European Union (Priorities for 2012)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02388, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on European Union priorities for 2012. I call Christina McKelvie to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee.
14:45
This debate ends the European and External Relations Committee’s consultation on EU priorities for 2012. I put on record my thanks to the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their support in bringing the report to members.
Although it is the end of the consultation, it is only the beginning of the serious work that must be undertaken to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard in Brussels. The European and External Relations Committee is the Scottish Parliament’s lead committee on EU issues but, in fact, all the committees of the Parliament are European committees. It has been estimated that upwards of two thirds of the legislation that passes through the chamber begins life in Brussels. The common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy—I am sure that both will feature prominently in the debate—proposals for a North Sea energy grid and targets for renewable energy are issues whose importance cannot be overstated in the Parliament.
It would be too easy to believe that we can leave the business of Brussels to others. We may be well served by our Scottish MEPs, who have contributed to the report, and the Scottish Government has never been more active, but we MSPs cannot leave it to them alone to articulate Scotland’s views. The committees of the Parliament have a vital role to play in ensuring that the voice of Scotland’s stakeholders is heard.
As the old saying goes, the early bird catches the worm. It is certainly true that we have to get in early to have influence in Europe. As the report documents, the Scottish Parliament’s committees are committed to early engagement, getting in early, and seeking to influence when that influence can be most keenly felt. The deputy convener of the European and External Relations Committee, Hanzala Malik, has pointed out on many occasions that EU issues have a significant impact on the lives of our constituents. We have a duty to them to ensure that we do not simply allow the EU to happen to Scotland but work actively to secure the greatest possible benefit for the people whom we represent in our constituencies.
When the European and External Relations Committee began its investigations into EU issues that will come forward in 2012—those issues appear in the report—the task was daunting. Some 70 issues were presented to us in December 2011 as likely to have an impact on the affairs of Scotland. As we debate those issues, the committees have already begun their focused engagement. Over the course of this year, they will discuss with, consult, take evidence from and scrutinise the key players at home and abroad to ensure that nothing is missed or overlooked, and that due priority is given to important issues.
The European and External Relations Committee will shortly publish a report on developments in the euro zone and their impact on Scotland. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee will publish reports on the reforms of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, and the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee has already begun its dialogue with the House of Lords on issues that affect public procurement. We will hear more from the other committees about such developments over the next few months.
The adoption of the Lisbon treaty in December 2009 was significant for the Scottish Parliament. For the first time in a treaty, regional Parliaments were recognised as part of the EU legislative process. I use the word “regional” because that is the word that is used in the treaty. It would not be my first choice of adjective, but perhaps a debate on that is for another time. National Parliaments—or, in the case of the United Kingdom, the supra-national Westminster Parliament—are now expected to take into account our views in Holyrood as well as those of our colleagues in Cardiff and Belfast. Whether that has always happened as effectively as it should have is no doubt a matter for debate, but the principle is true. The Scottish Parliament should take every opportunity to remind ourselves and others of what we do and how it has an impact on us.
In the previous session, the European and External Relations Committee initiated debate and discussion about the introduction of an EU strategy for the Scottish Parliament to ensure that advantage is taken of that treaty change. The resulting strategy was agreed in the chamber in 2010. As well as initiating early engagement with the development of EU issues, the strategy meant the creation of the new committee role of EU reporter. I know that several of those reporters will speak in the debate. The reporter is essential and is responsible for ensuring that their respective committee is up to date with EU developments. The system has worked well so far, and I thank all the reporters for their committed work and for the time and effort that they have put into drafting the report that is before us.
The deliberations that have led to this debate are not a one-off. EU issues are continuous, and Parliament receives notification of up to 20 European issues a week. Towards the end of this year, we will audit how well we, as a Parliament, have engaged on those issues.
The economic situation dominates the debate in Brussels at the moment and, as I said, my committee will shortly publish a short report on that issue. Finance will be at the heart of another debate kicking off in Europe, namely the determination of the next budget—the multi-annual financial framework. Those negotiations will determine how much money is available for EU projects—in other words, how much money Scotland and the rest of the UK will get.
Closely related to those negotiations is the development of two policy areas that are vital to Scotland’s interests: the future of structural funds, and the newly named horizon 2020 for research and development. The European and External Relations Committee will publish reports on both those issues by the summer. In addition, we intend to stage a high-level conference on the horizon 2020 initiative in the chamber in May. A wide range of stakeholders has been invited to discuss that important issue. I ask members to keep an eye on the committee’s website, where we will shortly publish details of that event.
European funding represents a big opportunity for Scottish institutions. Scotland has been successful in securing significant funds from the current research and development funding stream programme, framework programme 7. By holding an event on the horizon 2020 programme, the committee hopes to bring together interested parties in a team Scotland approach.
Other broad themes are emerging from the policies that are being developed in Brussels, including the greening of policies such as the CFP and CAP; a welcome focus on outcomes, notably in relation to economic growth and jobs; and greater connectivity between parts of the EU, whether through energy infrastructure, greater harmonisation of legal codes or the removal of barriers as the single market continues to be strengthened.
Europe has never shown a greater interest in events unfolding in Scotland, although perhaps that touches on a debate for another day. Suffice to say, interest in Europe in, for example, developments in renewables, innovations in sea fishing and the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, continues to grow.
Last year, my committee spent two days on a whirlwind induction of the EU institutions sponsored by the European Commission. I put on record my thanks to the Commission for that. As many members know, Brussels and the EU institutions are not, as they are often painted in the popular imagination, full of Eurocrats who spend their days measuring bananas. That was interesting for the committee, because of the perceptions we encountered before our visit. In fact, the institutions are open, and the officials whom we met were welcoming and interested in what we had to say. We spent almost an hour with Maja Kirchner, the chef de cabinet of Commissioner Damanaki, the fisheries commissioner, who outlined the reforms proposed for the common fisheries policy. A spirited discussion ensued about all things fish, from the Icelandic situation and mackerel to the nature of the nets that are used to catch cod in the North Sea.
