European and External Relations Committee, 02 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 2, 2003

Official Report 244KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)

The second agenda item is pre and post-council scrutiny. I hope that members have had a chance to look at the papers, which outline forthcoming and previous councils. We have just taken evidence on the forthcoming agriculture and fisheries council, so members have had a chance to comment on it, but I invite other comments on the papers that are before us.

I have comments about a number of pages. The first is about page 5.

That is on the agriculture and fisheries council. Am I looking at the right papers?

It is page 5 of the pre and post-council briefing paper. Is that the document that we are talking about?

Yes.

I am looking at the comments on welfare of animals during transport, which are in the section on agriculture. I refer members to the convener's letter to the Scottish Executive, which is later in our briefing papers and which asks the Executive to detail its position on animal welfare. I presume that there has been no response to that letter.

We have had no response. I mentioned, when the Minister for Environment and Rural Development was here, the lack of information for the committee, which we are not happy about, that has been forthcoming to the committee. He sent us a letter to apologise for that lack of information and has promised to ensure that we receive information to help us with our pre and post-council scrutiny. The issue that Phil Gallie raised is an example on which we await information.

Okay. On page 12, there is a comment about the excessive deficit procedure for France. I read recently in the press that the European Central Bank seems to be making no movement with respect to discrepancies in financial arrangements in France and Germany. Can we highlight that issue, which gives some cause for concern, given that the situation might rebound on the Scottish economy?

What is your suggestion?

I suggest that we highlight the issue to the Scottish Executive and say that we are most concerned that major countries in Europe seem to be bucking financial trends. We should ask the Executive whether it is concerned and what representations it will make to Westminster on the issue.

Does anyone object to—or agree with—Phil Gallie's suggestion?

I do not have a particular objection, but the matter is reserved. I am surprised that Phil Gallie has raised the issue, because it is about the Commission and internal arrangements in France and other countries. I do not have enough information to—

I am not asking you, Irene; I want to ask the Scottish Executive and Westminster about their concerns.

As I said, the matter is reserved. I imagine that we pay our Scottish colleagues at Westminster to consider such issues.

Leave the matter to Sandra Osborne; she is good at that sort of thing.

The situation might have budgetary effects in Scotland in the longer term, which is the element about which I am concerned. If Irene Oldfather is not concerned about Scottish budgets and resources for Scotland, that is up to her.

Obviously, I am always concerned about those issues, but I have lost the link between the issue that Phil Gallie raises and the Scottish budget settlement. I do not follow the logic, but perhaps Phil Gallie has information that I do not have. If he shares it, I might support him.

I will try to explain. My concern is that the economic interests of Scotland and the UK are bound to those of Europe through the European Union, irrespective of whether we are members of the euro.

On that basis, when our nearest neighbours buck the trend on the major financial unit in mainland Europe, it is bound to have some effect on us. In effect, if they are cheating on the standards there, it could well rebound on us here. I am asking whether the Scottish Executive has any concerns. Will the Scottish Executive talk to its Westminster colleagues about that? Does it have an input?

We could easily write to the Executive. Another option that is open to Phil Gallie is to raise the matter as an MSP through parliamentary questions.

I would rather raise the matter as a member of this committee.

Okay—I was just clarifying that.

If anyone has bucked the trend it is Britain by not joining the euro. The criteria that Phil Gallie is talking about are for the euro zone, of which Britain is not part. I think Phil is being tongue in cheek.

Would I ever do such a thing, John?

He should not expect us to take him seriously.

Are there any other comments?

Seriously, I would like to know whether the Scottish Executive has any concern about the way they are monkeying about with money across the channel.

Ministers will be coming before us in the next few weeks. Would you like to use that opportunity to put that question to them?

Yes, if it keeps everybody happy.

Thank you for playing ball. Did you have other issues that you wanted to raise?

Yes. The briefing paper refers to harmonisation of transparency requirements, which could have some effect on our financial services industry. I would be the first to admit that the financial services industry in recent times has flourished, and I would hate anything to damage the continuing progress that has been made in the industry in Scotland in particular. What do other members feel about the proposed directive? Do they see any dangers?

