We now come to the scrutiny of the European documentation. We will go through the sift recommendation note.
No. I apologise, by the way, for being late to today's meeting. Could we have a time scale for how long we await? The document could be fundamental to any European Union citizen. Many of the recommendations for the documents use the word "await". I want some guidance: how long do we wait?
We are asking for the document to be considered at our next committee meeting. Can you clarify that, Stephen?
Now that we are out of the summer period, the explanatory memorandums from Whitehall should appear within 10 working days of each document. The wait for the memorandum should be within a couple of weeks, to enable consideration of the document to be put on the agenda. The summer was a strange period, as we had to wait longer for the documents. They should now follow within 10 days and should always be in time for the following committee meeting.
When you say that the memorandum is not yet received, Stephen, does that mean that it is not yet available? Has it been published yet?
It is not available, it has not been published and it has not been received.
The document concerned was deposited in the UK Parliament on 18 August. It is now 28 September. What is the reason for the delay—the Westminster recess?
It is the Westminster recess and the time that Whitehall is taking to produce the documents. Usual practice would be for documents to be available within 10 days.
It is my understanding that, if this committee wants a copy of a specific Commission communication, we just have to ask for it. I am asking for this one in particular.
Do not we have all the documents?
I do not have it.
We do not have the explanatory memorandum.
No, we do not have it.
We have the documents themselves, however, and we have had them for some weeks.
I do not have the document, and I would like a copy—not by e-mail, by the way.
I can provide Dr Ewing with a copy.
Thank you.
I remind members that, as a paper-saving measure, where no further action is to be taken on a document, copies are not sent out. If members want copies, however, they can be provided.
We must also ensure that the clerks' counterparts at Westminster are aware of our concerns about delays.
For document 298, the recommendation is to await the explanatory memorandum and consider the document at our next meeting. Is that agreed?
For document 310, the recommendation is to await the explanatory memorandum and consider the document at our next meeting. Is that agreed?
Does that first one concern genetically modified food?
Do you mean document 298?
I mean the one about health and the minimum standards for the treatment of products. Genetically modified food is a big issue at the moment and I wonder whether that is relevant in this case.
Stephen, can you advise us?
I advise the committee that the explanatory memorandum for document 298 arrived this morning. I did not think it appropriate to rush it to members. From a quick analysis of the memorandum, the document did not appear to concern GM food, but I shall provide copies at the next meeting so that members can look at it.
I am asking for another copy.
Hold on for a minute.
I seek clarification from the clerk. I have copies not of the explanatory memorandums but of the documents. Perhaps other committee members do not have them, but I certainly have a copy of document 310 on budgetary discipline. I was sent a copy of that—presumably by the clerk.
I was not.
Hold on, Winnie.
I have to—
Hush, Winnie. Let us ask Stephen about this.
When—
I am sorry, but—
Winnie, Winnie, Winnie. One at a time, please.
I am just asking for a copy. Is that all right?
Let us take it one at a time; that will be easier.
When the document first comes in and the explanatory memorandum is to be considered at the next meeting, we provide members with a copy. We will therefore have provided copies of the document in question at a previous meeting. When the item has been on the agenda two or three times, we will not provide another copy for each meeting.
I was provided with a copy earlier.
I will certainly provide Dr Ewing with any documents that she needs.
Maybe the Hamilton South by-election has taken my mind off things.
That is okay. Let us proceed. Do we agree to the recommendation on document 310?
For document 317, the recommendation is to await the explanatory memorandum and consider the document at our next meeting. Is that agreed?
For document 328, the recommendation is that no further action be taken, but that a copy be sent to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for interest. Is that agreed?
For document 329, the recommendation is that no further action be taken. Is that agreed?
For document 330, the recommendation is that no further action be taken. Is that agreed?
For document 331, the recommendation is that no further action be taken. Is that agreed?
Will document 330 be referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?
Not unless Winnie is planning to speak Russian.
Well, Russia has a mafia and a lot of people with business interests in Russia find themselves victims of that mafia. Some people from the north of Scotland—
If someone can suggest some direct interest for the Scottish Parliament in the common action between the European Union and Russia on combating organised crime then, yes, we should refer that interest to the justice committee. However, until we identify any such interest, I suggest that we stick to the recommendation.
Some of my constituents who work in Russia have been held incommunicado and have been lucky to escape with their lives. I just wanted to make that point, but I am happy to leave the matter for the moment.
Do we agree to the recommendation on document 331?
