Dutch Presidency of the European Union (Scottish Executive Priorities)
We move to the final witness panel today. I welcome the minister, Ross Finnie, and his officials. We have an agreed method of scrutinising European matters and I provided the committee with an update on European issues earlier. We have agreed to take evidence from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development each time there is a different European presidency. All members should have a copy of the statement from Ross Finnie about the ministerial priorities of the Dutch presidency of the European Union. I invite the minister to introduce his officials and to make a brief opening statement.
The officials who accompany me are Dougie Atkinson, Ingrid Clayton from the agricultural side of the Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Andrew Mackie from the environmental side of the department and Lachlan Stuart from the fisheries side.
Members have my statement, so I will highlight briefly the four key priorities of the Dutch presidency. They are: to implement the environmental dimension of the Lisbon strategy; the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulations; the international negotiations on climate change; and sustainable mobility.
The three key elements of the Lisbon strategy and the knowledge-based economy are the economic, social and environmental pillars; the same pillars as for sustainable development. The presidency hopes to ensure that the third pillar—the environment—appears in the conclusions that are drawn by the European Council.
The Executive has a keen interest in a number of matters on the legislative agenda. We continue to work with the UK Government on the new European chemical strategy: first, to develop a fast, efficient and workable process to test and screen chemicals and to tackle those that are of most concern; secondly, to balance that against competitiveness in the Scottish chemicals industry; and thirdly, to minimise animal testing.
During the Dutch presidency, the ad hoc working group that has been set up in the Council will continue to discuss those issues, and a major seminar on the impact assessment will be held at the end of October. We expect to have a policy debate at the environment council in December, but the complexity of those issues will take discussions way beyond 2005.
The climate change agenda is, as members understand, truly international. We hope to be involved in the preparation of the international conference in December on achievements, risks, energy and investment. There is a proposal for a regulation to control emissions of fluorinated gases by operators of equipment, such as refrigeration and air conditioning.
There are two further items. The first is that the Commission has produced proposals for the implementation of the outstanding parts of the United Nations Aarhus convention, which is about improving public access to, and participation in, environmental processes, the application of Aarhus to the institutions of the EU and public challenge to the application of environmental law. Secondly, the Commission has produced its long-awaited communication on financing Natura 2000, which deals with the future funding of sites in member states that have been designated for protection. Given the number of sites in Scotland, that is of particular interest to us and we look forward to exchanges with the Council about that.
Finally, sustainable mobility is a broad and slightly uncertain topic at present. I understand that the presidency is interested in stimulating discussion on the use of soot filters for diesel-fuelled cars, on greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector and on noise pollution. A conference entitled "Energy in Motion" will be held in October to explore means of achieving clean and climate-neutral transport. There will be two environmental council meetings during the Netherlands presidency, one on 14 October and the other on 20 December, and there will be plenary sessions for us to gather months of agreement and direction.
One of the more important issues on the agricultural side is that the Commission has now published its initial proposals for a new rural development regulation that will be needed from January 2007. Those proposals will be progressed under the Dutch and subsequent presidencies.
A key issue for us is the future distribution of EU funds between member states. As members know, we have a small allocation under pillar 2. Another key issue is the adequate and flexible use of funds to meet national priorities. The new rural development regulation will be the outlet for modulated funding directed from platform 1 and will therefore provide for how we develop the land management contracts as envisaged in our forward strategy.
The third key point is the future of less favoured areas. Currently, 85 per cent of Scotland's agricultural land is classified as less favoured areas. The Commission proposes a review of the eligibility criteria for LFA designation, which could have implications for us. It will be important for us to be fully engaged with that review; we already are.
The Dutch presidency might also try to tackle aspects of animal health and welfare, but it now appears unlikely that the controversial issue of welfare of animals during transportation, which stalled last year, will make it on to the agenda in the near future. The easing of restrictions on beef sales and exports remains a priority for us and we continue to press the Commission on that.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the main business on fisheries during the Dutch presidency will be the outcome of the discussions in the next few months during which total allowable catches and quotas for 2005 will be fixed. We are already engaged in discussions with representative groups in the industry to start forming the kind of lines that we wish to develop in advance of the December council meeting.
