European and External Relations Committee, 17 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Official Report 215KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

The last agenda item is the convener's report, which is paper EU/S2/06/1/5. Margaret Ewing referred to item 1 on the report, which is the proposed committee visit to Brussels on 20 and 21 March.

I reiterate that the earlier we can sort out the visit, the better will be the meetings that we arrange and the less the visit is likely to cost. On the practical side, the clerks have written to members to ask whether they will come on the visit. I understand that apart from me only Dennis Canavan and Charlie Gordon have answered so far, although Margaret Ewing has told us that she is not able to come. I ask members as a matter of urgency to check their diaries and to let the clerks know very soon whether they intend to come. We can make considerable cost savings if we book early.

On the programme for the visit, there is an opportunity for members to suggest subjects on which we should arrange meetings. Margaret Ewing has already made a suggestion.

She will not be there.

Plenty of folk ken about fish—especially in Brussels. You get the best sole in the world there.

There is an outline programme, but obviously it is not set in stone. [Interruption.] Can I have a bit of peace? I suggest that we should have most of our meetings in Scotland House to save people having to run about all over the city and being late for meetings and so on. We should try to have as many meetings as possible in Scotland House and bring people to us. That would allow us to get more meetings in.

That sounds good for committee members, but if you want to meet some of the directors general in the Commission, I have to say that I do not think that they will come to Scotland House.

We have to be pragmatic.

In all fairness, we would have to build in a bit of flexibility.

On suggestions for meetings, it occurs to me that structural funds will be very important. Graham Meadows has always been good at meeting the committee in the past and he knows structural funds inside out. I am sure that he would be able to give us an update on developments. All committee members would welcome further information on structural funds.

Another important and topical issue is industrial restructuring, which is linked to the discussion that we had earlier on the globalisation adjustment fund. It would be helpful to speak to someone in the Commission about the criteria that might be set for access to that fund. There will be opportunities there for Scotland.

Different members may have different interests, so perhaps we should split into groups. For example, if members have a particular interest in fishing they might want to meet people in the fisheries directorate. Manufacturing and industrial restructuring is of interest to me. I am sure that there is no difficulty about us having separate meetings and meeting where appropriate.

We must try to get the most out of the fairly short time that we will be in Brussels. There is no reason why different people cannot go to different events. It would be useful for members to let Alasdair Rankin, Nick Hawthorne and Kathleen Wallace know whether there is a particular subject that they would like to tap into. Members have interests in various items on the Commission's work programme, so it is important that members try to meet people who relate to those interests and to matters that they want to progress.

Would anyone else like to comment? Would anyone else like to confirm whether they can attend?

I intend to go—I thought that I had given notification of that.

I spoke earlier about energy and the Lisbon agenda. I would like to have an up-to-date briefing on where we are with that.

I thought that I had replied—the trip is certainly in my diary. I am also interested in energy, biofuels and stuff like that.

Are there any other takers?

My attendance would mean that I would have to leave home at 1 o'clock on Sunday.

That will be nice.

You will miss Sunday lunch.

Is that the only way that you can get down here to get the flight?

If it comes to that, I will do it.

Could you take a later flight?

There is no point in missing out on things.

Perhaps there is a flight that would get you to Brussels at teatime on Monday.

We gather that the Glasgow flight is to be withdrawn on about 6 March, so unfortunately Edinburgh is the only option. It will have to be a 7 o'clock flight from Edinburgh.

I do not know whether the clerks are aware that the visit may be during a European Parliament plenary week in Strasbourg. Plenary sessions are sometimes—although not often—held in Brussels. The clerks might want to check the dates.

According to the information that Nick Hawthorne has, that is not the case, but we will double check. We seem to have conflicting information.

The second item in my report relates to the Committee of the Regions subsidiarity test project, in which our colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales are taking part. Irene Oldfather kindly agreed to provide information on the project to us and to report back today.

I have a paper with the appropriate information that I can circulate to members.

The Committee of the Regions has undertaken a two-month pilot project on subsidiarity, in which the Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies—the CALRE—of which I think Mr Gallie is a representative, volunteered the National Assembly for Wales to take part.

I am a member of the CLRAE—the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.

Oh, you are on the CLRAE.

The CALRE is for Presiding Officers or Speakers of Parliaments.

Right.

The CALRE nominated the Welsh Assembly to participate in the project, which it has done. The exercise has been completed based on the Treaty of Amsterdam and the subsidiarity protocol, but did not take into account the arrangements under the proposed new constitution. Apparently, there is in the Treaty of Amsterdam a fallback that allows regions to become involved in the project.

The Committee of the Regions sent out to the regions that had volunteered to participate a two-page questionnaire on issues relating to the thematic strategy on climate change, or something like that. The regions were asked to respond to the questionnaire.

I must leave the meeting for a few minutes. Irene Oldfather will convene the meeting until I return.

Thank you, convener.

I have the Welsh Assembly's response to the Committee of the Regions, which I can circulate to members.

It has been suggested that all the responses should be put on the internet. The feasibility of having a permanent internet site to which regions in the European Union could submit comments when the European Commission asks a question or issues a consultation document or directive will be considered. Such a site would give regions a way of getting together without their representatives having to be physically present in one place. Regions could share information and concerns about European Commission proposals. There may be an opportunity to develop an initiative from the pilot project that would link up the legislative regions throughout Europe.

