European Committee, 26 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Official Report 158KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Trade Liberalisation <br />(Impact on Health Policy) (PE320)

Item four is petition PE320. Colleagues will recall that this is part of our work programme. The issue was referred to us in the unusual form of a draft report prepared by John McAllion in his role as reporter to the Health and Community Care Committee. The draft report is a private document, therefore we cannot place it in the public domain and we should not quote from it.

It is felt that we have a role because the European Commission negotiates trade liberalisation on behalf of member states, but I note from the paper that John McAllion and the Health and Community Care Committee are very much involved in the matter. My recommendation is that we leave the issue to them. Do colleagues wish to express any strong views on our role, as opposed to on the petition itself?

We should say that we share the concerns that are expressed in John McAllion's draft report, that we agree with his recommendation that the Health and Community Care Committee should investigate the possible implications for health policy in Scotland, and that we believe that it should relay its findings to the Executive, the Parliament and the people of Scotland.

The issue is interesting. I read a lot of the background from the World Development Movement, which provided a useful briefing paper. The issue is that the trade negotiations are not scrutinised much. That is not just an issue for the Scottish Parliament; it is a UK issue that concerns the work that is done by the Westminster committee that scrutinises the work of the European Union. I would be interested in passing the petition to the European Scrutiny Committee, without making detailed recommendations, because the issue is wider than health; it concerns the debate on what the outcome of the treaty agreements will be, because they roll forward regularly. Have we done that before and is there a procedure for doing so? I would be interested to see the UK committee's comments.

The subject of the petition has been raised at UK level in a Westminster early day motion, so there is interest in it. I would like to ensure that the issue is dealt with properly. Given that John McAllion has given us a private report, which does not have the weight of the Health and Community Care Committee behind it, we cannot go into the detail of it.

We certainly cannot go into the detail of the report because it is a private paper and it is yet to be discussed by the Health and Community Care Committee. I know that Westminster committees are keen to liaise with Scottish Parliament committees on areas of common interest, so we may be able to examine that route.

Dennis Canavan's suggestion would be generally supported, but it is the business of the Health and Community Care Committee. I am a little troubled by Sarah Boyack's eagerness to bump the petition to the UK committee, but then I would be, as a matter of principle. We should give whatever modest weight we can to the issue.

At this stage, the report by John McAllion is a draft—it has not been agreed by the Health and Community Care Committee. It might be going too far to endorse the terms of a draft report that has not been agreed by the relevant committee. It would be rash of us to go to that length at this stage, but in general, I agree with the thrust of what colleagues are saying.

I tend to agree. I said at the beginning that, since the report is a private paper, we cannot discuss its contents, because it has not yet been discussed by the Health and Community Care Committee, although that is due to happen. It is not our place to endorse the report today.

The fact that the Health and Community Care Committee has not yet agreed the paper does not mean that having read it we cannot have opinions about it. I agree with Dennis Canavan. I also think that it is a dangerous precedent for us to drop the draft report and give it to the Health and Community Care Committee to deal with on its own, when we are seeking representation in Brussels and to the Commission.

It would be worth while for the convener to write to the Commission to support the report's recommendations, assuming that they are supported by the Health and Community Care Committee. She could do that as a separate action on behalf of the committee, merely to bring to the Commission's attention the fact that this is an issue in Scotland and that a petition has been before the Public Petitions Committee and has come to this committee. Conveying that to the Commission would make proper use of our access.

You are suggesting that, in the first instance, we let the Health and Community Care Committee take a decision on the draft report, after which it will come back to us.

Yes. Then, if the Health and Community Care Committee agrees, we should write to the Commission—as the petition requested—because the matter has also been before this committee.

That would not preclude us from acting on Sarah Boyack's suggestion of also referring the issue to Westminster.

I realise that colleagues might be reluctant to endorse every detail of John McAllion's draft report, but we could say that we share the concerns that the report and the petitioners express and that we think that the Health and Community Care Committee ought to address the matter.

I am not sure that we would be happy if another committee took it upon itself to recommend that we endorse a draft report that had come to us.

The Health and Community Care Committee gave us the draft report to read.

To be fair, Lloyd Quinan suggested that we refer the report to the Health and Community Care Committee and let it take a decision, amend the report as it wants and pass it back to us. We can then contact the European Commission. In addition, when—or if—the Health and Community Care Committee formally adopts the report, with amendments or whatever, we could refer the report to the appropriate Westminster committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.