European Committee, 26 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Executive Objectives and Priorities

Colleagues, I formally reconvene the meeting.

I welcome the Deputy First Minister, who appears before the committee for the second time, and thank him for joining us. I am pleased that there will be a regular briefing on the state of play each time the presidency changes. We look forward to continuing that process with the Executive.

We welcome the paper on Europe and external affairs. We hope to tie up our external affairs remit shortly. I ask the minister to do what he can to ensure that written submissions reach the committee sooner. We received the paper on external affairs late on Friday and most members received the other paper on the policy priorities for the Spanish presidency about an hour before the meeting—some members received it five minutes before the meeting. The committee feels that that does not give adequate time to consider the issues and to prepare properly for the meeting. It would be helpful if the minister could address that issue for the future.

I give the floor to the minister. Members may ask questions when he has finished speaking.

I thank the committee for inviting me again. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Executive's priorities in respect of Europe and external relations. I will certainly do what I can to ensure that papers are delivered earlier. The explanation for the delay is that the Cabinet agreed on a position only at its meeting last week and one or two details had to be worked out.

Members have the paper that deals with individual portfolios and will note that one of the Cabinet's decisions was that, at the beginning of each presidency, each minister should identify portfolio priorities for work in the coming six months. That was agreed only last week. As that is now part of the process, I hope that, in future, work will have been done in advance of the meetings near the start of each presidency and so the committee will receive papers in advance. I will try my best to ensure that that happens.

When I met the committee in the course of its inquiry into the governance of the European Union and the future of Europe, I committed myself to coming back to map out the scope of the external relations portfolio and to discuss it with the committee. I do not think that the committee's remit allows it to scrutinise my work in external relations beyond Europe yet, but I am sure that no one will object if I stray into that part of my responsibilities.

The committee's report on governance called for an address on the state of the European Union. I think that the committee referred to the state of play, which is probably less grand, more apt and does not have connotations of other state of the union addresses. I would be pleased to appear before the committee at the start of each presidency. I have made inquiries and I understand that it is often about a month into a presidency before information becomes available in a form that would make discussion meaningful. Therefore, we might have meetings in early September and in late January or early February as part of the process.

Members have the paper that my colleagues contributed on the policy priorities in their respective portfolios, albeit it is somewhat belated. I am sure that members realise that I cannot speak about the details of the paper on behalf of each colleague, but I hope that the committee and other parliamentary committees will find it a useful star by which to steer in considering their priorities for discussion and scrutiny in the coming months.

As I said, the other paper sets out our objectives and priorities in respect of our external relations work. We hope that, like the EU policy priorities paper, it will be a useful basis for the committee to consider areas of the Executive's work on external relations with which it would like to engage. I will go through some of the main points in the paper. I am happy to discuss its content in response to questions and at meetings in the months ahead.

External relations means everything that we do to handle the European Union and international aspects of our devolved responsibilities. I do not have responsibility for everything that falls into that category. As the ministerial priorities paper makes clear, a large proportion of the Executive's work has a significant European Union dimension, including my work as the Minister for Justice. My role as the minister with responsibility for Europe and external relations is somewhat different. It is about co-ordinating the processes and relationships that contribute to our effective handling of European Union business; ensuring implementation of our European Union obligations; maintaining effective relationships with the United Kingdom, the European Union and the European Committee; and trying to promote a team Scotland approach to European Union business.

The three overarching objectives of our external relations work are the promotion of Scottish devolved policy interests in the European Union and internationally; the building of mutually beneficial links with regions and countries of the European Union and beyond; and the promotion of a positive image of Scotland overseas.

Our first objective—the promotion of policy interests in the European Union and internationally—is about ensuring that the Scottish Executive is fully engaged in the process of policy development in the European Union. It is important that my ministerial colleagues and I make every effort to ensure that decisions that are made at European Union level as far as possible take account of Scottish circumstances and concerns. We must work closely with the United Kingdom Government and other devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom to develop the United Kingdom line.

On issues such as governance and the future of Europe, I take the lead for the Scottish Executive. Debates on those issues are genuinely cross-cutting, as they relate to the way in which the European Union will look and operate in the future. For that reason, it is imperative that we contribute to those debates. Members will know that there has already been a debate in the chamber, to which the committee made a valuable contribution. The issue is current and we will continue to contribute.

On the development of mutually beneficial links with other countries and regions, we are learning from others and exchanging information on policy to ensure that we can improve our policies and practice to deliver the best services that we can for the people of Scotland. Members will know that there has been a significant increase in interest in Scotland since devolution. That has brought with it a great deal of interest in co-operation with the Scottish Executive from countries and regions both inside and outside the European Union. We have taken time to consider those suitors and, so far, have focused mainly on building links with other sub-EU member state regions that have legislative powers. That has been especially useful for the exchange of ideas on the regional agenda in the European Union—the role of regions in the Europe of the future—and has helped to ensure that the matter has been given significant attention in the debate on the future of Europe. We will continue that work and I expect to be very much engaged in it in the weeks and months ahead.

