I welcome this debate and the constructive tone of many of the amendments from other parties. That indicates that there is much cross-party consensus on the Assembly’s evolving role in European affairs, as expressed by the Committee on European Affairs.

As the Assembly is new, this is an opportunity for Wales, via the Assembly, to promote itself in Europe. However, we cannot do that unless we are well qualified to do so. We must have good channels of information and be well informed on matters relating to the European Commission and its workings, as it affects Wales in general and the Assembly’s ability to use its formal legislative powers and more informal powers to promote Wales’s interests in Europe.

Regardless of views on the euro and other such contentious matters to be determined at future dates, I do not believe that there is an Assembly Member who is so anti-European to believe that we can shut Europe out of our minds. Europe is undoubtedly important to Wales. We have had the opportunity, during the first 12 months, to ensure that Europe knows about us and that we understand better what Europe might be able to do for us. We have the opportunity to understand the contribution that we can make to the evolution of Europe, its institutions, its economy and its culture, and how we relate to it on the world stage. Europe is the natural next stage after Wales, the United Kingdom and the British-Irish Council. Beyond the shores of the British Isles, Wales takes its place in the world via Europe. One of the Assembly’s guiding principles is the commitment to develop the profile of Wales in Europe and internationally.

The Committee on European Affairs was established on 1 July 1999. It was given a broad strategic role, which supports and complements Subject Committees’ work. It does not scrutinise European legislation, that is, directives and regulations. Subject Committees do that, where appropriate. We did not set out to have a European legislation scrutiny committee, and nobody should confuse the work of the Committee on European Affairs with a scrutiny committee of draft or actual legislation. That is not its job; its job is to ensure that everybody in Wales, inside and outside the Assembly, who needs to know about Europe can do so.

We bring together a wide variety of interests from among Members of the European Parliament, the head of the European Commission, staff in Cardiff and so on. They gather together in the Committee on European Affairs with representatives of all four parties, to ensure that a network is established. That network means that everybody in Wales who needs information on Europe knows where and how to get it. They can also be sure that the contemporary issues of importance to Wales are discussed three or four times a year at the Committee on European Affairs meetings.

There is a free exchange of information between the Committee and Welsh representatives on the Economic and Social Committee—George Wright and Professor Rose D’Sa—and the Welsh representation on the Committee of the Regions. The head of the Wales European Centre, Jos Gallacher, has been routinely invited to attend meetings and report back to the Committee on European Affairs, and the head of the Assembly’s office in Brussels, Des Clifford—because he was appointed relatively recently—will be invited to do so.

The Committee on European Affairs’ report, which is before us as a focus for the debate, is valuable. It emphasises—and this is the key issue about today’s debate—that Europe is not just about what you can get out of it. It is not just about structural funds or about Wales as a region with a standard of living and an economic development profile that is below average, and about thinking what money can we get out of Europe. That is not ignored, but that is not all that the relationship between Wales and Europe should be about. Therefore, the Committee on European Affairs provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss other European issues and how to screw a bit more money out of various funds. We are interested in doing that but we have other ways of doing it. That is, in the Subject Committees, such as the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee or the Economic Development Committee, as regards structural funds.

I listened to what you said and I agree with everything. My one concern is about putting it into practice. The real concern is our limitation of only one visit to a foreign capital per year for Assembly Members. If we are to develop this relationship, Assembly Members should have more autonomy to go to Brussels as part of their business. I have found my visits there useful. I feel restricted by the current rules.

The rule is one visit to a capital of a European institution, namely, Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg, and a further visit to a regional capital—

No it is not.

I am not certain of the details, but I am right that it is one visit to a European institution or capital, which is permitted. It is not a matter for me. I agree that the offices of the Commission, the UK Permanent Representation, the Scottish representative and the Wales European Centre gave the Committee on European Affairs on its visit to Brussels some well put together briefings during an informative and heavy programme. I do not know if it should be two or three visits. It is a matter for the House Committee to decide in its rules, after 12 months’ experience, whether the limit of one visit should be increased to two or three. I do not want to discuss that today. I felt that the Committee’s visit was worthwhile.

I will mention the developments of the past 12 months. The Assembly has opened a new representative office in the Wales European Centre in Brussels, on which our office can piggyback. WEC has existed for more than 10 years. We have chosen a different route to the Scottish Parliament. It has a separate Scottish representative office—ScotRep or JockRep as it is sometimes known, which is similar to the UK Permanent Representation’s name, UKREP, I am not sure whether our office will be called TaffRep. Our office is smaller and nests within WEC, with which it shares rental costs. Two of WEC’s staff, whom we seconded directly, have the advantages of diplomatic status, which does not apply to normal WEC staff. Therefore, they are able to go in and out of UKREP without let or hindrance because they have diplomatic passes. They are able to see, read and digest telegrams or reports between the Foreign Office, UK Government departments and Europe, as though they were diplomats. The Scottish Parliament has five staff in ScotRep who have diplomatic cover. It is right that we have two staff in the light of the difference between the Scottish and Welsh populations and the Scottish Parliament’s duties compared with ours. That can be reviewed if it proves inadequate in the future. Two staff is right for a start.

