Scottish Executive Priorities (Irish Presidency)
I welcome everyone to the European and External Relations Committee's fourth meeting in 2004. We have received apologies from Margaret Ewing MSP, but I am not aware that anyone else has sent apologies. I welcome Andrew Welsh, who is a visiting MSP to the committee.
For the first agenda item, I am delighted to welcome back to the committee Andy Kerr, the minister with responsibility for Europe and external relations. We have a full house today, so he is clearly very popular. We will hear from the minister on the Scottish Executive's priorities for the Irish presidency of the European Union—the Irish presidency began at the start of this year and continues until June. Later, we will have an opportunity to question the minister on the Scottish Executive's recently published European strategy.
Let me mention the format of today's meeting. The minister has asked to give us a presentation, which I understand will cover both the issues that I have mentioned. We will then ask questions first on the Executive's priorities for the Irish presidency and, separately, on the European strategy. Without further ado, I invite the minister to speak. Perhaps he will introduce his colleagues.
Tim Simons and Alastair Wilson are with me to provide assistance where appropriate on the detail.
I thank the convener for his welcome. It is good to be back before the committee. I thought that it would be useful to give a presentation because, at the outset, I was concerned at some of the comments that I had read about the Executive's strategy. I thought that one of the best ways of dealing with that would be to cover both the strategy and the priorities for the Irish presidency. The reason for my concern—and I am happy to go into the matter in detail if the committee wishes—is that there was a bit of a misunderstanding among committee members. I thought that some of the comments by committee members were unfair, shallow and glib—they did not reflect at all well on the committee.
I am happy to receive criticism on the Executive's strategy, but for the document to be maligned in such a manner was unfortunate, particularly considering the fairly positive response that it received from, for instance, the consuls in Scotland, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and FCO postings abroad. The document's clarity of purpose was warmly welcomed.
Given the difficulties that might arise in this four-year session of the Parliament, with the six-monthly change of presidencies, European elections and other events, and an agenda that we need to follow here in Scotland, the committee's consideration of the document did not give due regard to the work that went into it. We may get on to some of that.
That was a bit of 360º appraisal. If the committee is quite happy to give us criticism and comment, I take it that the committee will take it in good spirit if I give it back when I think it appropriate to do so.
As somebody who has worked with strategy in my public and private sector lives in the past, I thought it was important to say what we are trying to achieve. We were not trying to produce the mountains of papers that could have gone with such a document, nor were we trying to take a light-touch approach. We produced a plan and formulation that gave some details on the methods by which we seek to achieve our objectives. We clearly, strategically and unambiguously laid out what we will do, whom we will work with, how we will work and when we will do things. That provides the committee with the opportunity to monitor the Executive's performance as keenly as I want to monitor it, because European matters go across the whole Executive and beyond and, as the minister with responsibility, I need to ensure that we are getting the full benefit of our engagement in Europe.
We could have produced a longer document and we could have produced a shorter document. I note that committee members suggested both, which would be difficult to achieve. Perhaps it is a measure of our success that some people have said that we should have provided more detail, whereas others have said that we should have provided less. Ten strategic pages on thinking and delivery was probably about right. I am sure that that will be a focus of the discussions that we are about to have.
Although I am happy to take cognisance of some of the views that are represented around the table, let us recognise that this is the first time that we have produced such a strategy. We should also acknowledge that the strategy is not just for the EU, but for Europe, albeit that the vast majority of the work and the drivers of policy are within the EU.
The strategy is to last for the second session of the Parliament. It comes out of a fairly detailed piece of work that was undertaken by the First Minister and the ad hoc ministerial group on European strategy. It seeks to project forward some of the big issues that Scotland and Europe face and our need to ensure that our views are known and understood. As we work through the intergovernmental conference process, the First Minister's chairmanship of the group of regions with legislative power and other matters, the document will be an important piece of work for us. As I have said, there has been some positive feedback.
We ensured that the document was given to those who should have it—our partners in Whitehall, the Commission, the European Parliament, the European members information and liaison exchange and other bodies. I took time to mention the consular corps, the FCO and so on. We have done a fair bit of work and I will try to get out of today's meeting an increased recognition of that.
