European Union Priorities
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05699, in the name of Hanzala Malik, on the European and External Relations Committee’s report on the European Union priorities of the committees of the Scottish Parliament. I remind members that time is extremely tight because I let the previous item of business run over a wee bit. I call on Christina McKelvie to speak to and move the motion in the name of Hanzala Malik, on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee.
14:25
This is the second time that I have stood here as convener of the European and External Relations Committee to present to members the issues that are likely to dominate the work programme of the Parliament’s committees for 2013. Before I go into the substantive areas of the committee’s work, I offer an apology to my colleagues on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which because of an administrative error was not consulted in time for its EU priorities to be included in our report. I understand that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee is due to consider its priorities at its meeting tomorrow morning. Once they are agreed, the European and External Relations Committee will consider them separately. I have asked the clerks to review their procedures to ensure that the administrative error never happens again.
Before I look at some of the priorities in more detail, I thought that it might be useful to cast our eyes back over the previous year. At almost all the meetings of the European and External Relations Committee, we have surveyed and discussed the unfolding crisis in the euro zone. We have watched as banks and, indeed, countries have been bailed out, Governments have fallen and the people of Europe have taken to the streets to protest. It is a chilling reminder of the situation that, in parts of Europe, particularly in countries such as Spain, youth unemployment has risen to 58 per cent. I bring that to members’ attention because it is a reminder of the stakes at play in Europe and the challenges facing us as the year goes on. My committee will continue to engage with the issues and to keep a close eye on what is happening and the impact on Scotland.
My committee has also taken an active interest in the machinations surrounding the settlement of the European Union budget—the so-called multi-annual financial framework. As members will know, the European Council has already secured agreement among its members for a cut in overall funding for the years 2014 to 2020, the first such cut in the European Union’s history. The figure now on the table is €960 billion, which is 1 per cent of EU gross national income and a fall of 0.12 per cent from the previous budget. My committee has already raised concerns about the implications of several of the cuts, not least those to the budget for connecting Europe, which covers broadband and which has experienced an 86 per cent cut. That money matters to rural Scotland, which is obviously a huge issue for committee members who represent rural areas.
As we know, the Deputy First Minister has already alerted us to what the overall reductions could mean for Scotland in our European structural funds budget. The only point that I note at this juncture is that although the figure may have been agreed by the Council of Ministers, it has not yet been considered by the European Parliament. As we in this chamber know, Parliaments can make a difference.
The next point to highlight is that, since I last stood here, some issues have made progress under the current Commission mandate. For example, the negotiations around the common fisheries policy, of which I am sure we will hear more, are nearing their end and it looks like discards will soon become a thing of the past; and negotiations on the common agricultural policy are also in their endgame. When I spoke in this role in the chamber last year, I repeated the near truism that we have to get in early to have influence. This year, I remind members that the Barroso Commission has only one year left of its mandate. The declared ambition of President Barroso is to secure agreement on all outstanding dossiers by early 2014, which is a challenging ambition indeed. That will set a higher challenge for members here, since they will have less time in which to exert influence over the content of those dossiers. I urge all members to use their influence as well as they can.
An additional challenge to members is to indulge in some blue-sky thinking on what the priorities should be for the Commission that will take up office in 2014. Scotland has already led the way in so many areas: fisheries management, renewable energy and research and development. How can we ensure that the lessons from those initiatives help to guide the incoming commissioners’ determination of their future priorities? We should all ask that question over the next year. My committee will take an active role in ensuring that the ideas and initiatives of this Parliament’s committees are heard and heeded in Brussels.
I come to priorities for the year ahead. My committee is already midway into its inquiry into teaching foreign languages in primary schools. Members of the committee have been visiting schools the length and breadth of the country, speaking to teachers, parents and, most importantly, pupils. I speak for all my committee members when I say that it has been an extraordinary experience. I have no doubt that we have witnessed in action some of our country’s future leaders, captains of industry and maybe even members of the European Parliament. We will draw our inquiry to a close in early May with a major event in this Parliament to celebrate Europe day.
I turn to the European and External Relations Committee’s engagement across the Parliament. Although the committee may be the Scottish Parliament’s lead committee on EU issues, in fact all Scottish Parliament committees are European committees. It is estimated that upwards of two thirds of legislation that passes through this Parliament began its life in Brussels.
The deliberations that have led to this debate are not a one-off. EU issues—Parliament receives notification of up to 20 such issues per week—are on-going. I am just glad that the clerks have a very good system for filtering them, otherwise we would spend a lot more time in committee.
The committee has worked with its sister committees in London—including the House of Lords committee—Belfast and Wales. We have deliberated on issues of subsidiarity and proportionality in relation to upcoming EU legislation, and we always try to ensure that legislation that emanates from Brussels is fit for purpose.
In the past year alone, the Scottish Parliament’s committees have dealt with seven issues of subsidiarity that affect Scotland, ranging from alternative fuels infrastructure, which is currently before the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, to food for deprived people, which was addressed by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
So what happens next? It will be important as we conclude the debate today to continue to prioritise our engagement with the European Union. It would be too easy at this late stage in the Barroso mandate to lay down our tools—I suggest that we do not—having seen so many of the dossiers all but complete their legislative journey. However, as our fishermen will often say, sometimes the greatest challenge is getting the boat into port. We must remain active and vigilant until each of the dossiers that affect the people of Scotland has been safely berthed.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the European and External Relations Committee’s 1st Report, 2013 (Session 4): The EU priorities of the Committees of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 271).
