European Issues
Good morning, everybody. I welcome you to the fourth meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in the third session of the Scottish Parliament. We have received apologies from Iain Smith and we will, I am sure, be joined by our colleagues Irene Oldfather and Alex Neil shortly.
Before we move to item 1 on the agenda, I draw members' attention to the buff-coloured paper that is on their desks. The paper was received this morning from the Scottish Government, and relates to the Government's European Union priorities. It would be helpful to have information from the Scottish Government well in advance of, not on the morning of, committee meetings. I acknowledge that it is a summary of papers that have been presented to us, but for committee members' sakes we do not want that practice to continue.
First, we will take evidence on general European issues from three of our Scottish MEPs. I welcome Catherine Stihler, and—from Brussels via videolink—Ian Hudghton and John Purvis. Committee members will recall that, as part of the work programme that we agreed at our previous meeting, we said that we want to work closely with our MEPs in the course of developing our own work—in particular by using the opportunity that is presented by videolinks. The purpose of this agenda item is to enable members to discuss European issues from the perspective of the European Parliament and Scottish MEPs.
We will start the session with five-minute opening statements from Catherine Stihler, Ian Hudghton and John Purvis, and then move to general questions from the committee. Given the possibility of technical delays with the videolink, I want to keep this part of the meeting fairly tight in order to ensure that all members have an opportunity to speak. I would be grateful if Ian and John in Brussels could indicate when they wish to speak, in order to allow me to invite them in. All members should speak slowly and clearly, and avoid interruptions.
I ask members of the committee to introduce themselves.
I apologise for being late. I am Alex Neil MSP, the vice convener of the committee.
I am Alasdair Morgan.
I am Gil Paterson.
I am Ted Brocklebank.
I am John Park.
Our colleague Malcolm Chisholm MSP is here for the meeting and Margo MacDonald may also make an appearance. I am Jackie Baillie, the convener.
Catherine Stihler MEP (Lab):
Thank you, madam convener. I congratulate you on your elevation—today's meeting will probably be your last in this committee.
It is important that the committee has shown an interest in our work and has already visited Brussels. I hope that last week's visit was good for members and that we maintain a close relationship, with members visiting institutions and learning about our work and how you can influence it.
Before the meeting, we were asked to consider the committee's work programme, which looks realistic. The annual consultation of subject committees and stakeholders on the European Commission's work programme is vital to your being able to influence the process. One example of early consideration and influence in the legislative process was the successful maritime policy conference and seminars that were held last year, which gave stakeholders a chance to contribute to the consultation.
The consultation has now ended and Commissioner Joe Borg indicated back in June that we will perhaps next month see what is called a blue paper—I have never heard of a blue paper, but it is appropriate for maritime policy—which will outline the shape of future maritime policy. The Commission will probably concentrate on four issues: maximising economic use of the oceans and seas in a sustainable way; attributing a maritime role for Europe in the world; making the most of knowledge and innovation; and ensuring a high quality of life in our coastal regions.
Another issue is the creation of the European Union's waterborne technology platform, through which scientists and researchers, people in industry and policy makers can co-operate. Scotland could contribute to that body—if it is not already doing so.
I turn to the scrutiny of European legislation and the nomination of rapporteurs. Three of the big issues that we are dealing with in the European Parliament are the reform treaty, climate change and security of the energy supply—I am sure that John Purvis and Ian Hudghton will add to that.
Another issue is the European year of equal opportunities for all. As we approach the end of 2007, it is appropriate to talk about some of the issues in Scotland on which we need to work with the European Union: I am thinking, for example, about gender issues. The European Union raised the issue of equal pay for equal work, but we still have a pay gap between men and women throughout the EU, so we must consider that.
We must also keep language skills on the agenda—after all, it is a European Union policy that we speak our mother tongue plus one, if not plus two. In Scotland, we still have an issue with that. I have written to ministers to press the point that we must enable our citizens to participate fully, for which languages are important. I draw it to the committee's attention that one of the most popular podcasts at the moment is on Spanish. I learned about it when I was in California, but it is produced in Glasgow. Two Glaswegians are teaching the world Spanish—the podcast is the second most popular download on iTunes. We should celebrate that and realise that it is an interesting and accessible way for people to learn languages. If members are interested, the website is at www.coffeebreakspanish.com. If members have not already checked it out, I suggest that, in their eagerness to learn a foreign language—I am sure that many are eager—they do so.
I will quickly draw members' attention to two issues on which we have a good story to tell and on which we can influence European policy. The first is the white paper on a smoke-free Europe. Last week, evidence emerged that the smoking ban in Scotland has had a direct impact and has improved public health. As we debate that at Europe level, it will be important for the Scottish Executive to present evidence from Scotland and to exert pressure. I am sure that Commissioner Kyprianou would welcome Scotland's evidence on how to improve public health.
