Official Report 197KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a paper from the clerk on the European Commission's legislative and work programme, and the committee's consultation. In the usual way, I ask for comments.
The European Commission will produce its policy strategy document next month. The legislative and work programme is a kind of early warning, but the policy strategy document tends to be a bit more informative. We are agreeing this matter just a few weeks before the policy strategy document is produced. Might there be an opportunity to review the situation before we break for the summer recess, to take account of any developments that may happen over the next few weeks?
We have asked those questions and are awaiting a reply from the Scottish Government. We will deal with the matter as part of our consideration of the EU budget, to which you referred. The paper highlights the key policy themes, but it should include a section that highlights other relevant issues, as you suggest.
Generally, I agree with what Irene Oldfather has said. Last week I was in Germany, where I heard about what two of the Länder are doing. The approach that the committee is taking is not nearly proactive enough. I am happy for the committee to agree to the recommendations in the paper that is before us, but we need to have a more general discussion about how we will try to influence European regulations, directives and legislation at a much earlier stage. Frankly, we are not at the races on that. We need to have a wider-ranging discussion that will include the policy strategy that is to be issued and to which Irene Oldfather referred. This is not a one-off event, but a continuous process.
I agree. The approach that is set out in the paper is an attempt to start looking forward. All members will agree with Alex Neil that we need to go further.
In the past, the committee made an annual visit to Brussels. I am the last person to suggest visits abroad, but January-February is the run-up to the publication of the Commission's policy strategy, which takes place in March. Unlike the civil service here, the Commission civil service is very open, and often people will say that they expect a measure to be included in the policy strategy. We used to get early intelligence about what might come up and what the big issues and key themes would be. We have a heavy workload in relation to our inquiry into the transposition of directives, but I agree with Alex Neil that the more that we can do to get in early and to look ahead, instead of responding, the better we will serve the rest of the Parliament.
The suggestions that have been made are fine. One key issue is the role of the European officer. We can ask the European officer to provide the committee with a briefing on the annual policy strategy, which Irene Oldfather mentioned, once it has been introduced. That will allow the committee to engage further with the process. The document that has been presented to members today will be taken forward by the European officer, who will provide regular updates through the Brussels Bulletin and, when requested, on specific issues. Hopefully, there will be a dialogue. It is important to emphasise that a key aspect of the process is to mainstream the scrutiny of European issues. We expect that the subject committees will take forward many of those issues. They have been consulted on that point, and the paper will be referred and flagged up to them.
I do not disagree with a word that Jim Johnston has said, but although it is fine for the European officer to brief us on the APS once it has come out, we should try to influence it while it is being developed. That is where we are missing a trick. In the early stages of the process, we are not talking to the people in Brussels who draw up such policies. If we get a briefing after the APS is done and dusted, it is too late for us to influence it.
As someone who has a particular interest in fisheries, I am delighted that the issue has followed me from the Environment and Rural Development Committee on to the agenda of the European and External Relations Committee. Alex Neil's point is particularly true as regards the development of policy on issues such as maritime spatial planning strategy, intercoastal zone management and discards. We should be proactive in much of such work and should not simply wait to see what the Commission proposes.
Various points have been made that can be taken on board. The paper certainly provides a good foundation, but we will make a few additions to it. On that basis, are members content to agree to the recommendations?
Will we schedule a discussion on the issue that I raised?
Yes.
We will bring back a further paper on that.