Irish Presidency of the European Union (Scottish Executive Priorities)
Item 2 concerns the Irish presidency of the European Union, specifically as it relates to the Executive's environment and rural development portfolio—we have received a number of papers from the Executive. I am glad to say that this is the first of a series of major sessions on the issue—it has been agreed that we will have a discussion with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development at the outset of each EU presidency period. I hope that members have found the background paperwork useful—it is certainly extensive. I found it useful to read through the range of issues.
I welcome Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and invite him to lead off by saying a couple of words. I do not mean literally a couple of words, but I do mean a fairly concise introduction, minister. Do not feel that you must cover absolutely everything, as I suspect that members will want to explore key issues with you. However, it would be good if you could make a brief opening statement.
I am glad that you have found the papers helpful. We are talking about medium to longer-term perspectives and about influencing the outcome of EU deliberations. I was hoping to supplement the paper with a few well-chosen words in relation to headline matters that are under consideration. I think that that would be helpful in setting the scene, although I do not want to impact unnecessarily on the time that is available for questions.
I will say a few words about agriculture, because a session on common agricultural policy reform is scheduled for next week. The agriculture agenda under the Irish presidency is very light. The key interest from the Scottish perspective will be the development of detailed implementing rules for CAP reform. We hope that further discussion will lead to agreement on the welfare of animals during transport, in which there is a particular Scottish interest. I may say more about that today or next week.
Inevitably, fisheries will be a priority for the Executive during the Irish presidency. Last year's December fisheries council brought agreement on a long-term recovery plan for cod stocks. We also secured significant quota increases for the Scottish fleet. However, as members know, various issues still need to be resolved. We are working closely with the Commission and the industry to ensure the more effective implementation of the agreement.
I am sure that the agreement will remain a high-profile issue, as it is vital that we negotiate the necessary introduction of flexible long-term arrangements for cod recovery and that those arrangements should deliver maximum benefit to Scottish interests. However, a range of other important issues is at the forefront of discussion over the next few months—in the short term, rather than in the medium to longer term.
For example, we can expect the adoption shortly of a Council decision that will enable the establishment of fisheries regional advisory councils. We have been instrumental in driving forward that agenda and strongly support the early establishment of RACs. We will work to ensure that Scottish views are heard as the legislation is finalised and will support the development this year of an RAC for the North sea. The Commission has been tasked with reviewing the various area closures currently in effect in European Community waters, many of which affect Scottish vessels, and we will be contributing to that process.
The interplay between fisheries policy and parallel EU environmental initiatives is also important. For example, we can expect progress under the auspices of the habitats directive towards EU regulations on the monitoring and prevention of the bycatch of dolphins and porpoises. Another example is the protection of the Darwin mounds—we can expect agreement shortly of a regulation setting that protection on a more permanent footing. We will contribute fully to the debate on and the establishment of an EU fisheries control agency.
Three key environmental fronts are developing. We will make a strong contribution to the spring council, taking forward a number of legislative dossiers and a number of international issues, particularly in relation to climate change and biodiversity. The spring council will consider EU progress towards our Lisbon strategy, which is designed to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. Its three main elements are economic, social and environmental. Those reflect the three pillars of sustainable development, to which we subscribe. Obviously, from our perspective, it is important that the presidency ensures that the third pillar—the environment—appears in the conclusions that are adopted.
A number of live issues are on the legislative agenda. We are working on the new European chemicals strategy, which we discussed comparatively recently. We recently launched a consultation document that examines options on that policy. Moreover, the air quality agenda will include a number of measures to protect public health and the environment. I do not think that any specifically Scottish issues are involved in that, but the initiatives will, obviously, have an impact on the Scottish environment.
We have alerted Scottish stakeholders to the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling and have contributed to the United Kingdom response to the EU consultation. The climate change agenda will include an amending directive, made under the Kyoto protocol, on the regulation of fluorinated gases and a communication on climate change.
The groundwater directive has the potential to be a useful addition to the controls to achieve good water quality across Europe. Our view, which is shared by the UK Government, is that groundwater provisions should be related to local circumstances rather than being based on Europe-wide standards.
Last, but by no means least, the proposed directive on environmental liability is in the latter stages of negotiation. It will provide a framework for preventive or remedial measures by operators specifically for damage to land, water and protected habitats or species.
There will be two environmental councils during the Irish presidency: one on 2 March and one on 28 and 29 June. Those plenary sessions will bring together the work of many months beforehand for agreement or direction by ministers.
Thank you for that comprehensive run-through of the key issues.