Thank you, minister. That was a useful overview of the key issues. Several members want to ask questions and I have had indications of particular points that people want to raise. On the environment side, there is the organic plan, the WEEE directive, climate change and sustainable development and then a block of questions about fisheries.
I want to add a question about animal transport that I failed to intimate at the beginning of the meeting. Should I just take my turn?
I just want to make sure that I have everybody's requests logged—I want to ensure that everybody gets a fair crack of the whip.
There are a couple of agricultural issues that I would like to raise.
I expect Alasdair Morrison to come in on fisheries. I would like to proceed relatively swiftly. Rob Gibson has a question on the organic action plan, which the minister mentioned.
We can read in the paper that is before us about the roll-out of the proposals. How do you think the Dutch presidency will alter the momentum of the roll-out of our organic action plan? Given that quite a lot of producers are small producers, and given the nature of the areas where they work, do you see them making any savings through how they work, as you asked farmers in Orkney to try to make cost savings in their activities?
We are interested in the Dutch presidency being able to inject some momentum. As I understand it, there is a paper that indicates the range of issues. I have focused on the key issues that the presidency is seeking to take forward. I am bound to say that the agenda is very cluttered.
Rob Gibson is asking me two questions: where the action plan fits in and whether I think the Dutch presidency will bring some momentum. I very much hope that it will. It would be wrong of me not to suggest that, in a fairly cluttered agenda, that will not be easy. We would welcome a further rounding of the applicability of the plan and of the methods according to which we make progress. I would be anxious for us to be able to meld whatever preliminary conclusions come out of Europe on the organic front with the existing organic action plan.
I do not think that any of the plans under my portfolio can be allowed simply to sit there. All of them are intended to set the framework for where we are going. My view is that, if there are significant developments, whether they emanate from this committee and the Parliament or from the Council of the EU, they should be incorporated.
As far as costs for the smaller producer are concerned, I have highlighted the situation in Orkney because issues are being raised in Europe that are largely about state aid. There is a notion that some assistance in the northern isles confers a benefit upon people there. It is possible to argue a case for benefits' being conferred, but when costs are demonstrably increased by virtue of location, I challenge the basis upon which people could conclude that any form of support equals a benefit. That is a slightly different issue, but that is why I highlighted that example.
All producers across the whole agricultural front have increasingly to recognise that subsidy support is on the wane, even if that is happening over a long period. All those who engage in farming—organic or traditional—must recognise that they have to be commercially focused in their approach. Our plans do not preclude the amount of support that is given to people working in agriculture, organic or otherwise. Farm advice is directed towards people with that in mind.
You have a report on the agenda for the Dutch presidency. We have some follow-up questions that slot in with that—that explains our list and your list, minister.
It means that we have a long list.
It means, however, that you might not be asked a question about absolutely everything. We will try to prioritise. Part of the process is that this evidence goes on the record, so that people outside the committee will see what you view as being the key priorities and what issues the committee is interested in.
I do not suppose that this relates directly to the Dutch presidency, but I am concerned about how we are getting on with the practicalities of implementing the WEEE directive. Could you give us an update on where we are with the practical things that need to be in place on the ground to enable the directive to work?
I hope that it will not sound as if nothing has happened, because the situation has moved, but not visibly, since the last time I reported, so I welcome the question. There are clearly a large number of elements within the WEEE directive that affect Great Britain as a whole. It is an issue on which my officials and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and other departments are using the DTI as a sort of clearing house in trying to liaise with industry to ensure that we get uniform acceptance across the whole of Great Britain. Responsibility for implementing the directive has been placed on producers, so there is not much point in the persons who distribute goods in Scotland not understanding that the obligations do not stop at Hadrian's wall. It is important that we have a co-ordinated United Kingdom approach; we are making good progress on that.
The consultation process that we are engaged in is continuing and we hope very much that, before the end of the year, we will be able to put the necessary action in place. I am sorry that progress is not as visible as it might be, but it is quite difficult when we are having those indications, and we do not want to put off a number of major producers by having a public argument. That is not to say that we are not being firm in making clear the obligations that will transfer to producers under the agreement. We are making progress, but I regret that we have not gone much further. There is to be a seminar on 23 September at which we aim to inform waste managers about how the directive will affect them. We will also want to update them on the fact that they are not the sole people responsible, but they have to be aware of whom they will liaise with.
