Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

European and External Relations Committee, 28 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2006


Contents


Work Programme

The Convener:

Item 2 is the paper on the committee's work programme for 2006, which I thank the committee clerks for pulling together at such short notice after our Brussels trip last week. It summarises areas in which the committee expressed an interest in the past and during the visit to Brussels, when some interesting presentations were made to us. The paper outlines three matters that I recommend the committee takes forward.

The first is the one that Irene Oldfather mentioned earlier—structural funds. Following the appearance before the committee of the minister, Allan Wilson, in December last year, we agreed to seek further information from the Executive and to consider taking evidence from stakeholders.

The UK Government has now published a consultation paper on the national strategic reference framework that outlines its strategy to deliver structural funds in the UK for the period 2007 to 2013. The introduction and the Scottish section are included in the committee papers. The consultation runs until 22 May 2006. I recommend that we undertake a short inquiry into the Executive's plans for structural funds over the period 2007 to 2013 and respond to the consultation.

I ask for members' views.

I think that Irene Oldfather wants to speak.

Irene Oldfather indicated disagreement.

Sorry, I thought that you were indicating that you wanted to speak. Would someone else like to comment while Irene swallows her banana?

I am not offering to speak at this point. I am prepared to listen on this occasion.

Gosh. Is there unanimous agreement?

Irene Oldfather:

Obviously, the committee has dealt with structural funds over the past six years. They are important to all the people whom we represent. It would be worth while having a short evidence-taking session on the issue and reporting back. The timescale is tight, but as people have been attending the Executive's working groups and so on their opinions are fairly well formed. Collating that information and inputting to the consultation process would be a valid use of the committee's time.

I think—

I knew that Phil Gallie would not be able to resist the urge to say something.

Phil Gallie:

I do not disagree with Irene Oldfather's comments about structural funds, which are important. The paper on the work programme and the information that we were given in Brussels last week indicate that there are other important issues. As we heard recently, the Lisbon strategy and energy are extremely important. We are spoilt for choice for issues, and I want to find a way of injecting all of them into our work programme, if we can. I do not step aside from Irene Oldfather's comments on structural funds, but I do not want to preclude other issues that are just as important.

Irene Oldfather:

I agree with Mr Gallie that the Lisbon strategy is important and that it would be useful to carry out some work on it. Because it would not require us to work to the same tight timescale as the consultation, I am happy for it to be programmed in.

The Convener:

The next item on the work programme is energy policy. As members will recall from our Brussels visit and from previous discussions, the Commission has issued a green paper on sustainable, competitive and secure energy. As the paper covers some significant devolved areas that the committee can address, such as energy efficiency, renewables and climate change, I recommend that we ask the Executive whether it proposes to respond to the paper, take evidence from stakeholders and respond to the green paper ourselves.

We should also write to the convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee to find out whether it has done any work in this area. After all, we do not want to duplicate any work that might already have been carried out.

I can confirm that we have already checked with the committee and that it is not carrying out work on the matter.

You could just have asked Richard Lochhead.

He has left the meeting.

Mr Wallace:

This important green paper came up a couple of times during our Brussels visit, and no doubt my colleague John Home Robertson hopes that we can at least look at some of its nuclear energy aspects. The committee should not ignore it, although given our previous discussion there are limits to the response that we can make. Perhaps members should simply encourage the UK Government to do nothing—or, depending on one's standpoint, to do something—about nuclear energy. The green paper is important. It has implications for our devolved responsibilities and, as our discussions in Brussels made clear, it is drawing a lot of interest and attention in Europe. We should ask for an update on the summit that will take place at the end of the week, because the suggestion was that it would be a key issue on the agenda.

Given that we are talking about our work programme, I should point out that the paper on it does not mention the maritime strategy.

Yes it does.

Phil Gallie:

But not as a recommendation for future work. As a part of a major island, Scotland will be tremendously affected by this massive strategy. If we are being asked to settle on a couple of issues for consideration, we should keep the subject in the bank and revisit it at the earliest possible opportunity. After all, we learned last week in Brussels that the strategy is coming up for consideration, and we ignore it at our peril.

The Convener:

I know that great interest was expressed in Brussels in that matter and in other items for future programming, but I suggest that we focus first on the main issues for our work programme up to the summer recess, and then discuss issues such as the maritime strategy.

The Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs to 2010 keeps coming up again and again. When we met the appropriate people last week, research and development was strongly highlighted. Members expressed a particular interest in the seventh framework programme for research and development, which is an important source of funding across the EU and could be valuable in improving our research and development performance. As a result, I recommend that, as a complement to the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on its business growth inquiry, we launch an inquiry into the growth and jobs strategy and investigate the areas in which further work might be required. The framework for such an inquiry will be available for the next meeting and it should ensure that we do not duplicate the Enterprise and Culture Committee's work.

The paper talks about the seventh framework programme and using the work of the committee to raise its profile in Scotland. I hope that that will feature prominently.

Is everyone content with that?

What are we agreeing to?

The Convener:

I am asking whether members are content with our proposed work on the Lisbon strategy, the energy policy and structural funds. Annex A of paper EU/S2/06/5/2 sets out our meetings until the end of June. We also have to slot in the fisheries petition, so we will be busy.

The paper includes a slot for the petition, but we do not seem to have a slot for our work on structural funds.

The Convener:

I thank Nick Hawthorne for telling me that the paper sets out the work programme as it stands; we have to slot in the other work. We have already agreed our work on the communications policy. Patricia Ferguson is coming to give evidence on international development and we will hear from the British Council. We will also consider the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill on 25 April.

What is the British Council coming along to talk about?

The Convener:

I understand—someone will have to correct me if am wrong—that it was agreed previously that the British Council would visit the committee annually to discuss its work. It now looks as though it could come along the same day as Ms Ferguson is coming to talk about the international development strategy.

Could we not slot in the British Council with the Cod Crusaders?

Do you want us to do everything on one day, Mr Wallace? We could set aside a whole day for the committee meeting. How about that?

Slotting in the British Council with the Cod Crusaders might mean that we can get on with work on the structural funds. Knocking off two things in one day would leave a gap to do some of the more substantive work.

The clerks will consider all the possibilities for slotting in work. We might require an extra meeting. How do members feel about that?

Having spent all morning at an extra meeting of the Communities Committee, I am nearly cross-eyed, thank you very much.

Members tend to plan their agendas well in advance. I know that my—

You do not need to panic; I was being fairly light-hearted.

Phil Gallie:

When I looked at the committee schedule, I saw that the European and External Relations Committee has been fairly rigid in meeting once a fortnight, while other committees are meeting weekly. I acknowledge the strain that that puts members under, but a little bit of give would not be a bad thing. I am prepared to accept an additional meeting if it means that we can accommodate some of the important matters that we have discussed.

It depends what you call important.

The Convener:

That is a whole other debate for this non-agreeing committee. We have agreed to monitor the Commission work programme items that are mentioned in paragraph 4 of paper EU/S2/06/5/2. Do members wish to incorporate any of the items mentioned in paragraph 9, which we discussed in Brussels last week? They are: the services directive; joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas and joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises—JESSICA and JEREMIE—

The terrible twins.

The other items are the environmental thematic strategies and the maritime strategy, which I know Mr Gallie feels strongly about. I am happy to consider proposals for how we deal with any of those items.

Irene Oldfather:

We have set ourselves quite an agenda for between now and the summer recess. Phil Gallie said that he wanted us to keep the maritime strategy on the back burner, which I am happy with. Normally during the summer recess we have an away day to consider our future work programme. At that point, we might timetable the maritime strategy for the autumn.

The Convener:

The green papers relating to the maritime strategy are not yet published, so there is time to monitor it and perhaps slot it in when we discuss our work programme. The JEREMIE programme might tie in with some of the work that we are doing on structural funds, so we might consider it as part of our discussion on them. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any other matters that members wish to raise?

We could examine environmental issues and invite Mr Whitecross to respond to our questions.

Look at John Home Robertson's face.

It was Francis Whyte.

That was John's favourite presentation last week, and I remember it well—even not having been there.

You can answer questions on it in that case.

The Convener:

I invite members to agree that we will monitor the Executive's progress against its EU priorities, and to agree in principle to invite the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to give evidence to the committee again in six months' time. You will remember that the minister said that that is what he wishes to do.

Members indicated agreement.