The European Parliament is currently debating the children's rights agenda. Our work to tackle child poverty is important, given that one in five children in the European Union is living on the brink of poverty. The roles of the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland and of the Scottish Youth Parliament are important in our dialogue with young people in Scotland. Tomorrow, I will be welcoming a group of Roma children from Scotland, who are part of a Save the Children delegation and will discuss their experiences during a visit to the European Parliament, which I hope the committee will welcome.
I work on the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Regional Development. In the Committee on Fisheries, I have been awarded the rapporteurship on authorisations for fishing activities by Community vessels outside Community waters and the access of third-country vessels to Community waters. If the European and External Relations Committee is interested, I would very much welcome any evidence that it wishes to give me for my report on that subject.
The Committee on Regional Development is discussing the fourth cohesion report and, as a member of that committee, I am performing a shadowing role on issues relating to volunteering. Again, I would welcome any input from the European and External Relations Committee on that subject.
I hope that I have kept to my five minutes. Thank you for allowing me to speak, convener.
I will tell members who do not have 15-year-old daughters what iTunes and podcasts are later. I was pleased that I could follow everything that Catherine Stihler said.
We will now hear from Brussels: I invite Ian Hudghton to contribute.
I welcome the flying start that the European and External Relations Committee has made. There have already been two opportunities for your committee and Scottish MEPs to meet, and I am sure that we all found those meetings useful.
Our work programme is, as ever, a major challenge, because of the throughput of legislation, regulation and changes to regulations here in Brussels. A couple of weeks from now, we will have a plenary session in Strasbourg, on the agenda for which are about 40 reports that are at various stages, and an assortment of declarations and resolutions—including, as Catherine Stihler mentioned—the action plan on maritime policy, which is key to Scotland's interests. I am sure that, as we do, the European and External Relations Committee will play close attention to that action plan, not just to help to assure Europe's place in the world on maritime policy, but to highlight Scotland's place in the European Union on maritime policy. We have a great deal to offer and, potentially, to gain if such a policy is devised. It could enable us, for example, to develop our port and maritime transport activity, including hub services, which could make Scotland a bridge between Europe and the rest of the world, which would be of benefit to our suitable location.
I have always said that, in considering a European maritime policy, we ought to learn lessons from the common fisheries policy. As a maritime policy—of a sort—the CFP has not been outstandingly successful. I have told the Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs time after time that, if we are to start with an overarching European maritime policy, we should not start from the CFP.
On that subject, the autumn negotiations leading up to the December quota round are under way. Although that is an intergovernmental process that does not directly involve MEPs, I am sure that the committee will, as we will, be interested to know how it goes, and that you will press for the best possible deal for Scotland and the strongest possible representation of Scotland's interests.
An initiative report on a roadmap for renewable energy is coming up at the next Strasbourg plenary session. I know that we, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are all interested in pushing our potential to contribute to Europe's overall energy shortage, potentially by using Scotland's energy surplus.
The Committee on Fisheries, on which I serve with Catherine Stihler, Struan Stevenson and Elspeth Atwool, is important. I am also on the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and, as a shadow rapporteur for that committee, I have just started to examine a new directive that is designed to tighten up regulation in relation to timeshare properties and similar leisure or holiday concerns. The original timeshare directive has been successful to an extent, but has had the effect of driving rogue operators into other areas of activity. Anyone who goes on holiday in the Mediterranean will still find themselves being pestered on the street by people trying to sell holiday clubs and other variations on the theme of timeshares. I would be interested to hear from MSPs who have constituents who have relevant experiences to share on the subject that might help to ensure that we address all the issues relating to selling and regulation in this area.
The reform treaty—or the constitution by another name—is at the intergovernmental stage. Once the final draft is agreed, the European Parliament will consider it. I have no doubt that, again, we should all pledge to ensure that Scotland's interests in the current negotiations are kept to the fore so that we can have a say in the shaping and framing of this important document.
With regard to the work of the Committee on Fisheries, Elspeth Atwool—I think—is our rapporteur on the relatively obscure topic of rights-based management in fisheries, which could end up having significant consequences in upsetting what is already a difficult and precarious situation with regard to allocation of fishing opportunities. We will be paying a lot of attention to how that matter develops, as the Commission is perpetually trying to make the CFP work within a difficult framework, which I might call an impossible task.
