European and External Relations Committee, 22 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Official Report 254KB pdf

---

Transposition and Implementation of European Directives Inquiry

The next item is very important. It is a reporter-led inquiry into the co-operation programme between Scotland and Ireland. We turn to consideration of the terms of reference for the inquiry, which we have asked Jim Wallace to carry out on our behalf.

The co-operation programme is my inquiry, convener: the terms of reference for it have been agreed. Jim Wallace's inquiry is on the European directives.

Oh, yes. I am terribly sorry. I saw the phrase "reporter-led" and automatically thought of you, Dennis—there you go. It is not Dennis Canavan's inquiry; it is Jim Wallace's inquiry.

We have discussed European directives—as per the paper that is before the committee—at our previous meetings.

The idea was that I would report to the committee having considered specific examples; we have had some fed in that will make for a good starting point. We could examine how those directives have been transposed in Scotland and compare that with the situation in other parts of the UK and in other member states, particularly those that have similar constitutional arrangements to ours, and identify whether there is any material difference and whether how we transpose directives in Scotland puts our businesses at a comparative disadvantage. Another dimension is the need not only to identify those things but to consider the principles and practice of transposition. We must also consider whether we in Scotland are acting in line with the principles of better regulation that have been adopted by the Commission. We may want to make recommendations to the Executive about how it writes explanatory notes and conducts regulatory impact assessments.

The inquiry is not just about transposition—enforcement is another key matter. We may well find that regulations in some countries are beautifully transposed and very detailed, but then widely ignored. I am not saying that that is the case, but the whole point of the inquiry is to identify whether or not that is the case. I propose to report finally in four to six months and to make an interim progress report. I also propose that we should put the inquiry's terms of reference on the committee's pages on the Parliament website, with a call for written evidence. The committee would then be able to consider, in the light of findings that I report back, whether to undertake a larger inquiry on the subject.

I am quite encouraged, having read the paper. Transposition is the sort of issue on which I would like a full inquiry; Jim Wallace's paper certainly gives me confidence that he will come up with something that could be of considerable use in the future.

I wish Jim Wallace well in his inquiry. The terms of reference are good, but I would like to make a suggestion. If he has time, Jim might want to examine implementation of a particular health and safety directive from the European Union. Although health and safety is mainly a reserved matter, there are implications for enterprise and for environment and planning matters, which are devolved. I have already spoken to Jim privately about that. The Health and Safety Executive seems to be using a strict interpretation of the directive—much stricter than other European Union countries. It has drawn up zones around chemical plants and has the power to call in virtually any application for development in the inner or outer zone around a chemical plant. That has implications for places such as Grangemouth. If Jim has time, he might want to incorporate that in his inquiry.

That is a pertinent point. The fact that we are dealing with reserved matters may make things slightly more complex, but the example that Dennis Canavan cited impacts on devolved issues, so there are a number of points that I would want to consider.

Is there general agreement that we should proceed?

Members indicated agreement.