Official Report 238KB pdf
Item 3 concerns the European Commission work programme. We previously decided to track a number of key issues in the work programme that relate to Scotland. We wrote to the Executive on 28 November, outlining the specific issues discussed: the European qualifications framework; the social solidarity fund; public procurement contracts; the internal market for postal services, which we discussed at our previous meeting; the globalisation adjustment fund; defence procurement; and integration of the mortgage credit market.
Ian Duncan has drafted an excellent paper. My only suggestion—colleagues will not be surprised by this—is that we should add to the recommendations at the end of the paper. In addition to the bullet points on the proposed revision of national emission ceilings, the imminent action plan on biomass and biofuels, and the development of clean coal technologies, some of us might like to add the potential for the nuclear industry in Scotland. It is a big industry in which we have a lot of experience and expertise.
I come in right behind John Home Robertson on that one. Scotland has a proud history in nuclear generation. To some extent, we have been world leaders. To ignore the nuclear industry and its potential would be real folly.
There have been blackouts in Italy.
That does not surprise me.
I thank all the clerks for identifying the issues and preparing the paper for us. A few meetings ago, the committee said that it was keen to get involved at an early enough stage in the consideration process to allow us to influence decisions rather than just report on them. It is good to be involved in considering the energy proposals, which have only reached the green paper stage. What views do members have on the recommendations and on John Home Robertson's suggestion that, in addition, we should write to the Executive to ask about the Scottish position on nuclear power?
There may be other points that we should add.
John Home Robertson's suggestion is logical because recently many members have asked about the Executive's position on nuclear power during parliamentary debates.
Yes, but do you feel that, in general, the recommendations are sensible?
I know why John Home Robertson is interested in nuclear power.
We all know why that is.
There are many Scottish Power jobs in my constituency and I am extremely interested in clean coal technology because I know that Scottish Power thinks that such technology has a lot of potential and wants its use in energy production to be on a level playing field with other forms of energy production.
Okay. Is there general agreement that we should follow the recommendations and report back to members on progress?
How will John Home Robertson's suggestion be worded?
I have just written down the word "nuclear".
It can be worded as blandly as members like. We should ask about the potential in Scotland for energy that is produced by the nuclear industry and energy from other sources.
The correct wording would say that we want to establish the Scottish position on those matters.
Exactly.
It would be interesting to find that out.
We would like to know what the Executive thinks.
What is the timetable for responding to the Commission's green paper on energy efficiency?
We have to respond at some point in 2006, I think.
The deadline is the end of March 2006.
If we accept the recommendations, will we be taking it on ourselves to formulate the Parliament's response to the green paper?
I would say so. The first recommendation states that we should
I query the basis for the European Union having responsibility for issuing such a green paper. My point is serious. The fact is that the EU does not have responsibility for energy issues, so why has it issued a green paper that sets targets on emissions and for other areas of energy policy? As everyone knows, I am fairly sceptical about Europe, but the green paper seems to be another example of creeping European Unionism.
It is the basis for the development of a European energy strategy.
But the EU has no responsibility for that. It was built into the constitution that the EU might have such responsibility, but at the moment it has no responsibility at all in that area. Energy is a matter for national programmes.
I think that, as an arch-unionist, you should write to the UK Government to express your concerns.
I want the committee to do that, but if members do not back me, I might follow your suggestion. However, regardless of whether members are pro-Europe, I would have thought that they—especially those with legal minds—would have an interest in querying the position if the EU is exceeding its responsibilities.
No chance.
Our responsibility as a committee is to consider how Scotland is likely to be affected. I presume that the UK Government has agreed that it is okay for the Europeans to come up with such proposals.
I do not know whether that is the case—that is why I am asking.
You should write to the Government to ask about that. We have received the green paper and must consider its potential effects on Scotland.
Once the various responses to the green paper have been co-ordinated, I presume that the Commission will produce a white paper or a legislative proposal. At that stage, it will be up to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to debate such a proposal and to consider whether it should be agreed to.
I do not know that the Commission would be in a position to come up with a white paper—I am not sure that the legislative position of the EU would allow that—although it might be in a position to come up with general advice. If the committee is not prepared to follow up the matter, I will do so.
Good for you.
I hesitate to disagree with Phil Gallie when he has just been so helpful to me, but I do not think that the EU's initiative is malign. Not that long ago, a substantial number of European citizens—in Italy, as it happens—had their power supplies blacked out because of deficiencies in the transmission and generation system at that end of Europe. Clearly, the fact that that can happen is a matter of concern for industries, economies and citizens. We need better co-ordination and better facilities to transmit electricity across boundaries where there is a problem. The proposal seems to me to be quite sensible and constructive. However, I understand that Phil Gallie has strong feelings on the issue.
Given his encyclopaedic knowledge of the issue, I would hesitate to disagree strongly with what Phil Gallie says about the competence of the European Union. However, I know that matters relating to energy have been discussed in the EU for a long time. I ask Phil Gallie to reflect on the fact that, if he is right, the great advantage of having an EU constitution would be that there would be no subject creep because the boundaries and competencies would be clearly defined.
They have already been extended beyond belief.
Before we go any further, I inform members of the clarification that the clerk, Alasdair Rankin, has helpfully provided me with. The outcome of the consultation is a series of member state action plans. Does that make you happy, Phil?
I will re-read the paper, but I think that it suggests that various targets should be set in relation to those action plans. Perhaps the fact that, at the end of the day, nation states would have to accept or reject those targets is recognised. As long as that is the case, the proposal is not too bad. However, I still think that the EU is going beyond its powers.
We have a rare concession from Mr Gallie.
I am prepared to follow up the matter on my own rather than prolong the discussion.
Phil Gallie should also reflect on the fact that we want the energy industry in this country to clean up its act even further and not to be affected by unfair competition from dirtier energy operators in other EU member states. Given that, perhaps some minimum standards would be appropriate.
Do we agree to welcome the paper and to accept the recommendations?
Previous
Structural Funds