European and External Relations Committee, 26 Oct 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

EC/EU Legislation (Transposition and Implementation)

The fifth item on the agenda is monitoring of the transposition and implementation of EU legislation. Paper EU/S2/04/17/6 gives a comprehensive outline of the legislative instruments that have come forward from the EU to be translated and transposed into Scottish legislation. There is an extensive list of processes that have been completed and ones that are under way. We receive such reports periodically so that we can determine the progress of legislative instruments.

The report is also part of the scrutiny of an issue of concern that Phil Gallie has mentioned, which is the idea that, within the process, legislative instruments can be gold plated to increase the degree of responsibility that is placed on Scottish organisations. The report, which is extensive, is there for information. I do not know whether members have comments on the contents of the report.

How often do we receive the report? I have never seen this type of report before.

We usually receive the report every two months. This report has been ever so slightly delayed because Executive officials have been streamlining some of their services and producing new databases. We have worked alongside the Executive to articulate what information the committee might want. The committee should receive the report every two months.

When did we last receive the report? I do not remember seeing one in the past year.

I believe that we received a report in December 2003. I suspect that the elections to the European Parliament and so on delayed the production of new databases. The report should be on stream every two months now.

That would obviously give us a more manageable list into the bargain.

Having looked at the list, I can understand the concerns that have been expressed about regulation. I must admit that I have not gone through the list in detail. I got lost when I got to

"hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists".

I then moved on to issues about fruit growing. I assume that that legislation could be important for the Blairgowrie area and I wonder what consideration the convener has given to it.

Mr Gallie is always a man for detailed questions. Believe you me, the Blairgowrie fruit industry is in safe hands—much safer hands than it used to be in.

The item that I like is the Food (Chilli and Chilli Products) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

The key point of the exercise is that, if we receive a manageable list every two months, that gives us an opportunity to monitor whether additional regulations are being applied. That enables us to test the point that is often raised about whether such instruments are used as a device to increase regulatory burdens on businesses and organisations in Scotland. The report is helpful to the committee.

I would like clarification of a couple of points, as this is the first time that we have seen this type of report. What does "Secondary" mean in this context? Everything is listed as "Secondary" throughout the document. What is the

"Reason for Use of S.57"?

Can you explain what that means so that, when I get such documents in future, I know exactly what is happening?

I am happy to advise the member on those two issues and I will provide a point of information that might be helpful for the long term. "Secondary" means that the legal instrument that will be used to give effect to a directive will be a Scottish statutory instrument; the terminology refers to secondary legislation as opposed to primary legislation. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 is an example of primary legislation being used to give effect to a directive, but the bulk of the instruments used are secondary legislation.

The section 57 reference is to the provision in the Scotland Act 1998 that enables the Scottish Executive to ask Westminster to pass legislation at either a UK or Great Britain level that would cover devolved responsibilities in so far as they relate to the EU. If I could paraphrase, it is a Sewel-type process.

A Euro-Sewel.

I could not possibly comment.

The committee has looked at those two aspects—section 57 and adherence to timetables—in the past, because of the potential for fines if the Scottish Executive does not pass legislation on time.

Gold plating has also been a political priority. I am sure that the committee will recall that it asked for the issue to be reviewed and for a paper to be produced on what the committee could do with the raw information. There may be ways of making that information user friendly. We will work on that and produce a paper using some of the new resources in the Parliament.

I recall that the list of legislative instruments used to come before the committee regularly, although it has appeared less frequently recently. To pick up the points that Margaret Ewing raised about secondary legislation, there seems to be a significant amount of overlap between our work of examining the list and the work of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. It might be helpful for either the clerks or the conveners of the two committees to work out what added value our committee can bring to the issue without duplicating work—we might be able to do something different.

That issue will be borne in mind as the clerks produce the paper to review that area of scrutiny. It is important that the European and External Relations Committee examines some of the broader political issues that arise, such as gold plating, whereas the Subordinate Legislation Committee examines each instrument in turn to ensure that issues are properly considered. The broad issue that you raise will be included in the review and a paper will be brought back to the committee in due course.