European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, October 31, 2013

Official Report 507KB pdf

---

“Brussels Bulletin”

Agenda item 3 is consideration of the “Brussels Bulletin”, which members will see in this week’s extensive package of papers. The bulletin is very detailed, so I am looking for members’ comments, questions and inquiries.

My attention was drawn to the “Adult skills” section—the pages are not numbered, but it is near the end.

Yes. The format is different, which threw me a wee bit as well.

I was interested to read in that section about adult literacy levels throughout Europe. Finland is near the top of the scale, but Spain, France and Poland are near the lower end. The UK seems to be in the middle, but with “great differences” in literacy levels in its population. I note the comment in the section that Scotland does not participate, but I do not know whether we do not participate in the survey or in an initiative to improve literacy among adults. Does anybody have information about what exactly Scotland is not participating in and why that is the case?

The clerk has suggested that it probably refers to the survey, but we can seek clarification on that.

I remember debates and arguments raging in the past over identity cards. Is a “European Professional Card” the same as an identity card?

Yes, but we can check.

It is the same.

I think that we should clarify that for you just to make sure.

I remember that, in the past, the UK Government had big debates on the subject. I want to know whether, despite being called something different, a professional card is the same as an identity card.

I think that we need to check that, as the bulletin is less than clear about what it means.

Do members wish to raise any more matters on the bulletin?

Thank you for giving me a second opportunity to comment.

In the section on the multi-annual financial framework, we are told that MEPs have not yet agreed the budget. We have previously heard that the UK and one or two other member states were agitating for a reduction in the budget. That idea seems to be doing the rounds. One of the implications of that is that there has been quite a drop in the information technology infrastructure budget from €9 billion to €1 billion. I had the opportunity to ask the Irish Minister for European Affairs what his view of that was and what impact it might have in Ireland and throughout the European Union. His view was that, with a budget cut of that size, the change from investing in infrastructure to focusing on services seemed to be putting the cart before the horse. As members know, it is not possible to get good internet and broadband services without having the infrastructure to push them through.

I would like to know whether anyone in the EU is rethinking that, because that cut in the IT infrastructure budget is a substantial one that could delay and, indeed, prevent the improvement of broadband services throughout the EU. Paschal Donohoe thinks that the EU has got that aspect of budget planning wrong. Who is engaging on such issues with a view to getting reversed a policy that would be to the detriment of the union and would put us back some years as far as our IT and broadband capabilities are concerned?

I have a supplementary. In light of that, I thought that it was quite ironic that, as the final section of the bulletin tells us, the European Council

“agreed at its meeting of 24-25 October that a strong digital economy is vital for growth and European competitiveness”.

It is all very well to say that at the Council. Willie Coffey is absolutely right—there are concerns about the fact that there seems to be a difference between what is being said and what is happening on the ground on that issue.

That is another of those topics on which we should seek clarification from Scotland Europa. Once we have seen what it can ascertain, the next step might be to send letters to commissioners.

Something that jumped out at me from the section on the multi-annual financial framework was that the UK Treasury has launched a consultation on the EU budget. Given that we are almost at the stage of agreeing the budget, why is a consultation being held on it? I would like some clarification of what that means in practice and what it means for the formulas that will be adopted for the funding streams for the regions of the UK. There are a number of areas, such as the lifelong learning programme, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, on which I think that we should seek clarification and advice from HM Treasury. Does the committee agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a question. The format of the “Brussels Bulletin” seems to have changed quite considerably. I am not saying that the new format is worse; it is just that it now bears more resemblance to a briefing than it does to a bulletin. I am not saying that either format is better. I would just like to know whether there is any reason for the change.

Apparently, there was much more information in the bulletin this week, which did not sit well with the template that is used. We will make the request that if less information is to be included in the next bulletin, we would like to go back to the old format. I think that you are right—it was much easier to identify areas of interest with the previous format, instead of having to look at pages and pages of text.

It was like looking at a newspaper—it was easier to see the headings.

You are absolutely right. When I read the bulletin yesterday, I thought, “I don’t like this.” We should ensure that we provide feedback on that to Scotland Europa.

Did a different set of people produce it?

I think that it was simply the case that the bulk of information affected the way in which the template works. The text normally sits in columns, but that could not be accommodated. It was a technical glitch. Let us see whether it can be fixed and the old “Brussels Bulletin” can be brought back.

Okay.

As members have no further comments on the bulletin, are we happy to send it on to other subject committees for their perusal?

Members indicated agreement.

I suspend the meeting until about 29 minutes past 10, so that we can welcome the ambassador at 10.30.

10:15 Meeting suspended.

10:29 On resuming—