European Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 7, 2002

Official Report 258KB pdf

---

Enlargement

Item 3 is the Executive's response to the enlargement report. The negotiations with the accession countries are reaching a crucial stage and I understand that if negotiations are to be completed by the end of 2002, a considerable amount of work is still to be done. The chapters on regional and agricultural policy, which account for about 80 per cent of the budget, are still to be completed. The Commission is preparing responses to some of the issues that have been raised.

I invite Ben Wallace to comment on the Executive's response, which was generally helpful and positive.

I read the Executive's response a number of times. The only outstanding matter is that the Executive said that its access to the United Kingdom Government would allow it to be involved in the enlargement process, but there seems to be no notion that the Executive should be responsible for doing more. For example, the Executive could consult with candidate countries and their business sectors about the enlargement process.

Paragraph 99 of the Executive's response, under the heading, "Domestic Reform", states:

"The Executive has not encountered problems in obtaining information."

That might be so, but many other people have had such problems. I feel that there is still something lacking. The Executive's job is to find out what people are worried or happy about and to provide input on that.

I regard the Executive's response as part of a work in progress, because enlargement will continue to be a big issue for the committee. The more we do to build alliances, benefit our businesses and build on trade links, the better. The committee should have a developing perspective on enlargement.

I agree. Our discussion on the following agenda item could show how the committee could play a role in the enlargement debate, which would perhaps plug the gap that Ben Wallace identified.

I picked up from the Executive's good response a point that John Home Robertson mentioned earlier, which is that the CAP is fundamental to regional policy. We should log that point and return to it when we return to our report.

That point about the CAP cannot be over-emphasised. The Scottish Executive spends, nominally, more than £300 million a year of European money to support the rural economy. Any analysis would demonstrate that that CAP spending is an inefficient way of supporting the rural economy and any analysis needs to address that point.

Sarah Boyack made a point earlier about state-aid rules. Our report recommended that the Executive should promote direct transport links to the candidate countries. The Executive's response is that that is a matter for the private market and that we could get into difficulties with state aid. That is only partly true, but there are probably few people in Europe who understand the intricacies of state aid. That point brings us back to the new structural funding.

Perhaps the matter is also about moving away from price supporting mechanisms towards rural development mechanisms which, I gather, are pillar 1 and pillar 2. I was surprised that the Executive did not state that it would prefer money to move away from price support towards rural development, which would be a positive move.

I, too, welcome the Executive's response, but I have two or three points to make. My first point is about paragraph 99. The committee asked for further investigation of practices and processes throughout the EU. I am a bit disappointed that the Executive's response did not say more about that particular point. I do not know whether members agree with my feeling.

My second point concerns paragraph 101 of the Executive's response. I thought that the European members information liaison exchange network currently met twice a year. The Executive states that it wants EMILE to meet regularly. I thought that the committee was asking for the situation to be enhanced by having EMILE meet more regularly than twice a year. I do not know whether that is a fair reflection of members' views.

My final point—I have a couple of others, but they are not as important—is about paragraph 102, on the development of the Scottish international forum. The Executive refers only to building relationships with different consulates. How are the committee, the Parliament and the Scottish Executive addressing that issue? Some of us meet consulates informally, but we need to think about what we do as a committee. That is not the Executive's responsibility—we are accountable for ourselves and can organise that internally.

I thank Helen Eadie for those comments. I do not know whether Ben Wallace wants to respond to them. I met the Scottish Council for Development and Industry last week, to which Ben Wallace spoke about his report. I emphasised the committee's continuing involvement in the enlargement process. I am keen to find out how Sachsen-Anhalt developed business links with Estonia through its Parliament. We could explore such regional partnerships.

I agree.

I would like to give a commercial for places on the European Movement's all-party visit to Estonia. Does anyone want to go? The one-week visit will cost about £700.

I thought that the visit was free. I was just about to say that I would go.

It is an educational visit.

Consider the trip well and truly advertised.