European and External Relations Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Pre and Post-council Scrutiny

We now move on to item 4, which is the paper on pre and post-council issues. At annex A, there is a list of the different reports that have been submitted by the Executive pre-council and post-council. Are there any points that members wish to raise on the contents of the paper?

I would like to mention item 3 on page 5. Once again, we are hearing all the right words from Europe, but if we analyse what is actually happening, we have to question those words. The paper refers to

"making Europe a more attractive place to invest in jobs, promoting knowledge and innovation for growth and creating more and better jobs."

That was all part of the Lisbon agreement, and what do we get in the European Parliament? I am not making a political point on this occasion, but I feel strongly that, if Parliament is acting to have the working time directive opt-outs cancelled, that cuts right across everything that the Lisbon agreement wanted to achieve. I acknowledge that the Commission itself recognised that. The Commission was prepared to keep the opt-outs, but Parliament has gone against that.

We will have to wait and see what happens. I recognise that the present Government stands totally against ending the opt-outs and I would like a message to go from this committee that we support the present Government on that. I am not sure whether there could be consensus, but I know that the nationalist MEPs voted for the opt-out to continue.

As did the Liberal Democrats.

No—they did not, unfortunately.

Yes, they did.

They did not. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party voted against the opt-outs.

I hear what you are saying and I quite understand your concern. For us to come to a committee position on that, I would have to employ other mechanisms to put the issue on the agenda and give members the proper opportunity to consider the proposition. I am not saying that it cannot be done, although it cannot be done today. I am quite happy to consider a specific proposal from Phil Gallie; if you wish the committee to examine the issue in a fortnight, I am quite prepared to allow that. I have to give members proper notice that the matter will be on the agenda, so that they can marshal their thoughts—if I can put it as delicately as that.

I could marshal my thoughts now, but I do not think that Phil Gallie would want to hear them.

That is fair comment.

It is an important issue.

Are there any other comments on the pre-council and post-council reports? Members will notice that the general affairs and external relations council held a discussion on the budget, which was a major issue when we visited Brussels some weeks ago.

I would like to pick up on the point about unemployment and social policy.

Could you give me a page number?

It is on page 9. Once again, I have a comment about the working time directive. It was suggested that there would not be too great an effect on Scottish issues, but I have noted down power generation, fishing and agriculture. Maybe I am reading the paper wrong, but it would certainly be in the interests of Scottish ministers to consider the matter from the point of view of fishing and agriculture if nothing else—they are devolved responsibilities.

We can certainly draw the matter to ministers' attention. Most of the discussion has been about the impact of the working time directive on the road haulage industry, for which the majority of regulation will be reserved, but we can certainly write to ministers to make that point. That would not be a problem.