European and External Relations Committee, 15 Dec 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Official Report 198KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

Okay, colleagues, the next item on the agenda is the "Brussels Bulletin". I am pleased that Ian Duncan, who is just grabbing a cup of coffee, is here to talk about it, after which members may make points. Do you want to draw any particular points to our attention, Ian? The bulletin is comprehensive.

It is very detailed.

I want to draw members' attention to three things in particular. First, the college of commissioners will go before the European Parliament for endorsement in January. That is important. The word on the street is that somebody is going down, but it is not clear which commissioner is not particularly popular. The European Parliament would like to flex its muscles, and there is every likelihood that it will not accept the college as it is, which might delay things slightly.

Secondly, the Spanish presidency begins on 1 January. The bulletin contains a little note about the presidency. The key issue will be the successor to the Lisbon strategy—the EU 2020 strategy. Spain is keen to progress that simply because of its own predicament. I think that it has the second highest unemployment rate in the EU, so it is not happy, and it is keen to try to advance any support and protection for jobs that it can.

I will touch on the third matter, which one of the earlier witnesses spoke about. Last week, what is now being called the EU 22, which is a group that supports the CAP, met in Paris. That group, which does not include the UK—members will not be surprised to hear that—would like the CAP to remain or, indeed, grow. As members might have expected, it is led by France. Five countries are missing from the line-up: the UK, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Malta. It is interesting that those countries were deliberately not invited to the discussions. There is every likelihood that the group will form a core to try to advance the cause for retention of a significant proportion of the CAP.

There is one big thing and one small thing in addition. The fisheries council is meeting in Brussels this week, at which a number of quotas should be settled for the coming year. It is important to note that, because of the collapse of the EU-Norway round, it is unlikely that the demersal quotas for the North Sea will be settled. The pelagic quotas will not be settled—they will be addressed again in January.

Members may also be interested in a referendum on independence that has taken place in Catalonia. If the committee is so minded, it might be worth while having a look at what has happened there.

Do we have the outcome of that referendum?

Yes. The outcome was broadly supportive of independence, but the turnout was abysmal. It was said that the real measure of the referendum's success would be the turnout, which had to be more than 40 per cent in order for the referendum to be considered successful, but the turnout was lower than 30 per cent. It was an informal referendum, not an official referendum sanctioned by the Spanish state, but the politicians are keen to learn lessons from it.

Okay. Thank you very much. You made a number of interesting points.

It is hard to know what lessons politicians can learn from the referendum in Catalonia. My understanding is that it was absolutely a rigged referendum. Indeed, it was not even a referendum. I understand that the organisers took the decision to hold it in places where they thought that they would get a positive response.

The referendum was interesting by virtue of the nature of the way in which it was conducted—you are right.

Absolutely. It was pretty blatant.

There were aspects of selectivity that were questionable.

One curious thing is that such votes are always of interest to people in Brussels because they are indicative of what is going on in member states, and people in Brussels are often interested in what these things might mean for the future.

It sounds as if it was not quite a referendum.

I know someone who was over there as an international observer. He paid his own way; it did not cost anyone any money—apart from him, unfortunately. He thought that it was very interesting. I can bring an unofficial report to the committee, convener.

I do not think so. To be honest, when Ian Duncan said that it was a referendum, I thought that it was an official referendum.

They happen every other year. Catalunya does them all the time. Obviously, coming from the party that is in government in Scotland, I am interested in the fact that the referendum was apparently unofficial; I am also interested in how it was funded and whether it was funded at a local level. From the feedback that I have had, it was not done as selectively as some folk make out. I am looking forward to having a wee look at it. I think that the turnout was more than 40 per cent in some regions; it may have been less in others. I do not know about the median figure that was given, but I can certainly confirm what it was.

I have a question on the group that Ian Duncan mentioned—the 20 or 22 group.

Do you mean the group that is concerned with agriculture and the CAP?

Yes.

It has 22 members, which is why it is called the 22 group.

How is the group organised?

The best description is that France invited its pals.

Is it paid for out of European funds?

No. It is an entirely informal group. France is looking to secure the strongest lobbying position that it can and is trying to find member states that are likely to support its cause.

I was just interested in whether the group had funding.

The section on the EU role in sport, on page 14 of the bulletin, says that

"the Commission will develop a specific EU sports programme, supported by a budget."

With the Commonwealth games coming up, I am sure that Glasgow and the rest of Scotland would be happy to have the money.

We will take a careful note of the point.

I am happy to follow up on it.

I am very interested in finding out what is happening in Catalunya. It sounds as if we can learn some interesting lessons. If Sandra White wants to provide a paper—officially or unofficially—I would be very interested to see it.

My question is on the EU budget non-paper, which has been referred to. I am at a loss to know what a non-paper is. To me, it sounds like a nonsense.