It is reassuring to know that that process is continuing.
One of the issues that you highlighted was climate change. Mark Ruskell has a question on that.
You mentioned the climate change review and in particular the Dutch presidency's priority to have a common EU position ready for the meeting in Buenos Aires in December. I also wanted to raise the issue that was highlighted by the Prime Minister yesterday, which is the UK's involvement in pushing for air travel to be included in the EU emissions trading scheme. How are you and your department getting involved in those initiatives? I know that the Executive's climate change strategy is up for review. Could you tell us a bit more about the timescale for that and about how you wish to involve the Parliament as a whole in that review?
I shall take the latter part of that question first. When we set our climate change strategy, we were perhaps at a rather early stage in developing the Scottish Executive's adjustment to servicing its governmental responsibilities in Scotland. I believe that there has to be a thoroughgoing movement in what we do on that. What was not so easy to manage at that time was the setting of general targets and themes within the strategy, and that has to be examined very seriously indeed as part of the review process.
It is also clear that some of the statistics that are used are not necessarily as helpful as they might be. For example, there is a statistic on progress in the United Kingdom since 1995 that many people, including Mark Ruskell, have been quoting. My difficulty with that—and Mark Ruskell's too, I am sure—is that it assumes that everyone was the same in 1995, but we all know that that is not the case. In England, huge numbers of coal-fired stations were still operating, so the fact that they are not operating there now has had a hugely significant effect on progress. In Scotland, we did not have lots coal-fired stations. That makes it clear that if we are to have a sensible and rational discussion in Scotland we need to have a firmer basis.
I will make two comments on linking that work to what Europe is doing. First, I make it clear that my officials remain in touch with their relevant counterparts in Europe, both directly and through the United Kingdom permanent representation in the European Union, so we maintain a dialogue at official level. Secondly, there is contact through the Council and also through the United Kingdom Government. It is not as if those things happen remotely. As I said in my exchange with Rob Gibson, our review of climate change will not only be informed by consultation within Scotland, it will also have to take account of proposals on climate change that were discussed by the Prime Minister yesterday, and of the fact that the presidency is committed to co-ordinating and taking forward key parts of the Kyoto proposals.
Is there a timescale for the Executive's review?
I think that we have heard a date of 2005 for the review of climate change policy, but will it be early 2005 or mid-2005?
It will be 2005. I suspect that you would like me to refine that if I could. I will write to you on that; I know that it is next year, but I will get back to you on the timing.
That would be very helpful.
The next issue that I will raise is fisheries. You have given us quite a bit of feedback on what is happening in respect of fisheries and I know that a number of members are focused on the issue. Maureen Macmillan has an opening question.
I hope to ask more than one question.
I was in Shetland during the summer and spent quite a bit of time with the white-fish fishermen and with the pelagic fishermen. I am aware that they were keen for the haddock permit vessels to have extra days at sea and I notice the proposal to increase those from 15 to 17. Perhaps you can comment on that.
The fishermen were also interested in maintaining or improving the Shetland box. What are the possibilities for that? Can you comment on other such access arrangements that have a socioeconomic dimension in other parts of Scotland? If I may continue, I am also interested in how we are progressing with the establishment of the regional advisory councils.
That should be enough to be going on with. Can the minister remember the first question?
I visit Shetland frequently and I, too, meet representatives of those fishermen's many and several bodies. I am fully apprised of the serious difficulties that they face.
I remain firmly of the view that our policy must be based on science and that it must have at its core a wish to conserve the marine biological resource. That creates a particular difficulty for the northern isles, given that cod is currently below its biological safe limits and the most prolific of the cod fisheries are closest geographically to Shetland. That imposes on those fishermen a very real difficulty. We should understand that, although we should also understand that the overarching policy objectives must remain.
