European and External Relations Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Official Report 318KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Item 8 is my regular report to the committee. The first item is the reply to our letter to the Executive regarding pensions, with particular relevance to the rule of 85. John Home Robertson asked the committee to follow the matter up. We have had a response, but I do not think that it tells us any more than we could learn from the front page of a fairly decent newspaper. Does John Home Robertson have any comments, having asked for the information?

Thank you for it. It is useful, because we were getting assertions from both sides of the argument. The Executive and Government were saying that, to fulfil European regulations, the rule of 85 had to go, but trade unions had a different interpretation of the law. The response looks pretty conclusive: to comply with European legislation, the rule of 85 must go. However, there are always at least three ways of interpreting any piece of legislation. I hesitate to ask for legal advice from within the committee.

It struck me when I read the response that that has been the Executive's position from the start, but we know that the relevant EU commissioner has denied that it is the case. I wondered whether the UK is unique among member states in having such a rule that could be deemed inequitable. Perhaps we could ask the Executive whether it is aware of a similar issue in any other member state.

Perhaps we could ask the Commission.

Yes. Would everybody be happy with that? We are talking about probing the matter a bit further, because we still do not really know the answer.

Yes, that would be helpful.

The EU would be the right body to ask. If we are going to ask that question, we should ask whether any legitimate aim under article 6 has so far been identified that allows a country to continue to apply its own particular rules. Article 6 gives the possibility of opting out. If some country has used paragraph 1 of article 6 of the directive as a get out, we need to know about it and about the arguments that were deployed. At the moment, we are being told that the rule of 85 would not be consistent with directive 2000/78/EC as far as Scotland is concerned.

So there we are.

When we are in Parliament, we all think that all the equal opportunities legislation and all that is very good and everyone applauds—

Apart from yourself.

Sometimes.

What registers with me is that when such legislation is brought in, it has good points and bad points; it is all swings and roundabouts. When we do something like this, there are sometimes unseen effects. All parliamentarians should be aware of that.

We consider ourselves telt.

The next item is a letter from the Scottish Executive about energy issues. It is very short and says that the Executive will pass its view on the EU's green energy paper to the UK Government. That does not prevent us from asking any further questions. Do members have any comments? Perhaps we have expended enough energy on that subject.

The third item is a letter from Nicol Stephen about the new guidelines for national regional aid for 2007 to 2013. As there are no comments, we will move on.

The fourth item is a letter from the Scottish Executive with details of the legislation lifting the ban on UK beef exports to the rest of the EU. The letter is fairly detailed and I am sure that it is self-explanatory.

Today's good news, Phil?

Yes. I was not going to comment, but as Charlie has provoked me, can it be confirmed that while beef containing vertebral column, or products derived from vertebral column, from cattle born or reared in the UK and slaughtered before 3 May 2006 is still banned, everything after that date is okay?

Are you saying that you would like to continue the ban, Mr Gallie?

No. I am asking for clarification— purely because I was provoked.

You can afford to buy better cuts of meat than that.

Enough.

I will let it go, convener.

The final item was raised by Phil Gallie at our meeting on 25 April. It is about the EU's financial perspectives in 2007 to 2013, the €4 billion increase, and the costs to the UK Government.

The note in the papers was provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre, and I thank it for that.

I add my thanks to SPICe, but I am disappointed that it could not identify how much it is going to cost the UK. I will use other resources to try to identify precisely how much it is going to cost the UK. However, if SPICe comes back with that information in the future, I would be very grateful.

We note from the report that no information on that is currently publicly available. No doubt you will monitor the situation, Mr Gallie.

Perhaps I will ask questions elsewhere.

A few more issues spring to mind. At our previous meeting, Dennis Canavan and Irene Oldfather raised the issue of language. We have not had a response.

Bruce Crawford raised the issue of genetically modified organisms. I am saying that to remind him before he has to admit that he cannot remember it. The clerks are tracking that for us; we do not have a response so far.

It is very kind of you to remind me of my inadequacies, convener.

We note all those issues.

We have to suspend for a few minutes until the witnesses are in place for our next item.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—