European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, February 21, 2013

Official Report 380KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

Item 3 is the “Brussels Bulletin”, which Ian Duncan will talk us through.

I will be brief. There are a couple of things to draw your attention to before I turn to the main issue. Tomorrow, there is an event on EU funding that may be of interest to some of the committee members. The details are near the end of the bulletin—it is on 22 February at the Grand Central hotel in Glasgow.

The first million-signature petition has been received. It touches on the “water is a human right” initiative. Members might remember that it was expected that the first petition would be one concerning the two homes of the European Parliament but, because of various rule adjustments, that petition has not managed to meet the criteria yet.

The big issue this week is, of course, the multi-annual financial framework. The headline figure has gone down, which is the first ever reduction in the overall EU budget. In the annex at the back of the bulletin, I have given a full breakdown of the figures. I have also put in how the budget itself has evolved. You will see the current budget covering 2007 to 2013 and then, as you go across the page, you will see each of the attempts to secure agreement until you get to the final deal.

It is important to note that that final deal is between the member states—the European Parliament is not yet involved. I draw your attention to the joint letter written by the four leaders of the groups of the European Parliament, who are clearly not happy—full stop. They do not believe that it is a good deal at all and, given that the European Parliament itself must affirm the deal, they hold quite a strong negotiating position to try to secure an adjustment.

I draw your attention to a couple of things within the document. Trying to compare the final deal with the current levels is not very helpful. Instead, it is sometimes useful to look at the difference between the current outcome and the earlier proposals. The connecting Europe facility is of concern to several committee members. Although that has gone up by 140 per cent from the current allocation, it has received a cut of nearly 30 per cent compared with the first proposal. Broadband has been an issue for Willie Coffey and Jamie McGrigor and the budget for that has gone down by 86 per cent compared with the first proposal.

You begin to see where some of the deals have been done to cut things out in order to ring fence what were deemed to be the important things—the agricultural funding and the broader cohesion structural funding. There has been a lot of give in the areas in which this committee has taken a strong interest.

Having seen some of the figures, not just in the bulletin but elsewhere, I think that we should probably be quite pleased about the fact that the horizon 2020 moneys are now €71 billion. Although the budget has been cut from the projected amount that was hoped for—I think that they were looking at €80 billion—it is an increase from where we were, at €55 billion, so that is a good-news story.

The worry for farming in Scotland is the cut in the common agricultural policy moneys. That presents challenges to the remote and rural areas, but we have always known that reforming CAP has been on the agenda of many politicians across Europe. However, I share the concerns of Willie Coffey and Jamie McGrigor about broadband—looking to the future, we really want to work hard at improving that. Having said that, I hope that we will take advantage of the £28 billion that Ian Duncan keeps telling us is still available to the end of this financial year. It is down to us—to Willie, Jamie, me and others—to really put pressure on people out there to access that £28 billion that is available across Europe in the current financial year for the more remote and rural areas. I hope that the committee can give some priority to that specific piece of work so that we can see what we can do to generate activity among the providers, the private sector, the Government and so on. It is an important issue for the future.

I wonder whether you might approach the appropriate committees to pursue that on our behalf.

As I said earlier, if we all think that someone else is doing it, it might be that whoever ends up doing it does not bring to the issue the same passion and commitment that members of this committee would.

We could draw the attention of the other committee conveners to the issue.

We can do both those things. We can ensure that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which is leading on the issue and has already declared an interest in it, takes it forward. Of course, we will bring back information from that committee to this committee, to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks.

Yesterday, there was a bit of coverage in the media of the Deputy First Minister talking about the change in the allocation mechanism. I understand that it will be skewed towards population areas rather than using a geographic basis. The figures suggest that the allocation will be cut by up to 30 per cent in some areas of Scotland. Could you give us more information on that?

The figures that I have given you show the settlement at a European level. Once the figures come down to the member state level, there are particular regulations that govern the allocation of those funds. Quite often, the allocation is domestically determined, within the broad guidelines. That is why the Deputy First Minister was able to say that this is an area in which progress can be made.

