European Committee, 11 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

I have several items to report on today. I mentioned earlier, in relation to the network of regional parliamentary European committees, that we have now submitted our joint report with Catalonia and Flanders. We will circulate that report to members of the committee. We agreed it very late in the day, but we submitted it in advance of the meeting of the future of Europe convention on Friday. That is another welcome development. The paper covers many of the points that we made in our submission in relation to the future of Europe. I just wanted to update the committee on that.

Item 1 on the convener's report is the paper on external relations. I suggest that members thank the clerk and the external liaison unit for this update and note the contents.

There is no mention of any outgoing delegations in the paper. Does that mean that none took place in December and January? I wonder whether the clerk can clarify whether there were any outgoing delegations that would not appear in the report. For example, the Parliamentary Bureau or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body might make decisions on outgoing delegations from the Parliament.

It is my understanding that outgoing delegations would be included in the paper. Perhaps Stephen Imrie can clarify that.

I am unaware of any outgoing delegations that were organised in December or January at Scottish Parliament institutional level, but which are not on the list. As I understand it, the list of activities is complete.

So, if the bureau or the SPCB decided to send a delegation of MSPs to some other country, that would appear in the report.

That is my understanding.

Is the external liaison unit involved in all such delegations?

Yes.

If it was a formal Scottish Parliament delegation, perhaps made up of the Presiding Officer, a Deputy Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament, it would appear on the list. If it was something that a member had done off his or her own bat, or which a couple of members had done together, it would not be a formal Scottish Parliament activity. However, I will seek confirmation for Dennis Canavan.

I attended the meeting with the Sri Lankan monks who came over here to look at devolution in the light of the fact that the war with the Tamils—which was very messy—is coming to an end after 20 years. They had been to Westminster and Northern Ireland, and they came to lunch with us. As we left, one of the Foreign Office minders told us that it was absolutely amazing that, after three days here, the monks had shifted from being hard-line Sri Lankans who did not talk to anyone, to talking about going home to talk to the Tamils. Sometimes one wonders about the value of such things, but now and again we get a little hint that we can, by osmosis and calm common sense, make progress.

Thank you. It is uplifting that we are having a positive influence on world events.

The electorate might not believe it, but we do have such an influence.

Item 2 is on the conference that was organised by the Greek presidency. The information came to us late, but I suggest that we task Stephen Imrie with keeping us abreast of any developments at the conference and with accessing any papers that might be of value to our inquiry. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

On the praesidium paper, I have already mentioned that we have made a submission, but we have tabled the draft of Giscard d'Estaing's paper for members' information. I suggest that we note that paper, and that we also note that we have received a response from the Executive on our report on the future of Europe. We can collate all that information and discuss it at the next meeting, if that is agreed, along with the outcome of the draft constitution that has been circulated to us.

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, we should welcome the Commission's communication on tripartite contracts and note the move towards the use of tripartite agreements for the implementation of EC obligations. That was one of our recommendations in our future of Europe report, and it is encouraging to see that things are moving forward on that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

May I ask a brief question? I have had a lot of communication from people who are concerned about the directive on food supplements, with which Helen Eadie is dealing. The last communication I received seemed to refer to having written to you, convener, to ask whether it would be possible to submit evidence. Is that correct?

I am not sure. All communication to the convener tends to go to the clerks first. I think that we have had a few submissions on giving evidence on the matter. As far as I know, we are happy for that to happen, and to pass the evidence to Helen Eadie as part of the inquiry.

I will clarify the situation for the member. The convener has received a number of submissions from organisations, such as Holland & Barrett Ltd, and they are being copied to Helen Eadie. I would be happy to copy them more widely. I do not think that there is any difficulty with that.

On Lloyd Quinan's question, the convener has not been written to; I was the recipient of the letter from a petitioner. He stated that he expected that he would be able to give evidence on his petition. I wrote to the petitioner—Mr Douglas Robison—to say that it is a decision for the convener and the committee as to who gives evidence to the committee. I said that although a limited number of meetings are available, I would raise the matter with the convener and the committee to determine what is possible. As I said, I was the recipient of the letter, and I have sent a holding response to the petitioner.

I accept entirely that we have a limited number of meetings left, but Helen Eadie and I attended a meeting in the city chambers. Primarily, the discussion was about what can be done between now and the final implementation date of 2009. If we cannot have a formal meeting, would it be possible for the convener to meet the petitioner? The people who are involved are very clued up about the issue, which is fairly unusual, and they do not have a massively negative attitude to Europe. Such a meeting would go a long way to allaying some of their fears and concerns.

The convener might be able to act as the bridge to the next Parliament's dealing with the matter. If we cannot fit the issue into our work programme, would it be possible for the convener to fit into her diary an informal meeting, which Helen Eadie and other interested members could attend? It would be partly a public relations exercise, but the issue is going to rumble on and I think it would be worth while.

The committee is certainly keen to put something together about the issue and to ensure that people have a voice through the committee. I have delegated the work to Helen Eadie and Lloyd Quinan with a view to your coming back to the committee. There might be scope for further involvement but time is getting very tight, as you have said.

I am happy to take guidance from colleagues. I have had some meetings with the petitioners, but advice would be helpful to me because I am happy to meet anyone else. Perhaps the clerks and members of the committee can advise me.

I agree that the issue is very emotive. People wake up in the morning and the first thing they think about is how they feel, not about medicine or transport. People are trying to do something positive to improve and take control of, and responsibility for, their health. People want to try and understand the scope for derogations. That was mentioned at the meeting that was held last week.

I will flag up just one issue—selenium. I read a book about it some years ago and, from my memory of the book, there are only a few areas of the world where selenium is found as a trace mineral in the earth. However, it is an important dietary supplement that guards against the free radicals that can cause damage to our bodies. We must decide whether it could be the subject of a derogation. I do not know the answer, so I seek advice from those who do.

We also need to ask the petitioners what other minerals and supplements are being excluded that are not commonly or naturally available.

There are major issues for people with Alzheimer's, autism, Asperger's syndrome, hyperactivity attention deficit disorder and other disorders for which it has been discovered that the application of the vitamin B complex and vitamins E and D might help. All those supplements are on the list.

Many of the submissions that we have received have come from what appear to be UK manufacturers or retailers. However, at the meeting that Helen Eadie and I attended were individuals who were concerned about the potential detrimental effects to their health and about people's ability to treat particular conditions that standard medicine is not close to treating. We should be involved in the issue. The public relations benefit to the committee would be useful, even if we just had an informal meeting with the petitioner.

I am happy to do that. I understand that Helen Eadie will bring the draft report to the next committee meeting, which is in three weeks. We will try to set up a meeting with the petitioner some time during the next three weeks.

In some ways it is probably more important that the petitioners meet the clerks in order to maintain continuity.

That is agreed.