The next item on the agenda is evidence from the Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, on the Executive's priorities in relation to the Danish presidency of the European Union and on the future of Europe debate. We have programmed this as a regular agenda item, and we are very pleased to have the minister along. We welcome the timely production of the summary paper; we criticised the minister over that last time. There are a number of other things that we are not terribly happy about, but we will come to those later. We have had a busy meeting so far, and we still have other business to discuss, so I invite the minister to make his introductory remarks.
Thank you. It is a pleasure to be with the committee again. Although the summer recess has intervened, I think that I have been able to attend two successive meetings of the committee. I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to discuss the Executive's priorities for the Danish presidency.
Thank you. That was a wide-ranging report and we have several questions to put to you. I have a brief initial question. One matter to be included during the Danish presidency is the location of the European Maritime Safety Agency. The committee has had a considerable interest in that issue for some time and we have tabled questions on it. You spoke significantly about the Executive's work to promote Scotland. A useful way of promoting Scotland would be for Scotland to house a European agency. We are keen to support that. Discussions are under way on the location of the EMSA and I understand that a site in Scotland has been identified. What activity is the Executive undertaking to promote Scotland as the location for such a European agency?
We are working closely with the United Kingdom on that issue. I think that I am right in saying that Glasgow has been identified as a potential site. I will try to give a more detailed reply in writing on the situation. My recollection is that discussion on the location of several agencies, not just the EMSA, got bogged down because of something that is probably unrelated to the EMSA location. However, I will try to give in writing the most up-to-date chapter and verse of where we are with that.
I acknowledge your point about taking the committee's views to the Cabinet discussion tomorrow. The committee strongly wishes a European agency to locate in Scotland. Given our maritime heritage and the strengths that we could bring to the EMSA, we would be keen to promote and push for its location in Scotland.
That is something that we share.
Good.
The reform of the common fisheries policy will run throughout the Danish presidency. The committee would appreciate clarification of your views on the powers that should be ceded to fishermen and scientists, perhaps in a transition period, to enable those groups to have a real, direct and formally delegated say on decisions on fisheries management. Is an advisory role enough for them or should real power and accountability be shared among politicians, the fishing industry and scientists?
It would obviously be more appropriate to have more detailed answers on a range of such questions from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. I understand that Ross Finnie will attend the committee meeting on 8 October. However, it is recognised—perhaps Mr Home Robertson will remember this from his time as fisheries minister—that better co-operation between the industry and individuals, including scientists, makes considerable sense. That is something that I have been saying for a long time. The experience and knowledge that people in the fishing industry bring can supplement the information that is available to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and that leads to better decision making on sensitive issues such as allowable catches.
The committee produced a report on the common fisheries policy, and one of our recommendations was the promotion of zonal management committees. We understand from the Commission's response to the consultation document that it is recommending regional advisory councils. Those councils would take account of the views of stakeholders, and that is an important point that the committee made, but they are simply advisory. Our report said that, over time, we would like more delegated authority and powers to go to the zonal management committees or regional councils. We shall certainly raise that subject with Ross Finnie when he comes to the committee.
It is certainly my understanding that what was proposed by the Commission in May was a system of regional advisory councils. I accept that that probably falls a bit short of what the committee was looking for. The committee has received a copy of the pre-council report from Ross Finnie, which indicates that the presidency hopes to have a substantive policy debate at the October Council meeting on common fisheries policy reform.
You have raised a sensitive point, because the committee received that report at 2 o'clock today, having asked for it some considerable time ago. One of the matters that we want to raise with you is how we can improve pre and post-Council scrutiny arrangements. We have managed to improve arrangements for you passing on information to the committee ahead of your visits. Perhaps that is something that we could tighten up on.
The Danish president recently announced plans to tackle lifestyle diseases caused by unhealthy diet and insufficient exercise, and will be establishing a ministerial deliberation group as well as sponsoring a conference on obesity tomorrow in Copenhagen. As you know, those problems are particularly acute in Scotland. We are perceived as the sick nation of Europe, and our performance in international sport leaves a lot to be desired. I do not want to dwell on the Faroes fiasco, but perhaps we can learn something from other countries, including Denmark. Will the Scottish Executive be represented at tomorrow's conference in Copenhagen and at the ministerial deliberation group meetings?
Off the top of my head, I simply do not know. That is a matter for the Minister for Health and Community Care. I do not think that he will be there in person, as there is a Cabinet meeting tomorrow and I am not aware that he will not be at that Cabinet meeting. I regret that I cannot even speculate on who will be at the Copenhagen meeting. I am casting my eye over the Minister for Health and Community Care's submission, which is among the committee papers, but I cannot readily see any mention of that.
