“Brussels Bulletin”
Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2013 of the European and External Relations Committee. I make the usual request that all mobile phones be switched off.
The first agenda item is the “Brussels Bulletin”, a copy of which members will have in their pack. Do members have any questions or comments?
I compliment the officials who prepared this full and detailed report. Of particular note is that there are still issues around the budget and it looks as if it will not be concluded at this time. It could be that we are looking to July, August or September, or perhaps even beyond that, which is slightly worrying for everyone.
We are pleased to note the negotiations that will take place on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. According to the newspapers, if we can get through those negotiations, the partnership could create up to 2 million jobs. That is something that we desperately need, given that there is such a huge problem with the unemployment figures across Europe, which we are all concerned about.
I also read—I cannot remember whether it was in the “Brussels Bulletin” or the newspapers—that an initiative is being looked at to match up public service jobs with vacancies across Europe, and to co-ordinate that for the first time. That is to be welcomed, and perhaps we could ask the Westminster Government representative about it when he is here later this morning. It would be interesting to know the detail of how that initiative will work. Given that there are 1.5 million vacancies, I am sure that many unemployed people in this country would be pleased to know where the jobs are. They certainly do not seem to be in this neck of the woods.
Another issue of some concern is regional state aid, which I was pleased to read about, given all the lobbying of this committee and other MSPs about the regional state aid rules. However, I was a little bit concerned that the new guidelines appear to suggest that Commissioner Almunia is perhaps putting down a marker for the future. We have managed to hold on to the ability of companies that have more than 250 employees worldwide to get state aid, which has benefited some companies and areas in the United Kingdom. I was concerned when I read:
“The Commission will carry out a detailed examination of large aid measures, focusing on their incentive effect, proportionality, contribution to regional development and effects on competition.”
I think that that is a marker for the future. Commissioner Almunia is perhaps suggesting that, although he did not change the rules this time round, he will change them in the future. I also note that
“Member States will have to publish on the internet data on how much regional aid they grant and to whom”,
which is quite good from a transparency point of view.
Another issue that is of special interest to all of us is that member states have been asked to accelerate the implementation of youth guarantee schemes. The European Commission is talking about
“the ‘frontloading’ of the €6 billion Youth Employment Initiative in order that the money is committed in 2014 and 2015”,
which is really good. We have—I think—89,000 unemployed young people in Scotland who are aged between 18 and 25, so that is really helpful.
The “Brussels Bulletin” states:
“the Commission’s ... annual recommendations included stepping up measures to increase youth employment, in particular through the Youth Guarantee.”
Perhaps we could ask for further research and ask to what extent that is affecting Scotland. It continues:
“The Commission also called on the UK to increase the quality and length of apprenticeships, to simplify qualifications systems, and to strengthen the engagement of employers – particularly in the provision of advanced and intermediate technical skills.”
I would not have thought that that would be an issue here in Scotland, but perhaps the Brussels office or the Scottish Parliament information centre could look at it. The quote is on page 4 of the bulletin.
The following page mentions something that I think is quite important, which is the Commission’s proposal for the public employment service initiative that I mentioned earlier. It is going to be important for simplifying mobility. As we move on to the next section about professional qualifications, I welcome the idea of simplifying the mobility of professionals across the European Union. Despite all the hopes and aspirations that we had when the EU and the Common Market were first set up, we are not quite there yet. If we could achieve that, it would be very good.
On the provisional agreement on the planned revision of the directive on professional qualifications on 12 June, I have highlighted the fact that the revision will have to be
“voted upon by the Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (which will probably take place before the summer recess period)”.
I wonder whether our SPICe team could update us on the outcome of that vote, because that would be quite helpful.
Under the heading “Internal energy market” on page 6 of the bulletin, there is the paragraph:
“Adoption of national strategies for the development of smart grids and roll out of smart meters, making use of regional policy funding, and the rapid development of common standards at EU level.”
