EUROPEAN COMMITTEE

Monday 22 October 2001 (Morning)

Session 1

£5.00

Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2001.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd.

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications.

CONTENTS

Monday 22 October 2001

Col.

ITEMS IN PRIVATE ...... 1169 EU GOVERNANCE AND THE FUTURE OF EUROPE ...... 1171

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE 11th Meeting 2001, Session 1

CONVENER *Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab)

DEPU TY CONVENER *Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab)

COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Colin Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP) Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West) *Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab) *Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab) Mr Lloyd Quinan (West of Scotland) (SNP) *Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD) *Ben Wallace (North-East Scotland) (Con) *attended

WITNESSES Angus Robertson MP (Scottish National Party) Richard Spring MP (Conservative and Unionist Party)

CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Stephen Imrie

ASSISTANT CLERK Dav id Simpson

LOC ATION Committee Room 1

1169 22 OCTOBER 2001 1170

Scottish Parliament discussions with the clerks. We will consider the question of how dissent from committee reports is handled. We can have a discussion prior to going European Committee into the detail of the draft report. We can also discuss that in private when we meet next week. Monday 22 October 2001 Ben Wallace: Only one member has contacted me to discuss in private my report on European (Morning) Union enlargement. That matter will come up soon and I remind other members that there is an [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 10:39] opportunity to discuss it. I had a lengthy meeting with John Home Robertson and will include what The Convener (Hugh Henry): Ladies and came out of that meeting in the report. gentlemen, I welcome you to the European Committee’s 11th meeting in 2001. I apologise for The Convener: Do members agree to discuss the delay in starting, which was because of the the items in private at our meeting on 30 October? vagaries of ScotRail. Members indicated agreement. I have received apologies from Dennis Canavan. Lloyd Quinan might be otherwise engaged at the moment, but I do not think that there are any other apologies. Colin Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP): I understand that Lloyd Quinan gave a kind of apology to the clerk in advance. Ben Wallace (North-Ea st Scotland) (Con): He apologised to the sheriff. Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): Was he hoping to get arrested? Colin Campbell: I do not know. The Convener: We will say no more about that.

Items in Private

The Convener: The first item on the agenda is to ask the committee to agree to discuss in private at its meeting on 30 October the draft report on the state of preparation for the introduction of the euro and possible changes to the committee’s remit. Ben Wallace: I raise a point that relates to our previous discussions on the proposal for a directive that would establish a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community. Although I am conscious that we need often to discuss items in private, especially when discussing the committee’s conclusions, we do not always have a means or mechanism to discuss the direction of reports in public. Before we discuss paragraphs and conclusions, I hope that we can have a general discussion on the direction of the draft report. Otherwise, if members do not agree with the draft report, they must vote against it rather than annotate it by setting out the direction in which they think it should go. That is my position on discussing the draft report in private. The Convener: Following Ben Wallace’s comments on our previous report, I have had

1171 22 OCTOBER 2001 1172

EU Governanceand the Future of 10:45 Europe Richard Spring MP (Conservative and Unionist Party): Thank you very much for inviting me, convener. I have been greatly looking forward The Convener: We come to our main item of to being here this morning. business today. I am delighted to welcome two of our colleagues from the House of Commons. This I am delighted that there are moves in the is a first for the Scottish Parliament; although Scottish Parliament to investigate the views of the members of the House of Commons have Scottish people on Scotland’s relationship with the informally addressed the Parliament as a whole, European Union and its role within Europe. I today is the first occasion on which a committee of applaud that. the Parliament has had the opportunity for Our view on European Union governance and discussion with colleagues from Westminster. the future of the European Union is that we are at It is unfortunate that Menzies Campbell MP a crossroads. The European Union has 15 cannot join us today. Events at Westminster and member states and we can assume that within a beyond are taking up much of his time at the few years it will have 27 member states. Although moment and he has written to say that he cannot difficulties have arisen from the Treaty of Nice—for attend. He has, however, offered to meet us example, the Irish referendum—there is a strong another time or, if that is not possible, to submit a and almost universal desire for enlargement. The written report. We thank him for that offer. obstacle of the Treaty of Nice and the difficulties that surround it must be overcome. Despite those We also hope to have a meeting with the right difficulties, we can assume that enlargement will hon Peter Hain in his capacity as Minister for take place, one way or another. I welcome that. Europe at Westminster. However, Richard Spring MP and Angus Robertson MP are with us today to The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for start the process of making history. They will put Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Peter their views to the committee. I anticipate that Hain have given important speeches on what is because they are party representatives, there will probably the major problem that underlies the be an opportunity to engage with individuals who European Union at this time, which is the sense of hold diverse and opposite views. To some extent, disconnection between the peoples of Europe and it will be a lively discussion. Given the size of the the institutions of the European Union. That is meeting, we can be relatively informal. reflected in the low turnout at polls and in the sense of alienation not only among member states We hope to have the opportunity to have a but—ironically and in spite of their strong desire to discussion with Jimmy Hood MP —the chairman of become members—in the accession states. the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons—and Lord Brabazon of Tara, who is The main challenge for everybody who is chairman of European Union Committee in the engaged in the political process is to find ways to House of Lords, when their inquiries on similar reconnect people with the institutions of the subjects are under way. In any case, John Home European Union and to make it a viable and Robertson and I will meet them next week—as sustainable union in the future. In principle, I part of our regular liaison—along with the chairs of welcome the European Commission’s white paper the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National on EU governance. A lively and absolutely Assembly for Wales. The clerks will prepare notes legitimate debate is taking place throughout from that meeting. Europe about what the architecture of the EU should be, especially post-enlargement. I think Today we are considering the future of the that we should be guided by the principle that was European Union. The issue of the role of national expressed by Romano Prodi, that the European Parliaments and parliamentarians in shaping the Union debate is engaging organisations and representatives throughout Europe and it is “w ants to do less, but better.” certainly stimulating a lot of discussion. Before the white paper was published, the We hope to finish our report in time for it to be Commission made one or two preliminary debated in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament observations on governance without any treaty prior to the Laeken summit in mid-December, so change. That view was confirmed by Valéry there is still a lot of work to do. We have already Giscard d’Estaing, president of the Council of published our terms of reference, which I hope European Municipalities and Regions, who talked have been submitted to the witnesses. about setting priorities to improve the operation of existing institutions. I am sure that we wish to Before we address the detail of the discussion, I explore what came out of that in relation to the invite Richard Spring and Angus Robertson to relationship of the European Commission to the make opening statements. regions at a sub-national level.

