European and External Relations Committee, 22 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Official Report 254KB pdf

---

Pre and Post-council Scrutiny

We come to item 4, which is our regular pre and post-council scrutiny. Are there any comments from members on the papers for this item?

Unfortunately, I have quite a few.

We cannot just thank the Executive for the information provided, can we?

We can certainly thank the Executive; I have no difficulty with that, but I would like to comment on quite a few things. Would you like me to pick them up one by one or would you prefer that I ran through them all?

I notice that there are three points on which we have not yet had responses, which is obviously not acceptable. If you want to run through the issues that you want to raise one by one, please carry on.

The first point is on annex B. I have some concerns about the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—policy. Members will find the reference below the better regulation section. My concerns are that Scotland's economic standing depends heavily nowadays on the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. What consideration has been given to the interests of those industries and to whether the REACH policy has affected them in any way?

Similarly, I can remember the time before I was an MSP, when I did a real job in industry. At that time, we got very much entangled in things such as the control of substances hazardous to health—or COSHH—regulations. I wonder how they fit in with the REACH policy. Although there is a degree to which the REACH policy is different from COSHH, the regulations were also directed at substances' effects on health. I accept that COSHH regulated the safety aspects of the use of chemicals, but I wonder where we stand in that regard.

I cannot make up my mind on the proposal to lay down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products. I do not know what the objective is: perhaps it is to save waste by regulating the way we wrap products, or to standardise the amount of any one item that can be sold. If the latter is the case, the implications could be considerable—I am thinking of the single elderly person who likes to purchase their food in relatively small units. The paper says that there are "No specific Scottish aspects", but that may not be the case.

Another point relates to the internal market policy. As we discussed the point earlier in relation to the Royal Mail, I will not waste time on it again at this point. I referred earlier to harmonisation of the laws and regulations on credit; my comments reflected on issues that may be raised again under item 6. All those things could have a significant impact on Scotland.

Okay. I suggest that we write to the Executive about REACH—obviously Phil Gallie is concerned about it. I also suggest that we check out the question about pre-packed products. We need to find out exactly what the Commission means by the rules, consider what they are about and decide whether "No specific Scottish aspects" are involved.

That will do me fine.

Does any other member have a comment on the paper?

Members indicated disagreement.

My only comment is that three deadlines for sending information have been missed. We should point out to the Executive that we have noticed that and ask what caused the delays.

We move on to item 5 and—

On the second paper—

Sorry Phil—I thought we were all finished.

On page 8, on the agenda for the transport, telecommunications and energy council, I note the paragraph headed, "Better Regulation: implementation and outcomes of the internal market for electricity and natural gas". I apologise for taking members back to the European constitution, but you will remember the fairly controversial energy proposals that were built into it. At the moment, Europe does not have competence in energy. When we hear talk about the

"implementation and outcomes of the internal market for electricity and natural gas",

I begin to see the internal market enveloping issues that we may not believe are in the EU's remit. Scotland and the UK in general have energy requirements that are quite different from those in other areas of Europe.

It would worry me considerably if we were to find that European regulation was going to hamper our gas and oil industries, as well as other elements of our energy market. I accept that this is a Department of Trade and Industry issue but, once again, it will affect Scotland in particular; we ignore it at our peril. We must find out what it is all about and make known our views.

Okay—we can do that. Do you have any further comments?

I do not think so.

It is so good to have you back.

I was going to comment on the maritime transport item, but I think that people will be fed up with my voice by now.

I will comment on the third railway package on page 17. There is an issue that has been dominated by a national interest in what I consider to be an area in which the internal market should be having an effect. Transport throughout Europe is an internal market issue, but it appears that the domestic situation in France is holding up progress. I put it to my pro-European colleagues that they should be jumping up and down about that and that it should not require a Eurosceptic to say that France is not playing the game.

I shall take advice on what we can do about that. We will ask what progress has been made.

I was hoping that Irene Oldfather would offer her views. I am sure that she feels strongly about the matter.

Normally that would be true, but I have spoken enough today.

Okay. It is great to be back.

I draw the committee's attention to one of the forthcoming councils about which the Executive has not given us information—the environment council on 2 December. Colleagues will note that under any other business at the end of the 17 October post-council report from the environment council, it was noted that a short paper on genetically modified organisms would be prepared for initial discussion. Parliament and the Environment and Rural Development Committee might be particularly interested in that. The absence of an Executive report on the agenda should not blind us to the fact that there might be quite an important item to discuss.

Thank you. We understand that the Executive's report on the matter has just arrived. It will be circulated to members in time for the next meeting.