European Commission (Work Programme)
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-771, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee, on the European Commission's work programme for 2004, and on two amendments to the motion. Those members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
As convener of the Scottish Parliament's European and External Relations Committee, it is a pleasure for me to open the debate on the European Commission's work programme for 2004. The debate is the first one in the new parliamentary session in which the committee has been involved and it presents my first opportunity to open a debate for the committee.
Given that it is so early in the year, the committee felt that it was appropriate that we debate the European Union and, specifically, the European Commission's work programme for 2004 and its relevance to Scotland. I appreciate that the debate's title is not the most glamorous, but I assure members that the debate is important.
We are debating the issue because we must highlight to Parliament, the Scottish Executive and the nation generally many of the key issues that will be on the Commission's agenda in 2004. We hope to provide early warning of many of the issues that Europe will be taking forward, so that the parliamentary committees, MSPs and everyone else can investigate the impact of each proposal on Scotland and ensure that Scotland's interests are being taken into account and promoted. Of course, the committee is also keen to raise the profile of European issues in the Parliament. Unfortunately, it is difficult nowadays to get the media interested in European issues. I understand that there is now only one correspondent based in Brussels to represent the Scottish media corps.
It is important that our committee and other committees hold the respective ministers to account on European matters. Earlier this week I met Jimmy Hood MP, the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons, and the chairs of other European committees throughout the United Kingdom to discuss the work of our committees. The House of Commons has a motto that states that good scrutiny leads to good government. I believe that all European committees throughout the UK, and specifically the Scottish Parliament's European and External Relations Committee, want to abide by that motto.
I hope that the debate on the EC's work programme will become an annual event that the Scottish Executive will sponsor, so that we can help to ensure that Parliament remains focused on EU matters. After all, 80 per cent of the legislative work for which the Scottish Parliament has responsibility is influenced by Europe. The recent Queen's speech in the House of Commons barely mentioned any legislation that was relevant to Scotland, but much legislation comes from Europe directly to the Scottish Parliament. The most recent time that the European and External Relations Committee counted, we found that 1,200 items in a year had come from Brussels to the Scottish Parliament. All committees will notice an increasing number of items on their agendas that relate to Europe. I hope that each committee will move towards regularly placing Europe on its agenda. Some committees, such as the Environment and Rural Development Committee, have made progress on that.
It is in the Parliament's interests to ensure that the EU adheres to the principle of subsidiarity and that the Commission directly consults Parliament. The Scottish Executive jointly submitted, with the UK Government, a paper on Europe to the convention on the future of Europe that argued that the Commission should directly consult the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, I understand that the Commission is not adopting that stance; it wants simply to consult the Committee of the Regions. I ask the minister, if he has the opportunity, to respond on that issue during the debate. Our committee—and, I am sure, all parties in the Parliament—wishes the Scottish Parliament to be consulted directly by the European Commission, which is what we all called for previously.
The EC will produce extended impact assessments in 2004, which will analyse not only the economic, social, environmental and regulatory impact of European legislation, but subsidiarity and proportionality in European legislation. I believe that everyone in the Scottish Parliament would welcome that and would want to pay close attention to it to ensure that EU legislation is produced at the most appropriate level.
I turn to what will happen in 2004, which will be an historic year for Europe and the EU. There will be enlargement of the EU on 1 May, when we will welcome 10 new member states—I will return to that issue. The European elections are in June and I am sure that we all want to encourage the people of Scotland to turn out in that election. A new Commission will be appointed later this year when the Prodi Commission retires, and new commissioners will be appointed. Perhaps the minister will say whether there are moves to propose names from Scotland for the new UK commissioners. We may also have the continuation of the intergovernmental conference and the adoption of a new EU constitution, should that come back on to the agenda. If it does not, Europe will have to revert to the Treaty of Nice.
The EC's programme for 2004 will attempt to achieve three key priorities: a stable European Union, stable growth within the EU and the accession of new states to the EU. To help to achieve those objectives, nearly 80 items of legislation or initiatives with huge relevance to Scotland will be produced in 2004. One example is a new financial framework for 2007-13, which will decide where all the money will go. Billions of euros will be at stake for rural communities, regional development, research and so on, so the framework will be critically important for Scotland. The European and External Relations Committee is investigating the impact on regional funding, given the UK Government's recent consultation on repatriating that funding to the UK.
A new external border management agency, which will help to manage immigration to the EU, will be created in 2004. That has a resonance for the First Minister's fresh talent initiative, which is designed to attract new people to Scotland—provided, of course, that the UK Government believes that we in Scotland will understand the immigrants' accents.
A green paper on public-private partnerships will be produced in 2004. Again, that issue is to the fore of political debate in Scotland—indeed, it is front-page news today. There will also be a consultation on the working time directive. Specifically, there will be a review of the opt-out that the UK Government secured for workers in the UK, who work longer hours than anyone else in Europe. If the review led to the removal of the opt-out, it would have implications for the Scottish health service and other sectors in Scotland. Europe will also continue to develop the reform of the common agricultural policy and the cod recovery plans, which are vital to our farmers and fishermen respectively.
I note that Alasdair Morgan, the convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, is in the chamber. He will be interested to know that the Commission hopes to achieve in 2004 its aim of developing the knowledge economy in Europe, which means that it wants to reach a spending target of 3 per cent of Europe's gross domestic product on research and development, which has ramifications for the Scottish economy. Members of the Health Committee will know that the launch of a health card is on the agenda, which will give people easier access to health benefits in EU countries. There is also an aim to ensure greater uptake of environmental technologies, which is relevant to next week's debate in the chamber on the national waste plan.
EU enlargement will dominate the European agenda in 2004. On 1 May, eight new members from central and eastern Europe will join the EU: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Two countries from the Mediterranean will also join: Malta and Cyprus. It seems only a few years ago that the prospect of such countries joining the EU appeared to be a pipe dream. However, we are now only a few months away from that dream becoming reality. I am sure that we all welcome the appointment last week of an Estonian honorary consul to Scotland and hope that other states follow suit.
The Commission is committed in 2004 to pursuing negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania, which are likely to join the EU in 2007. It is also committed to producing a recommendation later in 2004 on the possibility of Turkey joining the EU, as well as preparing an opinion on Croatia's application to join the EU.
It is hoped that the 10 new members of the EU in 2004 will benefit soon from the EU's prosperity and stability. There will be a huge increase of up to 453 million citizens in the EU's population and a huge increase in the EU's land area. Enlargement will enrich Europe's history and culture, and it is anticipated that Europe's influence in the wider world will increase. It is important that Scotland joins the enlargement celebrations, which the European and External Relations Committee has discussed. The Irish are hosting a day of welcome on which all European heads of state and people from other organisations will be invited to Dublin. Perhaps the minister could indicate in his speech whether Scotland will be represented at that celebration. Our committee is certainly working on a number of initiatives to ensure that Scotland has celebrations at home to welcome the new member states into the EU.
The previous European Committee published a report in 2002 in which five challenges and opportunities arising from EU enlargement were identified. They were: the impact on trade; the impact on Scotland's share of European funds and subsidies; the impact on labour markets and social policy; the impact on freedom, security and justice; and the impact on cultural, educational and other issues.
It is clear that enlargement offers Scotland opportunities. For example, there will be a bigger market for our businesses. In my constituency a company that makes pods in the form of bathroom units for hotel developments throughout Europe is opening its second factory in the Czech Republic, because it wants access to the new markets.
There will also be challenges, as there will be more economic competition. It will be cheaper for companies from non-EU countries to locate elsewhere in Europe and there will be competition for jobs and investments. An excellent booklet produced by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry details all the benefits, challenges and opportunities of enlargement for Scotland and provides background on all the new member states.
The European and External Relations Committee urged Scottish ministers to lead parallel trade missions to the new countries when they visit them on other, political business. It is unfortunate that after making a bright start in relation to the Czech Republic, the Executive does not seem to have planned any more visits.
Does Mr Lochhead agree that although the SCDI is planning trade missions to seven of the 10 new member states within the next year, it is equally important that the Executive concentrate on the huge opportunity that he mentioned in relation to infrastructure, transport and construction projects in eastern Europe, which I believe are worth €3 billion in Lithuania alone?
Yes. I am delighted to agree with a fellow member of the committee.
The review of the 2004 work plan for Scottish Development International shows that it has plans for public-sector support trade missions to, among others, the Dominican Republic, Hong Kong and Portugal, but not to any of the 10 new member states such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary or Estonia. Perhaps plans are in the pipeline, but we need to hear more about them. If the European and External Relations Committee does not know what is being planned, how can small firms in any of our constituencies know what is happening? How can they benefit from the trade missions, tailored market intelligence and so on? It is a shame that we do not have that information, because, according to figures published by the SCDI, the markets of central and eastern Europe are worth nearly £0.5 billion to Scotland, including £63 million in exports of office machinery to the Czech Republic, £21 million in whisky exports to Turkey and £17 million in exports from the chemicals industry to Hungary.
I welcome the start of the Executive's efforts to encourage trade, inward investment and new immigration, but much more needs to be done and ministers need to be seen to lead. The Executive should rest assured that the committee will be the first to congratulate ministers on their efforts and will support them in any way that it can.
I ask the minister to say something about the location of European agencies. I know that we will all be disappointed that Glasgow lost out in relation to the location of the European Maritime Safety Agency. The European Agency for Network and Information Security went to Greece and the European Chemicals Agency went to Helsinki. New agencies might be in the pipeline, such as agencies for defence and for minority languages. I urge the minister to tell us what is happening to secure the other agencies and perhaps to review why we were unsuccessful in securing the agencies that I mentioned, particularly the European Maritime Safety Agency.
I turn to the Irish presidency of the EU. I know that we all want to wish our friends and neighbours the Irish the best of luck over the next months of their tenure of the presidency. Naturally, there is much cross-over between their priorities and the Commission's priorities. We will all want to welcome today a number of initiatives. The Irish will host a conference in the spring in Dublin on conflict resolution, which will involve discussions on the role of civic society and non-governmental organisations. I am sure that we all welcome that, particularly the Presiding Officer, who I know has a particular interest in it. In April, there will be an EU-Africa troika meeting in Dublin to discuss strategies to tackle AIDS and poverty. The Irish will also host a major conference on HIV and AIDS in Europe and central Asia and a meeting with ministers from the Mediterranean countries.
I am sure that we all welcome the international slant that the Irish are putting on their six-month tenure of the EU presidency and wish them luck for all those agendas. Perhaps the minister will tell us whether Scotland will be involved in any of the initiatives or events to ensure that we make a contribution.
I return to the Commission's work programme. I urge members and committees to investigate all forthcoming legislation from Brussels to ensure that Scotland's interests are taken into account and that Parliament acts early so that we can influence the legislation that affects Scotland. I hope that ministers will agree to publish an analysis of this year's work programme and its implications for Scotland as that would help the Parliament and its committees. The committees could then turn to the good offices of the European Commission and European Parliament offices in Edinburgh and make contact with the EU to find out more and to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard and that the Executive is scrutinised properly. The Scottish Parliament is establishing an office in Brussels on a pilot basis, which I hope will become a permanent feature. It will provide assistance to MSPs and committees to ensure that we have good intelligence and information from Brussels.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the European Commission's work programme for 2004, which is dominated by the enlargement of the European Union, and agrees that it contains a number of legislative and non-legislative plans of importance to Scotland.
This is an important debate in what will be a momentous year for the European Union. As Richard Lochhead said, it is the year of enlargement, European Parliament elections, a new Commission. Who knows? Perhaps it is the even the year when agreement is finally reached on a European constitution.
I congratulate the European and External Relations Committee on making possible the debate and on the excellent work that it is doing under Richard Lochhead's convenership. Like him, I feel strongly that today's debate should become an annual event and I hope that the Executive will commit today to making its time available each year in future to accommodate such a debate.
As the motion says, the Commission's work programme contains a number of legislative and non-legislative plans that are of importance to Scotland. Much of what we deal with in the Parliament is subject to European legislation or action in areas such as justice, health, the environment, agriculture and fishing. If we read the Commission's work programme in any detail, it becomes obvious how much the work of the European Union impacts on the Parliament's responsibilities.
