Scottish Government’s European Union Priorities
The next item is consideration of the Scottish Government’s European Union priorities and its response to our Treaty of Lisbon report. I am pleased to welcome the Minister for Culture and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, Vanessa Glynn and Ian Campbell. We are running a little bit late, minister, but I understand that you would like to make some opening remarks. Over to you.
Fiona Hyslop (Minister for Culture and External Affairs)
Thank you for inviting me to address the committee today. I am here to talk about the European action plan annual report, which describes the Scottish Government’s engagement with the European Union over the past 12 months.
We have concentrated resources on tracking key EU legislation and developments that will impact on Scotland, engaging with four areas in which Scotland has a strategic interest: energy and climate change; the marine environment; research and creativity; and freedom, security and justice. We have also concentrated resources on raising Scotland’s profile in Europe. By reviewing the past year, I can offer an assessment of where progress has been made and areas in which we hope to achieve more. It has also provided a valuable opportunity to gauge the support for our approach from a wide range of stakeholders.
Scotland has demonstrated great potential in international energy and climate change policy. By taking a proactive stance, the Scottish European Green Energy Centre has already led two successful bids for funding to support an offshore wind test centre in Aberdeen and a North Sea offshore grid project off Shetland. The creation of a North Sea grid is pioneering work and a key objective for Scotland. We are also delighted that energy firms Technip and Iberdrola have recently announced jobs and billions of pounds of investment in Scotland’s renewable energy industry.
The United Nations climate change conference in December also offered an international platform for Stewart Stevenson and the First Minister to promote Scotland’s world-leading energy targets. Scotland’s commitment to a low-carbon economy could also bring massive benefits in terms of growth and jobs.
Our second priority area is the marine environment. As you would expect, the Scottish Government has taken a strategic and proactive approach on marine issues. Scotland is among the largest sea-fishing nations in Europe, with more than 2,000 vessels and more than 5,000 fishermen. Richard Lochhead continues to play a key role in fundamental policy development that impacts greatly on Scotland’s fishing and aquaculture industries. More topical at the moment is the sustainability of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock. We are working closely with the UK, the EU and Norway to secure a diplomatic outcome on that.
In our third priority area—research and creativity—the Scottish Government has focused on practical steps, including a series of events, workshops and conferences, to share best practice with EU partners. It is also worth mentioning that more than £9.3 million of European regional development funding has been awarded to projects in Scotland.
Our fourth priority area is freedom, security and justice. It is still a relatively new field of EU activity, so despite the considerable achievements that are recorded in the annual report, there are many opportunities on the horizon to influence new policies and related practical measures. The Scottish Government will continue its efforts to raise awareness in Scotland of existing and proposed FSJ measures, which include co-hosting a seminar with the Law Society of Scotland in October to mark EU civil justice day.
The range of EU policy and legislative proposals that are being tracked by different policy areas varies depending on the European agenda. We have made significant progress in how the Scottish Government handles Scotland’s EU obligations. Our systems have been overhauled to ensure that we can influence legislative developments early and that citizens are not burdened unnecessarily by regulation.
The Scottish Government is committed to promoting Scotland and sharing knowledge and expertise. The First Minister and I meet all ambassadors who visit Scotland, and particular attention has been paid to developing productive contact with each EU presidency. Currently, during the Belgian presidency, Flanders leads in Council on a range of issues of importance to Scotland, including fisheries and the environment. In that regard, we will make the most of the existing strong links between Scotland and Flanders.
On the Lisbon treaty, it is important for the Scottish Government to engage with the Scottish Parliament on EU matters. I welcome the findings of the committee’s Lisbon treaty inquiry. We have already taken action on a number of the committee’s recommendations, and I have provided the Government’s response to the committee. Nevertheless, I will be happy to expand on that if you have further questions for me today.