We learned a great deal during our trip, but what is important is that I believe the officials of the EU also learned something. It was clear to them that we, as representatives of the Parliament, had something serious to say; we had done our homework and consulted the stakeholders, and we were presenting a reasoned opinion. When that happens, officials in Brussels sit up and listen. The Scottish Government’s officials in Brussels were a vital resource—I commend them to the cabinet secretary. They may be small in number but their commitment to Scotland’s interests was plain to see.
After we conclude today, it is important that we do not lose the momentum that we have created by having this debate in the first place. Scotland needs us to be vigilant, attentive and alive to the challenges and opportunities that are inherent in our relationship with the EU.
I look forward to hearing members’ contributions and, on behalf of the committee, to garnering positive ideas from throughout the chamber for continuing and building on that active, constructive engagement and ensuring that officials in Brussels carry on sitting up and listening to what Scotland’s Parliament has to say.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the European and External Relations Committee’s 1st Report, 2012 (Session 4): The Scottish Parliament’s EU priorities for 2012 (SP Paper 93).
14:54
The Scottish Government’s ambitions for Scotland align closely with the Europe 2020 strategy of the European Union for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The EU’s programmes add value to what we do in Scotland, which is why our engagement on the next multi-annual financial framework, for 2014 to 2020, is vital. The MFF will determine how much can be spent in key programmes—including the CAP, the horizon 2020 research programme and structural funds—in pursuit of economic growth in Scotland.
Among the Commission’s work priorities in the coming year, we will focus our efforts on the initiatives that will have the greatest impact for the people and communities of Scotland. By concentrating our focus, the Scottish Government can be most effective. We can also showcase the wealth of experience and expertise that Scotland can offer. We welcome the greatly enhanced cross-committee EU scrutiny that the Parliament is now promoting.
The range of the work of the EU institutions and agencies is vast. The Scottish Government has agreed to maximise our impact, rationalise our engagement and focus our efforts on four priority areas, which are set out in the Scottish Government’s European action plan. We regularly update the European and External Relations Committee in that regard.
We have focused our engagement on EU policy on energy and climate change; research and creativity; the marine environment; and justice. Given the EU’s activities over the coming year, in our four action plan priority areas, there are a number of new and on-going initiatives on which we will seek actively to offer input and exert influence.
Scotland is a European and global leader in the field of climate change. We are seeking to capitalise on Scotland’s enormous natural resource potential and become a low-carbon energy hub for the EU. We are at the forefront of the drive to provide better interconnections between energy networks across Europe, as evidenced through our leading roles in the Irish-Scottish links on energy study—ISLES—and the North Sea offshore grid co-ordination initiative. An EU renewable energy strategy and completion of the internal energy market will be vital to developing a low-carbon future for the whole of the EU. A renewable energy strategy will set us on the right path and ensure that completion of the internal energy market takes account of a renewable energy future. Those will be significant priorities for Scotland as we develop our renewables resources, become a low-carbon hub for Europe, support stronger interconnections and increase energy security EU-wide.
On research and creativity, we are in the vanguard in Europe of a recognition of the vital role that small and medium-sized enterprises will play in re-energising the economy, which is a priority of the EU in the proposals for the next research funding programme, horizon 2020. We whole-heartedly support the emphasis on ensuring the accessibility of that funding for SMEs. I raised that point at the last joint ministerial committee on Europe and it is perhaps something that we could draw to the attention of the Education and Culture Committee.
The innovation union aligns closely with our refreshed economic strategy and we are determined to ensure that it develops so as to add value to what we are doing specifically in Scotland.
Universities and companies across Scotland are at the forefront of collaborative projects that are producing world-class research in key sectors such as life sciences, energy and education. We are actively looking at ways to encourage partnerships between research institutes and SMEs. From this year, we are establishing a £45 million SMART: Scotland fund to bring together innovation and commercialisation support for business that is provided from across our partner organisations.
Scotland is one of Europe’s key maritime nations, with 10 per cent of Europe’s coastline and 20 per cent of its seas. The Scottish Government is committed to managing Scotland’s seas for prosperity and environmental sustainability. The industry in Scotland has responded to the challenges that it has faced and has pioneered innovative solutions to ensure the sustainable future of our maritime industry and coastal communities. We share our seas and the marine resources that we use. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how vital it is that we are directly involved in key EU negotiations on maritime and fisheries as they progress.
Throughout the negotiations for reform of the CFP, we will stand by our fishing communities and work hard with the UK Government and our European partners to secure a deal that ensures the continued stability and sustainability of the industry for Scotland and for the whole of the EU.
Scotland has a special interest in EU justice policies as we have a legal system that is distinct and separate from that of the rest of the UK—that is a unique position in the EU. We therefore assess the impact of all EU justice proposals on Scots law. We can also offer a unique perspective to our European partners. Our experience of co-operating over two different legal systems offers valuable insight into how co-operation may be taken forward across the entire EU.
In 2012, the Commission intends to bring forward three justice dossiers that will have a particular impact on Scots law and require our attention. The dossiers are on special safeguards in criminal procedures for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable, compensation of crime victims and the alternative dispute resolution instrument for business-to-business disputes.
Beyond our four action plan priority areas, we engage with our EU partners on a broad range of policies and programmes. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that the interests of Scotland are represented successfully at all stages of the policy-making process in the EU.
I thank the committee for bringing forward the debate and, more important, for injecting a sense of responsibility on the part of all the Parliament’s committees for scrutiny of EU matters. That is an important agenda, which will ensure that the international aspects of the EU are scrutinised by all the committees, rather than just being considered by one of them. The responses from the different committees are helpful in demonstrating to the Government the areas in which they are interested, and I know that my fellow cabinet secretaries will respond directly to each committee on its priorities.
As I have outlined, the EU has a huge impact on policy making in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s strategic engagement reflects our main interests. I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber to ensure that Scotland’s interests are represented and that our expertise shapes EU policy to our best advantage. The prospectus that the committee has laid out represents a positive way forward for the Parliament.
