Brussels Visit
I would normally suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes, but Alex Neil has to rush off shortly and he is leading on the next agenda item, which is his report on his and Jim Hume's visit to Brussels, where they represented the committee.
I apologise to the committee, because after I have introduced the item, I need to leave to go to another meeting. I am sure that my good colleague Jim Hume will be able to field the questions without any difficulty. Jim and I are at one about the content of the report. The committee should put on record our gratitude to Michael Aron, who was extremely helpful to the committee during his time as the Scottish Government representative in Brussels. We have had a good working relationship with him. I am sure that the post has been good preparation for his new one, as ambassador to Kuwait. We look forward to an equally productive relationship with Donald Henderson, his successor.
In general, the visit underlined the need for us to be in touch regularly with Europe. We cannot function as a European committee if members of the committee are not regularly physically in Europe. The report on the visit demonstrates the benefit of what was in effect a 24-hour visit. The information that we gleaned will inform our work, particularly our planned inquiry on budgetary reform and our work on issues such as the priorities and the single market in defence procurement, which is extremely important.
I will emphasise three issues that we discussed that will have implications for us. Jim Hume will add to that, no doubt. The committee has agreed to carry out an inquiry into the review of the EU budget. In fact, the review has now been called the reform of the EU budget, which puts a different twist on the matter. When we started out, like most members, I thought that the process would involve going straight into issues such as how much is spent on the common agricultural policy vis-à-vis regional funds and all the rest of it. In fact, the process will be long and definitely different from our original view. The EU will not take any decisions on numbers until 2010-11. The process currently involves starting from basics and considering the global challenges that Europe will face up to 2025.
The representatives of the Commission suggested that the two big winners in the global economy will be the US and China and, in the current scenario, the two biggest losers are likely to be Japan and the EU. That presents us with many challenges. They referred in particular to a paper on innovation that was produced for the Japanese Prime Minister. I suggest that every member get a copy of that paper, because it is very interesting and it would inform our view.
Fundamentally, what all that means is that no decisions will be taken even on agreeing what the challenges are until after the European elections next year and almost certainly not until the new Commission is in place next October. We should revisit the remit of the inquiry that we intended to hold on the EU budget. I suggest that, as phase 1 of our inquiry, we look at the challenges between now and 2025 and consider how best Europe can meet those challenges and how Scotland can meet them, both in Europe and in the global economy. We must recognise that we will have to deal with the European budget reform process in chunks. The phase that I have outlined will have to be taken as chunk 1. Chunk 2, which will be the next stage of our inquiry, will probably come some time after the new Commission is in place and chunk 3, when we get down to the brass tacks of figures, will probably take place about three years from now. This will not be a one-off inquiry in which we come up with all the answers on EU budget reform. We have some thinking to do about our approach as a result of the discussions.
Secondly, on the discussions with the Czechs, who take over the presidency in January, I have already mentioned the single market in defence procurement and there are other details in the paper. To my mind—I think that Jim Hume agreed—our discussions underlined the benefit of talking in advance to the people concerned while they are planning their presidency and before they take over. The French, the Czechs and the Swedes have been planning their three presidencies together over an 18-month period. We must get in there early if we want to try to influence things. I have no doubt that it is important for the committee to have a further meeting with the Czechs and a meeting early in the new year with the Swedes, who will take over from the Czechs. If the Parliament has any hope of getting on the inside track, we must keep up that programme of contact and meetings.
My final point is that the meeting with the members of a parallel committee from one of the German Länder was productive. Both we and they learned a lot about processes. It was also helpful to talk through some of the issues. Their full committee of 17 members was present, but I think that Jim Hume and I held our own.
I am sure that you did.
It is a good idea to use our time in Brussels or any other part of Europe as productively as possible and to meet our counterparts in other Parliaments—as opposed to other Governments—in Europe, so that we can compare notes and see where we can learn lessons from them.
Those are the points that I would emphasise; I have no doubt that Jim Hume has some more. I have every confidence in my Liberal Democrat colleague fielding all the committee's questions—I apologise for having to leave.
Thank you for a comprehensive report. You raise some important issues, on which I hope we will have a wider discussion at a later stage when you are around. Would Jim Hume like to add anything?
I think that Alex Neil has covered the key points. I will look a little deeper into a couple of issues. He mentioned that Japan and Europe are shrinking and the USA and China are growing. Emphasis is being placed on the demographic aspect, as the EU and Japan have ageing populations, whereas China and the US have young populations. There will therefore be many retired people and many people not working in our areas.
The member of the budget commissioner's cabinet whom we met, Vasco Cal, said that the EU will look outwith its boundaries to see how it plays within the global market. That is how the Commission is now starting to think, rather than just looking within the EU's boundaries. I do not know whether that represents much of a change in its thinking.
Alex Neil mentioned meeting the Czechs, who will have the EU presidency next year. I agree that it is essential that we get out of our Holyrood bubble and meet people. We do not all have to do that; we could have a rota for such meetings.
When we were at Czech house, I asked whether the Czechs would go out and meet Parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament. They said that they would not, because they do not have the time or resources to do so. It is up to us to engage.
We had an interview with a full committee of the Saxony-Anhalt Land, plus its officials. The more bridge building we can do, the better.
Thank you. We have a longstanding interface with Saxony-Anhalt, particularly in the west of Scotland. It is useful to build on such contacts. We used to get the ambassadors to come to the committee to discuss EU priorities. Perhaps we should consider doing that again.
I met Wolfgang Mössinger, the German consul general, last week and he said that he was going to come to the committee at some stage.
I will check that with the clerks.
I agree with Alex Neil and Jim Hume. The committee should be aware that we have to get in early and that we have to get over there to discuss issues—I know that Malcolm Chisholm instituted that early in his convenership. We should go to Strasbourg as well as to Brussels. We do not know how long Strasbourg is going to carry on in tandem with Brussels, but the committee should be represented regularly.
One of the advantages of Strasbourg is that everybody goes there—the commissioners and all the MEPs—which means that everybody whom we might want to lobby is in the one place. The disadvantage is that it is a little bit further to travel to than Brussels.
Colleagues will recall that we are going to discuss a paper on these issues at our next meeting. Perhaps we could build the comments that Alex Neil and Jim Hume have made into that discussion.
I thank Jim Hume, Alex Neil and Lucy Scharbert for all the hard work that they undertook. You certainly accomplished a lot in 24 hours—I am most impressed.