Back to the Scottish Parliament European and External Relations Committee Report
Archive Home

Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

Previous

 

ANNEXE A: ROLE OF EUROPEAN AND SUBJECT COMMITTEES IN EUROPEAN ENGAGEMENT AND SCRUTINY

Role

European and External Relations Committee

Subject Committees

Scrutiny of Scottish Government

   

Priorities and action plan

  • Scrutinise Scottish Government priorities
  • Scrutinise relevant Ministers and EU priorities

Explanatory Memoranda

  • Develop the EM scrutiny process.
  • Liaison with Scottish Government.
  • Overview of EMs – prioritised by strategic selection criteria
  • EU Co-ordinator to consider list of EMs and prioritise.
  • Consider EM and agree action
  • Issues possibly passed back to EERC.

Joint Ministerial Committee (Europe)

  • Establish a system of scrutiny of Scottish Government input into the JMC(E) process.
  • Where appropriate Interview relevant Minister before / after relevant European Council meeting.

Transposition –

[Targeted on late implementation]

  • Receive annual report from SG.
  • Request letter from Minister when a late transposition anticipated.
  • Receive article 226 letters from Minister.
  • Receive article 57(1) letters from Minister.

Early Engagement /

Commission Work Programme Analysis

  • Develop Scottish Parliament approach to early warning system and ‘horizon-scanning’
  • Undertake global analysis.
  • Identify strategic priorities. for Parliament and ongoing monitoring.
  • Undertake annual consultation with MEPs
  • Prompt Scottish Government-sponsored debate.
  • Consulted in process. Identify policy specific priorities for action.
  • Issues possibly passed back to European and External Relations Committee .
  • Liaison with EP (MEP’s, rapporteurs and committee chairs) and CoR.

Role

European and External Relations Committee

Subject Committees

Subsidiarity

[ Selective approach - covered by EM process – see above.]

  • Scottish Parliament Co-ordinator for subsidiarity issues
  • Draft internal Scottish Parliament scrutiny and reporting process and procedures for consideration of subsidiarity
  • Reach agreement with Lords/Commons on the mechanism to take the Scottish Parliament views into account.
  • Ongoing liaison with Westminster
  • Input to the consideration of subsidiarity on specific cases

Other

  • Liaison meetings with Welsh and N Ireland committees.
  • Develop, monitor, review and update the Scottish Parliament European Strategy
 

The process for the consideration of subsidiarity issues within European legislative proposals involves a wider group of actors, including the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. The process will be part of the overall process of scrutiny of Explanatory Memoranda which will be developed by the autumn. The following flowchart sets out how this process might operate.

ANNEXE B: SUBSIDIARITY - PROPOSED PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION (195KB pdf)

Annexe C: Extended and New Competences under the Treaty of Lisbon

i

Extended and New Competences under the Treaty of Lisbon

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty establishing the European Community sets out the areas of competence for action at either member state or EU level. Within member state competence it does not define whether competence is at national, regional or local level.

The House of Commons Library has produced a research paper which includes focus on definition on competence:

“Competence’ is the term used to define whether the Union or the member states has the responsibility under the EC Treaties to make decisions on a particular policy. Competence at regional or local level is not specified in the Lisbon Treaty. In defining whether the EC or the member states have competence in any particular area or for a specific task, the terms “spheres of competence”, “shared competence”, “Community competence” and “exclusive competence” are terms used in the present Treaties, but these do not list areas of exclusive or shared competence.”141

Areas of Exclusive Competence

Article 3 of the Treaty establishing the European Community details the areas of Union exclusive competence as:

- Customs union
- Competition rules for the functioning of the internal market
- Monetary policy, for the member states which have adopted the euro
- Conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy
- Common commercial policy

Areas of Shared Competence

Article 4(2) is on ‘shared competence’, where the Union and the member states are both able to act.

The main areas of shared competence are as follows:

(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

Article 4(3) also states that “in the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however; the exercise of that competence shall not result in member states being prevented from exercising theirs”.

Article 4(4) adds that “in the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however; the exercise of that competence shall not result in member states being prevented from exercising theirs”.

Areas of Supporting competence

Article 6 sets out a category of areas of supporting, coordinating or complementary action:

(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, youth, sport and vocational training;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.

Action in these areas must not supersede the competence of member states to act and must not entail the harmonisation of national laws.