Thank you for the paper on the presidency, minister. It is the first user-friendly paper on proposed European developments under a particular presidency that I have seen.
Will you tell us a bit more about the groundwater proposals? When is the directive likely to come into force? At what stage are negotiations? I am well aware that localised decisions rather than Europe-wide regulations will be required in relation to groundwater.
The groundwater directive and the water framework directive require that pollution of groundwater should be prevented and that that resource—which is obviously important in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom—should be managed in a sustainable way. The daughter directive is due to be completed in 2004, but that timetable could slip. The directive is expected to propose criteria for identifying significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations, as well as measures to prevent or limit the entry of pollutants into groundwater. A regulatory impact assessment on a UK basis is being carried out. The costs could be considerable, depending on the final version of the directive. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency enforces the groundwater regulations in Scotland, which were agreed in 1998. A revised version of its groundwater protection policy is currently being issued.
In Scotland, groundwater accounts for around 5 per cent of drinking water, which is a much lower percentage than that for England and other European countries. Nonetheless, groundwater is important. Not only is it drawn on by farmers and industry, but it contributes to river flows, which is particularly important in dry weather.
That is where we are. If the member has a more specific point to make, perhaps we could explore it.
Groundwater is important in rural areas because many isolated houses use groundwater and wells to access drinking water. I would not like to think that a lot of regulation will be imposed in such places. I thank the minister.
I would like to discuss fisheries and specifically the regional advisory councils that are to be established. As the minister knows, some members around the table have already lost patience with the common fisheries policy and have decided that policy should be moved on. Part of the reason for their losing patience is that the RACs fall dramatically short of area councils and will have far fewer powers than were originally proposed in the European green paper on fisheries. What benefit does the minister see from RACs in the form that it has been proposed they should take? Does he see an opportunity during the current presidency or in the medium term to increase the powers and the authority of those councils in order to begin to deliver the kind of authority that Scotland needs to defend its fishing interests in Europe?
That is a good question. The member knows that I think that his party's policy is not tenable in the short term or in the longer term and that it is not consistent with European law or the treaty of Rome. Leaving that aside, we would probably share the wish for better regional management of our fishing resource in the interests of the industry and of the wider community, as well as in the national interest. RACs give us an important opportunity to develop that process.
My experience has been shaped in the wake of the December fisheries council by fairly detailed and prolonged negotiations on maximising the benefit of the increased haddock quota for the Scottish fleet. We could take that case as an interesting example of how RACs could help to progress the process. We secure bilateral and international agreement between the UK and other nations that border the North sea, such as France and the Netherlands, and with the Norwegian interest outside the EU and the Danish interest in the EU. Despite that, the Commission continues to exert what is, in our view, an unnecessary influence on the outcome of the spatial management agreements that were reached inter alia.
In my view, an RAC that worked proactively on behalf of regional interests would help to better shape and formulate Commission responses to the process. Obviously there will be changes from the Commission, which will coincide with the new developments. We hope and expect that what emerges from those two related issues will be a much better system of regional management than the one that we have experienced hitherto. Lachlan Stuart might want to add something to that.
Lachlan Stuart (Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department):
The minister was also asked whether there would be scope under the Irish presidency for increasing the powers of RACs. The direct answer is that there will not be, as the Irish presidency will adopt the regulation in its currently proposed form. However, there will certainly be scope for improving the operation of RACs later, when their efficacy has been demonstrated—we are fairly confident that they will be efficient decision-making authorities. For the moment, however, the proposal is that they should be only advisory councils, not decision-making bodies, so there is no real prospect of their status being enhanced before the end of the Irish presidency.
I thank the convener for giving me the opportunity to ask a question today. For a second or two, I will wear my hat as convener of the European and External Relations Committee and congratulate the convener and members of the Environment and Rural Development Committee on putting this item on the agenda and on questioning the minister and scrutinising European policy that is relevant to the committee. The European and External Relations Committee supports that approach and hopes that other committees will follow suit, so that all committees become involved in the scrutiny of European policy.
However, I am mainly here in my capacity as a member for North East Scotland to ask the minister about fishing policy and specifically about how the discussions with the Irish presidency—if there are such discussions—are progressing. Will the minister turn his attention to several extremely pressing issues? First, I have just received an e-mail from Wick Harbour Trust about the new permit system for haddock landings, under which Wick boats that choose to apply for a haddock permit will be unable to land their catch at Wick—they will have to land at "designated ports", whereas foreign boats will be able to land at Wick. The new system will have implications for the harbour trust, which writes:
"Since the Trust is already in a parlous financial state, it can be stated, without any exaggeration at all, that the Trust might well become bankrupt."
