Convener's Report
We come to the convener's report. This week, I have nine items to draw to the committee's attention. I will go through them one by one, asking for comments as I do so.
The first item concerns the response to the letter that I wrote to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, on the Ferguson Shipbuilders bid for the fisheries protection vessels contract. As members will see from the minister's letter, the Commission has concluded that
"there is no evidence which would justify mounting a formal enquiry."
I have a couple of points on the response. I will run through them and then seek members' comments. The last paragraph on the first page says:
"Given that such a complaint can take a long time to be investigated properly the Commission would not seek to prohibit any yard against whom a complaint has been made from competing for unrelated contracts."
First, that is not a direct quote from the Commission, so I would like confirmation of how the Commission deals with such matters. Secondly, I am interested in how long it takes to resolve complaints. If it takes years and years during which contracts are still being tendered for, it would be a bit messy if the eventual finding is against a firm. I suggest that we write to find out the answer to those two questions.
Are you suggesting that we write to the Commission or the minister?
My first thought was to write to the Commission, so that we hear straight from the horse's mouth.
I am not averse to doing that, but Ross Finnie's letter states clearly that the commissioner advised that no complaints have been made. Ross Finnie seems satisfied by the Commission's response.
The points that I raise are not necessarily about the particular issue at hand; they are more general than that. I would like to know whether complaints take 10 months or 10 years.
It will vary.
Yes. We can speculate all we like, but unless we ask and find out, we will not know.
In this case, justice delayed is justice denied, because the damage is done if the decision is prolonged. Your point is fair and important, convener.
The next item in my report is on the committee's query to the Executive about whether there is to be a report of the better regulation conference that was held in Edinburgh at the end of September. The Executive has replied that we will be sent a copy of the Cabinet Office report, once it is available. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
The third item in my report relates to a letter from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development that informs the committee that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) and National Emissions Inventory Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2903) will be implemented at UK level. The minister has also informed the Environment and Rural Development Committee of that. Do members have any comments?
No.
The next item is to give members feedback on the third meeting of the network of regional parliamentary European committees—NORPEC—which I was fortunate enough to attend last week with Dennis Canavan and Derek Brownlee. The minutes of the meeting will be circulated in due course. As we heard would happen before we went, the Catalan delegation did not attend. I understand that the president of the Catalan Parliament will write to our Presiding Officer to explain the decision. However, we carried on with our tripartite discussions and agreed on all the main points on the agenda. The meeting was really useful.
The first point that we agreed was that the committees will work together to identify a Commission green paper on which they can put forward an agreed submission following consideration at the next NORPEC meeting. We also agreed to begin joint information gathering and information sharing in Brussels; to keep one another informed about the handling of structural funds and Lisbon strategy issues within our jurisdictions; to compare procedures for handling subsidiarity early-warning issues and to consider them at the next meeting; and to plan for a meeting of our respective MEPs in Brussels once we have made progress on those other matters. Finally, we signed a revised statement of intent.
One item that we agreed to postpone was the consideration of the paper on prospective additional NORPEC members, as we all agreed that the most important issue is to make substantive progress in our joint working to show what the network can achieve before we look for new members.
I will write to the chairman of the European affairs committee of the Saxony-Anhalt Parliament to thank him for the effort that was put in to hosting the NORPEC event and to reiterate Irene Oldfather's apologies for being unable to make it. It was certainly understood that parliamentary business does not always allow us to take part in these things, and that that can happen to everyone.
Dennis Canavan has left the meeting, but Derek Brownlee might like to add something.
The meeting was useful and interesting, particularly because it allowed us to discuss with the Basque and Saxony-Anhalt delegations common difficulties in dealing with certain aspects of the EU. However, I feel that NORPEC now needs to move into a more substantial phase.
First, would it be improper for us to speculate on the reasons why the Catalan delegation did not attend? Secondly, will the declaration of intent that was signed be circulated?
Yes, we will append the declaration of intent to the minutes when they come out.
I am not at all sure why the Catalan delegation did not attend. We could speculate on that and discuss various theories, but I think that we should wait until our Presiding Officer hears from their president. I hope that the situation will not be a permanent one.
We have had on-going difficulties with the Catalan delegation. At one point, there was a problem with signing the declaration because the president himself likes to sign such documents and did not want the job to be devolved down to committee conveners. As a result, there is a little history in that respect. The same can be said of the Flemish, who also withdrew from NORPEC. However, I hope that we can resolve those difficulties and get things back on track.
Okay.