14:32
This is the first time that we have debated Europe since David Cameron’s decision to have a referendum on EU membership and to open the exit door from the EU in a bid not to lose home county seats to the UK Independence Party. We recognise that independence goes hand in hand with interdependence, and the announcement two weeks ago that the EU will establish a transatlantic trade and investment partnership with the USA is proof of that. We must ask ourselves whether we want to be part of a progressive union that represents the largest free trade area in the world or cling to the politics of United Kingdom Conservative narrow nationalism. Does Scotland really want to abandon hard-fought-for workers’ rights?
We face many of the same challenges as the rest of the EU: promoting economic growth; tackling global warming; improving energy security; and promoting a healthier and fairer society. We are already working with partners in the EU to tackle them. Earlier this month, it was announced that BioCity in Scotland, working with the University of Dundee and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance, would be the site of a major screening centre for the discovery of new drugs, under the EU’s innovative medicines initiative.
Scotland is a world leader in renewable energy. We are active partners in the North Sea offshore grid co-ordination initiative and the Irish-Scottish links on energy study, and we are playing a major role in moves towards a more integrated European energy market.
Our strategy for Scotland complements Europe’s flagship 2020 strategy. Both strategies share the same central aim of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
EU initiatives make a real difference for the people of Scotland, which is why we have been and continue to be closely engaged in the multi-annual financial framework for 2014-2020—the EU’s long-term budget. The committee is correct to continue to monitor MAFF closely as it moves to the European Parliament for consideration.
With the concern about the possible reduction in structural funds that was relayed to Parliament last week, the Deputy First Minister will undertake negotiations with UK ministers to ensure that structural funds are distributed fairly and to the communities that need them the most. The support of this Parliament will be important and Nicola Sturgeon is meeting with Scottish MEPs today to secure their support.
In press reports today, there is some speculation that the structural fund reduction for Scotland will be £260 million. Given that the UK Government has not yet had final negotiations with the Scottish Government to determine the allocation, will the cabinet secretary confirm that that is the actual figure that the Scottish Government expects the reduction to be?
That is precisely why Nicola Sturgeon will have negotiations with the UK Government. The member may recall that, in 2006, when his party was in power, similar negotiations had to take place to make adjustments to what was at an initial stage a detrimental impact. We will work hard, I hope with colleagues across the chamber and colleagues in the European Parliament, to rectify what we currently face as a problem situation.
The Scottish Government’s European action plan sets out our four priority areas: research and creativity; energy and climate change; the marine environment; and justice. Those priorities help to best focus our EU efforts.
The leading role that we play in combating climate change is internationally recognised. In 2012, the Scottish Government continued its engagement in the international climate change negotiations and supported EU and UK efforts to reach a global deal. Scottish ministers have worked to support the United Nations and EU sustainable energy for all initiative for global access to renewable electricity. We have also engaged in discussions surrounding the European Commission’s approach to renewable energies in the EU beyond 2020. That issue remains at the top of the European agenda. Negotiations on a renewed 2030 EU climate and energy package will begin in April this year. The Scottish Government will work with industry and other member states and regions to make the case for ambitious, sustainable and long-term renewable energy and energy decarbonisation targets.
Scotland champions the role that small and medium-sized enterprises can play in re-energising the economy. The framework 7 programme has provided grants to universities, industry and small and medium-sized enterprises to co-finance research, technological development and demonstration projects. By the end of October 2012, Scottish organisations had secured €437 million, and 16 per cent of the funds that were secured in Scotland went directly to SMEs. We are working hard directly and actively with stakeholders to promote Scotland’s interests, including in the EU’s next research programme, horizon 2020. We are seeking opportunities where we can to support EU funding calls. Again, that is a priority that was identified by the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, which I thank again for focusing on that programme.
We are, of course, one of Europe’s foremost maritime nations, and we have played a full part in European negotiations on the common fisheries policy. The Irish presidency aims to find agreement on reform of the CFP before the end of June 2013. If it is successful, that will bring to a close over three years of deliberations on fishing.
Scotland’s distinctive and independent legal system puts us in a unique position in the EU, with a particular interest in EU justice policies. We need to assess all new EU justice legislation and how it impacts on Scots law. The UK Government’s current thinking, of course, is to exercise the option to opt out of all pre-Lisbon treaty third pillar measures. The Scottish Government and many others have serious concerns about that position, and the Justice Committee is right to prioritise that issue.
Beyond the Scottish Government’s action plan, there are, of course, other areas of EU policy making that are making an impact on Scotland, and our strategic engagement reflects that.
We remain committed to Europe. We believe that effective collaboration with our European partners can lead to better outcomes for Scotland and a stronger EU. A Scotland that is at the heart of European activity with a direct voice in Europe enables us to benefit from the opportunities that membership of the EU brings.
I began by saying that our future within the European Union is currently the subject of some uncertainty. That is not because of Scotland’s referendum in 2014, but is a result of the UK’s proposed referendum on EU membership in 2017. We understand that there is a case for reform. In fact, we are, as I said, already contributing to the process of amending the common fisheries policy, we would like to see more ambitious EU targets on carbon emissions, and we are supportive of increased transparency. However, we believe that those reforms are best achieved through constructive dialogue with member states and from within the EU. Our interests and our future lie firmly within the European Union.
We understand that it is essential to respect the legitimacy of existing EU treaties, and we also understand that our continued membership would require negotiations. We would approach those discussions as a nation that would be a net contributor to the EU budget and whose people are already EU citizens. We would do so as a nation that already applies the body of EU law and policy and whose devolved Government has demonstrated its capacity to transpose and implement EU legislation. We would do so as a nation that is keen to become an equal partner in the EU and that recognises its benefits, participates in dialogue about its future and contributes to its development and growth.