The work programme is in two sections. The first is on the priorities that have been carried over from last year. There are 126 items on that list, 68 of which concern devolved matters. The second section comprises new proposals. Of the 147 items on that list, 52 relate clearly to devolved matters. Many other proposals that, strictly speaking, might relate to reserved matters will also have a significant impact on devolved matters.
It is important that we examine closely the work programme each year, first to ensure that the Parliament, principally through its committees, can exert influence on any proposals that we consider to be of relevance and importance to Scotland. As we all know, if we are to influence anything in the European Union, it is vital that we get in early in the process. The Commission's programme is one of the first indications of what will be on the EU's agenda in future, so its importance cannot be overstated. The second reason why we have to pay it close attention is that that will enable us to scrutinise the Executive's actions in Europe on Scotland's behalf. As things stand, that is quite a difficult task for the Parliament to carry out effectively. In Europe—this is not a bad thing— much of the wheeling and dealing is done behind the scenes and the discussions that Scottish ministers or officials have with officials from the Commission, the Council or the UK delegation are not public. For us to be more effective as parliamentarians, we must know more about what the Executive's position is on European issues and how it intends to go about achieving the best outcomes for Scotland so that we can hold it to account.
Does the member accept that a crucial part of the work of the European and External Relations Committee is to do just that? The previous European Committee invited ministers regularly to tell us about what was happening in Council meetings and asked them to provide written information to back that up.
That is exactly what I was coming on to say. In this session of Parliament we have made important strides forward. It is good to see ministers and officials appear before the committee and I hope to see more of that. The greater scrutiny of pre and post-Council agendas—not just by the European and External Relations Committee, but by the subject committees—is a step in the right direction. However, in my view more must be done, which is what the first part of my amendment says.
In relation to the Commission's work programme specifically, it would be helpful if the Executive were to publish each year a position paper outlining its objectives in relation to the work programme's contents and a strategy paper that details how it intends to achieve those objectives. If the Executive did that, the Parliament would have a much clearer benchmark against which to assess the Executive's performance. It might also draw the general public's attention to the importance and relevance of much of the European Union's work, which—we have to be realistic about this—is lost on members of the public.
Incidentally, such openness and sense of accountability should apply much more generally to the Executive's activities in Europe. For example, we read often in the newspapers of the importance for Scotland of the First Minister's role in chairing Regleg—the regions with legislative power. However, the First Minister has never come to this Parliament and made a statement and been subjected to questioning on the role of that group or on the Executive's objectives for it, especially during the period of his presidency. I hope that the Executive will put that right.
The bigger question for Scotland to ponder in this debate relates to our proper role in Europe. The reality is that even an Executive that is doing its best and punching its weight in terms of influence in Europe will always have one hand tied behind its back because, ultimately, it has to be bound by the UK position on any issue. We know to our cost that when the Scottish interest and the UK interest do not coincide, it is Scotland that loses out.
There is no doubt that the situation within the devolved set-up could be better. An Executive that had more gumption than this one would not shy away from publicly articulating the Scottish national interest, even when it differed from that of the UK, and a UK Government that was less centralist in foreign affairs would not have a problem with allowing the Scottish Executive, when our interests are at stake, to lead Council delegations, just as in Belgium regional and community ministers lead when regional or community issues are under discussion.
Even then, Scotland would be at a disadvantage, because we lack the status of a member state and the votes that go with that to advance our view and, where necessary, to defend our national interests. Scotland should be independent in Europe, first, because that is normal and right, and secondly, because it is the only way in which, in an ever-more interdependent world, we can protect our national interests and ensure that we are able better to compete and take advantage of opportunities that open up, such as those that Keith Raffan mentioned.
Richard Lochhead is right that we should reflect on the fact that much of the Commission's work programme this year relates to enlargement, such as welcoming the 10 new states, continuing negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania and possibly entering into talks with Turkey and, beyond that, even Croatia. We should welcome the process of enlargement unreservedly, but we should not miss its significance for Scotland. As of 1 May, Europe will be a union of small states. Seven of the 10 new member states have populations similar to or smaller than that of Scotland. Malta is smaller than the city of Edinburgh, yet it will be represented at the top tables.
As those countries proudly take their seats at the top tables of Europe, we must not let Scotland remain on the sidelines or be relegated to the second division. We should raise our sights for Scotland. We should demand for ourselves the place in Europe that those other small countries take for granted and out of which they get so much. That is why I move amendment S2M-771.2, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Executive to publish its position on the Commission's programme in order to inform the Parliament and Scotland about the aims and objectives that the Executive has in relation to it and to publish a strategy paper outlining how the Executive intends to achieve these, but considers that Scotland's interests in relation to the Commission's programme would be best represented if Scotland was an independent member state of the EU."
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on the way in which he led for the European and External Relations Committee. I agree with most of what he said.
We welcome this debate, in particular because it gives Parliament the opportunity to learn of the Executive's aspirations and hopes and of the opportunities that it sees with respect to the work programme, as well as its concerns and intentions over measures that will directly affect Scotland. Much of what is planned falls within the remit of reserved matters, although there are areas of involvement—some might say interference—that fully encompass devolved issues. I will say more on those topics later.
We accept the wording of the motion, but in the interests of fact and reality our amendment should be made to it. Our amendment does not introduce an element of anti-European sentiment to the motion; it simply acknowledges the words of Elizabeth Holt, the voice of the European Commission in Scotland, at a recent meeting of the European members information and liaison exchange—EMILE—network that was held in this chamber to discuss the work programme. She emphasised that while the programme was not as extensive as previous programmes, it took account of the need for extensive work on acceptance of the European constitution. That is also recognised by Scotland Europa in its helpful assessment of the work programme for 2004.
In my contribution to the EMILE meeting, I pointed out that acceptance was far from decided, and that we should take that uncertainty into account when assessing the work programme. Happily, from my point of view and that of my party, I was proved to be right, and the constitution remains on the negotiating table. Perhaps members of most other parties, with the exception of new Labour members, would welcome that, since most wish to put the constitution to the people.
I acknowledge that the Commission will still have work to do in that area. It will almost certainly try to bludgeon the wavering nations into accepting the constitution, which will give unelected commissioners immense power in running our daily lives. Effectively, it will turn this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament into democratic bodies with powers similar to those of local councils, in that our remit will be the implementation of centrally created legislation. At that point, Liz Holt's wish to extend the Commission's work programme in future years will have become reality. It will be the foundation upon which future business programmes of this Parliament are structured. For the moment, however, that does not form part of the Commission's 2004 work programme.
The point was made at the EMILE meeting that few of the measures in the Commission's work programmes meet its annual deadlines. A work programme completion rate of only 40 per cent was quoted. Irrespective of that, once created, the tendency is for the work load to spread into future years. On that basis, it is worth analysing the programme in depth, with the aim of teasing out those areas in which Scotland's interests can be promoted or damaged. No doubt there will be a range of views on which issues fall into which category. My hope for this debate is not only that Executive ministers will undertake investigations and clarify positions, but that the European and External Relations Committee will take on board items that have been highlighted for further scrutiny.
Like Richard Lochhead, I will add another level of uncertainty. The European elections that will take place this year will create the potential for change. Furthermore, in November there will be a wholesale clear-out of the Commission, which means that fresh minds will be applied to the work programme that will take us into 2005. Perhaps at that point there will be greater interest in this chamber in the next work programme.
As Richard Lochhead said, we have the momentous change of 10 new members coming into the European Union. We whole-heartedly welcome that, and we also welcome the possibility of Romania and Bulgaria coming into the European Union in the not-too-distant future. We also look to the day when Turkey and Croatia, which are currently knocking on the door, are considered fit for membership—perhaps particularly with respect to Turkey.
On the work list, I welcome the fact that the wish of the Italian presidency to abandon hallmarking has itself been abandoned. The Executive acted positively on that issue—a lesson learned, perhaps, from having missed the boat on herbal medicines.
One glaring omission that I do not applaud is the failure to address fraud. The situation whereby certain departmental accounts have not attained audit approval for 15 years is totally unacceptable. Worse still is the situation whereby Commission employees who have constantly warned of fraudulent activity have been sidelined and sacked, while those with whom responsibility lay have been effectively promoted or moved sideward. I earnestly hope that the new Commission will treat that area as a priority, given the repeated failure of the outgoing Commission to deal with it adequately.
In addition to the accession states, the principal priorities are laid out as stability and sustainable growth. We could set an example on stability if those countries in the euro zone that signed up to the rules were to stick to them. I am thinking principally of Germany and France, which are in breach of the rules. I contrast their treatment with that of Portugal and Ireland when they were in breach. France got away with transgressing the rules with respect to the Scottish beef ban that it imposed in contravention of European law.
Growth is a major issue in the work programme. I point to the failures of the past two years, when growth has been a major issue. Over the past two years, the EU has run at a growth rate of less than 1 per cent. In the euro zone, the figure is less than half a per cent, which represents a downward trend. I wish the next European Commission much greater success in achieving the all-important objective of growth.
I have identified a number of specific issues, all of which are important: 2004/EAC/024; 2004/EMPL/036; 2004/REGIO/001; and 2004/FISH/003. However, the Presiding Officer will rule that I should now sit down, so I do not have time to go into detail on them.
I move amendment S2M-771.1, to leave out "is" and insert:
"was compiled on the presumption that the European Constitution would have been accepted and is now".
I was rather looking forward to Mr Gallie continuing that frame of analysis.
I thank Richard Lochhead and the European and External Relations Committee for introducing this debate on the European Commission's work programme. I also welcome Keith Raffan back to the chamber—a colleague whom we have all missed over recent weeks. George Lyon, the Liberal Democrat whip, is particularly glad to see the return of Keith Raffan.
I will deal briefly with the amendments and return later to the points that were made by Richard Lochhead and Nicola Sturgeon. It will come as no surprise to Nicola Sturgeon that the Executive will not encourage Parliament to vote for the Scottish National Party amendment, because we oppose amendments that relate to independence. I will say no more about it—I am sure that many others will.
Mr Gallie was unable to be present for Denis MacShane's evidence to the European and External Relations Committee last week, when the Minister for Europe made it clear that, even had the new constitution been agreed by the IGC in December, it would not have come into effect before 2009. As Mr Gallie mentioned, the new European Commission will be appointed in 2004 and will take office in November. The Commission's work programme for 2004 was not predicated on the basis of the enactment of the convention of the future of Europe's proposals. The programme was, after all, published on 29 October 2003.
Mr Gallie might also wish to consider annex 3 on page 18 of the Commission's work plan, which states:
"The Commission … also believes that the draft text can be improved in the Inter-Governmental Conference."
That hardly suggests that the work plan was constructed on the basis of precise knowledge of the final outcome of the discussions on the European constitution in the IGC. I therefore politely suggest that Mr Gallie's amendment is inappropriate. Mr Gallie may wish to reflect on that.
I thank the minister for his comments. I recognise that the constitution would not be implemented until 2009, but its implications are so vast that it will take a considerable number of years to prepare for its implementation. Liz Holt of the Commission has made that point and it is a point that, as far as I can see from its document, Scotland Europa also considers to be relevant.
Those observations do not hang together with the reality of the Commission's work plan. As Mr Gallie said, the constitution might be considered to be too ambitious in the context of the Commission's extensive work programme.
I welcome the point that is made in the introduction to the 2004 work plan, that
"the Legislative and Work Programme for 2004 is deliberately much more tightly focussed than in previous years. The Commission intends its programme to be as realistic as possible, both in terms of what it can deliver and the other EU institutions can absorb."
That is a theme that we would all recognise and encourage. I hope that Mr Gallie would accept that, given the fact that the Commission will change, given the forthcoming European elections—which he and Nicola Sturgeon have mentioned—and given the length of time over which the constitution was to have been considered had it been passed, it is difficult to imagine that the constitution would be the Commission's main driving force.
The Executive has already organised a meeting to discuss the Commission's 2004 work programme. Mr Gallie mentioned the EMILE meeting on 8 December. I hope that a parliamentary debate and an EMILE meeting on the European Commission work programme can become a regular fixture in future, as Mr Lochhead requested earlier.