Our third objective—the promotion of Scotland overseas—is about increasing Scotland's profile and promoting an appropriate image of Scotland overseas. As the paper states, the image that we want for Scotland is of a dynamic and modern country that has a well-educated, enterprising people, stable and responsive political structures, a clean environment and effective transport connections, and a thriving artistic and cultural life, and which is an excellent place to visit.

Several individual ministerial portfolios have a major contribution to make to that effort—for example, in relation to tourism—but we believe that we can all play a part in promoting Scotland overseas. One way in which we can do that is by organising large events such as Scotland week in Brussels, tartan day in the United States next week and Scotland in Sweden, which is planned for October. We have also been doing a lot of work to co-ordinate the promotion of Scotland abroad. We have set up the Scottish international forum, which seeks to bring together those who are involved in overseas promotions in an attempt to create a critical mass for events. It also works co-operatively with the Scotland Office's "Friends of Scotland" initiative.

Those are our priorities, and I look forward to discussing them further with the committee. I am aware that the committee's report on governance and the future of Europe makes it clear that you are keen to be more fully involved in the Executive's discussions with the United Kingdom about specific items of European Union business. There are legitimate confidentiality issues. The need for confidentiality in some circumstances is recognised even in the most open freedom of information regimes around the world. My colleagues and I want to avoid extending legitimate confidentiality so that it becomes unnecessary blanket confidentiality. I look forward to working with members on European Union issues and will endeavour to avoid unnecessary confidentiality whenever I can.

It is my firm belief that, where we can, we should work together to present a collective Scottish view. It is obvious that the clearer the Scottish position can be, the louder and more powerful our collective voice will be. I look forward to working with the committee in the interim and specifically in September, when the Danish presidency will begin. I am sure that our work will be both fruitful and co-operative.

I thank the Deputy First Minister. I am sure that we all welcome those introductory remarks.

The committee is considering how links can be formed with other regions in Europe. Does the Executive have a set of criteria for determining the way in which it goes about linking up with other regions in Europe? How do you decide whom you are going to link up with?

If you are asking whether there is a procedure that we can pull off the shelf, in which we tick boxes, the answer is no. The procedure has developed in response to specific initiatives that have taken off and progressed. If one criterion is important, it is—as I said in my introduction—that the areas are sub-member state areas with legislative powers, which are in a similar position to Scotland in relation to the member states. Examples would be Catalonia, Bavaria, some of the German Länder and Tuscany. When an invitation has come from a country or if there has been a relationship in the past—some of the links with Bavaria go back to pre-devolution, Scottish Office days—we have built on that. We have taken individual policy issues and worked them up, and the paper reflects the fact that there are at least two areas where we would like to have a more formal memorandum of co-operation before May.

There could be advantages in our following up some of your links, but we are also developing links of our own. Perhaps there will be opportunities for us to share information.

That would be very helpful. I want to ensure that, when we are in a position to sign agreements with other sub-member state regions, the committee is well aware of that.

We have developed good working relationships with a full member state—the Republic of Ireland—on issues such as freedom of information. I had a very useful exchange with the relevant Irish minister and the Irish information commissioner. There was also close co-operation between the Scottish Executive, Scottish ministers and their Irish counterparts in considering drugs policy and the Proceeds of Crime Bill that is currently being debated at Westminster. We are trying to find examples of good policy practice, perhaps where there are traditional trading links or where there are trading opportunities for Scotland. Generally, we are trying to promote an atmosphere of friendship.

Thank you. Ben Wallace will start our questioning on European and external affairs.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for coming to speak to us. I have some questions about the role that he sees himself playing in taking information from Europe outwith the Parliament to the people of Scotland.

Paragraph 10 of the submission states that there are desk officers covering policy areas that link into the external relations division of the Scottish Executive. My experience of going to Scotland House is that there is not a desk officer for every major subject; there are often one or two officials trying to deal with the heavy work load that comes out of the European Commission. Should the team be expanded, or are large information flows managed well?

Is your role to take what has been put to you for consultation, for example in relation to enlargement or the current drafting of directives, and consult on it in Scotland or do you expect the Scotland Office to do that? Do you expect the Scotland Office to get in touch with the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) or the Scottish Trades Union Congress to consult on the agency working or financial services directives? There is a UK negotiated position, but I would expect the UK permanent representation to the EU to consult the Scottish Executive on Scotland's position.

In response to your first question, we do not currently have any plans to expand the number of staff at Scotland House. I pay tribute to the staff who are there; they try to cover a number of portfolio areas and feed back on developments. The secret, or key ingredient, of their ability to do so is the contacts that they make in Brussels, not just with the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union but with a wider range of contacts. They keep their ear to the ground and report the intelligence back to Edinburgh.

