European Committee, 19 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Official Report 165KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

There are a number of matters under item 5, the first of which is the progress of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and Council of Ministers establishing a general framework in the European Community for informing and consulting employees. At a previous meeting, we agreed that we should collate views from trade unions and employer bodies on the question of the UK signing up to the proposed directive. We have received a number of submissions, which have been circulated.

Previously, we intended to review the evidence that had been submitted and produce a short report on the merits or otherwise of the directive. At that stage, a number of countries, including the UK, were reported to be against certain elements of the proposed directive. However, the committee will note that at the employment and social affairs council of 11 June, the Swedish presidency achieved a common position. According to press releases and articles, the position that has been adopted allows a concession, enabling a phasing-in of regulations over seven years for companies with 50 staff or more. For companies with staff of 150 or more, the regulations will apply after three years, and for those of 100 or more after a further two years. The UK has secured an opt-out for companies with fewer than 20 employees.

On the decision-making process, the Commission will issue its view on the common position and the European Parliament will consider the matter, which I believe it must do within three months, although we are not sure whether the three-month period covers the recess of the European Parliament. However, we have an opportunity to feed back into the European Parliament's deliberations.

I recommend that we instruct the clerk to analyse the position that has been adopted, brief us on whether any further activity is advisable and seek the views of the various trade unions and employer bodies on the next steps. We must also keep in contact with our MEPs when they are considering this matter.

I agree. This matter is worth pursuing. I am pleased to hear that, since the last time we discussed this issue, the British Government has moved its position somewhat and has agreed in principle to certain aspects of the proposed directive. However, I am not happy about the time scale. I imagine that some people, particularly in the trade union movement, may not be happy with a time scale that could be as long as seven years. They may also be unhappy with the reference to opt-outs for companies that have fewer than a certain number of employees.

We should continue to pursue the matter, and I hope that we can fit in with the decision-making timetable. That will allow the committee to submit whatever conclusions it reaches at a European level—whether through the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers—and ensure that our views are taken into account. The issue was of prime importance at the time of the Motorola crisis. However, that was just an illustration of the problem. It is an on-going matter and we should be proactive in pursuing it.

The Confederation of British Industry's submission points out that UK legislation already exists to address the issue. I ask for clarification and a comparison between that legislation and the current position with EU law. For example, I was not aware of any 90-day consultation period and I ask for substantiation of such a provision in a comparison with the EU directive.

I am advised that an analysis of legislation on the statute book and forthcoming legislation is available, so we can get an answer to the committee.

That is brilliant.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next matter is progress of a draft committee report on preparation for, and the policy implications of, the single currency in Scotland: a contribution to the euro debate from a Scottish perspective. Bruce Crawford, who has since left the committee, examined the issue on our behalf. We have asked the clerking team to produce a paper on the draft work that had been done. Work on the report is nearly completed and we hope that it will be available after the summer recess. Do members agree to note that?

Members indicated agreement.

The next matter is a proposal to send a letter to the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs requesting the establishment of a procedure for notification before and after meetings of the European Council and the Council of Ministers and for reporting to the European Committee. On several occasions, the committee has touched on the necessity of discussion with ministers before they attend meetings of the European Council. It is also important that we establish a procedure for reporting back; that happens in other countries and allows proper scrutiny to take place. At the moment, we do not have a systematic or agreed procedure. We should build on some of our discussions and develop such a procedure. I have circulated a draft letter that I hope the committee will agree to send to the minister.

Although I basically agree with the contents of the letter, I wonder whether it can be slightly amended to include other ministerial matters relating to the European Union such as joint ministerial meetings between the representatives of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations. The committee may recall that, two or three weeks ago, I raised as a point of order with Sir David Steel the fact that there had been a report in The Herald referring to a joint agreement between the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations in the European Union about how to influence European decision making. That is all very well and good, but we were never informed. The first time that many of us heard about it was in The Herald report, which contained a disturbing sentence to the effect that the First Minister was acting on behalf of the Scottish Parliament.

The First Minister's spokesperson has since told me that the First Minister denied saying any such thing. I received a letter from Sir David Steel—unfortunately, I do not have it to hand—that suggested that the Executive had agreed to keep the Parliament informed in future. However, timing is of the essence, as is the role of the committee, if we are to influence decision making before decisions take place. Perhaps a slight rewording of the letter to mention meetings between our Executive and representatives of other devolved Administrations, as well as meetings of the full Council of Ministers, would be helpful.

I have no difficulty with that in principle. I wrote to the First Minister to express my concern about what happened. The Executive apologised and confirmed that the committee should at least have been notified. Notification is one thing, but proper consultation is an entirely different matter. It would do no harm to consider that issue at the same time.

When the circumstances that relate to a decision that is being made in Europe are peculiar to Scotland or that decision may impinge more heavily on Scotland than on other places, might there be a case for our ministers—or even observers from the committee—being present during the pre-legislative process and while the process is taking place, as they sometimes are for discussions on fishing, although we debate that occasionally?