Some members' thoughts were dominated by how we issued the strategy. We launched the strategy on 20 January through a parliamentary question. It was sent to the committee in an appropriate way. We chose not to make a big song and dance about it because all that we have done in those 10 pages is to bring together our thinking. It is not as though what is in the document is anything new; it is a crystallisation of the mechanisms and the targets and objectives that we have set ourselves in the key policy, as outlined at the start of the document. To launch the document amid a big song and dance would have led to criticism, with people saying, "What is new in the document?" To be blunt, not much is new in the document; it is a statement of what we seek to achieve. It is a route map to 2007, particularly for the second session of Parliament, to ensure that we achieve some of our objectives. That is why the decision was taken to produce the document in the manner that we did. That is effective government.
It was useful to have the consuls at Victoria Quay, to present the document to them and to talk with them over a cup of tea following the meeting. That gave us a chance to engage directly with the consuls, who were appreciative of a document that provides clarity and allows them to report back to their nations about our strategy. They warmly welcomed the document. That puts into context how we took the document forward.
What are the goals? The document seeks to ensure that people understand that we have two overarching strategic goals, with which the committee is familiar. We want
"to position Scotland as one of the leading legislative regions"
and to ensure that we effectively influence our partners, such as the United Kingdom Government, other member states and other institutions, on policy issues that affect Scotland. The strategy is about setting out our objectives, how we will deliver them, whom we will work with and how we measure our success or otherwise in relation to our targets. That is a useful way of setting out what we seek to do.
We are not coming to this from a standing start. We are recognised in Europe as one of the major legislative regions in Europe and I think that we are punching above our weight. That is measured in many different ways, but clearly the First Minister's presidency of Regleg is important. We are also leading through our relationships with Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, Catalonia and other nations with which we work closely. We want to build on those relationships and to develop them further. The document sets out some of that work.
The second goal is about bringing effective influence to bear on policy issues that affect Scotland. We are already doing that at the table in relation to the common agricultural policy reform package and the bathing water directive. We have focused on and targeted priority areas of work, on which we have delivered for Scotland. We want to become better at that, which is why we set out in the document the key areas that we see as being important to us.
The partnership agreement has an impact on our priorities and on what we seek to do. We want to ensure that the EU issues that the committee is concerned about and that we are concerned about, such as agriculture, fisheries, structural funds and the environment, clearly relate to the number 1 priority of the Executive—a shared priority of all of us who sit around the table—which is to grow Scotland's economy. That is central to many things that are going on in Europe, not least the Lisbon agenda. We want to ensure that our policy in Europe reflects the partnership agreement and the focus on economic growth. We must bring all those issues together in that context.
We must focus on the priorities and the mechanisms that exist to deliver them. We considered the different ways in which we could influence the EU process to achieve our goals and we grouped them into the areas of working with Brussels and Europe, working with the UK and working within Scotland.
The strategy is about the targets, priorities and levers that are available to us to ensure that we deliver. We have already had positive feedback from some of the consuls and FCO officials on postings abroad about how effective the policy has been in setting out a clear strategy for Scotland. We have set out what we see as our areas of focus so that those who work with us will understand our desire to make the best possible impact in relation to our priorities and to influence the outcome of some of the very detailed discussions.
I will move on swiftly, because I know that committee members want to ask questions.
Hear, hear.
Thank you, Keith. If you want, I will quote some of your comments about our strategy, which I think were extremely unhelpful.
Like me, the committee has heard from the Irish ambassador about the main priorities of the Irish presidency, so it is aware of what he has to say. The main priority is the IGC and what Ireland expects to do at that.
We are working to influence UK policy for the IGC. I will attend the meeting on 18 March of the joint ministerial committee on Europe to ensure that we continue to seek to influence the positive progress that has been made, starting with the Hain agenda, on the role of legislative regions in Europe. Enlargement is another critical matter and I am sure that that will be reflected in questions from the committee. The Lisbon agenda and the justice and home affairs agenda are other important issues.