Iain McIver
SPICe
February 2010

Annexe D: Audit of the Scottish Government’s handling of Explanatory Memoranda

i

Audit of the Scottish Government’s handling of Explanatory Memoranda

Europe Division May 2010

Remit and Method

Europe Division has undertaken an internal review of how we handle Explanatory Memoranda (EM) with the aim of assessing current handling practices and internal controls, identifying risks and making recommendations for improvements.

In the preparation of this report we have used EM documentation dating back to 2002 but, for conciseness, the more detailed breakdown of figures in the section below refers only to EMs received in the 6 months between April 2009 and September 2009 inclusive.

We have also undertaken a review of Scottish Government lead policy officer and EU Liaison Officer142 (EULO) engagement with the EM processes to ascertain how the system is working in practice. We have met with policy officer143 colleagues in the Scottish Government’s Constitutional and UK Relations teams to discuss information sharing and best practice. We have had a number of meetings with Parliamentary clerks to clarify their needs and requirements. We will also be holding talks with the other Devolved Administrations and with the Cabinet Office to identify potential areas for cooperation and improvement.

This report is divided into five parts:

1. internal Scottish Government processes,
2. external engagement with other key stakeholders,
3. the role of EMs in the scrutiny process,
4. the challenges in the current arrangements; and
5. how to overcome those challenges.

Annex A is a representation of those subjects the EU has competence in, and whether they are devolved, reserved or reserved with a devolved interest to highlight the variety of policy areas covered by EMs.

1. Internal Scottish Government Processes - Integrity and reliability of information and data.

The Current System

Europe Division has ownership of the EM Inbox and checks it daily. Draft EMs are forwarded on to EULOs with a covering email asking for action by their lead policy officer, noting the timeframes for response, and requesting to be copied in to their return. Final EMs are forwarded to EULOs and to the Scottish Parliament.

All communications to the EM Inbox are filed on a monthly basis in Outlook144 public folders. There is a spreadsheet detailing all correspondence to the EM Inbox dating back to 2002. We can only assess the information which we actually have, but we cannot know how many EMs have been submitted to Westminster which we would have an interest in but simply haven’t been copied in to.

Action Points

  • Develop a centrally managed Scottish Government tracking mechanism to enable active monitoring of progress on draft EMs

  • Ensure draft EMs are sent to both EULOs and the Scottish Government lead policy officers to speed up the process.

Analysis of EM Inbox Communications

The EM inbox receives on average 70 emails a month, though this can range from 30 to 140, as the table below indicates.

i

Emails to the EM inbox include initial requests for contributions to drafts EMs, discussions regarding drafts in progress, and final versions. The majority of communications are finalised, signed EMs, covering the full range of reserved, reserved but with devolved interest and devolved matters. A small proportion of these communications are in draft form which are then forwarded to lead policy officers for action. The graph above shows recognisable peaks and troughs of communication corresponding with EU holiday periods and Commission work schedules.

Relevance of Content to Scottish Government

i

In order to get a clearer picture of how this activity might impact on SG policy officers the graph above and table below focus on a 6 month period during 2009. The content of final and draft EMs received has been analysed, and categorised into 3 headings: those relating to devolved matters, reserved but with devolved interest and fully reserved.

  Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Total
Devolved 8 13 12 22 16 11 82
Reserved with Devolved interest 16 13 12 21 15 15 92
Reserved 9 20 22 29 14 22 116
Total 33 46 46 72 45 48 290
Drafts 5 1 7 7 7 11 38
SG responses 2 3 9 9 8 10 41

On average: Devolved issues stand at 28 per cent

Reserved but with devolved interest at 32 per cent

Reserved at 40 per cent

During this 6 month test period the Scottish Government has at least an interest in 60 per cent of the EMs received. However, we only saw draft stage comments 13 per cent of the time, or more accurately, the EM inbox was only copied into requests 13 per cent of the time. This highlights a clear gap in monitoring as we should receive draft versions of all devolved/with a devolved interest EMs (60 per cent) but only 13 per cent of the 290 EMs received were at draft stage.

As the figures demonstrate, Whitehall officials often contact their SG counterparts directly to request comments on drafts without copying in the Europe Division EM inbox. This is certainly the case for the Department for Transport, and our Transport EULO was always careful to copy in the EM inbox to his responses, but didn’t forward the original requests, which is why SG responses outnumber the drafts received for comment.

