We move on to the second item on our agenda, which is the scrutiny of European documentation.
Convener, at the previous meeting, I raised the question of the non-appearance of some documentation—of any documentation—relating to the lifting of the arms embargo on Indonesia. I specifically asked for the matter to be put on the agenda for a future meeting. Why is it not on the agenda for this meeting? What efforts have you, as convener, made to find out why we were not given any documentation relating to this very important matter?
The simple reason, Dennis, is that the committee clerk has not yet received any documentation. I take responsibility for the agenda; the clerk has not received the documentation and that is why the issue is not on the agenda. At the end of this meeting, you and I can speak with the clerk to find out whether you have some information of which he is not aware. However, the agenda is before us, and that issue is not on the agenda.
Can I just say—
No, Dennis—
On a point of order. The standing orders are quite clear. They state that:
Dennis, your comments are inappropriate and offensive.
And very relevant.
Dennis, I listened to you, so please do not interrupt.
Can I have an assurance that the matter will be put on the agenda for the next meeting? That is all that I ask.
Dennis, I have explained how the matter will be dealt with. We will speak together to the committee clerk at the end of the meeting and take it from there.
To help the process along and to ensure that we get the appropriate documentation, would not it be helpful to agree to put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting?
I am sorry, Bruce, but that is not how business is conducted. We are on a specific agenda item—the scrutiny of documentation. Dennis has raised a separate point about documentation, which the clerk to the committee says he has not received. We are moving on to the next item on the agenda.
I move that the non-appearance of the documentation on the lifting of the arms embargo in Indonesia be put on the agenda for the next meeting. It is a matter for the committee to decide; it is not for you to decide, convener.
I second that.
I am sorry. The motion is not competent.
According to standing orders, convener, it is.
I will take advice on the standing orders.
Notify. Not decide.
As convener, I shall
On a point of order, convener. The second part of that rule refers simply to notification. The decision about what is and what is not on the agenda is not your decision; it is the decision of the committee.
I am advised that that is not the clerk's understanding of the standing orders. I have said that we will meet to discuss the matter at the end of the meeting. Your proposal is not competent, so we are moving on to the second item on the agenda.
I will challenge your interpretation of the standing orders with a higher authority.
That is entirely up to you.
I want to raise a separate point of order. We need to clarify the process for making decisions when there is a conflict in the committee. Are we able to vote, for example? The clerk will need to advise us whether it is competent for Dennis to move a motion, which is seconded, so that the committee can discuss it.
That is why I seconded Dennis's motion.
I have ruled that Dennis's motion is incompetent. I will speak to Dennis and the clerk to the committee at the end of the meeting about the issue that Dennis raises. Before the next meeting I will also seek advice from the clerk and other authorities on the interpretation of standing orders. However, as far as this meeting is concerned, we have a specific agenda, to which I am sticking.
I raised the point to be helpful. There may be issues on which a vote is necessary, because there is not consensus round the table. We need to know whether it is legitimate for a member to move a motion, which is seconded, so that the committee can have a debate and take a decision. As far as I understand it, that has already happened in a number of committees.
I will take advice from the appropriate authorities on the interpretation of the rules. As far as this meeting is concerned, we are moving on to the second item on the agenda. Dennis will have the opportunity to discuss the item that he spoke about with the clerk and me. I repeat that the clerk to the committee has no further documentation on that matter, which is why it is not on the agenda.
In that case—
I am moving on.
I want to suggest—
No, Bruce—
On a point of order.
No. I am moving on.
I do not accept your ruling. I suggest that we adjourn so that we can get advice before we proceed any further.
I second that.
No, Bruce. I do not intend to adjourn this meeting. I am moving on to item 2 on the agenda, which is scrutiny of European documentation.
The decision to adjourn a meeting is not your decision, but the committee's, just as the agenda is for the committee to decide, not for you to decide. You are the convener of this committee, not a dictator.
Dennis, this may be the way in which you are used to conducting meetings and it may be your style of operation, but—
No. Unlike you, I was not in the militant tendency. I am a democrat.
Dennis, we are here to discuss a specific agenda, which is what I intend to do. I will take advice on whether the committee can adjourn the meeting, as you suggest.
I suggested the adjournment.
Dennis also suggested it.
I seconded the idea.