Does the committee have any comments on harmonisation of transparency requirements, which is referred to on page 13 of the briefing paper? There are no other comments.

In that case, we could pass the issue to the Finance Committee and seek its views.

That is an idea—I would be happy to ensure that the matter is drawn to the attention of the Finance Committee.

I would be interested to hear any comments that the Finance Committee makes.

Page 14 refers to victims of crime and the associated effects on Scotland of any decisions with respect to funding for compensation for victims of crime. I note that there are concerns throughout Europe about that, but my main concern has to be the effect on Scotland. We have a reasonable scheme at the moment, which others cannot match. Once again, from the notes it is hard to determine precisely what the effect would be overall, so I seek expert opinion. We are supposed to flag up issues that could be of concern. I do not know whether there are reasons for concern, but there is a reason for raising a query.

That is an interesting issue. Are there any comments on that point, which is the proposal for a Council directive on compensation for crime victims, which is referred to on page 14?

The notes in front of us state:

"an analysis should be carried out during the Irish Presidency and it was clear that there was a financial problem for Member States which would need to be taken into account."

I assume that that suggestion came from the Dáil or the Irish commissioner or Council representative, and means that the issue will be dealt with in much more detail in the next six months. We should not anticipate too much, but maybe we could ask the Irish consul general to keep us advised of any progress that is made.

This is an important issue and I would be happy to drop a line to the Executive to ask whether there are any concerns.

Obviously, there will be concerns about the financial impact of enlargement on the issue, but we are in the early stages. I am happy for the committee to be kept informed. To me, this is a reserved matter, but if the committee has an interest and wants to be kept informed, well—

I am happy to drop a line. It is an important issue and being kept informed is part of our job.

On page 16 of the briefing paper, under the heading of "Chemicals Regulation", it says that a working party is to be established. I would like to find out who, from Scotland and the United Kingdom, is liable to be on that working party. Will British, or Scottish, business and industry be represented? This could be another issue that will give business and industry difficulty in future if we do not keep a close eye on it and keep a close involvement.

That is a fair comment and, unless there are objections, I am happy to take up Phil's point.

My next point may be just for the clerk. I notice on page 17 of the briefing paper that the minister has discussed the site of the international thermonuclear experimental reactor. I know very little about this, but I am quite sure that John Home Robertson will be interested in it. Can we obtain some more information?

Yes, please. As the member whose constituency contains Torness, I wanted to ask the clerk for information about the reactor. Furthermore, Irene Oldfather looks after Hunterston, or nearby, so we like to know about these things.

You are attracting supportive comments, Phil.

Yes, and very welcome they are too.

Right—we will take this forward on a cross-party, cross-country basis.

While we are discussing this paper, I would like to raise a point on the impact of aging on public finances—a point that arises from the economic and finance council of 4 November. I will quote from page 13 of the paper:

"the Executive remains alert to the problems of population decline, ageing, and changing population density across Scotland."

In the letter that we are sending to the minister on other points, I would like us to ask for more information on that point. The paper suggests to me that the Executive has done some sort of research or has produced a paper, and it would be interesting to see that information.

A thought struck me when I read that part of the paper. What effect will the expansion of the European Union have on the movement of populations? How will that affect Scotland in particular?

Wider issues arise that we may wish to return to in future.

From the outcome of the agriculture and fisheries council on 13 and 14 October, I note that the UK Government has joined other non-producers in arguing for changes to the cotton and olive oil regimes. Members will know that the committee has taken an interest in the sugar, tobacco, olive oil and cotton regimes, with a view to liberalising some of the markets. It is good to note that some of our previous suggestions appear to have been taken on board.

We may wish to leave post-council scrutiny of the agriculture and fisheries council hanging just now. However, it would be worth while inquiring whether the Environment and Rural Development Committee has any plans to obtain feedback from the minister to help us make our decision.