Official Report 244KB pdf
The first item of my report returns to the issue raised by the previous European and External Relations Committee about the Government's position on tripartite contracts between itself, the UK Government and the European Union. Europe proposed that that route be taken, whereby all three levels of government would come together, in order to reduce bureaucracy and lead to better decision making and implementation of EU legislation.
I am generally in favour of tripartite contracts. They are a good thing and the previous committee supported the idea.
That is a fair comment. In future, when we refer to parliamentary questions, a copy should be attached to the papers. I will ask the clerks to do that. The question was just whether there are any such tripartite contracts and the Executive gave a one word answer.
That could be technically correct, but it does not mean that the Executive is not interested in undertaking the agreement. It might mean that it is all still at draft stage. That would not surprise me in the least because the European Parliament report was in draft in September and it urges the Commission to develop pilot studies. It might be that we are waiting for the Commission to make proposals. I would not want to read too much into the Executive's answer. We need clarification.
Is the committee happy to seek that clarification? The issue has been raised before and such contracts would make a change to how things were done if the idea were taken up.
Item 2 relates to an issue that John Home Robertson raised, which is the movement of heavy goods vehicles through the EU and the fact that some countries, notably Austria, charge those vehicles for passing through the country because they do not pay road tax in that country. We have received a letter from Gwyneth Dunwoody MP, chair of the House of Commons Transport Committee, inviting the committee to make a submission to her committee's inquiry into EU transport policy.
I dropped a note to the clerk a month or two ago asking that the issue be raised. Hauliers in my constituency have pointed out to me that there are a significant number of HGVs from mainland Europe on our roads, using fuel on which they have paid much less tax and competing with our hauliers. When an HGV crosses a border on mainland Europe, particularly into Austria, the driver has to buy a Eurovignette to pay up the difference. British truck drivers in mainland Europe therefore have to pay.
On behalf of the committee, can I ask John Home Robertson to work with the clerks to draft a submission?
Can you clarify that that is the inquiry that will also examine issues that relate to public service obligation orders?
Are you seeking clarification of the title of the inquiry by the House of Commons committee?
Yes.
As far as I am aware the inquiry is only into EU transport policy, but I will double-check.
I will perhaps have a chat in private with the clerks to see whether there is anything that we can meaningfully do on public service obligation orders on air routes.
Are you reflecting your experience earlier this afternoon?
Not at all. That was to do with the fog in Edinburgh.
We are happy to take that point on board.
Perhaps the clerks to the committee would want to click on the link and make the information available to committee members and to SPICe. We seem to be batting this backwards and forwards. We could be very pedantic about the matter and write back to the Executive and say, "You draw it down from the internet, or we will draw it down from the internet." If the information is publicly available, let us agree that somebody downloads it and circulates it. The committee has an interest in the matter, so I do not see why we should not do that.
There is certainly an issue in that if we ask for information from the Executive it should give us the information, as opposed to our having to ask the clerks to download it, but I am sure that we can get it one way or another. We can ask the clerks to liaise with the Scottish Executive to reach a mutual agreement.
I am happy to go along with your recommendation that we thank Christopher Leslie, parliamentary under-secretary of state in the UK Department of Constitutional Affairs, for the courtesy of a quick response, but I would not like him to get the idea that we are in any way satisfied with that response. If we are writing to thank him, we should also, for the record, express our dissatisfaction.
That is a sensible proposal. As there are no objections, we will follow that suggestion.
Convener, I had said that I would represent the committee on your behalf at the meeting of EMILE—the European members information liaison exchange network—but an urgent constituency matter has come up. I understand that John Home Robertson and Phil Gallie are both attending the EMILE meeting. John Home Robertson has indicated that he would be happy—
I do not know about happy.
He has said that he would be willing to say a few words on behalf of the committee. If Phil Gallie will be there and is also willing to say a few words, that would assist me in meeting an urgent constituency engagement.
The buck stops here.
I thank Phil Gallie and John Home Robertson for being genuinely delighted to do that. I am sure that the meeting will be productive.
I know that this will sound repetitive, but as far as the Commission's work programme is concerned I am very aware of its failure to get its accounts audited. I would have thought that auditing those accounts would have been a top priority that the European Commission would have mentioned in its work programme for the next year and over coming years.
I think that Phil Gallie has made a fair point that is worth pursuing.
We can do that.
It is worth while noting that the emphasis in the work programme over the next year is on enlargement. The Commission has clearly indicated that this year's legislative programme is lighter than normal because of the work that needs to be done to bring in the accession countries. Various financial bodies scrupulously audit all European institutions. For example, the Committee of the Regions has just been through an audit by the European Anti-fraud Office—or OLAF—which, along with the European Court of Justice, is responsible for auditing. Although I sometimes come across scaremongering stories in the press about gravy trains and money that goes missing, I have found in the past that the European Court of Auditors' reports on these matters are very detailed and specific. Indeed, the recent Committee of the Regions audit was very thorough and resulted in a member being paid back money rather than in members having to pay money back. I do not think that that story received any media attention.
Page 13 of the convener's report suggests that one of the Commission's major projects is—quite rightly—to sustain growth. I would ask whether the Commission is able to attain any growth at present, given Europe's woeful performance. It is right to attempt to create growth, but I think that, given current performance, this talk of "sustainable growth" is—to repeat a phrase that was used earlier—a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Given that the minister with responsibility for Europe and external relations is also responsible for finance, you can raise those points with him directly the next time that he appears before us.
I agree with those comments. Last year, I had the enjoyable experience of hosting the Scottish Youth Parliament in my constituency. I have found young people to be almost the most euro-enthusiastic people I have come across and they certainly appreciated the number of local MSPs who came along to support their conference at James Watt College in Kilwinning. As a result, I am very happy to continue those links.
I thank Scotland Europa for its analysis of the work programme, into which it put a lot of effort.
In light of Irene Oldfather's comment about enthusiastic MSPs, I want to put on record that I was one of them.
Yes. Indeed, I was thinking along the same lines when Irene was speaking. I am sure that the young people she mentions will maintain their enthusiasm into adulthood.
Previous
Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)