European and External Relations Committee, 21 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Official Report 299KB pdf

---

European Commission Work Programme 2006

Item 3 on our agenda is consideration of the European Commission's work programme for 2006. We have a paper that tracks issues that the committee has previously identified. I take on board Phil Gallie's point about the lack of time that we give to those issues. Perhaps we should consider scheduling next month's meeting to finish at 5 rather than 4.

I understand that this part of the agenda is prepared by the Scottish Parliament's European officer. Perhaps instead of dealing with the item at every meeting we should consider it at a business meeting. We could invite the European officer along to that meeting for questioning, which would allow us to pick up some of the points more directly and to give more time to them.

The committee agreed to consider that possibility some time ago.

Yes, but we have not done it.

It is being actively encouraged. Members will recall that we tasked the European officer with devising a specific tracking mechanism that would allow us to track issues more easily. That piece of work is on-going.

We recommended that the office be set up in 2003 and it is now 2006. If the work is still on-going, it would be good if we could get it up and running.

It will be up and running. The committee has discussed the matter before. A timetable was laid out and the head of the committee office, Elizabeth Watson, put it to us that the system could not be up and running until the turn of the year.

I do not recall that.

I will update the committee on what is happening. As agreed, the European officer is carrying out an analysis of the Commission's work programme for 2007. The committee has agreed to consult on that programme. The European officer will provide an analysis of the key issues that the committee has identified, which will form the basis of the tracker for the period from January 2007 onwards. The information will be available to members and subject committees. It is an on-going process and we are looking to develop the structure of the committee's work.

I go along with what Irene Oldfather has said, but I would like to change the subject.

Do any issues arise from the Commission's work programme?

The directive on the internal market for postal services gives someone who is sceptical about Europe cause for scepticism.

It appears that the UK has complied entirely with the objectives for the internal market for postal services, but that others have not—and that the Commission has failed to ask them to. UK involvement is likely to result in our losing even more services. This is all that is bad about Europe and it is something that we should perhaps try to do something about. I am not sure whether it is within the remit of the committee or whether it is a Westminster issue, but I am sure that even Irene Oldfather will feel extremely frustrated when she reads the section on the internal market for postal services, especially the last sentence:

"They also say the commission has done too little to ensure that national regulators are fully independent, and strong enough to enforce the new rules."

We have done it in the UK, but it has not been done elsewhere in Europe.

Would anyone like to respond to what Mr Gallie has said?

I share his anxieties, but probably from a diametrically opposed perspective. There is a list of EU member states that are not fully compliant. Belgium is on it, for goodness' sake. If liberalisation of postal services means that the universal postal service in a small, densely populated country such as Belgium is going to be threatened, how on earth are we going to maintain it in Scotland? I agree with what Phil Gallie says, although I approach the matter from the opposite perspective.

I am not entirely sure what the second paragraph of the section means. It begins:

"The UK has been fully compliant with the strictures of the proposed Directive since 1 January 2006 (and will therefore be unaffected by the Directive itself)."

Does that mean that we have got full liberalisation and that, therefore, it does not matter that the others are arguing about it? Is that what that means?

Yes. That is exactly what it means.

We are ahead of the game—or behind it, depending on how you look at it.

We are ahead of the game, and it is putting us behind.

We are ahead of the game in a way that is detrimental to the UK.

It is detrimental to Scotland in particular.

Yes. That was one of our issues—I think John Home Robertson raised it first—when we expressed concern about rural postal services. It was one of the reasons we wanted to ensure we got in at the beginning of things instead of at the end, when we would not have any real influence. We thought that if we were aware of its introduction right at the start, we might be able to influence the liberalisation process. That was one of the things the committee agreed on.

I cannot take full credit for it, but the committee considered the matter some four or five years ago, when the directive was first proposed and there were issues about weights, sizes and so on. Along with other campaigners, we made submissions on the basis of which the Commission softened its approach in some ways. Members will notice that the details of the process have been left to member states. There was an argument about the weight of packages that postal services would carry, for example. The Commission took on board a lot of the comments that were made by groups in the United Kingdom, including the submission from the committee.

We were on the case about four years ago and gained some concessions that we felt would enable the UK to go forward with liberalisation as we recommended. Scottish and UK members of the European Parliament were active in the process at that time and gained several concessions. The problem is that there have been many changes to the membership of the committee. This is not a new issue.

No. This has been in the pipeline for a long time.

That might be the case, but the fact remains that the liberalisation has turned out badly for Scotland and the UK. Irrespective of the history of the process, what can we do now to overcome that? How can we ensure that there is balance? Are we totally ineffective? Is the UK totally ineffective?

I understand that this has nothing to do with what the European Union has been doing. The European Union has been coat-tailing on what the UK Parliament has done. The UK has driven the liberalisation of the postal market in Europe, as it was there first. The existing competition directives have had to be followed, but the UK was there first.

As the briefing paper states, the UK will be unaffected by the directive because it is already compliant. So, in answer to Phil Gallie's question, there is nothing we can do.

Can we not get the Commission to enforce what has been agreed in Europe?

With whom would there be enforcement?

I am talking about enforcing regulations to free up the market in nations in Europe that are obviously not compliant. It does not matter whether we initiate—

The matter is reserved. The committee is telling me that we are taking too much time considering certain issues, but you want to sit here for half an hour and debate reserved matters that have been dealt with.

You are the ones who want a debate.

One thing I adore about you, Phil, is your complete honesty. It is marvellous.

I hear what Phil Gallie is saying, but my understanding is that the United Kingdom is complying with a proposed directive. We are not talking about European law. The European Union cannot be blamed for imposing something on us that has already been done off our Westminster parliamentary bat. I am not sure why the Commission should be chastised for doing something that it has not done.

Does Phil Gallie want to impose the directive on everyone else?

My impression was that the directive had already been implemented.

I suggest that we move on. We could go all round the post offices with the matter for as long as members want to do so and have no influence whatsoever. Do members agree that we should move on?

Members indicated agreement.

No member wants to raise any other issue under the agenda item. Good.