European Committee, 10 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 10, 2002

Official Report 249KB pdf

---

Executive Briefings (Scrutiny)

We move to pre-Council and post-Council scrutiny. I am pleased that we continue to make progress on scrutiny. I understand that supplementary information has been made available today from the Executive's environment and rural affairs department, which we intend to circulate as we speak.

From comments that the clerks make throughout the briefing paper, members will learn about difficulties with the availability of information on agenda items as a result of a view that the Danish presidency has expressed. I was rather surprised about that and we must ask the clerks to seek further clarification on it. We have always thought that Danish presidencies were open and transparent on governance matters. The situation is a little disappointing. There is a difficulty in relation to the ECOFIN Council on 12 July that we could ask the clerks to investigate.

We will shortly ask Jim Wallace about the discrepancy between what our clerks have been told and what the Danes made available.

Jim Wallace might be able to throw some light on that at 3 o'clock.

It is a couple of months since the Council meetings were held, so it is pretty unhelpful that we have still not received anything.

The situation is also disappointing in comparison with what happened under the previous presidency, when it was made clear whether a minister intended or probably intended to attend. The information has gone back a step, rather than forward.

We must consider the matter in the light of the feeling about the European Union in Denmark at the moment. The EU is a daily political story and a problem for the current Government, which is a different form of Government from what we have known from Denmark in the past few years.

We should not forget the referendum result from Denmark. Denmark is not as committed to the European Union as it has been. I suggest that the principal reason why the Danish Government chooses not to have agendas issued is to prevent political problems back home.

We need to explore the matter.

The context in which we consider the matter must be that of having a Government in the presidency that is not pro-European Union. Perhaps that provides a lesson for us to learn.

Let us see.

We will move on to the agriculture and fisheries council on 15 and 16 July.

It is not entirely clear whether Ross Finnie was present at that council. I assume that he was.

He issued a press release. Perhaps the clerks have further information.

The committee will recall that it made a request for prior notification, or prior notification of intent, that a minister might attend a Council meeting. It is unfortunate that, in our correspondence with the Executive, our request for that type of information was declined. After a Council meeting, information should say whether a minister attended, but whether the committee will be informed of that in advance of a Council meeting remains a sticking point.

We have acknowledged the difficulty that the Executive described to us of delegations changing at the last minute. However, I see no reason why, after meetings, we should not be told who attended, as I assume that that is a matter of public record anyway. We should pursue that issue. I am sure that we all agree with the clerks' recommendation that information should be delivered more rapidly.

I am not too impressed by the Executive's reasoning that delegations change at the last minute. Of course I accept that there can be perfectly valid reasons why delegations might change, but why should that happen when the agenda is strongly in a particular direction? Take the example of the first round of the common fisheries policy negotiations that took place in July. One would have expected that, among the thousands of papers, the Executive would have highlighted that meeting as an important one that the minister planned to attend.

If a Council meeting is to discuss some draft directive on consumer protection—about putting a gadget on the back of washing machines and that type of thing—I would not expect the Executive to know in advance who will be in the delegation. Obviously, something more important could come up. However, it sounds like a Sir Humphrey excuse when the Executive says, "Things change at the last minute," and "What are we to know?" When we are then given papers after the meeting that do not report who attended, that makes me think that the Executive is just giving an excuse rather than a reason.

Members will recall that the reason that the Executive gave for not being able to say who would attend such meetings was that things in the chamber change from day to day and from week to week. For example, although the common fisheries policy might be on the agenda for the meeting of agriculture ministers, something might happen back here that required Ross Finnie to be present in the chamber.

However, it is worth pursuing the issue a bit further. I suggest that the clerks meet officials to see whether we cannot work things a bit better. There is no reason why we cannot be provided with information after the meeting. The fact is that such information has not been provided. When we clarify the Executive's position in relation to the Danish presidency, we can ask for such information to be reported to us. We will also mention the need for more rapid delivery of information.

I have a point arising from some questions that I asked over the recess. The Executive does not seem to be helpful or forthcoming in providing information in response to the committee's attempts to carry out scrutiny, especially scrutiny of technical matters, such as the attendance of Scottish ministers at the Council and responses to UK Cabinet memorandums. However, scrutiny of draft directives is the primary role of the committee.

