European Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Official Report 209KB pdf

---

Sift

I ask members to note the paper. As you know, we forward the sift paper to the other committees and they decide which are the most appropriate documents for them to examine. Do members agree to note the paper at this stage?

When we send the paper off to other committees, do we get any feedback from them other than that they have received it?

You might recall that we used to scrutinise the European documents according to a priority routine. We changed the way in which we do that and gave those powers back to the committees. One of the reasons why we did that was that we were not getting much feedback, and the effort that the clerks were putting into categorising the documents according to the various levels of scrutiny that are required was labour-intensive. We therefore decided to adopt a new way of doing things.

That said, I mentioned at the conveners liaison group a few weeks ago that some of the documents are important to the committees and that I thought it appropriate that committees take a bit more time to consider them. I said that the committee was not getting feedback from the other committees about how important or relevant they found the information that we were passing on to them. At that meeting, a couple of conveners said that they did take time to review the information that we send and that, on a number of occasions, their committees had gone into some detail on papers and reports that we had forwarded to them.

It is also worth pointing out that the Transport and the Environment Committee held an away day on Europe and how it affects that committee's business. Progress is being made. Inevitably, there was a period at the beginning of the Parliament when all committees were still finding their feet, and primary legislation was and is a priority. However, as the committees begin to work together more, there are more opportunities for them to do a little bit more scrutiny.

I agree. Three meetings ago, I suggested that we tag one or two documents, particularly those on European railway development.

Yes, I recall that.

As you know, the Transport and the Environment Committee is doing a report on railways. It would, in order to add to the information on what is being considered, be useful for this committee to get feedback from other committees, in particular when they have a good story to tell about taking time to examine major work that has come from Europe. When the committee visited Europe, we said that we needed to engage much earlier. It seems to me that the sift is the early stage; given that we have a handle on some of the big issues that are coming through, now is a good time for us to be doing it.

The report to the Transport and the Environment Committee refers to a new directive on the energy performance of buildings, which was upgraded in March. Issues come through all the time that affect the Parliament's legislative programme.

It is important that we encourage the other committees; that was the reason for the meeting with the other conveners. Stephen Imrie tells me that the reports that we flagged up as a result of Sarah Boyack's suggestion a few weeks ago were taken into account and have been pointed out to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which has read them as part of its rail inquiry. Perhaps we do not always get feedback, but the other committees are increasingly engaging with Europe. They acknowledge and understand how important Europe is to the everyday work of the Parliament.

Aileen McLeod of the Scottish Parliament information centre has liased with other committees. She has worked with the justice committees and with the Transport and the Environment Committee. We are gradually making inroads, but I agree with colleagues that it is important to keep up the pressure.

I speak to my colleagues in the House of Commons about similar issues and they are informed of the consequences of proposed directives, having won the argument for that about a year and a half or two years ago. Her Majesty's Government would state the consequences of directives coming into the UK, although it would not necessarily give details. Government documents would, for example, state that a draft council directive would lead to a statutory instrument to amend a medical act. We can see clearly from the Government's planned course of action whether a matter is devolved, whether it is relevant and whether it is a priority. The Cabinet Office, through the Scottish Executive, provides us with details of proposed directives, but it does not tell us what it intends to do as a result.

Perhaps our earlier item on legislative scrutiny dealt with that.

I will examine the matter for Ben Wallace. Scottish statutory instruments appear with a cover sheet that includes a variety of information, which lead committees and the Subordinate Legislation Committee receive. I will examine whether the sheet covers the information that Ben Wallace mentioned.

At the tail end of the paper on implementation of EC and EU legislation, there is a transposition note. I know that Ben Wallace has been particularly interested in that. The Executive now provides the notes more regularly and formally. The notes explain the nature of the directive in question, its objectives and how those will be transposed into a statutory instrument; that is, how that will be carried out. I will examine the matter further if the committee agrees.

Does the committee agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.