Local Government and Transport Committee, 16 Jan 2007
Meeting date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Official Report
254KB pdf
Transposition and Implementation of European Directives Inquiry
The next item is consideration of a letter from the convener of the European and External Relations Committee on its inquiry into the transposition and implementation of European directives in Scotland. The letter seeks our views on the report that Jim Wallace compiled as reporter to the European and External Relations Committee's inquiry. In particular, I refer members to paragraphs 90 to 96 of the report.
The European and External Relations Committee has requested a response by Friday 26 January. Do members wish me to express any views in a letter to that committee?
It is a good report and Jim Wallace and Alan Page should be commended for their work on the inquiry. Their analysis of the directives that they took as examples and the way in which they were implemented in Scotland and other parts of the UK is good.
I am particularly interested in the point that is made about the regulations on fish sellers and buyers. The report states:
"The Community obligations are in the form of regulations which are ‘directly applicable' in national law."
It is not obvious to me—or indeed to the authors of the report—why there was a need to transpose the EU regulations, which were already a matter of law in this country. Why did we have to embellish them, in a sense, with another set of regulations? The situation can be compared with what applies in the case of a directive, where there is not the same direct applicability. Perhaps the Executive should refrain from passing sets of regulations when other regulations are already in place. We seem to pile regulations on top of regulations.
Regulations were required to implement the directive on waste incineration. However, the report states that, although the regulations in Scotland and those in England are basically the same, there was a difference in interpretation between the relevant Scottish Executive department—the Environment and Rural Affairs Department, presumably—and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England. Given the desire for a level playing field for business, which the report notes, it does not seem desirable to have a fundamental difference in interpretation. The Scottish Executive should be questioned further on that point.
Instead of a raft of regulations, Ireland, with remarkable brevity, produced a simple one-liner that says, "You will comply with the requirements of the directive." Instead of having a lot of regulations on waste incineration, the matter is dealt with through conditions that are attached to licences. I would be interested to know—and perhaps the European and External Relations Committee would like to know—whether the conditions that are attached to licences are as comprehensive as our regulations. Which are more onerous—our regulations or their conditions?
It seems that we rushed to implement the directive on private water supplies in Scotland but that other parts of the UK never got round to doing so. Notwithstanding the fact that Professor Page could not find any English regulations that are equivalent to the ones that we introduced, the UK was found not to have failed to implement the directive in England in proceedings that were brought by the Commission. That leads me to wonder why we rushed to implement the directive in the first place.
I do not want to go into those issues in detail in a letter because they are outwith our remit as the Local Government and Transport Committee, but we can highlight in a letter some of the general points that David McLetchie makes.
One difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament is that the Scotland Act 1998 requires us to comply with EU regulations and to implement EU laws. That may be a factor in causing Scotland to respond more promptly than other parts of the UK to new directives and sets of regulations. We can raise that issue.
The report indicates that the main concern is that enforcement, rather than implementation, can vary throughout the EU. Another theme that I would like to highlight is the need for more consultation between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive on enforcement and on the level of government at which enforcement is required.
I would like us to raise the issue of the way in which the Parliament engages with the European Union on new directives and regulations that are being considered, as there is probably still a gap in that area. One recommendation that we could make for after May is for the Parliament to put in place structures to encourage subject committees to engage more directly with the European Union or the UK Government, which represents Scotland's interests, than they have in the past.
The European and External Relations Committee regularly circulates documents that are being considered at European level. The Conveners Group or the Parliamentary Bureau may want to consider referring significant issues that are being debated in Europe to subject committees, so that they can be worked on extensively and Scotland's interests can be taken in account properly when new directives are implemented.
I am sorry if I am speaking out of turn, but I refer members to the section of the report on public contracts. Is it possible for us to seek clarity, from Jim Wallace or anyone else to whom we respond, on what is required of companies that receive public contracts? Are they subject to statable and identifiable employment conditions? As a trade unionist, I am very concerned that we should award contracts worth billions of pounds to carry out public works and to provide public services to companies that have a good employment record, recognise trade unions and so on. I am sure that you share that concern, convener.
You make an important point, but it might be appropriate to raise the issue in parliamentary questions to the Executive rather than to seek answers from Jim Wallace in his role as reporter for the European and External Relations Committee.
I was just trying to find a short cut.
Jim Wallace no longer has banks of civil servants to help him get answers for you. We will draft a letter that takes account of the points that have been made.