European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Official Report 334KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

Agenda item 3 is the “Brussels Bulletin”. Members have a copy—I do not know whether they have managed to look at it. It is a bit more lightweight than usual, which I think is because most folk took a break over Christmas. Things were a bit quieter, but they are hotting up again this week. Are there any comments on the “Brussels Bulletin”?

I was particularly interested to read about the proposals on procurement because, in practical terms, I imagine that those will have far-reaching effects. I have a couple of questions for Ian Duncan. The bulletin refers to the fact that each member state will be required to designate a national independent oversight body. Given the nature of the issues that are covered by the proposed measures, I wondered whether that would include the Scottish Government. Has any thought has been given to that?

That leads to my second question, which is the extent to which Scottish Government officials been involved in discussions on the proposals. Where are we seeking to go with the proposals as far as Scotland is concerned?

In the past, where there has been a designated national authority at a member state level, there has tended to be a representative authority within the other constituent parts of the UK. If the proposal follows that model, I expect that there would be a role for the Scottish Government as well as for Northern Ireland and Wales.

On the second question, I will write to the Scottish Government to find out the extent of its involvement to date.

We have already written to the Scottish Government about the public procurement legislation. I had passed Annabel Ewing a copy of the letter that we received from the Government just before Christmas, which sets out its response to that consultation. It might be worth writing to the Scottish Government again on the European Commission’s proposals that came out just before Christmas.

Another point on services of general interest is that this is quite a complex piece of legislation from the Commission. It would be worth having a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre and getting the Scottish Government to set out its views on where it sees the issue going.

You are absolutely right. Even trying to write this summary involved exploring a package and a half. I will talk to Iain McIver from SPICe about this, and we will bring a briefing to the committee and ask the Scottish Government to provide a briefing, too. There should also be an explanatory memorandum from the UK Government, which we can circulate.

I would appreciate the inclusion in the “Brussels Bulletin” of a small section on what Iceland is doing about overfishing. It is important to keep a clear focus on that. Scotland has been penalised time and again on overfishing, while Iceland seems to get away with it scot free. We talk about penalising Iceland, but nothing practical is done.

We need to show our MEPs that we are looking at how they are progressing with the issue. The sooner that we put heat under Iceland the better, because as long as we do not, Iceland will carry on overfishing. It is important to find out what the Government is doing about that.

We can do two things. We can certainly report on Iceland and overfishing in the bulletin—that is not a problem. You will be aware that the talks on fishing were interrupted over Christmas, but they will be returned to. We can write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on where it is at. I have read comments in the press from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment on the issue, so work is clearly being done. I suggest that we write to the Government and that we provide updates in the bulletin as and when developments occur.

14:15

I have another point, which is on the upshot of the benchmark European Court of Justice case on the insurance sector. The background to the case was the issue of female drivers. I note that insurers, including UK insurance companies, have until 21 December 2012 to comply with the ruling. I wonder whether it would be useful to make contact with the Association of British Insurers, which I think is the relevant body, to seek information from it on how its members intend to comply with the ruling. That would be useful information, because the issue impacts on most people, or those who are drivers, anyway. It would be useful to find out what the insurance companies intend to do.

That is perfectly sensible. We can send off that letter straight away.

Great.

I do not know whether this is relevant or whether to raise the issue, as I am not a member of the committee, but I have a point on the section in the bulletin on the euro zone fiscal compact. I should not be astonished, but it is amazing that, given that there are two non-elected Governments in Europe, in Greece and Italy, there is a deafening silence from other European countries. What comments are being made in the European Parliament and throughout Europe on that issue? Is any political pressure being applied to redemocratise those countries?

You raise an important point that the committee has discussed extensively, particularly when we were on our visit to Brussels. We have a committee meeting planned with United Kingdom ministers to talk about the impact on Scotland and the wider impact on the euro zone. For me, one big issue of concern is that the main casualty is democracy. That is a pertinent issue.

The only issue that I have on the “Brussels Bulletin” is on public service compensation, which is an interesting dimension given some of the figures that came out today on child poverty and the impact that it can have. Currently, the measure applies only to social housing, but it is to be applied to all public services, including transport, health, childcare and social housing services. Water, energy and health services are particularly important given that many people are fuel poor and that, for some people, water rates are a huge issue. We should keep an eye on that and get information on how the changes will impact on Scotland. The majority of the areas on which the changes will impact, such as housing, heating and renewable energy, are devolved.

I suggest that we explore that in the briefing from SPICe and that, when we speak to the Scottish Government, we get an update on that aspect.

On Neil Findlay’s comments, there is a lot of talk on the issue in the European Parliament, but it is not necessarily reported beyond the Parliament itself. There is a lot of angst and frustration, certainly among the Greek members, as you would imagine, and among other members. Events in the European Parliament are not as widely reported as you might expect.

Energy efficiency is mentioned on pages 2 and 3 of the bulletin. The issue is a wee bit complex because people seem to want things to happen without having to do anything to make them happen, if my reading is correct. The bulletin states:

“A number of EU Energy ministers meeting in Council (24 November 2011) have already made clear that they have serious misgivings about instituting binding targets for energy efficiency”.

That was reported in the previous bulletin. However, the rapporteur Peter Liese MEP said in December:

“It should be without doubt that we must achieve the target”.

Given that the target is 20 per cent and that the EU is likely to reach only 9 per cent, is it likely that there will be moves to ensure that the targets are met through more binding legislation or agreements?

You are spot on. The two negotiators seem to have very different strategies to achieve the end. The Parliament and the various committees believe that the targets should be binding because otherwise they will not be met, but the member states are less inclined towards being bound because of the cost commitments that that would involve. I am not exactly sure how we would broker a compromise between somebody who does not want something at all and somebody who wants it. We cannot have partially binding targets, so it is not yet clear how the two groups will come together. It is likely that we will get a greater understanding of whether a compromise is possible in the late spring or early summer. At that point, the issue can be brought back to the committee, as we might have an idea of whether a compromise can happen and, if one is proposed, how it will work.

To be frank, the possibility of achieving the figures does not look good. The longer that we are left without that sort of commitment, the more difficult it will be to achieve the figures in the long term, because we need to start moving now to achieve the 20 per cent target by 2020.

Is that because countries are pulling up the drawbridge in relation to expenditure on their energy efficiency targets? If so, is it possible that aid might be provided centrally from Brussels, despite the cuts in finances, to ensure that the targets can be met, or will the issue just be kicked into the long grass?

That is an interesting question. The reason why the efficiency targets are controversial is that they almost require a form of reverse engineering. For example, increasing the efficiency of public buildings carries a cost with it. It is one thing to build in efficiency to new public buildings, but if we think about retrofitting old buildings to make them meet the targets, we can immediately see the costs that suddenly manifest themselves. Many member states have done the calculations and worked out that it is a potentially hefty requirement for them to achieve that.

The EU multi-annual financial framework is under discussion and negotiation, so aspects of support for efficiency might arise. That is possible, although I have not heard anyone mention that people wish to explore the area. It is not impossible that, to achieve the particularly costly targets, greater central investment from the EU might be seen to be required. That is certainly a sensible thing to say, although whether there is enough money to go round for all the other projects is part of the negotiations.

Is the committee content to send the “Brussels Bulletin” to the relevant committees?

Members indicated agreement.

We move to agenda item 4, which we agreed at the beginning of the meeting to take in private. I thank the members of the public who attended the meeting.

14:22 Meeting continued in private until 14:43.