Does that involve privacy of data?
Stephen, can you advise us about that?
I cannot tell you off the top of my head.
Shall we come back to document 331 at the next meeting?
For document 332, the recommendation is for no further action. Is that agreed?
Is there a misprint in the document title? It refers twice to the Republic of South Africa.
Presumably, it should say the European Community and the Republic of South Africa.
For document 334, the recommendation is that it should be referred to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Is that agreed?
In my opinion, this relates directly to elementary matters of Scots law. It involves a total change in the burden of proof. I am glad that it has been referred to this committee. It certainly places an arduous obligation on any manufacturer. A 10-year period—our views are asked on that—is a very long time indeed.
Is there a role here for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?
It has been referred to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
We can refer it to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee as well.
Yes. The Sale of Goods Act 1893 is one of the most successful Scottish acts ever passed; it has worked well and has hardly ever been subject to legal challenge. This is a total change, which affects us all. It should go to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee as well.
We will refer document 334 to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
This does not apply to us because we are not signatories to the Schengen convention. The description refers to the enforcement of indefeasible fines—what on earth are they? I could not find indefeasible in the dictionary. Is it Eurospeak? Although this is restricted to the Schengen countries, is there any possibility that in future we in Scotland will be affected by indefeasible fines?
We will consider document 335 for further information.
For document 337, the recommendation is for no further action. Is that agreed?
Excuse my ignorance on document 337, but how does it relate to the European Investment Bank?
Do you mean how does the European investment fund relate to the European Investment Bank?
Yes.
We will ask for a briefing paper on that relationship. That is a separate matter.
I do not understand it.
For document 338, the recommendation is for no further action. Is that agreed?
Might the Transport and the Environment Committee be interested in heating systems for the passenger compartment of motor vehicles?
Do we know whether our vehicle manufacturers have a view on this? An external body may have a view on this that we should know. We have some vehicle manufacturers.
This is an environmental matter as much as anything. The Transport and the Environment Committee could have a wee squint at it.
We will refer document 338 to the Transport and the Environment Committee for the interest of its members.
Similarly, document 339, which is about the
Okay. We will refer document 339 to the Transport and the Environment Committee for the interest of its members. This could be a way of getting back at that committee.
I would like a copy of this document.
This might be an important document for this committee to consider.
We will put document 340 on the agenda for the next meeting.
I would like the advice of the clerk on this. Our Parliament does not have any direct responsibility for international development or overseas aid, but some of us take an active interest in those matters. Can we obtain copies of this document? Does this committee have any power to comment on it? If we feel that there are important matters that should be brought to the attention of the people of Scotland, can we lodge a motion in the Parliament, even though the Parliament does not have powers to legislate on such matters?
How bulky is the document, Stephen?
It has about 30 or 40 pages.
We should put it on a future agenda, not so much for the purposes of the sift process, but to offer the consideration that Dennis is asking for. If something was of interest to the Scottish Parliament, we would be able to offer assistance, advice and support.
Almost every church in Scotland has been involved in Jubilee 2000. It is a burning concern for everybody.
For document 342, the recommendation is for no further action. Is that agreed?
I do not think that this document concerns Scotland much, although we have great forests. Forest fires have been a problem in the south of Europe, but the resulting atmospheric pollution and gas emissions affect us. Should not we refer this to the environment committee? We were blamed for damaging Norway's forests.
We need to get our own back on the Spanish fishermen one way or another.
I did not mention the Spanish fishermen.
When we refer the documents to other committees we must be careful. Are we genuinely concerned about forest fires?
No, I am concerned about pollution.
Being genuinely concerned about pollution, forest fires or whatever is one thing, but we are being asked to comment on a specific document. It is the document and not the general issue that we refer to other committees.
May I have a copy of the document?
Dr Ewing has asked for a copy of the document. Does the committee want to pursue this or to agree to the recommendation?
It is about the legal basis for regulations, which seems to me to be a matter for the UK Government.
We will agree to the recommendation. Winnie has asked for a copy.
For document 345, the recommendation is for no further action. Is that agreed?
This might be a daft laddie question but how much is Scotland involved in the boneless dried meat industry? The Rural Affairs Committee should know what the impact will be if there are to be preferential imports from Switzerland. Our farming industry is hard pressed and we should have a view on that as a nation.
We will refer that to the Rural Affairs Committee.
We will move on to item 3 on the agenda.
Previous
Objective 3Next
Consultation Process