European Committee, 16 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Official Report 141KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

The next item on the agenda is the convener's report. The first issue is objective 3 European structural funds. Members will be aware that there is considerable concern in the voluntary sector about the application of objective 3 funds and that we have raised that issue with the Scottish Executive. The Executive's response addresses some of our concerns, which is to be welcomed, but leaves some issues unanswered.

The clerk has prepared a draft report on objective 3 funding, which has been circulated. I suggest that we discuss the report at the next meeting, as that would allow members to consider it in detail and to take soundings from organisations in their areas. If there is anything that members want to address at that meeting, they should let the clerk know as soon as possible. Are we content to leave this matter until the next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

We have circulated a letter from Angus MacKay, the Minister for Finance and Local Government, on the first round of awards in the objective 3 programme, and a letter from Peter Peacock, on the Highlands and Islands special transition programme. Does anybody wish to raise anything? Shall we note the contents?

Members indicated agreement.

We have also circulated a letter from the European Commissioner for the Internal Market regarding our representations on the changes to the postal service directive. I am pleased to report the outcome of our lobbying, and the changes that the Commission is proposing. MEPs have also taken up some of the issues that we raised and, in December, they defeated the Commission's proposal.

However, I am advised that the issue may run for some time during the Swedish presidency; we should be on our guard that the Swedish view, which potentially is for greater market liberalisation, is not pushed through in the six months of that presidency to the disadvantage of the postal service in Scotland. Our concern is that, although we have a concentrated urban population, many remote parts of Scotland rely heavily on the postal service and might be significantly disadvantaged if liberalisation goes too far. Do we agree to continue to monitor the situation and to ask the clerk to bring the matter back to us if any issues are identified?

Convener, your recommendation in document EU/01/01/1 is:

"We note these developments and thank the Commissioner for the time taken to respond to our letter."

Is that your intended reply to the commissioner?

Yes.

I suggest that we toughen that up a bit by saying that we are disappointed, or even very disappointed, with the commissioner's response and that, in view of the protests that are being made not just by the European Parliament and our committee, but by the relevant trade unions and the UK Post Office, we hope that this matter can be given further consideration.

Yes, that can be incorporated to reiterate our view.

The European Union Committee of the Regions adopted an opinion on this matter in December. Its response was drafted by commission 6, of which I was a member, and I managed to get a few amendments into it. The opinion of the Committee of the Regions reflects the view taken by this committee. There is widespread agreement on how to take this matter forward, at least in relation to the Commission.

It would be worth our while keeping in contact with our MEP colleagues, who are closer to what is happening and could feed back information.

I ask the committee to note the Commission's news releases on the DAPHNE programme—I am advised that the City of Edinburgh Council has a project—and on green week and young citizens. Do we agree to follow the recommendations outlined in the convener's report?

Members indicated agreement.