15:01
I am pleased to speak in the debate, particularly as I was a member of the European and External Relations Committee for much of the previous session of Parliament. I congratulate the current committee on securing the debate. It might have been helpful if there had been more than a week between the publication of its report and the debate but, nevertheless, the debate is an important one, and it is good that the committee has brought the Parliament’s EU priorities to our attention at this stage in the session.
As the convener identified, our engagement with Europe is important to our work in the Parliament and to the policies that we pursue on behalf of the people of Scotland. We should remind ourselves that the importance of our engagement with Europe is reflected in the fact that the committee is a mandatory committee of the Parliament and not one whose services we can dispense with.
The decisions that are made by the institutions of the EU have implications in so many areas of our work that it is right that all the committees of the Parliament should be aware of the work programme and priorities that are set in Europe, and that each committee should consider seriously whether there are particular issues that it wishes to highlight to the European and External Relations Committee and to the Parliament, and to decide on the areas that it wants to focus on. The European and External Relations Committee does us all a service by organising such an exercise and by bringing its report to Parliament. Its report builds on the work and ideas of its predecessor committee.
It is also important that the European and External Relations Committee leads on the overarching issues, and the committee is right to focus its attention on the reform of structural funds, horizon 2020 and, of course, the fast-moving situation in the euro zone. I very much welcome the news that the convener outlined of the conference on the 2020 programme. That is an area of work that I think has great potential for the Parliament, and it will be interesting to hear the outcomes of that event and to participate in it, as I hope to do.
The committee must also lead on the scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s engagement with the EU, and I hope that the committee might at some point consider in detail the work of the Scottish Government in Europe. It is clear from the Government’s action plan on European engagement that ministers are engaging frequently with the formal and informal structures in Europe, as well as with individual member states. It would be interesting for Parliament to hear the considered opinion of the committee on the value of that work. I know that there is a good relationship between ministers—particularly Ms Hyslop—and the committee but, when I visited Brussels as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee in the previous session, I was very surprised to find that particular EU officials were critical of the level of engagement by Scottish ministers. That genuinely took us by surprise.
Patricia Ferguson has raised that point in the last three European debates. She has been answered satisfactorily by John Swinney and Alex Neil. I hope that she is satisfied that the issue of our level of engagement has been addressed, and I think that she exaggerates.
John Swinney took the trouble to dispute with me that fact, which appears in the paper that the Local Government and Communities Committee submitted to SPICe. I wanted to mention it in the context of another piece of work that I thought might be helpful, rather than as a criticism of the Government, which is why I did not go into it in huge detail.
In a debate such as this, it is not possible to consider in great detail the priorities that individual committees have set, but a number of them are of particular interest. I note that the Health and Sport Committee, in identifying the issues that it was concerned about, asked for support from the Brussels officer and from SPICe. I sincerely hope that that committee will, in spite of the changes to the Parliament’s working arrangements, still be able to get the support that it needs. The work of the Brussels office has over the years been invaluable in supporting members of the European and External Relations Committee and its predecessor committees, as well as colleagues from other committees, and I hope that the new structure will not disadvantage them in any way.
The work of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee in continuing to monitor the issue of child poverty, following on from the work that was done in session 3 by its predecessor committee, is important in and of itself.
The member must start winding up.
However, that also reads across to the work of the Commission, which has identified that
“children remain on average more at risk of poverty and social exclusion than the overall population”.
With enlargement of the EU—
I regret that we must move on.
15:06
Although I welcome the European and External Relations Committee’s report on the Scottish Parliament’s EU priorities for 2012, this debate can at best be termed a technical debate, as I do not believe that there will be a great deal of disagreement among members in the chamber.
The report could be termed the offspring of the predecessor committee’s work on the Treaty of Lisbon, which took place in the previous session when my colleagues and I were not on the committee. That report recommended that the Parliament should devise a strategy whereby it could scrutinise legislative proposals from the EU. In that respect, it intended to bring together contributions to the debate from subject committees. That has been an important development, whereby subject committees have undertaken work of their own volition following recommendations from the European and External Relations Committee.
At the core of the new model is the appointment by the subject committees of European reporters, who act as conduits between the European and External Relations Committee and their committees, and have specific roles. The idea is based on a model that has been successfully used by the Parliaments of Bavaria and Flanders, and I am pleased to report that it has worked well in linking the European and External Relations Committee and the subject committees of the Scottish Parliament.
Asking the Parliament’s subject committees for their assessment of the European Commission’s work programme and asking them to engage with the European and External Relations Committee generated a favourable response from previous committee conveners. I pay tribute to our former colleague Irene Oldfather, who pushed the project forward in her time as the European and External Relations Committee convener. I do not think that we would have reached this stage without her committed enthusiasm.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Parliament’s European officer—now the EERC clerk—for his assiduous attention to detail, and I thank all of his clerking team for pulling the report together.
The seven parliamentary committees that have contributed to the report by identifying their European priorities are wide and diverse. Therefore, in the time that is available, I will concentrate on a few that are of particular interest.
One of the key areas that emanate from the EU and have an enormous impact on Scotland is the field of rural affairs and the environment. It is therefore no coincidence that the paper that was presented by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee was by far the lengthiest submission. That committee continues to be engaged in the common fisheries policy and common agricultural policy reforms, which are subjects of great interest to many members in the chamber. However, I was interested to learn of subjects that are new to that committee and whose European dimension has an impact on Scotland, such as the effects of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Scottish fisheries—pelagic and demersal—are also facing very difficult issues.
Of equal interest and importance is the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s assessment of the Commission’s work programme. Of particular relevance to me, as a Highlands and Islands MSP, is the review of state aid guidelines for broadband networks. As colleagues will no doubt agree, the committee’s initial scoping inquiry into the need for a broadband strategy across Scotland should address the specific failings in the Highlands and Islands and the need for widely available quick and affordable broadband for individuals and businesses if we are not to fall behind and be uncompetitive with other nations in Europe.
I hope, in my closing remarks, to address the Scottish Government’s engagement with the EU and its priorities, as well as the views of our MEPs. For the moment, however, I am just interested in hearing the views of others.
I remind members that they have a strict four minutes. There is no time for interventions, and members’ microphones will be cut off dead on four minutes.