Action Points

  • Ensure all draft EMs in which the Scottish Government has an interest are sent to the EM inbox.

  • Make Cabinet Office aware of the deficiencies in the current arrangements, discuss their systems and work to ensure that the gap between interest and consultation is filled.

Scottish Government engagement

Europe Division last issued guidance on handling EMs to EULOs and lead policy officers in October 2008 and the level of awareness of the EM process amongst our colleagues varies considerably from team to team.

All EULOs and lead policy officers dealing with European legislation were sent a questionnaire about their engagement with the EM process. Just over 25 per cent said they copy the EM inbox into their replies whilst just over 45 per cent admitted they did not do this. The most frequent involvement noted was receiving up to 2 EM drafts a month; the majority of respondees replied they only got one or two a year, if that.

A search of the Scottish Government’s electronic filing system indicated that some EMs are being processed without involving Europe Division at all. A recent example of this was an EM on a proposed Women’s Charter. Colleagues in the Social Equality team requested to be included into similar EMs in the future but were clearly unaware that Europe Division plays any role in the distribution and monitoring of EMs.

Colleagues in Justice Directorate receive EMs most regularly and have developed a tracking system of their own to monitor engagement. Any system improvements would not wish to undermine the good working relationships they have developed with their Home Office counterparts.

Action Point

  • Develop effective guidance for Scottish Government EULO and lead policy officers on how they should handle draft EMs received for comment, including training as appropriate.

2. External Engagement - Integrity and reliability of information and data.

Whitehall Departmental practice

The following is an indication of current EM handling practice with the principal Whitehall departments:

Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) never consult with the Scottish Government on draft EMs, and only send on finalised versions as they argue that they deal in a wholly reserved area of policy. This applies to matters relating to the EU budget, which has proved problematic in the past, resulting in an exchange of correspondence between senior officials reminding HMT of the requirement to consult with the devolved administrations on matters which impact upon them.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) send us all their final EMs, though the majority of them relate to fully reserved matters, for example anti dumping measures for Chinese steel. The Scottish Government would argue that in some cases they should also be sharing their draft versions for comment, but this does not happen in practice, as when we only received the final version of an EM about EU engagement with national parliaments post Lisbon.

The Department for International Development (DFID) does not consult the Scottish Government as a matter of course as they maintain that international relations are reserved. They do not acknowledge any SG interest in international development matters and therefore only send on finalised EMs. This means that even on matters in which Scottish Government is actively involved, such as Fair Trade, our views are not sought.

The vast majority of EMs from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) relate to devolved matters, and DEFRA usually maintain that the devolved administrations have been consulted in the drafting of their EMs. This may be the case but Europe Division rarely sees these exchanges. DEFRA officials do not copy the EM inbox into any drafting requests, and the results of our questionnaire to Scottish Government lead policy officers would not support the position that they are actively consulting with us.

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) have a mixed approach to engaging with the Scottish Government on EMs. If the EM relates to a reserved matter but may have a devolved interest they do not consult with us at draft stage but specify they are sharing the final version with us for interest. If there is a devolved aspect to the matter they will usually approach us for comment with a deadline of 1 or at most 2 days.

The Department of Health always acknowledge that health is a devolved matter and that DAs have been consulted. Again, the evidence does not always support this but policy officers may be contacted directly.

As mentioned above, the Department for Transport has good links with our transport colleagues but do not copy the EM inbox in to their draft requests, making tracking impossible for Europe Division.

The few draft requests we get from other departments only very rarely arrive on day 1 of the process, and usually give us at most 3 days to consider the issue and respond, even when the matter relates to devolved matters. In one case the Heath and Safety Executive (HSE) gave us less than 24 hours to respond to an EM relating to pesticides which impacted on both health and environment policy areas.

The Home Office and Ministry of Justice are the only department that consistently sends the Scottish Government draft EMs as soon as they receive them on day one of the ten day turnaround period. They copy the EM inbox and Justice Directorate colleagues into their initial cascade to policy officers, including the text of the EU proposal, the Cabinet Office guidance on EM production and the EM template. They also always send us the final version allowing us to track the development of the EM, from initial request, to SG contribution, to published document.