The next item in the convener's report is information on this Thursday's visit of the president of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, I cannot attend this event, because I have a constituency engagement that I committed to some time ago. Thankfully, Irene Oldfather is available to run the event.
President Borrell will address MSPs on "The Future of Europe: Conversation not Confrontation Needed" on Thursday 10 November in committee room 2. The event will start at 12:45 and last 40 minutes, with time for questions and answers. I realise that Thursday is a plenary day, but it would be nice if members could support Irene Oldfather by going along and listening to president Borrell. I apologise again for not being able to make it.
The next item in the convener's report is consideration of the Commission's 2006 work programme, which was published on 25 October. I raise the matter now because a Commission representative, William Sleath from the strategic planning and programming unit of the Commission's Secretariat-General, will appear at our next meeting to give evidence. I understand that he has given evidence to the committee before.
I hope that you have been able to look through annex E on page 11 onwards of the report, as it highlights a number of areas of Scottish interest on which we might focus. If members require further briefing on those areas or on other areas in the programme, they should let the clerks know as soon as they can.
It is good to have this very important document because, as Margaret Ewing and certain other members will recall, the committee has constantly grappled with the problem of securing early intelligence. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we identified the need for a European parliamentary officer. It is good to see him at today's meeting. If we work with him and use this legislative work programme, we should be able to secure intelligence on certain matters.
So many matters in the work programme are of interest that it is difficult to single any out, but it would be helpful to put on record one or two issues on which the officer could keep a watching brief and update the committee. Such an approach will be vital as things develop.
The officer has provided us with a paper that identifies the areas that we now know about and on which he will keep an eye. I note on page 14 of the convener's report the communication on defence industries and markets. Technically, some of that matter is reserved, but there would be no harm in knowing a bit more about it as it develops.
Page 17 refers to the Commission communication on the implementation of a dedicated European rail freight network, about which it would be useful to know. A little further down on page 17, future applications of Galileo are mentioned, which are interesting. I note from the information that has been provided that the
"satellite navigation infrastructure will provide initial positioning services as from 2008"
and that it
"will generate by 2020 a global market of some 300 billion euros".
Information about that could be vital for the Scottish business sector and it is important to keep us up to date on that, so that we can relay information to other committees as appropriate, or even directly to the business sector.
Page 19 refers to the green paper on the evolution of labour law and the communication on the demographic future of Europe. We have conducted an inquiry into the fresh talent initiative, so we might want to keep a watching brief on the demographic future of Europe, which is relevant to our work.
It would also be helpful to keep a watching brief on the green paper on a future European Union maritime policy and on the green paper on drugs and civil society in the EU, which is mentioned on page 21.
I have not marked anything in the sections on security or external affairs. The documents that I have identified would provide an ideal way for the committee to employ the early intelligence that it needs by using the Commission's work programme and taking advantage of the full-time officer in Brussels.
The communication on the demographic future of Europe is interesting, because it came up at the NORPEC meeting. Demographics are an issue throughout the European Union. We agreed at the NORPEC meeting to consider the responses to the communication and the conclusions. Does anyone else have anything to say? As no one wishes to speak, I assume that we are happy to move forward.
I ask the committee to hold on to the work programme and to bring it to the next meeting, with the plan D paper that was circulated. I know that members will want to refresh their memory of the plan D paper every couple of nights, so they will be as well to have it with them at all times. To keep reissuing those papers would involve much photocopying and wasted paper, so I ask members to hold on to them, please.
The next item in my report is a brief update from the Executive on a European institute of technology. At the previous meeting, the committee agreed to support efforts to bring to Scotland one of the five centres under the institute's name. The Executive's answer of 2 November to my parliamentary question on the subject was sent to members. I asked the Executive
"whether it would support a bid from one or more Scottish universities to become a base for a European institute of technology and, if so, what support would be forthcoming."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 2 November 2005; S2W-19607.]
I hoped that the Executive would also respond to the committee, because we wrote to it about the subject, as members know.
My first issue with the response to my question is that it does not answer the question that I asked, so I do not know whether the Executive supports a bid from one or more Scottish universities to become a base. I am a bit more concerned that the Executive has not responded to the committee. In fact, I am more than concerned—I am quite annoyed, because the deadline is close. The committee expressed interest and a wish that Scotland be considered for such an initiative, but we have no answer from the Executive. All that we have is what I received, which does not answer the question. I ask for other comments.
