European Committee, 05 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Official Report 114KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive (Scrutiny)

We move on to our scrutiny of pre and post-European Council meetings. The clerk has prepared a list of recommendations. I understand that we have received the reports of the agriculture and fisheries council meeting and the transport, telecommunications and energy council meeting late—indeed, I saw the latter report only this morning.

The education, youth and culture council pre-council report includes the recommendation that we ask the Executive for a further commentary on the agenda at a later stage. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The agriculture and fisheries council report is of immense significance. We may need to return to it in some form.

We are on the pre-council reports.

We will come back to it. Is that all right, John?

Yes.

With respect to the competitiveness (internal market, industry, research and tourism) council report, the recommendation is that we note the meeting and ask to be kept informed of the debate on corporate governance? Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report on the general affairs and external relations council?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the post-council briefings and the reports to the committee on the relevant council meetings.

Do we agree to note the post-council report on the general affairs and external relations council?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report on the competitiveness council?

Members indicated agreement.

The next recommendation is to note the report on the transport, telecommunications and energy council. We have only just received that; it arrived a little bit late. I am happy to note the report, unless anyone wishes to raise any matters. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report on the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report on the economic and financial affairs—ECOFIN—council?

Members indicated agreement.

I believe that John Home Robertson has a comment to make on the report on the agriculture and fisheries council.

The report that we have received from the Executive on the agriculture and fisheries council does not say much, although what it covers obviously has massive implications. Further agriculture and fisheries councils might have a disastrous effect on the Scottish fishing industry. We will need to keep a careful eye on the situation.

The committee has a continuing interest in the matter, and John Home Robertson is right that it is important for us to continue to be briefed on it.

According to page 3 of our briefing paper, we have not had a report for the agriculture and fisheries council of 14 to 16 October. Is that correct?

It has now been tabled.

It arrived late. I got a copy by e-mail yesterday.

I draw members' attention to the bottom paragraph of the front page of that report, which just says:

"There was also a policy debate on the Commission's proposals for a Cod and Hake Recovery Plan. The Commission underlined the need for early and urgent action".

As we know, that would have cataclysmic implications for the whole Scottish fishing industry.

After our Brussels meeting with the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union—UKRep—it emerged that at each council's meeting member states' opening position and final position on a particular debate are heard in public session. As I mentioned to the committee clerk at the time, given that that is now done openly—I think that there is an internet or television link—we might be able to cross-check or expand the Executive's post-council briefings, if that is not too weighty a task.

To pick up on John Home Robertson's point, I believe that the next agriculture and fisheries council will be on 21 or 26 November—I cannot remember the date off the top of my head. Given that we have two weeks before our next meeting, we will have just a few days in which to tease things out. Perhaps we could be informed of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's options, should the Commission's proposals—which could have an awful effect for Scottish fishing, as John Home Robertson said—be put to the council.

When we are trying to decide whether a minister has fulfilled his or her potential, it is important to know what options were available to them. I am not referring to points of argument. Will the decision on the Commission's proposals be made on a Community basis? Will a decision made in the council require to be unanimous? If, for instance, the minister returns and says that the UK could not block the measure taken, we will know whether or not that is true. We know that the outcome will hinge on a decision to be taken sometime in December.

That is right. I note that the second paragraph of the report says:

"the November Council will take the form of Ministerial bilaterals, and further discussion will take place at the Council from 16-19 December"

on the common fisheries policy. That probably refers to the full Council, however.

The review of the CFP is a separate issue. The immediate problem as far as the Scottish fishing fleet is concerned is the short-term proposal to close the white fishery in the North sea. There is a case for that, but it is important that we try to find a solution that could enable the fleet to go on working.

I am just trying to ascertain which would be the best council meeting to tie into. Would it be the November council? I am trying to work that out from the report in front of us.

We will not be here for the December one, will we? I mean that the committee will not have a meeting after the December council meeting. When is the big one?

It is on 16 to 19 December.

The December council will be the one when the total allowable catches—TACs—are set.

It will take the recommendation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which has now been published.

Ross Finnie set out the Executive's position in a debate and statement in the chamber last week. There was a unanimous vote at the end of the day in support of that position. The European Committee should look for opportunities to reinforce Ross Finnie's position. That could be done at our next meeting or the one after that.

Our next meeting is on 19 November, and I understand that we have meetings on 3 December and 17 December. I am happy to hear from committee members how they feel that we should link in with the fisheries council in November and December.

It might be best for you to liaise with the convener of the Rural Development Committee. That committee will obviously take the lead, but the matter is one on which—to refer to the team Scotland approach to which we will come later—everybody should bring all possible pressure to bear.

I will be in Brussels at the end of November. When I am there, I would be willing to do anything that I can on the committee's behalf to assist and promote the team Scotland position, perhaps by requesting a meeting with the European Commission. However, John Home Robertson is right that it would also be important to liaise with the convener of the Rural Development Committee.

It would probably also be important to liaise with the minister.

It would be important to do that to see how we could best assist. We will write to the minister and the convener of the Rural Development Committee, state that we are willing to assist in any way possible and ask how we can get involved in promoting a team Scotland approach to the issue and how we can ensure that all possible pressure is put on the Commission.

Will you put in writing your suggestion that, when you are in Brussels, you should do what you can and see who of influence you can meet?

The convener of the Rural Development Committee might wish to come, too. We could jointly seek a meeting with the Commission with a view to expressing the Parliament's concern.

It would be good for the Parliament to express its collective concern.

Would any other countries round the North sea be adversely affected by such a ban on fishing for cod?

The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe has a new president, Claudio Martini. I have worked quite closely with him in the past. I could perhaps also seek a meeting with Mr Martini to express our concerns on the Commission's proposals on white fish.

Can we have the clarification that I talked about earlier of what the minister—or the United Kingdom—can and cannot do vis-à-vis such issues?

We can certainly write and ask for that. It would be helpful to us in any discussions that we have when we are in Brussels.

Do we agree to write to the minister and to the convener of the Rural Development Committee to see how we can realise an integrated approach to representing our views to the Commission? I will contact the convener of the Rural Development Committee separately to discuss how to use my visit to Brussels.

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report of the justice and home affairs council meeting of 14 and 15 October?

I notice that that council considered a draft council framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. I was at a European Commission conference yesterday on women and enlargement and women in Europe. One of the issues that came up was the impact of the new candidate member countries and the expansion of the sex trade, particularly the issue of young or under-age women coming to existing member states. I know that the issue has been raised in relation to the sex industry in Glasgow and whether it involves bonded women, who have been brought to the UK and whose passports are held by those who own the clubs in the sex industry.

Perhaps we should draw the draft council framework decision to the attention of the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament. The report says:

"Scottish Ministers do not at present consider a full-scale review of Scottish sexual offences is necessary".

However, it might be worth passing across the information that the issue is being discussed at a European level in case the justice committees have not picked that up.

It strikes me that reading the reports is much more useful than reading through the list of directives. The reports give us a real sense of what stage the debate is at and what the content of the debate is. That has struck me as we have gone through the process today.

I wondered about the draft council framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography because of the debate at the conference yesterday in Glasgow.

Some months ago, I met the assistant chief constable of Strathclyde police. The topic of that meeting was drugs, but the assistant chief constable had been to an international police conference in western Europe, at which it was said that the three priority crimes that worry the police for the foreseeable future are, in order of priority: the trafficking of children; the trafficking of women; and drugs. That was an ominous warning.

That is a good point. Do we agree to refer the report to the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee for information?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report of the environment council meeting of 17 October?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we agree to note the report of the general affairs and external relations council meeting of 21 and 22 October?

Members indicated agreement.