I will concentrate briefly on what is contained in the work programme, what it means to Scotland, and how the Executive plans to deal with those matters. The programme is shorter than those in previous years, which is understandable due to the fact that this is the final year of the current Commission; a new Commission will be sworn in later this year. Notwithstanding those events and, of course, the enlargement of the Council to 25 member states, the Commission's work programme is still ambitious, with several significant legislative and non-legislative proposals that are of importance to Scotland. We welcome the programme as a useful planning document.
The Commission's top priority for 2004 is the accession of the 10 new member states. The Commission is determined to ensure that the new member states are successfully and quickly integrated into the European Union. As I have said previously in the chamber—and as the Executive has said during debates in the chamber in the past six months—the Executive welcomes the accession and believes that enlargement will have many benefits for Scotland.
The Commission's second main priority is stability. The justice and home affairs agenda is one of the fastest growing areas of EU policy so, with its distinctive legal system, Scotland must keep fully abreast of EU developments in that field.
The third priority is sustainable growth, on which the programme proposes a review of the EU's sustainable development strategy and implementation of the EU water and energy initiatives, which were announced at the 2001 Johannesburg world summit. That agenda is important to the Executive, given its commitments in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" on growing the economy and sustainable development.
The Commission's work programme is of real importance and we are determined to work positively and proactively to ensure that Scotland's interests are understood and are an active part of the considerations. We intend to draw on the Commission's work programme to help us to focus and prioritise our efforts on the key short and medium-term issues that are likely to have a significant impact on people's lives in Scotland. We also intend to increase our direct engagement with the European Commission—I hope that that deals with some of the concerns that were expressed earlier. We will do that by meeting directly with Commission officials and Commissioners in Brussels. We will invite them to Scotland and we will provide them with information and details about Scotland's circumstances. We will ramp up our interaction with Scotland's MEPs through increased ministerial contacts, greater use of briefing sessions in Edinburgh and even more contact with MEPs and their staff in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Such face-to-face interaction with key MEPs and officials is extremely effective, given the café-and-corridor culture of Brussels—a point that was made by Nicola Sturgeon.
In the context of communication between the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament, has the minister given any consideration to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament office? One person represents the Scottish Parliament in Brussels at the moment, but should there not be a direct office, which everyone could use as a point of contact?
I hope that Mrs Ewing will accept that that is rather more a matter for Parliament than for me. I visited the Scottish Parliament office the last time I was in Scotland House in my former life as—dare I say it—a humble back bencher. The office plays an important role, but Parliament should progress the issue; indeed, I am sure that the Presiding Officer has strong views on it. It may not be appropriate for me to suggest how that matter would be dealt with.
Enlargement of the EU has been a big issue in the debate and will continue to be so. Will the minister give examples of any analyses by his department of the impact of enlargement on Scotland?
Such analysis is going on, rightly, across all departments of the Executive, not just in finance and public services. Enterprise plays a particularly important role in that regard, and analysis in the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department is on-going. Indeed, ministers are engaged in a number of activities—including seminars, workshops and practical engagement with the business community—on the needs of business and on spotting the priorities and opportunities that Keith Raffan commented on earlier. That work will certainly continue, and we shall provide a more detailed analysis of it in due course.
The Executive is committed to effective engagement on those and other issues. I should mention at this time the importance of the joint ministerial committee on Europe as a forum for formal discussion of strategic EU issues by UK and devolved Administration ministers. The JMCE, as it is known, is the major vehicle by which Scotland can maximise its influence on the UK line on strategic EU issues that are of importance to us.
Malcolm Chisholm, the Minister for Health and Community Care, is at the JMCE in the Cabinet Office at this very moment, discussing the implications of the working time directive on the UK and particularly on the national health service. I hope that members will recognise that as an illustration of the engagement of the Scottish Executive and Scottish ministers in ensuring that we achieve the best possible outcomes from those continuing discussions, which are of considerable importance in the context of the national health service.
The EU agenda that affects devolved matters is, as Nicola Sturgeon said, enormous, and the scrutiny of EU documents is a vital way of ensuring that proposals that come from Europe and in which there is a Scottish interest are picked up early. I want to encourage a team Scotland approach to that, involving the Executive, public and private sector organisations and the Scottish Parliament. As Richard Lochhead and other members said, that must include not just the European and External Relations Committee but all committees of the Parliament. That team Scotland approach can be beneficial to all avenues in Scotland in taking forward and assessing the work programme and in ensuring that we in Scotland get the best out of it. I congratulate the Environment and Rural Development Committee, the Health Committee, the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee on the work that they are doing on European matters. They are giving an example of how to mainstream European issues across the work of Parliament.
Governance is mentioned in the work plan. It is an important matter that several members have mentioned this morning. The impact assessment procedure, the minimum standards for consultation and the Commission's major programme to simplify EU legislation are all important, and those themes were key elements of the Scottish Executive's response to the Commission's white paper on governance. We are pleased that that is now being formally developed in the work plan that is being debated this morning.
The Executive is committed to being proactive on those issues. I congratulate Parliament on the moves that it has made to mainstream EU issues into subject committees and I reiterate my call for a team Scotland approach to working together on those issues.
The motion asks Parliament to note the European Commission's work programme in a year of massive transition, in which a new European Parliament will be elected, a new Commission will be appointed and 10 new member states will come into the European Union. Given that the stated priorities are strategic and fairly obvious—namely, the accession of the 10 new member states, stability and sustainable growth—those objectives and the motion should not give rise to undue controversy, even if the motion is moved by Richard Lochhead, of all people. Inevitably, however, amendments have been lodged by the SNP and our old friends, the Tory party.
I know from long experience of European debates that the usual suspects are likely to take the opportunity to make the usual speeches about wicked foreigners usurping our sovereignty and stealing our fish. I see that some Conservative members are making sedentary comments. I think I know what is coming. I had certainly hoped to hear less on the little Englander theme here in the Scottish Parliament, but we still have our little Englanders on the right and we now have some little Scotlanders on the left. That is one of the things that we have to live with. We have to accept that Tories will be Tories, even when they are in permanent Opposition mode, as they are just now.
It is a funny old thing, but when the Tories are in Government they are realistic about Europe—Ted Heath was quite right to take the United Kingdom into the European Union. Incidentally, he was also right to understand the need for international management of fisheries.
Is Mr Home Robertson now saying that he believes that Ted Heath was right to say that Scottish fishermen were expendable?
No. I think that he was right to understand that fisheries need to be managed internationally. Margaret Thatcher was very seldom right, but she was right to sign up to the 1986 Single European Act and John Major was right to sign up to the Maastricht treaty. Of course, the Tory party in Opposition always reverts to its quaint old prejudices: we will hear more of that today.
Margaret Ewing has raised the issue, so I would like to urge some caution on fisheries. As an east-coast constituency member and someone who was formerly a minister with responsibility for fisheries, I am well aware of the difficulties that face our fishing industry. Our own scientists are warning of a serious danger to important fish stocks. We know that our fishing fleet—or parts of it—are part of that problem and our minister has negotiated a package that is designed to increase our catch of haddock and prawns while beginning a recovery plan for cod stocks. In those circumstances, although it is certainly legitimate to keep talking about ways to improve the package, I submit that threats to indulge in even more illegal fishing should be condemned. Everyone in Parliament should support the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency in its mission to protect fish stocks around our coast.
Returning, as I should, to the Commission's work programme, the accession of 10 new member states is ambitious. It will be complicated, but it is certainly the right thing to do. I very much welcome the fact that the Executive is establishing good contacts with the accession countries in order to enable Scottish communities and Scottish companies to make links and to do business in those areas. We have a lot to learn, a lot to contribute and a lot to gain, so let us work at that positively. I hope that that will not be the end of the expansion of the European Union.
As other members on all sides of the chamber have said, it would be a good thing for the European Union to have a Muslim country as a member state, so I strongly welcome the United Kingdom's active support for Turkey's application for membership of the EU.
The Commission's agenda for stability and sustainable growth is ambitious but it is the right agenda for difficult times. Much of that agenda is obviously directed at big strategic issues such as freedom, security, justice and the EU's policy on external issues. We look to the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scottish interests are protected and promoted as that agenda is implemented.
I would like to touch briefly on one aspect of the work programme in which Scotland has a lot of ground to make up—legislation and enforcement on waste. Let us face it; there are parts of Scotland that can be described only as middens. We have hardly begun to minimise or recycle our waste and rubbish is dumped in our housing areas, in our industrial areas and even on our roadsides. If the European Union can help to make Scots stop polluting our own country, that will be fine by me. I hope that the Executive will support that agenda enthusiastically.
I have always been an enthusiast for the European project. Frankly, I would like to see Britain joining the euro as soon as that is feasible, and I hope that the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will work together to develop an effective security framework for the continent. It is clear that the best basis for peace and security in the region will be economic growth and security.
Is Mr Home Robertson concerned that growth in the euro zone is less than growth in Europe as a whole?
That is one of the current problems. It would be right for Britain to be in the euro zone, but the zone must stabilise and begin to grow. However, it is worth progressing the agenda and we should support it.
I do not, however, like the idea of a two-tier and two-speed Europe. If the EU is to work, we need broad consensus on the strategic way forward and we need a constitution that can deliver that strategy in ways that make sense in the different parts of the Union. I do not often agree with Phil Gallie, but I agree with his view that legislation and rules must apply fairly to all members. To take a topical example, if Portugal is subject to penalties to enforce economic rules, Germany and France must also be subject to exactly the same rules. It sets a bad precedent to exempt some countries just because they happen to be big and strong.
The Scottish Parliament is already taking the lead in developing the role of regions and small nations within member states. I know that the First Minister and all Executive ministers are taking that agenda forward. I regret the fact that the Opposition parties are stuck in their grooves; we have heard a bit of that already and I have no doubt that we will hear more of it. However, I welcome the uncharacteristically constructive line that Richard Lochhead adopted in opening the debate with his first speech as convener of the European and External Relations Committee.
It has been said with considerable understatement that 2004 will be a far from normal year for the EU. Indeed, phrases such as "a dramatic new phase in the European Union's development", "a defining moment in the history of Europe" and so on have been rolling off many tongues.
As members have pointed out, the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 members marks the historic end of the post-war division of Europe that has lasted for 60 years. The European Community, which was conceived in the chaos and horror of the second world war and born as a means to end the Franco-German hostility that had been the source of no less than three wars in 100 years, is now about to dissolve the iron curtain.
This year, the European Commission's central task must be to make a success of enlargement by integrating the new member states into the Union and extending the Union's policies and programmes to them. It must also ensure that the new member states have the capacity to spend Community money—in particular, structural funds—properly and effectively.
Although I might have put it more subtly, I agree strongly with Richard Lochhead's point that it is important that Scotland gain access to those new markets. I am disappointed that the Executive has not been more proactive in that respect. The SCDI has launched—and is launching—trade missions to six or seven states: it would help if ministers were involved in those missions. I might also add that the missions are happening rather late in the day and that it would have been better had they been sent a year or two ago.
Last September, I briefly visited Lithuania with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy where I met our ambassador. Our embassy in Lithuania has doubled in size over the past couple of years in order to prepare for enlargement. The ambassador told me that there will be, over the next five years, €3 billion-worth of infrastructure, transport and construction projects in Lithuania, which has—I should point out—a smaller population than Scotland. Anyone who has read Tom Devine's book on modern Scotland will know about the distinguished historic and strong links between Scotland and Lithuania. The most distinguished member of the Scottish Conservatives, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, embodies such links. Indeed, there used to be a Lithuanian school in Glasgow.
The exodus from Lithuania as a result of the Tsarist pogroms at the beginning of the previous century, the German takeover and then the Soviet takeover after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact brought a large number of Lithuanians to this country. What are we doing to build on such strong historic links with regard to trade and securing infrastructure and transport contracts? I hesitate to include construction projects in that, given Parliament's record in that respect. It is crucial that we show drive and energy to grasp this great opportunity. Similarly, we should remember that we also have very strong connections with Poland.