Des Clifford officially took up his post on 10 April and moved to Brussels on 15 May. Karen Birtwhistle started work on 1 June as his assistant and also has diplomatic cover from the Assembly. We have also made new arrangements for running WEC. We have three full members and three alternate members on WEC’s Board of Directors. That builds on the Team Wales approach, which has served us well in the past in promoting Wales and its interests in Europe. The Assembly will benefit from WEC’s activities in terms of policy monitoring, advocacy, lobbying, networking, getting information back and arranging study visits and seminars for people from elsewhere in Wales and Assembly Members.

The Committee on European Affairs visited the premises on 2 and 3 March as part of a wider familiarisation visit. Some people have said that we do not benefit enough in terms of networking and inside knowledge of how the EU’s institutions work from secondments of civil servants to EU institutions. We are trying to promote this strategically by placing individuals in key European institutions. We have a target of ensuring that there are six secondments from the Assembly’s civil service every year by 2003. We intend to continue to second staff to the Assembly’s office in Brussels and the Wales European Centre. We are glad to consider WEC staff, given their inside knowledge, for vacancies in our civil service here.

The links with the European Commission’s Representation in Wales are good. The Head of Representation, Catherine Eva, is routinely invited to the Committee on European Affairs. The Committee is actively considering Wales’s participation in the Economic and Social Committee and the other bodies. Some of the bodies are optional, including the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, or CLRAE, of which Councillor Alan Lloyd of Swansea City and County Council is a Vice-President; the Assembly of the European Regions; and the Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions. We do not need to be members of these bodies. We can choose not to be. Membership of all three bodies would place an undue burden upon us.

We need effective Welsh representation in as many EU institutions as possible. I communicated those views on behalf of the Committee on European Affairs after a meeting earlier this year. I have spoken to Keith Byers about it and written to the big UK departments to try to ensure that the Welsh view is not forgotten when they decide upon the UK view. We realise that we have not been represented at Council of Ministers meetings, apart from when Christine Gwyther attended on one occasion. I will see what we can do to step up the number of meetings that we attend. Our attendance will not be comparable with that of the Scottish Parliament because in areas like fishing, it has long been established by practice that goes back at least 10 years that the Scottish Parliament, or the Scottish Office as it was previously known, would frequently lead the UK delegation to represent both Scottish and non-Scottish interests within the UK. I do not expect to say in two years time that if Scotland is represented at 15 or 20 Council of Ministers meetings, we should be represented at half that number. It will not work like that but we can improve upon having one representative in 12 months. That is not enough for us to develop expertise in the workings of the Council of Ministers. I hope that the number will have increased significantly by the time this debate takes place in 12 months time.

You will remember the debate that we had in the House of Commons in Committee when these points were discussed. Members were informed that the devolution settlement contained an assurance of representation in the Council of Ministers, either taking the lead on certain discussions or being part of a delegation. Will Rhodri recognise that the Assembly will occasionally have a strong case to take a lead on certain discussions such as agricultural matters? I previously referred him to the debate on the amendment to the sheep regime. Will Rhodri recognise that if the case needs to be made, it needs to be made with vigour because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not always the easiest to deal with in these matters?

I would be inclined to go along with that view. We should try to get sufficient notice of the subject matter and find out whether a Welsh ‘pwnc llosg’, or burning issue, is coming up. If there is, we should say that it is a specific Welsh interest and we would like to be present. If we are not leading the UK delegation, nevertheless we want to be present to ensure that Wales’s voice is heard. How often is that going to occur? I do not think that we want to be at every fourth meeting of the Council of Ministers. It is not about that. It is about picking and choosing meetings when there is a specific Welsh interest and getting sufficient notice if a specific Welsh interest is coming up. We could then argue for our attendance as part of the UK delegation. We do not yet have a system that guarantees that. I intend to make that the high priority for the second year of the Assembly’s existence.

Subject Committees should take full account of the European dimension of their work. That is the substitute for having a scrutiny committee on European legislation that is tied down to doing nothing but European legislation. I believe that the Scottish Parliament is at least attempting to do that but it is finding it an enormous burden. We do not do it that way. We expect officials to draw to the attention of any Subject Committee a matter of importance that is pending in European legislation if it is relevant to their particular Subject Committee interest.

There is also the issue of the Wales Forum on European Affairs. We do not want to be too exclusive as an Assembly. The Committee on European Affairs has a lot of Members who are not Assembly Members. There are Members of the European Parliament, members of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. We have the Wales Forum on European Affairs, which has had two meetings, one addressed by Neil Kinnock in October 1999, and another one a month ago, in Cardiff, when Leon Brittan —I think that he is Lord Brittan now—the former Vice President of the European Commission, spoke about the euro and its implications for Wales. We plan more of these fora—one in north Wales this autumn and another in the spring in south Wales again. These might well focus on important outcomes of the Lisbon European Council and the implications for Wales of, for example, the e Europe initiative agreed at the Feira Summit in Portugal last week.

You will also be aware, because of the obvious geographical interest, of INTERREG and the links between Wales and Ireland, which is another major area of Europe. Ireland is so close to us that we probably do not think of it as a part of Europe. We tend to think of it, because of old geography books, as part of the British Isles. However, it is part of Europe. Our relationship with Ireland is of huge importance to us because of our geographical and Celtic links and because it has taken such a healthy interest in the evolution of the new democracy, not only in Scotland and Wales but also in northern Ireland. The British-Irish Council, now that it is able to go ahead with the reinstatement of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will give us an additional angle to our European work, remembering that Ireland is part of this European work.

