“Brussels Bulletin”
I place on record apologies from Michael Matheson, who is unable to attend this morning.
Item 3 concerns the special edition of the "Brussels Bulletin". I am pleased that we have Ian Duncan with us to discuss any questions that committee members may have. The special edition provided an opportunity for each of our MEPs to outline what they considered to be the key issues for them and for Scotland in the next European parliamentary term. It was an interesting bulletin.
If colleagues have no points to raise with Ian, he is off the hook, as most of the MEPs wrote their contributions themselves. We hope to have some dialogue with MEPs—in fact, we are trying to arrange a videoconference with them—and we will keep members informed of that.
Do we agree to note the contents of the special bulletin?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to item 4, which is consideration of our regular "Brussels Bulletin". This edition keeps us up to date with all the developments that happened over the summer months since the European Parliament elections. I found it interesting. Do colleagues want to raise any points?
Would it be in order for Ian Duncan to give us any final information that he may have about the likely outcome on Friday?
Do you have any internal intelligence that you want to share, Ian?
Is the gap narrowing or widening?
Ian Duncan (Scottish Parliament European Officer):
It is probably narrowing and widening at the same time—that is the reality. The situation in Ireland will be instrumental in what unfolds. The various EU institutions have begun to prepare for a positive vote, but there are other aspects that are not solely related to Ireland, most of which are centred on the Czech Republic and whether its President will sign the Lisbon treaty. That is another potential delaying tactic that could still push back the next step of the process. A lot of pressure will be brought to bear on those who have not yet signed to sign quickly, because the EU would like to move on from the issue. The European Parliament is also eager to move on because it gains new powers. That is certain.
Barroso is sighing with relief, as he is secure for another term. That is important. We have still to learn what the next Commission will look like, which is the big issue in Brussels at present. There are a lot of rumours about who will get what, who is staying and who is going, and which countries are pitching for which portfolios. That is interesting, because each commissioner puts a stamp on the way in which policy is developed in their area. Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel is standing down, so the agriculture brief will be free. Commissioner Borg is likely to return. He is on record as saying that he does not want the fisheries portfolio, but he might have no choice on the matter, so it is possible that he will return to fish.
You have indicated that the Spanish might like to take on fish.
For the first time in a long time, the fisheries portfolio is more important, given the CFP review. For the first time ever, Spain is thinking much more seriously about that as a possible area to explore. That will be important.
The current Commission is likely to stay in office until the end of the year, and the new Commission is likely to come into being early in the new year. However, uncertainty remains about the two new positions—the higher representative for foreign affairs and security, and the president of the European Union—which depend very much on the full ratification of the Lisbon treaty. That will be interesting. There is a lot of discussion about who will be in the running for the posts. Members will be aware that the treaty is a bit vague on exactly how the posts will function. That will depend on who comes in—he will write his own script. The potential nominee will be important. He could be powerful or powerless, depending on several factors.
On policy, members will have read in the bulletin about Barroso's political mandate note that sets out what he would like the next term to look like. That is a personal mandate and not yet a mandate for the Commission—the Commission's mandate depends on the discussions among commissioners and might be delayed this year. In previous years, it has appeared in October or November, but it is likely that it will not emerge until later this year and possibly into the new year. However, the rotating presidencies will continue and the troika—the trio of presidencies—will almost certainly release some form of document in December. We might have a strange hiatus between the Commission making its statements clear and the presidencies asserting what they would prefer to be the agenda for the next 18 months.
I was going to ask Ian Duncan about one of Barroso's objectives but, in view of what he has just said, maybe I should not bother and instead just wait until next year. Barroso's document contains interesting ideas, some of which are fairly detailed. He does not strike me as the sort of man who would put a lot of effort and energy into something that was not going to see the light of day. That said, it seems to me, having read about the circumstances of his re-election, that he is not necessarily a powerful man any more in the EU.
You are absolutely right. Barroso wrote the mandate document more or less to get re-elected. The purpose was to send a document to the European Parliament to persuade members who were undecided that he was worth returning. There was a lot of detail on certain issues on which he thought that particular groups might benefit from seeing his thinking written down. It is true that the process was wearisome and difficult for Barroso. The document that he produced was pretty substantial.
The committee might recall a similar, smaller, three-page document that Barroso produced for the Council in which he set out what he was thinking about. The document he did for the European Parliament was quite different in size—41 pages long. Barroso then met the three political groups in private. I tried to get into some of those meetings—I tried to sneak in round the back—but they would not let me in. The aim in holding the meetings was for Barroso to find exactly what the political groups required to endorse him.
There has also been a lot of discussion on some of Barroso's more off-the-cuff remarks on who should be the next president of the EU. He was very interesting on that. He said that he recognised why it might be sensible for the presidency to go to a Socialist to balance things out. One can also see how that might appeal to the Socialists before they vote—
That lets Tony Blair out then.
You can say that, but I cannot.
There are many aspects to the document, the aim of which was to appeal to the different groups to get their endorsement—the sort of dog-whistling idea. Now that Barroso has been endorsed, I suspect that the document will metamorphose into something that is a little different from what we see—
What about some of the manifesto promises?
I think that he will be very political about that.
I am fed up with this.
We should get a stronger sense of what the document will look like in the new year. To a certain degree, it will depend on the college of commissioners. The commissioners are powerful figures with ambitions that they may want to incorporate or lead on—especially those who, in pushing to get certain portfolios, are bringing in knowledge, demand, desire and so on.
Barroso is slightly weaker than he was in the past. He had to expend a lot of capital on getting back in. I suspect that it was not a joyful occasion for him in quite the way that it was the first time round.
I happen to have a copy of the guidelines that Barroso gave to the European Parliament. If Charlie would like a copy, he is more than welcome; I can also circulate it to the committee.
Ian Duncan is right. Many people felt that Barroso had begun to put things on unemployment and so on into his speeches and to take measures that people would have liked him to take in the previous session. I guess that his aim in doing that was to get re-elected, and it certainly seemed to work.
The summary was helpful.
We appreciate Ian's candour.
Yes. Do we agree to note the contents of the Brussels Bulletin?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will now move into private session—
I thought that we were in private session.
We now move into private session.
Meeting continued in private until 12:29.