15:10
I welcome this afternoon’s debate as a member of the European and External Relations Committee and as a newly appointed EU reporter for the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, having previously been the EU reporter for the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. In accordance with the Parliament’s EU strategy and as EU reporter for the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, I want to report to Parliament the EU priority issues that that committee will engage on in the coming months.
As is the case for all committees, the priorities for the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee were set out in the European and External Relations Committee’s first report, and are informed by the European Commission’s work programme for 2012, which was published last November. Before I go any further, I would like to thank Jamie Hepburn who, as my predecessor as EU reporter on the committee, took the lead role in identifying those priorities.
The specific EU legislative and policy issues that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee is prioritising include the review of state aid guidelines for broadband networks; trans-European networks; the review of European public procurement rules; Europe’s digital agenda; the framework for future EU ports policy; and improving passenger rights across all modes of transport.
I hope that colleagues will agree that the EU legislative and policy proposals in each of the areas that I have set out are of key strategic importance for growing Scotland’s economy by improving our infrastructure, and enabling our citizens and businesses to better access the EU’s internal market.
Early engagement by the Parliament is important to ensure that Scotland is able to take full advantage of the opportunities arising from future EU investment programmes such as the trans-European transport networks—the TEN-T—and the connecting Europe facility, which is worth €40 billion, in particular. Linking the development of Scotland’s shipping and ports to the development of our road, rail and broadband infrastructure can only help to stimulate Scotland’s economic competitiveness and encourage greater tourism, export and business opportunities.
However, those discussions are taking place against the backdrop of the most severe fiscal and economic crisis in living memory. The tough EU budget negotiations ahead will determine EU policies and spending for 2014 to 2020 and will undoubtedly result in a much reduced overall EU budget. Against that background, of particular importance for Scotland and related to the connecting Europe facility, are Commission proposals to use innovative financial instruments such as project bonds as one way to mobilise private capital, together with the European Investment Bank, for investment in large-scale energy, transport and broadband infrastructure projects.
As colleagues will be aware, the EU legislative cycle from the initial Commission proposal to agreement on the final legislative instrument often takes years rather than months. The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s EU priorities that I have reported relate to measures at varying stages in that legislative cycle, and that will doubtless inform the manner in which the committee will undertake its work.
As a first stage in that process, the convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Maureen Watt, has written to Alex Neil, the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, requesting that he provide the committee with details of how the Scottish Government plans to engage on those matters, including whether the Government considers that any of the EU legislative and policy proposals raise subsidiarity concerns that are similar to the concerns that the committee has already expressed regarding the Commission’s proposals for a single national regulator as part of its review of European public procurement rules.
Given the significant economic and social implications of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s EU priorities for Scotland, it is vital to ensure that Scotland’s national interests—as debated in this Parliament—are fully and timeously reflected in EU legislative proposals and policy discussions directly in Brussels, through the Commission, the European Parliament and our MEPs, and via the UK Government, so that we get EU policies that work for and in Scotland.
As well as supporting the European and External Relations Committee’s motion, I will be taking forward the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s priorities as part of the committee and as its EU reporter, and ensuring that they are part and parcel of our scrutiny process.
15:14
I, too, am pleased to take part in what I agree will be a very consensual debate, and I commend the previous speakers for their contributions. I am sure that there will be very little disagreement because, from my involvement in European committees past and present, I know that everyone involved is working to get the best for Scotland.
We certainly have a lot to celebrate in the work of the Scottish Parliament and our European parliamentarians, especially when we think about some of the prizes that we have gained. As someone who likes to travel across Europe and who does so regularly, I am especially pleased by moves to bring down the costs of roaming charges for mobile phones. Not long ago, a lot was done to help people who were on package holidays and who were stranded at airports when their planes were grounded by volcanic ash. Our work is very pertinent and relevant and, if we work in partnership with people, that kind of synergy can make a real difference to people.
I share Jamie McGrigor’s views on the committee’s clerking team—in particular, Dr Ian Duncan. They work incredibly hard. On this budget day, I have to say that my one worry is that, with the tightening of belts and the strictures that we all have to face, we might be overburdening some of our people and expecting them to do more than one job.
When the committee was first formed, Ben Wallace—whom Jamie McGrigor will well remember and who has since gone on to another place—and I argued long and hard for the creation of an office in the European Parliament and, as a result of a joint report, we managed to persuade the committee and the Scottish Parliament to agree to the proposal. That shows that the reports that the committee produces are very important.
With regard to the EU priorities that each committee has set, I must single out the issue of the public procurement directive and what it will mean for our small and medium-sized enterprises. We will need to keep a careful watch on the issue because, as Catherine Stihler mentioned in her written evidence to the committee, there are different interpretations throughout Europe of how the rules should work. We certainly do not want them to disadvantage our smaller businesses in particular.
I am delighted that Christina McKelvie and others on the committee have chosen to delve into how all the pots of money work. I hope that I have got the figure right, but I believe that at a recent committee meeting we were told that something like 59 pots of money are being allocated across Europe. How on earth are we going to know anything about any of that unless we really apply ourselves and dig in to the matter? We want to enable the people in our communities to get the very best out of the system. I once led a small voluntary organisation called West Fife Enterprise that applied for £1 million of European funding. I have to say that no one was more shocked and gobsmacked than I was when we got it, although I think that the chief executive of the local authority in Fife was equally gobsmacked because he had to match the funding, which presented him with something of a challenge.
I am also pleased about the work that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is going to carry out. I think that it faces the biggest challenges; indeed, it always has.
I am very glad to have contributed to the debate, and will end by saying that I think that we have a tremendous amount of work still to do.
15:18
I will shock no one if I say straight out that Scotland is part of Europe. That is a geological, cultural and political fact; indeed, as a kingdom, Scotland is Europe’s oldest nation state and its trading relations with the low countries and the Baltic states in particular go back many hundreds of years. As a result, it is a point of satisfaction for me that the European and External Relations Committee’s first report in 2012 is on the Scottish Parliament’s EU priorities for 2012.