Earlier in our proceedings today, we mentioned the enlargement of the European Union and the issues that arose during the recent consultation with business, which, I am glad to say, was attended by 90 out of the 150 members of the business community invited. The Committee has achieved a great deal in the short time that it has been in existence, and we are still refining and clarifying its role. I will be interested to hear the views expressed this afternoon.

To mention the amendments briefly, we are happy to support Nick Bourne’s amendment 1, because it welcomes the fact that we have not tried to restrict the Assembly’s involvement in the Wales European Centre to members of the same party as the Executive. We are keen on a cross-party approach to Europe; that is right and healthy. We are therefore happy to support that amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled. The same is true for Mick Bates’s amendment 2 on Subject Committees keeping an eye on EU legislation. As we do not have a European scrutiny committee, only Subject Committees can do that job. We need to be aware of resource constraints, however; we cannot devote 10 civil servants per Subject Committee to keeping an eye on the massive amount of forthcoming European legislation. However, we support the spirit of that amendment. I hope that the remainder of the debate will also follow this constructive, cross-party, Team Wales approach.

The work done in the Committee on European Affairs is central to what we do here. Whatever our substantive differences on European issues—and they are considerable; I would probably not be in broad agreement with the First Secretary on a range of such issues—I am at one with the him in believing that Europe is vital to the future of Wales and that we must be represented there. I, too, found the Committee’s visit to Brussels extremely useful and led a subsequent follow-up visit there of the Welsh Conservative group, which was also extremely useful. It convinced me—not that I needed convincing—of the importance of Europe and that we cannot stand aside. We must be present, lobbying for Wales, discovering what the issues are and what is coming up through the pipeline.

I am fully supportive of the Committee on European Affairs’ work. I associate myself with Glyn Davies’s comment, and also, by implication, those of the First Secretary and others, that we need to consider the rules in relation to overseas visits. At present, the rules permit one overseas visit—either to a European capital or to Brussels or Strasbourg. I believe that the rules will be amended to extend that. Brussels is a case apart. When we visit Brussels we do not visit it as a European capital, but as the seat of the European Parliament, the Commission and so on.

I will not delay the Assembly further. I am sure that others wish to participate in this debate. However, I stress the importance of Europe and welcome the work that WEC is doing on a cross-party basis. It is vital to our work in the Assembly that its facilities and services are open to all Members. I hope that all Members will use them, because WEC provides an extensive service, not just for people visiting Brussels. However, if they are, then it does much useful work.

I declare an interest as a partner in a farming business. The Liberal Democrats are, on the whole, satisfied with the progress of the Committee on European Affairs. I must express a slight disappointment at the lack of urgency in providing a clear direction and the lack of action in the first year. We feel that it is vital to increase support to develop closer links in all aspects of Europe, whether they be in agriculture, in which I am particularly interested, or in any other Welsh interest.

The Liberal Democrats strongly support the development of the Wales European Centre. However, we hope that the problems of disabled access to the building have been solved. The development of the Assembly’s presence in Brussels, officials with diplomatic status and the access to UKREP will be welcomed. We particularly support the secondments programme to the European Union institutions. The exchange of civil servants is vital in building networks that enable the Welsh interest to be taken into account. The target of six secondments per year by 2003 is reasonable, but we would like to see it increase.

The Liberal Democrats feel that every opportunity must be taken to increase exchanges at all levels and on all subjects in the Commission, particularly in the four motor regions. Developing expertise and links will benefit Wales’s position and status in Europe. Our visit to the Commission emphasised that, as did our visit to the Commission’s office in Cardiff.

It is in the monitoring and general impact of European policies that the Assembly needs an improved process. We have an opportunity to develop distinct Welsh policies through the European process. However, we cannot do that unless our Committees have regular information about European legislation and regulations and an understanding of how other EU states interpret those regulations. Although there is a suggestion in paragraph 2.22 of the report that Committees should take a more active role and the report goes on to state that the Committee on European Affairs should bring relevant issues to the attention of the Subject Committees, amendment 2 would strengthen those aspirations and make them into positive actions.

We do not currently have a support mechanism that enables our Subject Committees to receive details of EU policies. We need an official attached to each Committee to forward relevant information regarding the development of regulations and legislation. We must influence the Commission’s informal and formal processes.

I have a point of clarification. You referred to an attachment to each Committee. Do you want a civil servant attached to each Committee to administer this? Have you thought of all the implications of that, in terms of resources and so on?

Thank you for picking that up, Rhodri. In order for this process to be complete, we need a dedicated official who would provide that information. Otherwise, as you read in the report, under paragraph 2.22 and later on, and as I have pointed out, you will find that it is only an aspiration. We must push for more action here to ensure that the information is forthcoming.

Equally, we need knowledge of how other European states interpret and implement the same legislation. The debate about genetically modified organisms is a perfect example. Who here understands how Austria or Tuscany established a GM-free territory? Perhaps, on that issue, it comes down to the will of our administration in accepting the Assembly’s will. Agriculture has provided a multitude of instances where we need sound advice on European legislation. For example, who can provide a satisfactory answer as to why France can retain a ban on the sale of Welsh beef?

We need a process by which information is available to the relevant Subject Committees. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has, in its wisdom, already accepted a resolution similar to my amendment. I urge you, therefore, to accept this amendment to ensure that our committees, and Wales, are not disadvantaged by a lack of knowledge.