However, it is important not to raise expectations too high, especially when it comes to realising the Lisbon objectives. After all, we must remember that the additional contribution of the new member states will come to only 6 per cent of the EU's gross national product. That said, we must grasp this considerable opportunity.
I also hope that a united Cyprus will be admitted to the Union. Accession could provide a historic opportunity to resolve that conflict and division on the basis of the proposals that have been submitted by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. To coin a phrase, I should say that enlargement is not an event, but a process. We look forward to the conclusion of the negotiations for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and to the Commission's opinion—which I hope will be positive—on opening accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. In that respect, I agree strongly with John Home Robertson's remark about the accession of a Muslim country to the Union.
It is indeed good to see Keith Raffan back in the chamber—I am enjoying his speech. However, I am interested in his comment about the need to reunify Cyprus, which was set in the context of his hope for Turkey's early admission to the EU. Does he accept that until Turkey gets out of northern Cyprus, which it has occupied illegally since 1974, there can be no question of allowing its accession to the EU?
Obviously, the Commission's opinion on opening accession negotiations with Turkey continues to relate in some ways to the current pressure that the Turkish Government is applying to the parties that have been involved in the recent elections in northern Cyprus. I will not say that the Turkish Government is knocking their heads together, but it is trying to get them to work together. The Turkish Government deserves credit, support and encouragement for the recent moves that it has made in that regard and I hope that its approach will lead to a positive conclusion.
One key Commission project that has not yet been mentioned is the wider Europe-new neighbours initiative. I know that the project is close to the heart of the much-maligned President Prodi and it is helping to create a zone of peace, prosperity, security and stability in a circle of friendly countries beyond the new external sea and land borders to the east and south. The project contains elements of enlargement and I hope that it will lead ultimately to access—perhaps limited access initially—to the integrated market.
It has been pointed out that the project, which is fundamental to the Commission's on-going work, offers "everything but the institutions". Its whole aim is to avoid the creation of new European divisions and to encourage political, economic and institutional reform by holding out the carrot of closer economic links and access to the single market. The initiative, which covers the Mediterranean, the western Balkans, the Caucasus and central Asia, is important not least in stemming the massive in-flow of heroin through the countries of the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan. Indeed, that will be part of the development of the new EU strategy and action plans on drugs, which will be the focus of a conference in Dublin.
I had hoped to comment on the constitution, but that will have to wait for another day. However, I will say that I am glad that the Irish presidency is going to do all that it can to take the constitution forward. I am also reassured by the comments of my Liberal Democrat colleague, Andrew Duff, who worked with Sir Neil MacCormick in the convention on the future of Europe and who believes that agreement on the constitution is much closer than had been thought. I am happy to end on that positive note and I hope that progress will be made on the constitution in the coming year.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the European Commission's planned work programme. Whatever concerns we might have about the unelected and undemocratic Commission, it is vital that the Parliament engage constructively with the European policy agenda. The EU has had a positive impact on pushing the environment up the political agenda. Indeed, the overwhelming bulk of environmental law that is currently in force in Scotland has originated in Europe.
I want to highlight one of the items on the European agenda that demands Parliament's attention—toxic chemicals. The registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—or REACH—proposal is designed to replace about 40 existing regulations in order to bring consumer and environmental protection up to date. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to identify and deal with the risks that are posed by a wide range of chemicals, and the white paper that was adopted by the Commission in February 2001 promised that a strategy would be introduced to achieve that aim.
Scotland knows only too well about the widespread pollution of our environment by toxic chemicals. In recent weeks, we have seen worrying reports about toxins in farmed salmon, about dropping sperm counts in Scottish men and about exposure to a cocktail of dozens of artificial chemicals that every one of us has accumulated in our blood. That accumulation threatens everyone's health and Parliament must get a grip on the issue.
If all those toxic substances are getting into our blood, why on earth are we all living so much longer these days?
There is major public health concern about the impact on us of toxic chemicals in food, consumer and other products. For example, they might be involved in the rise of diseases of the immune system, such as ME.
The Commission has watered down its original plans under intense and sustained lobbying from the chemicals industry. Although the REACH proposals contain many elements that we welcome, the draft law that was published in October 2003 is far weaker than was originally suggested.
Last year, the Westminster Government announced that at the start of 2004 it would consult on its position in the European negotiations. Last week, the First Minister acknowledged the issue and urged Scottish scientists to become involved. The Scottish Parliament also needs to become involved, which is why the Greens have lodged a motion that calls for a proper Scottish consultation on the matter. No details means no plans, which means no action. We need to hear from the Minister for Health and from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development on the issue.
The big issue, however, is that the unelected and largely unaccountable European Commission has acted on behalf of the producers of dangerous and polluting chemicals, rather than assume its duty to protect citizens from toxic chemicals. There are major shortcomings in the draft law that was published in October 2003. The chemical industry will be able to make its own assessments of the risks that are posed by certain toxins and, if it believes the risks to be acceptable, it will continue to produce chemicals including carcinogens, hormone disrupters and bioaccumulative toxins despite the potential availability at reasonable cost of less hazardous substances. We believe that if a risk exists that can be avoided, it should be avoided. That should be the basis for European Commission policy.
Chemicals that are produced in volumes of between 1 and 10 tonnes per producer—which account for about two thirds of chemicals on the market—will not be subject to strict controls. Producers will not be required to provide full safety information for consumers. That is not good enough from the Commission; Europe's citizens need that safety information. In addition, imports of chemicals into the European Union will not be subject to the same regulation as chemicals that are produced in the EU. That obvious loophole urgently needs to be closed. The Scottish Parliament must engage with that issue to ensure that the law is tightened up. It is not about having a European supernanny state; it is about the introduction of legislation that is in the people's, rather than the polluters', interests. Scottish ministers have recently been involved at European level in discussions on fishing. There is a great deal of scope for further engagement with the EU on all devolved issues, including environmental protection.
However, we must be wary of the problems that are inherent in the current structure of the EU. The proposed chemicals directive provides a good example of what happens all too often: the European Commission's agenda is driven by powerful lobby groups such as producers' groups or the European Round Table of Industrialists. As I said, the Commission is unelected and largely unaccountable. The European Parliament, which is supposed to represent democracy in the European system, has been hamstrung by repeated reductions of its powers in practice, despite a theoretical increase in those powers. Time and again the European Commission has exercised its powers in negotiations with the European Parliament and has eliminated the democratic element. We must bridge the democracy gap and put the European Parliament, democracy and people at the heart of the European project.
The Greens appeal to MSPs of all parties to support the case for Scotland's playing a proper role in shaping the European chemicals directive to ensure that it gets tough on toxic pollution. We must recognise that there is within the European Union a significant democracy gap that must be bridged. We must have a Europe that is in the people's interests, not those of the polluters.
I am glad that, in this debate and in many others, the Scottish Parliament has, by and large, shown committed and enthusiastic support for engagement with the European Union, which is vital and provides tremendous opportunities for citizens throughout Scotland and in particular for the business community. Our membership of the EU also provides an opportunity to raise wider issues. Much of the work on environmental issues, for example, has been driven by the European Commission, as John Home Robertson said. We should be glad of that.
I was a member of the previous session's European Committee—I am sorry that I am not still a member but, as we all know, it is impossible to do everything. I thoroughly enjoyed my time on that committee; I made good friends, both with members of the committee and with people outwith it.
Some of the work that went on at that time shaped the future and involved some of the issues that have been raised this morning. That applies particularly to the point that was made by Margaret Ewing on the establishment of an office in Brussels. I remember the debates that I had on that issue with Ben Wallace when we were committee reporters. Irene Oldfather will agree that, to begin with, Ben Wallace was not at all enthusiastic about establishing an office in Brussels. Eventually, he came on board and agreed that we should have representation there, although he remained unsure about having an office. I hope that we will move on from having just representation and that we will have a proper, structured, established and better-resourced office. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has decided to resource the Brussels office as a trial, but if we are serious about trying to determine what is on the horizon, early intelligence is important to ensure that we are fully conversant with and engaged in the process. A well-known example is that we did not have early enough intelligence on the vitamins, minerals and food supplements issue—that raised issues for citizens throughout Scotland. We were too late to influence the debate in a meaningful and proper way.
There are about 73 different proposals in the European Commission's work programme and many of them will impact on the Scottish Parliament. They include a regulation on the European social fund from 2007, a communication on equality between men and women, a strategy on anti-discrimination, a Community action plan on organic farming, a thematic waste strategy, and a strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. The latter issue was raised a moment ago and I agree that we need to understand the issues around toxic chemicals of any type.
As a member of the Parliament's Health Committee, I am particularly interested in the proposals on health that are included in the Commission's work programme. On food safety, the Commission plans to introduce a proposal to update the provisions of the regulation on novel foods. The Commission also recently launched a consultation on the implementation of the working time directive, which will impact on hospital doctors. We all know that many of the difficulties with the redesign of hospital services in Scotland are driven by the shortage of clinicians, consultants and others. We must keep an eye on what is happening with that.
Outwith the work programme, there are many important health initiatives at European Union level on issues such as the proposed directives on human tissues and cells, cancer screening, and patient mobility; the latter would allow patients to cross borders and enter other member states if there are no spare hospital beds in their country. There is the Community action programme for public health 2003-2008 and a public health strategy that focuses on issues such as the improvement of health information and knowledge in support of policy development. It also addresses questions about how the EU and its member states can respond positively to health threats such as bio-terrorism, and how health determinants such as cancer, heart disease and mental illness should be addressed.
On the proposed European centre for disease prevention and control, I think back to the establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency. Kenny MacAskill and I were heavily involved in lobbying Government ministers to try to ensure that that agency came to Scotland. I fought for it to be on the east coast and he fought for it to be on the west coast. We must get an early bid in to the European Union to try to get the proposed centre for disease prevention and control here in Scotland, irrespective of whether it goes to the east or the west. I hope that we will work hard to develop that bid; the sooner we get it in, the better.
The work that is ahead is not just about the European ministers and Regleg with the First Minister—I am sure that all the jargon must confuse many people. I make a plea to the Parliament to be aware of and to understand the work of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe. The word "conference" is a misnomer because the organisation has existed for 30 years. It encompasses countries throughout the European Union in the most peripheral and maritime regions, which have come together to determine and establish a standing conference. The CPMR has been responsible for, and successful in, lobbying heavily for policy initiatives that meet their aspirations. I hope that the Parliament will engage with those issues and that we will take up that opportunity as parliamentarians and not just as Scottish Executive ministers.
Like others who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the European Commission's work programme for 2004. I hope that we can do this every year because, as has already been said, there might be changes later this year to the 2005 programme because of changes in the Commission.
I congratulate my colleague Richard Lochhead on his excellent opening speech on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee. He highlighted the principle of subsidiarity, which is not a code word for independence, much as all of us in the SNP want to achieve independence. Rather, it is a recognition of the importance of the Scottish Parliament in the European dimension.
Everyone in the chamber should consider carefully how the Parliament interacts with the European dimension. We are charged with the responsibility of implementing 80 per cent of the directives that come from Europe. That is substantial. I wonder whether we have the time in Parliament, outwith the committee where we have the most wonderful and extremely helpful staff, to discuss as many of the issues as will impact on the daily lives of our people. As Nicola Sturgeon and others pointed out, we need an early-warning system of the importance of those directives. We must discuss them in detail, whether they concern toxins, fisheries, agriculture or whatever. We need the time to ensure that the Parliament can return a considered view to the Commission.
Phil Gallie talked a wee bit about the draft constitution. I know that it is coming up to the Burns season and that he is a good Ayr man, but instead of reciting "Tam O' Shanter", I am sure that he could probably recite by heart the draft constitution. That would certainly make a change at some of the Burns suppers.
I wish the Irish well in their presidency as they take over the task of trying to resolve some of the issues that surround the draft constitution. Colleagues such as Helen Eadie and others who served with me on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body on behalf of the Parliament will know that I put on record the fact that I did not foresee a solution before Christmas under the Italian presidency.