I appreciate what the convener says, but I understand that the matter will be determined formally at next year's spring European Council meeting. Agreement on whether a European institute of technology will be established will not be reached until then. It would, however, be courteous of the Executive to respond to the committee when we send letters; therefore, I have no objection to our pursuing that. The Executive should give us timely answers. On the other hand, I recognise from the response to your question that this is a proposal at the moment. It is the Commission's idea, but it has still to be approved at the Council. It will be next spring before a decision is made on it.
Yes, but it is asking for responses from interested parties by 14 November. If the committee or the Executive is making a bid for Scotland to have one of the centres, they will have to do it pretty quickly.
PDQ.
Is it the Commission that is asking for responses by the 14th?
Yes. My first response is to issue a strong letter from the committee to say that we are very disappointed at not getting a substantive answer and to reiterate the question: is the Scottish Executive, through the United Kingdom, making a bid for Scotland to have one of the centres sited here? There is certainly an interest in it outwith the Parliament among the further education colleges and higher education institutions. That is something that we have to be aware of.
The next item on my report is a draft letter, although it does not say draft on it, that has not been sent. It is in response to the consultation paper from the Subordinate Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the regulatory framework in Scotland. The letter holds open the option of a contribution on procedures for secondary legislation and offers to submit the views of the European and External Relations Committee on the implementation of the obligations when the Subordinate Legislation Committee considers the matter.
Are members happy with the response and with the wording of the letter or should we discuss it further?
I notice that we say "past the formal deadline". I do not know when the formal deadline was.
It was the 14th of last month.
The formal deadline has been extended.
I have heard informally that the Subordinate Legislation Committee will have no difficulty in receiving responses now.
In practice, we do not consider legislation from such a detailed policy perspective as the subject committees. Therefore, until we have seen the views of the subject committees, can we make a valid comment on the forms of parliamentary procedure?
I know that the Subordinate Legislation Committee would welcome a submission from us. However, do we feel that we can do that within the timescale, even an extended one? Would whatever was decided have to come back to the committee to be agreed?
Perhaps Alasdair would advise us.
I think that the Subordinate Legislation Committee is looking for a committee view. Of course, given the nature of the inquiry, it is open to individual members to respond as they wish. However, the Subordinate Legislation Committee is primarily looking for a committee view.
We should give a view, but it should be a useful one. We could sit here and ask the clerks to give their view of what the committee view should be in the light of experience. However, until we have actually seen the views of the subject committees that deal day and daily with these matters, it is very difficult to form a proper response. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has undertaken a massive project.
A member of our committee, Gordon Jackson, is the depute convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Unfortunately, he has had to give his apologies today. There is a link there.
If this committee is content to wait until it has seen other committees' responses to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, there would be no difficulty in feeding in a view to it at that point in the inquiry.
That seems a sensible way to proceed.
You express in your letter, convener, that much subordinate legislation implements European obligations. Should we provide information to the Subordinate Legislation Committee on how we discharge what we see as our responsibilities, particularly with regard to the sift of documents—which we have just dealt with—draft legislation, transposition and implementation, or should we take it as read that that committee has information on such things? It might find it useful to know how we work.
I think that that is the idea and that it wants to know where the overlaps are and how we deal with other committees. From what Sylvia Jackson has said, the consultation is extensive and the Subordinate Legislation Committee recognises that deadlines have passed. Perhaps it is overambitious—like Topsy, it has grown; we have talked about the dangers of that—but we should forward a proper submission at the appropriate time, as every committee should, because the issue is important and will affect us all in the future.
Finally, we have received a copy of the UK's written comments on the Commission's latest draft regional aid guidelines. Do members want to say anything about them?
The comments are helpful. I refer to page 30 of the convener's report paper. If I understand correctly, the UK Government is keen for the national average—in other words, the UK average—rather than the EU average to be the baseline with respect to unemployment measures. That would certainly benefit Scotland. A number of points in the paper generally support positions that the committee has taken in the past and it is helpful to have the UK Government's position set out in the light of our on-going watching brief on the matter and with the minister coming to a committee meeting. The position seems to be a little more optimistic than I understood previous positions to be.
That is interesting. Does any other member who has served on the committee for a while think the same?
The response is positive and helpful and I am grateful for it, as we have rigorously pursued the issue for many years. However, much of what is said needs to be fleshed out a wee bit. For example, the response refers to
"a wide degree of discretion".
What does that mean for national mapping? Many vague terms are used, but the content is generally useful and the paper will be a good starting point for us if we consider regional aid a bit more next year.
So there is a generally positive response from members. Good.
Before we proceed to the final agenda item, which will be considered in private, I thank members of the public for attending the meeting. The next meeting will be on 22 November.
Meeting continued in private until 15:43.