This debate affirms the role and importance of the EU to Scotland, and the Parliament’s priorities make it clear that Scotland has a lot to offer and a lot to contribute.
I now call Patricia Ferguson. Ms Ferguson, you have five minutes.
14:39
In the five minutes allotted to me, it may not be possible to do justice to the comprehensive report that the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee has drawn together to reflect both its own priorities and those identified by other parliamentary committees following their reflections on the European Commission’s work plan. It was certainly not my intention to go into the whole sorry saga of Scotland’s involvement in the European Union post independence—if that sorry day ever comes along—as I did not think that that point was identified either in the committee report or in the motion before us. Therefore, I will continue with my speech, but perhaps I will come back to that point in closing if I feel it necessary to do so.
Clearly, the European Commission’s work plan will have more resonance with some of our committees than with others. Before considering the substance of the report, it is worth noting that the system of rapporteurs, which was introduced towards the end of the previous parliamentary session, seems to be working well and has perhaps contributed to a greater involvement of committees in consideration of the European Commission’s agenda than was previously the case. That must be a good thing.
That the founding fathers—and mothers—of this Parliament considered the European Union important, and that we continue to consider it to be important, can be seen in the fact that the European and External Relations Committee is a mandatory committee of this Parliament. That shows that we wish these issues to have a certain seriousness of consideration. As Ms McKelvie rightly pointed out, the list of priorities identified by the European Commission can sometimes seem quite daunting, but the committees have identified the areas that are most relevant to their agendas going forward.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has identified eight key areas in the Commission’s work programme that are of relevance to its work. One issue that particularly interested me is what the committee refers to as proposal 6, which aims
“to address the shortcomings ... and out-dated requirements of the existing EU industrial products legislation, in order to further strengthen and simplify the regulatory framework.”
That kind of post-legislative scrutiny is always welcome, so it is good to see that the European Commission is prepared to undertake such work, particularly in an area in which it is often unfairly criticised.
The Equal Opportunities Committee also identified some synchronicity between its own work programme and that of the European Commission. The integration of the Roma is a European Commission priority area, which will complement the work being undertaken by the Equal Opportunities Committee in its inquiry into where Gypsy Travellers live. In the discussions that I have had in Brussels over the years, European officials have always been at pains to stress the importance of Parliaments engaging with the EU and that their input to its work is welcomed. The Equal Opportunities Committee has indicated that it will do exactly that by submitting the report of its inquiry to the Commission’s advancing Roma integration unit.
The Health and Sport Committee identified a number of interesting and potentially wide-ranging priority areas in the Commission’s work programme. Those include the activities on e-health and on active and healthy ageing, which must be of particular interest to Scotland given our demographics and our ability to make use of e-health initiatives, particularly in rural areas.
For the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, the scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s Water Resources (Scotland) Bill is an area of on-going work that obviously contains some read-across to the Commission’s safeguarding Europe’s water resources blueprint. Similarly, that committee will have responsibility for scrutinising the Scottish Government’s public procurement bill, and the committee plans to consider the directives on public procurement in that context.
Some read-across of action can also be seen in the priorities of the Justice Committee. The Scottish Government’s forthcoming criminal justice bill is likely to contain some features that are matters of interest for the EU. I understand that the Justice Committee has written to the Scottish Government to ask what effect the creation of a European public prosecutor’s office might have on the Scottish criminal justice system. It will be important to hear what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s thoughts are on that matter and what engagement he has had on that issue with colleagues in Europe. The Justice Committee is also correct to identify that any decision by the UK Government to either opt into or out of provisions concerning police and criminal justice matters, as per protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty, will also have implications for Scotland.
I said at the beginning that I did not think that I would have time to do the report justice. My time is now up, so I apologise to the committees that I have not mentioned so far—I will come to them in my closing speech.
14:45
I thank the European and External Relations Committee clerks for their excellent work in producing the report, which sets out the Scottish Parliament’s priorities for the European Union for 2013. The report brings together the combined interests of our committee and the Parliament’s other committees, the main areas of importance that they have expressed and their assessment of the European Commission’s work programme. I pay particular tribute to the Parliament’s European officer, Dr Ian Duncan, for his work for the committee, and particularly his analysis of the Commission’s work programme on areas of specific devolved relevance and importance to Scotland.
One key element of the report is the engagement with our subject committees through the appointment of specific EU reporters for each committee. A wide range of subjects were considered for scrutiny, and in the time that is available to me I will mention a few of them. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee proposes focusing on the proposed environmental, climate and energy assessment framework to enable safe and secure unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, which is sometimes known as fracking. There is a need to respond to the fears and rumours that surround the process and to establish a safe and level playing field across the EU on the production of that energy source.
As too many deaths are still attributed to smoking—the figure is estimated to be about 24 per cent of all deaths in Scotland—I was interested to learn of the Health and Sport Committee’s suggestion on raising awareness of tobacco-related mortality. I look forward to that issue coming back before the European and External Relations Committee.
As a representative for the Highlands and Islands, the work that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee has undertaken on the availability of broadband if of particular interest to me, as that is a huge issue in my vast rural region. I therefore welcome the fact that the committee submitted its report on the matter to the European Commission. Ultra-fast broadband networks will, I hope, help to achieve the digital agenda objective of delivering very fast connections to half of European households by 2020.
I am, however, concerned that the cut in the EU budget—which incidentally was backed by the Scottish National Party at Westminster—might result in an 86 per cent cut in the telecommunications budget from what was originally proposed. I am concerned that that could affect the roll-out of broadband in remote rural areas. I have already discussed the issue with David Lidington, the Minister of State for Europe, to seek clarification on what it will mean.