The minister emphasised the importance to Scotland of many of the directives and proposals. John Home Robertson spoke a load of nonsense, but that did not surprise me because he has been stuck in that groove for years. I sometimes wonder what he would do with his spare time if he could not find ways to attack the Scottish National Party—he would need to take up another hobby.
I welcome back Keith Raffan, whom we have missed. I do not always agree with him in committee or in the chamber—or anywhere else—but it is good to have him back. Nora Radcliffe was his substitute on the committee and she did an excellent job in his absence. I thank her for her work.
The Scottish Parliament has a major role to play in the European dimension. We could underestimate ourselves and pretend that we are a wee bit like a local council that goes over to talk about this or a lobbying group that goes over and talks about that. We are an elected, legislative Parliament.
We talk about Regleg and EMILE and—here I agree with Helen Eadie—if we were to go down the High Street in Edinburgh just now and ask people what those words mean, I think that we would get blank looks. We know what the words mean, but we have to overcome the jargon of Europe. Part of the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament is to explain more fully the implications of European legislation, not only when we have the particular difficulties of the fishing and agricultural industries, but more generally.
In her earlier comments, the member referred to the mass of information and legislation that is generated in Europe. She has just referred to that again, as well as to people's attitudes. Does she think that they would be absolutely gobsmacked, as I was in the European and External Relations Committee, by the amount of material than comes from Europe? Does that not offer a warning about how we govern ourselves?
People would be equally gobsmacked by the number of acronyms that we use when we discuss European legislation. That is part of the problem that we have to overcome.
I will make some suggestions about how to do that. Although we have been talking about having an annual debate on the Commission's programme, I would like more regular debates in the chamber, in Executive time, on European matters. We ignore at our peril the proposals that are made by the Commission. We need to involve the whole Parliament because not everybody reads the reports that come out of the European and External Relations Committee, the Health Committee or the justice committees. Those people who are on the committees know what is happening, but do the rest of us know? How can we extend our knowledge as we try to extend the public's knowledge? We should not debate European matters only in committee or Opposition time—that should happen in Executive time.
We are changing our question time procedures and the convener of our committee has sent a letter expressing the hope that there will be a specific question time for European matters.
The establishment of the parliamentary office in Brussels is an important step. Last year, my parliamentary intern undertook a substantial thesis on the subject—I will pass it to anyone who is interested—
You must finish now, Mrs Ewing.
My intern came to the strong conclusion that having one person in Brussels was not enough and that we needed a parliamentary office. Some of the accession states already have theirs.
It is my responsibility today to raise the subjects of the common agricultural policy and rural development and how they will develop in the years to come.
Now is a particularly important time for the European Commission because, having completed the mid-term review of the CAP last year, it now begins the process of developing the policy for the next programming period of 2007-13.
It has always been my belief that we should look at what has happened in the past and try to project into the future how we need to develop policy. The McSharry reforms of the 1990s institutionalised and made rigid the system of common agricultural support. As a result, we had a structure that fed specific amounts of money to specific individuals and effectively preserved the rural economy by preserving those who had traditionally been part of it. That performed an important function in its time and, indeed, it has helped us through one of the most difficult periods in farming that Scotland has ever known. However, the mid-term review was essential in that it reversed many of those key rigidities that had been built into the system by McSharry.
By moving towards a system of decoupling, for the first time we have allowed market forces to become more rather than less significant to the rural economy. Although we are still going through the consultation process, much of that ground has already been made. When we get the proposals for the implementation of the mid-term review, we will be in a position to exploit the new-found freedom in the rural economy.
The Commission must commit now to looking for ways in which to further institutionalise the return to market economics in rural Scotland in the next programming period. Unless that opportunity is taken, we will be in grave difficulty when it comes to accepting some of the conditions that come along with enlargement. Along with my party, I support enlargement and I believe that it is important that the new countries can compete on that level playing field in Europe for which we have been campaigning for a generation—although I am concerned that the playing field may not be as level as we would like it to be.
The structure that institutionalised support in certain areas of Europe has been removed and replaced with one that provides the opportunity to spread support throughout a larger area. However, at the same time, the need to consider production restraint, which is one of the key elements of control of European agricultural production, has been neglected. If we retain the production restraint that exists in certain areas of agricultural production, we will find that we are fighting not on a level playing field, but uphill with one hand tied behind our backs. Efficiencies in eastern Europe will inevitably allow farming communities there to compete more effectively than we can. We must act in the next programming period to ensure fair competition.
I call Mike Russell.
Will the member confirm that he is in favour of the full decoupling of subsidy from production?
I favour the full decoupling of subsidy from production because that is essential to progressing rural development.
At the same time, we must realise that it is important to increase the significance of rural development programmes in Europe. We appear to be about to enter into a structure that can be only temporary. We must look ahead at how to take the funds that are at present allocated through CAP production support and put them into streams that will allow them to be returned to those who currently receive support from the EU, but who in future will have to receive support for doing different things. Unless the funds are transferred adequately, there is no hope that people who receive support at present will receive it in the long term.
To move to some of the environmental measures in the programme, I raise the subject of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. Helen Eadie mentioned the subject, but I am not sure whether she was confusing the strategy or trying to integrate it with what we heard from Mark Ballard about the control of toxic substances in Europe.
I was not confusing the strategy with anything. The fact is that all kinds of chemical substances, including pesticides, have an impact on health. That is the point on which I support Mark Ballard.
I accept that, but I raise the subject because I was disappointed that Mark Ballard seemed to be making the traditional suggestion that our food is full of toxins. Europe has rigid structures to ensure that that is not the case. The suggestion is particularly galling, given that Scotland produces some of the highest quality food to be found anywhere in Europe. When members talk about toxins in our food, they undermine one of the healthiest and cleanest industries that our country supports.
I do not know what will be in the thematic strategy on soil protection when it comes along, but I have already seen what has happened with European Union water strategies. I am concerned that directives from Brussels on how we manage our soil may be at least as heavy handed as water policy has been. I remember my grandfather telling me about an uncle who returned from a visit to Belgium in 1918 and said that he was amazed to discover that, over there, they had as much grun as bury a horse, which was useful because burying horses was one of his responsibilities. As the strategy on soil is produced, we must take it into account that farmers in Scotland farm successfully on some of the shallowest and coldest soils to be found anywhere in Europe. I will be told nothing about farming by the Belgians.
There are many pressing issues that the Parliament should discuss: threatened mass redundancies—not only those at Abbey; the protection of workers' rights; and the nursery nurses, who have threatened to go on indefinite strike. However, we are having a whole morning's debate—bearing it in mind that we have only three such periods a week—on the European Commission's work programme. I am probably raising a discordant note—
Will the member give way?
Let me make my point first.
Apart from the fact that the Commission's work programme document is sheep stunning at 40yd, the main point is that the Parliament has no power over the issues that are covered in it.
Does the member acknowledge that the Commission's work programme and Scotland's response to it in the next 12 months could influence tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland?
That is exactly my point. Richard Lochhead mentioned the need to hold ministers to account on EU matters, which include those tens of thousands of jobs, and Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the need for scrutiny and democracy, but, in return, my point is that there is no democracy in the European Union. After enlargement, from the north pole to the Mediterranean, from the Black sea to the Atlantic, the European Central Bank will have control over the economy, jobs and pensions—in other words, growth. Six unelected and unaccountable bankers in Frankfurt, who cannot be removed, control and dictate in the euro zone. Richard Lochhead asked about jobs. Those six people have more power than the elected Scottish Parliament. As Margaret Ewing pointed out, this is an elected Scottish Parliament, but the debate has been reduced to asking how we can be a more effective lobbying group on the work programme and on the debates that will take place on enlargement and the new European constitution.
The debate is about who has the power and how we can influence it. We do not have the power and we are working out how to influence it. Nicola Sturgeon said in her opening comments that enlargement is about small nations and that Scotland is a small nation. I put the problem to the SNP that, although there will be more small nations after enlargement, they will be in a massive euro zone with a one-size-fits-all economic policy in which there will be not one iota of movement that will allow any of those countries to have control. [Applause.] Tory members are clapping—we are on the same side again, but for different reasons.
My point is about democracy. One of the more important and less sheep-stunning points in the document is about the new European constitution. Phil Gallie will be pleased that the new constitution will institutionalise the market, competition and neo-Thatcherite policies, but curb civil rights and the development of a free and fair Europe. At present, elected Governments are being taken to court by unelected bureaucrats for the crime of spending too much money on public services. By the way, that would never happen to Blair and the Labour Government in London, which has obeyed the Maastricht rules.
The new constitution is not a huge issue in Scotland or Britain and does not bring people on to the streets here, but it does so in Italy, France and Spain. Any attempt to impose the constitution will be a massive issue. Why are people such as Blair trying to impose the new constitution and refusing to hold a referendum? The reason is that they are not sure that they will get the new constitution through; they are scared that they will lose the referendum. That type of democracy comes straight out of the section of the dictatorship's handbook entitled, "Plebiscites: Democracy". I hope that the Scottish Parliament will support the call for a referendum on the new European constitution. If Blair and the others are so confident, let us have the debate.
I have less than a minute of my speech left. I want to talk about the economic policy that we will get. There is an irony in this debate. In the European Union—even after enlargement—10 out of 15 states support the neo-Thatcherite economic, social and political agenda that the Tories favour, yet the Tories are the Eurosceptics. Labour and the SNP are the cheerleaders for the enlargement of the European Union, yet they are about to get an economic policy that undermines everything that the Labour movement and even social democracy has ever fought for in the post-war period. The main issue for the Scottish Socialist Party is how we take part in the European Trade Union Confederation's day of action in opposition to that, at the beginning of April, and support the European Social Forum—50,000 delegates who came together to resist the effects of attacks on pensions, public services and welfare. That is the most important thing for the SSP. While others are voting for EU enlargement, we will be on the streets of Paris, Milan, or wherever, defending the rights of working-class people.
I have never been in any doubt that the Executive is well intentioned—especially Tavish Scott, whom I have always thought of as a well-intentioned laddie. The trouble is that the Executive is stuck in the Home Robertson groove of arguing for the status quo and holds the misguided belief that activity is a substitute for achievement. It is not. The Executive tells us that it is busy in Europe and that it is succeeding, but if it does not tell us what it wants to achieve in the first place, how can we judge whether success has been achieved?
The trouble in Europe, generally, stems from the fact that Scotland is not properly represented. Only an independent Scotland will be truly represented and allowed to punch its weight. Even within the devolved settlement, the Scottish ministers do not relay the importance of what Europe means to Scotland. They do not relay that to the Parliament properly; therefore, it does not get relayed to the country.
It looks as though our lion rampant barely whispers, let alone roars. We hear tell of great co-operation with the UK, and sometimes we see the eventual results; the problem lies in between, when the Scots view may or may not be getting put forward. The Executive should ask any Scots fisherman whether he thinks that co-operation is worth a candle. I have with me a minute from the December fisheries council in which Ross Finnie is not even mentioned, although Mr George Pullicino, from Malta, is mentioned. From what Nicola Sturgeon said, we know that Malta, an accession state, is only the size of Edinburgh—it is nowhere near the size of Scotland.
Europe is not half as complicated as many politicians make it out to be, but they do that because it suits them. Generations of UK politicians have blamed Europe for anything unpopular that has happened. By error of omission, rather than deliberate intention, the Executive is upholding that unworthy British tradition. The Commission produces its work programme every year and updates it every three months to telegraph to member states and organisations what it is doing. The rotating presidency produces priorities for the same reason. The Executive tells us that it is at the heart of Europe, but we do not hear much else.
Let us look at the Commission's current work programme. List 1 contains 126 items, of which 68 clearly concern devolved competencies. List 2 contains 147 items, of which 52 clearly concern devolved competencies. Although the other proposals are not strictly devolved under the Scotland Act 1998, they are of considerable importance to Scottish policy. For example, the intention to
"Follow up on the Innovation Policy Communication"
has considerable relevance to the Executive's strategy for a smart, successful Scotland; however, the Executive has not published any views on it.