We continue to focus on looking for ways in which to demonstrate what Scotland can contribute to Europe. EU engagement is one of the most important international relationships for Scotland, and it provides the context for our future prosperity and for achieving the aims of the economic strategy.
I look forward to discussing all of those matters with the committee.
Thank you, minister. I will start on a positive note by saying that the action plan is a huge improvement. It is much clearer and provides concrete examples of where we are delivering and where we need to deliver better. In my view, it is much better than the waffle that Mr Russell used to bring to the committee. It is a huge improvement.
Having started on a positive note—
I am not sure that it is that positive.
Does the minister agree with the convener? [Laughter.]
I note the minister’s ability to home in on and change things. I bring to her attention some lack of co-ordination of a number of recent events. The minister will be aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development visited Scotland in June. I became aware of the visit only because I met him in Brussels the week before and he told me that he was coming to Edinburgh. The Parliament became involved in the visit only at the last minute.
Equally, I understand that Aberdeenshire Council is hosting a major Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions event in Aberdeenshire next week involving two European commissioners, one ex-commissioner—Danuta Hübner—and the president of the CPMR, who is also the President of Tuscany, with which we had a co-operation agreement in the past. The event seems to have bypassed the whole Parliament; the committee has had no involvement in or engagement with it.
In the section of the annual report on “Tracking and Influencing EU Legislation and Policies”, you say:
“The Scottish Government co-hosted Sub Rosa policy discussions on Europe 2020 in Scotland House”.
I am not aware of the committee having been invited to those discussions.
We are making good progress in some areas, but there may be other opportunities. In the annual report and your opening remarks, you identified clearly the importance of Scotland’s role in Europe. The committee wants to work in partnership with you on that. Do you have initial thoughts on how we could co-ordinate matters better?
Thank you for complimenting us on the action plan. Focusing on the key issues on which we seek outcomes will allow people to focus resources better across Scotland. That is the feedback that we have received from stakeholders when we have presented the action plan to them.
You are right to say that we must ensure that we have a joined-up approach across Scotland and argue our case collectively. You referred to visits by commissioners. A number of our meetings with commissioners are in Brussels. I will be in Brussels next week to meet a number of commissioners. Roseanna Cunningham will also be involved in visits. Today, I found out that Mr Stevenson will have the opportunity to meet the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Commissioner Hahn, at the event to which you referred.
We should ask the European Commission and the European Union to find a way of ensuring that the Parliament is informed when they are planning visits to Scotland. Some of those visits are at the invitation of the Scottish Government, but some are not. For example, Aberdeenshire Council has rightly identified an opportunity for itself; universities may also be interested in inviting commissioners. Visits are not always channelled through the Scottish Government.
I suggest that, collectively, we ask the European Union to find a mechanism for informing the Parliament of any incoming visits by commissioners. That would be a helpful way of maximising opportunities. As a safety-net precaution, where we have intelligence of who is coming, we are happy to share that with the committee. However, we should not anticipate that all visits will be at the invitation of the Scottish Government. Understandably, councils and other bodies in Scotland have their own bilateral engagements.
I understand that the Parliament was invited to the sub rosa meeting to which the convener referred. Ian Campbell will provide details.
Ian Campbell (Scottish Government Culture, External Affairs and Tourism Directorate)
There were no politicians at the event, which was a policy discussion involving Commission officials and academics. The Parliament was given an opportunity to participate but, for whatever reason, it could not get someone to come out on the day in question. An approach was made and an invitation was issued, but it was not possible for anyone to participate.
You will be aware that we took evidence and produced a report on EU 2020, so we would have liked to have had an opportunity to highlight that via some mechanism. I wonder whether the next meeting of the European elected members information liaison and exchange—EMILE—network presents an opportunity to raise the issue.