Action Points

  • Work with Cabinet Office to remind Whitehall departmental policy officers of their requirements to engage with the devolved administrations consistently and timeously when drafting EMs.

  • Ensure that Scottish Government EULOs and/or lead policy officers receive drafts as early in the process as possible.

Interests of the other Devolved Administrations

Both the Northern Ireland and Welsh administrations are undertaking similar reviews of their EM handling and have similar experiences of inconsistent Whitehall engagement. Any amendments to the system agreed with Cabinet Office must also take into account their interests.

Action Point

  • Ensure that the EU Obligations Co-ordinators in Belfast and Cardiff are involved in the discussions with Cabinet Office.

Compliance with existing procedures and guidelines

At the meeting of UK Departmental Scrutiny Coordinators in 2007 it was agreed that all EMs should contain a paragraph entitled “Interests of the Devolved Administrations” which would confirm to the UK Parliament that we had been considered and consulted if appropriate in the preparation of the document.

Cabinet Office guidance on EM content suggests a form of words to use depending on whether the subject matter is devolved, reserved or reserved but with devolved interest.

Home Office Scrutiny Guidance of August 2009 states that they will copy all EM requests to contacts in the devolved administrations to ensure maximum time is available for comment.

The Home Office always includes the following statements in their EM draft cascade:

“The devolved administrations and FCO Gibraltar desks are copied into this commissioning note to speed up the consultation process and they will register their interest or confirm that they do not have an interest directly with you.”

“Your draft EM must be cleared by UKrep, LAB, the HO scrutiny coordinator, the devolved administrations (unless they have confirmed no interest) and your line manager before it is submitted for Ministerial signature.”

The majority of EMs do include the section on interests of the devolved administrations, though some still do not, for example DFID. Most EMs do use the suggested form of words for capturing the extent of DA involvement in the issue, but this does not automatically translate to genuine engagement or consultation.

Action Points

  • Address the variety of response from Whitehall with Cabinet Office. Suggest the Home Office system as an example of best practice.

  • Reengage with the Cabinet Office UK Departmental Scrutiny Coordinators meetings to ensure the interests of the Scottish Government continue to be maintained.

  • Consider a ‘Devolved Administrations and EMs’ presentation for the Whitehall co-ordinators.

3. The Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon – Scrutiny Requirements

Communications with the Scottish Parliament

The Lisbon Treaty has granted national parliaments powers of scrutiny over EU legislative proposals to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity are not undermined ie that no proposal being brought forward would actually be more appropriate at a national or regional level as opposed to the EU level. The Treaty permits national parliaments to consult regional legislatures where appropriate.

EMs are the starting point in the scrutiny process. Whitehall departments have assigned scrutiny officials who are copied into draft EMs to consider subsidiarity issues. Scottish Government lead policy officers will need to be aware of the need to consider the subsidiarity angle from a Scottish perspective on their initial consideration of the draft, discussing as required with Europe Division.

If Scottish Government identify a potential subsidiarity breach, this needs to be flagged up quickly to the Scottish Parliament to allow consideration of further action.

All finalised EMs should be shared with the Scottish Parliament.

Action Points

  • Ensure Scottish Government lead policy officers are aware of the new Lisbon Treaty scrutiny requirements when dealing with EMs.

  • Ensure senior Scottish Government managers appreciate the importance of supporting the work of officials handling EMs across the office.

  • Develop a robust, effective and proportionate system of communication between Europe Division and the Scottish Parliament to facilitate timely scrutiny.

4. Findings - Challenges

Risk Management

Whilst EMs are primarily aimed at Westminster they do serve a genuine purpose within the devolved administration apparatus and this should not be ignored or diminished by a failure in Whitehall to adhere to guidance.

As it stands, the principal risks in our handling of EMs lies in poor consultation by the Whitehall Departments in those cases where the Scottish Government does not have sight of draft versions.

This failure to consult also reduces the Scottish Government’s opportunities to discuss potential impacts of EU proposals on our areas of responsibility, denying us an early opening to ensure that our position is included in any future negotiations the UK may make on the proposal.

It could also hamper the ability of the Scottish Parliament to consider compliance with subsidiarity as permitted under the Treaty.

