Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

European and External Relations Committee, 15 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 15, 2005


Contents


Pre and post-council Scrutiny

Item 2 is the pre and post-council scrutiny paper. There are several points listed. Does any member have any points to raise on either the pre-council agendas or the post-council reports?

I have a couple of observations to make. I wonder whether, in relation to the report on the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy—

Is that on page 4 of the paper?

That is correct. I wonder whether the Scottish Executive has made any representations to the national Government on that. The report has pretty important implications and it would be worth while to pick up on it.

I will ask the clerks to contact the Executive to establish whether any such representations have been made.

Phil Gallie:

My second point is on items 3(b) and 3(d) of the environment council agenda, which concern environment policy reviews. Last week, the clerk kindly obtained for me a couple of documents that addressed issues of climate change. Those documents made absolutely clear the massive change that would come about from accepting some of the presumptions that have been made on issues such as employment—for example, the requirement for people to change jobs and industries, which comes under a section on sectoral impact. All those items add up to the reason why the Lisbon agenda is not succeeding as it should. I recommend that individual members read the papers, as there is some good information in them.

The Convener:

There is a broader question. The committee has considered its lines of inquiry for the period ahead, but there is a tremendous amount in the Lisbon agenda that has domestic policy implications that the committee might want to consider at a future stage. That will be a matter for us to decide.

I draw members' attention to the pre-council information on the agriculture and fisheries council, which took place yesterday. The agenda was not available, but the fisheries control agency was thought to be on the agenda and the clerks provided us with a paper that gives an update on where that issue has gone after the intervention of Elspeth Attwooll.

I am sure that I read a newspaper report today saying that it had been approved.

I did not spot anything this morning.

Irene Oldfather:

I wanted to say something about the very same meeting. There will presumably be a report from the meeting, but I note that the section of the paper on agriculture shows that there was to be a discussion on the proposed new rural development regulation and notes that there is an important dossier for Scotland. Given the emphasis that is placed on the issue in the pre-council paper, I thought that it might be worth while to draw the conclusions of yesterday's discussion to the attention of the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

I also notice that the agenda for the same meeting was thought to include the regulation on financing the common agricultural policy. You will recall that, when we were in Brussels, there was a great deal of discussion about whether the envelope was closed or still open. It would be helpful to know what the conclusions of the discussions yesterday were.

Finally, I notice that there was to be some discussion of the revised avian influenza directive. That would be of interest to the Health Committee, so perhaps we should get information on what happened yesterday and pass that to the relevant committee too.

The Convener:

I will ask the clerks to pursue that, but I would like this committee to receive directly a report on the rural development regulation and the financing of the CAP. The latter is a major component of the debate on finance, which we need to be abreast of, and the rural development regulation will have a significant impact on a variety of other domestic legislation. The avian flu issue is one that we can refer to the Health Committee.

Can we move forward to ECOFIN—the economic and financial affairs council?

Certainly.

Phil Gallie:

I have a query about tax changes. Page 18 of the document states under the heading "Exemption from climate-change levy - United Kingdom":

"The Council agreed to exempt the United Kingdom from the climate-change levy for low-value solid fuel until the end of 2009."

Can anybody advise me on what kind of low-value solid fuel we are talking about?

We will have to get a briefing on that. I do not carry that degree of detail on my person.

It could be peat.

We will ask the clerks to get us that information.

Once again, I remind members of my concerns about the likely imposition in 2008 of direct EU taxation on aviation fuel and the effect that that would have on low-cost carriers.

We will get that information and supply it to the committee.

Irene Oldfather:

I want to raise another point about something that is mentioned on page 11 of the paper, in the post-council report of the general affairs and external relations council, under the heading "Future financing 2007-13". I know that, in the discussion that took place, the UK Government made its position on the present Commission proposals for 2007-13 clear, and I note that the report refers to the proposals as being "unrealistic and unacceptable". However, it goes on to note that the increase

"can be met within a budget of 1 per cent EU gross national income."

Reflecting on our discussions in Brussels, I recall that there was considerable debate around whether the 1 per cent was about payments or commitments. Would it be possible to write to the Executive to find out whether there is an agreed position on that, given that the figure of 1 per cent is mentioned again?

Do you mean an agreed position on payments?

On whether the reference to 1 per cent refers to actual payments or to commitments, because that would be—

Material.

That is the word that I was looking for.

We can write to ask about that. I will be interested in the reply that comes back. The debate will either run and run or it will be over before the letter comes back.

I think that it will run and run.

I suspect that that is more likely.