I do not see it as my specific responsibility to put matters out for consultation, but if the issue related to agriculture or fisheries, for example, I think that it would be the responsibility of ministers and officials in the Scottish Executive, rather than in the Scotland Office, to engage with the National Farmers Union of Scotland or the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. That is an important part of our work in engaging Scottish opinion. That would be less the case if the subject matter were in an area for which we do not have responsibility because it is reserved. For a start, it would be more difficult to identify who in the Executive had particular responsibility, given that the matter did not relate to the powers and functions that we have. The Scotland Office could play a role, but the primary responsibility would be with the sponsoring department in the UK Government. Ben Wallace may have identified a matter that is not well covered, because of the difference between devolved and reserved matters.

I am interested to know whether the Deputy First Minister is satisfied that such consultation is being done well. Many things that affect devolved areas were up for negotiation in relation to enlargement, for example agriculture and the water directives. When I produced a report for the committee on enlargement of the European Union, of the 200 organisations and individuals that the committee approached, none had been consulted by the Executive on negotiating positions. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office had made the documents available to the Scottish Executive, but it had not consulted further. I do not think that the Scottish Executive had sat on its hands on purpose; it did not have the resources to engage with the civic actors in society and to ask them what their views were on the issues. That is why I am interested to know whether you think that consultation is being done well. The feedback seems to be that consultation gets to the stage of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and UKREP passing the information to Scotland House, but neither Scotland House, which works incredibly hard, nor the Executive has the resources to get the information into different departments.

I ask the Deputy First Minister to consider his ministerial colleagues' statements on the policy priorities for the Spanish presidency. There seems to be a total lack of recognition of what is in the wind. We may well discuss concrete matters, such as the European Court of Justice decision on health policy, but there is no discussion of matters that could well impact on Scotland. For example, the drafting of the directive on financial services is a UK matter, but it will have a massive impact on Scotland. It is not mentioned. The provisions on agency employment will have a massive impact in Scotland. They are not mentioned. In relation to a lot of our work, there is a lack of resource to enable information to get to the right people in the Scottish Executive.

The Deputy First Minister will recall that in our report on governance we expressed concerns about whether adequate resources were available in Scotland House to meet the developing demands being placed on its staff.

I expect to be in Scotland House during the Easter recess and will make a point of following up the comment about the resource. Although Scotland House is a Scottish Executive outpost in Brussels, I do not take the view that what it garners or learns is the exclusive preserve of the Scottish Executive. As far as I am aware, it is a resource that is available for the general benefit of Scotland. If that means that the Scotland Office or other UK departments use it, we do not have a hang-up about that; in fact, we would encourage it.

We have still to respond formally to the committee's report on enlargement. On Ben Wallace's point, in recent weeks I have been trying to ensure that, when it comes to the consequences of enlargement, those involved in agriculture, or the part of the enterprise and lifelong learning department that is responsible for state aids or the structural funds that fall under Andy Kerr's responsibilities' do not operate on their own. We want to ensure that we co-ordinate across the range of ministerial responsibilities and that we are able to feed in Scottish concerns and opportunities to the United Kingdom Government's negotiations on enlargement. We must ensure that we do that in a co-ordinated way that reflects our priorities.

In respect of reserved, non-devolved responsibilities, enlargement almost certainly does not loom large in what individual ministers are doing. I rather suspect that enlargement is not within any one minister's portfolio for the very reason that it is not a devolved subject. I would want to consider Ben Wallace's point before wading in. Anything that is done would have to be done in concert with the respective United Kingdom Government departments and the Scotland Office.

On Jim Wallace's final point, I obviously start from a different position on the relationship between Scotland and Europe. I will not pursue that this afternoon, so I ask my question in the context of a devolved Parliament. Our responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998 are to legislate on devolved matters but also to represent Scotland on wider matters. As a Parliament, we have a clear responsibility and a power to do that.

I refer the minister to the statement by the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning. Wendy Alexander highlights the six key issues in relation to the Spanish presidency that she thinks affect her department: employment law; energy policy; pensions, and financial services in general; research policy; aviation; and maritime issues. Every one of those is a reserved matter, yet nowhere in the objectives in Jim Wallace's paper is the Scottish perspective on such matters mentioned. While one minister makes it absolutely clear that the decisions that the Spanish presidency takes will be central to employment, energy and so on in Scotland, nowhere in a paper from another minister does it say that the role of the Scottish Executive is to represent Scotland's interests on those matters, which, although they are reserved, all touch on aspects of devolved policy. The minister's last comment suggests that there is a gap when it comes to how the Executive can best represent Scotland's interests in matters that are reserved but which nevertheless touch on everyday life in Scotland.

I do not necessarily accept that the gap is entirely in the Executive. Alex Neil may want a different constitutional arrangement, but within the one that we have, our position is that there are, first and foremost, divisions of responsibility.

It is possible to take a general view on representing Scotland and Scotland's interests, but I do not believe that, given the resources that are available to it, the Executive is capable of working up policy positions on every area of reserved policy that might be considered by the European Union. On reserved matters, Scotland is represented by Her Majesty's Government. That Government has a responsibility to take into account Scottish interests. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland's interests are not considered, but, as I said in my answer to Ben Wallace, that could perhaps be done better.