I know that the Scottish ministers do not quite understand independence, but I sometimes think that they do not understand even devolution. Under the Scotland Act 1998, it is the job of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. That is impossible if we are given nothing more substantial than soundbites, platitudes, speeches—when forced—and press release after press release. The minister said that he intends much more information to be forthcoming in the future. Is he saying that there will be an annual report to the European and External Relations Committee on the Executive's intentions in relation to the Commission's annual work programme? I understand that that is what happens in the National Assembly for Wales. That is fundamental.
Some progress has been made. The forward-look document is useful, as far as it goes, but it is not quite enough. The Executive must go further. We need a European strategy that is built on the Executive's view of the Commission's work programme as discussed by the Parliament. For example, what are the minister's views on the Commission's plan to facilitate the roll-out of broadband? What are the minister's views on the Commission's plans to regulate on violence in the workplace? What are the Executive's plans for cracking down on vehicle emissions? There are hundreds of measures about which we should know the Executive's view, but we do not know what the Executive thinks of any of them.
Only with independence will Scotland be able to play a proper role in Europe. However, even under the current settlement, we can and should have influence. The Parliament can start that by supporting the SNP's amendment.
I welcome this European and External Relations Committee debate and add my voice to those of others who have talked about the need for the Parliament and its committees to become involved more systematically in the scrutiny of European legislation. As a committee convener, I hold the strong view that the Parliament should review and report on a future framework to ensure that our scrutiny of European legislation is systematic and not haphazard. My main worry is that, although we may agree that we should do that, if there is no formulation of the framework and the options for getting involved, the process may be haphazard and ineffective.
The first briefing that the justice committees were given by the Scottish Parliament information centre, on the programme of the European Union in relation to justice and home affairs, left me absolutely staggered. I was staggered by the volume of legislation that affected devolution and the pace at which that legislation was being produced. I have spoken to some commissioners on the matter, and that is not their view: they say that the process is going extremely slowly. However, I see it going extremely fast and I am worried that so much legislation is being produced that we might not be able to scrutinise aspects of it that we want to scrutinise. As an internationalist, I am comfortable with our integration into Europe; however, in some instances, the programme goes well beyond the original treaty rules and the idea of freedom of trade and movement. The process is going so fast that I am concerned that there may be a lack of democracy and transparency in relation to some of the Commission's programme.
I will give members some examples of legislation in the area of criminal justice and civil affairs that will affect devolution. The proposal for procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings is under way, and we would be required to examine whether there is any impact on Scots law. The double jeopardy rule that the Hellenic Republic is proposing covers the prohibition on being tried for the same crime twice. I do not have any problem with that principle, but it is an example of something that is perhaps more a matter for us to determine in our law than a harmonisation issue. There are many good proposals to counter racism and xenophobia, which will ensure that, across Europe, we think about our social responsibilities. The harmonisation of criminal law penalties would include early-release mechanisms and alternatives to custody. Other proposals include the European arrest warrant and measures to tackle money laundering and the trafficking of human beings.
There are many good aspects of European legislation that will enhance our security and freedom in Europe, but there are also many aspects that go unnecessarily far. In the area that concerns me the most—civil justice—there are good proposals for the provision of compensation to crime victims, especially in relation to cross-border issues, and I accept the need to legislate when citizens are moving regularly across borders. However, we will also be considering matrimonial matters. We have just agreed a regulation on parental responsibility and were it not for the hard fight that the UK put up in the negotiations, the French would have got their way in relation to child protection in the field of international law. If that had happened, I believe that we would have ended up in an inferior position. The UK's role has to be acknowledged.
We are facing a white paper on divorce, wills, inheritance and succession, all of which will affect Scots law and in which we should therefore have a say.
Mutual recognition is supposed to be the guiding principle of the European Union in Community law. However, we can already see that other member states want to push that principle aside in favour of harmonisation. We must guard that principle and be vigilant as parliamentarians and committee members.
I ask the minister to go a bit further in inviting the Parliament to get involved in the framework and to consider coming up with a systematic way in which that could be done. That would ensure that we could perform our scrutiny role. I worry about the laws that are coming on stream and which are now enforceable. Many people whom we represent are unaware that such regulations and laws affect their lives; when they notice, at some point, that the European Community has changed the law in a way that affects their lives, they will ask us what influence we brought to bear on the change. We must consider the matter from that point of view.
We must not only learn from other member states, but be proactive. We have good legal principles that we want to defend and we should invite other member states to adopt our law.
From recent discussions with the Commission, I understand that, of the 300 lawyers that it employs to consider legislation, none is Scottish. That is a deficiency, as we need someone who is willing to uphold the principles of Scots law, or who at least understands them, at that level. I hope that the Executive will make representations in that regard.
Whatever the question might be, according to Alex Johnstone, the answer lies in the soil.
The Conservative amendment is not, as Phil Gallie tried to tell us, a technical, tidying-up amendment; rather, it is an attempt to be a bit anti-European without giving the game away. That is the same game that the Tories will play at the European elections later this year, when they will try to garner every anti-European vote without saying that almost every significant increase in EU influence on this country—entry to the Common Market, the Single European Act, Maastricht and so on—took place under a Conservative Administration.
As Keith Raffan said, the original motivation for the setting-up of the EU was the need to reduce the danger of conflict between France and Germany. Clearly, in that regard, it has been successful, but we must ask ourselves how successful our EU membership has been in influencing our attitudes towards other countries in Europe. There is an attitude, which is still far too prevalent, that almost every other EU country does things from ulterior motives—and that we are always purer than pure—or does things worse than us. Alex Johnstone spoke about Belgian farmers in a way that implied that nobody in the world could farm except people who live in Scotland. Another example of that attitude can be seen in the exhibition about the Parthenon marbles that is going around Britain and which uses a photomontage to show bits of the same sculpture in London and in Athens. The situation is a nonsense, but we still hear Lord Elgin saying that the Greeks cannot be trusted to look after the marbles. That kind of attitude is not only insulting, it is plain wrong. In that context, I ask members to sign the motion on the Elgin marbles that is in the business bulletin.
I agree with the convener of the European and External Relations Committee when he says that we need to debate European matters more often. In relation to enlargement, we have all welcomed the accession of the states that are coming on board. I welcome in particular the accession of the small states, as that strengthens Scotland's case. However, I wonder what the underlying philosophy is and I suggest that there needs to be more debate about the subject. The logic is clear, in that we want to avoid an us-and-them situation in which there is a rich EU with a wall round it and a host of smaller, poorer nations outside. The United States of America might be able to get away with that kind of attitude, but we cannot and I do not think that we would want to.
Enlargement helps us as well as the accession states, because it enables us to sell to those growing economies. However, where does enlargement stop? Does it, or should it, stop? We have heard about the other applicants that are knocking at the door, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia, all of which I would welcome. However, we all know that drawing any boundaries—even for a council ward or a parliamentary constituency—leads to certain illogicalities and that there will always be bits just outside the border that we would like to have inside the border. In that context, if Turkey is going to be in the EU, should Azerbaijan and Armenia also be in? Should Russia be a member of the EU? Those countries might well be welcome, but if they are in, what about their neighbouring countries? How far should we go? That is a reasonable debate that should be entered into and I am sure that it takes place at the highest level of politics. However, it should also take place in a much wider forum so that the people of our country feel happy with the way in which the EU is heading.
Apart from questions relating to the size of the EU, we need to debate the detail in which the EU gets involved. Is not the detailed work programme that we have seen today a bit too much? Pauline McNeill talked about issues relating to the field of justice, but we could make a caricature of any legislation simply by listing the relevant statutory instruments that a legislature deals with in any one year. We have to realise that the issue that makes the biggest contribution to anti-European feeling in this country is the number and extent of EU regulations and laws that affect businesses and people. The problem is that all those regulations and laws arise from general principles to which we have all happily signed up, such as those that are designed to free up competition and to improve transport and the environment. However, do we have to translate those general principles into quite so many and quite such detailed regulations? Would not the EU be just as effective if, say, 33 per cent of those regulations had never seen the light of day? Would we be any worse off as a country or as individuals?
The other problem is that, because of the volume and complexity of the regulations, they get little democratic scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament, Westminster or the European Parliament. We should reflect on the fact that the situation that I have described has the adverse consequence of playing into the hands of those who have been against the EU project from the start.
Like many, I voted for Britain to become a member of the Common Market on economic grounds. I believed that an economic union of like-minded European states would contribute to a prosperous and peaceful Europe. Over the years, however, it became apparent that others had rather grander aspirations. For reasons not unconnected with keeping the French and the Germans from each other's throats, as we have heard, Britain was being asked to sleepwalk into a new country called Europe, with European laws, a European army and a European President, no less.
The ultimate betrayal came when Tony Blair blithely informed us that, as part of that, we had to sign up to the proposed European constitution, which he described as little more than a tidying-up exercise rather than the abandonment of British sovereignty in almost every respect. It looked even less like a tidying-up exercise when we learned that, in the recently collapsed summit on the draft constitution, only 11 of the 200 amendments that have so far been proposed by the UK were accepted. Even so, Tony Blair tells us that he believes
"passionately that we must remain fully engaged."
In one respect, I agree with him. Like many Conservatives, I retain that vision of a European economic union of like-minded states and I welcome enlargement on that basis. I refute utterly the tired cacophony from John Home Robertson and others that Tories are anti-Europe. That is not my standpoint. I am fortunate to have a home in the Catalunyan region of Spain. As a Spanish council tax payer, I am a proud European as well as a proud Scot and a citizen of the UK.
Under the current economic arrangements, Spain is one of the largest per capita beneficiaries of European funding; Portugal and Ireland are others. Good luck to them. Along with Germany and Holland, the UK is among the largest net contributors to the budget. Again, I have no complaint with the broad argument that wealthier EU countries should assist those that are less well off. However, believing in a single market for trade is a long way from believing in a European superstate. That is why Conservatives are totally opposed to binding Scotland, with the UK, to a European constitution. We are for a Europe of nation states, rather than a united states of Europe.
As members would expect, I will refer to the recent fisheries settlement. It is right and proper that, as part of this debate, we look at some of the detail of what Ross Finnie brought back with him. On the face of it, the minister had something to crow about when he returned from Brussels in December. His spin doctors certainly did their share of crowing: we were told that the settlement was worth £20 million a year to the white-fish fleet. Within a fortnight, however, the minister appeared to be concerned that, as a result of the deal, a further 40 per cent of the Scottish fleet would have to be sacrificed—that is on top of the halving of the fleet over the past two years.
Mr Finnie appeared not to have taken into account during the negotiations the likely impact of allowing Scots fishermen to take only 20 per cent of their haddock catch from a vast new restricted area stretching from Arbroath to Shetland and out to the median line, while the fleets of other countries could plunder that area at will. What price fairness, equity and parity among all European peoples now?
Mr Finnie was rather disappointed with the way in which things had turned out. He said:
"It would be appropriate for us to suggest that we appear to have evidence that the way in which some of the detail has been drawn gives rise to an unintended consequence".
That is Executivespeak for, "This deal has turned out to be a dud."
The minister claims that he—or rather, his deputy, Allan Wilson—will be trying to tweak the detail in the UK's favour before 1 February. Little wonder that many Scots skippers, who have been driven to the brink of bankruptcy, are now contemplating ignoring the December settlement and fishing on regardless. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development must consider whether the recent Brussels deal will, in fact, do the opposite of preserving cod stocks. With only 15 days a month at sea, the fishermen are likely to target high-value species such as cod.
The deputy minister must come up with a time scale and a strategy for renegotiating the disastrously restricted haddock box. I noted this morning that the Commission's director of conservation policy has claimed that the extent of the box is not set in stone. I welcome that. The last thing that we want is for hard-working, law-abiding fishermen, driven by desperation, to resort to desperate measures. It is time for Allan Wilson—in his expanded role—and his London co-negotiator, Ben Bradshaw, to show their mettle on behalf of Scotland's fishermen.
I thought that the Scottish Parliament had done well, dealing with more than 60 bills in its first four years, until I saw the Commission's legislative and work programme for 2004. List 1 alone, according to the table heading, contains 126 items. When I checked how many of the programme's proposals were for legislation and how many were "non législatif", there seemed to be 112 of the former and 159 of the latter, in 27 different policy areas covering everything from justice and home affairs to enterprise, commerce, finance, information technology, research and external relations. The proposals that we hear the most about relate to agriculture, fishing and the environment—and that is only 10 of the 27 policy areas. No wonder it takes a great deal of time and effort to engage effectively in Europe. However, it is time and effort well spent.
