European Commission Work Programme
Item 2 is consideration of the European Commission work programme. I invite our European reporter, Stuart McMillan, to introduce his paper.
Thank you, convener. First of all, I thank our colleagues at the Scottish Parliament information centre; our committee clerk, Joanna Hardy; and the Parliament’s European officer for helping me to put the paper together.
The options that are available to us and the areas for consideration are fairly self-explanatory. The paper itself is split into sections on energy and the economy. In the energy section, I have set out six possible areas that we might do some work on and in the economy section, I have set out only two or three. I do not intend to go into each area—after all, we have all had a chance to read the paper—but I am certainly happy to answer any questions.
Before I do so, I should say that I received a letter this morning from Joanna Hardy about the European and External Relations Committee, which had written to the Scottish Government. In her letter, Joanna enclosed Fiona Hyslop’s response dated 21 January to the convener, Christina McKelvie, and it appears that we and the Government seem to be on the same page with regard to the areas that we should be considering. Of course, it is entirely up to committee members to decide what we should look at and any further action we should take.
What do you think we should look at? As Stuart is the committee’s European reporter, he will have a better feel for what is happening in the wider discursory environment.
To be perfectly honest, I think that we should look at everything. It is very difficult to narrow things down. For example, the energy section of the paper alone sets out six different areas that affect the policies that the Government and the Parliament might want to take forward for our country, and legislation that has already been passed. As we know, energy and energy conservation will be vital in moving Scotland forward, particularly given their role as economic drivers.
With regard to the final issue in the paper—finance and banking—I realise that there was a banking inquiry in the previous session and that earlier this year we had an evidence session on what is going to happen in that sector. However, as we read and see every day, things are still very much in flux and, on this issue, the committee really needs to keep its eye on the ball.
From a purely personal point of view, I am particularly interested in state aid, given what has happened to the shipbuilding industry and the fact that orders that Scottish yards should have got have gone elsewhere. Of course, the issue of regional state aid has wider implications, and it is certainly an area that we need to examine closely and, where appropriate, participate in.
That is very helpful, but can we prioritise this list according to where we can have the biggest input and where we can make the biggest return? It is great to talk about banks and I wish that we had some immediate influence over that area, but I think we will make a bigger contribution and, possibly, get a more immediate return if we concentrate on energy issues. Might that be true?
Although the paper sets out a range of recommendations, my personal recommendation is that the committee write to the Scottish and UK Governments on all the issues in the paper in order to establish what they have done so far, what they intend to do and what discussions they have had. With that information, we will be in a better position to prioritise the areas that we want to do more work on or get involved in. After all, the committee meets only once a week and has to deal with other items in its work programme. If we wanted to do all the work, we would have to meet Monday to Friday, which would simply not be feasible. If we have more information from the two Governments, we will be able to prioritise what we consider to be the most important areas.
I can see the benefit in communicating with both Governments before we take a view on the matter. However, given the comment on page 1 of the paper that
“The European and External Relations Committee”
wants to
“compile ... the committees’ priorities”
and hold a debate in February or March on the work programme, I am not sure that we have the time to do that.
My personal bid is for a particular emphasis on two energy areas, the first of which is the offshore North Sea grid, which comes under the “Internal Energy Market” heading. Not only is the issue relevant to the Scottish Government’s targets—after all, we are not going to be able to achieve the required level of penetration of renewables unless we can trade energy efficiently across several jurisdictions—but the fact is that we cannot simply wave a magic wand and make it happen. It requires co-operation and financing at multinational and Europe levels.
The second area that we should emphasise is energy efficiency, which is consistent with the committee’s work programme. When we have discussed the issue, there has been almost unanimous emphasis on the relationship between fuel poverty and energy efficiency. We can learn a great deal from other European countries that have similar climates and have achieved far more than either Scotland or the rest of the UK has been able to achieve.
That sounds reasonable.
I suggest a two-fold approach. First, the suggestion that we write to the Scottish and UK Governments on all the subjects is perfectly sound, so we should go ahead and do that. With regard to the European and External Relations Committee’s timetable for a response, I realise that it might take a few weeks to get any responses back so, in the circumstances, I wonder whether Stuart McMillan can liaise further with the clerks and SPICe to come up with more concrete proposals.
I know that we cannot possibly cover every topic in the paper in anything like the detail it deserves, so we need to prioritise the areas that require further scrutiny. Initially, we will write to both Governments on all the matters and see what responses we get. I suggest that, once we have received responses and he has met the clerks and SPICe, Stuart McMillan circulate another paper to members and we will try to agree by correspondence further action. We will also need to find out from the European and External Relations Committee the timetable that it is working to with regard to getting a response from us.
Does that sound satisfactory, Stuart?
Sure—I am happy with that.
Thank you very much. We now move into private session.
12:39
Meeting continued in private until 13:02.