We understand that the Danish presidency website has given considerable attention to the matter. Given Scotland's record, we thought that it would be useful for us to be actively involved.
I am disappointed with the Deputy First Minister's reply, bearing in mind Jack McConnell's recent statements about putting physical exercise and sport, and their relevance to the health of the nation, at the top of the Executive's agenda. It seems that the Executive is completely unaware that that important conference is taking place tomorrow in Denmark. I suspect that, if you were to look into the ministerial deliberation group, you would find that it is for the appropriate ministers from the Governments of member states only.
I share Mr Canavan's view on the importance of healthy living and recreation and on the importance of sport, a good diet and good nutrition as a means to healthy living. I hope that nothing that I said detracted from the importance attached to that.
I think that the Deputy First Minister will agree that there is much that we can learn. Finland has been given to us as an example of a country that has greatly improved its health record through lifestyle changes. We can learn from our European partners.
I was in Finland at the end of July and I met senior officials from the Finnish health department. We had a valuable exchange. It helped develop further what for a considerable time has been a good working relationship between Finland and Scotland on health promotion issues. We are keen to foster that relationship.
We would appreciate a report back on whether the Minister for Health and Community Care is attending the conference.
I will stick with health and, to some extent, education. When big decisions that have a big impact in our home territory are taken so far away, I sometimes think, "Oh, gosh. Why do we not have a means of influencing that?" I am referring to the general agreement on trade in services. There does not seem to be a way to address that in the Scottish Parliament. We are constantly reminded that it is a reserved matter. America—I am not at all anti-American; I am pro-American—is trying to push GATS and it seems that it will significantly change policy in our own back yard, yet we do not have the ability to influence the process. I know that that matter is exercising the minds of many members, because I have had quiet discussions with lots of my colleagues and they all agree. They are all asking how we in Scotland can get our voices heard on this vital issue.
I have always taken the view that, although matters may be reserved in terms of trade agreements and negotiations, if they have an impact on devolved policy making we have a locus to have input into them. The best course to take to pursue the matter might be to have a members' debate, or it might be to bring before the committee the Minister for Health and Community Care, the Minister for Education and Young People, or the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning. We will try to identify who is the most appropriate minister. That would ensure not only that the minister would have the opportunity to comment, but that proper recognition was given to the matter.
That is much appreciated. The subject has been worrying me for a long time. The tone of the minister's words is encouraging. He is willing to help us to proceed with the issue.
Some colleagues will probably not thank me for that. If there is an impact on devolved areas, it is a perfectly reasonable thing for the committee to ask ministers.
In our scrutiny deliberations, we felt that there was a bit of a deficit on that matter and we wanted to bring it to your attention. We might come back to you on that issue.
I already have plenty to tell the Cabinet tomorrow.
Sarah Boyack will ask about education and young people.
I have a point to add to your list to pass on to colleagues. It concerns the future of information about Europe for young people. I mentioned Eurodesk, which is based in my constituency, to the minister a few months ago. Eurodesk puts across European information to schools, colleges and young people's groups. I welcome the statement from the Minister for Education and Young People, in which she mentions initiatives such as Young Scot and Eurodesk as exemplars for the rest of Europe.
I understand that there has recently been a parliamentary question on Eurodesk. I am not sure whether it was Ms Boyack who submitted it. My understanding is that we hope that a solution is coming down the track. I do not want to commit myself by revealing more than that at the moment. A hope exists. I will ensure that your point is passed on to Cathy Jamieson.
We will move on to the future of Europe debate.
There appears to be some confusion about the way in which we will detect subsidiarity in the structures of the Parliament. In Brussels on 6 June, the First Minister said that a
We want the concept of a subsidiarity watchdog to be developed. The Foreign Secretary has indicated that that is now the position of the United Kingdom Government, albeit that there is scope for further discussion about whether it should be made up exclusively of members from member state parliamentary level.
The Deputy First Minister is throwing his weight behind the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary stated that a subsidiarity watchdog should be made up of MPs from member states; the First Minister said that a subsidiarity council could consist of serving members of regional Parliaments. Would it be fair to say that you accept the watchdog concept of the Foreign Secretary?
I use the words watchdog and council interchangeably: I am—
I am not seeking conflict on the matter.
They represent the same concept. As I said, we would have an issue about the membership of that council or watchdog.
I asked because you used the words "subsidiarity watchdog", and the Foreign Secretary is the only other person to have used those words, followed by "should be made up of MPs from member states".