The issue has been highlighted and I will talk to my ministerial colleagues and—importantly—to the UK Government to discover whether we can facilitate its work in ensuring that Scotland's interests are well represented in Europe on issues that are reserved to Westminster and thus are not the Executive's responsibility.

Lloyd Quinan can have a brief question. We must move on to the next issue, which is governance and the future of Europe.

My question is straightforward.

Those are always the most difficult.

You may have to supply a written answer to this question. What is the budget for the external relations division and how many people operate within it?

I saw those figures two or three weeks ago, but I do not have the information to hand. I will provide the committee with the specific figures. Is the question about the number of people who are badged as being in the external relations division, or does it cover all officials who take an interest in EU matters? For example, some officials in the justice department, among other responsibilities, take a particular interest in EU matters. It would be difficult to give an exact number of such officials.

I am interested only in the external relations division.

We will ensure that the committee has that information. I have seen it recently, but I do not want to hazard a guess about it.

As the minister knows, we are waiting for the Procedures Committee to confirm our role in external relations. I am sure that we will return to the matter. It would be helpful if the committee received that information in the interim.

We turn to the convention, governance and the future of Europe.

Earlier this month, in a written answer to Richard Lochhead, the minister referred to a meeting on 7 March of the joint ministerial committee on Europe. He stated that the meeting agreed a set of mechanisms to ensure the full involvement of the devolved Administrations in the development of the UK's position as the European convention on the future of Europe moves forward. What are those mechanisms?

The mechanisms are to ensure that the channels of communication are open—not least by using the Government intranet—and that information can be readily exchanged between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, including those in Wales and Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has given his support to ensuring that the devolved Administrations are properly consulted on the UK Government's position. As part of that process, he wants to visit Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh to talk to ministers and, more widely, to gauge views on the subject. There is an indication that the devolved Administrations want to ensure that they talk to one another not only as part of the formal joint ministerial committee on Europe, but as part of the discussions in the margins.

How does the Executive propose to inform the Parliament and the committee about the success or otherwise it has in feeding in views, directly or indirectly, to the convention?

The convention is a moveable feast—that is probably not the right way of putting it, but I am sure that it will have a dynamic. There will be opportunities for questions and occasions on which the committee can air matters. We also want to make what could be described as a substantive presentation of the Scottish Executive's position. It is yet to be decided how that is put into the public domain, but we are working up a paper on it and I might make a speech or instigate a debate in the Parliament. Although nothing definitive has been decided, we will ensure that the position that we take—which will be fed in in a more formal way—will provide an opportunity for public discussion.

Much of what we are doing is not exactly a secret. Enough has been said on issues of governance and the future of Europe to allow everyone to gauge where we are coming from. There will not be any surprise rabbits pulled out of the hat. I want to ensure that the position that the Scottish Executive feeds in—that will happen sooner rather than later—will be given prominence.

The issues relating to the convention on the future of Europe and the European Commission's white paper on governance are distinct, but they overlap to a certain degree. It is our intention to do what we did a year ago, when we put in a joint submission with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We set out some basic principles and then put some flesh on those principles. It is fair to say that that input was quite well reflected in the white paper that was eventually published. In the final stages of putting together another joint submission with COSLA in response to the Commission white paper on governance, we propose to do the same. That submission will be in the public domain.

In our recent report on the governance of the European Union, we recommended privileged access to the Commission by devolved Administrations for pre-legislative consultation. I was therefore somewhat surprised to read last weekend in The Sunday Times about a UK Cabinet Office paper that has reportedly

"blocked Scottish Executive ambitions for new rights to influence European legislation directly and bypass London."

That paper was apparently backed not only by the Foreign Secretary but by Helen Liddell, the Secretary of State for Scotland. It looks as if there is some dispute between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. The article goes on to say:

"A source close to McConnell said these were just the ‘opening salvos'".

What is happening here and who is going to win?

Dennis, it is not like you to believe what you read in the papers.

I am just asking the minister whether he believes it.

That article raised a few eyebrows, not least because it does not actually represent what has been the practice for some considerable time. Even in pre-devolution days, there were direct links between Scottish ministers and officials and their European Commission counterparts, and that has continued to be the case right up to the present day. There are direct exchanges and direct links. For example, I met the European Commissioner, Mr Vitorino. In areas such as agriculture and fisheries there are also regular contacts at official level and between ministers and the Commission.

I would not attach too much weight to a newspaper article. According to the article in The Sunday Times:

"The paper states: ‘The obligations of membership of the European Union fall on the member states … under the devolution settlements, relations with the EU remain the responsibility of the UK parliament and government.'"

That is an accurate statement of the constitutional position, but it does not preclude what is happening or what has been happening and will continue to happen. Nor could it be described as "opening salvos".

I have made it clear in the past—and I did so as recently as last week when I met the committee's House of Commons counterpart, the European Scrutiny Committee—that Europe can better connect with citizens through the involvement of sub-member state Administrations such as ours, in which the Parliament and the Executive are responsible for implementing European legislation, at a much earlier stage in the preparation of that legislation. In doing so, difficulties at a later date can often be avoided.