Er nad wyf yn aelod o’r Pwyllgor Materion Ewropeaidd, yr wyf yn falch o gael y cyfle i gyfrannu at y drafodaeth hon. Yn ddiweddar ymunais â bwrdd Canolfan Ewropeaidd Cymru ac yr wyf yn datgan buddiant yn hynny o beth ar ddechrau’r ddadl. Yn fyr, ac yn yr ysbryd cynhwysol yr oedd Rhodri yn ei argymell, derbyniaf fod pethau da wedi digwydd ers sefydlu’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Bellach, fel y clywsom, mae gan y Cynulliad swyddfa ym Mrwsel. Hefyd mae’r Cynulliad wedi ymuno â Chanolfan Ewropeaidd Cymru. Mae gennym aelodau seneddol yn Senedd Ewrop, aelodau ar Bwyllgor y Rhanbarthau, ac aelodau ar ECOSOC—y pwyllgor economaidd a chymdeithasol—ac felly mae rhwydwaith effeithiol o bobl o Gymru ar sawl corff yno. Mae’r syniad hwnnw o rwydweithio y cyfeiriodd Rhodri ato yn rhan bwysig o’n perthynas ag Ewrop.

Fel plaid cefnogwn welliant Nick Bourne ynglŷn â phwysigrwydd Canolfan Ewropeaidd Cymru. Pwysleisiaf hefyd ei bod yn bwysig i Aelodau’r Cynulliad, pan fyddant yn ymweld â Brwsel i weld swyddogion y Comisiwn neu Aelodau Seneddol Ewropeaidd, sicrhau bob amser eu bod yn ymweld â’r ganolfan. Dylent wneud hynny nid i gael cwpanaid yn unig, ond hefyd er mwyn i’r wybodaeth a gânt o’r trafodaethau â swyddogion y Comisiwn fynd yn ôl i’r ganolfan fel y cawn ni yn y Cynulliad yr holl wybodaeth sydd ei hangen arnom i wneud ein gwaith. Felly anogaf unrhyw un sydd yn ymweld â Brwsel i fynd i’r ganolfan fel rhan o’u rhaglen.

Cydnabyddwn y teimlad yng ngwelliant Mick Bates, a’i gefnogi yn yr ysbryd y mae ef wedi’i gyflwyno, ond mae gennyf innau, a’r grŵp hefyd, amheuon ynglŷn â’r union ffordd y mae’n awgrymu y dylem fynd ymlaen. Gofynnaf i Mick felly a yw’n derbyn y byddai modd i ni weld y gwelliant hwn yn gwthio’r drafodaeth yn ei blaen ynglŷn â beth yw’r ffordd orau o ymdrin â deddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd. Nid wyf wedi fy argyhoeddi bod manylion yr hyn y mae’n ei ddweud yn dderbyniol, ond o leiaf ei fod yn agor y drafodaeth. Os derbynia ef yn yr ysbryd hwnnw, gallwn ei gefnogi.

Cyfeiriais sawl tro at y ffordd y dylem, fel Cynulliad, ystyried deddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd ac awgrymais i’r weinyddiaeth y dylai fod ffordd i ni achwilio’r ddeddfwriaeth honno. Gwrandewais yn ofalus ar yr hyn a ddywedodd Rhodri, ac ymddengys fod y weinyddiaeth yn gwrthod hynny fel ffordd o symud ymlaen. Derbyniaf y byddai llwyth o waith i’w wneud pe byddem yn cymryd y swyddogaeth honno yn y Pwyllgor Materion Ewropeaidd. Fodd bynnag, hoffwn fynd â hynny dipyn ymhellach a phwysleisio pa mor bwysig yw bod y Cynulliad yn cael swyddogaeth archwiliol. Pan ddeuthum yn gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Datblygu Gwledig—

I agree in principle because we both have the same sentiment: to provide a channel through which we can receive more information about the process, and also about the interpretation of the legislation by the state. As part of that process, I agree with your interpretation and accept your sentiments, but it is not the end of the process, we must make sure it continues.

Thank you, Mick, that is very helpful to us as we move the debate forward. I stress how important it is that the Assembly undertakes this role of scrutiny of European legislation, despite the inevitable objections that we are overloading the Assembly with paperwork and the questions as to whether we will be able to do it properly. I acknowledge that there are concerns in Scotland about that. Nevertheless, when I became chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, its work during the first few months was to implement regulations and directives which had already been agreed in Brussels. What do we have now? Naturally, the farming unions in Wales are crying foul because they say that the proposals for Tir Mynydd are not acceptable and we need to change them. We must accept that Brussels gave the Assembly a fait accompli. There was no consultation with us before the regulations were finally agreed. The work of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and all the other Committees would have been better informed if we had been able to take part in the consultation process. We could then have pointed out to the European Commission the dangers of going down a particular path and how it would affect us. That is why it is so important that a case is made on behalf of the Assembly, to lead the debate on the proposals to change the sheep market regime. It is crucial that we play a leading role in that.

Plaid Cymru has not tabled a specific amendment because it did not want the Assembly’s hands to be tied, but I ask the Executive to carefully consider again the need for the Committee on European Affairs to play a scrutiny role. I also ask it to ensure that we play a leading role in discussions with the UK Government when matters affecting Wales have been decided in Europe.

