European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Official Report 394KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

Agenda item 3 is a discussion on the latest edition of the “Brussels Bulletin”. Ian Duncan, who compiles the report, is present if we have any questions about the evidence that we heard from our MEPs. We will note Hanzala Malik’s comments.

I note the contributions of our MEPs. I welcome the opportunity to engage with them and if they feel that they need additional support, we should put that in motion. I was disappointed by the suggestion that sometimes the UK Government is not as supportive as it could be. That is detrimental to the UK, let alone Scotland. It is important that our MEPs are given all possible support so that they can be more successful. It would be fantastic if we could identify the person to do it.

Following Hanzala’s comments, I want to ask Ian Duncan about pages 3 and 4 of the “Brussels Bulletin”. Surprisingly, party politics creeps into things occasionally, and this is about the North Sea grid and the interconnector. The bulletin considers energy security and infrastructure, and I was wondering about two aspects. First, from your background knowledge, do you know whether the North Sea supergrid is being pursued strongly by the UK Government? Secondly, the energy security submission on page 3 of the bulletin mentions the opening of a southern corridor in Europe, but I am not quite sure where that corridor emanates from or goes to.

I will address those points in reverse order. The southern corridor is in the south-east, so it will bring in oil via a pipeline from the oil fields of the Caucasus. The energy security issue more or less involves trying to build good relations with our neighbours to the east in order to bring in oil to the eastern European states. That has been an ambition, but there have been a lot of issues with Russia not behaving in a useful manner, and there have been a number of times when the pipelines have run dry. The ambition behind the energy security proposal is to try to secure a better way of engaging with neighbouring states to secure free-flowing, stable oil supplies.

A lot of work is being done on the supergrid in the EU just now, because it is viewed as the best way of connecting the northern part of Europe—around the North Sea—with mainland Europe. Again, the concept is about bringing in safely and reliably the energy that is produced by the reserves—those around the UK, in some instances—in a manageable way while trying to connect in the renewable sources, which Scotland is well placed to harvest.

The UK would say that it is being very diligent in that area, but others may not agree so strongly. However, the Scottish Government has been very assiduous, as the committee will be aware, in a lot of the activities that it has undertaken. My colleagues in Scotland house have had significant high-level contact with the European energy commissioner and the directorate-general energy in order to push that particular case. I know that the Scottish Government also has very good relations with the UK Government Department of Energy and Climate Change, and a lot of work has been done.

The big issue, of course, is money. The supergrid will cost money and will get wrapped up in the debate around the budget and how much cash is available and where the money will fall. In the past, when there has been a project in the north, there has also been a project in the south, because everybody wants to get a bit of something or other. One tends to find that the southern part of the equation involves bringing in the solar power from the Iberian peninsula and trying to connect that up the way, so it is a question of keeping everyone moderately happy and keeping the energy flowing where it needs to go.

Your comments on the grid and the interconnector are interesting. With regard to the opening of the southern corridor, “southern” to me means south rather than east, but there you go. When I read that piece, I wondered whether it was referring to north Africa and what is going on in the Arab countries. I was not sure whether it meant taking advantage of what is happening there just now under the new regimes.

No, it does not—that is the simple answer. I imagine that when north Africa reaches a certain level of stability, there will be greater exploration of exactly how to bring energy from there into southern Europe. Prior to the Libyan situation, there was a great deal of collaboration—a level of sharing of practice and exploratory dialogue—but circumstances have stepped in the way of that. I suspect that it will return, probably in the not-too-distant future, depending on circumstances.

That is interesting.

Helen Eadie asked me to make this point. She noted that there is to be a conference on the multi-annual financial framework and she hoped that the Scottish Government would send someone to that important event—perhaps that is a wee freebie for you.

It is an important event. It will be a high-level meeting, which will involve member-state representation. The question is how that representation will be determined; I do not have the answer but I can probably find out. There will also be representation from the European Parliament, which is beginning to appoint its—I was going to say rapporteurs, but the people who are involved in the negotiations are called something else. There has been a discussion about how national Parliaments—the Westminster Parliament—can connect with the European Parliament to have a voice in the dialogue. It might be useful if I come back to you with an answer on that at the next meeting or circulate a note in advance of the meeting.

You put an item in the bulletin on alcohol labelling. An issue was raised with me yesterday not about labelling but about the fact that, in the euro zone, specialist whisky shops that export whisky to European countries have to pay the taxes in the country of delivery. That does not seem to apply in other parts of the world, such as America and South Africa. On 5 April, a new directive was born—it seems that there has been a directive for some time, which has not been particularly used. The new directive strengthens the approach and means that our specialist whisky shops in Scotland will lose up to 20 per cent of their trade to European countries if they follow the approach. That does not seem to be in the spirit of free trade in Europe. Perhaps this was not the time to make the point, but I thought that I would make it. Can you check the matter out?

I absolutely can. I cannot comment just now but I will circulate a note in advance of or at the next meeting.

Can I ask about two issues that were not in the bulletin? Two consultations were launched last week. On Tuesday there was a relaunch of the consultation on the European research area. As I have said before, FP8, the European framework programme, is extremely important for our universities sector in Scotland and I would welcome more background on the European research area. I understand from the Commission’s press release that it will make proposals for a new European research area framework by the end of 2012. The consultation runs until 30 November.

The other consultation was on the new state aid rules for services of general economic interest. There are potentially implications for public services in that regard, particularly in the context of public service reforms. It would be helpful to have some background on that, too.

Absolutely, no problem. I will find more material on the issues for the next bulletin.

We agreed to take item 4 in private. I thank members of the public for being with us and ask for the public seats to be cleared.

15:13 Meeting continued in private until 15:52.