On top of the cuts to the telecoms budget are the cuts in the structural funds budget. We need to know what those will mean for Scotland. I understand that, as we speak, the Deputy First Minister is in Brussels lobbying for a fairer share of structural funds for Scotland, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say when she comes back.
The Justice Committee examined the proposal to ensure that special attention is given to suspected or accused persons who cannot understand or follow the meaning of criminal proceedings because of their age or mental or physical condition. That will tie in neatly with Lord Carloway’s recommendations on vulnerable suspects, which formed part of his review of criminal law and practice in Scotland.
Obviously, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee deals with some of the areas in which the EU has the biggest impact in Scotland, and it dedicated a considerable amount of time to exploring its proposals of interest. Of particular relevance to Scotland is the never-ending reform of the CAP and the CFP, but other issues include climate change, animal health law, waste policy and air pollution. I note that the committee referred to the “Brussels Bulletin”, which is an invaluable tool in helping members to keep up to date with all EU matters. Once again, I congratulate Ian Duncan on its production.
On fisheries, I note that the disaster of the mackerel affair with Iceland, which might affect our pelagic fishermen in Scotland, was last discussed in committee by the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee in November 2010. Why is that not a major priority now? The EU sanctions have not yet been put in place and the Faroes now wish to extend their catches enormously in the mackerel and Atlantic herring stocks. That should surely be a priority for our rural affairs committee, as it affects the sustainability of our Scottish pelagic fishing fleet. I call on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to put that issue high on its future agenda.
This is a thorough report that clearly demonstrates the role that our committees can play in European matters. I look forward to their further engagement with the European and External Relations Committee and the forthcoming further report, which will be published in the autumn.
The European and External Relations Committee is grateful for the input of the other committees and now knows what their priorities are with regard to EU issues. It will audit the performance of the other committees in achieving their goals on those priorities. We look forward to further reports on progress in the autumn.
We move to the open debate. I remind members that speeches are four minutes.
14:50
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate as the European Union reporter for the Health and Sport Committee and having previously been the EU reporter for the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee and, before that, for the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
The specific EU legislative and policy issues that the Health and Sport Committee is prioritising are: the e-health action plan 2012-13; the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing; revision of the tobacco products directive; and the package on innovation in health through medical devices.
Each of those policy areas is of key strategic importance for improving Scotland’s health and wellbeing. Moreover, they accord closely to the domestic priorities and associated policy reforms set out by the Scottish Government.
There is no doubt that e-health is radically changing the way in which healthcare is delivered. It has huge untapped further potential and can significantly improve the quality of healthcare by adopting a person-centred delivery system. It provides technologies that will allow patients to be more in control of their own care than at present, which paves the way not only for better healthcare but for a more financially sustainable model of healthcare.
Scotland is already recognised as being at the forefront of developments in that area. Innovations in telehealth and telecare that are taking place in Scotland are seen as being among leading examples of the application of technology to the delivery of healthcare in Europe.
In making those innovations, we are promoting further the economic spin-offs that are available from the approach. For example, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has made digital health and care one of the cornerstones of its strategy for assisting the growth of the life sciences business in its region.
E-health not only is good for patients, but will enhance the sustainability of health delivery and help to develop and support the crucial high-technology segments of our economy.
Active and healthy ageing is another EU priority area in which Scotland has significant potential to contribute to—and, indeed, lead on—EU initiatives.
The Health and Sport Committee will consider the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing, which is designed better to allow EU citizens to lead healthy, active and independent lives while ageing. There is already Scottish representation on the partnership, and the committee is interested in considering ways in which Scotland may make further contributions to its work.
A particular example is the proposal to examine opportunities for Scotland to be at the heart of a knowledge innovation community through the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, which is financed from the EU horizon 2020 programme and is specifically considering healthy living and active ageing. The University of Edinburgh is currently developing proposals to participate in the prospective programme as an innovation hub—that is, a centre of excellence that integrates higher education, research and business activities.
The priority actions that are set out in the Commission’s work programme offer significant opportunities for Scotland’s research and innovation communities. Indeed, those opportunities have the potential to propel Scotland to the forefront of a range of key initiatives in e-health and in active and healthy ageing. Not only will benefits accrue to the general public in the form of a person-focused healthcare system, but we will make healthcare more sustainable and, with appropriate measures introduced to facilitate active and healthy ageing, we will make a significant contribution to reducing the long-term demand for public services in health and social care.
I will take forward the Health and Sport Committee’s EU priorities. In doing so, I support the motion that is before us.
However, it would be remiss of me not to remind the Parliament that the greatest threat to Scotland’s position in Europe is remaining part of a UK that is sleepwalking out of the EU. Of course, the only way that we can safeguard Scotland’s EU membership is through a yes vote in next year’s independence referendum.
14:54
I thank the convener and the members of the European and External Relations Committee for their quality report and for identifying the range of committee activity that engages with Europe, from the e-health action plan to public procurement and broadband networks.
In my remarks, I will focus on the future of structural funds, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. I suppose that I will ask the rhetorical question, “How will Scotland be affected by the multi-annual financial framework agreed at the last Council summit?” Taking a wider view, my belief is that the summit was a missed opportunity to fully reform the EU budget, but perhaps that was a bridge too far. There was an overall rise in areas that will help to create jobs and growth, including funding for the youth guarantee, but we have heard about the cuts to the connecting Europe facility, which I believe were a mistake as they will slash information technology infrastructure across Europe.
