Let us move on to the scrutiny process and go through the documents.
We are still awaiting an explanatory memorandum on document 349 (EC Ref No 10251/99, SEC(99)1213).
Why not send it to them anyway and see whether they notice? [Laughter.]
We have received a Scottish cover note on document 376 (EC Ref No 11024/99, COM(99)368 final), which suggests no further action.
We are very glad to have this note. It is a hopeful sign that we are considering the Norwegian experience, because they have been much more successful in dealing with fish diseases than we have in the United Kingdom. We cannot come to any conclusion because there is to be another meeting of the Fisheries Council; but we should keep the issue very much in mind, because it is fundamental, especially in the Highlands. We should keep our eye on it, but the news so far is very good.
Shall we refer this to the Rural Affairs Committee?
Document 393—
Is that not the sort of thing that should be debated on the floor of the House, as it were, in plenary session?
We have written to Scottish members of the European Parliament, and we have had replies from at least one. Bill Miller has suggested that one thing that we might want to consider doing next year is getting into the process earlier. He feels that, at the moment, we are coming into the process a bit too late. Winnie has made a similar point on that and other matters before. As far as this item is concerned, it is probably too late for that, but we would—
It is not too late; that is the whole point of what we are saying.
Well, the second reading—
We are looking again at the whole way of dealing with infectious salmon anaemia.
No, we are on a different subject now. We are on document 393, which is a draft general budget of the European Communities.
I am sorry. I was looking at document 377 on the control of fish diseases.
There will be meetings in a couple of days' time for that.
That is right. Okay.
Although I think that there is nothing for us to do on documents 411 (EC Ref No 11084/99, COPEN 37), 412 (EC Ref No 11570/99, COPEN 42), 413 (EC Ref No 11571/99, COPEN 43), 414 (EC Ref No 11603/99, COPEN 44) and 437 (EC Ref No 12010/99 COPEN 47 COMIX 344) at the moment, an issue arises that we should perhaps consider along with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I suggest that, in the first instance, I have a meeting with the convener to see whether we need to have some joint debate and consideration, or, if necessary, a joint meeting. There are a number of significant issues for the Scottish Parliament that go beyond this committee. We should ensure that all the justice matters are being looked at adequately. Do members have any suggestions on how to proceed with that?
I have a specific interest in the interception of telecommunications, which is the subject of 413. It is important to establish where the Scottish criminal justice system fits into the concordats and the fault lines between the two Parliaments.
I shall bring forward a recommendation once I have discussed with the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee whether there should be joint deliberation, either between individual members or in a joint committee meeting. If members are agreed, that is the best way forward.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following documents:
SP 440 (EC Ref No 11766/99, COM(99) 473 final)
SP 441 (EC Ref No 11767/99, COM (99) 472 final)
For document 447 (EC Ref No 10525/99 COM(99) 429 final), we are awaiting information and no action is required at this stage. That is agreed.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following documents:
SP 450 (EC Ref No 11921/99 COM (99) 480 final)
SP 451 (EC Ref No 12042/99 COM (99) 463 final)
Members will note that some of these documents are being sent to other committees for their interest, but no further action will be taken as far as this committee is concerned.
What is the difference between referring a document to another committee and simply sending a copy to another committee?
If we formally refer a document to another committee, we require that committee to put it on its agenda, consider it and report back to us. If we copy it to another committee, we copy it to the clerk and the convener, who will decide whether it contains anything worth considering. I suspect that, more often than not, they decide that there is not. We copy documents to them just to keep them aware of what is going on.
If we simply send them a copy, can they still take up the issue if they think that it merits further study and action?
Yes.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following document:
SP 452 (EC Ref No COM (99) 349 final)
For document 453 (EC Ref No 10844/1/99, REV.1), a cover note has been requested. The document will be considered at the next meeting. That is agreed.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following documents:
SP 455 (EC Ref No 12033/99, SEC(99) 1596 final)
SP 456 (EC Ref No 12053/99, COM(99) 500 final)
SP 457 (EC Ref No 12062/99, COM(99) 503 final)
SP 458 (EC Ref No 12064/99, COM(99) 505 final)
SP 459 (EC Ref No 12065/99, COM(99) 506 final)
SP 460 (EC Ref No 12067/99, COM(99) 508 final)
SP 461 (EC Ref No 12066/99, COM(99) 507 final)
SP 462 (EC Ref No 12068/99, COM(99) 509 final)
SP 463 (EC Ref No 12069/99, COM(99) 510 final)
SP 464 (EC Ref No 12079/99, COM(99) 512 final)
SP 465 (no EC Ref No)
SP 466 (EC Ref No 9614/99, JUR 234 COUR 10)
SP 467 (EC Ref No 11422/99, RECH 102 TRANS 203 ECO 353)
For document 468 (EC Ref No 12373/99, COM(99) 456 final), a Scottish cover note has been requested, and the document will be considered at the next meeting. That is agreed.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following document:
SP 469 (EC Ref No 11998/99, COM(99) 481 final)
For document 470 (EC Ref No 12031/99, COM(99) 486 final), we await the explanatory memorandum, and the document will be considered at the next meeting. That is agreed.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following documents:
SP 471 (EC Ref No 11442/99, COM(99) 458 final)
SP 472 (EC Ref No 12111/99, COM(99) 488 final)
Are we waiting for further documentation on 473?
No. The recommendation for document 473 (EC Ref No 12090/99, COM(99) 485 final COD 99/0208) is that no further action be taken.
We can get funding from various budgets for languages.
Then let us take our list of documents for which we agree no further action up to 472. What do you think that we should do with 473?
Perhaps we should wait for more information or for a copy of the document.
We can defer it. That is agreed.
The committee recommended that no further action be taken on the following documents:
SP 474 (EC Ref No 12159/99, COM(99) 489 final)
SP 475 (EC Ref No 12012/99, COM(99) 483 final)
SP 476 (EC Ref No 12011/99, COM(99) 467 final)
SP 477 (EC Ref No 11550, PESC 333 COWEB 121)
SP 478 (EC Ref No SEC(99) 1093-94, 1098, 1140-41, 1143, 1266, 1299, 1414)
Documents 479 (EC Ref No 12509/99, COPEN 54) and 480 (EC Ref No 11951/99, COPEN 45) are connected with the justice issue that we mentioned earlier. The recommendation for both documents is that no further action be taken at this stage. That is agreed.
The next item is consideration of the report to the committee clerk from the clerk to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I propose that we note that report. Are members agreed?
Next is the report to the committee clerk from the clerk to the Rural Affairs Committee. Again, I suggest that we note that report.