The system will also have safety implications, as the boats will have to go elsewhere to land haddock stocks, whatever the weather. I hope that the minister will give a commitment today that he will discuss that situation and change it.
Secondly, has there been any progress on the issue of penalising boats in terms of days at sea when they answer distress calls from other vessels or shelter from bad weather? So far, no guarantee has been given by Europe or by the minister that boats will not be penalised in such situations. Will the minister give that guarantee today?
Thirdly, is the minister taking part in negotiations with the Irish presidency to introduce an aid package for the harbours, the fleets and the onshore sectors that have been affected by December's deal? Will he bring forward such an aid package?
Finally, two months have passed since the deal was agreed. What progress has been made on allowing increased access in relation to the increased haddock quota that Scotland's fleet was given?
I can advise Richard Lochhead and the committee that the immediate issue that he raises about Wick Harbour Trust—I have some prior knowledge of that and I believe that Whitehills harbour is also affected—is under active departmental consideration by officials and, I hope, will consequently be dealt with to the satisfaction of the individuals concerned.
As for the wider issues, it is not true that the industry has not been told of our willingness to apply EU rules and regulations flexibly in relation to force majeure and vessels in distress. We told the industry of that in a face-to-face meeting that I had with industry representatives comparatively recently. I understand that officials continue to promulgate those views, as I do, in writing to producer associations. I am adamant that no EU regulation will be interpreted or implemented in a way that endangers any vessel or its operatives or crew. I have expressed that view forcefully to the producer associations and to officials at different levels.
That said, the more fundamental point is that the effort control regime—the days-at-sea regulations to which Richard Lochhead referred—gives the industry discretion to manage its permitted activity within management periods of up to 11 months. Provided that overall ceilings are not exceeded, the choice of management period and associated fishing patterns is a matter for the industry.
We continue to negotiate with the Commission to allow a higher proportion of haddock to be taken without a special permit and to secure other important prospective changes to the cod protection area boundaries for the agreed spatial management regime, which is integral to the increased haddock quota that brought about the new regime. We are also discussing the treatment of landings before the haddock permit scheme's launch and the impact of that on the proportion of haddock that can be taken in or outwith the cod protection zone.
Allied to that, we intend to pursue measures and hope to secure agreement on a mid-term review of whatever is agreed and on flexibility over the way in which the proportion of haddock that is caught in January and February is regarded in relation to the final outcome on the proportions of haddock catches in or outside the cod protection zone. We expect the Commission to take a flexible approach to our representations about haddock catches in other fisheries—notably, the prawn fishery. I would have liked the Commission's proposals on that to have been published before now, so that we could discuss the actuality of what can be agreed. We cannot do that today, but I hope that we can do so soon.
I am interested in the processes that are followed between the making of regulations and their application by producers in the fishing and agriculture sectors. I am receiving an increasing number of representations about the fact that instructions are sent to organisations and then quickly withdrawn and replaced.
Indeed, in relation to the common fisheries policy, applications under the 1 February instructions were being delivered days and weeks after the start of the fishery. In relation to the common agricultural policy, year-to-year changes to the rules on aspects of the policy—which may be simplified by the single farm payment in due course—often leave people in the dark. People are left in the dark about when they can go out fishing, the force of the regulations or how to fill in applications before the details of the schemes are known.
I am concerned about the process between Pentland House and the local offices and the producer organisations. People are put in difficult situations and do not know whether they are carrying out operations correctly or whether they are applying for the correct subsidies. I would like the minister to respond to that, although I am prepared to write to him on specific issues. The civil service process—because of the way in which we have annual rounds in the fishing business—throws up these issues practically every year. It is of great concern that people are often left in the dark about parts of the process.
I share Rob Gibson's general concern that people should not be left in the dark. I assure him that officials in the department work tirelessly to ensure that information is disseminated to the individual producers timeously and in such a manner that it can be easily understood and effectively implemented.
I will separate the fisheries council process from the CAP reform process, because the two are not the same. Specific external pressures properly arise annually in relation to the protection of stocks and the sustainability of fishing management practices, which require complex negotiations and subsequently require to be clarified annually or tidied up—call it what you will—in intergovernmental discussions, in discussions with the Commission and in bilateral negotiations. A classic example is that EU Council decisions on fisheries management, to which Rob Gibson referred, are subsequent to agreement with Norway, which normally is reached before the end of the year. That did not happen this time until later in the new year, which inevitably delayed the fisheries management decisions and complicated the subsequent process.
