European and External Relations Committee, 22 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Official Report 265KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)

The next agenda item is pre and post-council scrutiny. As ever, I invite comments from the committee on any of the items that are mentioned.

I have a comment on the notes and recommendations. I accept the compliments that have been offered about the environmental council report, but their representatives have not been detailed. We have criticised all the other reports, but that particular report does not detail the representatives.

I am sorry; I am not quite following your point. You said that there are no details of the representatives—

I was pointing out that the report that we have been complimenting contains no details of any representatives. After all, we criticise other reports for lacking those very same details. I just wanted to take a balanced view; I agree that the report is excellent.

Just for clarification, the environment council will not take place until 28 June, whereas the other five councils listed in the report have already taken place. The Executive has agreed with the committee that it will indicate ministerial attendance in its post-council reports; however, it need not necessarily provide that information in its pre-council reports. That is the reason for the difference.

I totally agree with the assessment that the pre-council scrutiny report for the environment council is very comprehensive. I must say that I am getting increasingly fed up with some of the post-council scrutiny reports. For example, the general affairs and external relations council report tells us hardly anything. For example, although it mentions

"Preparation for The 17-18 June European Council",

it does not even refer to the European constitution. It mentions only the elections of various people such as the president of the Commission—and those did not even take place. I just find it inadequate. We should be pressing for more detailed information in post-council reports.

I thought that we had pressed for that information before. We will double check to find out what has happened.

On paragraph 4 of the 28 June environment council report, I raised at our previous meeting the question whether the air-conditioning system in the new Scottish Parliament building complies with the registration, evaluation, and authorisation of chemicals—or REACH—regulations. The issue is important, but I have received no feedback on it.

The answer is that it almost certainly does. However, I am sure that the clerk would be able to clarify that very quickly with someone from the Holyrood project team.

The clerks will seek clarification on that.

I draw the committee's attention to the post-council report on the 24 and 25 May agriculture and fisheries council, which says:

"Discussions in Council centred on proposed changes to the regulation concerning circumstances for socio-economic assistance, support for environmentally friendly fishing methods, the appropriate level of private contribution rates, compensation for shellfish farmers and available assistance to vessels affected by stock recovery plans. The United Kingdom raised concerns that interventions could lead to unfair competition".

It would be useful to receive more clarification about the UK's concerns and whether they might have any implications for Scotland. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

From memory, I suspect that this is another attempt by the Greek delegation to stop other countries using European money to subsidise their fleets at a time when there is a need to scale fleets down. However, I am sure that that could be clarified.

That could well be the case, but it would be good to receive that information.

We should also welcome the fact that agreement has been reached on the regulation to establish regional advisory councils. The measure is being financed by the EU and the UK supported the decision to work transparently and publicly on these matters. Our predecessor committee published a report on the issue, much of which informed our recommendations.

On transparency, have any of the details of these agreements been published? I realise that time might have been needed to prepare translations for some countries, but the details have been determined. Do the clerks have any information on that?

The clerks will find out that information. Are you talking about the regional advisory councils?

Yes.

I know that the North Sea Commission's website contains some information.

We should ensure that interested parties in Scotland receive those details as early as possible.

I point out that the European Commission has also published regulations on the matter.

Item 7 in the paper for the environment council is about the groundwater daughter directive. I do not know what the "daughter" has to do with it, but I am a little concerned that the directive might be another example of something that will be increasingly onerous for Scotland. The figure quoted shows that only 5 per cent of drinking water in Scotland comes from groundwater. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and probably elsewhere in Europe, the figure is much higher. In those circumstances, it would be a bit ridiculous if industries in Scotland were subjected to onerous groundwater purity conditions when there is no risk to the environment and no risk to water that is for human consumption. It might be worth ensuring that the Executive and the UK Government exercise some caution and avoid unnecessary and unproductive costs for Scottish industries.

Are you happy for us to write to Ross Finnie and to copy the letter to Sarah Boyack, the convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee?

I would like inquiries to be made, because we risk drifting into something that could be very expensive for Scotland but serve no useful purpose.

That is a good point.

I would like more information on the whole business of merging the Socrates and Leonardo programmes and on the greater emphasis on vocational training. There is also a reference in our papers to

"some coherence between Tempus and Erasmus Mundus".

The reference is slightly lost on me but I am interested in that area. I am also interested in the EU drug strategy 2005-12. I would like more information, but it will help if I am simply pointed in the right direction. I do not want to burden the clerks.

I will ask the clerks to get back to individual members on these issues. I remind members that, if they require more information, they can approach the clerks at any time before meetings.

The only point that I want to raise relates to paragraph 9 of the section on the environment council, which contains an Executive comment that

"product design can only be influenced effectively at EU level."

I would like to think that product design could be higher up the list of priorities in Scotland, and I would be interested to find out why the Executive has said what it has said. I am sure that many companies in Scotland could play a role in influencing product design.