Official Report 137KB pdf
I welcome colleagues and members of the press. I remind everyone to switch their phones to silent. Members are all here, so there are no apologies.
A big vote will take place in the European Parliament this week on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation. A lot of to-ing and fro-ing has gone on and compromises have been made on the final regulation. Before the minister comes to speak to the committee, it would be useful to have information from the Executive about its role in the decisions on various compromises. We know that the United Kingdom Government has led some of those compromises so it would be useful to know the Executive's position throughout those discussions.
The whole process is being delayed because Germany does not yet have a Chancellor. Germany is being given the chance to buy time on the issue. Do we agree to ask for a note from the Executive on the matter?
The paper has quite a lengthy update on the climate change review. A new phase of the European climate change programme began last month. The key subjects on which it will focus are carbon capture and storage and emissions from transport. A proposal has also been made on incorporating aviation into the EU emissions trading scheme. We discussed that in our climate change report, so that is good to see. The EU will try to take the lead on climate change at the next United Nations conference. That is good progress.
As members may be aware, Scotland has huge potential for carbon capture and storage, because the North sea reservoirs could store 755 gigatonnes of carbon, which is the equivalent of 5,000 years' worth of Scotland's carbon output. That could be a new industry for Scotland. It would be interesting for the committee to have a bit more information on what Europe is doing, because Scotland has the opportunity to lead that new international industry. We might want to find out what is happening in Europe, to ensure that it is not outpacing us and that we can take advantage of what it is doing.
We will also ask for another note from the Executive. I notice that a proposal from BP is being considered. We can be updated on what is happening.
The Parliament's cross-party group on oil and gas will discuss the subject this evening, if any committee members would like to attend its meeting.
I will be at that meeting.
We will ask for an update on the situation in Europe and a note of progress from the Executive on carbon capture.
I want to talk about the energy performance of buildings directive, which will be implemented next year in the United Kingdom through the 2006 building regulations. According to some of the organisations that are involved in energy efficiency in Scotland, the plans to impose the directive in Scotland are weaker than they are elsewhere in Europe and the UK. It might be worth our while to look into that, given that it relates to the transposition of European legislation into Scots law and Scottish regulations.
The matter was highlighted in our climate change report. We have asked the minister about it before, but we could ask for an update on what has happened since last we raised the issue. The matter should be dealt with by the Minister for Communities rather than by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development.
We highlighted issues regarding the training of inspectors, which is why the UK has sought a derogation on implementing the directive. It would be useful to get feedback from the minister about what is happening in relation to training the trainers—which I believe is the real issue—and ensuring that there are more inspectors.
I think that is why the current suggestion is for self-certification—there is a question about whether that will meet requirements. We will ask for more information on that.
I wonder how the British electricity transmission and trading arrangements, which have been adopted in relation to renewable energy, square with those of other European countries, and whether there is likely to be such an energy network. From an environmental point of view, the areas that we know can produce renewable energy are somewhat disadvantaged by the pricing structure. Although that is an enterprise matter, the issue of how the environment is affected is something that this committee should keep in mind in relation to climate change mitigation.
Can we ask for a briefing note on that issue?
Recently, I was at the international parliamentarians conference on renewable energy—a good event that was held in Edinburgh. One of the big issues that were discussed was the need for a subsea grid infrastructure and the potential for transnational electricity sharing projects. It would be useful to find out what the Executive's thinking is on a subsea grid to link the UK with other parts of Europe.
It would be interesting, too, to hear debates about linking the whole of the United Kingdom on subsea grids.
Can I make two points? It is regrettable that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea still sees no credible recovery in cod stock. However, we must keep stressing that cod is only one species and that it is not a species that is particularly targeted by Scottish fishermen.
I concur with Ted Brocklebank, especially with his last point, which I was going to mention. Perhaps we could get more details on the dispute over the use of European fisheries funds for the building of new vessels by other countries. It would be devastating if that went ahead, because it would discriminate against our fleet.
We are not on to that yet; it is the next topic. We are dealing with quotas.
I would like to make a brief point about quotas. The parliamentary answer that I received from the minister a couple of weeks ago indicated that Scotland had exceeded its target for reducing capacity for cod in the North sea. The target was set at 65 per cent; we have achieved 67.5 per cent. We have already exceeded the target.
Okay.
Although we have to get information from the Executive on quotas, it would be useful to get an update from the minister on the success of policing landings of black fish, which has had the greatest impact on the viability of fishing communities. It would be useful for the committee to be updated on an abhorrent practice that puts the viability of fish stocks and, ultimately, the sustainability of jobs, at risk. Briefing on that would be very useful.
Okay. Colleagues have raised quite a few issues that we can flag up with the minister before he comes to talk to us next month.
