European and External Relations Committee, 28 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Official Report 198KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Our final agenda item is my report. The first item in that is a short minute of our meetings in Brussels last week. The paper gives a reminder of the main points, but the clerks can provide a fuller report on any of the briefings if members wish. Again, I thank the clerks for turning the information around so quickly.

Do members have any comments? Generally speaking, it was a successful visit and we packed in a lot. I certainly learned a lot and found the visit worth while.

As I said at the time, I think that it was the best programme that we have had for such a visit. It was full from beginning to end and there was nothing that failed to catch our attention and interest. Perhaps the environmental session was an exception for John Home Robertson, but that was nobody's fault. If anything, it was due to the session itself. Everything else was great and the visit gave us a lot to think about, as today's discussion on our work programme has demonstrated.

It was a mark of how hard John Home Robertson had been working throughout the previous day that he was getting a wee bit weary by the time we came to the environment session. Is that right, John?

Wait a minute; I followed every word of that presentation.

I am sad that I missed it, but I had to be elsewhere.

I am sure that we could arrange a rerun for you, convener.

The second item in the convener's report is the exchange of correspondence between the committee and the Executive following the committee's consideration of a legislative consent memorandum at our previous meeting. In the circumstances, I have agreed to George Lyon's suggestion that he appear before the committee again on 25 April.

He says in his letter that he will write to the committee in advance of that appearance.

That will be good. It will give members time to come up with counter-arguments before he appears.

The third item in the report is an opportunity for Dennis Canavan to update the committee on the latest developments in his inquiry into possible co-operation programmes between Scotland and Ireland. Dennis also had some useful meetings in Brussels last week. I give you the floor, Dennis.

Thank you, convener. I thank Emma Berry, the assistant clerk, for helping me to draft the interim report, which has been circulated to members. I also thank her for accompanying me on my visits to Dublin and the Western Isles.

I will go through the interim report and explain why I believe that an interim report is necessary. The first two paragraphs contain background information that has already been given to the committee. Paragraph 3 refers to visits that I have already made to Dublin and the Western Isles—I was in the Western Isles last Friday—and I hope to visit Northern Ireland and Donegal during the Easter recess to meet Government representatives and other officials, and to visit some existing and potential projects.

Paragraph 4 refers to urgent recommendations that I think merit production of the interim report. It is very important that we do not miss the deadline that has been set for inclusion in programmes and the possibilities of funding. I will deal later with the information that I got from the European Commission representative in Brussels last week that has necessitated the interim report.

Paragraph 5 contains information that I have already given to the committee about the 150km rule, whereby there must be a maximum distance of 150km between the borders of member states with maritime borders if they are to qualify for possible assistance under the new cross-border co-operation programme.

Paragraph 6 refers to the areas in Scotland that would qualify under the existing European Commission proposals. There are basically three NUTS—nomenclature of territorial units for statistics—III regions: Dumfries and Galloway, south Ayrshire, and the huge NUTS III region that covers Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh and Argyll and the islands.

Paragraph 7 refers to a Commission recommendation that Scotland should join the same co-operation programme as the one between Ireland and Northern Ireland rather than set up a separate programme between Scotland and Ireland. That makes good sense if we bear in mind the fact that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have a huge amount of experience of co-operation programmes and of tapping into European funding for such programmes.

Paragraph 8 refers to the meeting that I had in Brussels last week with a representative of the regional policy directorate-general. He indicated that the Commission will consider draft operational programmes for projects to operate under the cross-border strand in June or July of this year, which is just a few weeks away. That confirmed information that I had received from Irish Government representatives in Dublin, who also indicated that the Irish Government and Northern Ireland Administration representatives are currently in discussions regarding such a programme and applications for funding.

We come to the most important bits of the report, which are paragraphs 9 and 10, where I make recommendations. I detect that the Scottish Executive and/or the UK Government are not moving forward urgently enough, if they are not going to miss the boat. Therefore, in paragraph 9, I recommend that

"the Scottish Executive pursues with the UK Government and European Commission as a matter of urgency the possibility of Scotland's participation in a tri-partite agreement with Ireland and Northern Ireland and access to the cross-border strand of funding."

We should first of all draw the June or July date to the Executive's attention to ensure that it moves quickly before then to ensure that we are included.

The final recommendation, which is in paragraph 10, is to ask the Scottish Executive to pursue

"with the UK Government and European Commission the possibility of the eligible areas being extended to include North and East Ayrshire and the Western Isles."

Committee members may ask why I have singled out those three areas. As I understand it from a seminar that the Scottish Executive ran in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago, which I attended, provisional consideration is already being given to the possible inclusion of North and East Ayrshire. Moreover, when I visited the Western Isles last Friday, I met the chief executive, convener and other representatives of Western Isles Council. They expressed surprise and extreme disappointment that the Western Isles will not be included, because they are in a different NUTS III region from Skye and Lochalsh. We have a geographical anomaly whereby the southernmost islands of the Western Isles Council area are nearer to Donegal than most of Skye and much nearer than Fort William, which is included. The Commission and the UK Government ought to consider that geographical anomaly. Apart from that, Western Isles Council is in the forefront of co-operation with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Most of the projects in that co-operation are Gaelic language and culture oriented, but there is also scope for tourism and for educational and cultural exchanges, so it would be a great pity if the Western Isles were to miss out.

I put those recommendations to the committee for it to consider.

Do you want the committee to accept your report and agree that it be forwarded to the Executive as an interim report?

Yes.

