Official Report 233KB pdf
We move on to our next agenda item—goodness, it is only item 2. We are considering our regular paper on the European Commission's work programme. I invite comments from members.
It is clear that the public procurement contracts will have major implications for the efficient government programme. Do we have any more information on that?
The information in the paper is from the update that the European officer provided. The issue is on-going and we will continue to monitor what is happening.
I note that the Commission is not likely to propose any legislation until the second half of 2007, but the earlier we know about these things, the better. Perhaps we could ask our European officer to keep a close watch on the issue and keep us updated on further developments. I am sure that Mr Gallie wants to raise an issue.
What we have with respect to public-private partnerships is a total shambles, which has been made worse by European legislation. Rather than having more legislation, we want the existing legislation to be revisited or got rid of. There is too much involvement in all internal market activities. The next item in the paper is postal services, where there is an element of European interference, which could well affect the universal provision of postal services, which no one on the committee would want to happen.
Do you not support privatisation of the postal service?
I am quite happy with privatisation, but there have to be safeguards to protect national interests with respect to universal provision. There is public involvement to some degree in Holland. The issue has to be addressed. We do not need more complicated legislation that will confuse us further.
I have taken careful note of your points, Mr Gallie.
I see that a directive on the internal market for postal services is expected this month. Has it been published yet?
Not yet.
We ought to keep an eye on that and perhaps follow it up, because it has obvious implications for the post office network.
Members will be aware—and, as one of the founder members of the committee, Dennis Canavan more than most—that the committee has kept a close eye on the development of the postal services directive. My understanding is that it has been through several phases and that it is now in the last phase. The committee has always said that it wants to keep a watching brief on the directive because of the implications for rural Scotland. I am happy for the committee to continue to do that if members agree.
This month, the Committee of the Regions approved an opinion on the globalisation adjustment fund. There were 19 amendments and I think that members would generally be in favour of the spirit of the amendments that the Committee of the Regions accepted, which lowered the threshold for intervention from 1,000 to 500 redundancies. If the threshold were to stay at 1,000 redundancies, which would have a major effect on local economies and local economic development in Scotland, we would not qualify for any of the money. The committee should welcome the recommendation of the Committee of the Regions.
Why is it not welcomed by the UK Government, which wanted the threshold to be at 2,000?
You would have to address that question to UK ministers. I was pleased to accept the amendment that set the threshold at 500 workers.
Given the importance of the fund to rural Scotland, as the deputy convener emphasised, why do we not question the UK Government and point out to it the difficulties that Scotland could face?
With the committee's agreement, I would be happy to write to ministers about that. I anticipate that they would say that we are in the first year of the fund and that if they were to place the threshold too low, too many people could qualify and the budget would not be large enough. My report recommended that we double the budget on the basis that it would be funded from underspend from the structural funds. That would be a valid way to finance the upskilling of redundant workers.
I understand your suggestion that a cautious approach is being taken at the beginning of the fund and it is fair enough if that is the reason. However, the threshold puts down a marker on Scotland's interests for which the committee should take more responsibility.
I am happy to write to UK ministers on behalf of the committee if members agree.
I congratulate John Purvis on his excellent efforts.
That is noted.
When we visited Brussels earlier this year, we heard much about joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas and joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises, both of which initiatives are likely to be introduced in the not-too-distant future. I would like to ask the Scottish Executive whether it is ready to get involved with JESSICA and JEREMIE. Is it prepared for their imminent acceptance?
I note that the Executive has been asked to outline whether an operation similar to the analysis that the Small Business Service is doing in England is being undertaken in Scotland. We could write to the Executive for further information on that matter.
I would like that.