I presume that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would have been aware of the Aberdeenshire visit. I take your point, but the president of the Committee of the Regions, Mercedes Bresso, is also going to Aberdeenshire next week. I just think that it is a missed opportunity when the president of the Committee of the Regions, which is involved in advancing the regional case, visits Scotland and misses the chance to come to Edinburgh. To be honest, if I had known about the visit a few weeks ago, the committee would certainly have taken the initiative. We have somehow got to get better at joining things up, whether that is by involving COSLA or writing to the European institutions. We have missed too many opportunities in recent months.
The Scottish Government has not missed the opportunities that we have had to meet, and we will continue to maximise them. Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee or the Parliament, and I cannot speak for the Committee of the Regions. I know that you are a member of that committee, convener, so you are probably more in touch with its activities than the Government is.
It is a good idea to identify the issue with our partners on EMILE, which brings together all the different players including the committee, the Parliament, COSLA and others. Indeed, I had a useful meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which is interested in taking part in EMILE meetings. EMILE should be a focus to ensure that we all know what is happening. I have asked EMILE members to identify between meetings correspondence that contains updates, and some of that should be flagging up some of the opportunities that are coming up. I have also asked our European officials to provide a better and clearer focus on the update that we get from Brussels to identify what has happened but also what is coming up, although, clearly, that is focused on the Scottish Government’s objectives.
You are right to say that the responsibility in the area is collective. It is not just the Scottish Government’s job to co-ordinate things. There is a key role for the Parliament. You might want to approach the European Parliament and European Union representatives in Edinburgh to ensure that they exchange their intelligence with you as well.
One of the people who will visit next week is the President of Tuscany. In the past, the Scottish Executive had a co-operation agreement with Tuscany. Is that agreement still current? Are there any plans to review it, given that the President will be here? I am aware of the benefits that have arisen from such agreements. For example, schoolchildren from my area visited an art college in Pisa as a result of the agreement. It is important to be clear about the objectives of co-operation agreements, but I would not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do not know whether the minister is able to say something about that. She mentions a business-oriented approach in the annual report, but education is also important. Does the minister have any comments to make on bilateral agreements?
One benefit of having a more focused action plan is that we can deliver strongly on the objectives that we are trying to establish. We have had progress on a number of bilateral discussions and bilateral meetings. Indeed, as you know, the First Minister was in the Basque Country only last week. He visited Norway recently to pursue common interests and he also visited Paris and Frankfurt to discuss financial issues. All those meetings were very much focused on the action plan and the key areas that we want to develop.
However, that does not preclude development in specific portfolio areas such as education. We are not pursuing as many bilateral co-operation agreements with regions such as Tuscany, but that does not prevent co-operation from taking place in particular areas such as art or education. Indeed, there is a good opportunity to discuss with COSLA where those linkages can be developed, particularly in relation to education. A focus on EMILE might be appropriate in asking all parts of Scotland to step up to the mark. The Scottish Government is tightly focused on our objectives and outcomes as set out in the action plan, but that does not preclude other agreements on more localised identity between different countries. Education is a good example of that.
I think that our uptake in education is not as high as it is in many other regions. We might want to look at that or put it on a future agenda for EMILE.
Yes.
12:00
I want first to make a point of information. At, I think, the last meeting that we had on co-operation among COSLA, councils, the Government and this committee, some of the councils made it clear that they were not too keen on having a one-stop shop. Some of the councils said that they would like to work with Europe on their own, while others said that they wanted to work together. We have to keep that in mind. Although I think that we should look at a one-stop shop, we have to respect the councils’ opinions so that we work in co-operation and do not tell them what to do. I wanted to point that out for information.
We have just heard from the Belgian ambassador and a representative of the Flemish Government. They obviously have a different set-up for Europe, and it was interesting to hear about the Belgian representation in the EU and how the Flemish Government sits in at meetings of the fisheries council, for example. The minister may have explained this in her opening remarks, but will she tell the committee about the Scottish Government’s relationship with the new UK Government on EU matters? Will she also say what links the Scottish Government has with the UK Government in London and the UK representatives in Brussels specifically in relation to UK policy in the EU, which obviously has implications for Scotland?
