European and External Relations Committee, 09 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Item 6 is the convener's report. Five brief items need to be brought to the committee's attention. I hope that members have read the papers.

The first issue concerns proposals to develop an early warning system to ensure that Europe adheres to the principle of subsidiarity. The system has been proposed in the debate on the constitution, which will be discussed at the IGC—we touched on that earlier. The early warning system would comprise a built-in mechanism whereby national Parliaments throughout Europe would have the opportunity to object to EU proposals on the ground of subsidiarity.

We have received a letter from Jimmy Hood, who is the chair of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster. That committee had to consider the issue, as it applies only to member state national Parliaments, but it is keen for sub-national legislatures such as the Scottish Parliament to have a say. Members will see from the paper that the Westminster committee has proposed automatically to rescind clearance of EU legislation if the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales objected to any piece of legislation within six weeks.

The Westminster committee's proposal is helpful. I suggest that we should welcome the committee's input and agree with what it says. However, we will probably have to return to the matter to consider how the Scottish Parliament's internal procedures work. For example, under what circumstances would the European and External Relations Committee have the authority to object to legislation, as it is clear that there will also be a role for other parliamentary committees? We would need to address that matter at some point in the future, although it is not up for discussion at the moment.

Obviously, our reply should be positive, as the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee sounds positive about involving us in the process—we should welcome that. I agree that nuts and bolts need to be worked out.

Do we have any idea about how much work is involved? A lot needs to be done up here in a six-week period. The Parliament, subject committees or local authorities might need to be involved. Therefore, the nuts and bolts that the clerk is going to consider of how the procedures will operate and how we will liaise with Westminster must be worked out, although I accept that that matter is not for discussion today. However, what it was in the back of my mind to ask was, how often does what we are discussing happen? Do we expect it to happen once a year, once every four years, once every 20 years or once every 10 minutes? The frequency would make a huge difference. Is it likely to be common or just a rarity? The answer will affect how we set up systems in the Parliament. We may not know the answer, but I wonder whether the clerks or anyone else can give me an idea. I have no idea whether this will happen regularly or once in a blue moon.

I do not have an answer to your question, Gordon. As ever, it was a nice, easy one. I do not know how we can answer it in the foreseeable future. The first question that we must all consider is whether this proposal will stay within the IGC and become part of the new constitution. That will perhaps be our first obstacle. In the meantime, I expect that the committee will want to support the proposal, as will the Scottish Executive and everyone else who has been campaigning for a role and input for sub-national Parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament. We will have to return to consideration of the best mechanism to use within the Scottish Parliament and consideration of our relationship with Westminster.

Are there any other comments, or shall we just agree with the recommendations in the paper?

The paper gives a helpful outline of the key issues. Tough decisions lie ahead, but you are right to say that this is not the time to make those decisions. We must wait until further progress is made in the IGC. I have a few comments about some of the suggestions for how we should proceed. There may be better ways, but I do not think that it will be useful to discuss them today. We should just agree to the paper in principle and thank the clerks for the effort that they have put into it.

Are we happy to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Members should forward any comments or thoughts to the clerks. At some point, we will receive a paper on this issue.

The next item in the convener's report is the membership of the Scottish euro preparations committee. I have had an exchange of correspondence on this issue with the Scottish Executive. That committee met for the first time on 2 September. I asked whether there were any plans to invite a representative from this committee or the Parliament on to that committee. The answer is, in effect, that there are no such plans. Many of us may regard that as disappointing, but the Executive has offered to pass information to us to keep us up to date with the deliberations of the Scottish euro preparations committee. I propose that we welcome that as a step forward.

In welcoming it, can we ask for an immediate update on that committee? I would like to know the costs to date and the costs that are expected in future. Is there some kind of budget for the committee, given that there is, as yet, no distinct policy on joining the euro?

I think that we would all be happy to ask for that.

The paper says that the committee might report back to us regularly. What are we talking about—quarterly?

No time scale is indicated. I would be keen to find an answer to your question.

We need a clear basis for reports.

Perhaps it could report after each of its meetings.