As we heard, it will be up to the UK Government, in negotiation with the Scottish Government, to allocate structural funds for the new programming period of 2014 to 2020 within the EU budget envelope. The announcement of the death of structural funds might have been a little premature, but the funding for cohesion policy has been cut by about 8 per cent compared with the current MAFF. However, the budget still has to be approved by the European Parliament.
The new MAFF will introduce a new category of structural funding for transition regions, which will provide funding for regions whose per capita gross domestic product is between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of the EU average. The figure for my region, the Highlands and Islands, is still only just over 84 per cent of the average. Members will know that the Highlands and Islands covers a third of Scotland’s landmass and an area that is larger than Belgium, but its population is smaller than that of Brussels. It has challenging geography, with a coastline that is longer than Brazil’s and more than 100 inhabited islands. As we all know, depopulation has been a running sore in my patch, with huge issues such as the departure of whole communities, the best example of that being St Kilda.
The structural funds programme between 2000 and 2006 created or retained 17,000 jobs, assisted more than 9,000 businesses and supported 11,000 trainees. My overalI view is that European funding is not some paternalistic sop from Eurocrats, but a crucial economic tool to lever up to the EU average the per capita GDP of lagging regions. It provides planning and economic opportunities to exploit emerging markets such as life sciences, renewable energy and the creative industries. I am sure that the minister shares my view that transition region status will be an important economic tool in overcoming natural handicaps and allowing the region to work with the rest of Scotland in contributing towards the EU 2020 goals of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU economy.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary has picked up the point that, because the Highlands and Islands is the only transition region in Scotland, we have, in effect, two funds, so we are doubling up through the proposal. That is well worth stressing when we look at the reduction in budgets.
My time is short. I ask the cabinet secretary to address the review of state-aid guidelines in the winding-up speech. The financial assistance that public bodies give private companies is vital at a time of economic recession. The European Commission proposals could have a detrimental effect in Scotland by limiting public agencies’ ability to pump-prime crucial growth points such as the renewable energy sector.
I also urge the Scottish Government to work with Westminster to review the EU proposals on defining the regional aid map so that regional deprivation and sparsity of population are still key factors. There has to be an underlying fairness in defining the map for the provision of funding to both large enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises.
I wish the committee well in its future deliberations.
14:58
I am glad to be speaking in this debate, albeit only as a member of the European and External Relations Committee and not as a reporter on Europe or a member of one of the other committees.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the important relationship that Scotland has with Europe and how key it is to our country moving forward in science and research. The importance of that is evidenced by the visit today of the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to Europe to talk not just about her concerns about the EU structural funds settlement, but about the possibilities for Scotland in Europe following a “yes” vote. We are discussing the committee’s report, but we cannot talk about it in isolation from the referendum and the constitutional issues that face Scotland, or indeed from the wider UK referendum on an exit from Europe, because those are key factors when we are talking about priorities.
The cabinet secretary talked about the importance of science and research, which are also included in the European and External Relations Committee’s priorities for Europe, with regard to the horizon 2020 funding for research.
On her appointment as the first adviser on science issues to the President of the European Commission, Anne Glover said:
“It is an enormous pleasure for me to be the first Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission and to be in a position to talk about the excellence in science, engineering and technology that is generated across member states. Our big challenge in Europe is translating that knowledge into better environments, better health, more rewarding lifestyles and a sustainable future”.
She is also on record talking about the big global scientific challenges being in the areas of
“climate change, food security and water security.”
Earlier in the year, Humza Yousaf noted that Scotland has already taken a global lead on climate justice. He said:
“The Scottish Government’s ‘climate justice fund’ is the first of its kind in the world. In December, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Paul Wheelhouse, announced that Scotland would host an international conference on the subject. Much of the international development funding is already dedicated to projects relating to sustainability, food security and climate impact.”
Therefore, I welcome the fact that the themes of climate change, food security and water security run through the priorities that have been set by some of the committees. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has highlighted energy technology and innovation, and future European energy policy. The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee has highlighted safeguarding Europe’s water resources and the EU water blueprint. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has talked about the common agricultural policy, fisheries policies, the invasion of alien species, the safeguarding of Europe’s water resources, the EU strategy on adapting to climate change and the EU strategy on the energy framework. We cannot consider any of those issues in isolation, because everything that we do in Europe affects the wider world, and having those priorities reflected in the committee’s work is welcome.
I am also a member of the Education and Culture Committee. Although that committee has not made a submission to the report, the European and External Relations Committee has done a great deal of work on the one-plus-two language model that the Scottish Government is piloting, which should ensure that we have a healthy future in Europe.
15:02
As EU reporter for the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, I thank the convener of the European and External Relations Committee for her acknowledgement of the omission from the report of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s EU priorities. I am confident that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee will play a key role in supporting the European and External Relations Committee’s scrutiny of EU policy, in the areas that are within its remit.
Tomorrow I shall propose several EU priorities that I have identified for 2013 to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for its consideration and agreement. Although the European Commission’s work programme for 2013 does not identify specific priorities for the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, there can be no doubt that many EU initiatives have a direct impact on the functioning of local government, and on delivery of regeneration work in Scotland.
A number of on-going EU policies that are of significant importance to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee will complete their legislative journey throughout 2013: the multi-annual financial framework and the Scottish partnership agreement for 2014 to 2020, the future of European structural funds, and changes to EU public procurement rules.
The Local Government and Regeneration Committee is currently undertaking two inquiries on which those EU policy areas have a direct effect. First, the committee is undertaking an inquiry into delivery of regeneration. The recent agreement by the European Council on the EU’s financial framework for 2014 to 2020 signals the first-ever reduction in the EU budget since its establishment. More worryingly, if planned changes to the framework for allocating structural funds take place, the UK could see substantial funding cuts to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while England could be set for an overall increase. European structural funds play a crucial role in funding delivery of regeneration activity in Scotland, so a significant reduction in those funds could have a direct negative impact on our communities and on Scotland’s economic development.