1173 22 OCTOBER 2001 1174

Regions and the people who administer them, with the Liberal Democrats that there should be a with their considerable local knowledge, have an white paper that looks ahead to the 2004 important part to play in the process of intergovernmental conference and that reflects on reconnecting people with the European Union. what happened at the Nice summit. However, the constitutional architecture in the That is the background to our current thinking. I United Kingdom is unique in that there are four thank the committee again for inviting me. I constituent parts, all with different constitutional applaud the initiative that the committee is taking arrangements. That perhaps makes it more and look forward to our discussions this morning. difficult than in some other countries in Europe, where regional arrangements have more in The Convener: Thank you, Richard. You have common. touched on a number of important areas for us and I am sure that there will be some comment on Earlier I said that we were at a crossroads. It is the role of regions. That matter has been raised worth remembering that the evolution of the not only by UK Government ministers, but by European Union from the Common Market has Scottish Executive ministers. provided peace and stability—almost uniquely in the history of Europe—for the past 50 years. I now invite Angus Robertson to contribute. There have been many benefits from the creation Angus has been a frequent attender at the of a single market and the development of an European Committee of the Scottish Parliament, external trade policy. although his attendance previously involved sitting behind members of the Scottish Parliament’s In our view, if we enlarge from 15 to 27 member Scottish National Party group, keeping them right. states—I reiterate our strong commitment to that— I am delighted that Angus is now able to join our we will need much more flexible, modern and discussions in his own right, as a m ember of the outward-looking structures. We inhabit a world that Westminster Parliament. Welcome, Angus. is based increasingly on network relationships, but the original thinking behind the European Union— Angus Robertson MP (Scottish National which was more of a one-size-fits-all policy—will Party): Thank you. I thank the committee very become less appropriate and sustainable when much for the invitation to attend; it is a great enlargement takes place. A key element will be honour for me to come here and contribute to the how to put flesh on the bones of subsidiarity. The committee’s work and I hope that we will be able questions about how we restore powers to to pick up on some of the ideas that Richard national Parliaments and how we connect them to Spring and I put to the committee. It is important the regions below them are also crucial. that the Scottish Parliament and its committees— and, I hope, the Scottish Executive—pick up on On the United Kingdom as a member state, I those ideas more effectively than perhaps other hope that we can explore how the Scottish Parliaments might. Executive can play a more substantive role in relation to some of the ideas that I hope the I commend the European Committee of the committee will discuss this morning. I value the Scottish Parliament for taking the lead, which sets committee’s report and will read it with great a good example. I hope genuinely that the interest. I look forward to learning about how the deliberations that take place here are duly concordat between the Scottish Executive and reported elsewhere. One of the great problems London works and how it might be improved. that we face is, as Richard Spring mentioned, disconnection. There is in the public realm a There are two key areas of relevance to profound lack of information that would allow Scotland. Those are the application of the people to make informed decisions and progress common agricultural policy and the application of their views on European issues. the common fisheries policy. I hope that we will explore those matters this morning, because I All members of the committee will be aware of believe that they are extremely important, not just the Scottish National Party’s general position: the as they apply to Scotland but in relation to the SNP is in favour of equal status for Scotland at whole area of subsidiarity. European level—that is, full national status with the same membership rights and obligations as The new leader of my party has launched a other member states. The easiest parallels to draw major policy review and we have already are with countries that have similar populations, undertaken considerable work on how we think the such as Denmark and Finland. We would like European Union should evolve. We will do a great Scotland to have equal status in a confederal, as deal more on that in the coming months. The opposed to federal, Europe. The most important intergovernmental conference in 2004 will provide powers should be operated at member-state level an opportunity to consider the competencies of the through the Council of Ministers. We can come constituent elements of the European Union and back to that point—members of the committee are of the UK and sub-national structures. We want to more than aware of the SNP’s position. engage positively in that process and we agree

1175 22 OCTOBER 2001 1176

Stephen Imrie and the clerking team have confirmation of the level of attendance at working produced a very useful paper, for which I thank group meetings at European Union level. That them. I would be happy to pick up on some of the information was given to me by the head of the issues that the paper suggests the committee is Scottish Executive office in Brussels. Subsequent keen to follow up on—issues such as questions to the Scottish Executive have received transparency, subsidiarity and the mechanisms by the reply that such information is not collated. I am which the Scottish Executive and the Scottish talking about the time of the Treaty of Nice. I will Parliament interface with the UK and, directly or give members a couple of figures to illustrate my indirectly, with the European Union. Those issues point about the lack of information on involvement dovetail with the issues of democratic at a European level. By the time of the IGC— accountability and whether Scotland should intergovernmental conference—in Nice, Scottish remain in its current constitutional position or Executive ministers had attended only 11 of 120 progress to the position of a normal nation in a meetings. That is 9 per cent. I hesitate to hazard a European context. guess as to how many meetings of the Council of Ministers discuss devolved matters, but the The main point that I would like to discuss percentage would certainly be at least two or three concerns information and disclosure. It seems to times that figure. me that there is a profound lack of information provided to committees, to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish Executive. From my 11:00 experience of advising a number of members of Here is the bombshell figure: of 4,500 working the European Committee in going through the group meetings that were held between the onset scrutiny documentation, it seems that, by and of devolution, when the Scottish Parliament large, by the time that the committee—and assumed its powers, and the Nice IGC only 75, or therefore, by extension, the Scottish Parliament— 1.6 per cent, were attended by Scottish Executive addresses issues that are clearly devolved and officials. At that time, Jack McConnell, the Scottish within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, the Executive minister who had responsibility for issues are either at, or past, their sell -by date. The Europe, had never attended a meeting of the ability of the European Committee, the Parliament Council of Ministers. Keith Vaz, the UK Minister for and the Scottish Executive to intervene, to change Europe, attended almost all the general affairs things, to make suggestions for reforms to council meetings. The Minister for Justice, Jim regulations or to make any other proposals is Wallace, had attended his first Council meeting by severely limited, if not hampered. that time, although he missed the previous seven Secondly, I would like to discuss decision- meetings. I will draw a salient comparison with making structures. There are two key levels—the another devolved part of Europe: the Minister- Council of Ministers and the working groups in the President of the Government of Flanders, Patrick European Union. The latter receive much more Dewael, was present for key meetings at the Nice attention than the former. For the SNP, the issue IGC. of attendance is less to do with the symbolism of The issues include attendance at meetings, and equality of national status than it is to do with the information that is held by the Scottish being part and parcel of the key decision-making Parliament and the Scottish Executive for the body. I know that at least one member of the purposes of scrutinising, being involved in and, I committee—John Home Robertson—has been a hope, influencing the decision-making process. regular attender at past meetings of the Council of Ministers. I am sure that he will concur that many In order to bring us up to date, today I looked at major decisions are made at that level, and that the website of the Council of Ministers and I many of those decisions are based on agreements concentrated solely on devolved matters. Today, that have already been reached at working-group there is a Council of Ministers meeting on level. That issue has been pursued by the regular transport, tomorrow there will be a meeting on civil lodging of questions at the Scottish Parliament protection, on Wednesday there will be a general and Westminster, to which the usual answers are, affairs meeting and next Tuesday there will be an “Information is not kept centrally”, “We do not have agriculture meeting. I would be interested to learn that information”, or suchlike. If the European how informed members feel they are about those Committee, the Scottish Parliam ent or the Scottish meetings and whether the Scottish Executive’s Executive wants to make an informed and positive position has been outlined to the committee. Has contribution to the decision-making processes of the Scottish Executive reported back on the UK the European Union, the first thing that they will negotiating position? Has the Scottish Executive’s need is information. position been taken on board? Has the UK Government changed its negotiating position? Will I will give members a clear example of the Scottish Executive ministers report back? When problem—we can come back to it later. As far as I will UK Government ministers tell the House of am aware, there has only ever been one

