Hansard

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".