European and External Relations Committee, 18 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Official Report 99KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

We move on to item 5, which is the convener's report. The first point is that we have received written responses to the committee's report on the EU fisheries control agency from Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and Ben Bradshaw, the United Kingdom Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries. Members will recall that we finalised the report towards the end of last year and communicated it to both ministers and to Elspeth Attwooll, who was reporting at that time on behalf of the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries.

The responses from both ministers are favourable, not least because we took broadly the same tack as the Government does. I certainly have no further comments, other than to say that we will have to watch developments to guarantee that the issues in the report are addressed. Obviously, they are on the Government's radar screen.

The fact that the report seems to have been quite well received is encouraging. Clearly, the committee has identified a number of issues that the UK Government needs to keep under review, and we did so within quite a short timescale. It was a constructive piece of work, which is being pursued constructively.

We should note our thanks to Alasdair Morrison.

Absolutely.

It is also worth acknowledging the particularly helpful reply from a UK minister, which we do not always get. We certainly got one on this occasion.

I remember it well.

It has certainly been a useful piece of work and we record our thanks to Alasdair Morrison and the clerks for undertaking it. It has received a fairly warm response, but we shall ask the clerks to monitor the situation.

The second point is to advise members that the Luxembourg ambassador to the United Kingdom will make a public address on 27 January, which I will host, as part of the committee's on-going facilitation of discussion of the priorities of the presidency of the European Union. All members are welcome to attend the event.

The final point relates to the committee's away day, which was held on Friday in Glasgow. I certainly felt that the day was useful and constructive and that helpful contributions on issues relating to the EU and the external relations strategy were made by the two academic presenters, Professor Drew Scott and Professor Charlie Jeffery from the University of Edinburgh.

The general points of agreement were that, in the light of the length of time that we have spent on the inquiry into the promotion of Scotland, members broadly favour shorter, sharper inquiries. The committee took the view that an early priority would be to undertake an inquiry into what the Executive hopes to and can achieve from the hosting of the G8 summit in Scotland in the summer and the contemporaneous UK presidency of the European Union.

If members are agreeable, we could begin by agreeing the remit for the inquiry on 1 February, with the aim of concluding the report by the Easter recess. I think that that timescale is achievable. I will consult members in due course about the possibility of having additional meetings to ensure that that is possible, but do members agree to that broad timescale?

Members indicated agreement.

I echo your points about the away day, which was a useful and constructive day. It is also appropriate to place on record our thanks to Charlie Jeffery, Drew Scott and Liz Holt, who was able to come along too. It will be an interesting inquiry and I look forward to seeing the remit at the next meeting.

Thank you. I have no other points to raise.

I want to raise something that was mentioned briefly and informally at the beginning of the meeting. Colleagues will have seen press reports about the difficulties that Scottish Water and Scottish Power have got into over the disposal of sewage residue at Longannet power station. Obviously the situation gives rise to serious difficulties for a number of agencies and for the Scottish Executive, which is disappointing, given that the practice seemed to be a good solution to a difficult problem and that the Executive has put a lot of money into disposing of sewage waste in that way. For companies to run into legal difficulties because of the interpretation of European legislation is disturbing.

I do not know whether the committee can usefully become engaged in the matter, but given that the problem arises from the interpretation of European regulations it might be worth while at least to make inquiries about that aspect of the problem. The problem is serious and the Executive is going to have to find a solution to it rather urgently.

We have a new legal adviser and I am sure that the matter would be an appropriate one for the committee to consider with our adviser's assistance.

We would be able to provide the committee with a note that clearly sets out the nature of the problem.

We shall take that forward today so that we have before us at our next meeting an explanation of the issues at stake and the origins of the problem. We all echo the comments that John Home Robertson has made. It is a matter of regret that the issue has got to this stage. A report on the matter would be helpful.

Meeting continued in private until 16:06.