Once again, I congratulate you, Dennis. I have no problem at all with the recommendation in paragraph 9, which should be followed through urgently. My only query is on paragraph 10. This is not a criticism in any way, but I am not quite clear whether the areas that you mention break the 150km rule. If they do, would asking that they be considered cause a delay in the principal recommendation in paragraph 9? In addition, where does Arran stand with respect to the 150km rule?

North and East Ayrshire and the Western Isles would, strictly speaking, not fulfil the 150km rule, but the Commission has already indicated the possibility of 20 per cent funding for areas that are adjacent to eligible areas. If the worst comes to the worst and the Western Isles and North and East Ayrshire are excluded, they could still be included under the 20 per cent rule.

That sounds fine to me. Would it be worth our while to refer to the 20 per cent issue in the recommendation in paragraph 10? I had not picked up on that issue.

We could certainly introduce the matter, although I am not sure that it would fit in the recommendation in paragraph 10. However, it might fit in the lead-up to the recommendation—I included it in the first draft of the report. We will mention the 20 per cent rule at some point.

Perhaps we can get together and discuss that after the meeting.

Why not let Dennis carry on with the issue right away, unless members have an objection? The urgency is underlined.

You misunderstand me, Phil. I am saying that we can discuss the details and redrafting changes after the meeting so that the report can go immediately to the Executive.

Absolutely.

We do not want to delay the process and we have to consider the report again at a future meeting, because the next meeting will be after the Easter recess. Time is of the essence.

It is crucial that the report go to the Executive soon. Dennis Canavan can work out the wording with the clerks.

I thank Dennis Canavan for the work that he has put into the draft interim report. I forwarded to him a communication from North Ayrshire Council—although I am not sure whether he received it—which said that the council would like to be involved in the programme. The council is producing papers with suggestions on the matter. I am happy to endorse the recommendations. Perhaps I could get the appropriate officers to let Dennis Canavan know just how far the papers have gone. If we get agreement on the programme, the council would be ready to go. I do not know what happened with the communication, because I passed it on to Dennis last week, via the clerks. The council contacted me about the committee's inquiry; it would like to be kept informed and in the loop. If evidence is needed later, the council would be happy to send representatives to the committee to be involved in the discussions.

Sure.

As there are no more comments, we will formalise our agreement. Do members agree that the interim report should go to the Executive without delay?

Convener, John Home Robertson has drawn to my attention a misprint in paragraph 9. At present, it states:

"significant progress may not been made",

but it should say, "may not have been made".

He is such a pedant.

We will need to do some final drafting anyway in view of Phil Gallie's point about the 20 per cent arrangement. We will tidy up the report before it goes to the Executive.

Subject to amendments, as discussed, do members agree that the report should go to the Executive without delay?

Members indicated agreement.

We will definitely correct the grammar, because we want to look like a clever committee.

We are a clever committee.

The fourth item under the convener's report is a subject that we have already mentioned: the national strategic reference framework for structural funds. We have a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which gives the background on the issue, including the Scottish priorities and information from the Department of Trade and Industry website—I thank SPICe for that. I nearly said that it is from our SPICe boy, Iain McIver. As members have no questions, I assume that you have all studied it carefully.

The penultimate item under the convener's report is a reminder that the next meeting of the European members information and liaison exchange—EMILE—network is on Thursday, from 6.30 pm, in the Museum of Scotland in Chambers Street. All members have received invitations and programmes. The guest speaker is Fred Dinning, who is a former energy and environment director at Scottish Power. I see from the list that Phil Gallie, John Home Robertson, Richard Lochhead and Irene Oldfather will attend.

I will look in briefly.

The final item under the convener's report is a letter from Tom McCabe, which is a response to a request for information that the committee made at its meeting on 28 February. It confirms the understanding of the situation on the burning of waste that we had gained from Ross Finnie's letter of last year. Is everyone content with Mr McCabe's reply or do members have comments or questions?

Although I do not like the results, the minister has laid down the facts as they are. I still have reservations, but I do not know what we can do. The situation is not sensible.

It is silly.

I will make my political point—many European developments are not sensible.

We will let that go.

We will simply note the letter on the thematic strategy on waste and the burning thereof as it relates to Longannet power station.

I want to raise a different matter entirely. Today, many of our citizens are on strike because they are concerned about their pensions, and many other people are suffering inconvenience as a result. The strike appears to be a consequence of differing interpretations of the European legislation on pensions. Can anyone provide definitive guidance on what the European legislation on pensions says? I have the impression that no one wants to be on strike—the Executive certainly does not want people to be on strike any more than local authorities do. There must be something far amiss if we can get into such a situation because of misunderstandings. Can our officials help to clarify the point?

Are you asking that the committee consider the matter?

No—that would take too long, but it would be useful if we could obtain definitive advice on what the European legislation on pensions says and means.

We will ask our wonderful representative from SPICe to look into the relevant European directive and get the clerks to write to the Executive to seek its legal opinion and the basis on which it made its decision.

We want to know how to resolve the situation.

John Home Robertson is right, but I think that what he has referred to as legislation is only a proposal and has not yet become a directive. We are talking about a proposed directive that could well be changed, so it might be worth our while to ask about timescales.

We can certainly ask about timescales, because it is true that the directive has not been finalised. We seem to be getting conflicting legal advice from the Executive, the UK Government and the EU.

And from the trade unions.

Is everyone happy that we investigate the issue in that way and bring back the results at the next meeting, if we have received responses by then?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes the meeting. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday 25 April. Have a good Easter recess.

Meeting closed at 15:23.