That means that in any spatial management agreement, such as the box systems that are currently in place, those fishermen—the problem is perhaps more acute for them, although others have the same difficulty—have to seek alternative fishing grounds. Therefore, the number of days that they have available to them is more critical. We have been arguing for the extra days for a substantial length of time. We have laid before the European Commission evidence to argue for a quid pro quo—if we can demonstrate de minimis cod bycatch levels, the quid pro quo should be that the Commission allows more effort in those areas where the fishery is being controlled. I am disappointed at the time that it has taken to deal with the days-at-sea issue, although I gather that the matter may now be put before almost any meeting of the Council of the European Union as an A point.
Lachlan Stuart (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
It will be considered as an A point at the next available council meeting.
Instead of being required to be considered by a meeting of the fisheries council, the issue will now go to any council meeting for passing as an A point. The decision must then be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. I am deeply depressed at the length of time that it has taken, as the matter should have been before a council in June. However, progress has been made. Almost as important, the fact that the matter will be agreed in that way means that the principle of giving some reward for de minimis levels will be established. As we go forward to December, we should be able to build on that important principle.
On regional advisory councils, I have always said that such bodies should be a first step rather than the end-product of the process. I very much wish the regional advisory councils to have more powers and to have slightly more geographical focus. However, I regard the establishment of the North sea RAC as crucial in demonstrating to the wider political and engaged public that the regional advisory councils can work. The North sea RAC is the most advanced of any of the ones that have been recommended. Its preliminary meeting will take place on a date in November—
It will be on 4 November.
The meeting will be held in Edinburgh. That provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate not only that we are wholly engaged in making the regional advisory councils work but that the involvement of the Scottish fishing industry will be crucial to the operation of that RAC. My officials and others who are engaged in assisting with the establishment of the North sea RAC are certainly putting a great deal of time and effort into ensuring that that happens.
Finally, on the Shetland box, although the definition of that was enshrined in the common fisheries policy agreement two years ago, the fact that it is defended on conservation or socioeconomic grounds means that it is one of a number of areas that comes up for review. At a council meeting in either November or December this year, there will be a policy debate on the Shetland box, although no decision will be taken then. The Commission has already invited us to submit evidence, in which we have repeated both the strong conservation argument and the equally strong socioeconomic argument for the Shetland box. We expect the preliminary report that will be the focus of that debate to be available perhaps in October.
I thank the minister for his detailed answer.
Before I come to inshore fishing matters, let me say that I was delighted to hear the minister say that the animal transport issue is permanently stalled under the Dutch presidency. On the LFA review, I am sure that the committee will work closely with the minister in following that important matter.
My primary concern is with inshore fisheries. I was delighted to hear the minister's report on the progress that is being made in establishing regional advisory councils. I certainly agree that the powers and role of the councils should be greatly enhanced. The fact that the first meeting will be held in Edinburgh in a few months' time is a welcome development.
I will focus on conservation and sustainability. As the minister will recall, some parties represented on the committee were involved in a shameful betrayal 10 months ago when the needs of scallop fishermen and processors were sadly ignored. Given that the Dutch presidency is now a few months old, has there been any indication that there will be any deviation from the sensible strategy for inshore fishery protection that was outlined by the Scottish Executive and UK Government?
I think that there is no appetite to make any changes there—quite the reverse. The clear steer that all of us with responsibility for fisheries management take from the current presidency is that we should develop our inshore fisheries management and that any such development should be based on the same overarching principle of having regard to the marine biological resource.
You will be aware that we have set up a group that represents many of our inshore fisheries organisations across Scotland. Given the organisations' disparate interests, the group is not easy to chair or manage. However, the members of the group, too, are coming together under proposals and plans that have conservation at their heart. Because of different geographical interests and conflicts over different fishing methods and the different use of gear, managing the respective inshore fisheries is not easy. That said, we are making progress and are much better engaged with the industry. That inshore fisheries group, which now meets regularly, is very much helping to inform the debate.
I certainly welcome the minister's comment that conservation and sustainability are at the forefront of that important group's deliberations.
I believe that Rob Gibson has a question about local offices.
I thank the minister for providing an annex to the papers detailing the process for North sea haddock arrangements. The annex is interesting in itself. However, when I raised the matter in February, I also had agricultural policy in mind. At the time, I asked about the arrangements involving Pentland House, local offices and producer organisations. Would it be possible to receive in writing a worked-out example of how a scheme such as the suckler cow premium scheme is developed? I find it most interesting to see the process at work and such a paper will spur future questions.