I gave an example on cabotage rules to the European Scrutiny Committee. European legislation does not allow for assistance for mainland to mainland ferries, but in some places on the western seaboard of Scotland, it makes sense to have a mainland to mainland connection. After the legislation had been set in stone, that issue took a long time to work through. That is an example in which better involvement at the ground floor might have led to better and more flexible legislation. I cannot say that, in wider discussions, our position on the matter led to apoplexy in members of the UK Government. That view is one feature of what we want to say in the debate on the future of Europe.

Yes, but the UK Cabinet paper states—

We must move on.

Just one quickie.

Ben Wallace and Colin Campbell have questions and Lloyd Quinan has a question that is germane to the issue. We must move on.

Last week, the presidents of the Catalan Government and the Catalan Parliament formally launched Catalonia's convention on the future of Europe, which involved more than 300 people from all sectors in Catalonia. Would the Scottish Executive be happy to organise something like that here? Would they organise such an event in the same way as the Catalan Government did?

We do not propose to have a separate convention, but I like to think that the debate will involve more than just the usual suspects who take part in such debates. I said in the debate at the end of February that we would set up our website to allow exchanges of views on the subject. I stop short of saying that we will have a convention, but we will give more thought to how we can broaden the debate and try to engage people in a way that goes beyond the formal structures.

If the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs comes to Edinburgh, we might be able to consider some events based around his visit. Those events might not involve him personally, but the visit would be a focal point and might ensure greater public awareness of the debate. Although everyone in the room is aware of the debate, I strongly suspect that it is not being discussed in the pubs of Greenock on wet Tuesday nights.

Many political issues are not discussed on wet Tuesday nights. Do you agree that if the type of convention that I mentioned were initiated here, it would bring the issue to the public's attention?

There are other ways that might be tried. I will not say that we will have a convention because I suspect that by the time we had set it up, the moment would have passed. However, I accept that we must widen the public debate.

Last week, I attended the first plenary session of the convention, which was very exciting.

That was above and beyond the call of duty.

Yes, it was. Will the minister say whether there is an official from the Executive in Peter Hain's ministerial delegation to the convention? Does the Executive rely on UK ministers to inform the Scottish Executive?

We did not have an official at the convention last week. We have good and cordial communications with Peter Hain's office. We have an official who co-ordinates with that office. He was not present on that occasion, but I think that observers were.

I mention in passing that the committee agreed today a briefing paper on procedures pre-Council and post-Council, which has a paragraph on the convention. We will send the paper to you for comment. Over the next year to 18 months, we would like to start a regular dialogue on the convention. We must move on now.

I have an important point. The convention will have a plenary session on the role of the regions. The ministerial statements paper indicates clearly how much the Executive supports the convention and how much the external relations division is involved in it. It would be interesting to know from the minister whether Scotland House intends to have an official at the convention as part of Mr Hain's group. That official need not be present as a speaking official, but to monitor and to ensure that questions that need to be answered quickly come directly back to the Executive. The First Minister has espoused the virtues of being able to go directly to the European Commission through UK ministers. However, if questions go through UKREP, we may get delays. It would be right to ensure that the minister has a more direct route.

I will check whether a Scotland House official attended the convention. At a meeting on Friday morning, I got reports about what had happened at the previous day's convention. Given the nature of the convention's discussion, someone from Scotland House might have been present, but not as part of Peter Hain's suite.

We move now to issues around the Spanish presidency priorities. Nora Radcliffe will kick off with a question about agriculture.

I do not know whether the question is directly related to the Spanish presidency, but the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy is a critical one for Scotland. How does the Executive propose to engage with this committee, with the Rural Development Committee and with Parliament as a whole on the mid-term review of the CAP?

As I indicated in my opening remarks, I do not envisage my role as coming to this committee and explaining what we are doing about the CAP. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie. I would expect ministers with the relevant portfolio responsibility to be willing to engage with this committee, the Rural Development Committee or another committee.

My role is more of a co-ordinating one. I could only give members an overview. If members want to get into the nitty-gritty, they must ask the minister with the relevant portfolio to attend the committee. If the committee had difficulty in getting the relevant minister to attend, my role would be to encourage and cajole the minister. However, I do not anticipate the committee having such a difficulty.

It is an interesting question for Parliament whether this committee or the Rural Development Committee should have primary responsibility for CAP discussions. Whichever committee has that responsibility, I would expect Executive ministers to respond to a committee request on an issue as key and important as the future of the CAP.

I was not asking for detail, but using the issue of the CAP as an exemplar.

I expect that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, or the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, would respond to a specific request on that issue.

I have a specific question about fisheries, but I think that it is better directed to the minister whose portfolio includes that issue.

Ms Sarah Boyack intended to ask questions on the environment. However, those questions might also fall within specific remits.