Sometimes the Executive seems to lack the staff to provide the information that we request. Whenever I ask a technical question, the Executive seems either not to know the answer or to have decided that it does not want us to look at the issue. However, the Executive is answerable to us; what we look at is not for it to decide. Although some directives may not look like much, some of them are important.

For example, during the recess I asked how many times the Executive had commented on memorandums of understanding. Such comments on draft proposals must be made within 10 days. The answer that I got back was:

"This information is not held centrally." [Official Report, Written Answers, 3 September 2002; p 1467.]

Surely there must be an effective system by which we can know which directives—or even the number of directives—the Scottish Executive has commented on. The reply that such information "is not held centrally" is the sort of thing that I have to deal with for health statistics. I do not expect to have to put up with it for European matters.

We have highlighted today the problems posed in relation to agriculture and fisheries. We have an example in the brief that has been provided of how the Executive's system of reporting to us is falling short. Although the brief was produced after the Council meeting, it does not make clear who attended it. We could pursue that with Ross Finnie when he gives evidence to us in October. It is helpful to pin things down using concrete examples.

Let me give another example. Westminster is consulting Whitehall about the process of scrutinising European legislation. When I asked whether the Scottish Executive had made any response to the recommendations, the Executive said, "It's not a matter for us." On that review about how senior civil servants respond to European legislation, the Executive simply said, "It's nothing to do with us."

We have an agreement with the Executive on how we take forward the committee's scrutiny. If we are not happy with the way in which information is delivered to us and with the sorts of information that we get, we can go back and pursue the matter.

On Ben Wallace's point, it strikes me that the Executive is to some extent protected by the civil servants. That is partly because other parties—certainly the party of which I am a member—tend to exploit any information for political ends. That does not help us as committee members. I have suggested before that we develop a practice that allows the technical questions raised by Ben, or by any of the rest of us, to be asked as committee questions.

Our responsibility for scrutiny is to the committee and not necessarily to ourselves as individual members. Perhaps if we had a system whereby the questions were in the name of the convener or the deputy convener, or there was a simple concept of committee questions, there might not be the same sensitivity about providing information that is then used as a stick with which to beat the ministers. That pathetic use of information is preventing us from properly carrying out the level of scrutiny that we require.

We certainly said that we would monitor the situation. If difficulties are arising, it is incumbent upon us to deal with them.

Much information requested in the paper is about events that happened a couple of months ago. It is disappointing that we still do not have any of it in front of us.

Annexe A shows that we have not asked for information about every single council meeting that is happening in Europe. There are a lot of issues not on our list, such as telecoms, transport, health, and the environment. Of the meetings that we have asked for information on, we have had very few responses. The responses that we have got back have been very useful and informative.

The post-Council reports are particularly useful in giving a sense of the issues that were discussed, such as education, agriculture and fisheries. However, for the other issues the situation is totally frustrating, because we have no indication of whether we will get information, whether the information has not been prepared yet or whether it is just that nothing has come back. That is not what we want. We are already being selective, so to get no response to quite a few of our requests is totally unhelpful.

We all agree that there are deficiencies in the system and that we need to try and get them sorted out. In the first instance, we will ask the clerks to draft a letter expressing our discontent with the way that things are developing.

We said that we would monitor the situation and we made it clear to the Executive that we welcomed the first steps but thought that the process might need adjustment as we went along. However, this is information that we asked for at the very beginning. It is not being provided so we have clear grounds for complaint.

Representations are being made, but I am concerned that we are not seeing anything to do with the general agreement on trades and services. Certain deadlines have now passed with regard to that information. In the grand scheme of things, it is down to our UK colleagues to negotiate through EU representatives, but because the issue impacts on health, education and other sectors, we should have feedback on what is being agreed. If that general liberal approach is going to mean that crucial services will be affected, I believe that I have a duty on behalf of my constituents and the Parliament to ask what is happening.

I know that the issue has been addressed at the Health and Community Care Committee and elsewhere. I would like some feedback from the Executive.

We can incorporate that into the letter.

We will go through the information that we have. We are generally agreed on the points that we have to make in relation to agriculture.

On the budget council on 19 July, there is a difficulty with the timetabling and the Danish presidency. We note the general affairs council on 22 to 23 July.