Of great interest to us all are the international aspects of the global engagement that the Irish have focused on by taking forward work around the world and in particular in the middle east and Croatia. The Irish ambassador said interesting things about that.
Where does all that fit into the strategy? We need to focus on our areas of work, because we have limited resources—that is recognised. We must use our skills and the tools that are available to us as effectively as we can. As usual, we have considered the presidency's agenda. Each minister has provided committee members with a copy of their individual priorities and I understand that several ministers are following a process with relevant subject committees to ensure that the committees engage more fully. The strategy document is fairly lengthy, but it covers key and critical issues, such as structural funds, fisheries, justice and home affairs, the IGC and Scotland's expanding role.
The document sets out where we are going. The conclusion is that the strategy will be useful to the committee's ability to measure, monitor and influence what the Executive seeks to do. The document is comprehensive and clear. It will allow the committee to monitor progress and measure our success or otherwise at future presentations and discussions against a set of indicators. We are determined to work with the committee to ensure that we proceed in that way. I am happy to answer questions.
I remind committee members that although that presentation related to two agenda items, we will take questions first on the Executive's priorities for the Irish presidency, after which we will start from scratch with questions on the Executive's strategy document. I invite questions on the EU presidency.
The biggest single event in the Irish presidency will be enlargement on 1 May. Of course, that is not a one-off event; it will have implications for a long time afterwards. Your documents mention the fresh talent initiative, on which enlargement has a bearing, as Scotland is one of the few countries in Europe, if not the only one, with a declining population. You and other ministers have also referred to the skills gap in some sectors. What are the implications of yesterday's statement by the Home Secretary for the Executive's fresh talent initiative, particularly during the Irish presidency, when enlargement will take place?
I must be fairly cautious, because as Dennis Canavan is probably aware, the First Minister will make a substantial statement about the fresh talent initiative tomorrow. Given due parliamentary process, I do not want to take away from what the First Minister will do tomorrow.
Our agenda concerns what we are doing in Scotland. We have had positive partnership working with the Home Office on issues such as the attraction of skilled labour and the retention of students who study in Scotland. Tomorrow, the First Minister will point out that what the Home Secretary said will not affect our agenda or how we seek to work to attract fresh talent to Scotland. The work that we are doing on the relocation service, on retaining students and on attracting skilled workers to Scotland will not be interrupted by what the Home Secretary announced yesterday.
Yes, but will there not be some negative impact? Let us suppose that a worker from Poland or the Czech Republic gets a job in Scotland but that, like many jobs these days, in the construction industry, for example, their position is temporary. Perhaps that worker finds that their job is terminated after a few months. It will take time before that worker finds another job. If the worker is to receive no welfare payments and is to be threatened with deportation or enforced repatriation, that will not do much good for the fresh talent initiative, will it? If workers from the new EU member states feel that that is the kind of welcome that they will get, that might discourage them from coming.
I think that you need to have a more strategic view of what we are seeking to do with the fresh talent initiative and of what the Home Secretary was trying to say in his recent statement, which was about a measured approach to the incoming of skills to the United Kingdom—and indeed to Scotland. A balance must be struck between the scenario that you present and what we are seeking to do, which is, through the work of consuls and the FCO abroad and the use of a relocation advisory service, to provide a focus on individuals. That should ensure that, on coming to Scotland, workers are provided with assistance and are able to do not just the sort of jobs that you are talking about, but those jobs that demand more specialised skills and talents, which we are looking for here in Scotland.
The scenario that you depict could happen, but I would argue that the fresh talent initiative goes much deeper than that, with the orderly migration and retention of talent in Scotland in relation to those who are over here studying. I do not dispute the scenario that you present, but I would not say that it represents the focus of the fresh talent initiative; the initiative's focus is very much at the higher end of the skilled migrant population.
Will the Executive please pursue those matters with the Home Office, bearing in mind the different demographic situation in Scotland and the need to attract workers, particularly skilled workers, to Scotland?
I very much take that point. When you hear from the First Minister tomorrow, you will find that there has been some close working, which has given rise to some positive outcomes. That does not mean to say that the agenda does not continue, however.