Our Committee on Constitutional Affairs is considering proposals for a new division of seats in the European Parliament after 2013. Various treaties have adjusted the number of seats to take account of enlargement while trying, rightly, to keep the overall size of the European Parliament as workable as possible, in a multilingual environment. That is another issue to watch, because the number of seats that the United Kingdom ends up with will have a knock-on effect on the number of seats for Scotland. Of course, members are aware of the proposal to reduce Scotland's number of MEPs from the next round of elections. There is a lot of division about the Committee on Constitutional Affairs's current proposal and I think that many amendments will have been tabled by the deadline later on today. That is one area in which we should be pushing the fact that, because of Scotland's unique geography and other factors, it is difficult for a handful of MEPs to get around the country, tap into public opinion and represent the broad spectrum of opinion in Scotland across all the areas with which the European Parliament is concerned.
I am on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which deals with competition policy, financial services, taxation and—of course—economic and monetary affairs. I am also on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.
I will run through issues that are currently being worked on and which will come up in those committees in the next few months so that members will have time to get involved with them and make representations, if they want to do so. Some issues that I will mention are not devolved, but are nevertheless important for Scotland. Members may therefore want input to the process.
On competition, state aids are always a ticklish point in Scotland, especially in the light of its remote areas and its transport issues. The Commission is eager to try to defuse the problem and, by using a de minimis approach and other processes, not to require strictest application of competition rules in remote areas where such issues are a particular problem. Members should not hesitate to contact me if their constituents have problems in that area.
The two main financial services issues that will be dealt with in the next few months are consumer credit and mortgage credit. The latter is a topical issue that affects the man and woman in the street as well as the whole financial set-up. There are particular interests in Scotland—I am thinking about the mortgage companies. Investment management and banking issues and the structure of regulation in those areas will probably also arise in the next few months. Members should pass on any input on those matters from the Scottish financial services industry.
Accounting standards are a related issue. In Europe, we are moving to international financial regulatory standards, which companies will adopt, but the question is whether those standards will be adopted elsewhere in the world. The Americans are coming to terms with our standards, and I think that they will allow them to be used in America. Sir David Tweedie, who is a Scottish accountant, is heading that movement in the International Accounting Standards Board. Scotland has a proud tradition in accounting—indeed, I understand that Scotland had the first accounting body in the world. We have been involved in getting the standards that are now being adopted throughout the world.
The insurance industry and the solvency system will be under scrutiny, with the solvency II directive coming up. The insurance industry is another important industry for Scotland. Members who want to get involved with that matter should do so.
On research, we are now ensuring that the seventh framework programme for research and development, which started in January, is working properly. Some €52 billion is out there for the next seven years. Scottish universities and research establishments are usually very successful applicants for research and development funds. The framework programme has two particular aspects. First, the European Research Council, in which scientists rather than civil servants take decisions on projects, has been set up. The aim is to deal with fundamental research areas in particular, and I hope that Scotland will make applications to it. Secondly, there is the proposal for a European institute of technology—although whether that institute will get off the ground and how it will be funded are open questions that members may want to bear in mind.
A revision of the animal testing directive is heading our way. Obviously, animal testing is a sensitive matter. It is essential for our pharmaceutical industries and important for medical research and biotechnology in Scotland, but it is sensitive from an animal welfare point of view.
Ian Hudghton mentioned one or two energy issues. Directives on energy efficiency, renewable electricity and various technological aspects are coming through, so we will be involved in those areas. The reform treaty has also been mentioned. It will go through all the committees, so we can input our thoughts on that.
On the environment, I have been appointed as a shadow rapporteur on one of the subsidiary committees for environmental affairs on market-based instruments for the environment, which is about using the market and encouraging a market-based approach to achieving environmental objectives rather than using directives or other rules and regulations.
On global-market access for our products and trade, we still have problems getting whisky into India and things like that. There are also on-going trade negotiations with Korea, so if any constituents' companies are having trouble with trade in that area, or anywhere else globally, they should let us know.
Biogas and agriculture are also coming up for review.
Finally, on marketing of products and safety standards, the CE marking on products shows that they conform to European regulations, but there is a question about whether there should in the future be more safety symbols on products.
That sounded like a shopping list, but if I have said anything that strikes a chord, please let me know.
I thank John, Ian and Catherine for their opening statements. I am sure that they will stimulate a lot of discussion among committee members.
The opening statements were useful and helpful, and certainly gave us a range of issues to pursue.
I will start with Catherine Stihler. Obviously the constitution, or reform treaty, is a major subject for debate in Europe at the moment. Leaving aside the froth and cosmetics, such as the anthem and the flag, what are the key differences between what was in the constitution and what is in the reform treaty? What was taken out of the proposed constitution that justifies its redefinition as a reform treaty?
We no longer have a constitutional codifying treaty that brings everything together in one straightforward document that people can understand. That document had to be ratified by member states and two of those states—France and the Netherlands—said no, which was very serious. It meant that the constitutional treaty was rejected.