The recent indication from the UK Government suggesting that it has agreed to talks with the Scottish Government on how EU structural funds will be allocated is welcome; it will be helpful, because it is crucial that a constructive solution to the problem be found.
It is well known that there was a demand by some member states for the overall European budget to be reduced, but a disproportionate cut to Scotland’s funding would be unacceptable. Tomorrow, therefore, I shall propose to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that, as part of our inquiry into regeneration, we examine evidence on the potential impact of loss of European structural funds to successful delivery of the Scottish Government’s regeneration strategy.
Secondly, the committee is undertaking the final strand of its inquiry into public services reform, which we will debate this afternoon. The inquiry is looking at shared services and development of new ways of delivering services.
In January this year, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wrote to all of the Parliament’s EU reporters identifying changes to public procurement rules and other EU limitations to shared services, and emphasised that that should be a key focus for local government. Tomorrow I shall propose to the committee that, as part of our public services reform inquiry, we write to COSLA seeking further information on the potential impact on local government of new EU public procurement rules and shared services limitations.
I look forward to discussions with and, I hope, the support of my colleagues on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee on determining our EU priorities for 2013, and to considering important aspects of EU policy throughout the committee’s current inquiries. I certainly look forward to working with the European and External Relations Committee in due course.
15:06
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, as an area of EU work is of particular interest to me in my role as convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Part of the EU framework is the national Roma integration strategy, which is relevant because of that committee’s work on Gypsy Travellers. I will return to the work of the committee later, but initially I will focus on the Roma people in Europe.
The situation of the Roma has increasingly become the centre of political attention for Europe. The Roma make up Europe’s largest minority, of about 10 million to 12 million people. They are often victims of racism, discrimination and social exclusion and live in deep poverty, lacking access to healthcare and decent housing.
Many Roma women and children are the victims of violence, exploitation and trafficking—including within their own communities—and many Roma children are on the streets instead of going to school. Better integration of the Roma is therefore a moral and economic imperative across Europe.
The member states have the primary responsibility and the competence to change the situation for marginalised populations. That is why the European Commission adopted “An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020” in order to improve Roma people’s lives tangibly. The framework identified four key areas, which are mirrored by our committee inquiry on Gypsy Travellers.
The first area is education. The EU goal is to ensure that all Roma children complete at least primary school and have access to quality education. The next area is employment, in which the EU goal is to reduce the employment gap between Roma people and the rest of the population. Healthcare was a huge issue when we were doing our inquiry, and the EU goal is to reduce the gap in health status between the Roma people and the rest of the population. The final area is housing, for which the EU goal is to close the gap between the share of Roma people who have access to housing and to public utilities, and that of the rest of the population. The framework calls on all member states to include in their strategies strong monitoring methods to evaluate the impact of Roma inclusion.
A recent survey highlighted the stark inequalities and discrimination that the Roma people suffer, many of which are mirrored here. Members may be aware that there is a large population of Roma people living in the Glasgow area. The similarities between the Roma and the Gypsy Travellers are stark. Several pieces of work have already been done on Gypsy Travellers. However, there has been little perceptible change. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to eradicating racial discrimination and its recognition that Gypsy Travellers and Roma communities are among the most disenfranchised and discriminated against in Scotland.
I will briefly return to the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee. We have recently completed our inquiry on Gypsy Travellers and care and we are still working on our inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and where they live. Our inquiries have identified many issues that are similar to issues that have been identified in the work that is being undertaken by the EU: lack of access to housing, health, education and employment are part of the daily lives of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland, and discrimination, victimisation and lack of understanding among the settled community impact on their lives daily.
The Equal Opportunities Committee has agreed to adopt the EU Commission’s recommendation on fostering the implementation of the national Roma strategy as a continuing priority, and to continue to take the UK national strategy into account in the context of our inquiry. I welcome the work that is being undertaken to promote equality for the Roma people. We will continue to monitor the success of the strategy to help us in our work here.
15:10
As a newcomer to this annual debate, I will stick to the motion and—although I know that she will be disappointed to hear this—I will resist the temptation to respond to the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks; they had no bearing whatever on the content of the report, which focuses solely on Parliament’s EU priorities for its committees.
To my mind, the one thing that the debate has clarified and highlighted is the absolute necessity for us to keep our eye firmly on the European ball, given the very high percentage of our work that emanates from the EU. Last year—I think the convener reiterated the same figure for this year—the Parliament received notification of up to 20 European issues every week.
The other fact that we must continue to recognise is the cross-cutting nature of the issues. The fact that the European and External Relations Committee’s report includes annexed reports from seven different committees—with one absentee, for understandable reasons—highlights the extent of that cross-cutting nature.
As a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I am very aware of the impact and importance of European policy to our area. It completely dominates our agenda, as is shown by the fact that while no other committee identified more than nine bullet-pointed priorities in its annex to the report, the RACCE Committee identified 22. In highlighting that, I am not in any way criticising other committees; I am seeking simply to underline the impact of European measures on the RACCE Committee’s agenda.
The RACCE Committee’s agenda is as wide as it is varied. It includes on-going reform of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy—neither of which is easy and both of which require Governments at all levels to engage actively and early with the European Union if we are to get the best possible results for Scotland, which I think everyone in the chamber wants to achieve. These are not words that I ever thought I would hear myself say, but I agree entirely with our former colleague George Lyon MEP, who stated that our priorities on CAP reform must be to ensure that the needs of Scotland are taken into account in the final package. I particularly agree with the statement in his response to the European and External Relations Committee that we
“need more flexibility on the transition from historic to area-based payments and a fairer distribution of both direct payments and rural development funding.”
