Official Report 294KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the proposed European Union directive on cross-border health care. I ask members to consider the correspondence that we have received from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing about the proposed directive, and I draw their attention to paper HS/03/09/8/8, which contains a note by the clerk, a letter from the cabinet secretary and a paper by SPICe outlining the timetables that are involved in the process.
You said that the proposal will lapse rather than fall. In reality, it will not just continue in the next session—we will go back to square 1. I know that that statement is factually correct, as I checked with Catherine Stihler and the Labour member of the committee that is considering the proposal.
I ask Mr McIver to clarify what is meant by the proposal lapsing. To lapse or not to lapse, that is the question.
We looked into the matter, because Brussels is not entirely clear about what happens to a directive that is in the process of going through the European Parliament when a session ends. Both the Scottish Government's EU office and the European Parliament office in Edinburgh have told us that the proposal will lapse in May but that when the European Parliament returns, probably in September, it can decide to bring it back at the stage at which it stopped. The Parliament does not have to do that—the proposal will lapse and need not return at the second codecision stage—but we understand that the Parliament could vote to bring it back at that stage.
So there is an option to bring the proposed directive back.
Yes.
That is an option for the European Parliament.
My understanding was slightly different, but I hear what the official is saying.
We will try to reconcile that. We have a note of your position, Helen, and we will get as definitive a position as can be achieved on European matters—which I suspect is not always easy.
I am sorry to look back, but how did the committee fall out of the communications loop on the proposed cross-border health care directive? It has enormous implications for Scotland, but it fell off our agenda and no one kept us in touch until Helen Eadie raised the matter at committee. Why was that? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that committees are kept in the loop when such things come up?
We had spoken about having a watching brief. The question is how we define a "watching brief" on such matters and how closely we monitor things. Do not feel obliged to add anything, Iain.
I would not wish to add anything.
It is actually easy to identify where committees have an interest—we simply need to do a search on the European Parliament website. We are doing work on mental health, for example, and work is being undertaken on the same subject in Europe. The committee needs to do more itself, proactively, with regard to such issues. When they have such a financial and policy impact on Scotland, we really need to understand what is going on. There is no point saying, five years down the line, "Oh, I wish we had realised, because we wouldn't have done that otherwise." It is time for us to wake up to what Brussels is doing.
That is a fair point, especially with regard to our inquiry into mental health services for the young and adolescents in particular. As you say, we should be proactive.
I am open to the idea of the cabinet secretary coming along, but to be honest I am not sure what benefit would come from that. If the proposed directive will lapse to some degree, I am not sure whether such an approach is appropriate. It might be worth trying to find out, as soon as possible after the European parliamentary elections, exactly what the incoming Commission is planning to do with the directive, so that we can engage at that stage and, if necessary, involve the minister or cabinet secretary.
We know your position, Helen, and I am happy to let other members in. Michael Matheson's suggestion seems sensible, and I am attracted to it. We can find out the position after the election—aside from the clarification on the question of proposed directives lapsing or not lapsing.
In that case, I would like a letter to go back to the cabinet secretary. I have five questions that I would like to put to her. I am willing to give those questions to the committee clerk and to have them circulated among other members to see whether they are agreeable.
That would be helpful, Helen. I wish to move on rapidly so that is agreed: you will give your five questions to the clerks, who will draft a letter and then circulate it to see whether other members are content—and we will put a deadline on that.
Meeting continued in private until 12:36.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation