European and External Relations Committee, 18 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Official Report 170KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)

The next agenda item is post and pre-council scrutiny. As we all know, we play a very important role in looking out for issues that will be important to Scotland. As ever, we have three options with regard to the subjects that are before us. We can note, seek more information on, or call ministers before us to discuss any of the items that have been brought to our attention. I ask for initial feedback from members on the subjects in the paper.

On the economic and finance council, I am surprised that the Executive has not registered any comments on the Commission's use of the budget or on the Statistical Office of the European Communities in particular. Money that could have been spent on Scotland seems to have gone missing in Europe. I would have thought that at least some mention of the issue at the economic and finance council would have been in order.

Okay.

In annex A, under post-council scrutiny, we are told that the Executive's reports on the agriculture and fisheries council are well overdue. One was due on 20 October and one was due on 3 November. I wonder whether we can send the Executive a reminder, saying also that the committee expects such deadlines to be met.

Thanks. That is a fair comment, given the fact that we have not received a report. Agriculture and fishing, along with other rural issues, play an important part in the committee's work, so we will have to pay attention to that.

I bring to the committee's attention the fact that, in respect of the economic and finance council of 24 and 25 November, the Executive's note on the investment services directive states that the directive

"is of significant importance to Scotland."

The note continues:

"Political agreement on the Directive was achieved at the last ECOFIN, but unfortunately the UK's blocking minority on mandatory quote disclosure rules fell apart here."

I thought that that was an interesting comment by the Executive. With the committee's agreement, we could delve into that matter a bit further to find out what is going on there. The financial industry in Scotland is extremely important. Is the committee happy for that information to be sought, too?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members happy for me to approach the Executive on Margaret Ewing's and Phil Gallie's suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not think that there is any case for ministerial appearances in relation to the issues at the moment. Ross Finnie will come before the committee on 2 December—he is the only minister who is scheduled to come before the committee at present.

Are we working through the other papers that we have? Are you taking them one at a time?

The other council papers?

Yes.

I am waiting for members to highlight anything that they want to bring to the committee's attention.

I have a question on the hallmarking directive, in which we have shown an interest. Will there be qualified majority voting on that?

Yes.

So, the Executive and the Government have done all that we would have asked.

I can confirm that the most recent correspondence that we had from the Scottish Executive on hallmarking confirms that the Scottish Executive has made the appropriate recommendations to the UK Government and that the UK Government has said that it is not in favour of the hallmarking directive. The UK Government's position is that it will not be voting in support of that at the council. However, as the member rightly points out, the matter is still subject to qualified majority voting.

Are there any further points on this agenda item before we move on?

Yes. I want to pick up a point in the section on police co-operation. There is a suggestion that there are no distinctly Scottish aspects regarding the list of terrorist organisations and so on.

Which page is that on?

It is on page 12. There have been reports this week that Gleneagles is perhaps scheduled to host a G8 meeting. I would have thought that, on that basis, there are specific Scottish interests that the Executive should examine and be prepared for.

I am happy to pursue more information on that point. Are there any further points on the paper?

I am sorry about this; I seem to be the only one who is picking up points.

That is all right, Phil; that is why you are here.

He is just a nitpicker.

I am not causing trouble—on this occasion. These are genuine points. Reference is made to the 1996 Hague convention on page 15 of the briefing paper. What are the implications of that on Scottish legal aid? What are the implications for other countries? I am aware that people are obliged to sign up to whatever legal aid systems are invoked in each member state. However, in signing up to the Hague convention, it seems that Scotland could pay a disproportionate amount, given the fact that the Scottish legal aid system probably provides more support than is the case in other countries.

The Hague convention is an international convention, and I am aware that the United States depends entirely on a pro bono service, which means that Scots in the United States miss out in comparison with US citizens who live in Scotland, who would receive legal aid.

Do you wish the committee to pursue that point?

I would perhaps like the Scottish Executive to pick up on it and explain how it will cover those issues, and what the effect on our civil legal aid system will be. Gordon Jackson probably knows more about it than I do.

I think that I know what Phil Gallie means. We might want to ask the Executive how things work with regard to legal aid. I cannot see what harm there would be in asking the Executive about that.

It is not awfully clear from the note in front of us what the situation is. Much of it concerns Gibraltar.

We can seek clarification and we can establish whether there are any implications. That will be quite a simple query.

The situation seems to be obscure.

I have a question of clarification to ask, just to show that Phil Gallie is not the only member who has been through the documents. I, too, refer to page 15 of the paper, which says:

"Framework Decision on criminal liability for sea pollution

Unlikely to be on final agenda."

Is there any indication whether that will in fact feature on the final agenda? Will that framework decision simply disappear from sight? There is in relation to that decision a big issue pertaining to the safety of the waters around Scotland.

It is certainly worth keeping an eye on the matter. If the decision appears on the agenda, we will get information on it. Are there any more comments on the briefing paper? If not, we will move on to the next item on the—

I am sorry, convener, but I have an issue to raise with respect to shipping, which is featured on page 25 of the paper. Does qualified majority voting apply? I refer to the heading, "Proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the EP and the Council establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency".

We will have to come back to you on that one, Phil.

Okay. Finally—

Hear, hear.

Aviation is dealt with on page 27. I have a particular interest in regional airports and low-cost flights, and in revision of relevant rules. I wonder what the situation is in this respect. Some national Governments seem to flex their muscles in a way that could prevent regional airports from receiving low-cost flights from Scotland. Is there any way in which we could flag the matter up with the Executive? Could it take the matter up with Westminster to establish what is being done about that?

We can do that—it is a fair point. Does Phil Gallie have any other points to make before we move on to the next item? We shall give you your own agenda item next time: "Phil Gallie's response to pre- and post-EU Council scrutiny".

No—don't!