1177 22 OCTOBER 2001 1178

Commons about the nature of the discussions that Before opening the discussion for the rest of the take place? We are given no information about committee, I ask for clarification of the point that those matters. you made about the forthcoming Council of Ministers meetings. You said that four such I have touched on some key issues, but I would meetings will probably take place during the next be happy to move on to discuss other models, week. You asked how engaged the Scottish including those that are described as the Executive is in that process and how involved constitutional regions—as members know, committee members are in that. You asked Scotland has signed a declaration with those whether we know what the ministers will discuss. regions—and other regions and sub-state nations, How involved in those meetings are the members in order to consider what room exists for of the appropriate House of Commons committee? improvement. Should the constitutional settlement How different is their involvement from ours? remain as it is? The comparisons with full member states are clear and obvious. Angus Robertson: I must declare that I am in a somewhat difficult position here. The ratification of I will conclude with a comment on Richard my membership of the European Scrutiny Spring’s opening point about the context of Committee is on-going, so as I have not yet sat in enlargement. Last week, the House of Commons on a committee meeting, I am not in the best passed the European Communities (Amendment) position to say how committee scrutiny works. Bill, which dealt with the Treaty of Nice and the issue of enlargement. Although there is some When Westminster Government ministers are difference of opinion over the significance of that asked questions about how much they consult bill, it certainly paves the way for enlargement one with the Scottish Executive and how many way or another. That is why SNP MPs and our meetings take place between them, the answers colleagues in Plaid Cymru voted for the bill. It are usually along the lines of “We hold regular struck me as somewhat ironic that, at a time when meetings and they are all very satisfactory.” we are preparing the way for a host of countries The Convener: The point that I was getting at from central and eastern Europe to take their concerns the Council of Ministers meetings that rightful place at the top table in Europe, we will not are coming up in the next week. You suggested sit there with them. It is also relevant to consider that we had not been engaged or kept informed. that the Treaty of Nice makes provision for the How engaged are members of the House of recalibration of membership of various parts of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee with European Union, including the European those meetings? Were you suggesting that the Parliament. Under those provisions, it is almost European Scrutiny Committee is more involved 100 per cent certain that there will be a reduction than we are? in the number of Scottish MEPs. I would be interested to learn how involved the European Angus Robertson: The information that I have Committee has been in discussing whether such a from members of my party who served previously reduction is appropriate or right, or in discussing on the European Scrutiny Committee is that its how many MEPs should be cut and when that members are not involved very much. should happen. Has the Scottish Executive been The Convener: So is our European Committee involved in such discussions and whom has it consulted? I do not have the answers, although I in a sense no different from the House of Commons committee? have tried to ask the questions. During last Wednesday’s debate before the bill was passed at Angus Robertson: In a sense, it is no different. Westminster, I asked the Minister of State for Europe again whether that reduction would Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab): happen and when it would happen. I have still not You mentioned enlargement of the European received an answer to those questions. Union and the reduction in the number of MEPs. Are you in favour of enlargement, but opposed to We very much welcome the prospect of reducing the number of MEPs throughout Europe? enlargement and, as Richard Spring said, we look Would a reduction in the number of MEPs cause forward to powers being restored to national difficulties? Are you aware of any other member Parliaments. For the SNP, the Scottish Parliament states in Europe that support your point of view? is our national Parliament. We also look forward to subsidiarity, which would allow powers to flow Angus Robertson: The annexe to the Treaty of back down to Scotland’s regions. Scotland is not a Nice gives the full breakdown of how many seats region. countries that are comparable in size to Scotland will have. Scotland has eight seats, but Denmark, I will leave it at that. There are plenty of other which is our closest comparison, has 16. points that I can pick up on later. Irene Oldfather: We are part of the United The Convener: I thank Angus Robertson for his Kingdom, so we need to talk in terms of the UK’s clear exposition of the SNP’s policy. membership. Are you in favour of enlargement but

1179 22 OCTOBER 2001 1180 opposed to a reduction in the number of members is still a member of the clan Robertson in the of the European Parliament throughout Europe? imperial Parliament. Angus Robertson: We are in favour of such a Angus Robertson: There are four. reduction. It is up to people elsewhere in Europe Mr Home Robertson: I am worried about the to make their own cases for what they consider to logic of your comments. Have you figured out how be appropriate for their countries. big the European Parliament would become if Our position is that, given that Scotland has only everyone got the same representation as half the level of representation of comparative Denmark or Luxembourg? countries, we do not want that proportion to be Angus Robertson: I go back to the point that reduced further. Under the Nice provisions, Irene Oldfather made: it is up to different parts of Scotland would be entitled to 13 seats, yet it is Europe to decide in which way they feel most likely that we shall go down from eight seats to appropriately represented. The SNP takes the about six. That would give Scotland the same level view that we should be as appropriately of representation as Luxembourg, whose represented as other normal countries. Other population is about the same as Edinburgh’s. The people do not share that view. We feel that we level of W ales’s representation will probably fall to should have as appropriate a level as— about the same level as that of Malta. Mr Home Robertson: Hang on a minute, could Irene Oldfather: We do not negotiate at a you try to answer my question? How big would the Scottish level—we negotiate at a UK level. Parliament become if everyone had the same Angus Robertson: I am sure that Irene representation? Oldfather is aware that the SNP takes the view Angus Robertson: You would first have to tell that Scotland should negotiate directly and should me who everyone is. have full representation. Those people who are in favour of Scotland’s representation being yet Mr Home Robertson: The number of MEPs further diminished must answer her question, but I would run into thousands, would it not? It would be do not support that. impossible to administer. Ben Wallace: I welcome Angus Robertson to Angus Robertson: I am not happy to speculate the committee. I know how hard he worked before on something that has not been outlined. behind the scenes, sitting at the back and listening The Convener: Does Richard Spring have any to us say things that he thought were wrong. general comments about the size of the I want to expand on Irene Oldfather’s question. Parliament and the appropriate level of Will any member states experience an increase in representation for the UK? the number of MEPs? Richard Spring: I agree absolutely with Angus Angus Robertson: Not as far as I am aware. Robertson’s comments with regard to transparency, scrutiny and feedback. I hope that Ben Wallace: So everyone will lose MEPs? we will explore those issues in some detail this Angus Robertson: Yes. morning; they are extremely important. Anyone who thinks that the reporting and scrutiny Ben Wallace: Do you know whether the number mechanisms are inadequate in Scotland—as the of UK MEPs will go down or up after enlargement? convener pointed out correctly—will see that the Angus Robertson: I have asked that question situation is parallel to that at Westminster. That is twice during the passage of the recent European at the heart of our belief in the reconnection Communities (Amendment) Bill and I have not had process. an answer from the minister. The Nice treaty calls for 732 MEPs; the Ben Wallace: You worked from figures in the Conservative party would aspire to a Parliament Nice treaty and on the assumption that the number with somewhere in the region of 600 MEPs. John of MEPs would reduce proportionately. On that Home Robertson was correct to say that if it basis, the number of Scottish MEPs would reduce operated on the same basis as it does at present, to six, but you will find that the number of United the European Parliament would become Kingdom MEPs, as a percentage of the total unmanageable following enlargement to 27 number of MEPs, would go up. member countries. That would make people feel that there were far too many politicians in the Angus Robertson: I do not have the projected European theatre. figures for elsewhere in the UK. The Convener: Thank you. Perhaps we can Ben Wallace: Okay. start to tease out some of the points that Angus Mr Home Robertson: I am delighted that there Robertson and Richard Spring have made about transparency and scrutiny.

