European Committee, 31 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000

Official Report 137KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Members have before them a letter from the Minister for Transport and the Environment on compliance with directives 96/59/EC, 76/160/EEC and 79/923/EEC. This is part of our effort to monitor the implementation of European Community law in Scotland. It is suggested that we note the minister's response and that we agree that all the correspondence should be sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

I have forgotten to congratulate Bruce Crawford on what I assume is his promotion—he is to be taken off this committee and is now the new transport spokesperson for the SNP. We wish you well on your new position, Bruce, and thank you for your contribution to this committee.

We are asking that the directives should be passed to the Transport and the Environment Committee and that the clerk to this committee should continue to monitor the implementation of the three directives and development in those areas. In that respect, the clerk has a number of follow-up questions that we might ask the Executive about the implementation of the directives.

We have received some correspondence from Sarah Boyack on the three directives and perhaps I should highlight several points that the committee might want to pursue. On directive 96/59/EC, dealing with polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated triphenyls, it is unclear to the legal adviser and me whether the UK will be able to comply with the recent opinion from the European Court of Justice by the set date. It might be appropriate for the committee to ask the Executive whether that will be possible.

Secondly, the minister's letter does not say whether the UK intends to take any further action on one aspect of the Commission's complaint—the exact requirements of article 11 of directive 96/59/EC. The committee might want to seek further clarification on that point.

Finally, on the directive concerning PCBs and PCTs, the letter does not provide an explanation of the 12-month delay in implementation—although to be fair to the Executive, the committee might not have asked for that information. In a subsequent letter, the committee might want to ask the Executive about that issue. Would it be easier if I took the points of clarification for each directive in turn?

Yes. Do committee members have any questions on directive 96/59/EC?

This directive is one of the difficult ones. In layman's terms, are you saying that we in Scotland can comply with the time constraints of this directive, but that it is unclear whether the Government wants to or has to comply?

There should be UK-wide compliance with the directive; however, from the information that we have, it is unclear whether the UK will be able to comply within the specified dates.

I know this is awful stupid, convener, but why are we bothering?

It is not for me to suggest why members may consider that the correct implementation of this directive is important. It is within the remit of the committee to monitor whether the Executive is fulfilling its obligations to implement EC law correctly in Scotland. It is not for me to say whether this particular directive is a priority for the committee.

We have identified this as an issue. We are now saying that, in technical terms and in terms of the impact on Scotland, it is more appropriate for the Transport and the Environment Committee to consider the issue. I am not sure whether the fact that Bruce Crawford has become spokesperson on transport and the environment means that he will join that committee.

That is the intention, convener, but we are probably a couple of weeks away from any changes; anyway, that is a decision for the group rather than for me. Passing the matter to the Transport and the Environment Committee would be a sensible step.

In the memorandum of understanding and the supplementary agreements between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, it is very clear that the responsibility for implementing EC obligations, such as this directive, lies with the Scottish Executive. That means that any financial penalties would be imposed on Scotland. That is why we think that it is important to examine implementation, but that is not to suggest that this committee should look at this directive in particular.

I may not completely understand this. As I understand it, if we do not stick to the directives, we incur the penalty, and if Westminster does not stick to the directives, we also incur the penalties.

I have to dispute what the clerk has said. The Treasury is fined by the European Union if any region or part of the United Kingdom fails to apply the directive. It is up to the Treasury whether it chooses to pass any fine on to us. The UK Treasury is the interface with the European Commission. Who would the Commission fine? As I understand it, it cannot fine the Scottish Executive finance department.

I understand that the money would eventually be accounted for in the assigned budget. It would come out of the money that is available to the Scottish Executive.

There are two separate issues. The clerk will provide further detail of the financial implications and responsibility, because we may wish to comment on those. However, it is right that the Transport and the Environment Committee should consider the technical issues that are involved. That is not just because of the environmental implications, but because of the consequential effect on the Scottish budget.

I am a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Recently, we have been caught up with the Transport (Scotland) Bill and have not had the opportunity to address as many environmental issues as we might have liked to. It is not yet clear whether the changes in ministerial portfolios will have a knock-on effect for the committee. If we ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to monitor the implementation of this directive, we should provide full information. If we do not, given that committee's present work load, there is a danger that the request would be received in correspondence, but that nothing would then happen. We need to tell the Transport and the Environment Committee what we want it to do. I am sure that Bruce Crawford—he does not escape having to sit across the table from me—and I will take up those issues at that committee.

We should highlight the financial implications.

One person's escape is another person's delight. I think that you are right, convener, about the technical aspects. However, the committee has a responsibility to the Scottish Parliament on procedural aspects. Although it is right that the UK Treasury would be fined, as the clerk has pointed out, the fine would be passed on to the Scottish block.