It would be helpful, when there is an exchange of correspondence with ministers, if copies were sent to all committee members. I note that the original letter was sent on 20 June. If we all received copies, it would be helpful information for us and we could all lobby in a collective committee effort.

Point taken. As no members have further points to make, I take it that we are happy to proceed as outlined in the paper.

The next item in the paper is the potential impact of the EU's draft hallmarking directive. The issue has been raised in the committee before. It has also been the subject of correspondence to the committee from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which wished to bring its concerns to our attention. The programme that was issued by the Italian presidency of the EU suggests that this issue is back on the agenda in Europe. That is causing concern throughout the jewellery industry in Scotland and among business organisations such as the SCDI. Should current proposals go through, it may be that there will be no independent assessment of jewellery. Members of the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, of all parties, have expressed their concerns publicly. How do we want to handle the issue, bearing in mind its implications for one of Scotland's industries?

It would be helpful to get clarification of the facts. You said that colleagues in the European Parliament and the SCDI have expressed opinions, but what exactly does the draft directive say? Does it threaten the assay system in the United Kingdom and specifically in Scotland? If it does, we should examine it, but if it does not, what is the point in dragging up people's concerns?

Many people have expressed concerns to the committee and we want to say whether the draft directive poses a threat to Scotland. Perhaps we could ask the Executive.

Do we have a copy of the document that we are talking about?

I do not have a copy just now. The document has not been forwarded to members as yet.

I clarify for members that the draft proposal has been around since 1993. We cannot download a copy from the European Commission website or any of the Europa websites. I presume that there are copies, perhaps for civil service working groups or groups of national civil servants taking part in discussions, but I do not have a copy. I have a copy of the letter from the SCDI, which is attached to the committee papers. We also have a number of more private letters that were sent to us by people such as Elspeth Attwooll expressing their views on the draft proposal as it stands.

Elspeth Attwool is a Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament.

I have a note from Bill Miller, who is also a member of the European Parliament. He says:

"The proposed Directive leaves each Member State to choose from amongst three certification procedures, of which the British hallmark is one. Therefore, the British hallmarking tradition is not being threatened.

Quality control will continue to be carried out exclusively by national authorities."

We need facts. If there is a problem, by all means let us address it, but if there is not a problem, we should not stoke up the matter unnecessarily.

Given that politicians from all the parties at Westminster and in Europe are voicing concern, I recommend that we send the Executive a letter to find out whether it is aware of issues of concern.

I have made a few inquiries. I tried but failed to get information on the draft proposal. There is real concern among assay officers and jewellers that there could well be a threat. MEPs appear to acknowledge that there is a problem and it is well worth investigating at an early date. We have already experienced problems arising from the food supplements directive, which became a fait accompli. Once we have seen the proposal in the proposals for the Italian presidency, we should challenge it right from the start.

We certainly have to do something about the proposal. It is causing concerns to constituents. Jewellers from Alloa, Stirling and Perth have written to me on the issue and I am certainly keen to find out what is going on. The convener's report says that the proposed directive is as yet unpublished. Is that why we cannot download it?

It is unpublished in that I cannot get a copy from the normal sources.

It is right that we do what is recommended and write to the Executive seeking its views. The issue is important.

We have to be careful. There is a big difference between people voicing concerns and each voice saying exactly the same thing. It is patently obvious that the two members of the European Parliament who have been mentioned today are not saying the same thing. I am not accusing them of confusion, but I cannot lend my support to a proposal when I do not know what I am voting for. We need more clarity and information and I am sure that the clerks will be able to provide it. I am sure that the irate MEPs will also be able to do that. I am certainly confused and, like Keith Raffan, I cannot bring myself to support the proposal as it stands.

Is there a form of words that could cover our backs in that it would not sign us up to something we do not know about? Perhaps we could say—based on the convener's report—that we agree that this is potentially an issue of great concern and write to the Executive to seek its views and ask what efforts it is making along with the UK Government to ensure that no directive that is harmful to the interests of the jewellery trade in Scotland is brought forward. We would be asking the Executive to give us a promise that it is not doing anything harmful and to tell us what it is doing, rather than asking for an undertaking that no directive will be made. We would get information back on that, and we would have covered our back by saying, "Make sure nothing harmful happens," but would not have tied ourselves to a directive that none of us has seen.