1181 22 OCTOBER 2001 1182

11:15 are—we know what they are—but what the vision Colin Campbell: Angus Robertson and I have is. not co-operated before coming here so we are I apologise to Angus Robertson. I should have hearing for the first time what each of us has to congratulated you at the outset, because I too say. I would like to concur with Angus Robertson’s have seen you around the Parliament and at point about our inability to get the kind of external events. information that we seek. Over a considerable time, I have put a series of questions on the How can we relate better to the House of common fisheries policy to the Deputy Minister for Commons, the House of Lords and their European Environment and Rural Development, Rhona committees to help to set the agenda for the next Brankin, to discover whom she has spoken to intergovernmental conference? about putting Scotland’s case to the UK and in Richard Spring: I wish to discuss a number of Europe. The answers that I have received are just key issues and they all overlap. I will deal with one like those that Angus Robertson has received in at the moment, which is the Council of Ministers the UK Parliament. They run along the lines of and the European Commission. “On-going meetings take place on a regular basis.” Objectively, if one sits back, one sees that the When we ask for names, we get answers that I European Commission has responsibility for realise, as a former school teacher, do not answer initiation, monitoring and compliance. That role is the questions. The mastery of obfuscation gets to understood. However, the Commission is not be almost insulting. Until we crack that and until I democratically elected. The way in which it know to whom the minister has spoken—I am just functions is not open and transparent. a member of the European Committee and have Commissioners themselves acknowledge that; been since January—we will not have a there is nothing new in it. satisfactorily transparent system. The kind of answer you get if you persist is, “To tell you whom Part of the problem of disconnection has been we spoke to six months ago might make it more the European Commission itself. It grew out of difficult for us to have confidential discussions in Jean Monnet’s original idea, which was that it the future between the Scottish Executive and the would be an impartial civil service that would UK about matters pertaining to Europe.” Frankly, implement political decisions made by the Council that is mince. It does not stand up in terms of of Ministers, and has evolved into something else. democratic accountability. I am not looking for Now it is part of the problem. secrets; I wish to know the history. What do we do about it? We have heard a lot of The Convener: Absolutely. Both our speeches by a lot of European politicians about Westminster colleagues have stressed the need the problem, but how specifically do we deal with for a transparent process, so that not only do it? Our proposal is that the representative on the ordinary people feel that they are part of the Council of Ministers should be a minister of senior process, but the process is meaningful. rank—either a minister of state or even a Cabinet minister—who spends a substantial amount of I wish to tease out a point about the decision- time in Brussels leading the UK delegation. That making process in Europe and the role of the individual would spend, say, half the time in Parliament vis-à-vis the Commission. When Brussels and would come back and report in a decisions are made, by either the Commission or considered way to the House of Commons. the Council of Ministers, how does the UK Government report back to the House of Angus Robertson is right to say that that does Commons? How do ordinary MPs get involved? not happen at the moment. The individual would How, when it is an issue that affects us directly— appear before the appropriate select committees. whether fishing or agriculture—can we become There would be oral and written questions and the more involved? Angus Robertson made a point individual would then report back to the House of about getting involved early in the process. We Commons on what is going on. That would mean have come back to that time and again. How do that the Prime Minister’s quite legitimate talk about we get involved in the process early enough to establishing a link to other national Parliaments make what Richard Spring described as a could be reinforced. meaningful contribution that influences the We all know that, in practice, the committee that process? effectively runs so much of the political business of Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab): I have the EU is the Committee of Permanent a related point. The impression that the committee Representatives—COREPER. The individual has gained is that the House of Lords and the should sit on COREPER and should be a House of Commons have been particularly designated minister rather than a distinguished effective in scrutinising European issues. We civil servant. The individual would attend weekly would like to know not so much what the problems meetings in Brussels and it would be an

1183 22 OCTOBER 2001 1184 opportunity to form links between Parliaments. We make that case in Europe. would have to decide and assess how that would The different German Bundesländer are also work at a sub-national level. It would be important pursuing that. They are concerned that their that a minister from the Scottish Executive prerogatives are being encroached upon. supported that individual, particularly where Germany has a different structure, which is Scottish interests in areas such as fisheries and integrated through the second house in the agriculture were concerned. German Parliament. However, the German That would be one way of bridging the gap Bundesländer are also seeking to ensure that they between the people and what they perceive to be have direct involvement, which is integrated in the the unelected body that runs the EU. It would also administration and decision-making structure of give further political resonance to the Council of governance. That does not seem to be the case at Ministers by linking in to COREPER and back to present. Parliament. That is a clear example of how one can make We would then have to deal with additional the system work if one wants to have devolved scrutiny procedures. I have visited Denmark where ministers or officials integrating at member-state there is a system of pre-scrutiny. I do not think that level, with information given one way that that would work in the House of Commons, as something is coming up and then the devolved desirable as the theory might appear to be. As Administrations saying what their line or interest John Home Robertson knows, there is a more would be. collegiate atmosphere in Danish politics. It is It is difficult to foresee how that might work essentially a coalition. within the UK structure, which has an asymmetric Mr Home Robertson: We have that problem system of governance, unlike Austria, where the here, too. nine provinces have the same powers. However, there is a lot to be said for regular institutionalised Richard Spring: There are checks and meetings at official or ministerial level. balances in the system but, in the more confrontational and partisan atmosphere of I think that I am right in saying that the joint Westminster, it would not be likely to function. ministerial committee—which, I believe, under the agreements that were signed at the onset of I hope that together we can explore and then devolution, is supposed to be the mechanism for build on the mechanism that the Conservative integrating the UK Government and the Scottish party is trying to develop. We are keen to explore Executive—has met only once. Perhaps that that as one way of bridging the gap. A link to the committee could be the foundation of something. national Parliament would enhance substantially There is probably a lot more to be discussed that the scrutiny procedures. It would then be a matter would warrant more than one meeting. There is no of working out a system whereby the scrutiny point in having meetings for meetings’ sake but, as procedures could be translated to help with the we all know, governance involves complicated and governance of Scotland. I support that. often long drawn-out legislative processes and it Angus Robertson: The committee is looking for makes sense that democratically elected ideas of what happens elsewhere and how that governments within a state should meet regularly might be useful. As some members may know, I to discuss them. spent some time working as a journalist in Austria On transparency—to pick up on what Richard so perhaps it is the place that I know best. Spring was saying with regards to the The constitutional amendment made at the time Commission—I leave members with a thought: of Austria’s accession to the EU in the mid-1990s why does the Council of Ministers meet behind brought about a new system that involved the closed doors? It would make a lot of sense for the different Bundesländer—the nine federal Council of Ministers to be opened up; that provinces of Austria. Through what is known as a dovetails with the argument about whether there Verbindungsstelle, the provinces have permanent should be an elected second chamber. I apologise representation in Vienna. The views of the for opening up a bit of a can of worms, but it different Bundesländer on the subjects of the strikes me that if the Council of Ministers were council meetings are fed in regularly—as often as opened up, it would mean that politicians of all weekly—before the meetings. For example, if a persuasions would have to look the issue of horse- meeting about transport was being held today, trading in the face and would have to talk with there would have been a meeting last Monday great honesty about how governance in Europe involving the ministers or officials of the nine works. provinces who would put forward the views of the I argue that that would probably improve things. Bundesländer. If the matter was a devolved One does not always get everything the way one matter, the agreed line of the federal provinces wants, although after a Council meeting, it is would bind the Austrian federal Government to

