European Committee, 17 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 17, 2002

Official Report 273KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)

Item 2 on our agenda relates to post-council scrutiny. We will deal first with the meeting of the economic and financial affairs council—ECOFIN. I understand that information on that meeting is late. I have not yet received it.

The meeting was held on 25 and 26 November. Information about it has not yet been received and is described as "Late". However, information about the agriculture and fisheries council, which met the next day, is not here and is described as "To follow".

The official dealing with the ECOFIN council has been ill.

I just find it interesting that we have said that the ECOFIN material is late, but that the agriculture and fisheries council material that we are due from about the same time in November is to follow. Is it not also late?

I think that we understood that the ECOFIN material would be late, but we perhaps expected agriculture and fisheries to arrive before the meeting. I regret to say that it has not arrived.

Again.

We note that the ECOFIN information is late and that we have not received the agriculture and fisheries council post-council briefings.

We have received the justice and home affairs council briefing. It was a little bit late, but the report is very comprehensive. Do members agree to note it?

Members indicated agreement.

This is the second or third time that we have not received the agriculture and fisheries council post-council briefing. As far as our scrutiny role is concerned, the situation is acute, because we need to know what is going on in the council now more than at any other time. As a result, we must pursue the issue with vigour.

I should also point out that, at the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union, it was revealed to Helen Eadie and me that member states now make their opening and final positions public when the Council of Ministers goes into public session. As part of our scrutiny in future, we should perhaps check those positions against the Executive's submission. We might save resources if we were able to limit the scope of our work and did not consider certain reserved issues, but with devolved issues such as transport, it would be right to check whether the Executive's submission ties in with the Council of Ministers' position. Is that possible?

I see no reason why that should be a problem. After all, we are developing the system and have formulated some good position statements on a number of Council papers.

The situation with agriculture and fisheries can change daily, although I understand colleagues' concerns that the meeting in question was held last month, and it would be helpful at least to be kept abreast of developments at the meeting. We will take those points on board and raise them with the Executive. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It is recommended that we note the transport, telecommunications and energy council post-council briefing. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should note a couple of matters in the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council briefing. For example, we should recognise developments in tobacco advertising, social inclusion, national action plans and e-accessibility for disabled people. As 2003 is the year of the disabled, it would be helpful to be kept informed of any plans that the Executive might have in that respect and of developments. We should also be kept informed of developments in relation to corporate social responsibility, as we are dealing with that area in our inquiry. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I have one point. I am not clear whether a senior official or a minister wrote the competitiveness council report. It might be helpful if the authors of such reports could clarify that. I do not want to raise any points about the report as such; I just think that my suggestion would be helpful to the committee.

I assume that the report was written by one of the civil servants who accompanied the minister. Perhaps the clerk might be able to clarify the matter.

I do not know whether I can do so definitively, but I will certainly try to find out for the committee. I suspect that the reports are written by senior officials in the civil service department; however, I am confident that the minister has cleared whatever statement has been sent to the committee. I will check the process and give members information about how often the list is cleared.

I suppose that if the report is from the civil service, it serves as a very useful minute of meetings. It would be quite useful to find out who is in the tree, representing the UK or Scotland.

We will certainly examine the matter and report back.