It is vital that Parliament take seriously its responsibilities as a constituent body of a member state of the EU, given the levels of trade between us and our neighbours and estimates that suggest that between 60 and 80 per cent of legislation that is passed in Scotland originates from the EU.
Whatever Scotland’s constitutional status, we will have close connections with all our neighbours. That is notable in the context of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
Scotland has much to gain from playing an active role. It has been acknowledged by members of all parties that all our MEPs work hard and well—we could probably do with having more of them. Members also acknowledged that our Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, represents the Scottish Parliament well in negotiations. Given that 70 per cent of UK fish landings are made by Scottish vessels, we must ensure that we have direct representation at the agriculture and fisheries council when the final proposals on the CFP are decided in December.
The EU is not all about fish suppers. The European social fund, for example, has a continuing role to play in supporting our voluntary organisations and in delivering our social inclusion policy through community planning partnerships. Priority 5 funding can be provided for projects that will get people into work and help them to improve their career prospects when they are employed. Such elements are particularly relevant to parts of Scotland like my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland.
It is incumbent on the Scottish Parliament as a whole, and on parliamentary committees and individual MSPs, to consider those and other EU programmes, and to consider how we can best serve our communities by accessing the appropriate funding streams. In doing so, we should acknowledge that the current programmes involve access to structural funds through co-financing, in concert with public bodies. Tenders are invited from organisations for projects that align closely with the co-financing organisations’ strategic priorities. The advantage of the approach is that the limited funds—as we know, funds could become even more limited—can be used more strategically and project providers will no longer be required to find match funding.
Other areas, including the EU budget or multi-annual financial framework, cohesion policy, Europe-wide reform of criminal proceedings, horizon 2020—the programme for research and innovation—and proposals for public procurement, which Helen Eadie mentioned and which are increasingly important for Scotland, impact on all our constituents. It is therefore hugely important that the Scottish Parliament play a full role in Europe and that, whichever party is in control in Parliament, we all support ministers in their efforts to get the best possible deal from the EU for the people of Scotland.
15:22
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the European and External Relations Committee debate about EU priorities. As Patricia Ferguson was, I was a member of the predecessor committee in the previous session of Parliament.
I am particularly grateful to my colleagues on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for entrusting me last week with the role of EU reporter to the committee, and I take this opportunity to thank Aileen McLeod for her work as the previous EU reporter.
As members have said, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee keeps a keen eye on matters that come out of the European Parliament and the European Commission. There are too many such issues for me to mention them all in my four minutes, but two major items on which we have focused are reform of the common agricultural policy and reform of the common fisheries policy. We have taken evidence on both matters from UK and Scottish ministers, MEPs and the industries.
On the CFP, it is clear that the industry has concerns about management of the policy and its effect on the fishing industry. The European and External Relations Committee agreed, and has emphasised in its report, that reform of the CFP will have failed if regionalisation of decision making does not replace top-down management. To put it simply, local areas know how best to manage their fish stocks sustainably, which is important for the future of the fishing industry and the environment. As part of that, we recommended the reform of regional advisory councils that could feed into a new legal body, which would ensure sustainable management of the seas. Councils should comprise a sensible balance of stakeholders and should include the fish-processing industry.
On transferable fishing concessions, the committee heard sufficient evidence that trading of fish quotas could result in the bigger operators becoming even bigger and more centralised, which could present a threat to our fishing communities. I think the Government shares that view. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has concluded its work on the CFP, but we will keep CFP reform on our radar.
As has been mentioned, another major EU reform is reform of the common agricultural policy, which is a major part of the EU budget and has a major input into rural Scotland. Agriculture is important to the Scottish economy. Last year, income from it rose by 13 per cent across Scotland but—unfortunately—costs rose, too. It is obvious that CAP reform will affect rural Scotland, and not just agriculture, to a great extent.
Just last week, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee took evidence on CAP reform from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. In early March, it took evidence from the UK minister, Jim Paice. We have not completed our report, but we hope to agree it by 18 April.
Concerns that are relevant to the Scottish situation have been highlighted to us. Process is key—how the various Governments work together to form a consensus is obviously difficult, but it was interesting that Jim Paice highlighted the work that goes on officially and unofficially in devolved Administrations to
“find common ground to ensure that everyone is happy.”
It is worth noting that Mr Paice said, too, that
“I believe that we will start the new CAP on 1 January 2015.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 7 March 2012; c 705-6.]
As members might know, that would be a year late and, although rolling over pillar 1 payments should not be a problem, pillar 2 payments would be jeopardised. It is therefore essential that our Government has contingency plans.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has a close eye on many EU matters that are arising. We have brought the Government’s attention to the environmental action programme, on which consultation ends in June, and we look forward to hearing the Government’s response to that.
15:26
As the newest member of the European and External Relations Committee, I express my thanks for the work that has gone into collating and publishing the committee’s report, “The Scottish Parliament’s EU priorities for 2012”. I also thank the committee’s members and its convener for their warm welcome.
I previously served on the Equal Opportunities Committee, for which I was EU reporter. That committee has identified five areas of the Commission’s work programme in which it is interested. They are child poverty, advancement of Roma integration, the European accessibility act to improve the accessibility of goods and services, improvement of the gender balance on the boards of companies that are listed on stock exchanges, and consultation of European social partners on the review of the equal pay directive. I have quite an interest in some of those issues but, as the European and External Relations Committee’s convener said, they are for debate on another day.
However, I will discuss child poverty, which Patricia Ferguson raised. Parliament is leading the way on early intervention. Early support and preventative spending for vulnerable children and families in Scotland help to tackle problems before they turn into crises. All that is hugely beneficial for children and young people, as well as for our society as a whole. It is estimated that every £1 that is spent on early intervention or in the early years saves taxpayers £9 in the future. That investment is taking place across almost the whole of Scotland to support parents, children and communities.
Much of the work on early intervention that we deliver will depend on working with partners and on accessing relevant European funding; Helen Eadie mentioned partnership working. It became apparent in the evidence that the European and External Relations Committee took the other day that it is important to involve community planning partnerships in delivering programmes in our communities. The view is that CPPs will become the delivery mechanism for European structural funding. From the evidence, I know that that model greatly interests the European Commission, because it would ensure that delivery through the funds reached communities through local partnerships that include local authorities, health boards and—importantly—third sector organisations, on which we are very dependent.