1185 22 OCTOBER 2001 1186 amazing how 15 member states all seem to have to consider that. got what they wanted. We all know that it does not Both witnesses talked about the key issue of work that way, but part of being mature about how information. I think back to an unhappy occasion Europe works is about how politicians and when I was an Opposition front-bench spokesman Governments do business. It seems to me that in the House of Commons and had to lead on an transparency is essential not just for the agriculture debate. I made the mistake of going to Commission—although I endorse that—but for the the vote office and asking for the relevant papers Council, member states and devolved on the night of the debate. I took the papers to the Governments and Parliaments. post office to be weighed—I have forgotten how The Convener: A number of committee many kilograms they were. The papers were not members wish to come in, but first I want to clarify even all in English. The European Union’s Angus Robertson’s point about the Austrian model institutions produce a mass of information, but the of nine regional layers of government being devil is in the detail and the timing. Among all consulted by central Government ahead of, for those papers, there were probably nuggets of example, the Council of Ministers meeting on information—or perhaps anthrax or worse; transport. You suggested that that is a model that goodness knows what might have been buried in we should consider. Is it the case that the there. devolved Governments would be consulted on It is important to have the information early issues that affect them ahead of a Council of enough. We must refine such matters in our Ministers meeting that a UK representative would approach to governance. We must ensure that the attend, or are you suggesting that they are not people who back us up can identify the consulted? controversial and difficult matters that must be Angus Robertson: We are told that they are. dealt with by political representatives and that we John Home Robertson would be in a much better have the information early enough to allow input to position to talk about this but I have no reason to be made at every level. disbelieve that officials talk about what is coming Angus Robertson: John Home Robertson’s up. We cannot assess what we do not know, so I comments perhaps dovetail with what I said about am not going to speculate, because all we can talk working groups. As members will be aware, most about is the system that we have and the fine-tuning work takes place in such groups. outcomes. We cannot talk about the process, Except under the Swedish presidency of the EU, I because we do not know what it is. have never seen detailed lists of the working Having talked to people who are involved, it groups, what was discussed and what work is seems to me that there are regular discussions continuing. The issue is disclosure not only at a between officials. Occasionally, there are Scottish or UK level, but at an EU level, where the meetings between ministers before Council matter often lies with the country that holds the meetings. I assume that if Scottish ministers are presidency. on a delegation, which is often the case in There is a structural issue of direct involvement fisheries and, in particular, agriculture, there would in working groups. The fact that devolved matters be meetings prior to the delegation sitting down at relevant to the Scottish Parliament will account for the official meeting. However, I am sure that a great amount of the work that is done in those members are aware that most decisions are made groups and that only 1.6 per cent of those groups and the line agreed before that stage is reached. are considered worthy of participation backs up The difficulty is that because we do not have my argument. transparency, we honestly do not know what is going on. Richard Spring: It is obvious that one can consider the preliminary scrutiny arrangements and the consultation arrangements. I am sure that 11:30 there is room for improvement, but in our Mr Home Robertson: The convener may need parliamentary democracy, it is crucial that the to shut me up; I am sorry. In my fairly recent minister who is essentially responsible for our experience, much of what Angus Robertson European relationship is put under the magnifying described was happening—certainly in fisheries, glass. Then, of their own volition, such matters will on which much discussion takes place. That goes come into play. back a long way. The Scottish Office, like the Northern Ireland Office, always had direct access I agree with Angus Robertson that if much more to discussions in the Whitehall system. Since parliamentary scrutiny and inquiry occurs, devolution, more political input is made. The transparency about what the Council of Ministers procedures are evolving under the concordats. A does and what decisions are taken will be case may exist for formalising those procedures important and will force more openness. It will also and making them more transparent. We may want mean that people who are concerned that

1187 22 OCTOBER 2001 1188 decisions are taken at a level at which they cannot second chamber might help to incorporate have an impact will feel at least that the national politicians from member-state or sub-member- Parliament’s reporting mechanism is much state level in the European decision-making enhanced. In that context, we need to address structure. Our fear is that a second chamber would what would flow to the devolved elements of the lead in effect to sclerosis—to things not United Kingdom. progressing at a European level at all. Ben Wallace: The matter comes down to what We already have a two-chamber system in the we can reform at home and what the Commission European Union: the European Parliament, which should do. Richard Spring made clear the is made up of democratically elected politicians; Conservative party’s view of a minister and the Council of Ministers, which is made up of permanently based in Brussels at the level of the representatives from different member states. As Council of Ministers. What is the SNP’s position on we already have a second chamber, we think that reform at the European level? Does it support the having a third one would cause things to come to creation of a second chamber or a permanent a halt, particularly in a further enlarged Europe. delegation? On the extension of qualified majority voting, the Angus Robertson: I shall build on what Richard SNP has two major provisos, which relate to fiscal Spring has said, rather than repeat some of the and constitutional matters and to the right of veto suggestions that he made. Two of the great open remaining with member states. It is unhelpful to questions that I am sure the committee is consider issues that may or may not arise in the considering and which are built into the issue of future for which majority voting may be the most governance as we move towards 2004 are the role appropriate way of doing things. The SNP does of a constitution and the Charter of Fundamental not have a problem with qualified majority voting in Rights. Those two things seem to be essential to itself, but we would be interested to see how the how things will evolve and how one will want to be new system incorporated in the Treaty of Nice for engaged at European level. blocking minority votes will work. It is argued that the Treaty of Nice enhances the power of member The SNP is very much in favour of a European states and their ability to stop things. I foresee that constitution in the context of a confederal Europe. that could be one of the difficulties of not allowing Because the UK is famous for not having a qualified majority voting in certain areas, excluding constitution, some people fear that a constitution fiscal and constitutional matters. A second—or, in automatically signals a transfer of powers to effect, a third—chamber would not enhance European level. We see a constitution much more democracy, but would slow down the process of as an opportunity to simplify the legal basis on governance in Europe. which the European Union works. At present, that legal basis is a jumble of different treaties and it Ben Wallace: I am sorry to pursue this point, can often be hard to see the realities for but I want to be clear about it. What is your idea of complicated pieces of legislation. The first thing the mechanism for making those decisions in a that we favour is a constitution that would make new and enlarged Europe? You have ruled out a the workings very clear and would show the second chamber, because you have certain delimitation of powers and competencies of the problems with that idea. What is your current idea different levels of governance in Europe. for a decision-making mechanism? Secondly, we would incorporate the Charter of Angus Robertson: We endorsed the proposals Fundamental Rights in that constitution. That that make up the Treaty of Nice, which have would hold Governments and the European brought in new rules on blocking minority votes, institutions to account when there is a question the balance of voting rights in the Council of about their competencies. Ministers and the extension of qualified majority voting in areas that are incorporated in the treaty. Ben Wallace: You say that you are in favour of We put a clear block on the progress of qualified a constitution. What ideas do you have for that majority voting in the areas that I outlined. constitution? How do you envisage the day -to-day approval or decision-making processes going on Ben Wallace: Do you agree with Richard in the Commission? Do you want an extension of Spring’s suggestion about how decisions should simple majority voting across the board? Do you be made in Europe or do you seek another way? I want an upper chamber? I understand that you know about the changes to voting and the different want a constitution and that certain things must be weightings. Do you envisage the European fitted into that, but how do you see decision Parliament having overriding control over making working? decisions when the Commission initiates policies that require a decision by member states? That Angus Robertson: We are reticent about the mechanism will be debated in the next three years suggestion that there should be a second and it is relevant to the EU white paper on chamber. A number of people have argued that a governance that we have at the moment. I am