Back in June, the ministers, under the guidance of Angela Merkel and the German presidency, brought forward a compromise in the shape of the reform treaty, which is different from the constitutional treaty. It contains many opt-outs and clarification of the charter of fundamental rights, and the intergovernmental conference is considering it.
It is important that the committee know about something that Ian Hudghton touched on earlier. One of the issues that has been brought before the Parliament is the number of MEP seats. As members know, the seven Scottish MEPs have been fighting to retain seven MEPs for Scotland. The Electoral Commission published its evidence and recommended six MEPs for Scotland. However, the European Parliament's constitutional committee says that Britain should have an extra seat, so if we can make a case for it—other regions might have a stronger case—there is a clear argument for Scotland retaining seven MEPs. That is an on-going opportunity and the seven MEPs hope to draft a letter to make their case once again.
When is a reform treaty not a reform treaty?
That is my question.
As someone said to me, a human being and a mouse have 90 per cent of the same DNA, but it is the 10 per cent that makes all the difference, and I think that it is clear that the reform treaty is a very different beast. It is like the Maastricht and Nice treaties, which basically sought to reform the original treaties. The reform treaty is not a codifying treaty. We are clear that there is not going to be an anthem or a flag or whatever.
Some of the issues that people have pointed out or are angry about have been agreed in previous treaties.
We desperately need to make the European Union work more effectively and efficiently. We now have 27 countries, but the institutions were set up with six. The fact that national Parliaments will have an opportunity to scrutinise European legislation in a way that they previously did not is important. The citizens' right of initiative, which will allow citizens throughout the European Union to input into legislation, is also important. Under that right, if citizens collect a million signatures, the European Commission will have to act. Those are important changes and we need to see the draft reform treaty through.
There are clear differences between the draft constitutional treaty and the reform treaty. It is a good idea to do away with the six-month presidencies, which do not help anybody in the working of the European Union. At the moment, we have a terrible situation in which, every six months, the presidency of the European Union changes. We need more consistency.
There is no need for a referendum—I argue firmly that we do not need one. We need to conclude the IGC as quickly as possible and have the reform treaty agreed. It will then go out to the member states. Remember that Ireland is constitutionally bound to hold a referendum on the treaty. There are also rumours that Denmark might have a referendum. However, the constitutional treaty and the reform treaty are clearly two different documents.
It is important to get a response from our two colleagues in Brussels on that subject. I invite Ian Hudghton to respond to the question.
I am not sure whether the difference is what was left out of the document or what was included in it. The original so-called constitution was intended to replace the hotch-potch of treaties and become the authoritative document. If, at the end of the IGC, the mandate is strictly adhered to, the content of the reform treaty will not be hugely different.
The froth has been referred to, and it is meaningless nonsense. We already have a European flag—you might be able to see it behind us—and a European anthem. The draft reform treaty is yet another add-on treaty—an amending treaty, in effect—to add to the other treaties that we have. What is in it at the end of the process is the important thing. It has been widely trailed and predicted to be 90 per cent, or 95 per cent, the same as the constitutional treaty, depending on who is assessing it.
However, as with everything else in Europe, we need to consider what the treaty contains that is in Scotland's interests or against them. We should do that once we have the final document. For example, one of my objections to the draft constitutional treaty was that it elevated "exclusive competence" over marine biological resources under the CFP to a primary law or constitutional issue. If that line remains in the reform treaty, it will be the first time that the phrase appears in any of the treaties. We will have to consider the implications of that for Scotland and for future radical alteration of the CFP, which is necessary in my view.
Does John Purvis wish to add any comments?
My colleagues have already said that there is not much difference between the two draft treaties once we take away the fact that the reform treaty is not an all-embracing rewrite of all the previous treaties, because the add-ons that were in the constitutional treaty and the contents of the reform treaty are not significantly different in character. The purpose of the draft reform treaty goes back to the Nice treaty. It was decided that we needed to consider how to deal better with 27 member states—and more member states beyond that. Therefore, the treaties needed to be updated and rationalised so that the Union could work better. We have no argument with that.
There is also a question as to whether the add-ons are hugely significant in grand constitutional terms. For example, we hear a lot of talk in the media about Europe having a legal status. Of course it does; otherwise, it could not negotiate World Trade Organization arrangements and all sorts of other treaty arrangements. I am afraid that there is quite a lot of fluff in the media representation of the treaty. Once the truth is laid bare, the arguments against the treaty can be undermined.
It comes down to the fact that the draft treaty is much the same as the add-ons that were in the draft constitutional treaty. However, the question then is whether that is so significant in grand constitutional terms that it requires reference to a referendum process. The Government promised a referendum for the previous constitutional treaty. On the basis of that promise it could be argued that a referendum is justified, if we take it that there is no large change in the add-ons. The question is whether that promise was valid in the first place. Apparently, the UK has a representative democracy, in which Parliament is supposed to decide such matters. My conclusion is that if a referendum was fully justified for the previous draft treaty, it is justified for this one.