As a general rule, I agree entirely that we want to ensure that all the relevant information is disseminated speedily, timeously and in a simple manner to every producer and to everybody who is affected by a decision. It is not always possible to do that, but we would be happy to examine individual instances that members wish to bring to our attention to see where the systems could be improved to benefit the recipient of the information.
I have a short follow-up question. Once the process has settled down, can we take as an example one of the regulations that was supposed to be applied on 1 February and trace the route from the decision-taking process, through the various stages of refinement, until it is applied, so that we can understand the complexities? It would be of great help to the committee if the minister could give us that information in due course.
I would be happy to do that. It might be a useful exercise for members to appreciate the difficult conditions under which our officials sometimes have to operate given the way in which the decision-making process works, or does not work in some instances.
That would be a good development and would build on what we tried to do with the budget last year, when we wanted to track through what was happening with future budget lines—one of your answers then was that you were not in a position to tell us exactly what scheme would be approved for funding to deliver objectives. Thank you for that useful suggestion.
Will the minister say a few words about the European Commission's document "Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste"? In particular, how has the Executive engaged with the Commission on the strategy's development? What implications will the strategy have for Scotland? Indeed, what does it have to offer Scotland, given that waste prevention and recycling is a bit of a priority?
That is a good question. As I pointed out briefly in my preamble to this discussion, we were instrumental in feeding into the UK response to the Commission's paper. That response raised a number of key points. For example, it concluded that strong links are needed with other waste management initiatives such as incineration and organic waste disposal. Furthermore, it is important that waste management policies must be implemented at local and regional levels of government as well as at Scottish parliamentary level. After all, people at those levels spend the money and have a better knowledge than we in Edinburgh have of their communities' needs and requirements. I suspect that that fits in with the member's view of the importance of community recycling. It is important to devolve decision making to local level.
An issue that is as pertinent to Scotland as it is to the rest of the EU is the need for a better, more precise definition of waste. We also need more encouragement for local, regional and national—dare I say it—green procurement policies. We in the Scottish Executive are impressing that issue on our Westminster colleagues and at a wider level.
We must address the question of harmonised EU landfill taxes on which, although it is a reserved matter, we have a view. Similarly, the reduction in VAT for environmentally friendly products raises issues that involve not just the UK Exchequer but EU finance, taxation and regulatory policy regimes in general. The Scottish Executive is feeding its perspective into all those headline issues.
It is useful to find out what is happening with those issues, particularly in the light of the committee's report on waste, which, although positive, picked up on some of them. Measures such as green procurement policies are very positive and we would be keen to be kept in touch with any developments.
I will let Alex Johnstone ask a brief question that the minister might not wish to answer this week; indeed, he might wish to come back to it next week.
Is the minister in a position to give a definitive statement on whether the required set-aside area under the arable area payments scheme will be the recommended 10 per cent or whether it will be reduced to 5 per cent?
No, I am not in a position to do that today and might well not be able to do so next week. However, I will check on that matter.
It sounds as if we will come back to the matter next week regardless.
I will try and do it for next week. How about that?
That sounds like reasonable notice and a good compromise all round.
I thank the minister for attending the meeting and for carrying out background work on the paper to allow us to get our heads round these issues. I very much take on board Richard Lochhead's comments about this committee's work on European issues. From the start of this parliamentary session, we have been keen to add transparency to the work of the Executive and the EU on issues that affect Scotland and on which we need to be well briefed and to make an early case in Europe. From that perspective, I am pleased with the progress that has been made on the rural development and environment issues that have been raised this morning. Although we have not touched on these matters, the minister's indications of timescales for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—or REACH—proposals and climate change work are useful for timetabling purposes. As far as the committee's future work programme is concerned, it is also useful for us to know that environmental liability is quickly rising up the agenda.
Publishing the papers is useful, because it allows not just the committee but other stakeholders in Scotland such as those in farming and fishing communities and environmental lobby groups to see what is on the agenda. I hope that it will also allow people to come along and talk to us about the issues that they want us to push over the next few months.
Thank you very much for answering questions. Do you have any final comments?
This committee, the European and External Relations Committee and the Executive appear to be unanimous on this matter—and properly so. After all, the exercise is very valuable. Although the discussion is shaped in the context of the Irish presidency, some of the issues that have been raised will be addressed within that period while others will be addressed during the Dutch presidency and so on. The Executive feels that looking at such matters prospectively rather than retrospectively—which is something that we have had to do too often in the past—is a valuable development.
Good. If you wish to enlist our support for any campaign that you are running, please let us know.
Precisely.
Thank you very much. I now suspend the meeting for a few minutes while we switch the people at the top table.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—