The project is not only for regions—it is also for local authorities. If they see a difficulty with a Commission regulation, they should be able to highlight concerns at an early stage on the Committee of the Regions website. Local authorities or regions in Europe may have similar concerns. There would be an opportunity to bring together concerns and for the site to act as an early warning system, which I think we have all asked for. New technology and the internet could be used.

I am happy to get the clerks to circulate to members all the information that I have received from the Committee of the Regions and the Welsh Assembly, which shows how the proposals may be taken forward. There is also information about keeping members up to date on progress and developments.

Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Good. That takes us to the next item in the convener's report.

I thank Irene Oldfather.

Item 3 in the convener's report is a letter from the House of Lords European Union Committee on its forthcoming inquiry into different parliamentary models for presenting and explaining the EU to citizens. That sounds familiar. We have only until 6 February to respond to the letter, if we want to do so.

Can the House of Lords European Union Committee explain how the House of Lords operates on behalf of the public?

Members' enthusiasm is overwhelming.

That inquiry is parallel to the one that we are undertaking. Just to be polite, it might be worth our while to respond; we could say that this is something that we are also doing in our own way, that we will let the House of Lords European Union Committee know when we have completed it and that we thank that committee for asking us.

It is nice to be nice.

It might also be useful to ask the minister to forward to us a copy of the report when it is finalised. Although I am not a great admirer of the House of Lords as an institution, it has been known to come out with one or two good reports.

Yes. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We are building an ermine bridge.

The next item in the report has particular relevance for John Home Robertson. It is a response from the Executive about the European small claims procedure, which John raised at our previous meeting. Do members—John in particular—have any comments?

I am grateful for the full reply from the Justice Department. However, the point that worries me is in the final sentence of the penultimate paragraph, which states:

"The Executive is also alert to the issues that might arise through the difference between the proposed European Small Claims Procedure limit of €2,000 compared to the current domestic threshold of £750 which, as the Committee is aware from earlier discussions, has been under consideration for some time now."

I imagine that Jim Wallace can confirm what that is all about.

Six years, I think.

We are in a bind. If the Scottish Executive, for reasons of which some members will be aware, cannot proceed with adjusting the thresholds, we will be in an embarrassing position in which the thresholds for small claims for citizens in Scotland are different to those that apply in other parts of the European Union. I know that ministers in the Justice Department want to deal with the situation—they have said so for a long time—but this could be an opportunity to bring the matter to a head, which might be no bad thing.

Would you like the committee to take further action or are you dealing with the matter?

I will be asking another oral question about small claims this week, so I am still on the case.

That is fine. Item 5 in the report is a letter from Mr McCabe about the costs and benefits of bringing the G8 summit to Scotland last year. We discussed inviting Mr McCabe to discuss the matter in greater depth at our next meeting, I think. Do members have comments or is the committee content to wait until Mr McCabe, who has already agreed to come and discuss the matter at a future meeting, is here?

Do the clerks have time to prepare a paper for us before that meeting so that we can see how the figures in the report compare with the estimates that have been given in earlier evidence by the minister?

Yes—that will be fine.

Item 6 is a response to our inquiry into the Commission's complaints procedure in relation to the Ferguson Shipbuilders Ltd tender. Members have no comments on the letter that is dated 21 November, so are members content to note its contents?

Members indicated agreement.

I advise members and the public that the Austrian ambassador to the UK is giving a public address in committee room 2 on the plans and priorities for the Austrian presidency of the EU. The meeting will be at 2.15 pm on Thursday 26 January, which is a week on Thursday, and should last about 45 minutes. I ask that as many committee members as possible attend.

The final item is a letter from the Executive about energy issues. Do members have any comments on that?

My earlier point under agenda item 3 supplements the interesting comments that are made in the Executive's response.

Again, it is a good reply from the Executive that sums up an evolving issue that should worry everyone in Scotland. With the loss of Hunterston B when it reaches the end of its design life, and given that Cockenzie power station on my patch and other older generating plants are in the same position, the security of electricity supply in Scotland will be problematic. It is time we all applied ourselves to the need to take strategic decisions about future generation, unless we are content to become dependent on imports from other parts of the UK or, indeed, from further afield in Europe. We should be worried about that.

Charlie Gordon has been very quiet for the whole meeting.

I will not tell you why. The Executive's response says that it supports the development of clean-coal technology, but that that is a commercial matter for the companies concerned. I have spoken to at least one of the companies concerned and it is looking askance at the prospect of there being up to £1 billion of available subsidy for the commercial development of, for example, wind energy. Many development costs are associated with clean-coal technology, so it seems to me that there is a danger that an unlevel playing field is developing in the context of other concerns, including John Home Robertson's, about the Scottish dimension of UK energy policy. I do not have a clear view on what we should say about the situation, but it is dangerous to take an inconsistent approach to the development of energy technologies that could contribute to our tackling climate change.

We have already agreed to write to the Executive about energy policy, as Phil Gallie suggested. Would you be content to add something to that letter about clean-coal technologies?

Yes.

Is everyone happy to expand that letter to include that matter?

Members indicated agreement.

There are no other comments. That brings us to the end of the meeting. Before members dash off, I ask them to remain for two minutes for a quick chat.

Meeting closed at 15:21.