European Union Council (Czech Presidency Visit)
The next item on the agenda is the report on the visit to Prague.
I will kick off, and Jim Hume can come in later.
First, I thank Lucy Scharbert and Iain McIver not only for their splendid chaperoning in Prague but for their excellent report. We had a very busy day: from memory, we were up at 4 o'clock that morning to set off from a hotel at Gatwick.
How terrible—that's a shame.
Yes, it was a bit rough. The day went on and on, and by the end of it—gosh—I was a bit spaced out. But never mind—I really enjoyed it.
The visit was excellent. Jim Hume will cover the common agricultural policy and various other bits and pieces, but I will briefly mention the things that stood out for me. It was fascinating to see how much pride the Czechs had in the fact that, 20 years since the collapse of the eastern bloc, they were assuming the presidency of the European Union. They were enormously proud of the fact that, in 20 years flat, they had gone from that situation to the present situation.
The Czechs wish to examine issues such as the economy, energy and enlargement during their presidency, but its first two months were effectively hijacked by the problems with the gas pipeline from Russia via Ukraine. That was a big problem, and the Czechs played a role in brokering the eventual deal. The Czechs were also very involved in the situation in Gaza and, although they did not play the key roles that the French and the Egyptians ultimately did, they felt that their presidency did not get down to considering the things that they had hoped to consider until about two months into it.
Members will read the report for themselves, but I will mention some interesting things that occurred to me. The Czechs are moving from being a net recipient to a net contributor of EU funding. That is remarkable, considering the position that they have moved from in 20 years and given that many other countries show no sign, even after many years, of moving from the recipient to the contributor phase.
Those achievements have been made despite a lack of energy supplies. The Czechs rely largely on coal, which is in decline. They know that and they will be forced to consider alternatives such as nuclear power, which causes them problems as some of their near neighbours, including Austria, are totally opposed to the nuclear solution. That is a dilemma, and the Czechs are looking to the European Union for a co-ordinated energy approach.
That leads on to the difficulties in the amount of gas that the Czechs import from the east: they have great difficulties in relation to Russia's dominant position and they do not wish to cause it any offence. At the same time, they are looking beyond Russia to Norway and elsewhere to see where they might get gas supplies. That issue was certainly concentrating their minds.
I guess that the Czechs' only major industry is the Skoda car plant. They have seen a bit of a downturn, although probably not as much of the rest of us in Europe. They conceded openly that, until such time as Germany recovers, there will be no real recovery for the Czech Republic. They felt that Germany would lead the way to recovery in Europe.
It is interesting that although the Czech lower chamber has ratified the Lisbon treaty, albeit not without difficulties, the Czechs felt that there were still problems ahead with the upper chamber. Indeed, the president has still not signed the treaty.
The evidence that we took was that the Czechs feel that there is not a great deal of political will across the EU to reform the budget—they wish that there was more.
Our overall point is that it was good to get in early to see what we could do to influence the presidency in advance. The Czechs associated themselves fully with our thoughts on that, but they reminded us gently that they are already two months into their presidency and that, if we wanted to have more of an influence, perhaps on the Swedish presidency, we should start to move now, because things to do with the handover were already happening.
The Swedes are handling my particular area of interest—the common fisheries policy—so the Czechs have taken a back seat on that. The Czechs said that, if we want to be at all influential and if we are planning a visit to Stockholm, we should act sooner rather than later. As our previous delegation found, it is important to get in as early as possible.
We will deal with that in the programme for May. We have already taken that point on board, but it is a good one. Jim, do you have anything to add?
Yes, I have a few points to make. First, I thank Lucy Scharbert and Iain McIver for seeing us through all those airports.
The Czechs were very much focused on the economic crisis, which has obviously taken over, but it is interesting that the recession came to the Czech Republic a bit later than it came to us. In December, the Czechs were talking about 3 or 4 per cent growth, but by January they were looking at 0 per cent growth at best.
The Czechs had to deal with the unforeseen circumstances around gas and Gaza, which Ted Brocklebank has mentioned. They are looking to get better access to energy from the Caucuses and various such places. There does not seem to be a great focus on renewable energy, unlike in some of their neighbours, particularly Austria. The Czechs might be keen, but renewables are not at the top of their agenda—that is for sure. They are looking to reinvest in nuclear, which is not popular with their southern neighbours, Austria.
The Czechs expressed concerns that there are still restrictions on movements between Germany and Austria and the Czech Republic. There are still some teething issues with the Czech Republic being in the EU.
On the common agricultural policy, the major concern for the Czechs is that they are not getting as good a deal as some of the older member states, because of the historical payments that Scotland, France and Germany get and which put the Czechs in a slightly worse position.