We received the briefing paper only this morning, so we could not pass on comments to other ministers. I will flag up one issue and we can put in writing our questions on a range of matters. That might be a way to handle the matter, if the issues that the questions deal with are not in the portfolio of the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice. We have questions on issues such as health and drinking water.

I have a question about the directive on environmental liability, which is mentioned in the environment report as having potential implications for Scotland's legal system. To what extent is integrated thinking or cross-cutting work on that issue being undertaken by different departments? The proposal may impact on the enterprise and environment portfolios and on the minister's justice portfolio. It may also impact on the development department in relation to planning issues. Has the matter risen up the Executive's agenda as a whole, or is it seen as just an environment issue?

I accept that that directive will have ramifications, although the Executive's environment team is leading on it and work on dealing with the detail of the directive has not yet reached ministerial level. I will try to ensure that Sarah Boyack receives a reply to the specific point that she raised on the cross-cutting work that is being done further down the line on such an important directive.

It might be useful for me to add that, when we get the system up and running—which it ought to be from now on—the committee will not be faced with a paper on priorities for a presidency halfway through that presidency. Such papers should come near the beginning of a presidency, which will allow the European Committee and the other subject committees to plan for the issues on which they want ministers to give evidence during the course of that presidency. I apologise that the paper has come at this stage, but it is a new and worthwhile development. I hope that when the system is running properly, such papers will assist the process by giving the committee early warning.

Helen Eadie, Alex Neil and Richard Lochhead want to ask questions before we move on to the next section. I ask members to be brief.

My question is about the immediacy of a specific problem, rather than about the framework of legislation that is still down the road. How does Scotland feed its view into the national and Europe-wide process? For example, freight transportation—moving freight from road to rail—is a great success story for Scotland and the UK. However, the problem that has arisen with the channel tunnel is having a major impact on businesses in Scotland. How can we get across the urgency of the situation for companies such as English Welsh and Scottish Railway, the Rail Freight Group and all the other companies that are involved in rail freight? How can we highlight the situation and get involved in the negotiations?

Members should take every possible contact opportunity. On our trading links with the continent, a positive outcome that we have achieved is the direct link from Rosyth to Zeebrugge, which will give Scotland direct sea access to the European Union. That was achieved through the involvement of, and good co-operation among, the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and relevant business interests. As members know, there was a successful conclusion to that effort. The rail issues that Helen Eadie mentioned do not involve exclusively Scottish interests, but we must have that same co-operation between Westminster, the Scottish Executive and relevant business interests.

Can you give the committee an assurance that you will raise the matter urgently?

I will ensure that Helen Eadie's comments are passed on to Wendy Alexander and Lewis Macdonald.

I have two quickies. During the six months of the Spanish presidency, how many meetings of the Council of Ministers—on agriculture and so on—will there be, and at how many of those meetings will Scottish ministers be represented? That was question 1. Question 2 is—

You have already asked two questions.

Question 2 is on promotion of Scotland in Europe. In your paper on the Scottish Executive's priorities for external relations, you say that you want to portray Scotland as

"a dynamic and modern country, with well-educated and enterprising people".

In the next paragraph, you tell us that the emphasis will be on "tartan, golf and whisky". Surely to God we are past the stage of promoting the heather and haggis image of Scotland. Instead, why not talk about electronics, biotechnology and all the other exciting things that are happening in Scotland?

I will get back to Alex Neil on his first question because I cannot remember off the top of my head how many Council of Ministers meetings there will be. Ministers will attend those at which important Scottish issues are at stake.

Let us not forget that Scotland is represented by UK ministers at every Council meeting. The early forward look that we provide will consist not only of the information that we give to the committee about the presidency. That information will be complemented by a Cabinet session at a similar time at the beginning of every presidency, at which the Cabinet will discuss specific issues and will identify the Council meetings at which items of particular importance to Scotland will be on the agenda.

Alex Neil's second question represented a slight travesty of what the priorities for external relations document says. If anything, Mr Neil underlines the point that we seek to make. We want to promote an image of Scotland as a dynamic, modern country that is characterised by enterprise, a clean environment and effective transport connections. The priorities document states:

"In doing so we need to build on a high recognition rating for Scotland's traditional attributes".

It does not say that that will be the focus of our activity; rather, it accepts that tartan, golf and whisky are strongly associated with Scotland. Instead of losing that association, we should turn it to advantage.

It is important to mention electronics and biotechnology.

Absolutely. Biotechnology and electronics and the enterprise that goes with them are key parts of a dynamic, modern Scotland. One does not throw away a positive feature by trying to replace it; one builds on it. We must supplement the traditional image. That is why we want to advance placing considerable emphasis on the aspects that are mentioned in paragraph 22 of the priorities document. We should not lose the advantages that we have built up over many years. Let us use them to good effect and link them to attributes that show Scotland in a modern, dynamic light.

I am married to an American. All the Americans who come to visit us are interested only in tartan and golf.