I am advised that the suggestion is not competent. Therefore, we move to item 2 on the agenda.
On a point of order. I am sorry, convener. I do not want to pursue something that may seem arcane, but it seems an important matter that the convener cannot take advice on how the standing orders should be applied as the committee proceeds. I thought that that was why we had clerks to the committee. You can ask for advice, but to do that, you would have to adjourn the committee for a few minutes.
I will not adjourn the meeting. I will bring the clerk to the committee into the discussion. I then intend to move on.
In relation to motions for adjournment and closure of meetings, rule 8.16 of standing orders states:
No. He notifies the clerk of the agenda.
Dennis, please do not interrupt. Do not be so rude.
The convener then notifies the clerk of the agenda and I notify the members.
Thank you, Stephen.
With respect to the clerk—
Dennis, you do not have the floor. I am moving on to the second item on the agenda.
Convener, can I just say—
No, Bruce. We are moving on.
The issue will come back.
Bruce, I am sorry, but we are moving on.
I have a point of order, although it is not on the same issue as before. I see again that a number of the documents before the committee have already come into force. There have been a number of directives—more than 40—about which the committee could do nothing.
It is difficult for the committee to comment on a number of elements in the process, because those elements were, as we are aware, in place before the committee existed. I was keen to see the way in which we scrutinise such documents being approached differently. The way in which we have been doing things allows us to give priority to those directives that we can still influence. We have, in the past, spent a lot of time talking about issues that, although they might be interesting, we can do nothing about. I hope that the discussion today will help to change that.
Those comments will be reflected in a letter that I will have drafted on that subject.
I would like some clarification. Will we undertake priority scrutiny of such documents today, or will we merely agree that they are documents for priority scrutiny? The documents were not circulated with the other papers, so I have had no chance to examine them.
The documents will come before the committee for scrutiny at a later date. Does any member wish to raise any points on any of the documents?
Can I have a copy of document SP 625?
All the documents in the priority scrutiny category will be circulated to committee members.
Members indicated agreement.
For the following documents, the recommendation is that they be given priority scrutiny:
I would certainly like to read what has been sent to the committee about SP 634, which is to do with regional fisheries organisations, a subject that strikes a chord with me.
I should advise members what is meant by priority scrutiny. According to the procedures that the committee agreed at a previous meeting, priority scrutiny means that the committee is likely to invite the Scottish Executive to discuss the nature of such documents. That is because such documents represent an early—white paper or green paper—stage of policy development on an issue. Members might want to ask the Executive what its plans are in relation to future legislative proposals. Such documents might also raise issues of particular relevance to Scotland, such as the regional fisheries organisations.
By the time that the matter comes before the council, our democratic intervention is pretty well over. I would like information about the issue at the earliest opportunity.
We will examine that urgently.
I would like to see document SP 670. Such a directive will have considerable implications. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will also be interested in it.
As I have said, all the priority scrutiny documents will be circulated to committee members.
If the committee wants to discuss document SP 670 further after having read a paper on it, what is the trigger date by which we will have to inform the Executive of our thoughts?
That depends. I will need to consult the explanatory memorandum to examine the timetable, but the trigger date for us is usually the date on which a document is taken in council, if it is at the stage of the process when it is about to be finally agreed. If the document is at the green paper or white paper stage, there might not be a particular date by which the committee would have to speak to the Executive.
Would those civil servants be involved in the process? Equal treatment in employment is a grey area in which some matters are devolved and some are reserved.
The degree to which Scottish Executive civil servants are part of the process of negotiating a UK line depends on the content of each document. I do not have information to hand on the documents that we are discussing, but I can find out more if Ms MacDonald wishes.
I would like something clarified. If we agree that the documents are for priority scrutiny, does that mean that, in a sense, we are notifying the Executive that the committee will want to comment at some stage? There would, therefore, be an onus on members to read the documents and to indicate the issues that they wanted the Executive to address.
That is right.
I would like to see how our timetable develops over the weeks. My sympathy goes to the clerks in this. We might have to rejig our agendas week by week as new priority areas appear. As with the document that Winnie Ewing mentioned, we might receive documents that need quick examination if the committee is to be effective.
I will bring in the clerk on that point.