The purpose of a debate on a Committee report is to give Assembly Members a brief summary of the work carried out. The simplest way of compiling such a report is to tick boxes, but we are all aware that ticking boxes is an effective mode of self-deception. The Committee on European Affairs offers some warnings, especially from its first few meetings. In our meeting on 9 March, there were 10 items on the agenda, including international relations, the profile of Wales, INTERREG, the Commission’s forward work programme, administrative reform, the Portuguese Presidency, the inter-governmental conference, enlargement and plans for the European forum. That meant that we could tick several boxes on some of the important issues that we had discussed. However, when we looked in detail at the papers, each item started with a paragraph entitled ‘purpose’. To summarise them quickly, the first report was circulated for information and the second was to provide background. The third and fourth reports were to inform Committee members, the fifth, sixth and seventh were for the information of Committee members, the eighth was to provide Members with information, the ninth to present the Committee with a discussion paper and the tenth to inform Committee members of the plans.

We received a lot of valuable information, but we were not encouraged to make a single decision. It is ironic that with some of the information, which was important, it was also a case of ticking boxes. One report described how Wales was developing links with the four motor regions in Europe and with regions in Canada, Australia and Japan. It also referred to promotional events in South Africa, California and Brussels. This work is vital, but it transpired during the discussion that the total budget for the unit in the National Assembly responsible for this was only £400,000, and the whole burden fell on few staff. There was commendable co-operation with the agencies in making the maximum impact. However, the inescapable fact is that if we are serious about raising the profile of Wales, we must be prepared to allocate sufficient resources to make a real impact, otherwise we are simply ticking boxes.

To some extent, the same question of resources applies to our European office, our membership of the Wales European Centre and the arrangements to second Assembly staff to Brussels. I need hardly say that to the Party of Wales these steps are of prime importance. To us, a strong voice in Europe is far more than an election slogan. We used the word ‘embassy’ a year ago, and we always put it in inverted commas when it appeared in print. It was difficult to do that when we were speaking and we got into some trouble. We enthusiastically support the Assembly’s involvement with WEC and UKREP and we feel fortunate in having high quality staff serving us in Brussels. However, the operation is small and when we look at the wide range of other regions there is no doubt that the regions with long-established offices are the most effective. This was confirmed by Leon Brittan in a conversation about a year ago. For instance, Nordrhein-Westfalen in Germany has 18 members of staff and Cataluña has 15. We must anticipate that the resources we allocate to this part of our work grow to match the increasing importance of this work.

I was particularly interested in Phil’s reference to the conversation with Leon Brittan in which he said that the Länder are the most effective. In a similar conversation with me, the reason he gave for the effectiveness of the Länder and of Germany in general is that they are never or very rarely critical of the performance of the European Commission. He went on to say that Britain’s negative attitude holds Britain back from getting the full benefits of European membership. Does Phil share my anxiety that simply voicing criticisms, in many cases genuine criticisms, of this institution can detract from Britain getting its fair share of funding from the European Commission? Does he share my concern that it is wrong that simply by speaking out about matters that we think are wrong, money is withheld from us that is rightfully ours?

The European Union is a genuine partnership and there must be dialogue and information flowing in all directions. I fear that, up until a year ago, we in Wales felt that we had no voice at all, and even now we feel that the voice is not strong enough. Germany and the European Union have benefited from the close relationship between the Länder and the European Commission in Brussels.

We should anticipate a growth in the Committee’s work. Ieuan referred to the importance of European directives to the Assembly’s work. There is a suggestion that this should be the responsibility of Committees, but it is not always clear which Committee is the relevant one. The habitats and birds directives, for example, at one point threatened to block progress on Objective 1. Over Easter, I attended the Isle of Man conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s regional meeting for the British Isles and the Mediterranean. One session was devoted to this topic. The delegates in general accepted the importance of proper scrutiny of European directives. Some of the small jurisdictions, like Gibraltar, found it a burden. The Isle of Man, with a similar population to Blaenau Gwent, is outside the EU but is much affected by EU directives. It seemed to take the job in its stride. The key seemed to be the ability to spot those directives of special importance rather than attempt a complete analysis of the whole volume of legislation as the House of Commons would do.

I have one more suggestion. The role of overarching committees is sometimes restricted by the assumption that such a committee should not discuss matters that are the responsibility of a Subject Committee. Thus we were not able to discuss the progress of Objective 1. However, there is one aspect of the implementation of European structural funds that may provide another important role for the Committee on European Affairs, that is the co-ordination of the different structural plans that are at present the responsibility of different Subject Committees. In particular, the co-ordination of the rural development plan, which is the responsibility of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and the rural parts of Objective 1 and Objective 2, which are the responsibility of the Economic Development Committee. An overarching committee may have a valuable job to transcend the rather silo-like work of individual Committees. I anticipate a large increase in this Committee’s work, as indeed the National Assembly Advisory Group had anticipated. As this is the end of term report, I cannot resist finishing with this standby of generations of schoolmasters: A promising pupil but must work harder.