Do you agree, minister, that the fresh talent initiative presents opportunities to promote interregional partnerships and that the exercise is not just one way? It occurs to me that, with the shortage of language teachers and so on, there might be opportunities to fast-track people through the fresh talent initiative—through the teacher training system and into our schools—and to promote interregional development with regions in eastern Europe. With Poland as one of the big players in the EU now—not to mention in 20 years' time, given its economy's capacity to develop—there will be huge opportunities to develop the learning in Scotland of languages such as Polish and Slovak.
Perhaps we could tap into the fresh talent initiative not just as a one-way process, but in order to develop such partnerships and to link up with communities in Scotland. We have Polish and other communities in Scotland and, given the range of opportunities that could be opened up, it would be interesting to consider over the months ahead how we could further develop and link in with the First Minister's initiative.
It also occurs to me that the European Commission is considering the possibility of setting up an institute for language learning somewhere in Europe. I think that the Irish are quite keen to get in on that. I have lodged questions on the subject and I would like to put down a marker, or a bid, in relation to that if there is an opportunity to use the fresh talent initiative to link into some of those other ideas in looking to the Europe of the future.
I will add a couple of points to that. The fresh talent initiative is characterised by the incoming of people and their staying in Scotland. There is much scope for exchanges, secondments and skill development, which, crucially, can be taken back to the various nation states. The point is not to take the required skills, in particular of the accession states, which will undergo radical transformation over the next 10 years—we do not want to take skilled people out of their own nations. What we can do is share experiences, by setting up exchanges and secondments; we can bring people to Scotland to work here for a few years, so that they can go home with a higher level of skills than that with which they arrived and use their experience to bring more folk back to Scotland. The initiative is about that mixture. The media's presentation of the matter is all well and good, but, to be fair, there is a much deeper aspect to fresh talent. The example that Irene Oldfather gave about teaching was an appropriate one.
I understand that the Polish ambassador to the UK said on Radio 4 last night that the UK's proposals were discriminatory. That is something that we might explore tomorrow when the statement is made in the chamber.
Indeed.
The issue relates to enlargement and I note that, in your paper on ministers' EU policy priorities, you say:
"The Executive will also participate in the UK-wide public diplomacy campaign to mark EU enlargement".
Will you disclose any details of that campaign and what you expect your involvement to be? Given that there are only four months to go before enlargement, I am a bit concerned about that.
We have not yet finally nailed down our approach. As I think Dennis Canavan said, enlargement is not only an event, but a process. We are working with partners to ensure that there are a couple of events, in particular around the cultural and business side. I apologise for not being able to give you the level of detail that you might want, but it should not be too long before those events are signed off and the details come out—they involve funding arrangements in partnership with, for example, the City of Edinburgh Council and others to ensure that the events happen. On the business side, we will also support a learning event with business about research and development in particular—I could not remember the name of the event but I am being told that it is called crossroads for ideas. I will finalise all that quickly and give the details to the committee as soon as I can.
The committee has noted that there is keen interest in Scotland's role in enlargement and in marking that event.
I apologise for asking a question—it might not be appropriate—but is the committee planning activities around that?
Yes, we are considering some smaller-scale events, perhaps with the consular corps or other groups.
I have three separate points for you, minister. First, I take no exception to your criticism—if I was included in it. I do not think that I would be doing my job if I was not being criticised by ministers.
In your opening remarks in the paper on the priorities for the Irish presidency, you establish that more than 75 per cent of the work load that is now carried out by the Executive and the Parliament is, in effect, controlled by Brussels and Strasbourg. One of the objectives of the presidency is to sign up to the new constitution. If that happens, by how much will that percentage rise? Will about 95 per cent of our work be dominated by things from Europe? If so, will that not, to some extent, turn the Scottish Parliament into a glorified council of implementers rather than initiators?
With due respect, Phil, your language gives the game away a wee bit. You talk about being "controlled" by Europe and about "things from Europe". We are Europe and the UK's influence in Europe is fairly significant—Europe is not coming towards us across the North sea in a boat. The Parliament and the Executive, working in partnership with the UK Government, are seeking to address some agendas that you would sign up to, such as the Lisbon agenda, which seeks to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by 2010, in terms of research and development, exchange of information, broadband and all of that. The Lisbon agenda can also bring physical infrastructure links to us.