1189 22 OCTOBER 2001 1190 trying to pin you down on that point. observations from both witnesses on how that role might be shaped. Angus Robertson: Your question raises a number of different issues. We have not yet Irene Oldfather: My question is related to that. I touched on the issue of co-decision in the intended to ask about a second chamber. One of European Parliament. We think that a the advantages of a second chamber that has democratically elected parliament in which been mooted is that it would reconnect national everyone has the right to be directly represented, Parliaments to Brussels. Given that both but which does not have the ability to effect witnesses have decided that they are not in favour change at an institutional level, would be a waste of a second chamber, I will turn my question round of time. We are in favour of co-decision. The a little. biggest and most important single change in the How can we involve national parliamentarians workings of the institutions, including the more in the role of the European Union and use Commission, would relate to transparency. There them to promote Europe better in the United seems to be a profound lack of information on Kingdom? Allied to that is the specific role that the how, when and where proposals develop and on Scottish Parliament and devolved Governments how proposals are influenced: how they are could play. It has been mooted that second changed and who changes them. The most chambers could contain representation from important question relates to openness and regional Governments. As you have both ruled out allowing people to discover what happens. that option, how do you think regional In our own ways, Richard Spring and I have Governments could play a useful role? I talked about the Commission and the Council of understand that you will have different views on Ministers. I would be delighted if those institutions that point. and their workings were opened up completely; the mechanics can always be improved. However, the new tranche of proposals will affect the way in 11:45 which the institutions work, so it would be Angus Robertson: I would like to step back unrealistic to make further major proposals. from the structural level. It would be foolish to believe that having more or fewer layers of Richard Spring: I want to discuss one or two governance is the answer to everything. How can points that were made. It is right to simplify the one reconnect with voters when even the decision treaties. I am in favour of simplifying treaties and makers are not remotely interested? Richard bringing them under one umbrella, as long as their Spring and I sat through all the parliamentary competence is not extended by stealth. stages of the bill dealing with aspects of the Treaty Speaking truthfully and bluntly, I believe that an of Nice. upper chamber is irrelevant. Such a chamber Richard Spring: I did not notice that Angus was would in no way address the so-called democratic there all the time. deficit or how the European Union reconnects, which is its most fundamental underlying problem. Angus Robertson: I was there all the time. The Having representatives of national Parliaments in number of members in the chamber was an upper chamber would not address that minuscule; they could have been counted on the problem. fingers of two hands. We were debating the Treaty of Nice, which caused a massive hoo-hah in At some point I would like to set out our view of Ireland in a referendum. We must ask why many how the Council of Ministers or COREPER should people in elected life are not interested in what is operate. When it is convenient for the committee, I going on at a European level. would like to talk—again in a practical way—about how the role of national Parliaments can be Mr Home Robertson: It is the Bill Cash factor. enhanced and about how the Scottish Parliament Angus Robertson: Yes. can feed into that. The debate is continuing and I believe that we must move from talking about the A second factor is the level of information that is problem to coming up with specific proposals. If, in provided to the public. Members will know that its deliberations from a Scottish point of view, the only one Scottish journalist works for a Scottish committee produces or endorses practical ideas newspaper in Brussels. None of our major for addressing some of the problems, it will have newspapers has a correspondent there and done the whole nation a great service. neither of our national broadcasters has a correspondent there. How can one hope to The Convener: I want to come back to the role connect with the public if people do not receive of regions in the Europe of the future. Angus adequate information and their elected Robertson’s view on that will be different from representatives do not know or care particularly mine. Nevertheless, practical steps can be taken if much—with the honourable exception of members there is no change. The committee welcomes who show an interest in work on Europe in

1191 22 OCTOBER 2001 1192

Parliament and outside? I know many members of more involved in the process? the committee from other organisations, because Angus Robertson: First, I welcome the Scottish they care about what is going on at a European Executive’s involvement with other constitutional level. We can talk about second or third chambers, regions. It has sought out partners not only with the Committee of the Regions and many other similar levels of powers, but with similar agendas things, but the root of the difficulty is that most for highlighting the changes that are necessary at people are not informed and the people who are European level and in the legislation that affects supposed to be informed are not especially the different constitutional regions. Such changes interested. If those problems are not addressed, were outlined in the agreement that was signed in everything else is academic. Flanders earlier this year. That agreement Irene Oldfather: A related problem is that includes some valid points and a closer working Europe has had a bad press over the past 18 to relationship with other constitutional regions at a 20 years. The correspondents in Brussels do not European level is a welcome first step. always portray Europe accurately. Angus How does one build on such moves? I attended Robertson has touched on a problem. the meeting at which Jack McConnell, the Minister What role should national parliamentarians and for Education, Europe and External Affairs, told devolved Governments play? the committee about how he saw the Scottish Executive’s European policy progressing both Angus Robertson: It is the role of individual within the EU and within other enlargement states, parliamentarians—be they members of the particularly the Czech Republic. That is an issue Scottish Parliament or the Westminster that we can work on. Although I am not certain Parliament—to be involved and engaged and to about where we could go after that, I welcome travel to see the European institutions. One of the many elements in the strategy that refer to other best things that an elected representative can do constitutional regions working together. Such a is be informed about what goes on elsewhere, so course has been pursued by Flanders. We can that they can say that certain things are done learn much from that part of Europe about how a better or worse elsewhere. That is the basis on region can operate with the Committee of the which to improve things. Perhaps the key role of Regions and the Council of Ministers. For individual parliamentarians is to scrutinise and example, from the beginning of next year, the hold the Executive or Government to account, Flemish Government will automatically lead on all using the information that it is essential to have to fisheries matters on behalf of the Belgian state. be able to do that. We can also learn from that Government’s range The Convener: Is it not the case—this comes of interrelationships. For example, it has a power back to the point that Ben Wallace and Irene that the Scottish Parliament does not have: the Oldfather are driving at—that structural issues ability to make bilateral treaties with both need to be addressed? It is okay to say that independent and devolved Governments. Being members of the Scottish Parliament should ambitious about seeking out partners, learning engage with the issues and meet people. best practice and pursuing that course with other However, given the way in which decisions are constitutional regions are all steps that I welcome. made that affect us in Scotland within the current UK constitutional framework, how could a Europe Richard Spring: I want to respond to Irene of the regions be developed that would allow Oldfather’s direct question about the role of regional Governments to have the influence to national parliamentarians, which is a key element which you aspire? in what we need to do in the lead-up to the IGC. I am very grateful that the question has been asked, Angus Robertson: You pointed out that because the issue must be dealt with at a sub- Richard Spring and I would probably take very national level. different approaches on certain issues, and I suspect that this is one of those issues. The SNP Even though I want the EC’s role to be reduced feels that the Committee of the Regions is where for the reasons that I mentioned earlier—as I said, the regions of Scotland should be represented, it is a disconnected body—I believe that its annual and the place for national Governments— report and statement should be thoroughly debated and examined in the House of Commons The Convener: You clearly stated that that was and here in Edinburgh when they are published. the SNP’s principal view in your opening remarks, There is no reason why that should not happen. and we accept that that is the case. However, if Furthermore, the process should also include the we assume that there is no constitutional change ability to give direct feedback—primarily from in the UK, we have to come up with a framework Westminster but also from the devolved before the next IGC that engages the regions of Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament if they the UK and Europe. Notwithstanding your view wish to make observations—before the EC tries to about independence, how could the regions be implement anything. Such a role is currently

