Convener's Report
The first matter under the convener's report is the overview of the plans and priorities for the Greek presidency of the EU. I remind members that 19 December has been set as the date for the Greek ambassador's visit. Do we have a time yet?
The visit is scheduled for between 12 pm and 1 pm. That is a provisional arrangement, but I will let members know as soon as that is clarified with the Greek ambassador.
It would be helpful if members could put that in their diaries. It is part of our usual forward plan to take a look at the key objectives and priorities of forthcoming presidencies.
At the most recent meeting of the Committee of the Regions, the Greek minister of the interior, public administration and decentralisation, Mr Skandalidis, came along and made a statement about the forward plan. I was really impressed by the commitment that the Greek presidency appears to have to the whole principle of regional government and to promoting regional government. It will be interesting to find out whether that view is reiterated on 19 December.
I note the aims of the Greek presidency but, on another matter—this is not really to do with the Greek presidency but is to do with the Greek approach to democracy, openness and transparency—members of the Greek Parliament and Greek MEPs have a much stricter code of disclosure. I would like to know whether the Greeks might wish to have that standardised during their presidency, and not just in the European Parliament but more widely with regard to declarations of interest and the principles of openness and transparency among politicians. I wonder whether we could take any part in that, and whether we could ask the delegation about that prior to their coming.
We could advise them that it is one of the areas that we would be interested in exploring with the ambassador when he comes.
It is not a huge issue, but I would be very interested to discuss it.
I have not had the opportunity to read the detail of the papers that have been provided to us by the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks, and I do not know whether there is anything in there on that topic.
I do not find anything on that subject.
We can indicate that we wish to touch on that matter during the ambassador's visit.
The next issue that we have to deal with is a letter from Maureen Macmillan on the request for a change in EC fish regulations regarding viral haemorrhagic septicaemia. Maureen helpfully provided an excellent report to the committee at one time, although I think that Dennis Canavan and I are the only present members of this committee who were members at that time. She has since raised the point that there is a difference between freshwater fish and sea fish in relation to viral haemorrhagic septicaemia and has asked us to explore that. If members are agreeable, I am happy to write to the Executive to ask for a note on what its views are on changes and suggestions in relation to the issue that has been raised, which is of importance to our fishing industry. Are we agreed that I should write to the Executive for clarification?
Members indicated agreement.
The next matter is to draw your attention to the opportunity for interested parties to take part in an online consultation with the European Commission on the issue of animal welfare during transportation, which is an issue that the committee has been involved with in the past. I think that we should simply put on record the fact of the existence of that online consultation. I hope that any interested parties will go online to make their views known. Do we agree to note the matter?
Members indicated agreement.
The final matter concerns the structural funds forum that Helen Eadie usefully attended in the absence of John Home Robertson and me. She said that she would be willing to provide the committee with a short oral report on the developments at the meeting.
When you scratch your nose, I will take it that I have spoken for too long.
I valued the chance to go to the meeting. It was useful and dealt with an area that I am interested in. The forum involved a range of people, including Highlands and Islands Enterprise; the deputy leader of Falkirk Council; Andrew Tulley, from Scottish Borders Council; and Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, and his officials. It considered issues such as a review of the 1994 to 1999 programme performance, the financial performance of the 2000 to 2006 programmes, the annual review meeting, simplification of the funds, the future of the funds and the business process review.
There were a few items that I thought that members of this committee would be particularly interested in.
The officials have done fantastic work on the website on European funds. They have streamlined the process and made it easier for people in the community to access the forms, fill them in and get assistance from the officials. I get the feeling that they are trying to be as helpful as possible.
I discovered that Scottish Enterprise does not attend such forums, although I was advised that it attends a higher level of meeting. However, given that we are trying to use structural funds for a range of initiatives, such as environmental projects, training and other economic development, it seems to me that it would have been appropriate for Scottish Enterprise to be there.
Until I attended the meeting, I did not realise that local enterprise companies did not do three-year budgeting. Of course, that is important in relation to the need to plan programmes of funding.
I was impressed by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, whose chief executive said that, just as airlines overcommit seats on their planes, HIE does that with applications for funding for projects. That enables HIE to be almost on target and to have a few projects up its sleeve so that it is never caught short underspending, although I think that Highlands and Islands Enterprise did have an underspend—I am not sure about that. The organisation seemed to be much more efficient. The deputy minister was impressed and thought that we should consider such a system throughout Scotland. The voluntary organisations flagged up continuing cash-flow problems.
I do not want to take up too much time. If anyone wants more information, I still have copious notes. The most important assertion that the minister rebutted was about the Office for National Statistics. A newspaper had said that the new data source had distorted information, but the statistics are not concluded. That newspaper story did not reflect the situation accurately, because the final statistics will not be available until the end of next year, when they will be used to negotiate the transitional funding arrangements.
As I said, I have all the papers. I do not know whether the committee clerk wants them back; if he does, he can have them. I will answer any questions that members have.
I thank Helen Eadie for that comprehensive report. We have certainly complained often enough about the bureaucracy and red tape of European funding applications, so it is good news that someone is finally listening to us and that application processes will be streamlined. Do we agree to note Helen Eadie's report?
Members indicated agreement.