That is really good, but I want to know a little bit more about
“the phase out of subsidies to maturing renewables”,
because that could have an impact right across Scotland on many aspects of the work that we do here. That has been a focus of our Government, and when the Labour Party was in power, it acknowledged that renewables is a powerful area of Scotland’s development. If there is a suggestion that we are going to lose out on any subsidies, we need to be alert to that.
On trans-European transport, the final agreed network maps were going to be published following formal endorsement of the deal by the Council and the European Parliament. I would like to see those maps sooner rather than later. They must be in draft form. At one stage, many years ago, there was a suggestion to leave one of the trans-European network groups that included the Forth road bridge off the main map. Luckily, some members of the European Parliament were especially alert—I think that it was Ken Collins who was very vigilant at that time. We should keep an eye on that.
Again on the issue of funding for trans-European transport, the connecting Europe facility will be directed to those priorities. I hope that someone in the Parliament—perhaps the appropriate committee—will look at the relationship between the funds that are going to come in the connecting Europe facility and see to what extent it is possible that they could go to a third runway in London, to which I am really opposed.
Better national hub airports should be developed throughout the EU. The funding could go to that kind of initiative instead. I do not care whether it is in Manchester, Newcastle, Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow, but the money should be directed to those areas. I hope that we will be vigilant about trans-European transport funding. That is really important.
Convener, you will be glad to know that, although I have various other points to raise, if something is worrying me after the meeting, I will raise it with the clerks.
Okay. The clerk has taken a note of all the issues that you have raised, Helen.
I have a couple of points. The issue of the recognition of professional qualifications ties in with the directive on the free movement of workers that we dealt with last week. I know that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee was looking at that but it, too, had only a short time to deal with the issue. A bit of a pattern is being established on some directives. We should perhaps speak to members of that committee and see what they did on the professional qualifications part of the directive.
I have spent a bit of time over the past week or so looking at the issue of the youth guarantee. Within the papers, members will have received a letter from Angela Constance, the Minister for Youth Employment, with quite a detailed analysis of what is happening with the youth guarantee in Scotland. There is an extremely helpful map, which I have printed in black and white. If you see it in colour, though, it shows you the different youth employment figures throughout Europe. I am a visual person, so something like that allows me to understand the issue a bit better. I draw members’ attention to that important information from the minister. It is certainly an issue that we will follow up.
I asked Iain McIver in SPICe to do a bit of work and he has given me some information on the youth guarantee and the differences throughout the UK and Europe. We should share that with committee members. I raised some concerns that the United Kingdom Government is failing to implement the youth guarantee, which has consequences for the employment figures. That is a real concern. At our business planning away day in September, we could discuss doing a bit of work on that in the autumn.
Another thing that jumped to my attention was the European Commission’s country-specific recommendations. For the UK, issues were raised on
“the limitation of the tax burden on labour”
and
“the reduction of gaps in employment protection between different types of work contracts”.
What sprung to my mind is that that could be a powerful argument against age discrimination and the two-tier minimum wage. A bit of analysis and investigation needs to be done. It does not matter what age someone is. Their work contract will suggest that they should work a certain number of hours for a certain rate of pay, and there should not be a two-tier minimum wage in the UK. It may be grandiose of us to think like that, but we should look at the issue. I know that the Scottish Youth Parliament is doing a bit of work on it. We could bring the Commission’s recommendation to its attention as something to follow up. It is certainly an issue that we can look at when we consider the whole picture in the autumn.
Are there any other comments from members?
I have two small points. First, at the previous meeting, I suggested that we need someone to focus on to give advice on funding that is available in the European Union. I do not see anything in the paper about whether we have appointed or identified a person or body who could do that. We could circulate that information to organisations and, in particular, schools and colleges.
The other item that I am looking at is the upcoming events and meetings in Brussels. The agriculture and fisheries council meets on 15 July. I wonder whether the committee or Parliament will be represented at that meeting. If not, could we consider that?
Okay. We will take note of your first point, about EU funding. That is important. The meeting on 15 July is the formal council, so there will be a UK-led delegation at ministerial level. In most cases, Richard Lochhead is at those meetings; we do not expect that to change.