There is uncertainty over the future of the Shetland box, which is causing anxiety in the Shetlands, so the committee should take a very close interest in the matter. My colleague Ian Hudghton, who is a member of the European Parliament, has raised the issue in Scotland. Perhaps we should seek a briefing to find out exactly where the debate is going.
Okay. We did not get agreement on the European fisheries fund proposal under the UK presidency. Subsidising the building of new boats was the main issue. That picks up Ted Brocklebank's point that fishing capacity is out of line with the fishing stocks and that new boat building should not be subsidised in cases where such building will make the situation worse. That has not come up at subsequent council meetings, so we want to be notified about whether it will be raised at all in December.
Can we also get a background briefing on how that situation came about? There was an outcry previously when agreement in Europe extended the subsidies by 12 months, yet here we are in 2005 and the matter seems still to be on the agenda, its having not been resolved.
It is clear there was no agreement on subsidies. The UK led on the matter, so we can get more information on it.
Can we bear in mind arguments about labelling of agricultural produce? We should think about replicating that appropriately for seafood. We should also recognise the need to have labels that people understand. There needs to be uniformity; a free-for-all will not serve customers well, far less the producers.
Labels must be understandable.
Yes. Can we get a note from the Executive about its input?
Okay.
If the test regime is robust enough to allow British consumption, why has the export ban not been lifted. Is there a date for its lifting? What is the explanation for the situation?
We can get a report about that from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development.
As we know, the bulk of the salmon being dumped on the UK market comes from Norway and Chile. Neither of those countries has the same medical standards to which our salmon are subjected. The third bullet point under paragraph 8 mentions the management of fish, including grading, medicines, handling and transport. Will countries such as Norway and Chile, which are dumping fish on the European market, be subjected to the same testing for medicines over the same sort of period that applies to Scottish salmon? Does anybody know whether that is the intention?
We could ask the minister that.
Ted Brocklebank will know that the European Commission has now put in place measures to reduce the quantity of salmon that comes into the European market. That has greatly benefited Scottish and Irish salmon producers, but it does not answer his question. The Executive can provide the answer. The campaign that has been led by ministers here and by the Prime Minister has been very successful in preventing illegal dumping, particularly by the Norwegians.
I would like to find out from the minister how the proposals at European level dovetail with what the Executive, the fish farmers and the wild fish interests are doing. A lot of work is being done to draw up codes of practice and codes of conduct for the fish farming industry. Perhaps we could find out whether the European proposals are in harmony with that.
That takes us back to the idea of an eco-labelling scheme. What are people actually getting when they buy a product? Does the labelling tell them what the animal welfare conditions are and what kind of farming is being carried out? Perhaps we can tie the two issues together, particularly if there is some development there.
I know that a particular smoked salmon product is being sold in Spain. The front of the package has a rough representation of the Scottish Highlands, with various lochs listed. At the bottom, it says, "Product of Norway". Pictures of Scotland are being used to identify a certain level of quality, but it is Norwegian smoked salmon that is being sold.
There is the classic case of so-called Scottish smoked salmon that is only smoked in Scotland.
It is all about greater transparency, fairer trading and level playing fields. That last case sounds like a trade descriptions issue. Labelling might make people think that salmon has been farmed in a Highland loch, whereas it has in fact come from Norway. We will note those issues and pass them on to the minister.
I am keen to see the detail. The matter has been of concern to the fish farming industry ever since the outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia—ISA—in the late 1990s, especially given the manner in which it was dealt with. There have been changes in the legislation since then, but I wonder what is being proposed now.
Finally, there is the rural development programming period 2007 to 2013. Members will note that the Commission has now
The other question that I expect we will want to ask ministers is where we are with securing a budget to fund rural development regulation, given the shenanigans over the European budget. In particular, we should find out what the UK Government means by making that dependent on further reform of the common agricultural policy, which is causing consternation in the agriculture community and in rural communities generally. UK ministers have been making statements on that, so could we find out Ross Finnie's response to them and what the UK means by further reform of the CAP?
If members of this committee are exercised by what UK ministers have said, why do they not approach their member of Parliament, whoever that is, who sits in Westminster, to discover exactly what they mean? Bogging down the Scottish ministers in an attempt to get their interpretation of what UK ministers have said is, frankly, a waste of this committee's time and a waste of the Scottish ministers' time.
Does Rob Gibson want to say anything?
I was merely going to say that it is essential that we know what input there has been of Scottish thinking to the British position, and the only way we can find that out is by asking the minister. I emphasise what Richard Lochhead said and suggest that we should try to find out what the position is.
I think that we can find out what the Scottish Executive position is.
That is what we are asking.
The big political question is whether other European states are treating the reform of the common agricultural policy with the seriousness with which we have debated it over the past few years. We shall seek a bit more information from the Executive on how it sees the matter as an opportunity and how it fits into debates on the budget.