At a summit a year ago, the UK was involved in discussion on the proposals in the document to which the First Minister signed up, and blocked them. I would be interested to know why we were not consulted on, or informed of, the Belgians' proposals. The First Minister is supporting a Belgian idea. I understand that the proposals are due to return to the agenda. The UK blocked the proposals the first time round. Why were we not informed then? The proposals were significant.

That is a particular issue that can be addressed separately. We are trying to examine consultation procedures. Dennis Canavan suggested extending them slightly, which would be sensible.

The matter that I raise is part of those procedures. The procedure began when the idea was first mooted and blocked by the UK. It ended when Mr McLeish signed a framework based on the idea.

How the decision was made should be covered by a set of procedures. No procedures exist and we have ended up with something that we found out about only after the event. We could ask about the matter that Ben Wallace raised, but Dennis Canavan has suggested widening the scope of the letter to the minister to cover the circumstances that were referred to. I have no problem with that.

I agree with Dennis Canavan, but we cannot confine the protocol that we are asking for to the meetings that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs attends with representatives from devolved or autonomous Parliaments. If he is the minister who is responsible for Europe and external affairs, I suggest that we must redraft the letter on the basis that he is in charge of Europe and external affairs. We should be notified of any meetings that he holds furth of this place and we should have a role in reporting on them. That strikes me as a sensible suggestion. To confine ourselves to obvious structures of the European Union or autonomous and regional Parliaments of Europe would be to fail in our duty. The events to which Ben Wallace alluded could not arise in those circumstances, because our policy would be based on speaking to, or having a report on, any country or organisation that the Executive met. We would have been aware of the agreement that Mr McLeish entered into.

I do not understand why we have gone into such great detail in the letter and have specified particular sections and structures of the European Union. There should be a straightforward blanket reference to any country in Europe or any country that the minister goes to in connection with his portfolio for external affairs. The issue is straightforward.

We await the Executive's strategy on external affairs. Once it is in place, we can comment on how we should scrutinise it. The legislative competence of the European Union means that any agreement that the Executive may make with countries or institutions outwith the European Union will be completely different.

Initially, the suggestion was to consider how the UK Government and the Scottish Executive were acting on our behalf in the European Council of Ministers and the European Union. We can address other issues when we see the extent of the Executive's strategy.

I appreciate what you are saying, convener, but it does not match your actions in trying to extend the remit of this committee. While you are negotiating on that, I do not understand why you would be in the least concerned about our approaching, on behalf of the Parliament, any and every country or organisation that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs has contacts with. We have no treaty-making powers, so I really do not see the problem. I also do not see where the legal structures that you have thrown into the argument apply.

I may not have explained myself very well. I do not have a problem with considering covering the Executive's contact with countries and organisations outwith the European Union. However, we first need to see what the Executive proposes. We need to consider what proper scrutiny of the Executive's strategy will involve. That is a consistent position to take.

What we are considering at the moment is very specific to the European Union and to our engagement with countries within it. The next stage will certainly be to consider the Executive's external affairs strategy. I am not saying that that will be regarded differently, but at the moment we are considering a specific proposal relating to the European Union.

If the protocol is specifically about the European Union and only the European Union, will we not have to develop a separate protocol later? Furthermore, as the European Union develops, we will have to add to the list of countries. Would it not be more sensible—and considerably less time-consuming—if we asked for a straightforward protocol based on the whole remit of the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs? If you, convener, have been negotiating to ensure that scrutiny of policies on external affairs will lie with this committee, why have two protocols when we could have one? The minister is the same.

It may be that things will be merged, but at the moment we do not know what the Executive is proposing. At the same time, we have a responsibility to consider what is happening within the European Union and what the Executive's role in that is. I do not regard that position as inconsistent.

Rather than have a dialogue, I would like to open the discussion up to other members. Do any members have views similar to Lloyd Quinan's?

I support your position, convener. We are where we are and we have a proposal to deal with. We can deal with whatever emerges thereafter at that time. We should deal with the present proposal and move on. Otherwise, we could spend a lot of time and energy going round in circles. We want to have a positive outcome right now.

Transparency is important. I tried to elicit from Jack McConnell what was discussed between UK representatives and Scottish Executive representatives before the intergovernmental conference last year, but I did so in vain. That is hardly in the spirit of the thing. If we cannot get more transparency than I got then, we are in some difficulty. I do not expect you to comment on that, convener.

I notice that in the letter we ask for general information about the activities of Scottish Executive ministers. Are we asking the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs to report back if the minister responsible for fisheries is involved in discussions? Perhaps the letter should be addressed to the First Minister.

Any feedback would come from relevant ministers. We will have another look at the letter to ensure that there is no dubiety.