We must all work together to achieve that aim.
Will the member give way?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer.
It is your choice.
In that case, I cannot. I am sorry, cabinet secretary.
Fiona Hyslop rose
Okay. Very quickly.
When I am at Westminster on Monday, can I count on the Conservative group’s support on exactly that point: the transition between pillars 1 and 2 in reform of the budget, which is very important indeed to Scotland?
I give the cabinet secretary one assurance: this Government will have the Scottish Conservative Party’s absolute support in trying to achieve in the negotiations the best deal, as we agree it to be, for Scotland.
The responses of all our MEPs to the report highlight a number of areas on which continuous active engagement by the Scottish Government, its civil servants and the Parliament is essential. Ian Hudghton warns of dangers in negotiation in the European maritime and fisheries fund. Alyn Smith highlights the potential for Scotland’s involvement in the €80 billion research and innovation programme. Others give similar examples.
The message is absolutely clear: if we are to ensure the best possible outcome for Scotland in all policy areas, the Government and its agencies and Parliament have to be in there early, lobbying from the word go and ensuring that we get the best possible deal. I hope that the European and External Relations Committee continues to scrutinise all that activity as closely as possible.
I commend Stuart McMillan for his measured speech. I absolutely agree that it would be wrong if Scotland had to take a disproportionate reduction in structural funding. We must all work together; we must continue, through devolution, to work with the UK Government and the EU to ensure that we achieve the best results for Scotland.
15:14
I will follow Jamie McGrigor’s example and thank very much the clerks to the European and External Relations Committee, who have provided a comprehensive document for us and whose work throughout the year provides us with the interesting “Brussels Bulletin”, which anyone who has an interest in Europe must make a point of reading and considering.
Alex Fergusson comprehensively covered the work that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is undertaking as a result of its having identified its European priorities. An interesting point that that committee made is perhaps a frustration for all of us—the fact that progress can be slow. Like other committees, that committee wishes to carry forward from last year work that it considers to be still relevant, while keeping its eye on the ball of new work that is coming forward. That is absolutely right.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s work to monitor progress—if I can call it that—on reform of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy is important to Scotland, as are the issues that relate to our climate change commitments. Alex Fergusson identified the long list of issues that that committee must consider. He was right to say that Europe is relevant to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, because much of its work—and our work in general—emanates from the European Commission.
I was interested in issues that the European and External Relations Committee identified. We entrust it to bring together the work of all the rapporteurs and subject committees, but it is important to remember that that committee has its own agenda, too. I was especially interested in its work on the horizon 2020 agenda, particularly in relation to research and innovation. That is interesting for Scotland, given the proliferation of SMEs and research and development based companies here.
I was intrigued by the project that could be part of the fight against poverty-related diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Such an agenda fits well with Parliament’s wider work and with the Government. We owe the European and External Relations Committee a debt of gratitude for highlighting that subject in this round of discussions.
I very much agreed with just about everything that Aileen McLeod said; her exposition of the work that the Health and Sport Committee will undertake was spot on. She happened to identify issues that I have previously identified, but that was not the only reason why I was interested in her speech. I was interested because such issues are important to Scotland. She will forgive me if I say that she spoiled her speech at the end, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Dave Stewart was right to focus on issues in the Highlands and Islands, which he represents, given the scale of the issues that the region faces. He was right to comment on the effect of the region’s size and the sparsity of its population. The fact that those two aspects come together means that we must focus on the Highlands and Islands, as well as other areas of our islands.
You should draw to a close, please.
Mary Fee’s speech about the Equal Opportunities Committee’s work, in connection with the Roma people, was interesting. That subject has challenged us all for many years and we have never yet quite got it right. I very much hope that that committee’s work will help us.
In closing, I point out quickly to Stuart McMillan that one reason why structural funding might be an issue is that the mechanism that the Commission has set is not particularly sympathetic to Scotland.
You really must close. You are half a minute over your time.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
15:19
This has been a very good and measured debate. The Scottish Government welcomes the Commission’s work programme for 2013 and its focus on helping to build a Europe that is based on sustainability, sustainable growth, responsibility, solidarity and—of course—stability. I echo members’ thanks to the clerks and the rapporteurs of the various committees for their hard work and endeavours in putting together the priorities.
We support our European partners in their efforts, while we focus on the EU proposals that are of greatest importance to Scotland. The debate has highlighted the vast range of the EU’s work and, in the short time that they had, members did their committees justice as they went through various elements. Given its focus on energy and climate change, research and creativity, the marine environment and justice, the Scottish Government must ensure that its resources and influence are best deployed in those policy areas in order to promote Scottish interests and ensure that we get the best deal for Scotland from the EU’s policies and programmes.
The Scottish Government supports key European dossiers including proposals for reforming state aid, particularly environmental aid, and the crucial EU climate and energy framework. In what I thought was a very good and measured speech, David Stewart made the point very well in relation not just to the Highlands and Islands but nationwide, that the current economic crisis really underlines the need for strong state aid that contributes to economic growth. Aid measures must be well designed and demonstrate an incentive effect, and there is a strong case for interventions that incentivise the private sector to help to promote growth.
With regard to research and development and innovation, the Scottish Government very much agrees that guidelines should support the EU 2020 objectives in key areas. We are actively discussing those and other initiatives with stakeholders at home and partners in Brussels.
