European Union Economic and Social Committee (Nominations)

– in the Scottish Parliament at 12:00 pm on 29 May 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 12:00, 29 May 2002

The next item of business is consideration of an Executive motion, in the name of Peter Peacock, on nominations to the European Union Economic and Social Committee. There is also one amendment to the motion. I invite members who wish to take part in this brief debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I ask Peter Peacock, who is carefully shuffling his notes and papers, to speak to and move motion S1M-3162.

Photo of Peter Peacock Peter Peacock Labour 12:13, 29 May 2002

Thank you for your delaying tactics, Presiding Officer—they were very helpful.

As members are aware, the European Union has an intricate set of institutional arrangements to try to guarantee the representation of a body of opinion from across Europe in the formulation of policy. The 1957 Treaty of Rome established the Economic and Social Committee as an advisory body to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. The treaty prescribes a number of areas on which the committee must be consulted, including agriculture, employment, transport, social issues, the single market, education, consumer protection, health, structural funds and equal opportunities. It is a very important consultative body in decision making in the EU. The committee provides access to, and influence on, the process of decision making for a range of bodies and organisations—people who would not normally be part of the process. For example, Campbell Christie has been one of the Scottish representatives on the committee for a number of years and he has played a very important role in debates on structural funds in the committee. He has brought visits to Scotland and has influenced the debates in a way very helpful to the Scottish interest.

There are many other issues on which the committee expresses opinions that help to formulate EU policy. In addition, the European Commission or European Council can consult the committee on any matter when they consider it appropriate, and the committee can, on its own initiative, elaborate opinions on matters that concern it.

The ESC is divided into three groups: employers, workers and other economic and social interests. The UK is entitled to 24 members; there are currently 10 in group I, six in group II and seven in group III, with one vacancy. As I have indicated, the committee's role is advisory but its work is worth while, as it ensures that views other than those of central Government are taken into account when the EU formulates its policies and takes decisions. Therefore it is very important that Scotland puts forward candidates for the available positions.

The ESC is, however, a fairly onerous commitment: plenaries can amount to 30 days per year and an active involvement in the sub-committees can increase the commitment significantly. At present there is one Scot, John Little, in group I and one Scot, Campbell Christie, in group II. The term of the current committee comes to an end in September 2002. The Scottish Executive is responsible for making proposals to the Scottish Parliament on nominations and that is why we are debating the Executive motion.

The Department of Trade and Industry has lead responsibility for appointments to groups I and II and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-ordinates group III nominations. In turn, the departments submit their proposals to the Foreign Secretary, who will provide a consolidated list for the Prime Minister's approval in June.

A range of Scottish organisations has been consulted. On 10 May, 23 organisations were issued letters inviting them to make nominations, with the request that the Executive receive those nominations by 24 May. In terms of timing, our nominations need to be with Whitehall by 3 June. We must deal with the matter today, because Parliament is not meeting next week; otherwise we might have been able to secure a further short delay. However, we must stick with that timetable.

As I said, it is important that Scotland puts forward candidates and in addition to consulting organisations, existing members have been asked to say—without commitment—whether they would be prepared to serve again on the ESC. They would be entitled to serve again if the Parliament nominated them. The Executive is satisfied that the nominations received are worthy candidates to take up places on the UK delegation.

However, we were extremely disappointed that no women were nominated as a result of the process. Sending Scottish nominations that do not include any women is not a position that the Executive can support. That is why the motion invites ministers, in consultation with the major political parties, to make our best endeavours to secure the nominations of several women in time to send the list to the DTI and the FCO. I want to make it clear that the Executive is seeking the active help of colleagues across the chamber in suggesting suitable names. I undertake to consult with the other parties in the process. As I have indicated, the time scales are extremely tight.

However, in informal discussions with members across the political parties, several potential women candidates have been identified and I am confident that we can add to the list of nominees to enhance the gender balance.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Scottish Executive's wide-ranging consultation with Scottish civic society to identify nominees for the forthcoming mandate of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union, endorses the Executive's proposal to nominate Andy Baird (proposed by STUC), Professor Grant Baird (proposed by CBI Scotland), Sandy Boyle (proposed by STUC), Brendan Burns (proposed by Federation of Small Businesses), Danny Carrigan (proposed by STUC), Campbell Christie (proposed by Scottish Civic Forum), Hamish Morrison (proposed by the Scottish Fishermens Federation), Bill Ure (proposed by the Scottish Consumer Council) and Dr Grahame Whyte (proposed by the Institute of Directors), to the UK delegation on the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union for the forthcoming mandate from September 2002 to September 2006; further notes, with regret, that the nomination process has not resulted in any women being nominated, and invites Ministers, in discussion with the other main political parties, to use their best endeavours to secure an enhanced gender balance in the nominations prior to these being finally submitted.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

There is an amendment in the name of Richard Lochhead, whom I will call to speak in a moment. There is more pressure to speak in the debate than we had anticipated, so I ask members to keep their comments extremely brief. I will try to call a representative number of people and give the minister a brief opportunity to close the debate. I call Richard Lochhead, who has three minutes.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party 12:18, 29 May 2002

I welcome the debate. The issue is important and I am glad that, following discussions between the SNP and the Executive, it was agreed worthy of debate.