I am pleased that Phil has raised the question of resources. One of the key issues with which the Committee is struggling—and one with which we all struggle in how we deal with Europe—relates to resources in terms of money and time. If we are to find a way through this we must determine priorities. We have a remarkable degree of cross-party agreement in relation to our need to interact more actively and to be more on top of the issues coming from Europe. At the moment, we do not have agreement on how we find that time and those resources. Those of us on the Committee who have been discussing matters such as our links with the motor regions and our potential to build relations, not only in Europe, but in other parts of the world, were shocked to realise how small the amounts of available resources are for this work, in terms of staff time and money. If we are to do more we must find more money to put into it. If we are to do more scrutinising of European legislation in our Committees, we must find time to enable us to do that. We are all struggling to find the time in our Subject Committees to deal with the everyday issues. I recognise the need to be alert to European legislation, as it impacts on agriculture, economic development and other areas.

How can we achieve this? I suggest to the First Secretary that, in considering the way forward, he should consider whether, in the budget discussions for Subject Committees, the question of resources for work with Europe could be raised. There is £100,000 currently not allocated, but that will not go very far. We will need to consider whether resources can be made available through different budget headings. We could also consider further how we share resources with other organisations that have legitimate interests and day-to-day relations with Europe, such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board, the Environment Agency and other organisations. One of the things that I have plugged away at, and will continue to do so, is whether we cannot, through the Assembly sponsored public bodies and our universities, have more secondments into Europe from those organisations, not only from the Assembly, where we are short on people. Can we do more to help and facilitate the interaction between Wales and Europe through a range of different organisations, in terms of people going to Europe and of building links? This brings me back to my previous contribution about community initiatives, where money will come to Wales. That money will foster those kinds of relationships and build those links. We must ensure that we make the maximum use of the community initiative funds that we receive over the next few years.

My final point asks whether, in the Committee, we can go beyond the representation that we currently have from MEPs and the Committee of the Regions. Could we bring in people such as councillor Alan Lloyd from Swansea, who travels around Europe and other parts of the world in local government circles? Can we consider using our Committee as a place to co-ordinate Welsh activity across Europe? Ieuan Wyn Jones and I last week attended our first meeting as members of the WEC board. It was clear that the Assembly has a key role to play with the Wales European Centre, which brings together all the key organisations in taking a strategic approach to the way in which we interact with Europe. A discussion was held about enlargement and it became clear that people were looking to the Assembly—I do not know if Ieuan agrees—to take a lead in helping them with that debate, in terms of its timetable and its integration into other work that we are undertaking. If we cannot find a great deal of extra cash and extra time in the Assembly—which we probably cannot—we can become more effective in the way in which we work and co-ordinate our activities with other organisations that are already operating across Europe. We can then build a broad team Wales approach.

Yr wyf am wneud cyfraniad byr. Credaf fod cydnabyddiaeth gyffredinol yn y drafodaeth hon, ac yn sicr yn y Pwyllgor Materion Ewropeaidd, ein bod fel Cynulliad eisiau ymwneud mwy ag Ewrop a bod yn fwy ymwybodol o’r cyd-destun Ewropeaidd. Y cwestiwn mawr yw sut yn union y mae gwneud hynny. Cynigiais yn y Pwyllgor Materion Ewropeaidd fod pob grŵp yn cyflwyno papur ar y modd y gwelant hwy’r Pwyllgor yn symud ymlaen i weithredu’n effeithiol. Bydd hynny, gobeithio, yn sicrhau bod y drafodaeth y prynhawn yma yn parhau.

Wrth reswm, nid oes modd inni ddelio â 12,000 o ddarnau o ddeddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd. Fodd bynnag, clywn yn barhaus yn y Siambr hon am yr angen am ateb Cymreig i broblemau Cymreig. Mae angen ateb Cymreig i’r modd y gall Cymru gael ei chynrychioli yn Ewrop. Cefnogaf awgrym Val Feld fod eisiau presenoldeb corfforol y Cynulliad yn y trafodaethau gydag Ewrop. Mae angen inni fod yno yn trafod ac yn ymwybodol o’r hyn sydd yn digwydd. Pan aeth y Pwyllgor yno, dywedodd y swyddogion wrthym fod dau beth yn holl bwysig.

Mae angen inni ganfod yn gyflym y rheoliadau a’r ddeddfwriaeth sydd yn berthnasol i Gymru a sicrhau ein bod yn dylanwadu arnynt yn gynnar yn y broses. Rhaid inni gael proses sydd yn ein galluogi i wneud hynny. Os oes yn rhaid buddsoddi arian yn hynny, byddai’n fuddsoddiad gwerthfawr iawn i ddyfodol Cymru, yn enwedig ar ôl saith mlynedd o drafodaethau Amcan 1 heb sôn am yr angen i wneud hynny ym maes amaethyddiaeth.

There are three flags outside this building. We in Welsh Labour are the only major political party to be entirely comfortable with our Welsh, British and European identity.

I beg to differ. You will recall that the Liberal Democrats are very comfortable with being in a proud and confident Wales, a proud and confident Britain and a proud and confident Europe.

Yes. I chose my words with immense care. I said major political party. [Laughter.]

The European Union generally gets a bad press. Rather than get involved with some of the minutia of the detail, it is worth reflecting on the European Union’s huge contribution to the history of Europe in the twentieth century. In the first half of the twentieth century, we saw Europe tearing itself apart. Millions of people were killed and tens of millions of people displaced. My grandfather’s generation fought in the trenches in France. My father’s generation fought against the Nazis. The second half of the twentieth century has been entirely different. There has been slow, steady progress towards building a union that makes armed conflict unimaginable and builds prosperity, stability and human rights for all of its citizens. My daughter’s generation now see Europe not as a place of conflict but as a good place to work and a great place to play—an institution that gave her holiday pay for her part-time job.

