Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)
The next item is on pre and post-Council scrutiny and a report from the Scottish Executive. This is the first time that scrutiny has been on our agenda in the second parliamentary session. Members will note that what we have is, in effect, a pre-Council scrutiny paper, although I do not doubt that we will get the post-Council paper after the Council of Ministers meetings have taken place.
The paper is quite helpful and there is a lot of information, particularly on the transport council. There is also information on the other meetings. I hope that members have had a chance to look through the paper. I invite comments.
I have several comments. The competitiveness meeting that is mentioned in annex B of the paper has been taking place yesterday and today—I know that today is 23 September because it is my husband's birthday.
There is a series of issues about which we should have had prior notice; for example, in relation to the internal market strategy for professional qualifications, what about the Scottish education and legal systems, as well as other specifically Scottish matters?
Item 7 is about ingredients that are present in foodstuffs: the paper says:
"There is no specific Scottish interest on this issue".
Well, excuse me, but what about Arbroath smokies, smoked mackerel and the fish and food processing industries in Scotland, in which we have particular interests, although they might not impact on the UK?
Item 13 is about G10 medicines and pharmaceuticals. I would think that many members will have had letters from pharmacists and individuals in our constituencies. There will be
"an informal meeting of the European Health Ministers in Milan early in September to prepare the ground for conclusions".
Has that meeting had an outcome? Has the Scottish Executive given any input?
Item 14 is about biotechnology. Again, that is a contentious issue for the Scottish public.
I was not at the previous meeting of the committee for a good reason, but I wonder whether I missed out somewhere. Did the committee or the Parliament not manage to make representations on the issues that I have picked up? Other members of the committee might want to take up other points. It is pointless to have a paper before us that describes meetings that have taken place or which are taking place today—it is a waste of paper. I do not mean that to be critical of our staff, who are very hard-working, but we have to examine procedures to see whether we can get further advance notice.
That comment also links in to the sift process, which is also on our agenda for today. I am happy to write to the ministers on any issues that are raised by members in response to the paper. Members should feel free to express their concerns.
I draw the committee's attention to the agriculture and fisheries council meeting that will take place on 29 and 30 September. I notice that the common agricultural policy reform package has been generally agreed. Discussions are about to take place on the detail—with this, as with everything, the devil is in the detail. I would, therefore, welcome further information on the detail of the package.
I am interested in two specific matters. The first is the sugar regime in the European Union, because there is very much a monopoly. The world price of sugar is about half the price of sugar in the European Union; that has implications for Scottish manufacturing and jobs. I would be interested to see what progress is being made in relation to the common agricultural policy reforms as they apply to sugar.
The second matter in which I am interested—which I raised in a debate in the chamber last week—is EU tobacco subsidies. I know that we are making some progress on the issue, but we have a long way to go. I hope that the committee will get some more detailed information on EU tobacco subsidies.
That may also be the appropriate council for discussion of genetically modified organisms. Members may have seen news coverage of that issue over the past couple of days; it might be worth finding out whether that coverage is accurate. Do members have any other comments on the paper?
I am new to this kind of scrutiny, but I agree with Margaret Ewing's remarks about the timing of our receipt of the paper. We are being informed, but we can hardly consult or contribute.
The general affairs and external relations agenda does not give the kind of in-depth background that the other agendas—on competitiveness, transport, and so on—contain. That is disappointing because it is difficult to work out against what background the debate will take place. Perhaps that is all the information that foreign ministers get—I do not know. They can then just witter away endlessly on any aspect that they like. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for us to get further background to the agenda, especially on the northern dimension, which I had not encountered before.
I agree with what is recommended regarding the sharing of EU information on telecommunications systems and the siting of masts because that is a major issue in Scotland. It was debated in Parliament last week and remains tremendously important.
There are a number of issues under the heading
"Action Plan on 3% objective ‘more research for Europe'."
I understand that the Executive is taking action because our business expenditure on research and development in Scotland is lower than the UK level which, in turn, is lower than the levels of our counterparts in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I would like to know more about that and about what we are trying to achieve.
Finally, we are told that the common agricultural policy reform package is generally agreed, but that there will be a possible report on the World Trade Organization's negotiations, in the collapse of which the CAP reform package seems to have played a considerable part. The EU does not seem to be very keen to get on to the last part of that agenda. Nonetheless, I think that the two issues are related and it is a matter of major concern that international development and free trade are being undermined by the EU's agricultural policies.
Okay. Do any other members have comments?
Reading through the paper, I did not notice any comments about herbal medicines. Is something missing, or is nothing happening about that? Is the directive just going to be railroaded through?
We will find that out for you, Phil. I am happy to write to the ministers for more information on the issues that members have raised. I will also mention Keith Raffan's point about some agendas containing more information than others.
I was trying to go through the paper in logical order; I have further points to raise on justice and home affairs and on transport.
On page 13 of the paper, in the section on justice and home affairs, our attention is drawn to the
"Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status."
That matter is reserved to the UK Government: the Scottish Executive's only direct interest in such a directive would relate to the provision of legal aid to asylum seekers. Can we seek clarification on whether the Scottish Executive has a view on the matter?
Page 22 of the document refers to a
"Proposal for a Directive on the Interoperability of fees collection in road transport".
Would that have any implications for the Skye bridge tolls or for any congestion charging schemes that might be introduced? Should we put forward views on that proposal? I picked those matters up as I read through the documents and raise them simply for general discussion; I am not making any particular recommendations on them.
I thank members for their contributions.