We pride ourselves on being open and accessible. The European institutions are also very accessible, but it is up to us to make the most of that accessibility to ensure that our interests are advanced and protected. In the five years since the inception of the Scottish Parliament, we have been gradually developing the mechanisms that will help us to be aware of what is happening in the EU and to contribute effectively. For example, the pre-council and post-council meeting reports were very scrappy to begin with, but they are getting better. In the first session of Parliament, the European Committee began circulating a sift of EU documents to the subject committees. However, although I saw those documents leave the European Committee, I sometimes did not see them arrive with the subject committee on which I sat at the time. Happily, that is changing.
This session, the Environment and Rural Development Committee has adopted mechanisms for picking up EU issues. We had an extremely useful question-and-answer session yesterday with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development on the issues that will come up during the Irish presidency, and we intend to repeat that for every new presidency. This morning's debate helps us to focus on the opportunities and, perhaps, the potential threats that are being presented in Europe. I hope that such debates will become a regular fixture in the parliamentary calendar.
Ogden Nash said that it is generally not what we have done that gets us into most trouble, but what we have not done. Many of the difficulties that we have had with EU matters have arisen as a result of our not acting in good time to implement legislation. As has been said by a number of members this morning, much EU legislation applies in areas of devolved responsibility. I hope and expect that, in the future, there will be much less hurried action being taken hard against—or well past—the deadlines, with infraction proceedings looming. We all have a part to play in avoiding such scenarios.
Good governance is enhanced by decisions being taken at the appropriate levels. Environmental issues are wider than local or national borders. Acid rain damage to Scandinavian forests can be traced back to the very beginning of the British industrial revolution. That is a salutary warning about environmental pollution and the need to operate according to the precautionary principle. The proposed directive on environmental liability will be fundamental in encouraging such a precautionary approach, as well as in dealing with any aftermath of things that have gone wrong.
European measures are encouraging a more sensible use of resources, through whole-life product design, with pressure being exerted by the end-of-life vehicles directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. Practical preparations for implementing those directives will be extremely important. I am not as pessimistic as Mark Ballard is about the REACH directive. However, if there are weaknesses or deficiencies in directives, we have the opportunities to highlight them and to argue for the regulations to be tightened.
We may not have a direct seat at the top table, but we have huge opportunities to engage with and exercise influence in Europe. It is up to us to seize those opportunities. I agree completely with Margaret Ewing about how much more we need to do in the Parliament and to inform our fellow Scots. This debate offers a good mechanism, and I hope that it becomes a regular feature.
We come to closing speeches. I will have to cut the next three speakers to five minutes each, for which I apologise.
I am happy to sum up for the Labour Party in this debate. As many members have commented, 2004 will be a momentous year for the European Union. It will certainly be a momentous year for Richard Lochhead: I cannot recall ever having taken part in a debate with Richard Lochhead in which I agreed with much of what he said. I think that it was John Home Robertson who gave an able description of that speech by saying that it was "uncharacteristically constructive". That is a welcome trend in the context of the debate. Sadly, however, I suspect that it will not last too long.
I agree with what Richard Lochhead said about the importance and role of the European and External Relations Committee, of the Parliament as a whole and of individual members in engaging positively on matters relating to Europe. That means engaging at the relevant time, not just reflecting on and responding to directives, laws and so on once they are concluded.
The European Union faces three major challenges this year. The historic enlargement of the Community on 1 May will, without a doubt, be the most significant. That development will help to spread peace, democracy, the rule of law and the common rules of Europe. As Denis MacShane reflected when he joined us at the European and External Relations Committee last week, many of the countries that are joining the EU lived under the spectre of dictatorship in recent decades. Their inclusion in the wider European family is welcome.
Prior to 1 May, we will have elections to the European Parliament, and we hope that Scottish citizens will engage positively in that process. Sadly—bizarrely, in my view—returning officers in Scotland have refused to appreciate the fact that an all-postal ballot would greatly increase turnout and participation. At the last European elections, 92 per cent of citizens in Belgium participated, compared with a depressing and dismal 24 per cent in the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that participation in elections is compulsory in Belgium. However, that is another issue for another day.
The development of the European Union's external action will be another priority. We all appreciate that the international situation remains more tense and unstable than it has been for many years. That reinforces the absolute need for the European Union to act in a more united way, in order to promote stability, to support effective multilateral responses to crises and to address the fundamental problems that face global development.
Regional funding is an issue of fundamental importance, and we can expect a robust and tough debate on that in the years to come. Many regions and countries in Europe have advanced greatly in social and economic terms as a direct result of the application and good use of regional funds. The next decade will see the fortunes of the 10 accession countries improve in the same way as those of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and, indeed, the Highlands and Islands have done. The fortunes of all the peoples in those countries have advanced.
For the United Kingdom and Scotland, the debate will focus on the repatriation or renationalisation of regional funding. I welcome the pledge by Patricia Hewitt that funds will be maintained at existing levels if they are repatriated and that the duration of funding will mirror the EU's commitment to regional funding in the accession countries.
I agree with what my colleague John Home Robertson said about fishing. He was right to mention its importance to Scotland and to condemn those who advocate breaking the law, rather than adhering to the agreement that was secured in Brussels last month.
Mark Ballard focused on toxic chemicals. Sadly, he referred to the bogus science that underpinned the report about salmon farming that was published last week. It is irresponsible in the extreme for the Green Party so cynically to associate itself with a report that has been denounced by all credible health monitors.
I have only one minute left.
In associating themselves with that report, Green members cynically turn their backs on the thousands of men and women who rely on the salmon farming industry for security and stable employment.
Will the member give way?
I will not.
I cannot follow the logic of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP's argument for independence in Europe, which they share with other increasingly irrelevant separatist movements. Separation flies in the face of the ethos that underpins the European Union—the principle of partnership. Only nationalists can reconcile in their minds the policy of independence in Europe with the illogicality of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy.
I hope that in the next few years, with the development of the work programme, the EU will focus on clearly defined priorities, instead of constantly debating its constitutions and institutions. Let us ignore the nationalistic sloganising about Europe, avoid the dead-end politics of the SNP, ignore the isolationism of the Tories and work in a co-operative fashion with millions of other EU citizens.
This debate has been a welcome opportunity to discuss some very important issues relating to Europe. I disagree with Frances Curran, who seemed to indicate that she believed we should be discussing other matters. Having said that, I agree with much else that she had to say about the European Central Bank and the euro. However, enough about that for the time being.
It is interesting that we are conducting this debate against the background of a rather bizarre situation, to which John Home Robertson and Phil Gallie referred. The European Commission is threatening to take the Council of Ministers to court over the breach of the stability pact. It is now perfectly clear that the Government under John Major was entirely right to negotiate an opt-out from membership of the euro in the Maastricht treaty.
There are a number of concerns about European proposals. I will touch briefly on two of those. Last month, I lodged a motion on the threat to the Scottish wild game industry from a European proposal that a suitably qualified person should have to certify that all meat entering the food chain is fit for human consumption and that the animals from which it comes have been humanely killed. Clearly, if a couple of wild rabbits or a brace of pheasants that someone buys for dinner must be accompanied by a certificate from a qualified vet, the whole industry will become uneconomic, which would be quite ridiculous. Proposals of that sort simply discredit European institutions.
Similarly, this week we learned of another idea—that all products made in the EU should have to be labelled "Made in the EU". Scotch whisky, shortbread and sporrans might be labelled "Made in the EU" and the distinctive branding "Made in Scotland" that contributes so much to their sales might be lost. The same applies to Scottish salmon. I associate myself with Alasdair Morrison's remarks about the salmon industry.
My colleague Ted Brocklebank referred to the fishing industry and was absolutely right to do so in this context. When Denis MacShane appeared before the European and External Relations Committee last week, Alasdair Morrison asked him about withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. Mr MacShane said that withdrawal from the common fisheries policy would mean withdrawal from Europe. That is nonsense. Treaties can be renegotiated. Just as we can negotiate an opt-out from the euro, we can negotiate an opt-out from the CFP. [Interruption.] I hear laughter from Liberal members. It is interesting that one member of the Scottish Parliament who has raised the issue of withdrawal from the CFP is the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services. I am sure that no one would accuse him of seeking withdrawal from the EU. At issue is what is the best way forward for our country.
Many other excellent points have been made. Pauline McNeill made some very good points about the impact of the EU on our criminal law. We should be proud of the justice system in this country, which is different from the system that applies in most of Europe. We have a system that is adversarial rather than inquisitorial. It is not necessarily better because of that, but it is different and works well. We should be cautious about harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation rather than in order to improve our system.
In the few moments that remain to me I will deal with the issue of the EU constitution, which was raised by Keith Raffan and a number of other members. Her Majesty's Government has said that that is simply a tidying-up exercise, but it was contradicted by Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and the UK representative on the praesidium of the convention. She said that, despite being someone who was contributing to the writing and development of the constitution, she opposed it and believed that it would be wrong for Britain to sign up to it. Gisela Stuart is not anti-European, by any stretch of the imagination, but she saw the dangers of the proposed constitution nonetheless.
In the current edition of "The European Journal", Václav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, writes:
"I am convinced that if we accepted this document"—
the draft European constitution—
"as it stands today, if we remained silent or falsely loyal, we would participate in the decision to set off from the current crossroad of European history in the clearly federalist or even supra-nationalist direction.
We should all consider it again. And if we can define our own position, do not let us be shouted down for being anti-European. We may be against the European superstate but we may strongly support a reasonably integrated, free, and productive Europe."
The President of the Czech Republic is by no means anti-European, but he has reservations about the draft EU constitution. Quite rightly, he believes—as we do—in the need for a referendum to be held on that constitution.
Major issues affecting our integration and involvement in Europe have arisen in this debate, which has provided us with a welcome opportunity to discuss them. To raise concerns about some of those issues, as the likes of Gisela Stuart and Václav Klaus have done, is not to be anti-European or even anti-EU—it is to take a reasonable, realistic stance on what is in our national interest and to speak up for it. I urge the Scottish Executive and Her Majesty's Government to do just that.
This has been an interesting debate, in which the ghost of Mike Russell has even been called to speak. Clearly, that was a slip on the part of the Presiding Officer. The debate has also been interesting as we have seen a coalition on Europe develop between the Conservatives and the SSP. Today, it has been announced exclusively that the Tories are not anti-European—they just do not like most of Europe.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way to the man who made that exclusive announcement.
The member claims that Conservatives are against some parts of the European Union. What is wrong with the CFP part of it, which the SNP dislikes?
If Mr Brocklebank had taken part in the recent fisheries debate in the Parliament, he would be well aware of the SNP's view on this matter. I am surprised that he has such a problem with his short-term memory.
I welcome this debate and the European and External Relations Committee's decision to hold it. I support the position of Richard Lochhead, the committee's convener, and of a number of other speakers in the debate, including Nora Radcliffe. I hope that the Executive will schedule an annual debate on the Commission's legislative programme. From the minister's opening speech, I have the impression that he is sympathetic to that suggestion. I hope that he will be able to confirm that in the future the Executive will make time available for such debates.
The debate has focused largely on three key themes that were highlighted in the Commission document: the accession of 10 new member states in May; stability; and sustainable growth. On 1 May, 10 new member states will join the EU and we will have a Europe of 450 million citizens. As Keith Raffan stated in his speech, enlargement is not an event but a process, similar to that of devolution. The process of enlargement clearly continues. Negotiations continue with Romania and Bulgaria. As several members have said, the applications of Croatia and Turkey will be further analysed in the coming year.
John Home Robertson referred to stability within and outwith the European Union. He referred mainly to the Tampere agenda on the European area of freedom, security and justice. Unlike the Conservatives, Richard Lochhead made a very good speech. He highlighted the proposed external border management agency, which could have an impact on the First Minister's intention of bringing more and more people into Scotland. The Scottish Executive should take an interest in that agency, to ensure that it does not compromise our intention of bringing new people into Scotland to increase our population.