There are countries such as Spain in the European Union. Welsh trade unionists fought and lost the battle to preserve democracy in that country. Thirty years ago, it still had a dodgy human rights record. Today, however, Spain is a model democracy and its human rights are guaranteed by its membership of the European Union. It is easy to see why there is a long queue of members wishing to join up. The Czech Republic was a fairly dodgy place on human rights not so long ago. It was not a clever place to be an active trade unionist. The European Union offers the Czech Republic the prospect of cementing those recent democratic gains into place and offers the prospect of increased prosperity for its nation. It is time to stop knocking the European Union, to grow up, to accept that the UK is a full member of the European Union for good and to get it into context. We must accept that there will be failures. However, the real triumph of the European Union is that it has been good for its citizens and good for business too.

I will make two brief points on how we influence Europe. As I said in my short ‘thank you’ to David Steel earlier, we have an entirely new relationship; one between the Assembly and Europe rather than one between the previous Welsh Office and Europe. We must take the greatest possible advantage of that. Recently, I attended a set of meetings in Brussels in my role as Deputy Presiding Officer. I came away with two abiding views as a result of those meetings, which included meeting the Wales European Centre’s staff, representatives of UKREP and representatives of regions that have their regional offices in Brussels. I wrote a report to the Business Committee on the basis of those meetings.

Two issues arose from them. First, when we were talking about the development of European legislation, it was clear from the contact with officers of the Commission, WEC and UKREP, that legislation often begins—as it does in any civil service, whether European or British—with desk officers, who are asked to work up a proposition. It was felt to be crucial that we have people in Brussels who can relate to desk officers when they are doing that work, at the beginning of any proposal that might ultimately become a European regulation. That is where WEC’s role is so important. However, not just WEC’s role, but how the Assembly relates to WEC and how all its other members relate to it, is important in ensuring that Welsh views are put in at the earliest possible stage of any proposals which may come forward.

That brings me to secondments. I was pleased to see the Assembly’s emphasis on considering this. I have always strongly supported secondments and not necessarily on a two-way basis. Secondments are not just opportunities for the individual, but major opportunities for the institution. In this case, the institution is Wales, not the National Assembly. We have a large range of Assembly sponsored public bodies. As Val said, we have many skills in Wales and could second those people to Europe. We must find the most opportunities to do that. This is not just about seconding our civil servants, but those who have skills and can promote Wales. Such secondments may require lateral thinking to make them work. For example, UKREP only takes secondments from the civil service. If, in the future, we want to consider ensuring that people with particular skills and a particular Welsh perspective, which we might want to support, have opportunities for such secondments, then we may need to consider a ‘double jump’ such as you get on a draughts or a chess board, and second someone into the Assembly first, so that he or she can then be seconded to a post of influence.

The posts of influence will be important. What also came out of my visit was that, in the memorandum of understanding and the concordat with Whitehall, we have provision for Wales to lead on certain issues, where appropriate. There is specification about what such issues would be. We all understand that, for example, one would expect Wales to take the lead when we talk about minority languages. However, our ambitions can be set higher than that. We have the most representative Chamber—in the whole of the world, I understand, following the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference—in terms of equal opportunities. Given that, our Cabinet mix of five women and five men and our commitment to equal opportunities in our Standing Orders, then we have an extremely positive message to send from Wales to a European institution that is mainstreaming equal opportunities. I could see Wales playing a significant role in promoting that agenda in that institution. The mechanisms that we use to engage with each other in the Chamber would be a fantastic contribution to Europe’s consideration of a White Paper on communications and IT. We are far advanced of other local democracies in this, having had locally library link launches throughout Wales to extend it to the public as well. Once again, we have a positive message to send out. We should be in a position where UKREP talks to us about how we can properly represent Wales and show that devolution works, in the sense that we can achieve things that would be of benefit to other members in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

My last point relates to culture. When you consider our recent debate, started by Tom Middlehurst, on the film industry, an extraordinary number of people from Wales are involved in exciting culture-related industries across the world. A major message can be promoted. No other part of the UK can match us on such issues. We must start considering those kinds of opportunities. I am confident that the First Secretary already does so but, as an Assembly, we should start to consider our strengths and how we can positively convey that message in Europe so that we influence at desk officer level in WEC, UKREP and the Council of Ministers.

Diolch i bawb sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y ddadl y prynhawn yma.

In summing up, the broad thrust of this afternoon’s debate plays back in some ways to the earlier statement and questions on Objective 1. That is, how we network to get the best deal possible and contribute where we have taken a lead or have something special to contribute. I consider the Irish Republic and what it has done since it entered the European Community at the same time as us, on 1 January 1973. It had a huge advantage from increases in milk prices. One day, farmers received 12p for a gallon of milk. The following day, they received 60p per gallon. Much extra bounce went into the Irish economy. Ireland also had the advantage of structural funds and Objective 1 funding, as we mentioned earlier.