I have not sought to calculate by how much Europe's influence on the Executive's policy discussions might increase. I will try to give some thought to that, but I cannot give you a figure off the top of my head.
Okay, thank you. I think that a lot of people would be surprised that the current figure is 75 per cent. I will talk about Lisbon later, if I can catch the convener's eye when we consider the strategy document.
Given Mr Blair's red lines and the fact that the Irish presidency suggested that we are back at square one and that agreements that were signed up to must be re-examined, does the Scottish Executive have any red lines? If so, what consultation has the Executive had with the UK Government about them?
Through working with the UK Government, we strenuously seek to ensure that there is no roll-back on the role of legislative regions in Europe. There has been a significant step forward in how Europe will work with and consult legislative bodies outside nation state Governments. Bluntly, our focus is to ensure that there is no diminution of the Hain approach—as it has been characterised—and that we develop that agenda, if we can. If there is a Scottish red line, it is to ensure that we do not lose the gains that the negotiating process has made so far. To be fair, the UK Government is fully supportive of the gains.
Finally, the Irish presidency's objective is to ensure that energy is in constant supply across Europe; it uses the phrase "security of supply." Can the minister give me guidance on the Scottish Executive's targets of having renewables established at 18 per cent by 2010 and 40 per cent by 2020? What thought has been given to the proportions of wind, wave, water and solar power in the make-up of the renewables targets? I recognise that it might be difficult for him to pick up on that question immediately, but I am more than happy for him to write to me on the issue and provide details along the lines that I indicated.
My other two points are, first, has the minister had any contact with either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland regarding the use of the interconnectors there? Secondly, has there been any contact with the wider UK and France on the interconnector with France?
I will have to come back to Mr Gallie on the details that he has requested.
That would be appreciated.
I heard Jim Wallace say on television that we would achieve the 40 per cent figure in the agreed time scale, so it must be true.
Even the minister's own party members are laughing at that one.
I remind members that if they keep their questions concise at this point, I will let them back in later. Members do not have to ask three or four questions at once.
Minister, taking up your challenge for constructive criticism, I want to return to the point about the accession countries. I have a list of five issues to do with our relations with the accession countries, two of which we have covered. The first is immigration. I agree with you that we do not want to drain the accession countries' best people—that is an important point.
The second issue is training. The document on the presidency's priorities refers to the Scottish police, the Northern Ireland police and the Latvian police. Can you give one or two other examples of training exchanges, which is an important issue?
The third issue is educational exchanges. If I have a criticism of the strategy document and the document on the presidency's priorities—which overlap—it is that they refer to educational exchanges but do not give examples or indicate the amount of money that is available. It is important that such exchanges happen on three levels: higher education, further education and secondary education.
The fourth issue is infrastructure projects. I think that I mentioned previously that when I was in Lithuania in September the ambassador said that there would be €43 billion-worth of infrastructure projects there over the next three years. Clearly, one way of getting back the structural funds that we are about to lose, so to speak, is by tendering for rail and infrastructure projects.
The fifth and final issue is trade. I am aware, of course, that three trade delegations are going out this year to Poland, the Czech Republic and Latvia and Lithuania jointly.
I would be interested to know whether you think that there are any other issues. Perhaps you can flesh out one or two of the points that I raised, particularly the one on educational exchanges.
We are involved in an education programme—I apologise for not having the name of it on the tip of my tongue—which we are supporting fully and which is part of a Europe-wide strategy. On the questions that you raised, I will get you more detail on the education strategy from the appropriate ministers.
On the exchange of ideas, we have been in the Czech Republic sharing our experience of and expertise in working with structural funds. We are working elsewhere in Europe on a similar basis to ensure that the lessons that we have learned and the transferable skills that we have in Scotland are used effectively in the accession states. On economic growth and enlargement, we have been working, and are continuing to work, throughout the accession states on supporting individual businesses through the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and Scottish Development International. We work through the forum that we have in Scotland, which highlights through business interests what is going on throughout Europe and the work that we are doing to support that.