There are in Scotland incentives to encourage people to set up and progress businesses, to carry out research and development and to engage in biotechnology. For example, we know that the University of Dundee has a well-deserved reputation for excellence in biotechnology. One could encourage more research at the University of Dundee by saying, "By the way, Carnoustie is not that far away and St Andrews is on the other side of the Firth of Tay." It is possible to help.

The next agriculture council will be held in the next few months.

I am sorry. Did you say "aquaculture" or "agriculture"?

I said "agriculture". A couple of months ago, soon after one of the most recent agriculture councils, your colleague George Lyon launched a scathing attack on Margaret Beckett for not representing Scotland's interests at that meeting. When he reflected on that event and on other happenings in Europe, Jim Walker, president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, said a couple of days ago that the way in which Scotland is represented at agriculture councils will have to change, because Scotland is not benefiting from the current arrangements. I am sure that you know very well the two people whom I have mentioned. Have you taken on board their concerns and, in light of those concerns, what changes do you anticipate in the way in which Scotland is represented at agriculture councils?

Richard Lochhead has a needle stuck in a groove on that issue, but he may continue to punt his point of view. Agriculture has certainly benefited in more recent times, although that has perhaps not always been the case since the outset of devolution. There are regular meetings among the four devolved Administrations and the agriculture ministers in advance of agriculture councils, and there are meetings to deal with general issues that affect agriculture in the UK and our relationships with the European Union. Scotland plays an important part in that process. I have heard it said that Scotland is better represented since devolution, because greater awareness of the existence of a distinctly Scottish position has emerged.

I have every confidence in Ross Finnie's ability to represent Scotland's interests. That is best done through the work that is carried out in conjunction with UK ministers, so that there is a clear Scottish input into the UK line. I have heard people reflect on the fact that the Scottish dimension is—

I would like to ask a quick follow-up question.

Please make it brief, Richard, because Bristow Muldoon wants to speak and Lloyd Quinan is still to come in. The minister has to go at 4 o'clock.

The Scottish Executive has led at three meetings of the Council of Ministers—meetings of the education council and the health council—since devolution. What criteria are applied when the Executive decides to seek to lead at the Council of Ministers? What criteria apply to health council or education council meetings that do not apply to fishing and farming?

A set of criteria does not necessarily apply in such cases. There is an obsession with who leads and who sits at the table, but what those people say is far more important. I believe that John Home Robertson has spoken at Council of Ministers meetings, although he has not led. I have spoken at a Council meeting, although I have not led.

The work that is done in advance of agriculture council meetings involves good co-operation—the discussion can be pretty robust, too. The exchanges between the Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh and UK ministers mean that the Scottish interest is well represented in what is said. It does not matter so much who—nominally—has the lead; the Scottish interest is being expressed. The importance of Council meetings is diminished when one is obsessed with who sits where, rather than what they say.

I ask Bristow Muldoon to make his question very brief, as we have a number of questions on justice and home affairs that we hope the minister will have the time to answer.

I do not want to explore some specific areas, because I acknowledge what the Deputy First Minister said about such questions being more appropriately directed to relevant other ministers.

Does the minister agree that the Scottish Executive has been engaging better in the European decision-making process? Does he also agree, however, that we need to improve further the way in which the Scottish Executive and the Parliament's committees engage with one another in shaping the views that the Executive takes into Europe?

The document that has been published marks a welcome development, but there needs to be further discussion between the European Committee and the other relevant committees about how we develop that. How does the Deputy First Minister envisage that we could improve the relationship between subject committees and ministers before the Executive engages with Europe?

When we debated this subject in the Parliament, I think that I said that we wanted to examine ways in which to get a better exchange of views and to provide early notice of issues that come up. Perhaps a formal evidence-giving session is not the best vehicle for that, but there is willingness to engage with the European Committee on how to improve structures. I understand from what the convener said a few moments ago that the committee had a discussion on the matter earlier today; I will be interested to receive the paper that the convener said is on its way and I will examine the proposals constructively.

I have said before that there are issues of confidentiality, but I do not want proper confidentiality to spill over into unnecessary confidentiality. My approach will be to engage as best I can. The desire to provide better advance notice about forthcoming Council agendas relates also to some of the subject committees.

Let us move on to justice matters. Can the minister stay on past 4 o'clock, say for five or 10 minutes?

Yes.

Thank you.

As everyone well knows, the priorities for the right-wing Spanish presidency are the combating of terrorism and the liberalising of the work market. There is, in effect, a very right-wing presidency that promotes an agenda that is very much its own.

Given the internal political circumstances of the Spanish state and the right-wing nature of José María Aznar's Government, does the minister think that it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to follow blithely its commitment to the common definition of terrorist offences and, more important, the common arrest warrant and common definition of terrorist organisations that have been laid down?

I do not expect any British Government blithely to follow anyone on any issue. I expect the British Government to give proper and detailed consideration to the points that are made, bearing in mind that the country that has the presidency is in prime position. I fully expect each proposal to be considered properly on its merits. I certainly do not expect anyone blithely to follow the Spanish Government, just as I do not expect anyone blithely to follow the Government of Luxembourg.