However, Ireland paid an enormous amount of attention to how to build up a cadre of people in Ireland, and from Ireland in Europe, who had the expertise on Europe and who networked furiously back and forth among each other to secure deals, such as that on reduced corporation tax. That could have been banned but, because Ireland had those networking strengths, it did not get banned. Ireland could put that together because it had that body of people. It managed to second people to Europe, who then returned to Ireland to the civil service, to its equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, to the farmers’ unions and to the trade union movement. All of them could speak the same language and knew who they needed to ring and what their extension number was in the Commission civil service, the Parliament and so on to get a key decision made so that Ireland could get what it needed.

We could take a long time to develop that kind of expertise. However, I have no doubt that we must work on that. That is how you become a fully-fledged country that can take its place, not as a member state—we will not be a member state—but as a body of 3 million people that can punch its weight in Europe, can get what it wants from it and can make a contribution to the 300 million or 400 million citizens of Europe.

I noted the First Secretary’s comment that we would not be a member state. If Europe develops into a federal Europe over the coming decades and we have a united states of Europe, of which Catalonia and Bavaria may be member states, would he want us to be such a member, not a fringe on an offshore island?

The Assembly can do much better than that without being a member state. The built-in Maastricht Treaty protection provides that, if more powers are transferred from a member state to the central bodies of Europe, as happened with Maastricht, the local ability to express views through local parliaments or assemblies must be reinforced. We should encourage having more ability to express what Wales needs within the European set-up. I am never certain of Plaid Cymru’s policy on this matter, but I will accept Dafydd’s definition of it until at least the end of July when there may be another definition, but I do not want to get into Plaid Cymru internal rivalries. However, the member state issue is a major jump that is not on the agenda. We can make enormous strides forward using the principle established in the Maastricht Treaty: transferring more powers to the centre and building in more protection at the regional or small nation level, as we have via the Assembly.

I was pleased that at least one speaker, Alun Pugh, mentioned the European Union’s fundamental purpose. It is not about straightening cucumbers and bending bananas, but about trying to ensure that there is no reversion to the two World Wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45. To do that, trade barriers and suspicions must be reduced and a better understanding of our different cultures, ways of doing business and different languages must be developed to produce greater toleration. That is how to build a greater, more powerful trading block of different citizens who are all part of a new Europe and therefore better able to compete and not be out-competed by the United States of America—

Knowing of David Davies’s interest in Europe, I am happy to give way.

Does the First Secretary agree that the people of Britain voted to join a common market, expecting it to be merely a trading union? Does he also agree that it would be reprehensible to try to establish a sort of federal state of Europe, which would go against the wishes of the British people?

The trading block issue is an important part of producing greater toleration between countries. David cannot say that a trading block—just a cold customs union—never has cultural or political consequences. We will have to see what the people of Britain say about that and whether they see mileposts beyond which they will never go. That may be an issue at the next general election, therefore I should not discuss it today. It would be a diversion.

I want to mention Jane Davidson’s points about equal opportunities, the application of new technology to the way we carry out our business and the minority languages issue. Institutions of British Government in its different layers may ask us to make a special contribution about those issues at the relevant Council of Ministers meeting. They can also be economic issues, as with Scotland on aspects of fishing. Issues relevant to Wales could be steel, tinplate or sheep—any issue in which we have a larger interest than the normal 5 per cent in terms of population. In industries such as tinplate, we produce 100 per cent of the British output. We also produce 50 or 60 per cent of the output of industries such as steel, and we are big producers of sheep meat. We may be asked in time to lead a UK delegation on such issues.

Jane Davidson’s points about equal opportunities are true. If asked which body of a parliamentary character has the strongest evidence of equal opportunities, you may well answer objectively that it is the Assembly. There is also the question of secondment via ASPBs—our quangos—and other bodies, such as local authorities. I would like to see the bigger local authorities, such as Cardiff City and County Council, the City and County of Swansea and Wrexham County Borough Council seconding people to Europe to build up their expertise. The issue that has vexed us most is whether we scrutinise or not. That is a major burden. We should look to have a triage system where we consider the legislation briefly and whether it is likely to be of interest, and then disregard nine-tenths of it because it is turgid and of no direct relevance to us, then try to scrutinise the one-tenth that might have an impact on Wales via the appropriate Subject Committee.

I understand Phil’s point that there are not enough real things being done as distinct from swapping views at the early meetings. Although I was not present at the meeting on 8 June, my understanding is that that meeting was different and many matters were put up for decision, rather than simply being noted. Some issues will fall to the Committee on European Affairs, as a Standing Committee. For instance, it would be that Committee and not a Subject Committee of the Assembly that would discuss whether or how we should adopt the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We do not want to duplicate work that is already done in the House of Commons.

I want to respond to the points that have been made about the Länder governments in Germany. They have a formal written constitution. They have a place in the German constitution and are guaranteed seats. Although they sometimes do not enter the room of the Council of Ministers, they must be consulted. I think that there are 17 Länder in Germany since they have also taken over eastern Germany. They arrange that one or two of the Länder represent the 17 at meetings of the Council of Ministers. I do not know how the British constitution will cope with that in terms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, it is a matter for us to think seriously about.

We are not just talking about Objective 1, the structural funds or getting more money out of Europe. We are talking about important issues such as the impact of the euro on Wales if we join or if we do not join. We are talking about enlargement and how Tuscany and Austria are allegedly able to secure a GM-free role for themselves when Europe tells us that we cannot. We are interested in swapping information of this kind. That is why we are happy to support the amendments in the names of Nick Bourne and Mick Bates. I am grateful that we have had such a constructive debate this afternoon.