There are many individual success stories that are not reliant on Government but are a result of companies recognising good business opportunities. There are good examples of that in Poland and the Czech Republic, where we have been involved. It is sobering to note—these are only today's figures—that 4.5 per cent of Europe's gross domestic product rests with the 10 accession countries. It is clear that that figure will grow. On relative focus, we need to ensure that we use our resources effectively. That is not to say that we are not interested, because we are—I have met a number of ministerial teams from the accession states in their different shapes and guises—but we need to consider the context of where we are in Scotland and with whom we are working and trading to ensure that we continue to do the good work that we are doing just now as well as develop relationships with the accession countries.
Perhaps you could let me have a note of detailed examples of training and educational exchanges.
I do not know whether you have read Tom Devine's book, "The Scottish Nation 1700-2000", but there are five pages in it under the sub-heading "Lithuanians". I was completely ignorant of our long-standing links with Lithuania. There was a Lithuanian school in Glasgow and some of our population are of Lithuanian descent—such as some rather distinguished members of the Tory party. The situation is similar with Poland. In and around Perth there is a big Polish community that dates back to before the war. We have strong historical links and we should be making the most of them. They are an advantage that we have over others.
Yes, indeed. We are trying to do that.
On your previous point, I now have the names that I was looking for. The programmes that we are involved in are: Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Tempus. I take your point and I am happy to correspond with you in greater detail.
I was going to ask about Socrates, but perhaps you will come back to me on it.
Two directives relate particularly to immigration and the exchange of skills: the directive on the internal market and services, which is mentioned in your document on priorities for the presidency; and the directive on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Both relate to the issues that we have been discussing, such as fresh talent and skills. We do not want to drain skills. How do you see those directives impacting on our relationships with the accession countries?
We are talking about valid Europe-wide initiatives that allow individual nations to respect and understand one another's systems of accreditation of learning. I do not think that they will have a particular impact on our relationship with the accession states. They will allow skills to be transferred easily between nations, which is very valuable. On the tricky issue of medical qualifications, which has been prominent in discussions, and civil engineering qualifications, if the directives progress in the way that they should, having something on which to base an understanding of the interrelationship of qualifications and benchmarks across Europe will help the process. For example, that would help someone from an accession state to get to a higher level in Scotland and transfer the skill back to their home nation. That will be a valuable and positive step forward.
It will make the training initiatives between countries easier and perhaps more substantial.
If the minister could copy his letter to members or to the clerks, that would be helpful.
We will probably write to you; that way, the letter will go to everybody.
I return to the fresh talent initiative in the context of the Irish presidency and beyond. As the minister and all members know, there are many parts of Scotland—including my constituency—that are, sadly, synonymous with emigration. The fresh talent initiative will apply to all parts of Scotland. I hope that the minister and his colleagues will reflect on the work of the UHI, which is already attracting students from across current EU borders and beyond.
I do not expect the minister to give me a definitive response today, but in realising the aspiration of giving greater impetus to attracting undergraduates to the likes of the UHI, would it be appropriate for the letters of guidance to discuss with the funding councils the way in which funds are deployed? Could they say that what the new emerging collegiate university in the Highlands currently does should also be a part of what the universities in central Scotland do? That would help to acknowledge the way in which the community that I belong to was shaped, informed and developed by the presence of Italian families for the past 60 years and Asian families for the past 80 years. The UHI could play a pivotal role along with Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
There are huge opportunities. The Executive's broadband strategy and green strategy will assist with that process.
The UHI is being proactive about the undoubted quality of life in Scotland. That is a part of the fresh talent initiative that we have not mentioned—how we sell Scotland and make sure that people who come to Scotland have a positive experience and understand and can appreciate the quality of life that they and their families can have here. All those points neatly dovetail into the issues that members are raising with me.
On the funding councils, I am more than happy to take up that issue separately with the appropriate minister.
I refer the minister to the proposal for a regulation on public service requirements and the award of public service contracts for passenger transport. Apart from the Glasgow underground, how will that proposal affect Scotland? What is the Executive's attitude towards it?