The SNP has no particular view on the individual nominees in the Executive motion, although we noticed that all nine nominees are male, which is one of the reasons why we were keen to have the debate. We welcome the fact that the Executive has taken on board the lack of women nominees. The other reason why we wanted a debate on the nominations is that the issue goes right to the heart of the debate on how Scotland is represented in Europe and raises the Scottish Executive's lack of enthusiasm and determination to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard at every level and in every forum in Europe.

We are told that there is an informal agreement between the Executive and the Department of Trade and Industry in London on nominees for groups I and II. When it comes to group III, we are told that there is no informal agreement whatsoever between London and Edinburgh. That is unacceptable because it means that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is responsible for the group III representatives, does not even have to pick up the phone and speak to Scotland about who will be on the committee on behalf of the UK. Scotland could be invisible in relation to the group III nominations.

Scotland's lack of representation is a joke. It is also a joke that the Executive is not doing more to guard Scotland's interests. We should have a fixed share of the Economic and Social Committee, as we do with the Committee of the Regions. However, that is not the case. The minister is laughing and smiling; he thinks it is all a bit of a joke, but it is serious. The ESC has an important role to play, although it is a bit of a talking shop. We have to make sure that it is reformed so that it is listened to.

I contrast this situation with Denmark's discussions on the EU presidency. Denmark will be discussing what representatives will be sitting on the Council of Ministers and their representation in all the formal networks throughout the European Union. Scotland occasionally discusses its representatives on the Committee of the Regions, which is an advisory body, and today we are discussing our representatives on the Economic and Social Committee, which is also an advisory body.

Denmark has a right to nine members on the Economic and Social Committee, whereas we do not have any members by right. We have only an informal agreement through the concordats between the DTI and Edinburgh. That is unacceptable.

The Scottish Executive is not exploiting every opportunity to ensure that Scotland is represented in European fora. The SNP is constantly cajoling and prodding the Executive to ensure that we exploit the limited opportunities available to Scotland. The convention on the future of Europe is a perfect example of that. Scotland has ended up in a situation where its democratically elected leader, Jack McConnell, is simply the rapporteur on behalf of the Committee of the Regions to the convention on the future of Europe. Other countries are represented by ministers, members of Parliament, and officials, while we are in the most embarrassing situation possible.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I hope that the Parliament supports the SNP's amendment so that we can make the most of the limited opportunities available to Scotland in terms of European representation. It is time that the Executive and the Parliament started fighting for Scotland's interests. The Executive has to stop needing to be cajoled and prodded—it should be fighting for Scotland as of right, so that we can get the best deal out of Europe. We welcome the debate.

I move amendment S1M-3162.1, to insert at end:

", and calls on the Scottish Executive to insist that Scotland has a fixed allocation of representatives on all three groups that comprise the committee."

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative 12:22, 29 May 2002

I recognise where Richard Lochhead is coming from, not least because we have heard it so often before. In effect, he wants to have Scotland treated as a minority group and membership of the ESC guaranteed by quota. However, because Scotland's representation is limited, it should be appropriate, wherever it might come from.

The amendment states that Scotland should have a "fixed allocation". That would prevent Scotland from supplying more than its quota, should we have the people with something to contribute to achieve that.

The basic principle, to which the Conservatives have always stuck, is that quotas are inappropriate. That is why we will not be supporting the SNP's amendment. Similarly, quotas for women on such committees would be inappropriate and we are glad that the Executive has not come forward with such a proposal.

However, we welcome the informal approach that has already taken place and the fact that the Executive is willing to consult with other parties, including the Conservatives. We will be delighted to take part in any possible discussions, to propose names and, if possible, to find women to add to that list. We are happy with that proposal.

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat 12:23, 29 May 2002

I want to concentrate on the last part of the Executive's motion. A list of nominees composed entirely of men gives a worrying message. The Parliament must address the question of genuine equal opportunities more vigorously than it does at the moment. That is a difficult area.

My party has a good record at local government level, where every major council group is chaired by a woman. However, we have an appalling record at national level.