Effectiveness of operations

The revised EM handling system needs to raise the level and consistency of engagement with the UK Government. Gaps in awareness both internally and externally need to be addressed. The guidance available to Scottish Government policy officer and Whitehall circulation lists need to be updated, and current monitoring system refocused to become proactive rather than reactive. The Scottish Parliament receives copies of finalised EMs when Whitehall departments send them to the EM inbox, but should also receive advance warning of any potential subsidiarity breaches earlier in the process.

5. Findings - Recommendations

There needs to be a three-part approach to the improvement of the EM system to ensure proportionate and efficient use of resources, and to ensure both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament can play their full part in the UK’s EU process:

A): the internal processes of the Scottish Government need to be improved

B): Whitehall departments need to engage with the Scottish Government more thoroughly

C): there needs to be agreement with the Scottish Parliament on how EMs can best be used to serve the scrutiny role.

These three aims are interlinked and will need to be delivered together, as there will be no benefit in encouraging Whitehall departments to engage with the Scottish Government if our own systems are not fit for purpose, or if we build a tracking system which does not factor in the requirements of the Scottish Parliament.

Actions

A) Internal Scottish Government Processes

1. Develop a centrally managed Scottish Government tracking mechanism to enable active monitoring of progress on draft EMs

2. Ensure draft EMs are sent to both EULOs and the Scottish Government lead policy officers to speed up the process.

3. Ensure all draft EMs in which the Scottish Government has an interest are sent to the EM inbox.

4. Develop effective guidance for Scottish Government EULO and lead policy officers on how they should handle draft EMs received for comment, including training as appropriate.

5. Ensure that Scottish Government EULOs and/or lead policy officers receive drafts as early in the process as possible.

6. Ensure Scottish Government lead policy officers are aware of the new Lisbon Treaty scrutiny requirements when dealing with EMs.

7. Ensure senior Scottish Government managers appreciate the importance of supporting the work of policy officials handling EMs across the office.

B) External Engagement

8. Make Cabinet Office aware of the deficiencies in the current arrangements, discuss their systems and work to ensure that the gap between interest and consultation is filled.

9. Work with Cabinet Office to remind Whitehall departmental lead policy officer of their requirements to engage with the devolved administrations consistently and timeously when drafting EMs.

10. Ensure that the EU Obligations Co-ordinators in Belfast and Cardiff are involved in the discussions with Cabinet Office.

11. Address the variety of response from Whitehall with Cabinet Office. Suggest the Home Office system as an example of best practice.

12. Reengage with the Cabinet Office UK Departmental Scrutiny Coordinators meetings to ensure the interests of the Scottish Government continue to be maintained.

13. Consider a ‘Devolved Administrations and EMs’ presentation for the Whitehall co-ordinators.

C) Parliamentary Engagement and Scrutiny

14. Develop a robust, effective and proportionate system of communication between Europe Division and the Scottish Parliament to facilitate timely scrutiny.

Europe Division
May 2010

Annex A

EU areas of competency divided into Reserved and Devolved categories (193KB pdf)

Annexe E: EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE EUROPEAN AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

6th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) Tuesday 18 March 2008

4. Committee’s work programme: The Committee updated its work programme on EU issues.

10th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) Tuesday 13 May 2008

5. Lisbon Treaty inquiry: The Committee agreed a paper from the Clerk.

1st Meeting, 2009 (Session 3) Tuesday 13 January 2009

4. Lisbon Treaty inquiry: The Committee agreed to review the position of its inquiry into the Lisbon Treaty in Autumn 2009. The Committee also agreed to seek further information regarding the future number of UK Members of the European Parliament.

12th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3) Tuesday 3 November 2009

6. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee agreed to consider a revised approach to its inquiry at its next meeting.

13th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3) Tuesday 17 November 2009

5. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee agreed the remit and timetable for the inquiry into the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland. The Committee also agreed to appoint an adviser for the inquiry and agreed the adviser specification; to issue a call for written evidence; and to delegate authority to approve claims for witness expenses, within the witness expenses scheme, to the Convener.

14th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3) Tuesday 15 December 2009

8. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry - Appointment of an Adviser (in private): The Committee agreed its preferred candidates for appointment as an adviser in connection with its inquiry.

2nd Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 9 February 2010

6. Treaty of Lisbon (in private): The Committee received a briefing from the Adviser on the issues raised in written evidence and agreed the schedule for taking oral evidence and to seek additional written evidence on the inquiry.