In her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary made it clear that the Scottish Government understands the case for reforming the EU as, in fact, do many of the committees that have reported. We are already contributing to the process of amending the CFP, would like more ambitious carbon emissions targets, and are supportive of more streamlined decision making and increased transparency. However, we believe that such reforms will best be achieved through dialogue with member states and, of course, within the EU itself.
That position stands in sharp contrast to that of some of our counterparts on these islands. We are clear that Scotland benefits from our relationship with and membership of the EU. Historically, Scotland has always grasped the importance of internationalism; after all, we have been sharing sovereignty in one form or another for quite some time now.
As I have said, we heard some excellent speeches, so I want to touch on one or two points that members raised. Mary Fee made an excellent speech about equality for the Roma community and the plight that it is facing across Europe. As she quite rightly pointed out, we are not without our challenges in Scotland, but I think that, having faced those difficult challenges, we have a good story to tell and some best practice to employ. However, Europe cannot choose simply to ignore this issue or to bury its head in the sand about it and I think that the Equal Opportunities Committee has been very brave—and very right—to highlight the issue as a priority for the EU.
The same issue was highlighted by Patricia Ferguson, who also mentioned development work and alluded to the ability to work with the European Development Commission to help certain parts of sub-Saharan Africa. I have met the Development Commission twice in Brussels to discuss how we can help Malawi, and I am happy to keep the member up to date about our work in that respect.
A common theme—highlighted by Aileen McLeod and Jamie McGrigor among others—has been that Scotland has a lot to give as well as a lot to learn from EU partners, particularly in health. We can point not only to the smoking ban and other smoking-cessation initiatives that we have put in place to deal with the impact of smoking on our nation’s health, but—I hope—to minimum alcohol unit pricing. Those points were very well made by colleagues and members.
The Scottish Government pursues Scotland’s interests in Brussels. We work closely with the UK Government to secure early engagement on key dossiers, to shape initiatives and to secure the best possible outcomes for Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is in his last minute.
This Government’s firm position is that Scotland should lead for the UK as a whole on areas in which Scotland has the primary interest.
The relationship between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament must continue to be one of close engagement. The Scottish Parliament’s EU strategy covers many areas in which the Government’s strategy and the committees’ priorities coincide. As all members are doing, we are keeping a close watch on discussions and developments in relation to the multi-annual financial framework. I am pleased that there is so much support from members for the Government’s call for Scotland not to be disproportionately affected. We are best able to influence the EU when we can speak with a single voice and are united in defending Scotland’s interests. Together, we can demonstrate how committed all Scotland is to progress for the EU at this crucial time.
I welcome the Parliament’s EU strategy and hope for continued dialogue on important priorities for Scotland. We must continue to collaborate. We must ensure that Scotland contributes to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU and that the EU contributes to the needs of people and communities in Scotland.
15:25
Just last week, the European and External Relations Committee considered a report on the latest developments in the EU budget. Depending on the final settlement, nearly €1 trillion will be available to do good work through investment in infrastructure, energy, small business development, our fishing and farming industries, broadband and research. There are huge opportunities.
We must do all that we can do to ensure that Scotland can draw down as much of the funding as it can. We might not get the full €1 trillion—albeit that it will not be for the want of trying—but we must ensure that everyone knows that funds are available and helps to secure them.
My committee has also been investigating teaching of foreign languages in primary schools. Our convener, Christina McAlpine, touched on that—[Interruption.] I beg her pardon, I meant Christina McKelvie. Just the other week we learned that every year there is an underspend in the European budget—funding that would support teacher and pupil exchanges. That will not do. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that we take advantage of money that is available for good work. The people of Scotland must know that members of their Parliament are on the ball and up to date. They must have confidence that we know that money is available and, more important, how to help people to get it.
The people of Scotland must also know that we can bring about change. That is an important element. When a European law is not working, the people of Scotland must have confidence that we will do everything that we can to fix the problem. That is our job.
During the debate I got the impression that each committee member is dedicated to ensuring that the EU works for us in the best possible way. I am encouraged by that positive sign.
Let us not forget that Scotland has much to offer the European Union, whether through our colleges and universities, our primary schools or the can-do attitude of our businesses, which are at the forefront of the renewable energy sector and are pushing the boundaries in that regard. Scotland has a lot to give to the European Union family.
We heard from committee representatives about the initiatives and action that their committees are taking. We heard about the seven-year European Union budget and the future of the common agricultural policy and what it means for our farming industry, our landscape and even our dietary needs.
We should not forget our equality duties. My committee is the first—if not the only—committee to undertake equality training. I encourage other committees to do that.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has stressed the need for change. There are opportunities and challenges to Scotland that are afforded by developments in the energy sector, including a North Sea grid to connect Scotland’s energy generation to Europe, or the various proposals in renewable energy. EU infrastructure policies, whether on broadband or ferry links, will have a significant impact on peoples’ daily lives.
What happens next? The committee’s work is on-going. The debate has offered only a snapshot of what is possible. I, too, am passionate about what we can achieve and the differences that we can make by being in the European Union. Let us see how much of that €1 trillion budget can be brought home to Scotland.
Why am I keen to see that happen? Many of our small and medium-sized companies are hungry for investment. We need to encourage and support not only small and medium-sized companies, but community groups that bring so much to, and do so much valuable work for, our communities. That support may come from agencies, and Humza Yousaf referred to two organisations that support minority communities. I am also keen to see what other organisations can provide support not only in identifying funding, but in supporting people in acquiring it. The bottom line is that we need to ask where the funding is going and why we are not getting the most benefit from it. Our committee is working hard to ensure that we not only identify means of bringing the funding home, but that we ensure that the funding delivers on the ground. I hope that other committees will support our work—as we support their work—in ensuring that that happens.