However, I have a suspicion that it will be difficult to make that progress until the European Parliament has made extremely clear what the figures look like. I do not think that the Scottish Parliament is going to enjoy any of these figures, and I think that it will definitely want them to be adjusted. However, I do not doubt that there will be negotiations between the constituent parts of the UK in order to ensure that no one loses out to the degree that has been suggested.

I am conscious of the time that we have this morning, so I would appreciate it if we had a chance—at our next meeting, perhaps—to consider some of the implications of the matter in more detail, and perhaps to receive a briefing from the cabinet secretary. The 86 per cent reduction in the telecommunications budget is staggering. I am afraid that it is kind of typical. Sometimes, it seems that information technology, which is not well understood by ordinary members in whatever Parliament, can be an easy hit. However, the implications are serious, and I think that we should flesh out the details.

We could defer consideration of that suggestion until the next meeting and decide at that point whether we want to go down the road of inviting the cabinet secretary to speak to us about the issue.

It is pretty vital. We only have one year now in which to draw down the money.

There is a timescale issue. As Jamie McGrigor says, we have to get hold of as much of the money that is available as we can while we can. The issue that Willie Coffey raises is also important, however. What is the timescale for that matter? When will the European Parliament make its decisions? We need to lobby the European Parliament like mad to communicate the fact that we are extremely upset about this issue. That might not have any effect, but if you dinnae try, you willnae get. This committee and each of us as individual MSPs should be trying to do what we can behind the scenes to secure some change. I absolutely agree with Willie Coffey that technology is critical for the economic chances of the remote and rural parts of Scotland.

That is why I suggested that we should consider the issue at the next committee.

Is there a timescale, though?

There is. The Parliament can say only yes or no to the budget, so no one wants to have that vote until it will be a yes vote, for obvious reasons. In the intervening period, a trialogue will take place between the Council, the Parliament and the Commission to try to broker a deal that can be voted on in the Parliament. That will happen in the next four months, I would have thought.

So we have time.

Yes.

I did not think that there was an emergency.

No. The thing to note about the cuts is that they are in the budgets where people did not expect money or where people did not have it in the past and were therefore not used to having it. It sounds a bit strange, but I think that the logic in some of the cuts is that, because they did not have the money before, they will not miss it.

Okay.

None of us has been invited to the half-day conference on 22 February, have we?

It is an open invitation.

But it is incredibly short notice, with due respect.

We are not organising it.

The short notice is my fault, because the information was made available on the website but not drawn to the committee’s attention.

I am not blaming you, but we can go if we want, can we?

Indeed.

I do not know how I am going to get there, though.

The issue was in a previous bulletin.

Yes, we did put it in earlier.

I am not blaming you. I just wondered whether the invitation had come via Europe.

No.

Are there any other questions or points?

I have just a quick one. In the table in the annex, I am not entirely familiar with decommissioning in Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria. The “Decommissions” figure seems to match the previous “Decommissions” figure, which I presume is just coincidence. Can you give us any further information on that?

It is in the area of nuclear decommissioning. Some of the member states in the east need support to decommission slightly older power stations, so money has been found specifically for that. One of the curious things is that the budget has managed to find something for everybody in some way or other. This is an example of one of the things that have been found for certain member states. There has previously been money for decommissioning in this area because of the fear that, if the facilities were not decommissioned safely and soundly, that would cause greater environmental and political problems.

Interestingly, when we and the convener met the ambassador two weeks ago, he said that they were going to build a new nuclear facility in Bulgaria.

That is a different issue. It is a different portfolio.

Absolutely, but it is just interesting.

Yes, indeed. Are there any other points or questions?

As far as you know, Mr Duncan, has the fisheries agreement been fairly well received by our Scottish fishermen?

Jamie, you and I are never going to be satisfied.

No, but Ian Duncan is an expert on fisheries.

I would say that the fishing industry has received it fairly warmly, although fishermen are not always smiling when they receive these things. However, broadly speaking, I think that they seem to be supportive of the principal elements and are very appreciative of the suggestion of further localisation of management.

Good. Thank you.

Okay. Are members content to send the report to the relevant committees?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. That is the end of the meeting. The next meeting will be on 7 March. I look forward to seeing you all then. Thank you very much for your attendance and assistance.

Meeting closed at 11:28.