3rd Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 23 February 2010

3. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Donald Henderson, Deputy Director Europe and Head of Scottish Government EU Office, Vanessa Glynn, Head of Unit, Europe Division, and Paul Cackette, Scottish Government Law Division, Scottish Government;

Sir David Edward KCMG PC QC.

7. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry: The Committee considered the key issues arising from the oral evidence session.

4th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 16 March 2010

3. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry: The Committee took evidence by video conference from—

Mario Tenreiro, Head of Unit, Institutional Issues, European Commission;

and then from—

Michael Clancy, Director of Law Reform, Law Society of Scotland.

5. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the key issues arising from the oral evidence session and agreed to seek approval from the Parliamentary authorities to extend the Adviser's contract on the inquiry.

5th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 23 March 2010

1.Treaty of Lisbon inquiry: The Committee took evidence, by video conference, from—

Chris Bryant MP, Minister for Europe, and Matthew Rycroft, Director EU Affairs, HM Government.

3.Treaty of Lisbon inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Prof Michael Keating, Professor of Politics, University of Aberdeen;

Prof Andrew Scott, Professor of European Union Studies, University of Edinburgh;

Prof David Judge, Head of Department of Government, University of Strathclyde.

6th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 20 April 2010

2. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Fiona Hyslop MSP, Minister for Culture and External Affairs, Donald Henderson, Deputy Director Europe and Head of EU Office, and Paul Cackette, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Scottish Government.

8. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the key issues arising from the oral evidence session.

5.Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the key issues arising from the oral evidence sessions.

7th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 4 May 2010

5. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the key issues arising from its inquiry and agreed to consider a draft report at a future meeting.

8th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 1 June 2010

7. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee agreed its report subject to a number of specified changes being made, and to delegate authority to the Convener to arrange publication, make any minor typographical changes and to issue a press notice.

9th Meeting, 2010 (Session 3) Tuesday 15 June 2010

5. Treaty of Lisbon inquiry (in private): The Committee agreed the report.

Annexe F: oral evidence

European and External Relations Committee Official Report 23 February 2010

European and External Relations Committee Official Report 16 March 2010

European and External Relations Committee Official Report 23 March 2010

European and External Relations Committee Official Report 20 April 2010

Annexe G: WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Written evidence was submitted to the Committee from the following—

  • Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS)
  • Basque Parliament
  • Bavarian Parliament
  • Professor Florian Becker (Universities of Aberdeen and Keil, Germany)
  • Councillor David Bremner (Independent Councillor for Landward Caithness)
  • Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  • Sir David Edward
  • EDF Energy
  • European Commission, Secretary General
  • European Economic and Social Committee
  • European Parliament, Committee on Constitutional Affairs
  • European Parliament Office in Scotland
  • Flemish Parliament
  • House of Commons, European Scrutiny Committee
  • House of Lords, EU Select Committee
  • Professor David Judge, University of Strathclyde
  • Professor Michael Keating, University of Aberdeen
  • Law Society of Scotland
  • National Farmers Union Scotland
  • NHS European Office
  • Royal Society of Edinburgh
  • School Leaders Scotland
  • Scottish Arts Council
  • Scottish Fishermen's Federation
  • Scottish Government
  • Scottish Government (supplementary submission on Dispute Resolution Protocol)
  • Scottish Natural Heritage
  • Scottish Parliament
  • Scottish Screen
  • Skills Development Scotland
  • Sportscotland
  • UK Government (Chris Bryant MP, Minister for Europe)
  • West of Scotland Colleges' Partnership
  • Dr Alex Wright (Politics, School of Humanities, University Of Dundee)
  • YouthLink Scotland

All written evidence received in relation to the Committee’s inquiry is available on the Scottish Parliament’s website at—

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/europe/inquiries/euDirectives/LisbonTreaty_evid.htm

Previous

 


Footnotes:

141 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf

142 A EULO is part of a network of designated officials who monitor day-to-day EU developments and raise awareness of EU issues within their policy areas.

143 A policy officer is the lead official responsible for the development of a specific plan of action to deliver and achieve rational outcomes, for example on the marine environment or economic strategy

144 Outlook is the PC software used by all Scottish Government core staff to send, receive and manage email. The Outlook public folders contain widely accessible inboxes, such as our EM inbox, where all or certain staff have everyday access.