European and External Relations Committee, 03 Mar 2009
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Official Report
171KB pdf
European Union Budget Review Inquiry
The next item is our EU budget review inquiry. We will consider a paper from the clerks on the key themes arising from the evidence that we have taken. Colleagues will recall that, at our last meeting, we decided to pause the inquiry for a while, as we were content with the evidence that we had taken to date. Phase 2 of the inquiry will take place after the new European Parliament and European Commission are in place.
On the basis of the Official Report and the evidence that we have taken, the clerks have produced a summary of the information that we have received so far, so that we do not forget it. I am sure that none of us would, but we want to ensure we have a clear recollection of the evidence that has been given to us. I invite comments from members.
I do not want to pre-empt our report on our trip to the Czech Republic over the weekend but, in relation to juste retour—for the benefit of the newcomers to the committee, whose French might not be up to it, that means the business of how much countries get out of the budget in comparison with how much they put in—it is interesting that the Czech Republic is moving just about now from being a net recipient to being a net contributor. It is clear that that is taxing people there, who are examining carefully aspects of their position, while trying to be good Europeans.
Jim Hume was even more flabbergasted than I was to learn that people in the Czech Republic have big ambitions in relation to the common agricultural policy. Scotland has heard about fairly minor reductions in funds of about 5 per cent, but people in the Czech Republic talked about a 30 per cent reduction by 2013.
The deputy minister of agriculture's personal view was that that would be the minimum reduction.
Those were interesting little points from the Czech Republic.
At our next meeting, we will have a full report on your visit to Prague, which Lucy Scharbert is preparing. That will help.
I think that Dr Zuleeg said that one of the key priorities was demographic change, but I am not sure whether we have taken that into account. I ask the clerks to check that in the Official Report and, if that is what he said, to insert such comments in our paper. Perhaps Lucy Scharbert is going to correct me on that.
When we took evidence from Stephen Quest, he mentioned the globalisation adjustment fund and the solidarity fund, although he did not give examples. It might be useful to have information about those funds when we return to the inquiry.
Lucy Scharbert has pointed out that the paper mentions demographics, but we will check out whether those points are covered. With that, are members happy to agree the note of the evidence that we took?
Members indicated agreement.