Putting aside the froth and the fluff that members have referred to, and given the opt-outs, I ask each of the MEPs to say whether they support the treaty.
We need to do something to modernise the Community so that it works properly. It is perfectly valid for most of the items that are contained in the treaty to be in there if Europe is to work efficiently. In most cases, with a few tweaks, reductions and some possible changes—most have which have been achieved or will, I hope, be sorted out during the upcoming negotiations—there is not as much to worry about as there sometimes appears to be.
There is no doubt that we need a treaty—or whatever it is called—to update the machinery, but it is what is finally in the treaty that is important. At this stage, we do not know what will finally be in it. There is a saying that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is how decision making works between Governments and the European Parliament—there is much horse-trading and so on. I will judge whether this particular treaty is supportable once we see the final document.
As it stands, the reform treaty is a compromise, and I support it.
During our recent visit to Brussels, I talked quietly to as many people as I could, and it struck me that almost every person I spoke to was in favour of the proposed treaty. That does not chime with what I am finding with the general public, who are very much anti the treaty. What do our contributors make of that? Are they finding the same thing?
The other thing that strikes me is that if the UK Government's promise about a referendum is not kept we will all be the losers. If, as people suggest, there are many benefits in the new treaty, and it is not a constitution, why are we not reaching the public? Why are we missing out? Why is the dialogue so insular between the bureaucrats and the people who support the concept? My main concern is that if we go ahead as we are doing we will leave the public behind. I do not like the idea that people in Ireland, who will be big gainers from the new disbursement of resources, will have a hand in the system, whereas people in the UK—and particularly people in Scotland—will not.
Another point that came over loud and clear to me is that we in Scotland lobby the lobbyists who lobby the lobbyists. We are far down the line from making a meaningful impact in Europe. The new treaty is an example of that. Our thinking is so remote and we are so far from taking the public with us that we will all pay the price in the democratic deficit that will arise if we continue to proceed as we have.
I ask members to keep their questions tight, because of the time.
We risk leaving the public behind. That is why the referendums on the constitution were lost in France and the Netherlands: a certain arrogance came across in the process. We must watch out for that.
Having said that, at home in Scotland and in the UK, we have a long history of a sceptical media and of successive Governments that have been content to stand back and allow Brussels to be blamed for decisions in which they took part and which they supported. We have much to catch up with. If the public take their view of the reform treaty from the Daily Mail or The Sun, we have a big problem to counteract. However, we should not be afraid of public opinion or of holding a referendum, should that be necessary.
As the new treaty's content is largely what was in the so-called constitution, the case for a referendum is strong. Good reasons will have to be given for not holding a referendum on the reform treaty, although its status is slightly different from that of the original constitutional treaty.
What counts is the content, and we do not know what that will finally be, so I reserve judgment until we have that information. However, we can expect very little change from what was in the mandate.
Gosh—I have so many questions that I do not know where to start. We went through the whole convention process. More public consultation took place on the European convention than on any previous treaty. National Parliaments, European civic groups and the European Parliament were involved. At the time, the clear view of politicians—I do not know whether John Purvis or Ian Hudghton shared it—was that we needed reform of the treaties and that having a simplified treaty would be better. I think that Neil MacCormick was one of the people who proposed that. The idea was that the treaties were becoming too complicated, that Europe's citizens could not understand them and that we needed to scrap everything and produce a simplified treaty that everyone could understand. We spent three years on that and we did not reach agreement, so we are back to reform of the treaties.
Will someone explain to me the differences between the reforms in the new treaty and those that took place under the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties? The Maastricht amendments made significant changes—far more than the new treaty will make—and we did not have a referendum. We did not have a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty. I am not clear about the arguments for having a referendum this time when we had no referendum in the past.
Your party promised a referendum.
I am very aware of time, so it would help if the member arrived at her questions.
Okay. I will focus on one point, because we are getting bogged down in legal issues and not discussing treaty content and political matters. On treaty reform, Ian Hudghton said that he would not start with the common fisheries policy as it stands. Where would he start from, and what role would zonal management play in fishing rights in Europe? This committee's predecessor committee very much advocated zonal management committees.
As I understand it, treaties have referred to exclusive competence in marine biological conservation and shared competence in common fisheries policy since about 1978—perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong. The terms might need to be clarified.
I think that everyone in Scotland supported zonal management in the lead-up to the reform of the CFP in December 2002. However, we did not get zonal management; we got regional advisory committees, which are not management bodies.
