The next item on our agenda is the scrutiny of documents. A recommendation note has been circulated. I will go through the recommendations one by one, and if anyone wishes to change a recommendation or has a comment to make, they should let me know.
I checked the process with Stephen Imrie yesterday, and I want to ensure that everyone else is aware of this. As well as the recommendations for action, we received packs about the various Commission documents that we are to consider. I presume that the European memorandums and the Scottish European briefs, as well as the papers from the Commission, will be available before we discuss the matters in question.
When a document looks to be of interest on first scrutiny, the recommendation note is deferred until we have received the explanatory memorandum from the relevant Whitehall department. The committee's policy seemed to be that it would not like to take a decision on a document until it had received both the EC document and any supporting memorandums. That is why recommendation has been deferred in some cases.
I am pleased with that.
For future meetings, it might be helpful, for ease of access, to include page numbers as well as reference numbers on the sift/scrutiny recommendation note.
Do we agree to do the same with document 298?
For document 305, the recommendation is no further action. Is that agreed?
For documents 306, 307, 308 and 309, the recommendation is no further action. Is that agreed?
For document 310, the recommendation is to await the memorandum and consider the document at our next meeting. Is that agreed?
For documents 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 and 316, the recommendation is no further action. Is that agreed?
For document 317, the recommendation is to await the memorandum and consider the document at our next meeting. Is that agreed?
For document 318, on the Montreal Protocol and substances that deplete the ozone layer, the recommendation is no further action, but to send a copy to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its interest. Is that agreed?
For items 319, 320, 321, 322, 323 and 324, the recommendation is no further action. Are we all agreed?
Item 325 concerns fisheries management and nature conservation in the marine environment. Should we recommend that it be referred to the Rural Affairs Committee for scrutiny?
The clerk to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee sent me a letter saying that the first meeting at which the matter would be considered was on 27 October. There is therefore time for the regular scrutiny process to take place.
Why is it that item 325 is being sent to the Rural Affairs Committee for scrutiny, but item 318—on chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion—is being sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee for interest only?
Item 318 contains nothing that relates specifically to the remit of this committee in terms of European legislation. However, the Transport and the Environment Committee might have a wider interest because of the issue of ozone depletion.
In the first case, the committee is simply making another committee aware of an issue. In the second, the committee is taking positive action in inviting another committee to scrutinise the documents.
I understand.
Item 326 concerns Community environmental law. Again, there will be no action, but the matter will be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
Previous
Treaty of Amsterdam