09:15
That was not my point. My point was that we need to ensure that there is representation from whomever, because the issue is important to us in Scotland. Regardless of whether it is a UK delegation, I would want to be assured that there will be someone to represent our interests at that meeting.
I agree, but the problem is that that is not within our gift. It is the UK, as the member state, that leads the delegation, so it is up to the UK to determine who forms part of that delegation.
Could we ask the UK Government to advise us who will represent us at the meeting?
I am sure that we could. We could ask David Lidington later on—we can add that to the list of questions.
I have a comment about linguistic integration. The Council of Europe has created a website to foster a debate between policy makers and practitioners. Could we inquire whether the Scottish Government intends to participate in that website in any way?
I think that we should ask about that.
The bulletin deals with investment services on pages 7 and 8. Quite a lot seems to be being done on the organised trading facility, which is a new type of trading venue, and things to do with the markets in financial instruments directive. Given the importance of the financial sector to Edinburgh in particular, do we have any idea how that sector is responding to those developments or what it is saying? The bulletin does not say whether the developments are good or bad. Such matters are important to the UK economy, too. Much of the UK’s invisible earnings are based on the City of London. The bulletin does not comment on how the EU proposals are being received.
We can inquire about that.
How can we do that?
We can inquire through Scotland Europa.
Would it be okay to do that?
Yes. The other suggestion is that we could speak to Owen Kelly from Scottish Financial Enterprise. We will get back to you with some information on that.
Okay. Thank you.
I have a comment on the section on electronics on page 7, which deals with the Commission’s focus on the electronics industry across the EU. I found the way in which the situation is described quite disturbing. It is almost a declaration that the EU will not be able to compete in the international market on electronics. I would like a bit more information about where the major competitors are in that area.
In the context of youth unemployment, one of the apprenticeship focuses is on technical skills. Given the EU’s focus on the electronics industry, in conjunction with the horizon 2020 research money and the youth unemployment focus, we should highlight the opportunities that Scotland may have in electronics.
Okay. That is something else to follow up.
My comments are along the same lines as Clare Adamson’s. I draw the committee’s attention to the multi-annual financial framework agreement. We were concerned about the huge cut in the broadband infrastructure budget. I am not clear whether that is still part of the proposal, although I imagine that it is. Members might recall that a cut of around 88 per cent in that budget was proposed.
As Clare Adamson mentioned, the bulletin mentions the need to develop our capability to design and manufacture electronic components that are essential for the digital economy. That sounds great, but I get the impression from reading various papers on the subject that the approach to the digital strategy and the digital economy is a wee bit fragmented. Members will see from the figures that the convener explained to us that in Spain, for example, youth unemployment is as high as 60 per cent. The convener also mentioned the UK’s attempts to implement the youth guarantee scheme, one component of which—according to the bulletin—is investment in the digital jobs strategy for young people.
A range of opportunities exist, but I get the sense that the approach is a wee bit fragmented. I wonder whether we could get a broad-brush picture of the view of the EU, or even the Commission, on the digital strategy. On the one hand we hear about massive cuts to infrastructure, and on the other hand we hear about the pursuit of investment for youth and digital jobs opportunities and so on. The two do not meet. Is there an opportunity for us to get a briefing on or review of the overall picture?
We can seek information from the Commission. We might also ask the minister that question later today.
I totally support Willie Coffey on that point. He is absolutely right to keep going on about this. At one stage, €28 billion was available for broadband across the EU, and I would like to know where all that money has gone or how much of it has been spent.
We know that the youth unemployment picture in Scotland is improving considerably compared with the picture in the UK, but the figure for Spain is quite frightening—I think that youth unemployment in Spain is as high as 60 per cent. A digital strategy with that kind of ambition for young people in the European Union must really work. I am pleased that member states have been asked to accelerate the programme and front-load the investment. Surely to goodness that will have a positive effect on a country such as Spain, which is suffering really badly through youth unemployment.
Thank you. Are members content for us to send the “Brussels Bulletin” to the relevant committees for them to pick up on the issues? The clerk now has three pages of issues to chase up.
Members indicated agreement.