The fundamental problem with the CFP for Scotland is that it has led to a situation in which our fishermen and fishing communities do not think that they are guaranteed to get the benefit from the sacrifices that they make as a result of scrapping, closures and quota cuts. The CFP treats fisheries as a common resource. That is a fatal flaw, the impact of which is held at bay only temporarily, for example as a result of the principle of relative stability, which guarantees us a share of quotas. The CFP is fundamentally flawed and has irretrievably broken down.
When we debated the proposed thematic strategy on the protection and conservation of the marine environment, we said that the Commission should require member states to devise plans for the protection of their marine environment. That should be the starting point for the approach to fisheries. A member state, or part of a member state—as Scotland is, for the moment—should devise, control and manage its resources, in co-operation with other states, of course. We should manage stocks in co-operation with states around the North Sea and in the context of other appropriate zones. Currently, we are in a ridiculous situation in which Norway, which is not even a member of the EU, has more influence than Scotland has on EU fisheries management policy.
I understand that the phrase "exclusive competence" appears in a court judgment rather than in a treaty. I would be cautious about including the phrase in a treaty such as the draft reform treaty and thereby elevating it above its current status as case law, which is the interpretation of treaty law. I would not want to do anything that might prevent radical changes from being made to the CFP in due course.
What do Catherine Stihler and Ian Hudghton think about the review of the cod recovery plan? As you know, the plan has been operating for about three years, but there has been no recovery of cod stocks so far. The medicine that is prescribed seems simply to consist of tougher and tougher quotas, which are somehow supposed to lead to recovery of cod stocks.
Cod is not an iconic species in Scotland, where in many ways we are more interested in haddock. What methods could be adopted, apart from simple quota reductions? For example, could there be decoupling, to make it possible to fish for haddock without taking cod as a by-catch? I think that no decision will be made on the issue until about 2008. How much damage will be done to the Scottish fishing industry during the coming year?
We are all deeply concerned about the situation. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has again recommended closure. We have a mixed fishery, so if we have a good year for haddock—that is likely, as haddock stocks look very good—we face tough decisions.
Ian Hudghton might want to add to my comments, but Joe Borg told us recently that he is looking at what is happening. The fishing industry in Scotland is implementing a voluntary scheme, and we need to monitor that. We need innovative policies rather than draconian ones. However, if we want cod to recover, we have to take certain action. In the next few months, as we move towards the December fisheries council, we will have to watch the decisions that are made, but the commissioner is indicating that he is listening to us and I hope that he will take on board some of the measures that we have introduced.
Ian Hudghton's comments on Norway are interesting. The other side of the Norwegian example is what some people call facsimile democracy. When we make decisions in Brussels, a directive is faxed to Oslo and the Norwegians have to implement it without having had any say in the decisions that were made. I happen to serve on the Iceland, Norway and Switzerland delegation. Those countries are not members of the European Union. Last week, we had the Icelanders in Brussels. There is a debate about how we can change the common fisheries policy, and individual transferable quotas have been talked about. I think that members of the European and External Relations Committee have discussed that. It was interesting, in talking to the chair of the Icelandic delegation, to hear that going down that route benefits big industry while small-scale fishermen suffer. According to the chair of the delegation, small villages in Iceland are suffering.
It is good for the European Parliament to talk to those countries. Because Iceland has interest rates of 13 per cent at the moment, people are having an open discussion about membership of the European Union—that discussion is happening purely because of the euro. It is important for us to feed back to the committee some of the debates and discussions that we have. I hope that I answered Ted Brocklebank's question.
I think that you were trying to say that Norway does not have as much influence as has been suggested. However, Norway is involved in discussions in June, and the major carve-ups take place then, long before Britain becomes involved in the end-of-year talks in December.
Ted Brocklebank knows a lot about fishing, but I am talking about other issues as well, and the matter is not as clear-cut as he suggests. Many people say that the Norwegians, the Swiss and the Icelanders lose out by not having what could be positive membership of the European Union.
I am conscious that John Purvis might need to leave during our discussion. If he does, I thank him for his participation this morning.
I invite John Park to ask his question.
I do not know whether to talk to Catherine Stihler or the television, so I will talk to the centre of the room.
My question is for all three witnesses. We were in Brussels last week, as you know, and we met the Commission. A strong view came across from the civil servants whom we met in the Commission that the UK is a big player in Europe and that Scotland has a high profile through Scotland house in Brussels. Do you agree with that analysis? It is something that I had not appreciated before our visit to Brussels last week.
I will have to leave just before 12.30, but I am happy to answer that question.
Scotland house does an excellent job. Scotland has a high profile in Europe—its profile rates at least as highly as the profiles of Bavaria and Catalonia. Scotland has that profile as part of the United Kingdom; because the United Kingdom is one of the big countries in the Council of Ministers and has a large number of MEPs and so on, we punch way above what one might think would be our weight.