1193 22 OCTOBER 2001 1194 lacking and could be usefully fulfilled. and the Scottish Executive. If they are of value, they can be continued and endorsed, but the There is a real sense of disconnection because mechanisms for the transmission of debate and of fraud, which costs the taxpayers of Europe £3 policy should be along the lines that I have billion. We talked about journalists reporting suggested. That would help in the process of negatively from Brussels; such stories of fraud reintegrating people in the whole architecture, resonate with people. How do we deal with that? ambition and aspirations of the European Union. There should be a national parliamentary committee at Westminster to concentrate on and scrutinise the way in which money is spent in the 12:00 United Kingdom. That work could be Colin Campbell: I was delighted to hear subcontracted without difficulty where there are Richard Spring say that he thought that restoration specific areas of Scottish spending—for example, of power to national Parliaments was a good thing, regarding structural funds. That idea could be although I am sure that what he meant was not considered. It is not simply my suggestion or that what I understood. I am in the same camp as of Angus Robertson or anybody here, but what Angus Robertson. Lord Patten and other commissioners have suggested on many occasions. People want to I have not come to the debate with any feel that there is proper scrutiny of spending. I am preconceived notions. However, I think that some sure that there is no problem with that idea in this of the issues that exercise us in Scotland and country. I do not know whether the problem is which will be passed down to us by the European universal in the European Union, but the work of Union should be scrutinised in some pre- such a committee would substantiate whether legislative way. Richard Spring said that there was Parliament was dealing with taxpayers’ money in a a collegiate quality about what the Danes did and specific way. that he did not think that that approach would work at Westminster because of the across-the-front- We also want there to be a scrutiny reserve. W e benches style of the UK Parliament. established the Norton commission, which recommended that ministers should not approve However, the committees in the Scottish an EU proposal until parliamentary scrutiny is Parliament have experience of pre-legislative complete. There is no reason why that process scrutiny—we have done well on that front. By the could not be echoed in Scotland, although the time that legislation is brought forth to the primary function would be at Westminster. We Parliament, much of the warring is over. In the must move away from talking about the way in same way, perhaps, issues might come to sub- which national Parliaments’ roles should be national Parliaments—I refuse to call them enhanced; part of the problem is that it is years regional Parliaments—where they could be since any power was returned to a national scrutinised, providing that the timing from Europe Parliament—none that I recall has been returned. was right. Parliaments would thus be re-engaged It is time to think of fresh ways of dealing with the in the European situation, as would the people. issue and there is clearly an opportunity for that at Once the issue, whatever it might be, had been a sub-national level in Scotland. discussed, and once a conclusion had been arrived at and endorsed by our own Parliament, I turn to the question of the Committee of the the issue would be reported to the UK Parliament, Regions. There are some difficulties, as the which could take it forward. constitutional architecture of Belgium, for example, is radically different from that of the United I appreciate that that process could be Kingdom. There is nothing comparable to Belgium cumbersome; if it were to be applied universally to in the United Kingdom; the national and federal every piece of European legislation, we would go structure there is minuscule compared with that of completely off our heads. However, it might any other European country. What happens in provide a mechanism by which we could re- Scotland may resonate and be of interest in engage ourselves in the debate. Also, if the Nordrhein-Westfalen, Salzburg or some part of mechanism was transparent, it might re-engage Spain or Italy, but there is a limit to where the the people out there. comparisons can be made. Although it is useful to If I cannot get answers to questions, I lose share experience, we ought to embark on the interest and if, as an elected representative, I process of re-establishing the central importance cannot get answers, how on earth can people get of the nation state and the national Parliament. As the information that they need? Unless people can that links to how people vote and it is what they get information, and feel that they are being feel a connection with, the role of the Council of trusted and involved in the process, we will not re- Ministers and COREPER should flow through that. engage people with Europe. People will then be The value of the regional relationships is a prey to the bad journalists who spend all their time matter for the judgment of the Scottish Parliament coming up with lunatic European stories to try to

1195 22 OCTOBER 2001 1196 make people hostile to Europe. What we need is a should be left to the individual member states? mechanism with appropriate timing. Angus Robertson: Are you asking whether Helen Eadie: I am pleased that there is almost there should be a European standard that consensus about the First Minister signing the operates everywhere? Flanders declaration—we all seem to welcome The Convener: Yes. that. Angus Robertson: If there were to be Following on from that, on 8 October, the EU harmonisation on that, I would be more than general affairs council agreed on a convention in happy to take the European standard, because which, I believe, MEPs and parliamentarians will European governance on the issue would be be directly involved, along with representatives of superior to that of the UK. That was a bit of a the UK Government. Do you see MEPs at a flippant response, but we can certainly talk about national level being the only direct representatives how things would work in the UK. If common to be involved, or will MSPs, members of the European standards on the time scale of National Assembly for Wales or representatives information from European institutions and on how from Ireland be directly involved? Given that we that information is transferred were to come out of have to implement so many EU directives, would the convention and the white paper, I would direct involvement at regional level be helpful? welcome that. It appears that there are diverse Richard Spring: I have not seen the convention ways of dealing with the different proposals, spelt out in detail. However, if there is to be a regulations and reports that come out in various Committee of the Regions and if, flowing from that, places. there is to be a convention, it would be logical to For argument’s sake, does the paperwork that is have participation from the regional Parliament or being dealt with at today’s meeting of the council Assembly representatives. of transport ministers automatically go to a Helen Eadie: Would ministers, parliamentarians department at Westminster, which then decides or only national representatives at Westminster how close to any deadline that paperwork will be level act as those representatives or would forwarded to the Scottish transport minister or the observer status be involved? part of the Scottish Executive that is dealing with the issues that are being debated? If, before 2004, Richard Spring: That would have to be we know what the competences are in different thrashed out. If the convention is to be drawn up to parts of Europe, when anything comes out that deal solely with the regions, it could comprise a deals with a particular subject area, it should be a mixture of parliamentarians and ministers. We mere technicality that we know exactly where it would wish to explore that question. I have not should go and we send it there as quickly as seen the remit of the convention, and those possible. remarks are made subject to knowing a little more about it. There should be minimum standards for the length of time it takes for information to be Angus Robertson: It will not surprise committee transferred. Account should be taken of how long members to hear me say that Scotland’s the scrutiny process takes in different member representatives should be involved in the states and sub-state legislatures. The scrutiny governance of Scotland. For us, as a matter of the process should not be rushed and the responses highest importance, that involvement should should be fed back, through member states if include members of the Scottish Parliament. I am necessary, to the appropriate layer of governance. not sure whether there is agreement on the size of I would welcome minimum standards on that the delegations and the levels of representation because we could then hold institutions to account from different member states. However, as a for not doing it. starting point, Scotland’s elected representatives should always be able to attend. Richard Spring: I am rather more cautious on this issue. As we expand from 15 to 27 member The Convener: I will return to the issue of states, there is a great risk that going down the engagement in the decision-making process at the route of too much harmonisation and enforcement earliest opportunity. will lead to difficulties. It is for the member states How should the decision-making processes of to decide how they wish practically to deal with national Parliaments and regional, sub-national such matters. It is perfectly in order for Parliaments—or whatever they are to be called— recommendations to be made; Angus Robertson be regulated at the point that decisions come out correctly made the point about the timing of of Europe? How should the way in which people scrutiny and so on. However, ultimately it will are involved in that decision-making process be depend on the level of competence. regulated? Is there a single framework that could When the IGC takes place in 2004, the be developed, or do either of you think that it competences will be far more clearly defined. It

