European Committee, 24 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)

The first agenda item is pre-Council and post-Council scrutiny. This time, the delivery of information has been more timely. Yesterday, the clerks met Executive officials and we hope that further improvements will follow. We will run through the papers briefly. Are there any points on the briefing on the internal market, industry and research council?

Paragraph 4 is on the Commission's report on barriers to an internal market for service. The briefing states:

"The Commission's report ‘The state of the Internal market for Services' published on 30 July 2002 marks the end of the first stage of its original two-stage Internal Market Strategy for Services."

I have a couple of key points. The first is that on 14 and 15 November or 26 November there will be considerable formal discussion of the issue among the member states. As members might recall, the matter has come before the Public Petitions Committee. At this morning's meeting of that committee, the topic arose during a review of on-going petitions. I agreed that I would ask the European Committee to keep the Public Petitions Committee informed on the matter. Also, the Health and Community Care Committee has appointed John McAllion as a reporter on the issue.

The issue is pertinent to service delivery in health and education in Scotland. I want to ensure that members do not allow those significant dates to go by without questioning the possible implications for Scotland. I ask the committee to ensure that the Public Petitions Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee are made aware of the dates. Perhaps we should also flag up our concerns to the representatives who will be at the initial meeting on 30 September. We should say that we want to be involved more fully prior to the meeting on 14 and 15 November or 26 November. Members might remember that I questioned Jim Wallace on the issue last week.

The first meeting is on 30 September, which is next week, but fuller discussions will take place in November. Perhaps we could flag up the matter to the Executive and ask for a copy of the report and information about the expected implications for Scotland. We could then refer that information to the other committees that you mentioned.

That would be helpful. It would also be useful to inform those committees that the request has been made and that we intend to take action.

We will do that. Are there any other points on the internal market, industry and research council?

Perhaps I am nit-picking, but it says in the note that there is a Scottish interest. It does not say that in every note. It would be helpful if there were greater consistency of approach in the notes.

I think that we are generally agreed on that.

Do members have any points to raise on the general affairs and external relations council of 30 September? It would be helpful if the Executive would keep us informed of developments in discussions on items 6, 7, 8 and 9, as we have an interest in them. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

The transport, telecommunications and energy council will be held on 3 and 4 October.

I flag up an interest in item 6, which is the railway package. It is stated that the Scottish Executive is promoting the expansion of the railway network. Perhaps we could have more information on the implications for Scotland of the railway package. We could also flag up the matter to our colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee.

There are several areas that we might want to flag up to the Transport and the Environment Committee—for example, item 6 and item 15, which is on trans-European networks.

I agree. The agenda for the transport, telecommunications and energy council is weighty. It is difficult to guess how far down the line the discussions are, but they are fundamental. The items that you have highlighted have a potential legislative impact, depending on what is decided. Item 1 on aviation is also crucial. There is almost enough meat for the Transport and the Environment Committee to discuss the matters and track them.

Do members agree to refer items 1, 6 and 15 to the Transport and the Environment Committee?

I ask that we also refer item 8 to the Transport and the Environment Committee, because there is a difference between the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Executive on tolling and charging. The note to item 8 discusses wider infrastructure charging, which we need to keep an eye on. Two types of charging—infrastructure charging and road charging—are involved. If there is an implication for Scotland, we need to be clearer about what it might be.

The key point in the note is whether a charge or a tax is involved. If a charge were decided on, we would have a say. If a tax were opted for, that would be a reserved matter. It would probably be in our interests to have a charge.

It would be relevant to flag up the issue to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Item 7 should be flagged up, too. I am not suggesting that the Transport and the Environment Committee should debate all the issues at its next meeting, but progress is being made in Europe and positions could be determined soon.

We will add item 7 to the list. We must be wary of overloading other committees. Let us see how things go. We have a new role and we want to be seen to be doing a good job in assisting the other committees.

The employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council takes place on 8 October. Item 4 concerns employment and social policy. Although employment policy is a reserved matter, it is important for us to keep abreast of developments in the European Union employment strategy.

Do members agree to note the agenda of the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council?

Members indicated agreement.

The environment council is on 17 October.

I have a couple of issues to raise. In the aftermath of the world summit on sustainable development, it might be useful to have a discussion about how Europe will engage in implementing the conclusions of the summit. The First Minister gave a statement to the Parliament and there was an opportunity to ask questions. The role of Europe in leading the debate and in seeking our views as part of that process is an interesting issue.

I note from paragraph 5 that the Executive will be taking forward its sustainable development strategy. I am not sure whether this is the most suitable point at which to invite the minister back to talk to us, or whether we should wait until after the discussion at the environment council has taken place and get the minister to report back at that stage. In any case, the issue would sustain a reasonable discussion.

Paragraph 9 says:

"The Council will consider a progress report on the … Environmental Liability Directive".

It is suggested that

"The proposed Directive would require the Scottish Executive to amend legislation".

It would be useful to get a sense of the time scale for that.

It is important that we liaise on such matters with the other committees. If the committee is agreeable, we will ask for reports to be made back to us. In the interim, the clerks could discuss the matter with their colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee, and I could have a word with the convener of that committee to find out whether it might want to become involved in a joint initiative or whether it is already addressing the matter.

