European and External Relations Committee, 06 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

Pre and Post-council Scrutiny

Item 3 is pre and post-council scrutiny. It is worth noting that our colleagues on the Environment and Rural Development Committee are taking evidence from Mr Finnie on 14 December, ahead of the agriculture and fisheries council from 19 to 21 December. Do members have any comments on paper EU/S2/05/18/3?

Yes. I note on page 4 of the document that aviation emissions were to be discussed. That is the kind of thing that we should examine carefully. Today, Executive ministers are announcing new flights from Edinburgh to Poland. Irene Oldfather and I have a particular interest in Ryanair and easyJet. The proposals could have a significant effect. I would like to examine them.

Would you like to comment, Irene?

I do not object to Phil Gallie's suggestion. It would be helpful to keep a watching brief on the issue.

I am not sure that this will be discussed in any council meetings, but I am aware that the European Parliament is examining aviation safety. I would be interested in us keeping a watching brief on that, because the issue is important to citizens. I see that John Edward from the European Parliament is in the gallery, and I know that the European Parliament discussed the issue recently. It is meaningful to citizens when they see information coming from Europe on their health and safety, and I am interested to know what is happening on the matter, although I am not sure that it is contained in the pre and post-council papers. Am I right in thinking that some of them have not been received?

No. Two of them were late, but they are now in. Do you want us to write to the Executive stating your concerns, Mr Gallie?

That would suit me. We could receive information, consider it, decide whether there is anything we should be concerned about and investigate further.

Hold on—what concerns are you expressing? I am a bit nervous about the committee writing to the Executive to express concern about something unspecified and indeterminate.

Perhaps there is nothing to be concerned about.

Why not find out before writing the letter? Would that not be wise?

How do we find that out before writing the letter?

Is there any reason why we should not write to tell the Executive that we note that the issue is on the pre-council agenda and to ask what input the Executive has had to the discussion?

All right.

We need to know more about the issue. The paper is cryptic, but it suggests that the carbon trading system will be extended to aviation. Does that mean that aviation enterprises in Scotland will be able to participate in carbon trading with enterprises outside Scotland, or does it mean that route development in Scotland is finite, because of the tension with environmental objectives on carbon emissions? If our clerks or advisers could tell us more, that would help. Failing that, we will have to ask for more information.

It is our right to ask for information. Following up anything that the Executive sends us should not be a problem.

As long as we are more specific about what we are asking for.

Charlie Gordon summed up the matter well and went to the nub of the question.

Okay. Do members have any more comments?

I have an observation that relates to page 7, on the economic and financial affairs council that is meeting today. Perhaps the situation will be of more interest at our next meeting, once progress has been made on economic reform. There is much uncertainty about the budget, but such matters are particularly important to Scotland, especially with regard to the common agricultural policy.

You are right: many matters depend on the budget process. Does anyone have any other comments?

I am embarrassed to speak again, but I genuinely consider the papers and try to find things that would interest us. Page 9 refers to phasing out the opt-outs from the working time directive. That is another subject in which the committee should take an interest. The Scottish Executive has referred to the situation in the national health service and we all know the impact that the directive is having on the NHS. I understand that the UK Government opposes further phasing-out of the opt-outs; I am with it on that. However, I also understand that the European Parliament was not so minded. The European Parliament seems to want to phase out opt-outs, whereas the UK Government does not and the Council of Ministers has put a hold on matters. It would be to everyone's advantage if the committee took a stance on the matter and perhaps even wrote in support of the UK Government's position.

On-call working is a particular issue. That affects mainly the NHS, but also other sectors.

The Executive says:

"Scottish Ministers and officials remain in regular contact on this issue with the UK Government and Whitehall Departments"

and

"There are no peculiarly Scottish dimensions on this reserved issue."

I am a bit surprised at that, because the national health service and our industry will be affected, although I would concentrate on the NHS.

The paper says:

"The UK Presidency is now taking it forward and looking for Political agreement."

When we receive the post-council report of the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council, we will see how that went.

Will that be too late? The UK Government appears to have its back against the wall again.

The council will meet on Thursday, so it is too late even to write now.

Okay.

We mentioned the NORPEC meeting earlier. The four members of NORPEC all had concerns about demographic change in Europe and I note that a green paper on the subject—"Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations"—is one of the major items on the council's agenda.

The Committee of the Regions is looking to do a research study on demographic change and plans to link it to the Lisbon agenda. That is yet to be agreed by the full bureau, but if it goes ahead, it might be of some interest to the committee and I will be happy to bring that information back.

Yes, please do.

The difficulty is that almost all the papers that we have before us today are pre-council papers and cover items that might or might not come on to the agenda or might change at the last minute. On page 13, in annex B, I note that the framework convention on tobacco control might be discussed at the council on 9 December. That item is at the end of the agenda, but if it is discussed, it would be useful to know what information the Commission provides.

We in Scotland are setting the tobacco control agenda. Although the United Kingdom has signed up to the framework convention, some member states have not. There will be a post-council report on the matter and if the issue was on the agenda, it will be interesting for the committee to keep a watching brief.

Our discussions are in the abstract because we do not even know what will be on the agenda as it can change at the last minute and the meetings can be shorter or longer. That is why I have not commented much on the pre-council agendas.

Irene Oldfather is probably even more concerned than I am about this, but my understanding is that the European Parliament has voted to continue the tobacco subsidies in Italy, Spain and Greece. Given that the Scottish Parliament voted to stop people smoking, it seems strange to me that Scottish taxpayers' money is going to subsidise tobacco growers.

Italy has done the same.

I have a strong view on the matter and have raised it since 1999. It is completely inconsistent with our healthy lifestyle agenda to continue to subsidise tobacco. My understanding is that it has now been agreed that subsidies will be withdrawn from 2010, but the clerks might check that date.

The commission for economic and social policy of the Committee of the Regions has just produced a report in which it takes a very strong view, which I echoed at the meeting last week, that it is inconsistent to promote healthier lifestyles and encourage people to exercise more while at the same time giving about 2 per cent of what the European Union gives in tobacco subsidies to European cancer research and monitoring centres.

I agree with Phil Gallie and think that we should keep a close eye on the matter. The date for ending tobacco subsidies has been given as 2010, but I know from the past seven years' experience that when we get nearer to such dates we always do some deal and renegotiate to extend the date by another five years. Let us hope that this time we really will finish by 2010.

Right. Are you finished?

I have finished commenting on the pre-council situation, but I note on page 17 the post-council report of the general affairs and external relations council on 7 November and the statement on the financial perspectives, which has now been superseded by what has happened in the past few days. We have to keep a close watching brief on that and see what happens at the next council meeting.

Okay. We will thank the Executive for the information that it provided for pre and post-council scrutiny.