We rate highly in areas such as financial services and tax; fishing, which we heard about today; transport; and all sorts of other areas that relate to European matters. I think that John Park has the right picture.
I fully accept that Scotland has a high profile in the European Union, particularly since the formation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, and I know that the new Scottish Government will work to improve that profile. However, profile is one thing, but rights of access to decision making are what really count. That is why I would rather like Scotland, unlike Norway, to have a full voice in the European Union, so that we would not get rolled over year after year in our fisheries quota talks. Although the UK is a big player in a theoretical sense, it plays for its overall interests, of which fisheries is not one. It is as simple as that.
I disagree with Ian Hudghton's analysis of the situation. The fact that we have a devolved settlement in Scotland, whereby Scottish ministers can lead in council meetings—previous Scottish ministers have done so—allows us to have the best of both worlds. We are part of a large member state, but we can also lead on issues that are of great concern to us. The existence of Scotland house and, within it, Scotland Europa means that our profile is high. It helps Scotland to have the seven Scottish MEPs working together. As the committee can gather, we have different views on the common fisheries policy but, when we can, we work together. The same cannot be said of many other areas of the UK. When seven MEPs write to a commissioner, that commissioner has to take notice of what we are lobbying them on.
I am sorry, but I want to return to the reform treaty. Everyone agreed that there is virtually no difference between the reform treaty and the new constitution, as originally proposed, apart from Catherine Stihler. Although she did not agree with that view, she did not list any differences between the two documents when Alex Neil asked her to.
There is considerable disenchantment in the UK with Europe, a great deal of which is for what I would say are bad reasons—the Daily Mail-type reasons. However, some of the disenchantment is probably for better reasons. People regard Brussels as a huge bureaucracy that is getting involved in more and more instead of trying to do what it does more efficiently and better. If politicians who are seen as remote simply try to get the same result by a different method, the only result will be greatly increased disenchantment in the UK and Scotland with the EU and all its works.
In the work that we do in our committee areas, the seven Scottish MEPs try to put forward an agenda that will benefit our constituents. That is what being here today is about. Many people sometimes forget that we are seven democratically elected politicians. Our frustration is that the work that we do is often not heard about. That is why having the opportunity to come to the Parliament to talk about the work that we do in our committees is so important.
We have a challenge. When I was first elected in 1999, people were more positively European. There is now no debate at all about the euro, for example. Although 80 per cent of people in this country read Scotland-based press, not one journalist from that press is out in Brussels covering anything that we do. That situation is not all the fault of the media—Alasdair Morgan is right about some things—but when a positive piece of legislation that has been instigated at European level is implemented in Scotland, the fact that it was instigated at European level should be acknowledged. We hear only about the negatives, never the positives.
I will give an example of that. Last night, the European Court of Justice made a key ruling in the Microsoft case, which will benefit consumers throughout the world and will, I hope, lead to more innovation in that field. I do not think that any of the seven Scottish MEPs were asked to comment on the ruling; a press spokesperson in the European Commission was consulted instead. This morning there was another story on a European issue in the news and, again, the seven Scottish MEPs were not consulted. That is a real shame because we have something to say on such issues, on which many of our committees are working and on which we have a direct responsibility to our constituents. We have a job ahead of us, but working with the committee at events such as today's is important in allowing us to raise some of the issues that we feel are of mutual concern.
Convener, let me congratulate you on assuming your new responsibilities—give 'em hell.
Some dubiety has been expressed over whether the reform treaty is the constitution by any other name, and many scurrilous comments have been made about the role of this country's free press in reporting the matter. I should make it clear that I did not go to the Daily Mail or The Sun for this quotation; instead, I went to the fount of wisdom known as Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who said:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
Was he referring to the ratchet clause? If so, might that clause be used in the future—perhaps in the near future—with regard to the exploitation of energy supplies in Europe?
The comment that you quoted is an example of the arrogance that, as I said earlier, got the constitution into trouble in the first place. Monsieur Giscard d'Estaing sees the process as his legacy—for all I know, he wants it to be known as the Giscard treaty.
As I have said a number of times, we need to examine these matters very carefully and not leap to judgment on what we think will be in the treaty on the basis of the current draft. Instead, we should wait until everything has been agreed and then judge the treaty's impact on Scotland. In fact, I am sure that we in Europe, your committee and the Scottish Government will do that. If a ratchet clause or some other provision impinges on rights of exploitation with regard to energy in the way that the CFP impinges on rights of harvesting that resource, it will be a no-no.
But, with respect, the treaty is to be signed next month.
I understand that.
My understanding is that the reason why we have been debating the energy question is less to do with exploiting resources than with the fact that fears over what happened in the Ukraine suddenly focused minds on the issue of security of supply across the EU. I believe that, originally, the issue of energy was not supposed to be covered in discussions about the constitutional treaty—perhaps Ian Hudghton can clarify that matter—but, in light of the current situation, addressing the problem of security of supply has become more and more of an issue.