A number of speakers mentioned sustainable growth and, in particular, the opportunities for Scottish businesses to expand in other European member states and in the new member states that will join in May.
My colleagues Nicola Sturgeon and Linda Fabiani highlighted the two lists of priorities in the Commission's work programme, much of which deals with issues that will be exclusively within the competence of this Parliament. At times, it is difficult to understand the Executive's position on many of those issues. A number of members have highlighted the need for subject committees of the Parliament to be much more actively involved in considering what is going through the European Parliament and being dealt with by the European Commission. Alasdair Morgan and Pauline McNeill highlighted the number of regulations that are passing through at any given time. Our subject committees should be at the heart of that consideration; we should not leave it all to the European and External Relations Committee. However, to do that consideration, it would be helpful to know the Executive's position on many of the issues. The Executive should at least produce some kind of policy statement early in the consideration of such issues so that we know its position and what it intends to do in pursuing its position.
We can come here today and bump our gums as much we like about scrutinising what is going on in Europe. However, not until we are a normal independent nation, joining other member states within Europe, will we have a real opportunity to play our part in Europe.
A number of important themes have run through this morning's debate, which has ranged widely, covering not just the work plan but the spectrum of European affairs and politics. We should recognise the system that operates in Europe at this time, and the tiers within it. The Commission is the bureaucracy that supports the Council and the presidency of the day—the Irish at the moment. We have to recognise the different roles played by the different elements of the European system and the constraints within which those elements operate.
Many members, including Pauline McNeill, have mentioned the need for transparency and democracy. It is important to recognise that codecision between the European Parliament and the European Council has extended in recent years. That is a welcome development. It is important to recognise why the work plan deals with governance issues that were discussed at the outset of this morning's debate, especially in relation to impact assessment and the minimum standards of consultation. The discussion dealt to some extent with the points that Michael Matheson has just made on the need for improved processes and early-warning processes.
Pauline McNeill spoke about the need for lawyers in Brussels. The Executive has a successful scheme of sending Executive lawyers to the Commission. Currently, four Scottish lawyers are in the directorate-general for the environment. Ironically, they are involved in infraction proceedings. However, once they are there, it is not for us to dictate which area they operate in. However, we take Pauline McNeill's point. The Scottish Executive intends to continue with secondments of lawyers and other staff.
A consistency of approach has been mentioned. I found Mr Gallie's remarks on the growth and stability pact somewhat ironic. For him to rail against Germany and France for defending their national interest, as he said that they had done in relation to the growth and stability pact, and then for Murdo Fraser to say just a moment ago that defending national interests is a good thing to do, shows the mixed thinking on the Conservative benches. Mr Fraser created a scare story about sporrans; I thought that he would go on to talk about straight bananas. The Conservatives do not change their tune, and I recognise Mr Fraser's impeccably dry European credentials.
While we are on dry credentials, perhaps Mr Scott can tell us whether he agrees with Denis MacShane's comment at the European and External Relations Committee last week that to withdraw from the CFP would mean withdrawal from Europe?
I have not read Mr MacShane's comments. However, one comment that I agreed with was Mr Brocklebank's when he spoke about John Farnell's contributions to the debate last night and this morning. Mr Farnell said that we had to deal flexibly with the unintended consequences of the outcome of the fisheries council. Mr Brocklebank agreed with that and so do I.
I want to deal with some of the points raised on the work plan and the European strategy. Nicola Sturgeon, Michael Matheson and many others wanted to hear an Executive response on those issues. We have already produced a forward-look document, which Linda Fabiani mentioned. Scotland Europa's document is also helpful, as indeed are this debate and the proceedings of EMILE—the European members information and liaison exchange network. We will reflect on the request that members on all sides of the chamber have made for an annual formal debate on the work plan and for a published document on the Executive's position. I suggest that we produce a lot of that information already, but we are prepared to consider pulling it all together.
May I turn the minister's attention to the relationship between the Scottish Executive and the European Commission? Is it still the Executive's position that the Commission should consult the Scottish Parliament directly as opposed to doing so via the Committee of the Regions or the House of Commons? If that is still the Executive's position, what steps does he intend to take to ensure that consultation becomes a reality?
As Mr Lochhead knows, we made strenuous representations on this during the work that led to the Hain paper. That important work continues. However, given that there is currently what I might describe as a period of flux over the future of the convention, we will take that work forward through the appropriate channels.
Keith Raffan and others spoke eloquently on the historical background to enlargement. The Executive believes strongly in enlargement. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry's leadership in trade missions is very encouraging. We are very prepared to consider the possibility of ministers leading trade delegations, and that work will proceed. I endorse John Home Robertson's comments about this not being an end to the expansion of the European Union. At a seminar on freedom of information yesterday, it was observed that Turkey now has an FOI regime. That is a sign of a maturing and developing democracy.
Helen Eadie spoke about new agencies and the relocation strategy. The Finance Committee dealt with that issue at some length on Tuesday. We use Scottish Trade International, in the UK and external to the UK, to take forward the need for representation in Europe. I will certainly pass on Helen Eadie's comments on the centre for disease to other ministerial colleagues.
Nora Radcliffe and Mark Ballard spoke about toxic chemicals. We are looking closely at that matter, trying to ensure that the system that is eventually put in place is streamlined and efficient. However, I share Alasdair Morrison's disappointment at the Greens' position on salmon farming. The Government created the Food Standards Agency so that we could have independent advice on food safety. That was demanded of us after the terrible event of BSE. To imply, as the Greens did, that that is not worth anything, is contemptible.
Let me finish by supporting Margaret Ewing's comments on the need for more time for European debates. We will take that point seriously. Of course, we also heard representation from SSP members who did not want any time for European debates, but I am with Margaret Ewing in agreeing that such debates are needed.
The pursuit of stability and peace, the avoidance of conflict and making Europe a safer place are important to the Executive. After all, we had armed conflict within the boundaries of Europe less than a decade ago. I say to the SSP, the Greens and the Tories—those joint forces of Euroscepticism in the chamber—that those goals of peace, stability and a greater understanding of each other's country's needs are important. We will strive to deliver on them.
This has been a good debate. I thank all committee members and the convener for the constructive approach that they have taken. Even Phil Gallie, who is not in the chamber just now, tried hard not to be too Eurosceptic, unlike some of his colleagues.
The debate represents a milestone in the working of the Parliament. Because today's debate puts information into the public domain, it makes Europe more transparent and it encourages us all to share information. Few national Parliaments across the European Union are having such debates. Indeed, I note that when the European Scrutiny Committee took evidence from Commission officials in November last year, it was told that the House of Commons was
"the only example of a national parliament which has contacted us and with which we have had hearings."
I found that quite amazing. It tells me that the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament are playing crucial roles in unravelling the mystery of the European process for our citizens.
There has been general agreement this morning on the need for an annual debate on Europe. I firmly agree with that because I think that all of us—and Europe's citizens in particular—are served by our efforts to encourage openness and participation. That is effective governance. Today's debate is effective governance within the legislative and decision-making processes. We must work together for a Europe that is built not from the top down but from the bottom up. The discussions that we have had today, even though I do not agree with all the viewpoints that have been expressed, are a very good start.
Having listened to the debate for the best part of two hours, I must ask whether senior citizens have been disfranchised from Europe. Senior citizens, who represent a quarter of Europe's electorate, have not been mentioned in today's debate.
If the member reads the Commission's work programme carefully, he will see that there will be a consultation this year on health and social services for the elderly.
We have covered a broad range of policy areas this morning, including the thematic soil strategy, the common agricultural policy, waste, growth and stability. I think that we have heard contributions from all political parties and from across the political spectrum.
As the debate has demonstrated, 2004 is an important year for Europe. The Commission's primary task is to ensure the successful accommodation of the new member states. That will be no mean task. John Home Robertson was right to point out that, in the coming months, it is important that we do not end up with a two-speed Europe.
As an avid pro-European, I welcome the new member states with open arms. In previous debates in the Parliament, we have extended the warm hand of friendship to the accession countries, but there is a challenge ahead. As we move towards enlargement, it is important that we ensure that there is a level playing field in standards and controls. The acquis communautaire must be adhered to. If that does not happen, we will open up the way for a wave of Euroscepticism, which I certainly do not want to see. The Commission must rigorously enforce the rules.
As John Home Robertson and Phil Gallie pointed out, infringement proceedings must be handled effectively. There is a difference between transposing the acquis communautaire and implementing it. The reputation of the whole European Union is undermined if no sanctions are applied. Citizens and member states must have confidence in the system. Where rules have been breached, sanctions must be imposed.
In the detail of the work programme, we can see the building blocks and foundation stones of European integration. Both Alasdair Morrison and Alasdair Morgan spoke about cohesion policy. I understand the frustration of members of the European Parliament and others at the delays that have occurred in the production of the cohesion report and the financial framework to accompany it. I am advised by colleagues in Brussels that the present timetable for agreement centres around a meeting of the college of commissioners on Sunday 25 January. That date has already been mentioned in the debate, so let us hope that it is an auspicious day for Scotland. Should agreement be reached, the cohesion report is scheduled for publication on 4 February. I am privileged to have been invited to attend a private meeting on that matter with Commissioner Barnier on 27 January.
The European Parliament elections are approaching, so we cannot be complacent. We are in danger of incurring the wrath or, perhaps worse, the apathy of Europe's citizens if we enter an election campaign without agreement on cohesion.
I want briefly to mention education programmes in the Commission's work programme, which have not been mentioned so far this morning. I very much welcome the attention that has been given to those. In the past, Scottish schoolchildren have received enormous advantages and benefits from such programmes, which provide opportunities for our young people—in particular, those from deprived areas—to experience at first hand Europe's rich tapestry of cultural and linguistic diversity. The programmes provide our citizens with the visible evidence of Europe on our doorstep and in our communities.
Members will also welcome the Commission's proposed consultation on violence in the workplace. The idea is not necessarily to invite further legislation but to share ideas and best practice. As I am sure Frances Curran will agree, a Europe with a social conscience is important to members of this Parliament. I hope that she will welcome that initiative from the European Commission.
Does the member accept that the problem is that we do not have the power to implement that social conscience, whereas bodies such as the European Central Bank do?
I do not accept that at all. This Parliament has consistently demonstrated a social conscience and I know that we will continue to do so.
Part of the 2004 work programme will include the annual political strategy for 2005, which establishes the Commission's political priorities and broad budgetary base for 2005. It provides the basis for discussions with the European Parliament and the Council. This Parliament has talked this morning about having an annual debate on the Commission's work programme, but the annual policy statement will be produced in March. Perhaps the next step for this Parliament and the European and External Relations Committee will be to consider our forward planning so that we can have an early input into the 2005 work programme.
I want to take a moment to mention a couple of things that are missing from the work programme that have not been mentioned by colleagues this morning. The Commission previously produced a green paper on services of general interest, which is an important area for regional Governments across Europe. The delivery of good-quality public services, particularly in rural areas, will be affected by that green paper. In 2005, the Commission may bring forward further legislative proposals on that issue. I know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been actively involved in discussions on the green paper and I would like to see that followed through.
Another omission from the programme, which is a little disappointing given the fact that 2003 was European year of disabled people, is the safeguarding of the rights of disabled people at airports. The issue has been raised in the European Parliament. Unfortunately, disabled people are sometimes charged for wheelchair access to planes. I would like to see the European Commission take account of that in the next work programme.
It would be remiss of me in concluding not to mention the work of the committee clerks and the input from SPICe. On behalf of the whole committee, I would like to thank them for that.
This year will be an important one for the European Union. We will have enlargement in May and elections in June and a new Commission is expected to take up position in November. We stand poised on the threshold of change and opportunity. We can move forward or we can anchor in the past. I want Scotland and the United Kingdom to be key players in the new Europe of the 21st century, leaving a legacy of peace and prosperity to our children and our children's children.
I just have time to end with a quote from Robert Schuman, the founding father of the European integration project. He said:
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create … solidarity."
I support the motion.