If members will indulge me, I will provide a further point of clarification. Two groups of documents should be separated. On the one hand are documents that are near the end of the legislative process, in which the committee might seek to influence the fine details before such documents are taken in council. On the other hand are green papers and white papers that make no specific legislative provisions. They are not pieces of legislation, but policy proposals for future legislation. At that stage members might want to consider whether the committee should ask the Executive how it plans to respond—in one or two years' time—to the legislation that results from a green or white paper. There are two different types of document and two different times when the committee should intervene in their passage.
Can I take it from that that the proposals that are referred to in documents SP 666 and SP 670 are at the stage where they are being considered in principle? I can imagine that there might be several voices raised against the principle of an equal treatment in employment and occupation directive. The study of the directive would come subsequent to that and the committee would be asked whether it was in favour of the principle of the directive rather than of the content.
It is the implementation and the establishment that are important, rather than saying whether we agree with the principles.
Can I suggest that when they are referred—and I dare say the Transport and the Environment Committee is greatly looking forward to receiving them—that there is an accompanying note from the Scottish Executive, or that this committee's clerk asks the Scottish Executive to provide a note for the Transport and the Environment Committee?
There is a request to the Scottish Executive to provide further information on all documents that members select for scrutiny. If Tavish Scott wishes to give me the questions after the meeting, I will ensure that they are incorporated into our request.
The recommendation is to await further information on the following documents, on page 3 of the sift note, for routine scrutiny:
Can I have a copy of document SP 659?
We are deferring that, and all the documents on page 3, to a future meeting.
Is there any timetabling for that? Can we get more information on the beef labelling system?
I will ask the clerk to look into that for you, Dr Ewing.
It is an continuing matter. We get lots of letters about it and we do not always know how to answer them at the moment.
For the following documents, the recommendation is for no further action to be taken, but for a copy of them to be sent to the specific committees identified for their interest:
Members indicated agreement.
The recommendation for the documents listed on pages 5 to 12 of the sift/scrutiny recommendation note is for no further action. Does anyone have a particular item to raise about any of those documents?
The top document on page 7, SP 640 (EC Ref No 13879/99, COM(99) 629 COD 98/0169), is on the Culture 2000 programme. I hate to bring up the past, but when I was chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, the Commission had a great desire to put together all the different budget headings, because that made things easier for them. In fact, it was better for the whole of Europe that the budget headings were clear and different, so that interested parties could make applications and perhaps eventually get some funding.
It says on our private papers that document SP 640 may have already been adopted, as it is meant to replace the previous arrangements as of 1 January 2000.
Oh dear.
Our papers say that document SP 640 may be of interest to the reporter on culture and sport, who is Margo MacDonald. We could find out whether the establishment of the cultural policy instrument as detailed in document SP 640 has already happened. I will ask Stephen Imrie to check that.
Establishing that single budget is a nice easy way for the Commission to lump everything together, but it is not a good thing for the people of Europe.
We will check whether the instrument has already been adopted.
Document SP 652 (COM(99) 700), on fishing opportunities and fish stocks, appears on the same page of the sift note. I would like that at least to be examined by our fisheries people. If not, I would like to look at it.
The document was adopted at the Fisheries Council on 16 and 17 December 1999.
So it is too late? It is something that has happened already?
Yes.
Is it not the point that it was the measure shown in document 652 which implemented the December Fisheries Council, following the agreement of member states? It is merely the implementation of the political decision taken in December 1999.
So it is over already? Fine.
Members will see from the advice notes that the European Council adopted the proposal as Council regulations on 8 December 1999. I am advised that, on all dumping matters, the decisions tend to be taken before they come near this committee.
But the whole point is that we have never really enforced anti-dumping yet. I try to read everything about this, and it is still happening. It is a very serious matter for the whole salmon industry. More information for me, please.
Anti-dumping measures tend to be taken at a European Council level, so we could seek some further advice on anti-dumping measures generally, and on the procedure and timing of decisions. That would help to clarify the process for us.
Winnie Ewing was saying that, although the decision has been taken, it does not matter a docken leaf. Prior anti-dumping measures have passed into statute and recommendation. Perhaps we do not need to reinforce that, but rather see how they are monitored to discover whether they are working.
We can certainly ask the question about how the anti-dumping measures are being monitored and bring the answers back in report form.