Do you wish to clarify anything, Mr Hudghton?
Not really. I have no doubt that some people would like to control Europe's indigenous energy resources in the same way that, at the moment, there is centralised control of, for example, fisheries. We simply have to guard against that. I hope—indeed, expect—any such matter to be a red-line issue for Scotland and, I hope, for the UK.
I am tempted to pursue the issue of the treaty, but I will leave that for tomorrow's debate.
I was struck by Catherine Stihler's comment about the Microsoft case. As important members of the press are present, I wonder whether the witnesses could give us their views on how we explain to people the importance of what happens in Europe. After all, the fact that people do not know about the role of Europe and its institutions in any detail is a major problem. What can we in the Scottish Parliament do, not necessarily to change people's opinions but to keep them informed about what is happening in Europe?
If Malcolm Chisholm went to any primary school in his constituency and talked to the primary 6 class, he would find that they do a five-week course on the European Union. Ian Hudghton, John Purvis, who had to leave, and the other Scottish MEPs have good experience of going on educational visits to help people understand a bit more about how Europe and the European Union works.
Promoting such understanding is a huge challenge. We must work together on it, because there is no easy solution. Part of that work should be to ensure that Europe is not regarded as being just about distant foreign affairs. Legislation that is made at European Union level impacts on people at local level. We need a way of being able to tell people about such legislation and to involve them in decision making. We must also ensure that they have a greater understanding of the European Union.
Few people, for example, understand that the European Union is not one institution but four institutions, which work together in a specific way. It may be argued that it takes a lot longer to work in such a way, but getting 27 countries to agree to one set of rules is better than having 27 separate sets of rules, which would have an adverse impact on jobs in Scotland, for example.
We all have a job to do in promoting understanding of the European Union. The seven Scottish MEPs use their websites, speak in the European Parliament chamber—the hemicycle—and come here, but we still have a job of work ahead of us in grasping how to communicate better and bring European issues to life for people. In that context, I look forward to working with Malcolm Chisholm in his new role.
Likewise, I make visits to schools, colleges and whatever. I will put in a plug for a little book on how the EU works, called "Simply…The EU…a guide for the bewildered", which I helped to publish in a special run. I am not for a minute suggesting that anyone in this audience is bewildered, but it can be difficult to understand the EU's complicated processes, particularly when the guidebook, if you like, is the hotch-potch of treaties that we have been talking about reforming for most of this session.
A combined effort is required on education about Europe. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament information centre has prepared a useful briefing on how decisions are made in Europe, which should perhaps be disseminated more widely.
What input have the witnesses made to the shaping of the Scottish Government's EU priorities, which we are about to discuss with the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, Linda Fabiani? Are you having an on-going, structured dialogue with the Government, or is it more ad hoc than that?
These are relatively early days for the new Government, but I have met Linda Fabiani and colleagues a number of times over recent weeks and months. I hope that this session will help to inform that process in a public way. I am sure that we are all feeding our ideas to the Government in the hope that we can help form the Government line that the committee is about to discuss.
Is it correct that 20 of the current Government's priorities were priorities of the previous Government and that only one dossier is different?
And it is not dodgy.
I said "different". There seems to be a remarkably consistent line between the previous Executive and the current Government.
Many things that happen in Europe take two or three years—or longer—to work through the system, so it is likely that there will be overlap between Governments. However, I have no doubt that the minister will be well able to explain and promote the Government's programme. I look forward to listening in to that exchange.
Indeed. Thank you.
Do you have any final comments, Catherine?
On the issue to which you referred, it was unfortunate that, when the First Minister made his first visit to Brussels, we were meeting in Strasbourg, though I understand the timetable for that. It was also unfortunate that Commissioner Borg was used as a political football for the fishing issues. I personally apologised to him last week at the most recent meeting of the Committee on Fisheries in the European Parliament. The commissioner being put in the position that the First Minister put him in does not help anybody; I hope that, in the future, we will give the commissioner respect so that we can deliver the best results that we can, particularly in fishing, for the citizens of Scotland.
These are early days for the Executive. We have not yet had any formal meetings of the seven Scottish MEPs, but I am sure that we will have such meetings in the future.
I apologise for overrunning, but such is the evident interest in having a dialogue with our colleagues in Europe that I am sure that what we have done today will be repeated.
I thank Catherine Stihler and Ian Hudghton, and also John Purvis, who had to leave us. I appreciate how busy you all are. I hope that somebody sitting in this seat—even if it is not me—will continue the dialogue with you.
I suspend the meeting to allow the videolink equipment to be removed.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—