Did everybody receive the comments from the Health and Community Care Committee?
The comments were sent to me in an e-mail.
So they have not been circulated?
No. I was going to read them out. There is only one comment.
Obviously, you should read out some of it.
That is a separate document. We need to go through that committee's comments first.
Sorry. Let us return to the scrutiny recommendation note of sift date 6 October, document 295 (EC Ref No 10499/99, COM(99)372 final). The recommendation is:
Next, the recommendation on document 298 (EC Ref No 10461/99, COM(99)377 final CNB 99/0164) is for no further action.
I agree that there should be no further action, but the dates that are involved are worrying. The deposit date in the UK Parliament was 18 August and we are being asked to reply by 22 October. I know that we have nothing further to say, but there has been a heck of a long lead-in time for this document to arrive here. If the same process were to be used in future, there would be difficulties if a matter arose on which we had something to say.
I think that that is probably the case. As I have said on a number of occasions, the summer timetable and summer recess have caused us some problems. I will speak to my colleagues in the Cabinet Office to see whether we can speed things up in future.
For document 310 (EC Ref No 10408/99, COM(99)364 final), we are advised to take no further action. That is agreed.
What does the "Notes and Decision Rationale" section in the sift/scrutiny recommendation note mean with regard to this document? I know what the text says, but I am not sure what it actually means.
Where is that?
The text says:
What I meant is that the convener and I have read through document 331 to follow up the query that was raised on 28 September about whether data protection was included in the scope of the directive. It does not appear to be and that was clarified in discussions with the Executive.
For document 335 (EC Ref No 10553/99), we are advised to take no further action. That is agreed.
A very good funding mechanism seems to have disappeared. The European Investment Bank granted money to banks in the UK—although Scottish banks were not in the scheme until people complained—which meant that banks had more leeway when granting overdraft facilities and could take greater than normal risks in the commercial world. However, although the scheme benefited business start-ups and so on, it has stopped. Can the briefing paper contain information about whether the scheme is still with us; and, if it is not, whether that is because the banks cannot be bothered to keep it going?
We will consider that matter in the briefing paper.
A few committee members have asked that document 340 be tabled on the agenda for discussion. As a result, we will not be taking it as a scrutiny function.
Okay.
Document 350 could be important to our citizenry. I do not know whether other committee members are aware of the case in the Highlands of the lady whose child has been abducted by her husband, who has done it before. A Scottish court enforced a French court's judgment, even though we warned the court that the man had abducted the child before. The child is now missing in the depths of Europe and Interpol is on the case. As such judgments among member states can cause problems in our constituencies, perhaps we can exercise care when the matter comes up.
Okay.
This came out of a report when I was chairman of the committee, following Heysel. The recommendation of the committee of the Parliament at that time was that there would be a constant review of the situation. I would have thought that this was relevant in a football-crazy country such as Scotland.
Document 353 is the Austrian delegation's submission. It is not the complete report.
I would not mind seeing it.
I will collect the complete report and give it to members for their interest.
Is there any similar report on football hooliganism within member states?
For document 354 (EC Ref No 10950/99, JAI 67 AG27), the recommendation is no further action. That is agreed.
I do not know about other members, but I receive a lot of letters from vets about this matter. They are upset about restrictions on their ability to prescribe. Perhaps it was when I was a member of the European Parliament that I got those letters, but it was a big issue for vets.
Veterinary medicines are more expensive in this country than in other parts of Europe.
This is a specific document relating to veterinary medicinal products and analytical, pharmatoxicological and clinical standards.
It is a codification.
Yes.
On 368, when we say no further action, does it mean that we will not do anything until we receive it, and then we will think about it, or does it mean that we will not do any more about it?
That is it finished.
I remember some controversy about aid being provided for internal EU residents within different countries and the problems with that. Was that matter not discussed at the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? Should we not let it see that?
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee should see that.
We would have to give it document 356 as well.
Yes. I intended to come back to that. We should give both those documents to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to let it see them.
The recommendation is to amend document 356 to include reference for its interest to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. That is agreed.
That document has been circulated to the Rural Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, I understand that it has not been able to hold a formal meeting prior to our committee meeting, in order for us to inform the Executive and Westminster. However, the convener and the clerk of the Rural Affairs Committee invited members of that committee to send any comments to me before this meeting. I have not received any comments. If I had, I would have incorporated them into this committee's report on the document.