If you check, I think that you will find that I have used the phrase "subsidiarity watchdog" previously. I will not say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but our thinking is the same.
That is fine. Does that mean that the Flanders declaration is dead?
No, the Flanders declaration is not dead. I think that anyone will recognise that, when sub-member states with different traditions are brought together, we will not get absolute unanimity on all issues. Under the German constitution, the Länder have more clearly demarcated lists of competencies and they approach matters differently to the political approach that I have described.
I understand that and I appreciate the requirement for political scrutiny. That is why I go back to the Flanders declaration, which was a political statement. The political position of the Flemish Parliament is to support access to the European Court of Justice. Again, I ask the question, have we committed ourselves in the Flanders declaration? Was that commitment specific to Henry McLeish only? Did it commit the Parliament or the Executive to supporting the political statement that the protection of subsidiarity would be best served by means of access to the European Court of Justice? That is the policy of the Flemish Parliament.
There are different emphases among the different signatories. The contribution to the convention later this year that will be made by the regions that have legislative powers will be to try to find a common approach. However, it is not always possible to get total agreement. I have made it clear that our preferred approach would be a political animal.
I recognise that there is a wide-ranging debate in Europe on that. However, my impression is that far more people are arguing the judicial case than are arguing the political one. Which regions are you working with to synthesise the case?
I am trying to remember the list. The group is similar to the group that signed the Flanders declaration—I would have to check that. My reading of the situation was that there is an increasing emphasis on pre-political scrutiny.
Does not the Flanders document say that, in the event of the failure of pre-political scrutiny, the safeguard comes from the ability to access the European Court of Justice?
As I said, often the pass has already been sold. We want to ensure that there is no loss of subsidiarity; the time to ensure that is before the decision is made.
In the event of a region being unable to do that—to make its point given that it operates sub-regional legislation—the point of the Flanders declaration and the position of the Flemish Parliament is that there must be a legal framework or safety net if pre-political scrutiny and debate or negotiation fail. We could be talking not about the subsidiarity that is granted to the Scottish Parliament, but about the subsidiarity that is granted to a local council, which might mean that the Scottish Parliament or the UK is in breach of the rules. The structures are far greater than simply the negotiations between member states and sub-member states. That is why it was essential that a safety net be provided for in the Flanders declaration. That safety net is not just for the Scottish Parliament or the legislature in Northern Ireland, but for all our local councils. It was a political statement.
I am not sure whether the document is publicly available.
There will be interesting discussions ahead on the matter. I understand that the regions with legislative powers will meet in November to discuss the issue further. I presume that a firm commitment will come from that.
There will be a firm position on the matter. As I said, a considerable amount of discussion and negotiation has taken place. I wanted to check whether there was anything in the public domain.
The First Minister has given me a letter dated 17 August—I advised the committee of it today although I received it on Friday—which I will circulate to the committee members. The letter points out that there is a difference of opinion between the Executive and some of the other regions—
Some, but not all.
Matters will be discussed in November. I hope that you will report to the committee then.
I will ensure that the committee gets the declaration that is signed in November, which will be the contribution of REGLEG—I am sorry that it is called that—or regions with legislative power, to the convention.
I will finish not on the Flanders declaration, but by asking whether you and the Executive feel that MSPs should be on the subsidiarity watchdog. I will not argue over whether it is a watchdog or a council.
That is our preferred position.
I appreciate that the First Minister is a rapporteur to the Committee of the Regions, but the Executive does not have a member on the convention. How will the Executive get its view through Whitehall to Peter Hain—who presents the UK position—so that it will be presented or taken into account?
I have, on a number of occasions, illustrated the different channels that we can use. The UK Government channel to which Ben Wallace alludes is the joint ministerial committee on Europe, which gives us a forum at which to express our views. There is also MINECOR—the ministerial group for European co-ordination—and other regular links. The next meeting of the joint ministerial committee on Europe takes place on 24 September, and the next MINECOR meeting is on 8 October. We can express our views at those fora, as can our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues.
I do not expect you to know the answer to this question, so perhaps you could write to the committee. Last week, I met members of the Local Government Association. John Prescott has a group called the central local partnership—of which I was unaware—which involves officials from the Welsh Administration in defining policy not only on local authorities, but on regions and the future governance of Europe. The Deputy Prime Minister wishes to hold a conference on 28 November, involving the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly, to reach a view on regions.
