Item 1 concerns a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council that establishes a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community.
I wish to make a declaration in respect of the Transport and General Workers Union of which I, too, am a member.
I wish to make a declaration in respect of the GMB, although I have not received financial support from it.
I am a member of the National Union of Journalists.
We now come to the substantive issues. I am sure that the committee is aware that, in June, the employment and social affairs council finally agreed a common position on the proposed directive. That means that the European Parliament has about three months in which to agree to the common position or to propose amendments. When the directive was issued, we were keen to comment on it, but for various reasons we were unable to do so.
My view is that additional time should not be available to the UK, as that would be detrimental to workers in these islands.
There was some speculation that the UK Government might phase in this measure over a period of years, which seems far too prolonged. We should make a firm recommendation for the measure to be implemented at the earliest opportunity.
Dennis Canavan makes a good point. We should put in place mechanisms that will allow us to adopt the proposal that is outlined in the paper. However, we do not want to scupper that important point by imposing a timetable that, in practical terms, we cannot meet. My view is that we should agree the principle and then examine ways of incorporating the measure at the earliest possible opportunity.
Before we agree to do that, I would be keen to examine the differences in the member states. We are conducting an inquiry into the governance and future of the European Union that will consider how different regions may be suited to different methods of implementation. I would like to know whether we have fewer, or more, small businesses than other member states. Countries that have, on average, much larger businesses might be affected differently. Before we recommend adoption of the proposal, I would like to know whether there is a statistical difference. If there is not, we should adopt the proposal in the way suggested by Colin Campbell; but if a difference exists, we should leave adoption of the proposal to our own timetable.
It is obvious that the United Kingdom and Ireland are in a different position from other member states. It may be appropriate for the UK and Ireland to be given additional time to undertake the implementation measures—that seems reasonable—but we do not want it to go on ad infinitum. It would be reasonable to allow a little additional time for member states that do not have procedures in place to deal with the matter.
We will not reach a final decision today, but the view has been expressed that the UK should not have additional time, as that would be inappropriate. Irene Oldfather raised the issue of reasonableness and Ben Wallace asked for further information. I do not know whether we will be able to gather that information for our next meeting, but we will try to do so.
I was interested by the statement in paragraph 22, that
That is a separate issue that we will deal with when we come to the next section.
Although Ben Wallace raised his point under this section, it refers more closely to the previous section. Paragraph 9 deals with the threshold for implementation of the directive. That is the key to answering his question about the size of companies. The proposed threshold, which is a compromise between the position held by the Federation of Small Businesses and that held by the trade unions, is the best way in which to make progress. The question that Ben raised would be better dealt with by considering the proposed threshold than by considering the date of implementation.
We will get as much information as possible on that point.
In respect of the previous declarations of interest, perhaps I should declare that I am a member of Unison and of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I am not sure whether the EIS has submitted firm views on the proposal, but I know that Unison has. I do not always agree with Unison's views, but in this instance I strongly support the views expressed by both Unison and the T&G Scotland. For example, I imagine that most employers in my constituency employ 50 or fewer employees and that there is a similar picture in most other constituencies or regions. It would be unthinkable for the employees of such small and medium companies to be excluded from the terms of the directive. In the same way, I do not understand why seafarers should be excluded from the protection that the directive would offer. I also agree strongly with the technical points made by Unison. I hope that we will take those comments on board in our final report.
I agree with much of what Dennis Canavan said and, in particular, with his comments on seafarers and the threshold. Quite simply, with the exception of cruise ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which are subject to different legal structures as far as employment law is concerned, one would be hard pushed to find any employer in the British merchant navy that has 50 employees in the same work area. I believe that the threshold is defined for a ship as one that has a crew of 50. Except for the cruise sector, that is no longer the reality in the commercial world.
As there are no further comments, I will move on to the question in paragraph 24, which is on the means of implementation:
I support the view that we should try to take account of the United Kingdom's particular national culture and practices in connection with labour relations. If we can do that, it will help to develop improvements in this country.
Paragraph 25 is entitled "Access to confidential information". Do members of the committee have any comments or thoughts about that?
It is very important that we examine the whole concept of non-disclosure, especially in light of the position in the United Kingdom. The Data Protection Act 1998 is interpreted considerably more liberally than are provisions in other jurisdictions.
I agree with Lloyd Quinan. Both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have made a commitment to the freedom of information. There should always be a tendency to provide information rather than to withhold it. If information is to be withheld, the reasons for that action should be scrutinised. Reasons should also be given to justify such a practice. I am very much in favour of maximising the flow of information on such an important matter.
I understand the aim of such a provision, but when legislating we will have to define the information carefully. What people can or cannot ask should be clearly noted. In cases of rumour or speculation, when questions are not answered, people perceive that there is a conspiracy. We must be careful not to blanket the word "information" and to see that the United Kingdom makes an effort to define exactly what information can and cannot be asked for.
I worry about the lack of a definition of confidentiality. Business and administrative confidentiality have often become substitutes for the Official Secrets Acts in respect of people receiving the sort of information to which they ought to be entitled. The definition must be precise.
The paper sets out that the unions are concerned about
Does any member of the committee have any comments to make about paragraphs 26 and 27?
I am sure that the general feeling is yes, we support the recommendations. I certainly do.
Is that the position of the Scottish Trades Union Congress?
Yes.
I support that.
It is important to recognise that employment legislation is not a devolved matter and that much of it will fall within the remit of Westminster. It is important to ensure that we tie in with Westminster's legal limitations.
When we compile the final report, it will be helpful if we concentrate on issues for which the Executive has responsibility and on which it can comment.
It is important for us to play a role in the promotion of good employment practice.
In as much as we are submitting to a legislature that recognises us in only a second-hand manner, it is within the competence of Parliament and the committee to make recommendations without reference to the settlement under the Scotland Act 1998, but on the basis of the representation of workers and employers in this country. It is our responsibility not to stay within the bounds of the Scotland Act 1998 on each and every matter.
The point we are making is that when the Executive can act, it should. We can finalise that aspect at a later stage.
I wish to clarify paragraph 27. Is the Scottish Trades Union Congress referring to the companies funded by the Scottish Executive or is it saying that it wants its representatives to be trained and that all companies should receive funding from the Executive to help with the understanding and implementation of the proposal?
The STUC submission refers to two points. The first is the possibility of asking the Executive to provide funds for training. Secondly, it asks that the companies that receive funding from the Executive through a variety of different programmes, not all companies in Scotland, be covered.
You are not referring to all companies?
That was not a point raised by the STUC in its submission. It made two specific points.
Yes, but even in the case of companies that do not receive industrial assistance from the Scottish Executive, it is still the STUC executive's proposal that resources be offered to all companies and workers for training purposes in respect of the new EU rights.
Yes, I think that that is the point the STUC is making.
So the STUC is referring to all companies, not to Executive-funded companies only.
Perhaps I can clarify the two points, the first of which is that the STUC is asking for funds to be made available for all companies for training in such matters. The second point it makes is that companies that receive some funding from the Executive or its agencies would be encouraged to develop good practice, disseminate such information and so on.
We will come back to that matter. Do members have any further thoughts or comments?
I refer to paragraph 28, entitled "Action for the Committee". I am not 100 per cent happy about the final draft of the report being completed without there being further discussion by the committee. Instructing the clerk to prepare the draft puts a great onus on him. I am not entirely sure that it would be technically correct to call the paper a report of the committee if the committee had not given it formal approval.
As I said at the beginning of our proceedings, we shall take on board the comments that we have heard this afternoon. A final draft will be prepared and it will be returned to the committee for discussion and decision.
Members indicated agreement.