EC Legislation (Implementation)
The next item is implementation of European Community legislation. We have received two letters from the Executive in connection with our role of monitoring transposition and implementation. We have asked the clerks to review our approach to this. In the meantime, the Executive has asked about two matters: the end-of-life vehicles directive (2000/53/EC) and the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme regulations (2003/87/EC). The Executive intends to use section 57(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 to allow those instruments to be dealt with under the Sewel procedure so that the UK Government can legislate on Scotland's behalf. We will have to decide whether we support that intention and whether we think that it is justified in respect of the legislation.
Of course we are content that section 57 of the Scotland Act 1998 be applied. The recommendation comes in three parts. The paper asks us to consider whether we have been provided with sufficient explanation and, in my view, the answer is yes. The fifth paragraph on page 5 of the paper, on the greenhouse gas emissions regulations, says that using section 57 offers the
"most efficient and sensible approach."
That is eminently sensible and self-explanatory.
The third recommendation in the paper is:
"Finally, the Committee may wish to seek views from stakeholders".
I think that that would be a waste of time. We know who the stakeholders are—the UK Government and the Executive. We have had an explanation, so let us just get on with it. As has been outlined in the letters from Ross Finnie, Sewel motions are the best, quickest and least complex way of dealing with such important issues.
I have no objection to the use of a Sewel motion—that seems to be quite reasonable. However, in relation to both instruments, points of specific interest to Scotland arise.
For a start, it is suggested that Scotland does not really have a direct interest in the end-of-life vehicles directive because there are no car manufacturers, importers or distributors in Scotland. However, when we read through the Executive's document on the directive, we realise that end-of-life vehicle reception facilities must be 10 miles apart, on average, throughout the UK. In my view, the only people who will pick up on that are the distributors for the major producers. That proposal could have major implications for the motor trade in Scotland; I would like to find out about those implications and about how the industry intends to deal with them. Although I am not sure whether we can ask the Executive to follow up those questions—given that it is pushing for acceptance of the legislation being dealt with by a Sewel motion—I would like answers to them.
I cannot understand why the UK has to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent, when the overall EU target is 8.5 per cent. I can understand that France's high proportion of nuclear generation might cut down its emissions problems, but Scotland also has a high proportion of nuclear generation—the rate in the UK as a whole is fairly average, if not above average—and Scotland also has a reasonable commitment to renewables. I wonder why our emissions are so high in comparison with countries such as Germany, Italy, Belgium and Holland. It is strange that we appear to have such a problem.
In light of the fact that we are taking such a collective view, I have another question for the Executive: how is it that Scotland can have different renewables targets from England, given that we are talking about the same emissions levels and that Scotland is already ahead?
You did open by saying that you did not have any objection to—
I have no objection to the use of a Sewel motion, but there are specific questions that I would like the Executive to answer.
I do not have any objection to the use of a Sewel motion, but I think that Phil Gallie has raised an important point on the end-of-life vehicles directive. Page 1 of annex A refers to "producers", but page 2 changes that to
"car manufacturers and professional importers"
and then says that there are
"no importers/distributors of any size"
in Scotland. It is not quite clear what the definition of "producer" is; the fact that it varies between the two pages causes me some concern. In my constituency, there is a very good Skoda distributor in Burrelton in the middle of Perthshire, the home of the SNP leader. It is a small firm, so what will it be landed with? The fact that "producer" is not defined—or rather, that its definition becomes very wide on page 2 of the Executive's letter—is an important point about which we should ask.
If there are no further comments, is the committee happy to obtain clarification on the points that Phil Gallie and Keith Raffan have made?
Members indicated agreement.
I do not think that I was clear enough on the issue of the Sewel motion. I understand that there may not be a need for a Sewel motion as such, although the proposed procedure is similar to a Sewel motion. I thought that I should put that on the record, because I think I said that the legislation would have to be dealt with using a Sewel motion.
I would just like to clarify that we do not have to pursue the three different elements of the recommendation that is made in paragraph 5 of the briefing paper. We are all satisfied about those questions.
Yes.
I point out that the relevant subject committees should also be addressing those issues, as they have received similar correspondence.