I recognise the fact that we have a limited timetable between now and May next year, which includes our employment inquiry. I am reluctant to get involved in any major pieces of new work, but it would still be worth contacting the Transport and the Environment Committee to find out—

I will clarify, if I may, convener. I am not suggesting that we should do a major piece of work on the matter; I was simply suggesting that discussion of the topic be enabled. I am not thinking of sustainable development per se; it is more about the development of the EU in that area, how we fit into that and where we go next. If you do not think that the topic is appropriate for a short-term discussion by the committee, that is fine, but it would be useful if somebody in the Parliament were involved in the debate.

I agree with Sarah Boyack. The committee has frequently pointed out that we are left dealing with and commenting on decisions that are faits accomplis. We have an opportunity to influence the minister and the decision that will be taken by the environment council before it meets. In the last paragraph of the report on the environment council, the clerk has pointed out:

"there is sufficient time to call a Minister to appear before the Committee in advance of this Council."

It would be unwise to miss the opportunity.

If we feel that it is more appropriate for the Transport and the Environment Committee to cross-examine the minister before he goes to the council, that is fair enough, but either this committee or the Transport and the Environment Committee should do it. Perhaps you could have a discussion with the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee and establish what would be more appropriate.

I am happy to do that. The clerks remind me that Ross Finnie will attend the committee's next meeting. We may be able to extend our discussion on fisheries to cover this subject too. I agree on the importance of liaising with the Transport and the Environment Committee convener, and I assure the committee that I will do that. We will probably have the opportunity to discuss the matter a little bit at our next meeting if we advise the minister ahead of time that we are interested in doing that, and if we can secure the agreement of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

The post-event briefing mentions the economic and financial affairs—ECOFIN—council on 12 July, the budget council on 19 July and the general affairs and external relations council on 22 and 23 July. The briefing is rather out of date, although there are some interesting comments.

Paragraph 10 of the pre-briefing on the environment council, headed "Biosafety: Implementation of the Cartagena protocol", finishes with the sentence:

"Since this concerns international movements of GMOs, the Executive's interest in this item is limited."

Does that mean the transport of known genetically modified organisms by one company or state to another across international boundaries? Is there anything in the directive or in the Cartagena protocol about the protection of GMO sites to prevent the communication or spread of the organisms? Is the protocol purely about trade? If it is, I fully accept that the Executive's interest in the item is limited. However, if there are regulations about the control of GMOs on site, we should consider the matter.

The feeling is that the protocol is about trade, but I will ask the clerks to check that and report back to the committee.

The three post-briefing reports are out of date—we already have the agenda for those councils' next meetings. If the committee is content, we will agree to note them.

Why is there such a huge time gap between the meetings and our getting the reports? We have a report on the general affairs and external relations council of 22 to 23 July. We did not get it until 18 September. There are important items on that agenda, including the middle east, the fight against terrorism and a common position on Iraq. So many things have happened since then. Can we not speed up the receipt of those reports?

I agree, Dennis. One problem was the recess. Europe more or less closes down in August. At our last meeting, we mentioned the fact that we were not happy with the length of time that it was taking to get the reports and we asked the clerks to meet the Executive officials. They did that yesterday—you might have missed that at the beginning of the meeting—and we now have an agreement that we will get the information as soon as possible.

Thank you.

If there are any difficulties, you can be sure that we will monitor them and alert the clerks to take them up with the Executive. I agree that the reports are so out of date that, by the time we get them, we can read about the meetings in the newspapers. We hope that the new system will improve matters.

That is a marked improvement on what we have had in the past. I ask that we be informed of what is still to come. I remember from our previous meeting that there was a meeting of the agriculture and fisheries council in July. That is a bit of a glaring omission, given that fishing is one of the most pressing issues that we face between now and December. We have the submissions of five departments. Whose are we still waiting for and what have we missed? If we knew that, we could say, "Where is it, Mr Finnie?"

We are fortunate with the timing of the next agriculture and fisheries council meeting, because Ross Finnie is coming to us in advance of it. I think that the meeting will take place 10 days later. The timing will be good from that point of view. However, I agree that it would be useful to have a full list of the dates of the meetings.

We had the post-Council report for the agriculture and fisheries council at our last meeting. The next meeting of the agriculture and fisheries council was yesterday and today, so there is obviously no post-Council report. However, after the meeting that we had on Monday, I am sure that the report will follow shortly, as will the rest of the post-Council reports for the meetings that are mentioned in the pre-Council briefings.

I do not believe that we are awaiting anything from the Executive. I have looked back at the systems. As of today, the Executive has provided everything that it had promised to provide. It has undertaken to continue that in future.

When is the next agriculture and fisheries council?

It is on 14 October. Our committee is meeting on 8 October and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, has agreed to appear before the committee and take questions on the common fisheries policy.

Some of the other pre-Council reports are for meetings in early October, such as 1 October and 3 to 4 October. I wonder whether some of the detail for the agriculture and fisheries council is not yet ready. It is interesting that the detail for the transport, telecommunications and energy council on 3 to 4 October is.

It has not been passed to us, but we will ask the clerks to circulate it to members as soon as it arrives so that they have it well in advance of the minister's appearance at the next committee meeting, rather than members having to wait for the next round of papers.

I see that we have the report for the environment council meeting on 17 October.