The last item of business today concerns the implementation of European Community and European Union legislation. We continued this from our previous meeting because we were short of time. I thought that we could run through some of the issues page by page. If there is anything that Stephen Imrie wants to highlight, I would be happy for him to do that, because the paper that the clerks and legal adviser have prepared is quite complicated.
It is a helpful recommendation.
The next section is on the environment group and directive 2002/62/EC. The legal adviser believes that a satisfactory explanation has been given to the committee on why no regulations are being made. I would be happy to accept the legal advice on that if the committee agrees. Are we agreed?
On directive 2001/81/EC, it is recommended that we consider whether to ask the Executive for a detailed explanation of the proposed UK means of delivery of that obligation and for some clarification as to why it is in Scotland interests to
The second main section of the report is about compliance with the time frame for implementation. We have had further information on the transposition of directive 2001/15/EC and are reasonably happy with that.
On directive 2002/69/EC, which relates to food standards, we are told that the deadline for implementation will not be met, but we have no information about why, so we will ask for further information on that point. Is that agreed?
It is also recommended that we ask the Executive what steps it has taken to approach the European Commission to ask for additional time for transposition, given that we will not meet the deadline. We want further information on whether we are in any negotiation with the Commission on that. Are we agreed?
On directives 2001/46/EC, 2002/32/EC, 2001/114/EC, 2002/46/EC and 2002/2/EC, it is recommended that we seek further information about whether transposition will occur on time. Is that agreed?
Is it agreed that we should check whether the subject matter of directive 2002/72/EC is reserved or devolved?
The next section of the paper is on the justice department. On directive 1999/22/EC, we felt that we required further information on the reason for late implementation, which was given as UK-wide co-ordination. It is recommended that we consider asking the Executive to provide details as to why UK-wide co-ordination is thought to be necessary. The legal adviser suggests that, as a matter of Community law, such co-ordination would not be accepted as a valid justification for late implementation. Do we agree to explore that issue with the Executive?
The next section is headed "Environment and Rural Affairs Department (Agriculture)". There are several environmental and rural affairs directives for which transposition will be late, and they are listed in the committee papers. We ask that we be given further information about those, as we were told that late implementation was because foot-and-mouth disease was given priority. Further information would be useful, because our legal advisers tell us that that situation would not be accepted in Community law. Are members agreed?
The environment group directive, 2002/3/EC, is late, and we have no indication as to when we are likely to meet that transposition date. There will be further information about that.
Those recommendations are useful for our scrutiny process. However, they are also useful for the Executive to use as a double check and aide-mémoire to ensure that officials catch the dates as they come up.
I am happy to do that. I hope that, with research staff in Brussels, we will move gradually to a situation where many of these matters are flagged up to the committee early, so that we can see years ahead and get in early with our questioning of the Executive. We have developed a system in the past 18 months that allows us to tease out these issues, become more transparent about how we proceed and ensure that there is adequate negotiation and preparation. I am happy to ask for a briefing, if other members agree.
Like Sarah Boyack, I find the format of the paper helpful. Some of the topics, such as that of the Food Standards Agency, are high on the public agenda and are of real concern. The presentation is good, because the columns help us to identify the flow and to what extent our obligations are being met.
There is a final point in relation to the use of derogations. We have a choice about how we might want to proceed. We can try to establish why a derogation has been used and try to get information about it. We could also pass on subject matters that are important to committees. I think that it is important to take a detailed view and to try to engage with the committees. I acknowledge that we are working with limited resources, but I suggest that we try to take an aggressive approach and work in partnership with the other committees by providing them with as much information as we can. We can review the procedure if it is too much for the committee clerks or too much of a drain on our resources. Do members agree to that?
That is really helpful. We would be flagging up to members of the public who might not be aware of it the way in which derogations work and the impact that they can have on our legislation. We would be mainstreaming the issue—it is a bit like equal opportunities issues. We have to consider how we get the matrix involvement of other committees in the work that we are doing.
There are two options. We can either just flag up to a committee the fact that there is a derogation and allow it to undertake its own investigation. Alternatively, we can try to ascertain why there is a derogation, get further information and pass that on to the committee. I would be prepared to take the aggressive and detailed approach, but I am happy to hear what other members think.
We could call it the assertive and inquisitive approach. Unless we understand why a derogation has been sought or why it has been considered and not sought, we will not understand its significance. We need the information before we can judge the derogation's significance. Transparency would be helpful. If we find that we get far too many derogations to consider, we can pass them on to the subject committees. Derogations should not be missed, because some are hugely significant for areas such as the environment or industry. It would help if we were more transparent, because people could then understand why decisions come to us as they do and what scope we have to influence them.
I think that we are agreed in principle that we take a detailed approach in the first instance and monitor the process as we go along.
I have a number of points to raise, but I could raise them with the committee clerk and if there is anything significant I could draw it to your attention later.
Are members happy to agree the report?
That brings us to the end of our meeting. I remind members that the Greek ambassador is coming on Thursday and it would be helpful if anyone who is available could come along. At the next meeting, which is on 11 February, we are likely to hear the final set of witnesses giving oral evidence to our inquiry. We hope that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning will make it to the meeting and we understand that members of the European Commission will try to come over from Brussels. That should be a useful final part of our evidence taking. We are also due to receive the Executive's response to our report on representation in the EU. The meeting will probably be quite lengthy and members' indulgence will be appreciated.
Meeting closed at 15:56.
Previous
Sift