We met the Czech deputy agriculture minister, who is not an elected member but appointed by the Government—slightly different to how we do things here. He was a young chap of 32 or 33 I think, but he was obviously very capable. The Czechs are looking to reduce the CAP budget in future, but it does not seem to be at the top of their agenda. They reckon that in the future there will be a movement from the so-called pillar 1 to pillar 2.
The Czechs have set out a road map for technical discussions on CAP. They do not think that Sweden will go any further with discussions on the CAP; they believe that Sweden will take up discussions on the common fisheries policy instead.
We also touched on quality designation—that is, a "Made in EU" designation. Like Scotland, the Czech Republic has its own Czech brands—
I think Becherovka is one of them.
I will bow to your knowledge on that one, convener.
The Czechs would be interested in getting the Budweiser brand back from America—that has a long history.
Like Scotland, the Czech Republic has some very hilly ground. They are looking to maintain the status quo on their less favoured area status and would be wary of any change.
I think that we have covered most of the main points. Everything is clearly laid out in EU/S3/09/5/2, which is a very good report.
I thank both Jim Hume and Ted Brocklebank, and also Lucy Scharbert and Iain McIver. The report is comprehensive and interesting.
Sandra, do you want to come in?
Yes—as a new member, I am learning as I go along.
Paragraph 23 of the report says that the Czech Government believes that structural funds are too bureaucratic and must be simplified. It is interesting that the Czech Republic, a new member of the EU, is saying exactly what we, an old member, have been saying for years.
Paragraph 24 mentions €5 billion of unspent money that could be used as investment, but it then says that the money is regarded as "uncollected" rather than unspent. The anomalies arising for a new member are exactly the same as the ones that we have faced for years.
Paragraph 42 attributes to Mr Kalas the view that
"the Czech Government had the option of a political or rational response to the issue of nuclear power; the political response would have resulted in no nuclear power, the rational response to support it."
The paragraph continues with a wee sting in the tail, in which Mr Kalas advised that
"nuclear energy had specifically been excluded by the Green Party, but suggested that their stance was softening."
Very interesting.
I have long been of the view that the period of each presidency is ridiculously short but, with the enlargement of the EU, the possibility of the period being lengthened is pretty remote because every member will want its turn. I am interested in whether Jim Hume or Ted Brocklebank were given any indication on how many of the Czech Republic's objectives at the start of its presidency were expected to be implemented.
I do not know whether others will agree, but I got the impression that people felt that they had not received the co-operation that they might have expected from their predecessors, the French. In most of the meetings we attended, a strong view came through that the French had perhaps not been as co-operative as they might have been and that business had not been passed on as it was supposed to be passed on. People hoped that their arrangements with the Swedes would be better and that business would be passed on.
I did not detect a sense that any of the Czech Republic's original goals had a real chance of being reached in a six-month presidency. Business would be on-going: a country should take on business from its predecessor, work away at it, and then pass it on to its successor. However, some fairly hard things were said about the French.
That covers exactly the points that I would have made, although I would have used slightly different words. There seemed to be little, if any, co-operation with the predecessors, the French. That will cause problems when a presidency lasts for only six months. There should be a rolling effect, which will happen between the Czech Republic and Sweden.
The Czech Republic has had to respond to circumstances such as the problems with gas supplies and Gaza. As I said, up until December or January, people were still forecasting growth, but they have been the victims of circumstances that were beyond anybody's control.
The Czech presidency has had an incredibly negative press from day one—I am sure that the Czechs would not blame the French for that.
I was struck by what Ted Brocklebank said about our efforts and those of the Scottish Government to engage with some of the issues earlier in the process. Will our planned visit to Stockholm in May be early enough? I would be particularly interested to hear what Ted Brocklebank has to say about that, given that he raised the issue.
The difficulty is that we are talking about on-going issues. If we start the communication with one presidency, we will be aware of what is said in the handover period.
Like Jim Hume, I was very impressed with the young agriculture minister, who was extremely open and forthright. He will pass over a fair legacy to his Swedish counterparts. At least we are in the loop in that regard—he said that he would be happy to advise us with whom we should communicate before we go to Stockholm.
The Czech presidency was a kind of passing-the-parcel presidency. Given that the Czechs lost the first two months of their presidency to gas and Gaza, I think that they are happy just to carry it forward for four months. I got the strong impression that they do not think that major progress will be made on anything during their term: it is a question of passing the parcel and keeping in the loop.
I have a point about the juste retour principle and the issue of putting into Europe more than one gets out. One or both of us asked whether that was a problem and whether it went down badly, politically, in the Czech Republic. The opposite is true—to the Czechs, the fact that they put in more than they get out is a sign that they are maturing as a country.
They almost saw it as a compliment. That is interesting.
Thank you very much. That was useful for all committee members, especially the new ones.