My concern, as I have said already, is that the document talks about the justification for centralising the Fisheries Advisory Committee, but it does not say why it is advisable to centralise it. It worries me that it is to be centralised, unless our fishing associations are involved.
I share the concerns of Dr Ewing. I asked my local fishermen's association about this matter. Its concern was that the way in which the committee is constructed is not set in tablets of stone. As far as I understand it, the committee effectively has not done anything since 1971.
It does not work.
Any step forward would be a step forward. The point that Dr Ewing makes is correct, in that when we go—and I hope that we do—to a regional structure of fisheries management, the committee structure should be able to adapt to that change. The two points are that we do not want matters to be set in tablets of stone, and that the structure should be able to adapt when changes happen, as they will in 2002.
I am struggling with the timetabling of the meetings of the Fisheries Council on 26 October and of the Westminster European Scrutiny Committee tomorrow. The Rural Affairs Committee has not had the chance to look at the document, so what do we do, Stephen?
It was agreed between the clerks, with the approval of the Rural Affairs Committee convener, that the Rural Affairs Committee would not be able to meet before this meeting, but that the committee would give us whatever comments its members had. We would then be able to proceed, having referred the document to the Rural Affairs Committee and received its comments.
So what comments do we want to include, because presumably we will be providing a view on behalf of the Parliament?
I would like to agree with what Dr Ewing said. We do not want the European Committee to be set in tablets of stone. It must be able to adapt in future to changes in the way in which fisheries management is structured. That is the important comment that must be made
As Scotland has the second fleet in Europe we must ensure that it has some form of representation on the advisory committee, no matter who else does not.
Absolutely.
We will draft a letter in my name, and on behalf of the committee, to the Executive and to Westminster, which makes those points.
Thank you.
The next document for consideration is document 301 (EC Ref No 10485/99, COM(99)329 final 99/0158), which concerns the directive on food additives other than colours and sweeteners.
Document 301 was referred to the Health and Community Care Committee, if you recall. That committee held a special meeting last Thursday. Ben Wallace, who is on both committees, attended the Health and Community Care Committee meeting to put forward some of the views of the European Committee. I understand that two officials from the food safety unit of the Scottish Executive attended that meeting to address some of the concerns of committee members.
What is this E number, and what is the chemical?
The E number is E 650. I studied chemistry for a previous degree, so if I can find the reference I will put myself on the spot.
That is why you have ended up on the European Committee.
This is straightforward. I will not tell you the chemical formulation, but the chemical name is zinc acetate.
Can we agree to forward a response which says that we received comments from the Health and Community Care Committee, making it quite clear that those are their deliberations?
I appreciate that this is not something that is of interest to everyone, but there are a number of people who are very concerned about additives, particularly in relation to allergies. While we might make light of this particular example, we should perhaps comment that the key issue here is about people's choice, which relates to adequate labelling.
In the discussions between the clerks, one of the strong messages from our committee was that the health committee's focus should be on this document. A number of serious concerns on food additives were raised, which the Health and Community Care Committee has taken on board for examination at a later date.
That gives me a great sense of relief. Thank you.
Our response will be specifically in relation to this document.
Is the health committee the lead committee on food additives? As Cathy correctly points out, all food additives and suchlike are authorised by Europe.
I do not think that I could comment on that. Food safety is within the remit of the health committee, but I think that it would probably work as it has before. The European Committee is the lead committee but it may want to make referrals to other committees on particular subjects.
If there were anything legislative that we had to go through in detail, the Parliamentary Bureau would presumably make a recommendation to the Parliament about which should be the lead committee. At present we are being asked to comment on a particular document. The general points that have been raised will be looked at by the health committee, if necessary. I think, however, that it will help if we say in our response that those comments were from the health committee.
My apologies, I must leave.
Now that Bruce is leaving, shall we move on to the discussion on objective 2 and funding? [Laughter.]
Document 302 (EC Ref No 3710-01r1) has been referred back to us by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which noted the document but did not have anything substantial that it wished to bring to our attention.
As we found out last week, there are many avid readers of our Official Report. The point was raised that it would be most helpful for them if EC references could appear in the Official Report—I notice that Stephen has put that into the minute—so that people could easily trace the document that we have been discussing.
I have spoken to our official report colleagues about the matter. Rather than trying to do that as we are going through a document, I have agreed that I shall go back to the Official Report and insert the EC reference so that readers outside the Parliament can know what specific European document the committee was talking about.
Previous
Structural FundsNext
Consultation Process