Work Programme (European Union Priorities)
Under agenda item 6, the committee will consider its approach to future European Union priorities. Paper 8 is by our EU reporter, Aileen McLeod. I invite her to speak to the paper.
The EU priorities that are outlined in the paper were identified by the committee’s previous EU reporter, Jamie Hepburn. Again, I put on the record my thanks to him.
The priorities were informed by the European Commission’s work programme for 2012 and EU legislative and policy proposals that are under active consideration. I remind members that the specific EU legislative and policy issues that the committee is prioritising are: the review of state aid guidelines for broadband networks; Europe’s digital agenda; the review of European public procurement rules; the trans-European transport—or TEN-T—networks; improving passenger rights in all transport modes; a new legislative framework for electronic identification, authentication and signature; smart ticketing, multimodal scheduling, information and online reservation services; a framework for future EU ports policy; and revising passenger ship safety.
Following the informal briefing last week on the Scottish Government’s hydro nation agenda, I thought that an additional area was relevant. Page 4 of paper 8 mentions the European Commission’s forthcoming proposals for a blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources and its current proposal to create a European innovation partnership on water. We may want to consider such aspects when we scrutinise the sustainable procurement and water resources bills. As the Commission’s water blueprint has been identified as one of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s EU priorities, I have suggested that we might wish to report back our findings to that committee. I was that committee’s EU reporter when we identified the Commission’s blueprint as one of its EU priorities.
The action that I have proposed that the committee may wish to take on the scrutiny of the identified EU priority areas is also based on the letter dated 17 May that we received from the cabinet secretary on how the Scottish Government plans to engage on each of the EU priorities and what it considers to be the particular implications for Scotland, as well as whether the priorities raise any potential subsidiarity concerns. I have tried to say where any of the EU priorities can be incorporated into any follow-up work that the committee may take on previous inquiries, such as the review of state aid guidelines for broadband networks and further progress on the EU’s digital agenda. We could look at those aspects in any follow-up work that we do on the committee’s broadband infrastructure inquiry.
On the Commission’s review of the European public procurement rules, I know that the committee briefly considered those rules before I was a member of it from the point of view of a possible breach of subsidiarity regarding the Commission’s proposals for a single national regulator. The rules are now being discussed by the European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, and a report has already been drafted, which I think the European Parliament will vote on in December. I understand that the Scottish Government is submitting amendments to that report. Given where we now are in the EU legislative process, if there is to be any meaningful input from the committee, we could incorporate our consideration of the EU dimension as part and parcel of the committee’s review of public procurement in Scotland and in the forthcoming consideration of the sustainable procurement bill.
On future EU investment programmes, such as the TEN-T programme, a draft report is currently before the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee, the amendment deadline for which is likely to be 28 September. I am happy to keep the committee informed of discussions in that regard and on the proposed €40 billion connecting Europe facility. I think that the deadline for amendments on that to the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee is 4 October. It is important that we know where the discussions are going in the European Parliament. The committee may wish to comment on that area in due course.
11:15
In other areas, I suggest that at present we simply monitor the development of the Commission’s proposals, and the action that the Scottish Government takes in relation to its discussions with the United Kingdom Government and with the European Commission and members of the European Parliament, so that we can keep abreast of what is going on in case we wish to take any appropriate action in due course.
The one area that might require the committee’s further attention is the development of a framework for the future EU ports policy. That is currently at a very early stage—no consultation has been launched and no legislation proposed—but I am happy to make contact with the Commission on the committee’s behalf to assess the thinking at this stage, so that we have at least some idea of the potential implications for Scotland’s port sector and industry.
On page 5 of the paper, there are some recommendations for the committee to consider in deciding on the course of action that it wishes to take with regard to the EU work programme that I have just outlined. I put on record my sincere thanks to the committee’s assistant clerk, Lewis McNaughton, for all the work that he has done behind the scenes to help us to pull the paper together: it was certainly appreciated on my part.
Does anyone have any comments?
We should thank Lewis McNaughton. I also acknowledge that it is great that we have such an expert in EU affairs on the committee.
My view is that we will have to prioritise a bit. Aileen McLeod is offering to do a lot of work on her own, but the committee should focus on the procurement issue because that is relevant to our legislation and has probably been the most controversial and interesting area.
Anything that we do will obviously be influenced by the procurement directive. A lot of issues already exist in that regard, and a new proposal is currently being discussed, so it would be sensible for the committee to focus on that, while not forgetting about the other areas.
I do not know whether the water proposal is likely to be problematic and controversial, which is a fair description of the procurement situation. It may need our attention if that is the case, but it may be not controversial and therefore may not need to be explored in such detail. I will be guided by Aileen McLeod on that, but I am keen to look into the procurement aspect as part of our work.
I support that.
We will definitely have to keep an eye on procurement issues that are coming from Europe. There is a lot of stuff in the paper: if we had a lot of time it would be nice to delve further into some of those areas, but we will have to prioritise.
I accept that point. We should keep an eye on other areas to ensure that there is nothing about which we should be overly concerned. We can look at those issues as and when; I am happy to keep the committee informed of the other proposals that are currently going through the EU policy process so that I can flag up any potential concerns. We should definitely look at the public procurement side.
The ports issue may be important too, as ownership of ports in Scotland is probably different from ownership in a lot of other places.
Broadband is important for the country too.
Yes, in terms of how much money will come from Europe.
As members have no further comments, I invite the committee to agree a course of action under each EU priority. I invite members to delegate authority to Aileen McLeod, our EU reporter, to undertake inquiries and report back to the committee where appropriate, to write to the Scottish Government to confirm the committee’s approach and to seek further clarification where the EU reporter considers it to be necessary.
Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. That is the end of the public session.
11:19
Meeting continued in private until 11:38.