I do not need to tell anyone in the chamber how important the European Union is to Scotland. Sometimes I think that we do not realise how much of an impact it has on our daily lives. Recently, I was listening to a radio advert encouraging visitors to come to North and South Lanarkshire, which cover a lot of my region. I encourage every member to take up some of those visiting opportunities. At the end of the advert, it was mentioned that it had been partly funded by European regional funding. We often go into sports centres and museums without understanding what that European flag that is so visible in those places means for Scotland.
15:30
I welcome this debate and the recent committee report on EU priorities for 2012. I congratulate the convener and the members of the committee on the quality of their work.
The committee stressed that one element of its future work would be reform of EU structural funds. I would like to touch on that, particularly in the context of the Highlands and Islands. In passing, I flag up the useful evidence that the committee heard yesterday on structural funds; I was an interloper in the gallery for that meeting.
As we have already heard from the minister, we are at a crucial time because we are coming to the end of the current programme. Structural funds will be used to help member states to achieve Europe 2020 targets during the next programme. As we heard from Fiona Hyslop, those targets are promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the European Union economy. As members know—irrespective of where they represent—my region covers an area that is one third of Scotland’s landmass; an area that is larger than Belgium but with a population that is less than that of Brussels. It is an area of contrasts, having stunning natural beauty in its lochs, hills and glens, along with thriving and innovative communities such as on the Isle of Eigg. It also has very challenging geography with a coastline that is longer than that of Brazil and more than 100 inhabited islands.
Depopulation has, historically, been a running sore in the Highlands and Islands, with the departure of whole communities—for example, that of St Kilda, which is the most dramatic example. One of the great achievements of Harold Wilson’s first Government—I would say that, wouldn’t I?—was the vision that he and Willie Ross had of the creation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was asked to stem the tide and to attract new jobs and opportunities to the area.
Historically, the region’s per capita gross domestic product has lagged behind that of the rest of Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the 1990s, its per capita GDP was below 75 per cent of the EU average, so the region qualified for objective 1 support between 1996 and 1999. The programme between 2000 and 2006 created or retained 17,000 jobs, assisted more than 9,000 businesses and supported 11,000 trainees.
I am strongly of the view that European funding is not some paternalistic sop from Eurocrats; it is a crucial economic tool to lever up to the EU average the per capita GDP of lagging regions. It provides a planning and economic opportunity to exploit emerging markets such as life sciences, renewable energy, and the creative industries. I have mentioned this before, but I flag up in particular the stunning new Disney Pixar film “Brave”, which is based in the Highlands. European funding has also supported the creation of a new university and centres of excellence in research and development such as Sabhal Mòr Ostaig in Skye.
What are the next steps? Proposals for the next programme budget are now at member-state level at the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Commission, in which I am particularly interested, is proposing an intermediate category of funding for regions whose per capita GDP is between 75 and 90 per cent of the EU average. I am interested to hear the minister’s view on that. The current figure of 84 per cent could mean that the Highlands and Islands would qualify for the enhanced support instead of having to look for money from the same pot as the rest of Scotland. That could be a vital win-win scenario for the region and for Scotland as a whole and it would maximise our drawdown of European funds.
The great strength of the previous programme was the involvement of local voices from local campaigns using the expertise, skills and knowledge of partners to ensure that initiatives worked. I hope that the minister will say, or write hereafter, that the changes in the Highlands and Islands partnership programme will mean that jobs will remain in the Highlands and Islands. I should declare an interest as a former HIPP director.
I wish the committee well in its future deliberations and I hope that it will support transition region funding for the Highlands and Islands.
15:34
As other members have done, I commend the committee for its report. As the Justice Committee’s EU reporter, I am pleased to speak about the Justice Committee’s view on its EU priorities for the coming year.
In February, we selected five EU priorities from the Commission’s work programme for 2012, largely because of their links to recent policies and initiatives at domestic level and, in some cases, to the Justice Committee’s established interests. We felt that that approach could help to add value to our existing and future work programmes.
The Justice Committee was also keen to ensure that we had input at an early stage to any legislative proposal that raised subsidiarity concerns or could conflict with established procedures in Scots law. We have therefore included a regular item on the committee’s agenda to keep up to date with developments on our EU priorities and to keep a watching brief on other legislative proposals that are not contained in this year’s Justice Committee work programme.
Let me turn to the Justice Committee’s priorities. The first is an initiative on special safeguards in criminal procedures for suspected or accused persons. The committee believes there is an overlap between some of the issues in that proposal and those that have been raised in Lord Carloway's review, on which the committee took evidence late last year and which Parliament debated when it was published. The committee has therefore written to the cabinet secretary for his comments on the impact of the proposal on implementation of the Carloway review’s recommendations.
The second of the Justice Committee’s EU priorities concerns the proposals that seek to ensure that crime victims receive fair and appropriate compensation. It was agreed that there was some overlap with the UK Government’s current consultation on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the Scottish Government’s plans to introduce legislation on victims’ rights. We have therefore requested that the cabinet secretary provide the committee with details of the Scottish Government’s input to the consultation and of how the EU proposal might square with its plans on compensation for victims. My view—speaking personally and not for the committee—is that any review of criminal compensation should be focused primarily on reducing the costs of bureaucracy and administration and not on levels of compensation.
The Justice Committee’s third EU priority is an initiative that aims to define common minimum rules on legal aid in criminal proceedings. The committee understands that the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation on that shortly, and has therefore asked the cabinet secretary how the EU proposal might impact on future legislation in this Parliament.
The Justice Committee’s fourth EU priority is an alternative dispute resolution instrument for business-to-business disputes, which might raise similar subsidiarity concerns to a consumer dispute proposal that the committee considered in January. The committee believes that is important that we have the opportunity to submit our views at a much earlier stage than we can at present, which justified making the matter a key priority.
