The first item on the agenda is scrutiny of European documents. I should remind the committee that our test is whether the document contains provision for legislation and whether that legislation has significant impact on Scotland. Any other matters are secondary. We need to be selective in what we examine.
The recommendation on document 317 (EC Ref No 10541/99, COM(99)352 final 99/0152 (COD)) is that the document should be referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. That is agreed.
The recommendation for document 337 (EC Ref No 10672/99) is for no further action.
Convener, although I agree with the recommendation, I think that some more information might be useful. This is the annual report on the European Investment Fund. The second sentence of the second paragraph of the Treasury explanatory memorandum on document 337 says that since 1996, the fund
I think that you have a fair point. I am not sure whether we should draw it to the attention of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee or of Scottish Enterprise, which could circulate the information through its network. I am sure that that organisation is already aware of the information.
I think that I have raised this point already. A scheme existed for a while, but it did not apply to Scotland because none of the Scottish banks were willing to do the work. After the fuss that many people made, the Scottish banks, one by one, entered the scheme. It was not a direct grant. Under it, loans are agreed on much more favourable terms than would be the case if they were undertaken by banks under normal risk rules. The banks were covered by the European Investment Bank if they lent under the scheme.
That is not the issue that is before us. We are considering a specific item on the Commission report. If there is a wider issue, we should refer it to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, to ensure that small and medium enterprises in Scotland get the benefit of the available funding.
Presumably the investment fund report would show that.
We can refer that to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for its interest.
On a point of order. Many colleagues and people from the European Parliament look at the Official Report of our meetings. I have received some representations from MEPs—of other parties as well—who point out that we use only Scottish Parliament reference numbers. If we could put the Commission document number in the Official Report, they would know what we are talking about.
That point has already been raised. We have addressed it.
I can advise you, Ben, that the minutes and the Official Report of our previous meeting now incorporate the EC and COM numbers. We are not doing that for this meeting, otherwise the convener would have to read out a lot of numbers, but we ensure that they are inserted after the meeting so that MEPs and other observers are aware of what documents we are talking about.
For document 340 (EC Ref No 10704/99, SEC(99)66 final), we are advised to take no further action. That is agreed.
It also says that we are awaiting "a short briefing note".
For document 341 (EC Ref No 10705/99, COM(99)367 final), we are advised to take no further action. That is agreed.
Are the provisions for the control of blue tongue or blue nose, convener? Can I have clarification on that? I was worried.
It is blue tongue, Margo. We have enough problems without introducing other parts of the anatomy.
Has there been an outbreak of blue nose?
The recommendation for document 376 is agreed.
I want to ask a question about the timing of the regulation, which is a limited but important reform. We should know whether our recommendation for action will delay the implementation of the regulation. It was requested by the salmon farming industry. Document 377 already dates back to July, so there is considerable need to push on with it. I hope that that will happen.
We could possibly take that at our next meeting, and get representatives of the Rural Affairs Committee to attend.
I would be grateful.
In one paragraph, the paper involved mentions the need for the introduction of vaccine in salmon fishing. I do not know whether the vaccine contains antibiotics, but we have all heard about the difficulties of introducing antibiotics to livestock and the impact of that on the food chain and on humans. It would perhaps be worth putting this matter to the Health and Community Care Committee, so that it can examine the issue of vaccines and their impact on the food chain.
The issue would be one of timing. If we need to have an early view, someone from health should be invited to the next meeting. I do not know whether it will be possible for there to be longer consideration elsewhere after the relevant date.
This issue has been discussed with the industry over the past six months or so. The issues that Bruce Crawford raised are in the public domain. Infectious salmon anaemia is a viral infection, and there is no concern whatever about it in a human context. I hope that this is a technical measure that can be taken forward at speed. There are no wider implications.
We can ask the Scottish Executive to comment on that in its cover note.
I appreciate that this is a technical measure, and I do not want to take up the time of the committee when we have guests coming later. Do we have time to work out whether this committee has any role to play in ensuring that the correct information about what is happening to our fishing industry permeates throughout Europe? It could be argued that that would be one lesson we might learn from the whole beef business. I do not want to open up discussions, but want to put on record that I would like to talk about that at some point.
I cannot answer that off the top of my head. I will ask the committee clerk to note that and I will respond once I have thought about it.
I want to support Margo MacDonald. I am sure that as we go through these documents, we will come across items on which we need to be proactive. We maybe need some time to reflect on matters such as the venture issue that you mentioned earlier.
The recommendation for document 377 (EC Ref No 11025/99, COM(99)437 final) is agreed. It is suggested that someone from rural affairs be invited to the next meeting and that the Scottish Executive be asked to address Bruce Crawford's specific question in its cover note.
Advice on the document has been left as,
Is there a time scale?
The time scale for nominations is likely to be between now and Christmas.
We will make a note of that for the moment. There is nothing more that we can do unless we have a specific recommendation to make.
I have a question on the banana disputes and their impact on the textile industry. Should not we ensure that the impact does not continue elsewhere and ask the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to have another look at the matter?
If we think that there could be consequences, we can do that. I do not know whether that is the case.
I do not know either.
We can send the document to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for its information and ask the Scottish Executive to provide further detail to that committee for it to consider.