I have considerable sympathy with the point that Lloyd Quinan makes, which will be reinforced if and when this committee becomes the committee for Europe and external affairs. At present, we are responsible only for Europe. If our remit is widened so that we can monitor the external affairs portfolio of Jack McConnell or whoever happens to be the relevant minister, there may be a case for saying that the protocol for dealing with European Union matters should be slightly different. We are members of the European Union, from which decisions of a legislative nature emanate. That is not the case for ministerial meetings with representatives of countries in Africa or Asia. Our relations with the European Union are sui generis, so a distinctive protocol may be appropriate, even if the Parliament agrees to extend our remit in future.

I suggest that the committee approves our sending a letter to the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the terms indicated, with the addition of Dennis Canavan's suggestion.

Mr Canavan started off by saying that he agreed with me in part, so to rewrite the letter only with the additions that he proposed would be somewhat disingenuous.

Dennis Canavan began by making a suggestion that I—

If you ask him, he will confirm that he said that he had much sympathy with my position.

I have considerable sympathy with Mr Quinan's position, but the convener was referring to my earlier point: that our letter should cover joint ministerial meetings between members of the Scottish Executive and members of other devolved Administrations in the European Union. Although I sympathise with the point that Lloyd Quinan made, I think that it would be better to return to it if and when the committee's remit is extended to include external affairs.

Can I come back on that point?

This is the last point I will take before moving on.

Okay. What point have we reached in the discussion? I have canvassed the opinion of a number of members on the—to some people's minds—so-called debate on the extension of the committee's remit and I am not sure where we stand. Frankly, convener, the evidence that you gave to the Procedures Committee was not in keeping with my memory of what we had discussed. I cannot find any written evidence of a debate on the issue.

The matter is with the Procedures Committee. It has taken a decision and is now working on the issue. That is not the agenda item that we are dealing with and I do not intend to pursue the matter. We will hear from the Procedures Committee in due course.

Do we approve the draft letter to the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, with the amendments suggested by Dennis Canavan?

Members indicated agreement.

Yesterday, a meeting of the European structural funds forum was held in Glasgow. It was hosted by Angus MacKay and attended also by Peter Peacock. A number of major organisations attended from the Scottish voluntary sector, as well as local authorities and others. The issues that were considered included the annual summary document highlighting progress in the European structural funds programmes. Concerns were raised about the problems that the information technology application procedure has caused for voluntary organisations, the timeousness of payments to the voluntary sector, the volume of applications and the appropriateness of the areas to which the applications are addressed. It was suggested that we need to consider the progress of the programme management executive steering committees. We also discussed what will happen after 2006. The Executive has agreed to consider several suggestions and there will be a further meeting on 1 October. I have told the Executive that we will want to know how the structural funds are being used and how well the committees are working. We will address the issue in the autumn.

Last Friday, Colin Campbell and I visited St Timothy's Primary School in Glasgow, after Glasgow City Council invited the committee to examine some of the European work that is being carried out in primary and secondary schools in the city. I found the visit very interesting. The primary school, which is in the east end of Glasgow, is hugely involved in a number of projects that are designed not only to develop the language skills of young people, but to create a greater awareness of what young people in other countries believe and how they live. The school has partner schools in Sweden, Finland, France and Donegal, in Ireland. It uses the internet to good effect and exchange visits have been undertaken by pupils and parents. Pupils in primary 1 exchange ideas with pupils in the partner schools through letters; pupils in primaries 2 to 5 are studying folk tales throughout Europe and Easter traditions; and pupils in primaries 6 and 7 are developing language skills in Spanish.

Importantly, as well as developing an awareness of what is going on beyond Scotland, in the rest of Europe, the pupils have not ignored their own history and culture. We were entertained in poetry and song, through the studies that the children are carrying out into the work of Rabbie Burns. I thank Michelle Robinson the head teacher and her staff for arranging the visit. I also thank Edna Paterson, the international officer for Glasgow City Council's education services, who has produced a paper on the European dimension in Scottish education, which I will send to committee members. We can consider its relevance to our future work.

It was a pleasure to be in a primary school that exudes order, discipline and enthusiasm and in which there is a good rapport between staff and pupils. It was a stimulating experience. The pupils focused not only on their Swedish, Finnish, French and Irish connections, but on their Scottish roots. The most spirited rendering of "A Man's A Man For A' That" that I have ever heard came from Mrs Bogle's class. Poignantly, I noticed that a photograph on the wall showed that the class's partner class in Sweden contains 21 pupils. In that school, if there are difficult pupils, individual minders are available to back up the teachers.

It was a stimulating visit, which indicated the way ahead for international education. The school's approach is to be thoroughly recommended.

It would be worth finding out about other schools that are involved in similar programmes. We could send various documents from those schools to our colleagues on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

Details of the proposed visit by the Belgian ambassador on 27 June have been circulated. I ask that members let their respective groups know about it and encourage conveners and deputy conveners to participate. The event will be broadcast internally and webcast.