With respect, that is a very specific question about transport that I would rather relay to the Minister for Transport to deal with directly. I would not want to mislead the member in any way. I have a broad, not detailed, understanding of such issues. I appreciate that that is not the answer that Mr Welsh is looking for but I am happy to make sure that the appropriate minister responds.
If you could do that, I will make sure that Andrew Welsh gets a copy of the response.
I apologise if that question was too specific and I look forward to reading the answer.
European transport systems are highly developed, integrated, fast and economical. Scotland's problem is getting to them. What proposals does the Executive have to improve Scotland's transport links—both existing and proposed—with the European network? That is crucial to our industry and I hope that it will be a priority during the Irish presidency.
The Lisbon agenda also acknowledges weaknesses in the infrastructure in Europe and seeks to address some of them. We put resources into supporting air services, for example, and ferry services receive substantial support from the Executive—the ferry service from Rosyth, which was assisted by the Executive, has been very successful. We acknowledge and recognise that we have a significant role to play. Executive spend on transport will rise to £1 billion by 2005-06. Again, as is the case with everything in life, the debate is all about priorities.
A couple of very positive announcements were made in respect of some of the routes that we have managed to achieve. The Rosyth ferry is a good example of how we can move forward. The completion of the central Scotland motorway network also assists in the bigger issue of strategic infrastructure and getting goods to market and people to jobs.
A lot is going on in the Executive in relation to transport, and a lot of money is being spent. However, given the particular position in which Scotland sits in Europe, I recognise that more should and could be done in laying down a longer-term, 10-year planning horizon for transport projects. To be blunt, our difficulty is delivering on projects that we have agreed to, as they have taken a long time to go through planning and other processes. We need to ensure that we deliver on those projects.
We recognise that transport is absolutely critical for the movement of people and services. Indeed, it is also critical for tourism and the fresh talent initiative that we ensure that the transport links are in place. We need to ensure that our airports are welcoming and that we use the right tone and give the right level of support to people when they arrive in Scotland, however they do so. A big package of measures across the Executive and our partners is required to ensure that that happens. I am sure that people will always be able to pick holes in certain areas in which we have weaknesses in our links, but we are seeking to address those.
The point is that the central European countries that are joining the European Union give a focus to central Europe. It is crucial that Scotland is not peripheralised.
When I was in the Czech Republic, it was interesting to see the way in which the motorway network was being redesigned. The refocus from east to west and the turning over of the rail and road infrastructure in particular was happening before my eyes. I appreciate the point.
Although Scotland has unique problems, it is clear that we also have unique benefits. We need to ensure that we get the right balance.
I know that we are keen to move on to questions on the Executive's European strategy so perhaps we could finish this discussion with a question from John Home Robertson.
I hope that it is a quick one. It is on the subject of workers from the accession countries coming to work in Scotland. Up until now, we have concentrated on skilled workers. However, it is important to bear it in mind that quite a number of unskilled workers come to Scotland from the accession countries and elsewhere.
With the benefit of some constituency experience, I want to flag up on behalf of those people the need to be careful that they are not exploited. We know the story from Morecambe bay and the concerns about exploitation there. The situation in my constituency might not be as bad as that, but the exploitation falls into two categories. On the one hand, workers who do not know their rights are expected to work long hours for low pay—perhaps below the national minimum wage. On the other hand, there is a knock-on effect on local employees whose jobs can be undermined by the presence of those workers.
I realise that the matter is overwhelmingly a reserved responsibility. However, I want to express the hope that Executive agencies, the enterprise network and other agencies will work closely with the UK Government to protect people from exploitation in circumstances such as those that I have outlined and also safeguard the rights of Scottish workers.
I can give John Home Robertson the assurance that we are seeking to do that. The recent story about national health service workers was of great interest to us. The Health Department has been working on the issue since the story broke. We have a direct influence in that instance as the NHS is the contracting organisation. We have learned from the tragic circumstances of the Morecambe bay incident. As an employer, we will act to influence the contractual situation directly whether through the public services or by working with the enterprise agencies. The point is well made. We are on the case.
Okay. Are you happy with the reply, John?
Fine.