I do not agree with the position that has been adopted with regard to the World Trade Organisation. The Lomé convention, which gave privileged access for the third world countries' bananas, applies to only 8 per cent of the total amount of bananas consumed in Europe. The rest come from the multinationals that prop up the two parties in the United States. The Lomé convention predates the WTO. It does not seem right that an internationally agreed global trading arrangement should be criticised and attacked by a subsequent international body—WTO. It was the WTO's interference in our arrangements on bananas that caused the United States to retaliate—quite unjustifiably, in my opinion—against cashmere and biscuits from Scotland and various other things in other parts of Europe, for example French handbags and perfume. If the situation arises again and the WTO hits back, will it happen all over again? That is my concern, because I believe that what happened was illegal
That is not the matter that is before us. That is a totally extraneous issue. We are being asked to comment on a specific report. While you may, Dr Ewing, have genuine concerns about the wider issues, the question today is whether to take further action on the specific report. If you want to propose that we take different action on the report, by all means do so.
I propose that we find out whether I am right or wrong by asking an expert about the WTO's position, so that what happened cannot happen again. There is a settlement—possibly—but we do not know for how long it will last. We have no details about that.
It would be useful to get from the Scottish Executive something that explains the wider ramifications of the dispute, in case there are areas of the Scottish economy, as Winnie mentioned, that need to be considered. Having an explanatory note and the paper will raise our awareness of the issue and enable us to discuss it.
The issue that you and Winnie are addressing, Bruce, is of more concern to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee than to the European Committee. If members of that committee want to pursue the matter, that is up to them. We can refer the matter to them for their consideration.
I would like to see a copy of the memorandum, so that we can at least be broadly aware of what is going on.
We can circulate that as well. Do members agree that we should send the document to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for information, with the further caveats that have been discussed?
We should not just send the document to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, but draw its attention to the fact that a previous WTO ruling had a direct relevance for Scottish industry. Our concern is that the WTO should not be able to pick us off in that way under any new arrangements.
I do not agree. In this document, we have been asked to do something very specific. If we did as you suggest, we would be led into a wider debate that involves subjective opinions. That debate is not relevant today; if we want to have that debate here, it would be a separate matter. We have been asked whether we want to process the document further or to take no further action. What Margo is saying differs from the recommendation.
Much as I, too, might have reservations in relation to the WTO, I do not think that this committee ought to deal with that issue. I am sure that there will be other opportunities in the Parliament for people to make comments on the matter.
I support that. The document should be referred to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, with the proviso that the attached advice—that the UK Parliament supports, and the Scottish Parliament should support, a Commission proposition for a quota-based solution to the problem—is correct. The dispute had a damaging impact on a number of industries and companies, some within my constituency, and it is appropriate that the matter be looked at in that context by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to ensure that no further damage arises from the proposed quota-based solution.
We recommend, therefore, that the document be referred to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and that we ask for further information from the Scottish Executive to assist that committee with its deliberations. In addition, Bruce has asked that the memorandum be circulated to members of this committee. Is that agreed?
For document 407 (EC Ref No 11060/99, COM(99)384 final 99/0162 (CNS)), we are advised to take no further action. That is agreed.
The paper has been submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry. When the clerk gets the notes back, could we have the Scottish Executive's view on this paper as well?
Is that agreed by the committee?
If the papers that we receive do not tell us the answers to our questions, what will be the state of play regarding anti-dumping action against Norway? Will we be told in the documents? This battle has been going on for about 20 years—it comes and it goes. Action is started and then it is withdrawn and settlements are promised. Perhaps when we get bits of paper, that question might be answered on them.
For document 448 (EC Ref No 10733/99, COM(99)433 final) we are advised to take no further action. That is agreed.
I would like to advise the committee regarding document 334, which deals with liability for defective products. We have taken a decision to refer this to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for its views. I have received a summary of its views in the form of an e-mail from the committee clerk.
An issue has been raised by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee about Scots law and that committee would like us to incorporate its comments in our submission. Does the committee agree that that should be the case and that we should forward the comments to the Executive and to Westminster?
On a similar procedural matter, document SP 345, which deals with boneless dried meat of bovine animals, was referred to the Rural Affairs Committee, which has met and considered it. The committee noted the document and decided that there were no matters of substance on which it wanted to report back to us.
I was rather surprised when the document came back to us. I realise that there are no specialists here involved in gristling, but the raw materials are coming from Argentina, rather than from the EU. I do not know or understand what has been happening in the background, or whether there has been some sort of quid pro quo with Switzerland to permit this enhancement of its position. I am simply raising the issue. I do not know what to do about it, but I am concerned that Switzerland is getting special dispensation for a raw product—beef—that is being imported from Argentina, rather than from an EU country. Why is that happening? It beats me, and we may need to ask about it. I am not sure that it will stop us doing what we are doing, but I would like an answer to my question—although I realise that it is rather obscure.
I suggest that we note the recommendation of no comment either to the Scottish Executive or to Westminster, but ask Stephen Imrie to try to get an answer from Brussels to Bruce's question.
This may not be a matter for us, but the Rural Affairs Committee should be aware of what is intended here.
What will be the format of any report that we might submit?
Reports will normally take the form of an extended letter to the convener of the Westminster committee, which will be sent to Westminster and the Scottish Executive and circulated to all members. They will contain some standard text, outlining which document is being considered and when, followed by some paragraphs compiled by the clerks and signed by the convener. When we have something more substantial to report, we will have to consider what is the appropriate format for that. It might not be a letter.
What will happen to the letter? Will it be tabled at a meeting of the Westminster committee? How will it subsequently be reported?
As I understand it, after I have sent the letter to the clerk of the Westminster committee, they bring it to the attention of the chair. I do not know whether they formally table the document or whether they circulate it to all members of the Westminster committee. At the moment, I believe, it is brought to the attention only of the chair. However, I can find out more details about exactly what happens.
This is important, because if we provide submissions we need to know that they are being taken fully into account. It is not enough for it to be noted that there has been a letter from the Scottish Parliament. The content of our submission must be fully understood by everyone involved in the process.
I will find out more about how the submission is received.