A non-paper allows the authors—usually the Commission—to put together a position without necessarily having to defend it as an official line. It is a way of putting out into the open issues for discussion without the ideas being directly attributable to the author. It is a device that is commonly used to stage a debate, if you like, and not as a definitive statement.

That is useful.

I am interested in Ian Duncan's view on Iceland and the fisheries negotiations—indeed, I raise the point for Ted Brocklebank, who is absent. I am also interested in the so-called 22 group. Is it a significant development? The UK is not one of the 22 members; it is one of the other five. Is that a difficulty for us?

France would claim that it did not deliberately not invite the UK—that is its position. Apparently, the UK was invited after lunch in an observer capacity—I am not sure whether to observe lunch or some policy discussions. At the moment, France is very keen. As the single largest recipient of CAP funds, it will be the single largest loser if there is any substantial reform. It is marshalling arguments as to why the CAP needs to be maintained, which include arguments about food security and the need to deal with climate change and some of its manifestations. France is keen to put forward the boldest argument that it can, fully aware that it may be whittled back in the negotiations. The more bold the argument, the less whittling will take place. The UK will be keen to be aware of what is going on and to participate in that, as its view—that the CAP requires fundamental reform—is nearly the diametric opposite of the French view.

We are at an early stage. This is the great dance that takes place before the budget negotiations begin in earnest, and people are trying to find alliances, common cause and fellowship between the member states. More of the same will come. The real question is whether the EU five—the member states that are not participating in the 22 group—will form some other group to coalesce their thinking. There is no word of that yet, but it is possible that they have a common cause, albeit on exactly the opposite side from the 22 group.

The vast majority of member states are in the 22 group, if my sums are right.

The strange reality is the discrepancy between France, which is a major recipient, and the new member states to the east, which would like to be major recipients but seem to have got on the bus just as it is approaching its terminus, which is unfortunate for them. You might recall that, when those countries joined the EU, they were excluded from the full support of the CAP with the interesting argument that they would not really understand how to spend the money. I thought that that was a strangely patronising view; nonetheless, that was what happened, and that argument allowed France to retain the lion's share. So, although France is an established agricultural state, it manages to retain more funding for its agriculture than would, for example, Poland, the Czech Republic or the other eastern states.

That is against the backdrop of the likelihood that the next agricultural commissioner will be a Romanian and a close ally of the French—in itself, that is an interesting development. That commissioner has been called France's second commissioner, which should give members some indication of what might happen in the long term.

It is true that fisheries will be at the heart of Iceland's ambitions. The consensus is that Iceland has managed its resources well and that it would not want to adopt what it would argue is a discredited European policy that is widely regarded as not having managed resources well. So, reform of the common fisheries policy will coincide with the negotiations between Iceland and the EU. There may well be movement towards the Icelandic model simply because it seems to have worked, rather than adherence to the CFP, which has had its flaws and many critics.

On the common agricultural policy, it is interesting that we embarked on this blue-skies-thinking EU budget review because, the last time, France got away with a deal such as everyone said it would never get again. France agreed that it would not get that again—that it was a one-off, once-only deal and that there would be a proper review of the EU budget. It is interesting that France seems to be changing its mind on that. I think that we will watch this space.

I want to ask briefly about the EU 2020, which is important for Scotland. When we were in Brussels, we picked up the fact that, although the document had just been launched, the consultation will close on 15 January—as is noted in the paper—which gives no one time to consult. Had the closing date not been so close, I would have liked the committee to take evidence. I have, however, heard that, because the timeframe is so tight, the discussions will go on and that we should not regard 15 January as an absolute cut-off date. The National Assembly for Wales has sent to President Barroso a letter commenting on the implications for Wales. We should perhaps take evidence in the new year, although we would not be able to meet the closing date of 15 January. Do colleagues agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

No one is happy with the deadline. It seems that President Barroso was concerned that it might have appeared that he was not doing anything when there was a vacant period in which something could be done—so that was the something. It is not clear why they chose the deadline of 15 January, given that the new Commission may not be in place until 1 February. I cannot believe that this could ever be anything other than an interim step toward greater consultation with all the affected parties; otherwise it turns on its head the way in which the EU has been moving, which is towards greater consultation and more inclusion and discussion.

That is helpful to know. We should look to programme a meeting on that early in the new year. Do members agree?

You said that the Welsh Assembly had sent a letter. Has our Government sent a letter? I would ask that it does.

The European and External Affairs Committee of the Welsh Assembly sent the letter. It was in a position to do that because it had a meeting on 1 December, just after completing a report on cohesion. It was therefore well placed to say "These are our findings and we're not very happy with the way you're conducting this inquiry." That committee was therefore a bit ahead of us, which is why I suggest that we take our role in this matter quite seriously and look to programme in an evidence session in the new year. I would hope that, as a result of that, we could contribute something to the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the Commission, if members agree.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Ian Duncan. Do members agree to note the contents of the report and forward it to the relevant subject committees?

Members indicated agreement.