European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Official Report 418KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

We move on to item 4, which is our regular “Brussels Bulletin”. Do colleagues want to raise anything? We are running short of time. I ask Ian Duncan whether he wants to draw anything to our attention. You do not have to go through the whole thing.

I draw to the committee’s attention the new parliamentary committee to deal with the multi-annual financial framework. Before it was set up, the clerks sent off the work that has been done by this committee to the proto-committee, so it is already with that body. I will try to set up a meeting over the next week or so to try to establish how we can participate further, because we will do a series of hearings and other elements of an inquiry into which the committee may be able to fit. That is one to watch.

A lot of the broader work is now about thinking on the budget. One such area will be cohesion funding. It is interesting that four commissioners have written a letter that talks about trying to co-ordinate the overall strategy for cohesion funding. The meeting in Aberdeenshire that involves all the key players, which was mentioned earlier, may reveal something because one of the topics of the meeting is the future of cohesion funds. Something may emerge from that meeting that would be of value in guiding this committee on its thoughts on that policy area.

You mentioned finance. On page 2, the bulletin mentions the introduction of

“a system of ‘EU project bonds’ to finance major projects of economic interest”.

Could we have a look at that?

Yes, I can provide you with more information. The basic concept is to see whether the EU can create a financial product that can be used to fund particular aspects of bigger operations.

So, it is not under joint European resources for micro to medium-sized enterprises.

No, it is entirely different.

On page 3, the bulletin mentions

“the need to begin discussions on a ‘European tax’.”

Yes. Note that the things on page 3 are more of a wish list than a statement of what will happen. As members can see, each of the political leaders who are mentioned there has quite different wishes; whether they ever move beyond the wish stage remains to be seen. There is discussion on tax but, as you will appreciate, it is not popular among the member state Governments.

I wanted to ask about the bonds, so it is helpful that Sandra White has already asked about that—there is obviously some interest in that in the committee.

I also wanted to double check that other committees also get the “Brussels Bulletin”. I am conscious that the Health and Sport Committee might not be used to considering what the bulletin contains with regard to sport, because it is relatively new on the agenda. Is it worth flagging up to that committee that this edition contains a specific element on sport?

We have undertaken that action previously, and we have also talked about drawing to the attention of the cross-party group on sport the information that the bulletin contains about the new competencies and so on.

There is a lot more on sport, and that will grow, because it is populist, popular and there will be more money in it.

Ian Duncan gave us a summary of what is happening in Belgium. It is interesting that page 8 of the bulletin shows that the Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health in Belgium takes a different view to that of the Belgian ambassador on the future of the Belgian state. Could Ian give us his perspective on the matter, given that he is on the ground and we are not?

As you might imagine, there is a lot of commentary of all persuasions in Brussels. There is generally a sense that the situation cannot go on and that there has to come a point when Belgium has a Government for longer than 14 or 15 months. At the moment, the situation is half and half between having a fully legitimate Government and having a caretaker Government. Although it is true that the Government continues, a lot of the political leadership does not. It cannot, because people are caught up in other issues and cannot work on the issues that they want to make progress on.

At the moment, there is certainly a lot of frustration, particularly around Brussels, which is the buckle in the belt that holds Belgium together. A lot of people want to get that situation resolved. Brussels cannot fund itself, although it is a devolved entity. It does not have enough money. It is a Francophonic area that is, broadly speaking, surrounded by Dutch or Flemish-speaking areas. There are three French-speaking districts to the south that are technically in Flanders. The tension is palpable. There are issues around bilingual police, and whether a Flemish speaking officer would answer a question that was asked in French, for example. A host of serious issues are arising.

I suspect that inertia will keep the country together, because it would be a difficult task to arrange for it not to be together. However, at the moment, there is far more tension than there has been in the past.

Page 8 also mentions the globalisation adjustment fund. I was the rapporteur on the Committee of the Regions on that, and I think that it is incredibly disappointing that the fund has paid out only €149 million. We argued strongly for the €2 billion budget for the fund, but I see that applications have totalled only €373 million. That is amazing, because the fund was set up to help redundant workers. If there was ever a time for making applications in that regard, this is it.

The problem might be that, initially, the threshold was set too high, at 1,000 workers. However, I understand that that was reduced to 500. I wonder whether Scotland might have been able to apply to the fund in relation to what has been happening in the financial sector.

It might be that I need to pursue the issue via other avenues, but I thought that I would raise it today, as it is featured in the bulletin.

You might remember that a previous bulletin pointed out that it was not only redundancies within one company but redundancies within one sector in a given region that would contribute to meeting the threshold for assistance. The Commission’s report on the fund is damning. Basically, it says that the initiative, which was designed for a specific purpose, is not working. The commissioner and the European Parliament are keen to ensure that the money that should be helping people to retrain, retool and relocate functions properly.

Page 8 of the bulletin talks about 2012 being the European year for active ageing. Has money been set aside for that? Do Governments have to apply for that?

Do you have a personal interest?

I am the convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing.

You might be aware that the EU gives a title to each year. It puts aside a certain amount of money in connection with that, although not as much as you might hope. The idea is that it encourages member states to put aside co-funding for various projects, which are more to do with awareness raising than with detailed policy or legislative work.

The year for active ageing will be interesting because it fits into the demographic issue, which, as you know, is a ticking time bomb in the EU.

I will write to the Government to ask whether it is applying for funds.

Do we agree to note the report and forward it to the relevant committees?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerk has just reminded me that there is a special committee on the EU budget, to which the report refers. I am sure that members would agree to our tracking that. We have already sent a copy of our EU budget report to it. Do we agree to track that committee?

Members indicated agreement.