Official Report 152KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the 18th meeting in 2005 of the European and External Relations Committee. We have received apologies from Jim Wallace and Gordon Jackson. Dennis Canavan will be late, as he is attending a meeting of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which is considering his St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill.
It was just Irene Oldfather.
So you remember it all in great detail, Irene.
After reading the paper, I certainly recalled the substantial discussions that we had at the time.
I will open the item up for discussion. Members will note the recommendation that we write directly to the Commission to reflect the committee's views and to seek its views on how it sees the situation developing, particularly with regard to safeguarding our rural postal services.
Needless to say, we are discussing a European document. However, does its reference to "universal service" mean service right across the 25 nation states or does it simply mean universal service in Scotland and the United Kingdom?
I have to ask you to clarify what you mean, Phil.
I realise that everyone cannot have exactly the same service with regard to mail deliveries, but I have always felt that, no matter whether one lives in the Hebrides or in south-east London, one should pay the same to get first-class and second-class letters delivered. In that light, does the phrase "universal service" in the paper refer to the UK or to the wider Europe?
I see. You are wondering whether the cost of delivery would be the same across the member states.
Yes. Is that the aim? Is that what should happen in the internal market?
It certainly reads that way to me, but, like you, I have serious doubts about whether it could happen. As far as a universal postal service in the UK is concerned, the committee's absolute concern is to ensure that people in the outer Hebrides are not disadvantaged compared with people in central Glasgow, London, Manchester or wherever. That is why we recommend that we write to the Commission to ask how it intends to ensure that we have a universal service and universal prices in our country.
I can hardly see you, convener, you are so dazzling—no, the sun is dazzling.
Sorry to interrupt, but Iain McIver, our wonderful European researcher, has just quietly confirmed to me that his understanding is that the provision on universal costs and service will apply within member states.
That is what has been brought into question. The open market invites cherry picking, if I can use that pejorative term, which might mean far cheaper mail collections and deliveries in busy urban areas such as central Scotland or London, while the scope that has existed until now for cross-subsidising the much more expensive services to rural areas and the islands might be put in jeopardy. I presume that that is what we are all bothered about.
Yes, that is the issue.
John Home Robertson has made some of the comments that I was going to make. My understanding is that the principle is the liberalisation of services throughout the European Union. When we discussed the issue previously, weight restrictions were suggested, which would have had implications. Perhaps our expert from the Scottish Parliament information centre or the clerks could advise us on the up-to-date situation in relation to that issue. The cut-off point meant that letters would not fall under the scope of the directive, whereas other items would. I did not notice information on that in the paper, so it would be useful if someone could let us know about it. The issue is all about the internal market. I would have thought that Phil Gallie would be happy with liberalisation of services.
I am not unhappy. I just asked a genuine question about an issue that I want clarified.
I am not sure that I am entirely happy with it—obviously, if Phil Gallie is happy with it, I am probably not happy with it.
Now, now.
It would be useful if we had further information from the clerks about what the up-to-date proposals would mean and whether a weight limitation will be imposed.
From memory—I hope that Alasdair Rankin will confirm this—my understanding is that restrictions were put on the liberalisation, but that by the final completion date everything, regardless of weight, will be included. Am I right?
Yes. I understand that the intention is to have no weight limit in 2009.
Much of the damage has been done already, with parcels and other deliveries. A few years ago, the red vans went to every house in Britain delivering the mail, parcels and packets but, as we now know to our cost from going on the roads, there are the red vans that deliver the letters and a procession of white vans that deliver on behalf of various companies, which means that our roads are a lot more cluttered. However, we are told that that is more efficient.
The critical factor is the cross-subsidisation, which is what makes a stamp the same price anywhere in the UK. The big worry is that, if we break up the area into bite-size chunks, we will destroy the cross-subsidisation. The situation could be a bit like bus deregulation—people will get a service only where the provider can see a profit. However, there is no convincing evidence in the initial paper that that is a real and present danger.
Frequency of service is another issue—companies could make up for the costs by cutting the frequency of the service.
I accept that it is important to write to the Commission but, as the issue is reserved, we should ensure that the relevant Government ministers are kept informed of our views. That will do no harm.
Perhaps we should copy the letter to them.
This may be an area in which we would want to work with the UK European Scrutiny Committee. I rather suspect that the committee, which Jimmy Hood chairs, will be on to the matter already or, if not, would want to know that we have some concerns about it, so perhaps we could write to Jimmy Hood.
At our previous meeting, we saw copies of a letter from the National Assembly for Wales, if I remember rightly, which talked about European committees coming together. Perhaps we should include the Welsh Assembly as well.
So we will write to the Commission, with copies to the relevant ministers. We will also get in touch with our counterpart European committees in the UK to find out what they are doing and to co-ordinate our efforts.
Do we know whether the Commission has any memory of what we told it in 2001?
I do not know.
Can we ask it whether it remembers?
We can certainly remind it. When we write to the Commission again, we can append what was previously said, to jog its collective memory.
Let me just pick up on Charlie Gordon's point. It seems from what I have read that we told the Commission our views but that we never really got a reply. Committee members went to Brussels, but there does not appear to be a report on what they found. We should find out whether we ever got anything back from the Commission and whether the members who went to Brussels reported back to the committee.
As is commonly the case when we undertake our annual visit to Brussels, not everyone goes to all the same meetings. I do not recall being at the meeting, but I think that one of the commissioners—Frits Bolkestein, or someone like that—was there. As is often the case, the Commission tends to listen and say that it will reflect on something when it is making decisions, so I do not think that there was any specific outcome from the visit, other than that part of the committee went along to make the case to the Commission.
When we make our annual committee visit to Brussels, we could follow up what we send to the Commission with an appropriate meeting involving a couple of us, to see how things are progressing.
I would not have a problem with that, but I think that Phil Gallie has a point when he reminds us that, technically, the matter is reserved. The other side of the question is that the issue will have major implications for Scotland, so it is important to work with our colleagues in the other committees and to follow the matter through if necessary and if work has not already been done. The work may already have been done, of course.
We must check up on what has been done, with a view to perhaps arranging a meeting—for ourselves or for others, too—when we are out in Brussels.
To add to the confusion, I wonder whether there are other regions in the group of regions with legislative power that would have similar interests to ours. I do not know whether Catalunya has large rural hinterlands where postal services could be jeopardised.
Perhaps that is something that we can raise with our colleagues in the network of regional parliamentary European committees.
We could see whether we can apply some regional pressure, not just from the UK, but from other parts of Europe, particularly regions where there are islands.
We will get in touch with the secretariat. Are all those action points agreed?