We have the agenda for the agriculture and fisheries council on 23 and 24 September. If possible, we were seeking further information. That is the information that has just been circulated to us, so members will not have had an opportunity to read that yet. Again, the information has come to us late in the day.

That is an example of the issue about ministerial attendance. Point 9 on the agenda of the agriculture and fisheries council meeting of 23 and 24 September is the transport of live animals. That is the issue that Maureen Macmillan raised and we should know whether Ross Finnie or the UK minister is going to go and argue the point on behalf of the Highlands and Islands. The situation may change and the item may drop off the agenda, but it is unlikely. It is an important issue that has been raised by the European Committee and pursued by a member with constituency interests. The Executive should do us the courtesy of letting us know whether it intends to attend the meeting.

The summary that has just been circulated suggests that the Executive will not attend. It says:

"The Executive is working closely with Whitehall to ensure an acceptable result for Scotland."

That is unclear, but seems to suggest that a Scottish Executive minister will not be present.

I completely missed the commentary on the general affairs council.

I will come back to that in a moment. Let us finish the point about live animals.

The information has come out very late in the day and we will not have another committee meeting before the Council meeting.

There will be a CFP debate, a common agricultural policy midterm review and a debate on the transport of live animals. That sounds pretty important for Scottish agriculture, rural development and fishing. If the Minister for Environment and Rural Development is not going to the meeting, perhaps his deputy might be.

We could write to the Executive and seek clarification on those points. It is timely that Ross Finnie is coming to speak to the committee in October. That will be an opportunity for us to raise our concerns in relation to such matters and to question him about what happened at the fisheries council on 23 and 24 September. The information that we have about the agenda items has come in so late that it does not give us an opportunity to discuss the issues. Before we go back to Lloyd Quinan and the general affairs and external relations council, do members agree to the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I find it surprising that the agenda contains a follow-up to the European Council in Seville and discussions on terrorism, the EU's priorities in conflict prevention and the middle east, yet the Executive can comment:

"As will be the case for most of these meetings there is very little of devolved interest to be discussed in the meeting. In this case there is nothing which impacts on our devolved responsibilities, for this reason the Executive has not annotated the agenda item by item."

We live under the aegis of Scots law and any time that the European Union discusses anything that has a legal basis in criminal or civil law it has a clear impact on Scotland, because we have a legal system that is separate from any other in the EU. Given events in Spain in the past few months, it strikes me that I would like to know what was discussed under item 7. In fact, I know what was discussed, but the committee should be told. If the civil servants working for the minister genuinely believe that things that alter or have an on-going effect on our legal system are not of importance, the Scottish Executive should think about employing someone new.

Enlargement and the European Council in Seville are matters that have a clear devolved content. We might disagree on some of the other points, but there are issues that would be of interest. The Danish presidency is also on the agenda and that is one of the things that we could pick up with the minister.

My key point is that we live in a separate legal framework that is recognised by the EU and right across the world. Why is that not recognised by our civil servants?

It is perhaps fortunate that the Minister for Justice is also the minister responsible for Europe and that he is coming to the committee today. Perhaps you could pursue the matter with him.

I will need my lucky white heather.

That takes us on to the internal market council. We have the timetabling problem again in relation to that. We asked the clerks to take that on board. There is a similar issue in relation to the research council and the general affairs and external relations council meetings of 30 September. The subject for discussion at the ministerial group for European co-ordination—MINECOR—meeting on 10 October will be Europe, the euro and the future. Members will recall that we have produced a report on that matter. The clerks recommend that we draw the report to the attention of the members who will attend MINECOR. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

There is some useful post-event information, such as that on the education and youth council. The Minister for Education and Young People was the first minister to co-operate with us in pre and post-Council scrutiny. Although it is a bit late, it is useful to have the report of the education and youth council of 30 May. The report was received on 23 July, when we were in recess. Is it agreed to commend the education department for its efforts and to note the contents of the report?

Members indicated agreement.

Unfortunately, because of the recess, the post-event report on the agriculture and fisheries council is more out of date than we would expect with scrutiny documents. Do members agree to note the contents?

Members indicated agreement.

We have no information yet on the economic and financial affairs council or on the general affairs council of 22 and 23 July. We have already had a constructive discussion of how we feel about not receiving such information. Is it agreed to draw the matter to the Executive's attention?

Members indicated agreement.