We must vigorously pursue two aspects. First, we must ensure that women rise in those various organisations. Secondly, the people who are in charge of such organisations, who are still mainly men, must recognise the importance of women.

We need good women candidates and we need those who are doing the choosing to include women candidates among their selection. I hope that that will give out the right message—we are not enthusiastic about quotas, but a zero quota is unacceptable. The Parliament must help other organisations and women to progress.

Photo of Cathy Peattie Cathy Peattie Labour 12:24, 29 May 2002

I will be brief. The Scottish Executive has made mainstreaming a high priority. The Equal Opportunities Committee is holding an inquiry into mainstreaming and how it can be implemented in the work of the Scottish Executive and of local authorities. I was concerned, therefore, to see that the list of nominees contains no women. I welcome the minister's statement this morning.

If the group of nominees is to represent civic Scotland, it is unacceptable that it should be made up solely of men. The idea that quotas upset people is absolute nonsense. This list is an opportunity to make sure that mainstreaming works and that civic Scotland is represented. That is the way to go. As for the idea that women are not available, that is absolute nonsense. I remind members that we frequently debate the voluntary sector. That sector provides excellent examples of women operating at all levels, from grassroots workers and volunteers to organisation managers.

Women are around in Scotland. We have an opportunity to examine mainstreaming and quotas and how they work. It is nonsense for the Tories to say that they do not like quotas. The Tories should be asked how they got their women to stand for the Scottish Parliament. That would be an interesting debate.

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party 12:26, 29 May 2002

I too will be brief. First, as usual, the one organisation that has a fixed quota is the Labour party. A minimum of four of the eight nominees support the Labour party. As we have seen time and again, this is the latest example of new Labour cronyism, which is acting like a cancer throughout the body politic in Scotland.

I agree with all speakers on the need for women's representation. We must also examine ethnic minority representation, because the nominees are supposed to reflect civic Scotland. Without proper representation of women, ethnic minorities and non-Labour supporters, there is no way that the nominees can represent civic Scotland.

Photo of Cathie Craigie Cathie Craigie Labour

Alex Neil is encouraging the increased representation of women at every level. What is his party doing to increase the representation of women in the Parliament? As I understand it, even fewer women will represent the SNP in the Parliament and in local government next year.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Could you make that your last intervention, Mr Neil?

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

I am amazed that Cathie Craigie has insights into the results of our list meetings, which do not take place until the middle of June. I anticipate that in our shadow cabinet, in the ranks of our junior spokespeople, in our parliamentary party, and in every council group the length and breadth of Scotland, we will make sure that women and ethnic minorities are properly represented. When we form the Government next year, we will open up appointments to proper democratic scrutiny by passing a public appointments bill, and put an end to the cronyism that is inherent in these eight nominations.

Photo of Rhona Brankin Rhona Brankin Labour 12:28, 29 May 2002

Campbell Christie would probably regard it as the ultimate insult to be described as a new Labour crony.

I support the motion in Peter Peacock's name. I welcome the Executive's response to the concerns that were raised by many women yesterday about the all-male shortlist with which we are presented. There is a problem when bodies in Scottish society, such as the Confederation of British Industry, voluntary sector bodies and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, fail to come up with any women. There are plenty of women out there who are more than capable of doing the job.

I welcome Peter Peacock's comments. The challenge for the Executive is to ensure that women's voices are heard on important European committees. It might be worth examining the selection procedure that the Labour party put in place, which ensured that the Parliament has one of the highest representations of women in the world. It might also be worth seeing whether bodies could be asked to come up with the names of one man and one woman, so that there is no possibility of any kind of discrimination in future.

Photo of Peter Peacock Peter Peacock Labour 12:29, 29 May 2002

The SNP's approach to the debate was predictable and reflects the continuing paranoia of its members, who believe that the Labour party constantly plots against them. Alex Neil enjoys such things; they give him a chance to make speeches to support his future leadership bid. I note the policy that he would pursue as leader of the SNP.

Alex Neil is well-known for nominating his cronies for public bodies, although he does not like to admit that often. If anybody knows about cronyism, it is Alex Neil. He must acknowledge that we have issued an open invitation to the SNP and to every other party to make nominations. We have done that genuinely and constructively.

Rhona Brankin and Cathy Peattie were right to express the disappointment that was felt about the fact that no women were nominated. We lodged the motion to give ourselves slightly more time to sort out that situation. I undertake to examine how we invite nominations and to consider a system on the lines of the system that Rhona Brankin described, so that we build in a proper balance between the sexes in nomination processes in the Parliament and the Executive.

I invite the Parliament to support the motion.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—