We will move on to scrutiny of European documentation. Before I go through the sift/scrutiny recommendation note page by page, do members have general comments to make on the way in which the document is presented or on how we are handling the process?
I have been looking at the various documents. One concerns additives, which is a very technical issue, and, without a lot more chemical knowledge, I could not say whether any of the document affects the area that I was elected for, or, indeed, the rest of Scotland. I see a warning light when I see spirit drinks, coming as I do from the Highlands and Islands, and—
When did that happen, Winnie?
When a document as technical as that is received, could we have a note stating if it will affect our industries in Scotland, or if it does not apply?
I want to bring the clerk in, as he can answer your query.
I advise Dr Ewing that explanatory memorandums from the lead Whitehall department usually accompany these documents. However, because of the recess, in this case the memorandum has not arrived at the same time as the document. All the documents that members receive will have an associated explanatory memorandum covering the details suggested by Dr Ewing. As I said in my comments at the start of the meeting, if members require a further Scottish dimension, they can request a supplementary Scottish explanatory memorandum, which will explain some of the policy issues from a Scottish perspective.
I wish to raise a point for clarification. When we first discussed the sift/scrutiny process, I was under the impression that we would be working to very tight deadlines and time scales. None of the documents has a timetable attached to it. Did we just get lucky this time? Why do we have no information about when we must take decisions on some of those issues?
We are lucky, in that Westminster is in recess. The Commons committee is not meeting during the recess; therefore, we have received no timetable information.
Can we go through the document?
I would like some clarification. I thought that we would produce the Scottish explanatory memorandums and send them to the Westminster committee before it produced the explanatory memorandum. In other words, I thought that the Westminster committee would not send up the EM with the documents because the EM would be the final submission to the Westminster committee.
We receive the EM from the Whitehall department, not from the Westminster scrutiny committee. The EM is a separate document, which contains the Whitehall department's further explanation of the European documents. When we receive the EC document, it would be normal for the Whitehall EM to follow within around 10 days. We can request the SEM as soon as we know that we wish to consider one of the EC documents. Again, the SEM will follow around 10 days after we receive the EC document.
May I assume, from the information contained in the sift/scrutiny recommendation note, that none of the proposals for council decisions require to be acted on before Westminster resumes at the end of October?
Yes, that is my understanding, but because of the holiday period at Westminster it is difficult to confirm that information.
So we will not miss any opportunities to comment?
I have not been alerted by Westminster or by the Executive that that will happen.
We will go through the document page by page. Are we agreed on the recommendation on page 1?
Which one?
The one on the sift/scrutiny recommendation. The first page of that concerns the action programme to promote the integration of refugees. We are recommending that that goes to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
It would be helpful if you could mention the subject matter.
That is on the fishing industry as affected by common fisheries policies. We recommend that that goes to the Rural Affairs Committee.
I have a question on that, which may be urgent. The proposal for a council regulation contains an alarming feature; it proposes to abolish the present advisory committee, because it does not work, and to establish a new one. It is difficult to find out who the committee members will be or how they will be chosen, but there are one or two points that we should be alerted to. The council hopes to reduce the size of the committee, while ensuring that it consults the trade organisations in the fishing industries of Europe. It goes on to say that it will give preference to European organisations. I want to be sure that our Scottish organisations will not be cut out by this additional requirement, which did not apply to the old advisory committee.
We are recommending that the lead responsibility for that type of consideration should rest with the Rural Affairs Committee. Once that committee has reached a conclusion, it would refer back to us. We can then make further comment, if we feel that something has been missed. In the first instance, we are suggesting that the Rural Affairs Committee should examine it from some of the perspectives that you mentioned, Dr Ewing.
I do not want to play awkward squads, Mr Convener, but is this not a point of principle? Perhaps we should indicate to the Rural Affairs Committee whether we think the way in which the EU operates in this instance, in relation to trade associations, suits our situation.
It is for the Rural Affairs Committee to come to its own conclusion. If we feel that it has missed some of the points that we have mentioned here, we can make a submission. We want the Rural Affairs Committee to consider it and report back to us. At that point we can decide whether these points have been covered.
There is a problem with the time we have for that process. The small print suggests that the regulation will come into force a number of days after it is published in the official journal. We need to know when that will be so that we can decide how urgent the situation is. Earlier, we said that there was not much urgency as regards these matters, but this could be the exception. We do not want to find out that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation cannot go to Shetland.
We have been told that the explanatory memorandum will be available in a few days' time and, therefore, that the Rural Affairs Committee will be able to consider it.
I want the minutes to record that I raised my concern.
We can come back to the issue later. We will ask the Rural Affairs Committee to consider that document.
As was mentioned in our first meeting, there is some urgency in getting the matter to that committee. We believe it to be urgent but how are we to ensure that the committee decides to examine it in time?
When we refer the document to the Rural Affairs Committee, we will ask that it be considered as a matter of urgency. If, when the explanatory memorandum comes through, we find that a deadline has to be met, we can return to the matter even if we have received nothing back from the Rural Affairs Committee. Unless we hear something to the contrary, we have to assume that the Rural Affairs Committee will examine the document and report back to us.