The committee has a responsibility to understand the condition of bathing waters in Scotland, in case Scotland ends up being fined as part of the UK. We have a responsibility to confirm with the Scottish Executive whether Scotland can meet the requirements of article 11. If Scotland is not meeting the requirements of article 11, it is up to either the European Committee or the Transport and the Environment Committee to tease out further what would need to be done—there is no need to hold a full inquiry. In terms of procedure, it is our responsibility to ensure that the system works and to make it clear whether there are responsibilities in Scotland. If there are responsibilities, we must investigate whether we are meeting them and, if we are not, what we are going to do about it.

In our comments to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we need to highlight the financial implications and the procedural implications that Bruce Crawford describes. However, more detailed examination is probably best left to the Transport and the Environment Committee. We should consider whether the system and procedure is competent. I hope that we can separate those elements.

I agree. I have a particular interest in the bathing water directive because one of the beaches is almost on my doorstep and the other two are also in my constituency. The Transport and the Environment Committee has previously discussed issues surrounding the possibility of pollution. However, I was surprised to read in the response that

"it is believed that the increased number of failures is connected with periods of dull, wet weather".

I am surprised that that comes as a shock to anyone in the west of Scotland. Now that we have highlighted the position on the principle, the Transport and the Environment Committee should take on the specifics of the issue.

We are clear on the general point.

Reading the minister's briefing and the accompanying letter, I notice that there is no date. How up to date is the briefing? It says:

"Scotland should be in a position to comply with Article 4 of the Directive"—

that is directive 96/59/EC—

"and to provide an inventory covering Scotland to the Commission in October 2000".

This is the last day of October 2000 and I wonder whether that inventory has been completed.

Can we find that out?

The letter from the minister was received in the past two weeks. I do not have the specific date here, but I could check it on the computer system.

We want to find out whether the inventory has been produced and whether it is available for those who want access to it.

Could we also ask the ministers to date their letters? I notice that the new minister for schools has managed at least half a date: October 2000. However, when I was at school, we were told to date all letters fully.

When I receive a letter by e-mail—that is how I received the letters from the Minister for Transport and the Environment and the Minister for Finance—it is not dated. However, shortly after that, I usually receive a hard copy through the post, with dates. As the papers were produced when I had only an e-mail version, the letters were not dated. I will ensure that members have dated copies in the future.

Some of the discussion on directive 96/59/EC would also apply to 76/160/EEC on bathing waters. Is there anything else on bathing waters?

I would like some clarification on the last paragraph of the response on directive 96/59/EC. It reads:

"The Commission's challenge against the UK concerns all areas of the UK. The position in Scotland is the same as for England and Wales".

What exactly does that mean?

We are still not compliant in respect of old washing machines and so on.

I understand that the situation in Scotland is no different from that in England and Wales. The Commission is challenging a particular aspect in the UK as a whole. There is no differentiation between the situations north and south of the border.

Does that mean that we are on schedule to comply with parts of the directive but not others? Are we saying that there are some parts that are not on schedule and that that is where our situation is the same as that for England and Wales?

I would think that there is very little difference between the parts of the United Kingdom.

We have the same consumer durables.

The third directive is 79/923/EEC on shellfish waters.

There are a couple of minor points that members may want to take up with the Executive. The material provided by the Executive does not give us any information on when the UK should have designated shellfish waters. The timetable of the complaints is not clear: we do not know when the reasoned opinion was issued. Members might want us to take up those points with the Executive before the matter is referred to another committee for consideration. That would allow the other committee to have the information at its fingertips.

Thank you.

The next item is an exchange of correspondence with the Executive on EQUAL and other community initiatives. Several key bodies have expressed concerns that those funds are not progressing as well as planned. I suggest that we note the development.

In respect of EQUAL, I suggest that we nominate a reporter to produce a report on views on the draft plans to be sent to the minister. That would have to be done before the end of November.

I also suggest that we welcome the minister's intention to ensure that the committee is consulted before submission of the draft plans for URBAN II and LEADER +. On the minister's proposals for consulting the committee after submission of the draft plan, I suggest that we agree that the clerk and I explore further the rationale before taking such an approach and report back to the committee. Is that agreeable to members?

Members indicated agreement.

We must identify a reporter fairly urgently. Do any members have a particular interest in the community initiatives?

I have an interest in LEADER +.

It is EQUAL that we have to comment on.

It relates to equal opportunity and discrimination aspects of the labour market.

Irene Oldfather is a dead cert.

Irene Oldfather is doing a report on tobacco. As there are no volunteers, I ask the committee to remit the matter to me. I will consult the clerk to find a way to make progress.