European Committee, 08 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 8, 2000

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Reporters

The first item on our agenda is the terms of reference for reporters. We have agreed our work programme for the next 18 months and the procedures by which our committee reporters shall work. That allows us to bring forward proposals on the terms of reference for reporters' work. Unfortunately for her, Sylvia Jackson is the guinea pig for this process. She has produced a detailed remit and proposal for our consideration on the sixth environmental action programme. Sylvia, would you like to speak to your paper?

Yes, most willingly. First, I wish to thank Stephen Imrie, because he worked closely with me and did a lot of the work.

The first part of the paper provides the background to the key issues. It gives the historical context for the involvement of the European Community in the area of sustainability. Paragraph 4 states one of the important points, which is the

"recognition that environmental legislation in itself is not sufficient to improve the environment. Development in other policy areas create their own environmental pressures".

Page 2 develops the argument that we need to look at mainstreaming and asks how other policy areas can take account of sustainability. I am investigating a number of business organisations to see how that is being dealt with. They are not mentioned in the document, but reports will be included later—those reports are rather negative about how much various industries are taking sustainability on board.

One could spend a lifetime working on this subject, so we have focused on specific topics. I thank Stephen for suggesting that we examine the debate that is taking place on the European Commission's sixth environmental action programme. We should consider how we can input into that programme and how we can increase awareness of sustainability in the areas of development in which this Parliament is involved.

The third last paragraph on page 2 highlights some of the main issues. They are

"the provision of information on environmental issues"—

that is, awareness building—

"to help the public and other stakeholders understand and contribute to the debate".

There is "the question of implementation" in Scotland

"and how well legislation and/or measures are progressing".

Finally, there are

"new emerging concerns such as chemicals, GMOs, degradation"

and so on, which will be new subjects on the agenda.

Keeping pace with European legislation will be important. I thank Stephen and the Executive secretariat, because they are highlighting the documents that will be important to keep me and those who are involved with sustainability well informed. Page 4 of the document lists the organisations that will be consulted. The Scottish Parliament information centre will do some initial research in this area. As I say, there are a lot of other documents that we would like to look at before we start. Obviously, the Scottish Executive will be another important starting point. That is all that I wish to say at the moment.

Thank you, Sylvia. This is a comprehensive and exceptionally good paper to start us off. I open up discussion to members of the committee.

I have a number of questions, two of which are on definitions. In your paper, you talk about the anguish over the definition of sustainable development. You also use the phrase "environmentally friendly". Do you intend to define sustainable development and to give its parameters? Your paper is good but, unless we set the boundaries on what is meant by sustainable development and environmentally friendly, we may not be sufficiently focused.

The definition of sustainability that is most widely accepted covers its three aspects—the environmental, the economic and the social. We are focusing on the environmental action programme, whose key emphasis is to link the environmental aspect to the other two aspects. That is why mainstreaming is an especially important part of the exercise. Is that helpful?

I am sure that you understand my concern, but I accept your definition.

I would like to ask the convener for some guidance. The sixth European environmental action plan is forecast to go on for a number of years. It will cover the enlargement of the European Union. There is concern within the EU that the new countries will not be able to keep pace with the environmental requirements of the action plan. I will consider the impact of enlargement in my project; will you be considering whether the action plan is sustainable in Scotland and in those other countries?

That is an extremely important issue and your point is well made, Ben. Sylvia will have to consider it and keep in contact with you and whoever works with you. Similarly, when you consider enlargement, Ben, you will have to address sustainability. However, even if there were no enlargement, the focus of the programme deserves our attention, and clearly Sylvia will concentrate on that.

As I understand it, the sixth environmental action programme will be about not only vision, but action on the ground. However, it will not be implemented overnight. Enlargement simply makes it a bigger picture, if you see what I mean. Applying the suggestions in the environmental plan will be for the longer term.

I am concerned about the overlap. The sixth environmental action plan talks about the long term as well. We have to tie in the action plan with the enlargement, both of which are long term.

I agree. I should add that Tavish Scott and I will also be liaising because of the agricultural aspect of many of the environmental projects. I am sorry that I did not mention that, Tavish.

Although it is right, as Sylvia has suggested, to have "the vision thing", it is crucial that we do not make the projects that we allocate to individuals into academic exercises. They must be practical. At the end of the time allotted, we must be able to show that we have produced a body of work that has direct relevance to people in Scotland. Hugh said right at the beginning of this committee's work that it was important that we were able to show why Europe mattered and why we were involved in it. At the end of Sylvia's work, it will be essential that we can produce practical outputs.

I agree with Tavish 100 per cent. I have been visiting manufacturing plants in my area over the past few weeks. They are facing particular difficulties. They are not unwilling to comply with European environmental regulations, but there is a problem with time scales. I would be happy if Sylvia's report could consider the practical issues in relation to time scales, and I would be happy to speak to her and to Tavish about some of the problems that I have come across in my area.

I hope that each of the reporters—especially when they are working with others—will arrange specific meetings and visits on behalf of the committee. Rather than sending the committee out to different parts of Scotland for no apparent reason, we must have a focus and a reason for convening a meeting. On the issue of sustainability, I hope that Sylvia and one or two others can, on behalf of the committee, arrange to meet interested organisations and sectors in other parts of Scotland, so that we can bring aspects of our work together.

There is a list of organisations that should be consulted about which economic sectors will be affected. The list could be longer—my experience on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee tells me that, in addition to the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) and the Federation of Small Businesses, it might be appropriate to consult the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The issue of sustainable development does not often appear on the bargaining agenda, and that should be addressed by both partners in the various economic sectors that would be affected.

That is a good point, Allan. The same point would also apply to the voluntary sector, in which many organisations may be affected.

Are we agreed that what Sylvia is proposing has the right focus and helps the committee to proceed with its work? Have we given Sylvia a proper steer to take the work out beyond the committee? Do we accept the paper as it stands?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Sylvia, for an excellent piece of work.