European and External Relations Committee, 21 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Official Report 299KB pdf

---

Pre and Post-council Scrutiny

Agenda item 4 is our regular scrutiny of agendas and reports of Council of the European Union meetings. Do members have any issues to raise or comments to make on paper EU/S2/06/16/4?

We could spend from now until midnight on this paper, too. It is full of directives and regulations, although I acknowledge that deregulation is also involved. I would like to discuss virtually every topic in the paper, but I would not be too popular with my colleagues if I did so.

Hear, hear.

You have the agreement of Charles Gordon.

I will make a couple of easy points. First, on employment and social policy, the paper mentions the proposed regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European globalisation adjustment fund. Page 6 states that

"There are no peculiarly Scottish aspects"

to the matter. At our previous meeting, Irene Oldfather made an excellent presentation on the globalisation adjustment fund. Scotland would certainly be affected by proposals relating to that. Who said that

"There are no peculiarly Scottish aspects"?

I noted that as well, Phil. For once, we agree.

There is unanimity between the two of us.

Everyone supported Irene Oldfather's stance on the matter. We agreed to write to the UK Government about our concern that the proposals that she and her colleagues in the Committee of the Regions have made are not being taken up. I invite Irene Oldfather to respond to Phil Gallie.

The European Parliament discussed the proposed regulation last week; I think that it agreed to around 50 amendments to it. Its thoughts are in line with ours.

I agree with Phil Gallie. The fund could have a major impact if we get the right threshold. It has been proposed that €15,000 will be available to individual workers in Scotland for upskilling and retraining. That money would have been quite a bonus in a number of areas over the past four or five years in particular. The fund is therefore important to Scotland. I underlined the phrase that Phil Gallie quoted, but I suppose that the official who wrote the paper thought that the proposed regulation is important to the whole of the UK.

With the greatest respect to Irene Oldfather, she talked in that meeting about the relative sizes of businesses in the UK and in eastern Europe, which is significant. The disadvantages of what has been proposed have been pointed out.

We have written to express our concern.

Under the same heading, item 5 is:

"Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on working conditions for temporary workers".

I am not sure how "temporary workers" is defined. Does it include seasonal workers? Again, the paragraph concludes:

"There are no specific Scottish aspects."

To be frank, however, there damned well are.

I suggest that we get our European officer to check that and provide clarification.

The Scottish Agricultural Wages Board has a role in regulating the employment of seasonal workers and casual workers, but that is not being done well at the moment. It needs to be done better.

Emma Berry has pointed out to me that the statement

"There are no specific Scottish aspects"

means that there is nothing that specifically affects Scotland as opposed to the UK. However, there is an opinion that there may well be specific Scottish aspects. We should find out about the definition of temporary workers.

Are there any further points?

I refer to page 7. I will do a wrap up—

I wish you would. Sorry.

We are here to discuss and analyse these things; I am afraid that I cannot let them pass.

I refer to the three proposals that are covered in items 8 to 10 on page 7. One of them might simplify things with respect to the working time directive, but the three proposals involve social services, pension rights and social security schemes. Who is checking what comes out of Europe on those things? Who is controlling them? Why is Europe involved in such things, which to my mind are UK competencies?

As they are UK matters—some would say unfortunately—the UK Government will certainly check them. I hope that, if there is anything specific to Scotland, our seven MEPs from the various parties will check them, too. The proposals do not come to us with no checks and balances. I am certain that other people are monitoring them.

I admire your confidence.

If you do not have confidence in your colleagues—

If the matters are wholly reserved, I honestly do not think that they are matters for the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Parliament is free to discuss and take a view on anything it chooses, but we serve the people of Scotland better by dealing with European directives on matters for which we have responsibility rather than by agonising over directives on matters for which we have no responsibility. We have 59 members of the Westminster Parliament and 7 MEPs to deal with those directives and agonise over them on our behalf.

And the European Scrutiny Committee, which sits at Westminster.

We are all getting narky now, so can we move on?

No. We have just been talking about the Lisbon agenda, to which we accepted we have an input. The Lisbon agenda talks about economic and social policies, and the proposals in items 8, 9 and 10 have a direct impact on the Lisbon agenda. Perhaps Jim Wallace is right, but perhaps we should not waste time talking about the Lisbon agenda if we do not have any input on social issues.

We have input on social issues through other means. One of the proposals that you mention is about amending and simplifying things. Given our earlier conversation, we surely cannot have a problem with that.

Item 5 on page 11 is on fireworks. I think that the Scottish Executive is minded to improve controls over the sale of fireworks in Scotland, but the paper refers to

"guaranteeing their free circulation within the EU".

The Executive has already considered the matter and it is further examining it.

Yes. If there is to be a regulation that guarantees the free circulation of fireworks within the EU, perhaps we should be worried.

Again, the paper states:

"There are no peculiarly Scottish aspects."

However, for ease of mind we should write to the Executive and ask for its view. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.