I am sympathetic to that viewpoint.

I am a little bit concerned about the language of the recommendation that we agree

"that this is potentially an issue of great concern".

The tabloid press loves to pick up such comments and run with them. Enough Euromyths are already circulating—about straight bananas, for example—without our adding to them.

It is important to be alert to such matters and to seek the correct information, but we should not jump in where angels fear to tread. We know that the directive is as yet unpublished. My understanding is that it is not yet out of the Council working group—it is still early days. We should not say that it is an issue of great concern and stir things up when we do not know what the terms of the directive will be.

It is important for us to be alert to the directive and to keep an eye on it, but I am not happy with the wording of the recommendation.

I will draw the discussion to a close. We will take out "great" and follow Gordon Jackson's suggestion but say "this is potentially an issue of concern". We will explore the issue with the Executive to find out whether it is aware of it.

It is a suggestion. It does not tie us down.

We might wish to wait until we have heard back from the Executive before we discuss appointing a reporter, which is always an option. In the meantime, we will get more information on the directive.

I did not pick up all Irene Oldfather's comments. I apologise for that. The fact is that there is a proposal in the Italian presidency's statement of intent. We know that the jewellery industry has grave concerns. I am happy that we try to find out what the proposal is. We should leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have early notification of what is included in the Italian presidency's proposal.

Are we happy to write on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item in the convener's report was raised at the European members information liaison exchange—EMILE—network which is the body that MEPs, local authorities, ministers and the committee can attend to discuss common agendas. At the most recent meeting, one Labour member of the European Parliament raised the potential concern—I will not use the word "great"—about the European Commission's internal market strategy and its impact on the ownership of Scotland's water sector. There is talk in the European Commission of seeking to modernise the water industries in Europe and consider a greater input for private investment. Some people are concerned that the matter be brought to the committee's attention. If there are no comments, are members happy to agree the recommendation, which is to write to find out whether the Executive has any concerns about the matter?

Members indicated agreement.

That was smooth. The final item in the convener's report is the implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and the reuse of printer cartridges. The matter should be brought to the committee's attention because the UK authorities are soon to implement a directive. In a private exchange that I had with the minister—it was not in my role as the convener, but I nonetheless wanted to make the committee aware of it—I received a reply from the Executive indicating that it had not decided whether this major directive would be implemented in a Scottish context or a UK context. The Executive is still busy trying to work that out. I thought that it was an interesting issue to bring to the committee's attention, as the Executive has not decided whether the directive is relevant specifically to Scotland or whether it should be implemented in a different way in Scotland.

The side issue of the reuse of printer cartridges was brought to my attention by some organisations in the printer-recycling sector—the small shops in our high streets that recycle printer cartridges. They are concerned that if printer cartridges are not deemed to be waste, they will not have to be recycled. The bigger manufacturers would prefer the cartridges not to be deemed waste, as they do not like having to recycle them. However, that would put the smaller shops out of business. That is a potted background. Do members have any comments?

You wrote to the minister asking for more information on whether the directive should be approached through Scottish regulations or UK regulations. In his letter to you, the minister replied that the Executive will make a decision and publish proposals on that later in the year. Could we not just wait for that and ask the Executive to let us have copies of its proposals when they are produced?

Is there any scope for the committee to look into the way in which the Executive arrives at such decisions? That is something that we have discussed in the past in the context of such issues.

The Executive will suggest that we do as Keith Raffan has suggested anyway. However, there might be something to be said for asking for an answer to be given to the committee, rather than simply having an answer given to Richard Lochhead as an individual member. We will get the same answer. All that we have had so far is an answer that was given to the convener in a previous capacity.

We could also ask how the Executive has reached a decision on whatever proposal it makes.

Putting the matter on the committee's agenda might not be a bad thing. I have no objection to the convener writing to the Executive about it.

Is the committee content with that?

Members indicated agreement.