European and External Relations Committee, 23 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

Pre and Post-council Scrutiny

Agenda item 5 is consideration of a paper on pre and post-council scrutiny. I refer members to the main table in annex A to the paper. Do members wish to comment on the points raised?

The committee might wish to reconsider at its away day whether to recommence with its idea of commissioning research into Scotland's performance relative to the Lisbon targets, rather than making a rushed decision now. Depending on our forward programme for next year, there might be other issues on which we wish to commission research. I will raise other issues on the EU drugs action plan with the clerks, because they are relatively minor.

I agree with Keith Raffan. During the away day we will consider our programme, of which commissioning research will be a part. I endorse Keith Raffan's view.

I seem to be coming out with fish this afternoon.

With regard to the economic and financial affairs council, I see on page 18 of the briefing paper that a certain amount of European taxpayers' money is being spent on getting access for European fishing fleets to various African and other waters. Given that there is a reference to

"French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and British vessels",

I would be interested to know whether that would be of any use to people from the Scottish fleet.

Some weeks ago, I saw a news piece on the BBC about a fishing vessel from either Peterhead or Buckie that was fishing off the Namibian coast. We will certainly ask the clerks to investigate that matter.

The paper mentions fishing in Mauritius—now there's a thought.

The agenda of the justice and home affairs council looks very impressive on first reading. However, only two items will make it on to the final agenda for discussion, which means that the other 22 or so items that are mentioned will not be discussed. That makes me wonder about the value of that section of the briefing paper.

My second point may be slightly more controversial for this committee. In relation to employment and social policy, the paper says:

"the EU requires extra effort to meet its target of 70% employment by 2010".

The council appears to be very concerned that we do not have the resources to meet our employment requirements and has made suggestions about changing immigration law to allow people from other countries to be recruited. However, there also appears to be a massive surplus of labour in the EU. Given that EU citizens can move freely between EU countries, I wonder why it is finding it difficult to meet its target.

That major issue fits in with Keith Raffan's point about the significance of this area of inquiry. The European Commission will focus on issues of competitiveness, and mobility of labour will be central to that debate. Perhaps we can investigate the matter and ensure that it forms part of our discussions at the away day in January.

In the past, we have given some attention to pre-council reports. However, based on the information that we receive in those reports, we often discuss certain issues in committee that in the end do not reach the agenda. It might well be that information about whether a particular matter has made it on to the agenda emerges in the post-council reports. We sometimes spend an awful lot of time on sending letters to ministers about issues that are raised in pre-council reports but which never reach the agenda. Perhaps at the away day we could examine how we can improve our targeting instead of spending time on issues that never see the light of day.

I endorse that point. It would be worth spending some time at the away day on committee processes.

I want briefly to raise a few points about this part of the agenda. First, it would be useful to see the Kok report, called "Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment", before our away day. Secondly, the paper refers to two recent European Court of Justice cases that affect residential on-call working time. I recall that those cases have been raised before because of their implications for the health service, but I am not quite sure where we stand on that matter.

Thirdly, I wish to highlight the proposal for amending the directive on nutrition labelling, which will seek to make full nutrition labelling mandatory on all pre-packaged foods. That is very important, health-wise.

Finally, under the heading "Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Training", the paper says:

"UK Health Departments are working on a UK basis to develop a flu pandemic plan … A version for Scotland's particular circumstances will also be produced."

That is important.

At this point, I should also repeat my earlier reference to the new EU drugs action plan.

I have a point of clarification on the ECOFIN section of the paper. Perhaps this is an argument for tomorrow rather than today, but one of our discussions about membership of the euro has centred on the premise that that will not necessarily mean that taxation will be harmonised. In that regard, I note that Andorra has applied to come into the euro zone, but that

"Negotiations will be suspended if Andorra has not ratified agreement on taxation of income from savings".

I would be happy to hear a slight explanation of that from the ministers involved. Any information would be useful, because it seems to me that the issue of harmonisation is tomorrow's argument.

I am afraid that the specific point that you raised on ECOFIN is—

It is under "items approved without debate".

Sorry—we can certainly seek clarification on that point.

As I said to some members beforehand, one of my reflections on this section of the committee's business is that I think that we tend to focus on issues when the stable door has been kicked open by the horse, which is galloping off while we try to get on its back to slow it down. Notwithstanding the importance of scrutinising legislation as it comes in from the EU, it might be more valuable to be involved at a much earlier stage and to have a commanding understanding of the European Commission's policy agenda so that we can make whatever recommendations and representations that we want to the Executive and, if necessary, to the UK Government to try to redirect the policy agenda, instead of trying to intervene at a late stage when it has all gone pear-shaped. That issue could obviously crop up at the away day.

Now is a good time to be doing that, despite what Phil Gallie thinks about the new constitution. To my mind, the new constitution's protocols give a role to regional Governments and Parliaments to become involved in the policy-making process. The Committee of the Regions, Regleg and other organisations will look at how regions can influence the policy agenda upstream early on. I hope that that will provide us with a vehicle for taking forward our concerns. The difficulty in the past was intelligence gathering in terms of having someone in Brussels who could tell us well before things were at the development stage what would be coming on to the agenda and how much would be relevant to what we do in Scotland.

It would be useful if we could fine tune the intelligence gathering and use the vehicle of the new constitution's additional protocols. Regional Governments across Europe are determined to have a bigger role in shaping policy before it gets to the draft stage. There are vehicles that we will be able to use in the months ahead and it is important that the committee taps into that—I am very much in favour of doing so.

I do not dissent from that view. There is an argument for the Parliament having its own representative in Brussels to help us with that. I agree with what the convener said, but the problem is our fortnightly cycle of meetings, which may not necessarily dovetail with the pre-council reports. The reports vary in quality—some are substantial and, of course, some are non-existent. For example, the table in annex A shows that, for the pre-council ECOFIN report for 7 December, we are

"Awaiting information from the Scottish Executive."

The same entry appears under the heading "Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, 9 December". That is the problem.

The issue is largely about how aware the European and External Relations Committee, the Parliament and the Executive are of issues that are on the horizon. My concern is that, once an issue reaches a council agenda, it is largely all over and done with. I do not think that the fortnightly cycle of our meetings affects the issues too much. It is about being involved in an issue 18 months beforehand, seeing where the thinking is going and ensuring that everybody in Scotland is connected to some of the issues.

My final point in relation to the pre and post-council scrutiny report is the letter from the Minister for Justice on the issues that we raised on the justice and home affairs council. I am a little bit bewildered by the second-last paragraph of the minister's letter, which indicates that the fresh talent initiative and all the rest of it is absolutely hunky-dory within the asylum and immigration agenda, when immigration in terms of restrictions on people coming into the EU is a live political issue. I do not understand where the minister is coming from on that, but I am sure that we can chew over the issue when we have further discussions on how to handle such issues.

Since the convener has raised the issue, let me suggest that, despite Irene Oldfather's earlier remarks, it might be worth our asking the minister to amplify her remarks rather than simply let the issue disappear into the ether.

I am happy to write to her again. There is perhaps a strain of thinking within some aspects of the justice and home affairs council that might contradict the aspirations of the excellent fresh talent initiative, which I am anxious to ensure is not obstructed.

The reply on biofuels, which is also attached, contains rather better news than I had expected. It reveals that 20 outlets across Scotland sell biodiesel and that the nation's first large-scale biodiesel production unit is under construction near Motherwell. That is interesting. I did not know about that.

That should be an interesting place to visit on a spare Friday afternoon.

I had a nasty feeling that Scotland might be trailing behind on the issue, but it seems that we are leading.