Members indicated agreement.
Document SP 668 (EC Ref No PE-CONS 3633/99) covers renewable energy. Scotland is a sleeping giant in this respect. The document details a programme for the promotion of renewable energy, but should this committee perhaps have a rapporteur to examine the way in which we do not take advantage of the moneys available for renewable energy?
What we are not doing here is discussing the broader issue; we are discussing a specific document. It may be legitimate for a reporter to look into that at some stage, but, for now, is there anything that members wish to say in relation to that document?
I have not got document SP 668 in front of me, so it is impossible to answer that. I would like to have the document in front of me.
As members know, if they require any of the documents, we can ask the committee's clerk team leader for them.
I might be off the beam here, convener, but I wonder if some of the other committees might not be interested in some of the other documents listed for no further action.
We will consider that. I suspect that it is not an issue, but if it is, I will ensure that the clerk draws it to the attention of the appropriate committee.
There are other documents in that group which are perhaps more obviously of interest to the Transport and the Environment Committee. For example, document SP 618 (EC Ref No 13414/99, COM(99) 617 final) discusses the
What are you suggesting?
I suggest that we pass SP 618 to the Transport and the Environment Committee as a matter of interest.
That would do no harm. We can do that.
SP 628 (EC Ref No 13549/99 REV 1 ECO 396 ENV 412) on European Union industry policy and sustainable development should go to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
I want to bring in the clerk to make a general point, and then we will go back to the specific notes.
The documents have been examined to find out if they provide information of interest or have particular relevance to the work of another committee, which may want to take the issue forward. I suspect that several documents, if not all of them, have some degree of interest to other committees.
It would do no harm to send SP 628 to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for interest and to allow the committee to decide whether to put it on the agenda.
The document on a single European sky, SP 636 (EC Ref No 13735/99, COM(99) 614), and the implications of a unified airways system would certainly be of interest to the Transport and the Environment Committee, taking that committee into an area of significant debate.
We will send SP 636 to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
We should also send SP 637 (EC Ref No 13736/99, COM(99) 614) to that committee.
We will send SP 637 to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
It might help the smooth running of the committee if members could indicate before the meeting matters that should be dealt with in a different way to that indicated on the schedule. That would allow the clerks to prepare an explanation of the current situation.
That would be helpful. However, individual members have the right to raise matters at the committee. If the clerk knows in advance what members are going to suggest, he can construct the recommendations in accordance with that.
When we drafted the guidelines on whether something would be priority or routine, we said that we would revisit them. Perhaps we could do that in a few weeks. I am losing the thread of what the guidelines are on deciding whether something has priority or should be referred to another committee.
We will come back to that in the near future. That is a useful suggestion.
If we agree to Bruce Crawford's proposal to send SP 618 to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we should also send SP 619 (EC Ref No 13417/99, COM(99) 616), which deals with three amended proposals for Parliamentary and Council directives on the development of the Community's railways, the licensing of railway undertakings and the allocation of railway infrastructure and safety certification.
Do we agree to send SP 619 to the Transport and the Environment Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
In discussing renewable energy, Winnie Ewing highlighted the fact that there will be documents that are not of immediate importance, but that are important to the underlying strategy of economic development.
We have gone over this before. We are not being asked to make general comments on the advisability of particular topics or whether we think that they are good ideas. At this point, we are asked to comment specifically on documents before us. Notwithstanding the significance of renewable energy, the issue today is whether there is something in the document that should be acted on, either by us or by another Scottish Parliament committee. It is not a general discussion on the principle of the document.
I do not want a general discussion on the principle, I want an effective way of ensuring that things do not fall through the cracks. The railways documents could have fallen through the cracks. We have already agreed that that is important and should be considered.
I have a question for the clerk. Do the other committees and their clerks have access to this information? Can they be proactive on that?
All members of the Parliament and my clerking colleagues have access to original EC documents. A full set is held in the reference centre of the Parliament, which receives the documents on the same day as I do. I proactively discuss the contents of certain documents with fellow clerks to inform them of particular issues that arise when we carry out the initial analysis, before we discuss the documents with the convener. After discussion with the convener, we produce the recommendations.
If a document appears in the no further action section of the recommendation, is there an opportunity for somebody else to take it before another committee?
Yes.