I will say something on the first point about how we work with councils. Following this meeting, I am meeting the COSLA presidency to discuss EU priorities. Part of that is to identify ways in which the Government can work with COSLA on strategic issues. As you identified, if we end up having centralised control of who has what relationships within Europe, we will probably stifle relationships rather than let them flourish. A great deal of positive activity happens in different council areas, and I will ensure that COSLA is aware of the committee’s interest.
On working with Belgium and the current UK Government, we have had one joint ministerial committee on Europe, on which I have given an indication report to this committee. The next one is due in October. Clearly, the next focus of attention will be on the budget, which is where we have to have an understanding of the UK priorities so that we can both inform them and identify whether the interests of Scotland are being best represented. That has been difficult in the past, although the previous UK Government indicated that it would be willing to share its strategic thinking on the budget. I am hopeful that the UK coalition Government will do likewise. I cannot speak for it, but we will continue to press for it do to that. Obviously, those discussions have to be in confidence in order for us to ensure that Scotland’s interests are promoted, but we are hopeful that the relationship will be positive. David Lidington, one of the ministers, will be in Scotland shortly, and I will meet him to identify with the UK Government some of our priorities for European activity.
Jim, did you want to ask about this area?
Yes, briefly. I see that Stewart Stevenson has been working closely with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne. I am interested in your view of how such relationships are building, what the differences are from what you saw before the Westminster election in May, and the particular areas in which the Scottish Government would like to work more with the UK Government.
The relationship between Stewart Stevenson and Chris Huhne has been one of the successes of the relationship with the new UK Government. It has been far more positive on the role and responsibility that Scotland can take in ensuring that some of our world-leading activity can be shared on a wider stage.
It is interesting to reflect on the Belgian presidency and the use of the expertise of both the Flemish and Flanders Governments in co-operation and in representing Belgium’s interest in certain areas in Europe. Chris Huhne has identified that positive example, knowing that Scotland has world-leading experience to share, and has used it to best effect. We would like other UK ministers to follow that example.
Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
I want to clarify something that I did not pick up accurately. You mentioned a distinction between bilateral agreements and educational and cultural engagement. How many bilaterals do you have with European nations or regions?
Before I respond, I will ask Vanessa Glynn to give you the technical detail.
Vanessa Glynn (Scottish Government Culture, External Affairs and Tourism Directorate)
This Administration has a formal, written agreement with Catalonia and said in a recent press announcement that work would be undertaken to consider an agreement or memorandum of understanding with the Basque Country.
As far as bilaterals are concerned, we tend to pursue the action plan on European engagement, which contains key outcomes on research and development, energy and, in particular, fisheries, so the bilateral discussions that we have had with other European Governments have focused primarily on the agenda items that are outlined in the action plan.
For example, in our relations with Norway, energy and fishing interests are obviously key. Our finance interests are pursued in relation to Frankfurt. When the First Minister was in Paris, he pursued energy issues in his discussions with the French Government. We are being quite focused in our activity in our bilateral discussions. We tend to pursue issues with a view to getting results and coming to co-operation agreements that would enable other activity. The committee might want to take a view on that.
When it comes to education, because we do not have a centralised education system, the process is run by local authorities. The correct arrangements should be between local authorities and their counterparts in other countries.
Are any bilaterals that the previous Scottish Government undertook still continuing as part of the current programme, or are we just talking about the two that Vanessa Glynn mentioned?
You are asking about a time before I came into office. I can follow that up. It is not necessarily the case that everything was left lying when the new Government came in; it is just that we probably have a different focus.
I might have missed this, but what were the unique characteristics of Catalonia and the Basque Country that made them more attractive to the Scottish Government as models for bilateral arrangements than other parts of Europe?