I thought that the CLP had more to do with development of the regional dimension in England. Our primary point of input has been the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through Peter Hain and Jack Straw. Jack Straw's visit to Scotland in August was a result of a decision by the joint ministerial committee on Europe that he should visit the devolved parts of the United Kingdom to engage and listen. Peter Hain is taking the lead on the matter, and it is to him that we have primarily directed our representations. I will look into the meeting to which Ben Wallace referred, but we have been right in making our primary pitch through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and specifically to Jack Straw and Peter Hain.
I would like to follow up on one point, about which I asked the minister at our previous meeting. How will the Parliament and the European Committee be involved in formulating the Executive's position? You said at our previous meeting that you would share such information with us, but could you elaborate? Will the Executive's position be debated in the chamber so that the committee will have the opportunity to comme nt?
I am always willing to try to engage with Parliament as widely as possible, subject to the will of the Parliamentary Bureau and the Minister for Parliamentary Business. I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter in the chamber. We have started the consultation and are expecting responses by 4 October. We want an opportunity to examine those responses and we hope that they will inform our submission. It might be useful if the committee told me when a debate would be helpful. Would it be best to have one when we report back on the responses that we have received, to test the water before we have a firmed-up position, or would it be better to wait until after the meeting in Florence? Do you want to have a debate on something that is being proposed or on the results of the consultation?
There are two separate matters. One is the submission to the convention on the future of Europe, which will go through the UK Government. The other issue is the report that will follow the REGLEG meeting in Florence, which will say whether the Executive has synthesised its position in relation to access to the European Court of Justice.
I will try to arrange for that debate to take place, subject to the will of the Parliamentary Bureau.
While the minister is in a helpful mood, I remind him of an undertaking that he gave earlier to give the committee advance information on draft or near-final agendas for council meetings.
I was given advance notice that this issue might be raised and I have made some inquires on the matter. I do not know whether there has been a breakdown in communications somewhere, but it is the understanding of my officials, who contacted the Danish embassy, that some of that information was put on the website only last week.
I do not want to make a meal of the matter.
I ask the committee to accept the good will that exists, and I will try to ensure that we do things correctly.
There seems to have been a hiccup at this early stage. It would be helpful if, between us, we were able to ensure that—
I hope that the useful dialogue between the clerk and my officials will help to resolve some of the problems.
I will be brief, because we are approaching 4 o'clock. During our scrutiny of post-Council reports, the committee discussed the fact that we have yet to receive reports on the budget council meeting of 19 July and the general affairs council meeting of 22 July. I think that you would agree that a considerable amount of time has passed since then. We recognise that good will exists, but we would appreciate timeous reports on such matters, otherwise they will make it into the history books before we have an opportunity to discuss them.
The two councils to which you refer deal with substantially reserved matters. We have not had a tradition, or a track record, of engagement in those councils and therefore we have not put reporting mechanisms in place. I hope that, through our links with Whitehall, we will be able to identify the best way of ensuring that the European Committee gets more timeous reports on the work of those councils in which, traditionally, we have not been involved.
We considered the agenda of the general affairs council of 22 to 23 July. We noted that the agenda included the work programme for the Danish presidency, enlargement, follow-up work on the European Council meeting in Seville and other matters that we felt were particularly relevant to Scotland. Perhaps the officials' interpretation of what might be relevant is not quite the same as that of the committee. It would be helpful if we could tease that out a little at the forthcoming meeting.
It is not a question about relevance—we want to get the information to the committee—but about the mechanisms that we should put in place.
We appreciate that. We have time for a brief supplementary question from Lloyd Quinan.
I thank the minister for what he just said, particularly with regard to the general affairs council meeting of 22 and 23 July. It is important to recognise that although there is no requirement for political scrutiny of those matters, it is the purpose and function of the European Committee to protect the integrity of Scots law. I suggest that anything that impacts in any way on our judiciary or on the functioning of our court system or our police—not necessarily of a political nature—should be referred to the committee. That would allow us to protect that integrity, but I am not saying that we should scrutinise such matters.
Please answer those questions in two minutes, minister.
That is what the debate is about. Our view is that, if the UK Government felt that a threat to subsidiarity existed, it would have to take on those battles politically.
We appreciate the fact that you will keep the committee informed of developments. We thank you for the constructive discussion that we have had today and look forward to making progress. Members had a number of additional questions that we have not had time to ask, so I hope that it will be acceptable to submit them in writing.
I will pass some of the specific points that were raised to ministers and, as I said, I will have to write back to the committee with further information about one or two other points.
Thank you, minister.
Meeting continued in private until 16:25.
Previous
Convener's Report