I am sorry to have to pursue this and I am not an expert on fisheries, as everyone will have guessed, but I think of the proposal as structural. On page 3 of the sift/scrutiny recommendation note, we read:
We will ask the Rural Affairs Committee to examine the document and, in particular, the points that you raise. At that point, if there is a need for us to comment further, we will do so.
I am sorry if I was clumsy in expressing myself. That is what I suggest we do. We should not steer the committee but recommend that it consider my points.
I would like to extend that recommendation to the part that covers the inclusion criteria. The document says not only that organisations be national, but that they be European trade organisations. I would like the Rural Affairs Committee to consider the whole of the paragraph at the bottom of page 3.
If there is a requirement to be a European trade organisation, you can bet your life that the Spanish fishing associations will all magically be such organisations. Excuse me for being a little cynical after 24 years in Europe.
On page 3 of the sift document, we recommend no further action on dispute settlements that are related to the law of Ukraine.
No explanatory memorandum has been received in relation to the business on page 5, yet the recommendation is that no further action be taken. I am a wee bit concerned as the text refers to the rights of movement, residence and entry of citizens of the European Union. It also refers to expulsions from the European Union. I have a natural suspicion about matters relating to expulsion.
That is quite understandable.
I wonder whether you, convener, or the clerks, could elaborate on the implications of the document for people in Scotland and throughout the European Union?
The recommendation is down for no further action because the document is not a proposal for legislation, it is merely a Commission communication. If there is an issue that should be examined, we could consider the communication—presumably we will not be able to influence it—or we could refer the communication elsewhere.
Yes.
Could you have another look at it?
Yes, we will put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
Yes, because I would hate to think that our recommendation for no further action would mean that some time next year someone would find themselves expelled from Scotland, or would have their freedom of movement within the European Union restricted, because we did not raise any protest.
We will bring it back in order to consider two issues. First, the specific issue that is mentioned in the document and, secondly, the status of Commission communications and our ability to influence them.
Some Commission communications can be very long. I do not know about the one that we are talking about, but often there is an explanatory memorandum at the beginning. If not, perhaps we could get the clerks to prepare a synopsis in order to cut down the amount of reading that we need to do.
Okay, that is a good idea. Page 6 refers to Slovenia, again the recommendation is that no further action is needed. Page 7 is about modernising social protection and we recommend that we send the document to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, simply for its interest.
Yes, although my question is why.
Well, maybe it will learn something.
It seems to be lots of nice words and no practical solutions to anything.
It could be. Page 8 is about health, education and social protection in the harmonised index of consumer prices. The recommendation is that no further action is necessary.
Could we go back to page 8, briefly? We do not have a copy of that document, we have only a description. I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I found it a wee bit difficult to understand. We could have had more description, although coming back to the point made earlier, maybe it is a very technical document. However, I would like some more information in order to understand it a little better.
It is to do with how products are treated on the index of consumer prices and with whether we think that that issue is one for this committee or for any other committee that will be examining consumer prices in the contexts of health, education or social protection. [Interruption.] Sorry—was documentation circulated on that point? It should have been, but it is not indicated on the recommendation note that it was circulated.
At our previous meeting, I mentioned the possibility of having some information provided on the intranet, so that if there was a query we could examine it. I know that there are interim problems in doing that, but the documents came to me on Saturday. With the meeting being today, there has been very little time to request some items to determine at today's meeting whether we are happy with the recommendation for action in matters such as this. How can we deal with that administrative issue?
One thing that we can do is start the sift process earlier. In the meantime, do you want this matter brought back or referred to another committee?
In the interim, it would be fine just to have a copy of the documentation so that we can have a look at it.
We should bear in mind what Irene said earlier about some of the documents: about getting a synopsis rather than the full copy sometimes.
A synopsis would be fine.
We have covered page 9 of the sift/scrutiny recommendation note. Page 10 deals with
Support your local port!
The recommendation on page 9 is for no further action.
Could we return to page 9—I am sorry to be difficult, but it is getting quite hot in this room and I am losing the place a little.
That applies to Denmark and the Faroes.
I just wanted to check that they were the only places concerned.
The recommendation on page 10 on Portuguese quotas is for no further action.
I do not think that there is enough information to gauge whether that paper is of relevance. I am not being critical—I am aware of the volume of work involved.
Was that the point that Winnie made at the previous meeting, when she was talking about the point at which we get involved?
Are we talking about the mutual recognition of qualifications of people engaged in those industries?
Yes.
That can be very important for our people. There are problems with Scots-Italian teachers, ski instructors in France—
That sounds good.
We should ask for more information on that before we make a decision.
Correct me if I am wrong, convener, but I think that you have circulated the papers on those points for which some form of action is recommended and not circulated those for which none is recommended. If there was a time lag between our receiving the recommendation note—which could be circulated generally—and the meeting, we could sift it and advise you if we wanted further information on a particular item in advance of the next meeting, such as a copy of the documentation pertaining to it.
If it was felt that it would be useful to circulate the recommendation note, we could do that.
Next
Further Briefing