In relation to the development of the Commonwealth games, for example, it is important to learn from the experience of other parts of the world. Barcelona has experience in other, key areas, such as energy and financial services. We look for tactical opportunities that, for different reasons, would help us to pursue our interests. That is a good example of how Scotland can learn from other countries whose key strategic economic interests align with ours in particular areas.
I am intrigued by the fact that both bilaterals are with autonomous regions in Spain. In case I am missing something, is there any compelling logic to that?
I explained the connection in energy and finance. The benefits of the relationship with the Basque Country were well articulated by the First Minister last week. Given that we are talking about £3 billion-worth of investment in energy and renewable energy infrastructure, that is a fantastic opportunity for Scotland.
Have you thought about agreements with any German cities or regions?
There have been discussions with German areas. Again, this is an area in which I might need to reflect on the work of previous holders of my portfolio, two of whom are on the committee. Over the piece, a number of ministers have had responsibility for external affairs and Europe.
Some of the activity with Germany is still going on. For example, there are very strong connections with Bavaria on planning issues. I am not saying that no activity is going on with areas other than Catalonia and the Basque Country, but if you are asking about political and ministerial connections, those are the ones that I am more familiar with, as someone who has been in post for less than a year. In the context of activity on some of the planning reforms that have taken place, I know of and have actively encouraged the strong connections that a number of officials have with German states, particularly Bavaria. We are continuing to pursue such work, but I am focused on ministerial and political responsibilities.
It might be helpful for the committee to have a brief report outlining what has happened with previous co-operation agreements, what is happening in relation to Catalonia and the Basque Country, and what is happening in the other cases that you have referred to, in which there are relations but not co-operation agreements. I am aware, for example, of Sachsen-Anhalt’s long-standing interest in the Scottish Parliament, and I know that a joint discussion took place on common issues such as the decontamination of land in former industrial areas. I know that Sachsen-Anhalt is keen to progress matters, and I believe that we had a visit from its representatives—the second this year—last week.
It might be helpful to have a report on the various bilaterals and what stage they are at. Would that be possible?
I am happy to do that. You have given a very good example, as the agreements tend to involve specific issues on which we have something to offer or to learn. That is how we have tried to approach our relationships with regard to the action plan. The approach tends to be driven by related issues rather than geographical representation; we discuss issue-based concerns to benefit the people of Scotland.
It is clear that the business-oriented approach to which the annual report refers covers some of those areas in which there are common interests. It would be good to have a grid that outlines the various relationships at present.
That is fine—I can do that.
Turning back to relations with the UK Government, everything that is done in relation to the European Union is now done in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon, which sets out the so-called subsidiarity principles. The committee has considered the Treaty of Lisbon in some detail, and at an event last year or the year before we were told clearly that no European commissioner and no apparatus of the EU has the power to compel any of its member states to have an appropriate mechanism for adhering to subsidiarity principles. That indicates that although there is a greater role for sub-state actors in the EU, the power still remains with the member state—which you might want to reflect on, minister. It is perhaps too early to answer this, but are you satisfied that the UK has in place sufficient arrangements to deal with subsidiarity?
Your analysis is certainly correct. It is important—as I have said repeatedly in this committee and in the chamber—that there are such arrangements, and I am pleased that there now seems to be a common understanding of the route that we could take in developing that process. However, it is currently the Westminster Parliament’s role, working with the Scottish Parliament, to produce the mechanisms for adhering to subsidiarity. We have our own mechanisms to allow us to identify and flag up issues with regard to possible breaches of subsidiarity; the overhaul of our systems to which I referred earlier will ensure that we can do that.
At the previous European and External Relations Committee meeting that I attended, I reported that we were carrying out a monitoring exercise to identify whether or not the UK Government was flagging up explanatory memoranda to us. That was a very useful exercise, and we shared it with the committee. It gave us the opportunity to go back to our colleagues in Whitehall and tell them that while certain departments were good at identifying where there might be issues, others were not so good. That process was educational for them and helped us to ensure that they are aware of our needs.