1197 22 OCTOBER 2001 1198 therefore depends on where, for example, there is that comprised as many members as there are exclusive competence—in external trade policy, countries in the European Union—perhaps 27, in for example. It is reasonable that the procedures due course. at a national level would be much more clearly Angus Robertson: If we are to have a defined. The European Union is acting collectively constitution that regulates the level at which on behalf of all the member states; that is also true governance is to take place in the European in other respects. Union, another variation that might make things What is important is that we have continuing easier would be for that to be interpreted and ruled diversity. One of the things that struck me in the on by the European Court of Justice. That ties in United States presidential election, when there with one of the points that is part of the agreement was that curious activity in Florida, was that not that was signed by the Scottish Executive. only did the constituent parts—the states of the Regardless of whether there is a panel as Richard United States—have different voting structures, Spring suggests there should be, I have no doubt but the small, almost municipal areas showed that, following the adoption of a constitution, many considerable diversity. We need to be cautious as of the challenges to the way things work will be we expand that we do not get into a kind of conducted through the European Court of Justice. bureaucratised straitjacket of enforcement in areas In that case, it would be logical, if not essential, where the competences do not require it. That is that the devolved Governments be allowed a an important consideration. Otherwise, people will direct involvement in the process to enable them feel that this is happening beyond their control. to challenge the interpretation of laws. That is not The welling irritation throughout the European currently the case, but the paper that was signed Union accession countries will be made worse by the Scottish Executive says that it is worthy of once the European Union is enlarged. Those are consideration. I can see no reason why that my caveats—I would treat the issue with a little should not happen as, after the 2004 process, it caution. would be useful in ensuring that work was being done at the correct level. The Convener: Are there any further questions? Richard Spring: Angus Robertson is correct in Richard Spring: I would like to make another saying that the European Court of Justice has comment, if I may. Quite rightly, concern has been played a part in the screening process. However, I expressed about the relation of Scotland to the UK think that that is wrong and that a subsidiarity and of the UK to the institutions of the European panel would do the job much more effectively. Union. In that regard, we would like there to be a There is a concern in this country about judge-led subsidiarity panel that would be made up of law. If we allow our constitutional arrangements members that were nominated by each country. increasingly to be considered by the judiciary, at The word “subsidiarity” emerged after Maastricht whatever level, it will promote that feeling of but, quite frankly, I am not sure what it has meant alienation. in practice. If we are to make people a part of the European process in an enlarged community, An example is fisheries. Our policy is that there should be a panel that could, at the request fisheries policy should return to national control or of a member state, screen legislation. That would regional control. I do not know whether you are give resonance to the powers that exist at a aware that the common fisheries policy is not a national and sub-national level. That would have common fisheries policy: it does not apply in the the effect of safeguarding and reinforcing the Mediterranean, for example. If the CFP were to importance of allowing the devolution of power to return to national or regional control, under a zonal a national and sub-national level and would go a scheme, for example—I know that such a scheme long way towards dealing with the concerns that has been advocated widely—it would be important have been implicitly and explicitly expressed for a minister of the Scottish Executive to be on today. any zonal board. If it were decided to go further and have more extensive local control—I believe The Convener: From where would the panel be that the CFP is regarded as a considerable drawn? failure—control of fisheries could rest almost Richard Spring: Each country would nominate entirely in Scotland. a member and there would then be a discussion If that were to happen, it would make people in about the exact remit of the panel. If we are to give Scotland feel much more comfortable with the meaning to subsidiarity, and allow devolution to relationship with the European Union and feel that the national and sub-national Parliaments, the they had some control in an area that has caused panel would be useful. considerable emotional distress and economic The Convener: Would it be like a second hardship in the fishing industry. chamber? Those are areas that we wish to consider Richard Spring: No, it would simply be a panel practically. Forgive me for taking up the

1199 22 OCTOBER 2001 1200 committee’s time to make that point. Richard Spring: I only wanted to bring in the matter of fisheries, because it is a litmus test. The 12:15 CFP will be reviewed, starting next year and Mr Home Robertson: I do not know that we concluding in 2002. Control should be devolved need to forgive you. You may not be aware that much more substantially in fisheries. The CFP has the committee and the Scottish Executive are a discriminated against Scotland and the North sea long way in front of you on those issues and have fishermen in particular. That needs to be sorted already staked out claims on fisheries. A lot of out. work has been done on that. I was trying to make the point that, rather than You have goaded me to press you a little bit engage in making wonderful speeches, which all further on the theme of subsidiarity. I remember us politicians are prone to do, we must try all the Margaret Thatcher coming back to Westminster way through the process to come up with and trumpeting the advantages of subsidiarity. Her constructive proposals on how to sort out the interpretation was that subsidiarity stopped at problem. That is what the Conservative party will Westminster. It meant dragging powers from the do during its policy review in the next year. EU back to Westminster and Whitehall. She was Thank you for your patience, convener. appalled by the notion of further subsidiarity to the nations, regions or anybody else within the United The Convener: I thank Angus Robertson and Kingdom. I am therefore absolutely thrilled to hear Richard Spring for taking the time to come to the a Conservative spokesman moving further on meeting. subsidiarity. As I said earlier, the exercise is a first for the We in Scotland are doing our bit on Scottish Parliament and I hope that other decentralisation and subsidiarity, as are our committees will repeat it. I hope that this is the friends in Wales and Northern Ireland. As we start of a parliamentary relationship between make progress in understanding what the Scotland and Westminster, because we have architecture of the EU and the UK will be, it is much to gain from developing a close working important to consider the English question. I relationship. The witnesses’ views have been cannot believe that the good people of East Anglia useful and will, I hope, be complemented by views are entirely happy about the way that they are from Menzies Campbell, Peter Hain, Jimmy Hood represented and dealt with by Westminster. There and Lord Brabazon. They will certainly have an may be a case for decentralisation in such areas. influence on our deliberations. How will that evolve? Once again, I thank the witnesses for coming Richard Spring: That is a difficult problem. One along. I hope that they have found the meeting a understands perfectly well that there may be a useful experience and we will keep in contact with kind of regional sense in parts of England. Those them as our work on the report develops. would include the north-east, the north-west and I conclude by reminding members that our probably the south-west. I can absolutely assure meeting that was scheduled for 23 October has you that nobody in East Anglia has the remotest been cancelled. Our next meeting will be held in desire for some kind of regional assembly or the morning and afternoon of 30 October, when government. That is the last thing that people we will hear from a cross-party group of MEPs as there would consider. If I wish to raise hysteria part of our inquiry into governance. with mirth at a meeting, I suggest that, on top of parish councils, district councils and county Meeting closed at 12:21. councils, we have some sort of regional government followed by Westminster and Brussels. I do not think that that is what people want. The context of Scotland is entirely different from that of East Anglia. The history, the traditions, the legal system and the educational system are just not like those in East Anglia. People in East Anglia are interested in less government, not more. That is how they would view the matter and that is a cross-party view. I hope that that answers the question directly. The Convener: Do you have another point to make? You mentioned two points earlier.

Members who would like a printed copy of the Official Report to be forwarded to them should give notice at the Document Supply Centre.

No proofs of the Official Report can be supplied. Members who want to suggest corrections for the archive edition should mark them clearly in the daily edition, and send it to the Official Report, 375 High Street, Edinburgh EH99 1SP. Suggested corrections in any other form cannot be accepted.

The deadline for corrections to this edition is:

Monday 29 October 2001

Members who want reprints of their speeches (within one month of the date of publication) may obtain request forms and further details from the Central Distribution Office, the Document Supply Centre or the Official Report.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY EDITIONS

Single copies: £5 Meetings of the Parliament annual subscriptions: £500

The archive edition of the Official Report of meetings of the Parliament, written answers and public meetings of committees w ill be published on CD-ROM.

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, compiled by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, contains details of past and forthcoming business and of the work of committees and gives general information on legislation and other parliamentary activity.

Single copies: £3.75 Special issue price: £5 Annual subscriptions: £150.00

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS w eekly compilation

Single copies: £3.75 Annual subscriptions: £150.00

Standing orders will be accepted at the Document Supply Centre.

Published in Edinburgh by The Stationery Off ice Limited and available f rom:

The Stationery Office Bookshop The Stationery Office Scottish Parliament Documentation The Scottish Parliament Shop 71 Lothian Road Helpline may be able to assist with additional information George IV Bridge Edinburgh EH3 9AZ on publications of or about the Scottish Parliament, EH99 1SP 0131 228 4181 Fax 0131 622 7017 their availability and cost: Telephone orders 0131 348 5412

The Stationery Office Bookshops at: Telephone orders and inquiries 123 Kingsway, London WC2B 6PQ [email protected] Tel 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394 0870 606 5566 68-69 Bull Street, Bir mingham B4 6AD www.scottish.parliament.uk Tel 0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699 Fax orders 33 Wine Street, Bristol BS1 2BQ Tel 01179 264306 Fax 01179 294515 0870 606 5588 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS Accredited Agents Tel 0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD (see Yellow Pages) Tel 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 The Stationer y Office Oriel Bookshop, and through good booksellers 18-19 High Street, Car diff CF12BZ

Tel 029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347

Printed in Scotland by The Stationery Office Limited ISBN 0 338 000003 ISSN 1467-0178