Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)
We move to the next item, which is pre and post-council scrutiny. Once again, the Executive has helpfully given us a paper that analyses forthcoming agendas. The paper helps us in our scrutiny role. As ever, we have the usual options of noting points and issues, writing to ministers and taking evidence. I invite comments on the paper.
My point is in connection with the forthcoming agriculture and fisheries council. I think that a preliminary meeting is to be held on 17 and 18 November. Perhaps the committee should write to find out exactly what is happening. According to an article in The Scotsman today about the Royal Society of Edinburgh's inquiry into the issues underlying the current fishing crisis, the society has revealed that
"its final report will not now be published before next month's crucial meeting of the European fisheries council in Brussels".
On 30 October, we discussed rural development in the chamber. I intervened on Ross Finnie to ask what was happening to the Prime Minister's special strategy unit report, which Ben Bradshaw is heading up. Ross Finnie said that he could not give an undertaking that the report would be available in time for the fisheries council.
It is worrying that two reports are being prepared somewhere down the line and will not be available for the fisheries council. Should we follow up on that point with the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Ben Bradshaw at the House of Commons? A lot of money is being spent on this and we should have something a bit more positive before the council meets.
Okay, we could easily send off a letter asking for the time scales and for clarification of what role the reports will have in the Government's thinking. Do members have other issues to raise?
I want to raise something in relation to the previous paper. Given that we are still on the subject of the fisheries council, I welcome the fact that the setting up of regional advisory councils is on the agenda. After all, the committee made that proposal in its report on the common fisheries policy. I know that the Parliament has widely supported the proposal and it is important to see that some of the committee's work is being taken forward. I hope that some progress will be made on the issue, because it will be an important step forward in including stakeholders in decisions.
The same page of the report mentions an
"amendment to Council Decision 431/2001 on a financial contribution by the Community to Member States' expenditure incurred in implementing the control, inspection and surveillance systems applicable to the CFP".
I am sure that I read somewhere that the Scottish Executive is about to spend some money on replacing two fishery protection vessels. Given that those vessels are enforcing the CFP, it would be nice to think that we could receive European funding to cover some of those costs.
I recall that when I worked in the fisheries division of the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department one of our fishery protection vessels was working further out into the Atlantic on behalf of the European Union in relation to the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. At present, there is practically no control in that respect. As far as fisheries conservation is concerned, I agree that we face a difficult job in the North sea and in close waters. However, if the EU is serious about the matter, it must recognise that there is a lot to do out in the Atlantic and that we do not have the wherewithal at the moment. If that issue is on the agenda and if European money might be available to address it, Scotland as a peripheral fisheries nation that is trying to do its bit about enforcement should be looking for some of that funding. I would have thought that it might be worth exploring the matter further.
We could easily do so, if members have no objections.
I note that reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly in relation to sugar and tobacco, is on the same agenda. I know that we are about to have a debate on the matter in the chamber.
Two debates.
I am happy to note the position that has been set out and hope that there will be opportunities to explore the matter further.
If no one has any other comments about the agriculture and fisheries council, I would like to go to the competitiveness council's agenda of 10 and 11 November, which includes an item on a communication on the aerospace industry. The issue is very dear to Phil Gallie and me because we have particular constituency involvement in it and have received representations about it. The communication is very important indeed and although our pre and post-council scrutiny paper says that there is no distinct Scottish aspect to it, I am aware that 15,000 people and 140 companies in Scotland are involved in the aerospace industry.
People in the aerospace industry will point out that there are skill shortages in other parts of Europe and that it is important to alert other parts of Europe to Scottish skills in that industry. They also highlight the fact that the uptake and capacity building of companies that are based outwith Scotland could be better. As a result, I note that skill shortages for us are not the same as they are in other centres of aerospace activity in Europe.
People in the industry will also say that they would like European funding to be better targeted and focused. Indeed, supported work force pilot projects have been introduced—I think that there is one in Hamburg—and perhaps they could be examined and rolled out across other member states. I could see a role for the aerospace industry in Scotland in using up some of that money by extending the pilots. We should ask the Executive for more information about the supported work force project in Hamburg and whether we could borrow any aspects of it that might be relevant to the aerospace industry in Scotland, such as simplification and targeting of funding. Much of that industry is centred on Prestwick, which is in the neighbouring constituency to mine. The issue has implications for the whole of Ayrshire and Scotland.
The section on the competitiveness council also mentions the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. As the briefing states, one extremely contentious article of the proposed directive relates to motorists who are involved in an accident with cyclists or pedestrians. That article would mean that motorists would be liable in virtually 100 per cent of such accidents. It would be worth while to seek an update on the proposed directive to find out whether that is a realistic proposal, because it might be controversial in Scotland.
Point 19 on the competitiveness council relates to a proposal for the chemical products package, which also has relevance to Scotland. The Executive states that it has taken a close interest in the development of those proposals because of the significant manufacturing presence of the chemicals industry in Scotland. We should keep an eye on the outcome to find out whether there are any implications for Scotland.
I agree with Irene Oldfather's points on the aerospace industry, and with you, convener, on the point about road vehicles. The briefing emphasises how much intrusion there is from Europe into the Scottish and UK way of life, in the most unexpected ways.
I highlight points 4 and 6 on the competitiveness council, which relate to intellectual property. I understand that changes to the directive involved are being forced through by the major worldwide information technology companies. The directive has already been amended by the European Parliament to represent the Commission's original proposals. The further changes seem rather antidemocratic and it might be worth while to try to get more information about the matter.
I remind members that if they want an issue brought back on to the agenda as a separate item, they should notify the convener. We will look sympathetically on such requests.
The second paper that relates to the agenda item contains correspondence that we have received from ministers on issues that we raised previously. The lengthy and helpful letter from Ross Finnie on a range of issues refers to genetically modified crops, which are a big issue at present in the Parliament. I wonder whether the committee should request that our legal adviser produce some basic advice on the relationship between Europe and the Scottish Parliament on GM crops.
I was interested in the letter from Ross Finnie, particularly in the section giving the depressing facts and figures about the tobacco industry. The part of the letter on GM crops is only two paragraphs, which makes it possibly the shortest section in the letter, with the exception of the part on veterinary medicines, but Ross Finnie clarifies the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Europe and what is expected under the Commission's guidance. I cannot think what Ross Finnie could add to the second paragraph of that section, which is on page 9 of the document.
I am interested in Parliament's viewpoint and in ensuring that the committee has the best information available, given the role that Europe will have in the debate. I do not want a big debate on GM crops now, but are there any other views on the matter?
I read the paper with interest. It clarifies exactly what the position is and I am not very interested in pressing the issue further. If there are any nuggets of information that we have not received, let us seek them, by all means. However, as John Home Robertson said, I think that Ross Finnie has cogently explained the situation.
I welcome the level of detail in the paper in relation to sugar and tobacco. I will find it useful if I get an opportunity to speak in the CAP debate later this week. It raises a number of interesting points and I welcome its comprehensiveness.
It is good stuff.
I notice that there are two CAP debates on Thursday: one sponsored by the Greens; and one by the Executive. That means that you will have two chances to speak.