The Justice Committee’s fifth and final priority is a proposal on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is, I believe, under review by the Scottish Government and it is the Justice Committee’s intention to monitor progress on that front on an on-going basis. The fourth and fifth priorities are not expected to be considered for legislative action before the end of the year and the committee will therefore revisit its priorities in due course. The committee will also consider the cabinet secretary’s response to the three other priorities that I have outlined.
I am glad to be in a position to report on our work.
15:37
This has been a useful and constructive debate and several members have rightly highlighted the significant contribution by other committees that was made to the European and External Relations Committee’s report into EU priorities. In my closing remarks, I want to concentrate on the other aspects of the report, namely the EU priorities of the Scottish Government for the year ahead as well as contributions from our Scottish MEPs about what they see as being the burning issues—perhaps—that are emanating from the continent.
At the core of the Parliament’s EU strategy is a very clear commitment
“to scrutinise the Scottish Government and its EU engagement”
which must, of course, be the first role of any parliamentary committee—that is, it should hold the Government to account.
As a committee, we asked the Scottish Government to examine the Commission's work programme to identify what it considered to be the coming issues that would be of greatest interest to the Government. The cabinet secretary’s response was characteristically informative, although she could not resist the temptation to bring up the smokescreen that is the presence of Scottish ministers at the EU table. However, in this consensual debate, I shall not enter that arena.
The three areas that the Government identified as priorities very closely complement the Scottish Government’s action plan on European engagement. I hope that the cabinet secretary will, in her closing speech, go into further detail on energy initiatives. In particular, can she tell us how the renewable energy strategy will lead to the much-aspired-to low-carbon economy and how it will help to secure investment and jobs?
Finally, I turn to the pearls of wisdom from our illustrious colleagues across the Channel. The report contains five submissions from our Scottish MEPs, with a late addendum by David Martin MEP. The priorities that the MEPs identified include increasing trade to help boost economic growth and to contribute to job creation; ensuring that the EU remains the leading voice in reforming the international and European banking sector; and pursuing the highest possible international standards for the environment, human rights and sustainable development.
My good friend and colleague Struan Stevenson gave an unequivocal assessment of the areas of importance by boldly stating:
“Struan’s main priorities will be Fisheries”.
As I said, that is an important issue for Scotland, so I could not agree more with Struan Stevenson’s submission when it points to the red tape, planning permission issues and lack of political will that continue to hamstring the fish-farming industry in Scotland, in respect of both fin fish and shellfish. Of course, those issues also affect the wild-fish industry, and Struan highlights our decimated sea fisheries.
The debate has, by its nature, been a measured one that in a sense simply brings together in one place the European workings of the Parliament’s subject committees and the Scottish Government. I commend to Parliament the European and External Relations Committee’s report.
15:42
The debate has been an interesting one that has underlined the importance that the Parliament attaches to the European Union and our work therein. It has been interesting to hear the comments from the EU reporters from other committees. The European and External Relations Committee has sometimes been seen as a bit of a Cinderella committee in the Parliament, although I do not subscribe to that view. I will perhaps return to that point, but the debate shows exactly why that is not correct and why the committee must never be considered in that way.
Jamie McGrigor was absolutely correct to identify the role of Irene Oldfather in bringing to the fore the European issues with which the Parliament can and should engage, and the scrutiny that it must undertake. I am sure that Irene would be delighted to hear Jamie’s praise for her work over the years. Of course, she would be the first to say that she had ample support from the committee members who served with her during that period.
Helen Eadie rightly identified public procurement as being an issue in the EU and in Scotland. Almost by coincidence, the interest that the EU is taking in the issue comes at a good time for us because the Scottish Government is also considering it. I was pleased to read in Catherine Stihler’s contribution to the report that the rules will be simplified and that environmental costs and consequences for local communities will be taken into account more clearly in the future, which will—I hope—provide a more level playing field for all the communities of the EU.
We have all been clear that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has a particular role to play. That has always been the case; it and its predecessors have always had a significant interest in matters European. A number of our fishing and farming communities have looked to it to take the lead, which is absolutely right, as was ably set out by Jim Hume.
David Stewart talked about the importance of structural funds and ably outlined the importance and impact that they have had in the Highlands and Islands over many years, and the improvements that have occurred as a result. Perhaps we can consider in more detail the interesting point that he posed to the cabinet secretary in connection with horizon 2020. I would be interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that strand.
Aileen McLeod listed the large range of issues that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee is committed to investigating. That list highlighted how important our scrutiny of the EU is. I mentioned at the beginning of the debate that there are those—as I say, I am not one of them—who have sometimes not taken seriously the work of the European and External Relations Committee. I will demonstrate that with an anecdote. I joined the committee at the last meeting of the session in June 2008 but was, because of ill health, unable to attend my second meeting until November 2008. By that point, I was the second longest-serving member on the committee because of turnover of members. Today’s debate, however, has demonstrated the importance of the committee’s work.
The committee has done an excellent job in bringing forward the Commission’s work programme. I wish it well in its work and I wish it a successful horizon 2020 conference when it comes.
15:46
The Scottish Government welcomes the Commission’s work programme for 2012, the forward look to 2014 and this debate. They demonstrate the wide range of policy areas that we need to engage in—the wide range of interests of the MEPs, which are noted in the report, also reflects that—and the need for us to focus our resources to best effect.
The Government is encouraged by the proposed reform of several key EU policies. Jim Hume talked about the common fisheries policy and we have heard about research and innovation funding. A number of points were made on horizon 2020 and the interconnectedness with the impacts of other funds. Those are issues that we cannot address completely today, but which should return to the chamber at different points.
I reassure members that we are actively engaged on a range of issues that have been mentioned. In some cases, we think that the reforms—for example, to the common fisheries policy—need to go further, and we will press vigorously for that. Nevertheless, there are synergies between the stated ambitions of the EU and the Scottish Government, which demonstrates our shared goal of sustainable, smart and inclusive economic growth. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s economic strategy, which was published in September, provides an economic roadmap for Scotland.