Taking the word "blithely" out of consideration, does the minister accept that the current Spanish Government has been found guilty on nine separate occasions of carrying out torture on political prisoners? Therefore, does the minister think that it is appropriate that a state that has been found guilty of torturing its prisoners should be driving the common defence and security agenda of the European Union, given that it clearly has no ability to maintain security within its own boundaries?

We all know that the Spanish Government has particular problems with terrorism. In November 2000, I attended in Barcelona the meeting of the heads of Government of administrative regions with devolved powers. That was the day after the assassination of a person who had been working for peace in the Basque Country. I joined a procession of many hundreds of thousands of people through the streets of Barcelona in a show of public outrage about terrorism. That was a perfectly proper thing to do. I certainly hope that the implication of Lloyd Quinan's question is not that somehow or other any state can minimise terrorism.

As far as torture is concerned, I was not aware of the figure that Lloyd Quinan mentioned but—as we all know—one of the European Union's cardinal principles is the upholding of human rights. That is an important issue to address in considering the countries that are seeking to join as part of the enlargement process. I expect issues of human rights not only to apply in the United Kingdom, but to be considered in all decisions that the European Union makes.

I am not sure whether the implication of Lloyd Quinan's question was that Spain should enjoy the presidency for every subject except justice and home affairs. I am not trivialising the matter. The logical destination of the question was that Spain should somehow be suspended from the European Union, or at least that it should not be allowed to have the presidency. I could not readily sign up to that.

That was not what I was getting at. My point was that, given circumstances since 11 September and the political nature of the Spanish Government and its presidency, it is clear that that Government is making use of people's internal fears to compromise human rights. I am concerned—as are others in many political organisations and non-governmental organisations—about the Spanish influence and its obsession with internal security and the banning of organisations and individuals. I am sure that the minister is well aware that the Spanish Government still uses exile as a means of removing people from their land if the Government does not like them, despite the fact that those people might be passport holders.

I am concerned that we might be led into adopting measures that are overly harsh and that might compromise human rights. I know full well that the Spanish are extremely good at signing, but not ratifying, certain sections of the European convention on human rights.

Given the circumstances in which Eurojust was formed and the fact that Scotland has a separate and very different legal system, will you suggest that the UK deputy post on Eurojust is earmarked for a Scottish prosecutor—if not lead an active campaign for that to happen?

Mr Quinan raises an issue that I have recently been considering. We want to engage with the Home Office on how the distinctive position of the Scottish legal system can be reflected on Eurojust.

I appreciate that it is difficult for the Deputy First Minister to answer questions on behalf of the Spanish Government, but I would like to ask him about his direct responsibilities.

That was shabby, John.

Order. John Home Robertson is speaking.

Would the minister like to take the opportunity to outline his key justice and home affairs priorities in the coming period when dealing with the European Union?

My priorities will not change dramatically from the paper that I approved over the weekend. However, there is a key general issue relating to justice, which Lloyd Quinan picked up in his final question. I have always considered it important to remind the European Union and the European Commission that we are in the unique situation of having two distinct legal jurisdictions in one member state. To be fair, the first thing that Commissioner Vitorino did when I met him was ensure that I understood that he knew that Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction, before I spent the first 10 minutes of our meeting telling him about it. In all my dealings with the commissioner, it has been evident that he knows that.

A number of issues—Eurojust, the possible establishment of a European public prosecutor, the negotiations on the legal aid directive and the relationship between Scottish criminal procedure and the European arrest warrant—have a specific Scottish dimension. One of my priorities is to ensure that sight of that dimension is not lost.

I have a question about the European arrest warrant. Will the 110-day rule be protected?

That issue arose in the debate on the committee's report on the governance of the European Union and the future of Europe. Some confusion has arisen because we have never applied the 110-day rule to extradition cases. We are aware of nothing in the proposals for a European arrest warrant that compromises the 110-day rule as enforced in Scotland. In extradition cases, preliminary court proceedings can be very drawn out, as legal points are taken. For that reason, the 110-day rule has not been applied to such cases. The rule would not apply in equivalent circumstances under the European arrest warrant. That is different from the general matter of the 110-day rule, which will continue to apply unaffected.

The draft directive on reception of asylum seekers has implications for the Scottish Executive in relation to education, health care and so on. Will you expand on that? The matter is on the agenda and recent experience needs to be learned from.

Health, policing and education are matters to be dealt with within the United Kingdom. Negotiations and discussions are taking place between the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and between the Scottish Executive and councils—who are the receiving authorities—to ensure that where there is dispersal of asylum seekers, the necessary infrastructure and supporting services are in place.

We will have to finish there. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Deputy First Minister for his attendance. We have had a very useful discussion that has covered a wide range of issues. Step by step, the Executive and the committee are getting better at co-ordinating their efforts. I hope that in the months ahead the Deputy First Minister will continue to assist with that process.

That brings the public part of the meeting to a close. I thank members of the public for their attendance.

Meeting continued in private until 16:25.