We have moved on considerably since I last came to the committee in terms of the suggestions for what we do internally; the proof will be what comes through from that. We still need to resolve certain issues with the Westminster Parliament and it needs to agree its part in the process, but we have been active in making suggestions while knowing the limits of our responsibility and ensuring that we do not tread on the toes of the Scottish Parliament.
We have put in place everything that we can to give Whitehall officials a better opportunity to identify areas that we might need to consider, but it is up to the Parliaments to agree on what the process should be. We have given you the full chart of suggestions for how we might progress that, and we stand ready to do so.
12:15
Article 6 of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality states:
“It will be for each national Parliament or each chamber of a national Parliament to consult, where appropriate, regional parliaments with legislative powers.”
I agree with the minister that we are not sure exactly what “where appropriate” would mean. In the discussions that I have had with the chairs of the relevant House of Lords and House of Commons committees, there has been an openness and willingness to work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament. We have been working on that basis with the Government and other stakeholders. We have been trying to work well, and we have moved on considerably.
We welcome the analysis that you undertook on the explanatory memorandums. Perhaps you can say something about what information the Government would provide to the Parliament in the EMs. Have you taken things to that stage yet?
The EM is a Whitehall document that is designed principally to inform the Westminster committees. Our role is to feed in from a Scottish Government perspective on any issues that might impact on devolved responsibilities. It is important for us to be able to take a position on whether we believe that there has been any breach of subsidiarity. Whitehall departments will also wish to flag that up.
The EM is the first cut at an analysis of any EU document. Given the timelines on which EMs work, they cannot be expected to be totally comprehensive. An EM triggers further consideration and discussion between Scottish Government and Whitehall departments, where appropriate.
In getting to a state of readiness, it might be helpful to get a draft in one or two cases where we know that subsidiarity might be breached, so that the committee can see what that looks like. If you are in discussions with the Westminster Parliament, we should set up a system for doing some dry runs, to ensure that everybody understands how the process works and to ensure that it does work. That would give you an example, either of there not being a breach of subsidiarity or of there being a breach. That is something for us to work on collectively.
The devil is always in the detail with such things. We wonder whether there is a box at the bottom of the EM for the Scottish or devolved perspective. Those are perhaps things that we have yet to work out.
There is, in fact.
I am speaking to the Conveners Group this week about the general principles. The whole Parliament needs to sign up to this, not just the EERC. We seek to work with the subject committees and get them involved. They will have a role at a later stage in looking at the EMs in relation to their respective subject areas. It is a work in progress, but it is helpful to have you here to consider with us how to flesh out the details.
We can try to use a traffic-lights system to identify things. That would be quite useful. Because of the volume of what we have to deal with, we have to identify the key areas of concern.
It is not just the Parliament and the Government that have an interest. A number of organisations including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress would also like early warning, not just on subsidiarity issues but on other areas of concern. You have reflected on how we might co-ordinate better as a country, and we must also think about how we can work with other groups with key interests. I am actively considering that.
I will meet representatives of COSLA today.
Mr Campbell might like to cover his ears for this question. Given the current financial situation, is there likely to be any reduction in the budget for the Scottish Government’s European office?
As regards the opportunities and benefits relating to economic recovery, it is key for any decisions that the Government takes relating to all of the budget—we have not made statements regarding what that budget will be, as we are waiting for the comprehensive spending review later in October—to focus on opportunities to get resources into areas that need support for economic recovery and regeneration, for example in jobs, training, skills, investment, infrastructure and renewable energy. We need to support areas where benefits can be provided. That is what our Brussels operation does. That does not mean that I am handing out a blank cheque or giving any guarantees; I am saying that, given the criteria on which the budget will be based, we will have to focus on economic benefits, and I will argue that our European operations provide clear economic benefits to Scotland.
Perhaps that is something for the committee—and our colleagues in Europe—to watch.