Aileen McLeod, Jamie McGrigor and Helen Eadie made important points about public procurement, state aid and infrastructure. The work of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, in particular, will bring together a number of those strands. Patricia Ferguson and Clare Adamson identified children’s issues, but those will perhaps require further engagement with the Education and Culture Committee, which did not address that area in its submission to the report that we have in front of us.
We must ensure that we are leveraging added value from the EU—that is an important agenda—and finding ways of providing leadership as well as partnership. It is equally important that we pursue our own interests directly in Brussels, co-operating fully with the UK Government in developing the UK line and key policies. We are currently agreeing new ways of ensuring early upstream engagement with the UK Government. At the outset of the debate, Christina McKelvie talked about the importance of influencing early.
The Government believes that, where Scotland has the leading interest, we should act for the UK as a whole. That is especially true for fisheries and aquaculture, where we have 66 and 80 per cent, respectively, of the UK’s industry. I advise Jamie McGrigor that on Monday, at the EU fisheries council, Richard Lochhead was prevented from leading on mackerel—which is a key issue for Scotland—and, when the UK fisheries minister left at 5 o’clock, he was replaced for the remaining hour and a half by a farming minister, despite the fact that Richard Lochhead has experience and could easily have represented the UK line that had been agreed at that time.
There is good collaboration on the environment and climate change, but that is no substitute for being able to speak with our own voice. Scottish ministers and officials are attending more and more council meetings and are engaging with stakeholders in Scotland and across the EU. We are ensuring that we are working effectively with the UK Government by developing a renewed culture of upstream engagement to shape initiatives at the earliest possible stages and to secure outcomes that represent a good deal for Scotland.
We recently agreed a new system with the UK Government to ensure that we have early engagement with some of its EU work. The Scottish Government will continue to press the case for greater direct representation in the EU policy-making process, where we have expertise and where there is a strong Scottish interest.
Engagement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament is vital. The principal role of the Scottish Parliament in its EU strategy, which we welcome and support, is to scrutinise the Scottish Government and its EU engagement, but the Parliament can also be of support. As Patricia Ferguson said, when we speak to the EU with one voice and unite behind the interests of the people of Scotland, we influence better and demonstrate the commitment of the whole of Scotland to progress for the European Union.
I welcome the Parliament’s EU strategy and the European and External Relations Committee’s efforts and energy in bringing this debate to the chamber. Let it not be a one-off, and let it not be one way. Let us continue to work together co-operatively to ensure that the European Union offers added value to address Scotland’s needs and to take Europe forward.
I call on Hanzala Malik to wind up on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee.
15:51
Before I speak in support of the committee’s report, I congratulate our convener, Christina McKelvie, on arranging equalities training for our committee, which is a first in the Parliament. It is a historic event, and I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate her.
It is right that we are debating the key European issues today, as much of the business of the Scottish Parliament’s committees is affected by decisions that are taken in Brussels. The people of Scotland must know that its Parliament in Edinburgh is looking after their interests and that we are listening to their concerns and adding strength by carrying their message to Brussels. To fulfil that role, we must always ensure that the people of Scotland know what is happening in Brussels and how it affects their lives. We must use all the resources that are at our disposal, including our officials in Brussels, our representatives in the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments and our members of the European Parliament.
I take on board the comments that Patricia Ferguson and Jamie McGrigor made about the timing of the report to the Parliament.
In our role, we must listen carefully to what is going on and consider how things can be developed. Once we know what is going on, it is essential that we get into the right rooms in Brussels—the rooms where the issues are prepared, debated and ultimately decided on. We have the resources at our disposal to do that job.
We have heard from representatives of other committees about their intentions to act, and we heard from Christina McKelvie and Fiona Hyslop about how we intend to take forward our programme. We heard about the common agricultural policy, which has such an influence not just on our farmers but on our countryside and our environment. The common fisheries policy—there is a lot of fishy stuff going on there, by the way—is undergoing much-needed reform, and the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is working to ensure that the changes are right for Scotland.
Also important to Scotland are the opportunities and challenges that are afforded by developments in the energy sector, be they in the North Sea grid initiative to connect Scotland’s energy generation to Europe or the various proposals in the field of renewable energy. We must develop strong and positive links in that area.
Europe is an essential funding source for Scotland. As has been highlighted, my committee is currently engaged in examining two major funding streams: the structural funds and the horizon 2020 fund for research and innovation. We will report to the Parliament in due course on those funding streams, but it is important to note that they will be vital for Scotland’s recovery.
EU policies on infrastructure for broadband and ferry lines will have a significant impact on the daily lives of the people of Scotland. We will monitor progress on those issues. Jamie McGrigor mentioned the importance of broadband in rural areas. I assure everyone here today that broadband is important for us all, throughout Scotland, because we are competing in the international arena and the speed and reliability of broadband are critically important in that regard. We need to work hard to ensure that we deliver a positive service.
What happens next? This debate is only a beginning. The serious work for many of us has already begun and we have not a moment to lose. We must ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of funding; that its voice is heard and understood in Brussels; that we are able to warn of impending challenges and upcoming opportunities; and that we play our part in building the Europe that we want to live in.
I have noted a reluctance by UK ministers to engage fully with the Scottish Government, which is very unhelpful. We are partners and it is disappointing that that happens in a partnership. Communication between partners is important, but currently it is at best poor and sometimes non-existent. An example of that was the use of the veto by the UK Prime Minister, with no consultation or notification for the Scottish Government. I think that that was outrageous at the very least.
We live in a new world with new challenges, with people demanding higher levels of accountability. The Governments in London and Brussels need to recognise that new reality. We have to learn the lessons that other Governments have failed to learn. When Governments fail to listen to their people, they pay a very heavy price. I hope that we do not have to do that.
I am grateful to the members of our committee. It has been a huge pleasure to serve on the committee, because very valuable and positive work has been done. We have had many presentations from witnesses, who gave us expert advice. However, it is important to recognise that the reluctance to which I referred earlier means that we sometimes undersell ourselves. We cannot afford to do that. My message to the Government is that we need to ensure that we are a strong team, but we can do that only if we talk to each other. The cabinet secretary may wish to comment on that. However, she has already given a very good presentation on the issue.