was asked a question—

Will the member give way?

No. Ben Wallace should sit down. He can whinge, too, when he wants.

Each time that those members were asked whether Scotland is a region or a nation, they would not answer—except for Mr Johnstone who blundered with a memorable phrase that we will use time and again.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

Today's question is simple: what is the best representation for Scotland within a consultative Committee of the Regions?

The Tory party.

We already know that that is not the answer.

The Committee of the Regions is a consultative body, not a decision-making body. This Parliament is a decision-making body. The ministers are meant to be a decision-making body. I know that that seems unlikely, but that is what they are supposed to be. In such circumstances, Scottish ministers should be represented on the Council of Ministers and Scottish local authorities should be represented on the Committee of the Regions. The issue is very simple. There should be no difficulty with that whatever.

We have heard excuses today because that reality cannot be accepted by any of the unionist parties, which must go on doffing the cap to the union and pretending that Scotland is a region and not a nation. That is what today's debate has been about.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am sorry but I have only three minutes.

He might learn something.

Not from Ben Wallace, I am sure.

In such circumstances, the proper representation on the Committee of the Regions should come from the councillors in Scotland. The SNP has democratically chosen the councillor that will take part—I am sure that the new Labour party has forgotten democracy, but it would be quite good for it—and each party should do the same.

If our amendment is not successful today, I warmly welcome the fact that Irene McGugan will be in the delegation. She will keep the delegation honest. In her new role as depute spokesperson on Europe and external affairs—I am proud to say that I will be shadowing Mr McConnell—she and I will keep the minister honest on this matter. We will do that because we believe what is a fact: Scotland is a nation.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I feel quite angry at Mike Russell's speech. Given that he suggests that Irene McGugan is isolated in bringing honesty to the committee, is he implying that the others are not honest? He should withdraw that comment—[Interruption.]

Order. That is not a point of order. What the member says does not necessarily follow.

I presumed that Michael Russell was making the point that Irene McGugan would be a more honest member of the committee than any of the alternatives that might come from the nationalists.

Even though I have been relishing the thought of this debate all day, I am astonished by the fact that the Scottish National Party does not want the Scottish Parliament to be represented in Europe.

I want it to be clear that I believe that Scotland is a nation and that, in the European sense, Scotland has a regional tier of government. Therefore, we should be represented in the Committee of the Regions. The white paper gave us that responsibility and today we carry it out. I object strongly to any suggestion that the Parliament has taken away powers from local government. The Scottish Parliament has done more in providing finance, new powers and flexibility for local government than any of the recent Westminster Governments have done for Scottish local government.

I pay tribute to all eight councillors who served in the previous Committee of the Regions, not least Irene Oldfather, who continued in that role as a member of the Scottish Parliament and served Scotland well. I hope that the new representation from local government—all four of them—will work together to represent Scotland as a whole. It would be wholly wrong if one of them were to represent a particular party-political interest in the way that Tricia Marwick and Mike Russell suggested. I hope that Keith Brown will serve as a collective member of the delegation, not as an individual representative of a political party.

Will the minister give way?

I conclude the debate by saying that I believe that Scotland has a voice in Europe. We have that voice in several ways: through the United Kingdom Government and Parliament; through the Council of Ministers, which we attend when that is necessary and right for Scotland; through bilateral relations; and, yes, through bodies such as the Committee of the Regions.

There is no regional tier of government in Europe that is not represented in the Committee of the Regions. In Germany, Spain and Belgium, the regional tiers of government take more than 50 per cent of the delegation; in Italy, the regional tier of government takes 50 per cent. The proud historic nations of Bavaria, Flanders and Catalonia have their own Parliaments and sit in the Committee of the Regions. Scotland's Parliament should sit in the Committee of the Regions, too.

The nationalists' argument is that, as they do not like the name of the body, we should run away and hide from it and the Scottish Parliament should not be represented. That shows their lack of ambition for the Parliament and for Scotland. They are wrong. The Scottish Parliament will be well represented, as will Scotland, by the delegation proposed in the motion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for a minister to misrepresent what another member has said and then refuse to give way to allow a correction to be made?

I do not regard that as a point of order.

We have concluded the debate two minutes early and I have no alternative but to suspend the meeting until 5 pm.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—