Common fisheries policy reform is an issue that the Belgian presidency is dealing with and is, obviously, an issue in which your Government is interested. You have already mentioned Richard Lochhead’s role, but are you able to say anything about how the new Administration is taking into account his knowledge and experience in our attempts to work out a UK position on CFP reform?
Obviously, Richard Lochhead and his officials have put a lot of work into their discussions with the relevant commissioner. Those discussions will continue and, in October, there will be further work on developing the CFP.
As page 13 of the action plan makes clear, Mr Lochhead chaired the Scottish fisheries council in Edinburgh, which considered CFP reform. Moreover, during the European seafood exposition, he co-hosted a panel debate at the European Parliament on fisheries management reform. We are also providing a lead role in a number of areas and I understand that we are looking at holding in Scotland a major aquaculture conference in 2011 to pursue our interests.
However, in the short term, Mr Lochhead’s major consideration will be CFP issues, and he is extremely vigilant and active in pursuing Scotland’s interests in that respect. He will have his relationship with the relevant UK fisheries minister; I cannot comment on that, because that relationship is a matter for him, but I can say that in Europe we have been very active indeed on those matters. I understand that we are supporting European moves to negotiate fair fishing quotas for sustainability and in his meeting with Commissioner Damanaki in October he will seek to add momentum to that process. Finally, in October, he will host an international workshop with ministers from the North Sea states to share and develop our thinking on these matters and to inform developments in fisheries policy reform.
Given all that, how disappointed are you to find that, according to official figures that were published last week, there have never been so few vessels fishing out of Scotland or so few fishery jobs in the country?
There are concerns about the fishing industry, but we have never had such an active fisheries minister arguing our case in Europe and with the UK Government. Of course, it would be far more beneficial to have direct representation, but we are working—and will continue to work—with our UK counterparts to try to ensure that Scotland’s interests are pursued. The work is very difficult and challenging; there are always opportunities but, yes—there will always be difficulties. That is why the work that Richard Lochhead is carrying out and the meetings that he is having with the new commissioner to take forward Scotland’s interests are more vital than ever.
We would welcome clarification of a number of points in your response, minister. Helpfully, you say that you are willing to indicate to the committee what was discussed at the joint ministerial committee on Europe. However, in your response, you say that you are
“keen to support greater openness”
but that
“Further arrangements for developing parliamentary scrutiny ... need to be discussed and agreed by all ... administrations”.
Is that issue on the agenda of the next meeting of the JMCE and do you feel positive about the other administrations’ contribution to greater openness?
The Government has pursued the revitalisation of the JMCE process, which had fallen into abeyance as a result of circumstances outwith our control, particularly in relation to certain arrangements and agreements with the Northern Ireland Administration. I am very pleased that all the Administrations are now actively involved with the JMCE.
Our understanding is that the Deputy Prime Minister will chair the JMC domestic and that William Hague will chair as many of the JMCEs as he can. We are currently just establishing our relationship with the new UK Government in respect of how it will treat the JMCs.
On how there can be parliamentary scrutiny, it is clearly not only about ourselves; it is also about Westminster and the Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations. We cannot pre-emptively do something that would cause them any difficulty, so you will appreciate that there is a bit of a diplomatic space in which we have to allow opportunities for frank discussion, but we must also ensure that the relevant ministers are directly accountable to their relevant Administrations.
My understanding is that how ministers who are involved in discussions at JMCs have accountability to their respective Administrations, Assemblies and Parliaments will be discussed by the JMC domestic, which basically takes an overview of how the JMCs generally are being run. I cannot speak for the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of how he envisages taking that forward, but that is the right place to look at such accountability. In respect of bedding down with the new Administration, there has to be an opportunity for frank discussion. If we are to have a meaningful dialogue, some of the discussion can be reported and some of it perhaps cannot. That is what we will have to discuss with our UK counterparts in our forthcoming meetings.