To be absolutely blunt, I hope that we are not going to bring back the suckler cow premium scheme. Having just abolished it, I think that that would be a retrograde move.
As far as policy development is concerned, I do not want to suggest for a minute that my department or I have got these matters right. However, we have genuinely been trying very hard to do so. We have set up numerous steering and working groups on sea fisheries, inshore fisheries, the environment and agriculture, which I should point out do not go on for ever—they are time limited and restricted to policy development.
We welcome feedback on whether the groups have or have not worked, but I must claim that I have made a genuine attempt to engage others in finalising the shape of an instrument or in implementing an instrument. After all, I can make announcements and lay regulations before Parliament for its approval and the committee can scrutinise them and make constructive comments but, at the end of the day, the people on the ground have to deliver them. My personal view—which I am sure is shared by the rest of the Executive and the committee—is that the more constructive engagement we have in formulating or implementing regulations, the better. However, people must understand that that does not mean that the process will be quicker.
I want briefly to cover a couple of subjects, the first of which relates to discussions that are taking place on the rural development regulation. The minister and his department almost had to jump through hoops to establish a less favoured area support scheme. Is there any threat to the nature or the existence of the scheme as a result of the current process?
I think that there will be a less favoured area scheme, although we should be in no doubt that there could be serious discussions about its nature. The LFA scheme, which is called other things in other member states, was the subject of a rigorous examination by the EU audit committees and auditors and received an unfavourable report. Whether we agree with that is not relevant; the point is that it has prompted the Commission to call for a pretty thoroughgoing review. We have modified our initial fears; we had thought that the Commission was going to start almost with a blank sheet of paper. However, there are concerns. We in Scotland enjoy the fact that 85 per cent of our agricultural land is deemed less favoured. It is clear from the discussion papers emerging from Europe that it would be difficult for one to justify that figure unless the land met rigorous criteria relating to a permanent state of disadvantage.
There are other issues for us in Scotland surrounding the fact that some of the initial discussion papers, which have been issued recently, focus on the fact that disadvantage might arise only when land is on high hill ground. Our view is that that is a criterion, but that land being on an island is an equal disadvantage in relation to sustainable agriculture. There is a lot for us to contribute to the debate. We are alive to its importance to Scotland and members can be assured that that is one of the reasons why we have read thoroughly the preliminary initial stuff, which was issued only recently. We will be engaged fully in the process.
The other subject that I want to raise with you briefly is progress on what I describe as the normalisation of the beef industry. There have been promises of progress, but there also seems to have been delays. To what extent are the current delays in the progress centred in the European Commission and other European organisations and to what extent are they based in the UK?
As Alex Johnstone and other members of the committee will be well aware, there have been reviews of the risk attached to the over-30-months scheme for beef, but, unfortunately, two separate views have emerged, because the methodology adopted by the two parties were different. The Food Standards Agency applied criteria that invited a risk-reward ratio in terms of the cost of the scheme, but the public health authorities applied a much more prescriptive rule. It is simply not for me to adjudicate on that.
Ministers for health have therefore received differing, although not entirely different, advice. The issue is about public health and ministers for health throughout the United Kingdom are, quite properly, seeking unanimity about the risk. The matter lies there, because it is the job of health ministers to ensure that they are satisfied—as they are entitled to be—about the risk of allowing OTMS beef back into the food chain.
From the agricultural perspective, we are queueing in a chain. I do not necessarily discern any particular difficulties in Europe. However, if you were a commissioner sitting in Brussels and you did not have a clear direction from UK health ministers, you would be asking yourself questions as well. We are at a bit of an impasse. If the health issue is resolved satisfactorily, subject only to the fact that we have a change of commissioners and cabinets, we could quickly bring back on to the agenda the issue of the OTMS and the unwinding of the date-based export scheme.
Thank you very much, minister, for giving us a paper in advance and for coming to talk to us and answer questions. I remind members that next week we will be kicking off with a briefing at 9.30 am, before the committee meeting starts.
Meeting closed at 13:15.