Is the Scottish Government able to table agenda items for JMC meetings and JMCE meetings?
Yes, but what we have tried to do in the past—I have attended only a few of those meetings as minister—is anticipate matters in which there are common interests. If there are bilateral issues, it is clearly important that they are pursued bilaterally between Governments—from the Welsh Assembly Government to the UK Government and so on.
The agenda items have to be issues that are of common interest to different Administrations. For example, the skills agenda was discussed at the JMC, because clearly some aspects of that are common to everybody. There has to be a balance between trying to ensure that Scottish interests are pursued individually and recognising that we are part of a joint ministerial committee, where the emphasis is on “joint”, so the focus must be on issues that impact on, and are of import to, the Northern Irish and the Welsh as well as the UK Governments.
I imagine that parliamentary scrutiny is of interest to everyone. I am trying to find out whether it is on the agenda of the next meeting. You have said that it is a matter for the JMC domestic, but is it on the agenda?
A date has not yet been set for the JMC domestic, so I cannot answer your question about what is on the agenda.
So you do not feel that it is appropriate to raise the issue at the JMCE.
There is the annual JMC plenary, which the Prime Minister would ordinarily chair. There is the JMC domestic, which deals with everything that is neither financial nor European, although financial issues can be discussed at JMC domestic.
To be fair, there is a new UK Government, which is establishing its way of working and how it wants to relate to the JMC. I do not want to speak for it in respect of agenda items that it would want to bring forward, but I anticipate that, if we have revitalised the JMC—which we have done—we will need to work out a system through which we can establish accountability. I will update the committee as soon as I have information on the matter, but I am not in a position to speak for the Deputy Prime Minister on how he intends to drive that forward in his capacity as chair of the JMC domestic.
From a committee perspective, we just want to be sure that the matter will not slide off the agenda, because we have been trying for some time to get in place a process that would allow us properly to scrutinise this work.
I have gone some way towards ensuring that some of your interests are accounted for.
We await progress on that with interest.
We would welcome some clarification on one other point, in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon. You have already spoken about engaging with other stakeholders. Has progress been made in implementing various measures, for example, with regard to developing procedures for engaging in and monitoring the operation of opt-in, and the development of guidance and training on the implications of the treaty, especially for non-departmental public bodies and other agencies? Can you write to us if you cannot update us today?
In relation to the Lisbon treaty, the expansion of competences, for example, is an area that the committee has expressed an interest in. A number of public bodies obviously have a new opportunity to engage and set out their issues. VisitScotland is an example from tourism, but I am keen that the creative industries also have a strong identity and agenda of opportunities. That is one of the matters that I will pursue when I am in Brussels next week. We will certainly encourage different agencies to take the opportunities that are available to them.
I missed the first part of the question.
12:30
We were interested in whether the Government is working on the procedures for opt-in and training of NDPBs.
Yes. We will offer training to NDPBs and agencies along the lines that the minister mentioned.
The mechanisms for opt-in already exist. It is a case of reinforcing and thickening what already goes on in the day-to-day contacts that take place between the Scottish Government’s justice officials and the Ministry of Justice and Home Office, which are responsible for the opt-in areas in criminal and civil justice.
If you would like more details of that, we can certainly get them for you. The Justice Committee is provided with regular updates that are, I believe, copied to this committee, but we can certainly ensure that you get an urgent update if that would be useful.
Committee members have previously asked what the Lisbon treaty’s implications are on freedom, security and justice. As I have explained previously, that is one of the policy areas in which co-operation is stronger and the process is in place. However, the range has now been extended with the opt-in, so it is important to pursue that. If the question is whether we are on the case, the answer is yes. We can provide more details in written form.
As colleagues have no other questions, I thank the minister for attending. It has been a useful discussion. We had to truncate it a little bit because we were running late from earlier. If we have any other outstanding matters that we have not covered, we will write to the minister.