European Union Agenda (Scottish Executive Priorities)
Under agenda item 2, we will hear from Andy Kerr, the minister with responsibility for Europe and external relations. I extend a warm welcome to him. It is his first appearance before the European and External Relations Committee and before any of the Parliament's committees in his new ministerial role.
I thank the minister for the paper that was delivered to the committee on the Executive's priorities for the Italian presidency. The paper will also be sent to the other parliamentary committees. The minister will give us a presentation of around 20 to 25 minutes. As members can see, it is a high-tech PowerPoint presentation. I hope that everyone can see the screen. Like any good teacher, the minister has given us a copy of his slides and members have a printout of them, which they can look at if they do not have a perfect view of the screen.
After the minister's presentation, we have an hour for questions. I want to combine items 2 and 3, so I suggest that, after the presentation, we have half an hour of questions on Europe, European Union legislation and the Executive's priorities for the presidency, after which we will move on to a second block of questions for another half an hour on the wider external relations strategy. If members are happy with that, we will proceed on that basis.
Without further ado, I hand over to Andy Kerr, who will give us his presentation.
Thank you, convener. It is at moments like this that I recall the pleasant position conveners are in, looking down the table towards the ministers. However, today I have the enviable opportunity of presenting to the committee the Executive's strategy at this critical moment in time, and I am pleased to be here. I hope to build up a warm and constructive relationship with committee members to ensure that we best represent Scotland's needs.
I know that I am one in a continuing pattern of ministers who have been before the committee. I have adopted the PowerPoint route, which is my wont. I hope that it will make the presentation more interesting and that it will allow conversation and dialogue afterwards.
It is good to see the slight change in emphasis in how the committee works and the fact that more of the Parliament's committees, such as those with responsibility for health, justice, environment and enterprise, will take up European issues at source in order to deal with matters European. That is healthy and is to be welcomed.
As the convener said, he has allocated the questions in such a way as to allow the committee time to discuss issues of European interest as well as the wider external relations portfolio. I hope that there is lots of time for questions and answers. I introduce Alastair Wilson and Tim Simons, who are with me today to assist. One of the aspects of the Parliament that I like is the fact that officials get to clarify matters on occasion. I will invite them to do so as and when appropriate to ensure that such clarification happens.
The areas to be covered are those that members see on the second slide: how the Executive engages with Europe; how we engage with the United Kingdom to ensure that we are represented properly on EU issues; our priorities around the Italian presidency; and the intergovernmental conference, which is clearly critical. I am sure that members will raise other matters in questions. I will also cover other areas of our work that I think are important to the committee.
The next set of slides shows the committee who everybody is, which is important. I certainly hope to have a long and fruitful relationship not only with the committee but with the portfolio. Tavish Scott and I are responsible for the specific portfolio responsibilities, although the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister retain a high-level strategic interest and play their own roles within the external relations work that we do. Fortunately—or unfortunately—both Jack McConnell and the Deputy First Minister have held the external relations brief and have been here before, so they will be able to keep a close eye on me. Patricia Ferguson has responsibility within the Executive for ensuring that we carry out our responsibilities and duties with regard to transposition.
Other ministers engage with Europe at different levels and in different ways. We ensure that we engage with visiting delegations of ministers and others and that our views are heard and understood. Further, ministers try to ensure the mainstreaming of appropriate European matters within their portfolios.
It is important for committee members to know how ministers handle the Executive's external relations policy and to question me on that handling. The Cabinet discusses EU issues and we ensure that we focus on what we can achieve in our portfolios and more widely, including in external relations. Twice a year we discuss our priorities in relation to the EU presidency. Last Wednesday, we discussed the Italian presidency's programme and the Executive's priorities therein. We have delivered information on that to members.
Recently, we also set up an ad hoc ministerial group on European strategy to consider the co-ordination of policy, how we can influence the UK Government's position on EU issues that affect us and how we will deal with forthcoming European legislation. The group also considers the wider reform agenda within Europe and our working relationships with other parts of the EU. We want to ensure that, as a Cabinet and an Executive, our focus is correct and that we are working on the key issues and intervening at the appropriate time to ensure that our interests are best represented.
Slide 6 lays out our departmental structure for external relations policy. All departments that have EU business—for example, the Environment and Rural Affairs Department—deal with EU policy in their area. The Finance and Central Services Department has three EU policy divisions: external relations, promotion of Scotland, and the Scottish Executive EU office. In total, 51 members of staff are involved, of which 13 are external relations staff, 26 are promotion of Scotland staff and 12 are from the EU office.
After robust discussion, we arrived at a clear statement of our external relations objectives and we want to ensure that we pursue them effectively. We want to engage with and influence external relations matters as effectively as we can. Slide 7 shows our objectives, which are: promoting Scotland's devolved policy interests; building links; promoting Scotland abroad; and working closely with the UK Government to ensure that we have a strong, effective influence on European matters. Working through the ad hoc ministerial committee, we want to ensure that we attach specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related—SMART—criteria to the objectives so that we can report to the committee how effectively our policies have been pursued and delivered for Scotland.
The Executive works closely and effectively with UK Government officials and politicians on EU issues that affect our devolved interests to ensure that the Executive's position is known and that we influence UK policy on those matters. We also ensure that our views are known within the European Parliament and the European Commission. Several of my ministerial colleagues have met commissioners in Brussels and in Edinburgh and we have regular dialogue with Scotland's members of the European Parliament.
Recently, members of the European members information liaison exchange—EMILE—network met in this committee room. I was struck by the diversity of interests and the number of players from the Parliament, the Executive and wider civic Scotland who are involved in ensuring that we all shove in the right direction in terms of Scotland's representation in the European Parliament and the benefits that that can bring.
Working with the UK is a critical and rewarding aspect of our work. We ensure that our voice is heard and that our policies can be delivered effectively. For example, Executive ministers attend European councils with the UK Government to ensure that our views are known and understood and have an impact on decisions. To date, we have attended 43 councils. I want all ministers to attend the appropriate councils to ensure that there can be no question of our voice not being heard, our views not being known and our influence not being felt.
We also attend the joint ministerial committee on Europe. It has held seven meetings since 1999, at which there have been key strategic discussions around matters European. We can make our voice heard at those meetings, thereby influencing UK policy. We also attend a number of meetings in London of the Whitehall ministerial committee on European co-ordination—MINECOR—whose role is to promote UK involvement in Europe and communicate the benefits of EU membership. That involves a number of presentational issues, and we participate fully in MINECOR.
To ensure that our views are known at a UK level, we hold informal meetings to discuss matters of common interest. Members will be aware of the work of the Scottish euro preparations committee, which I attended last Tuesday, and we could perhaps discuss that later on. We also use officers working at a UK level and engage in correspondence to agree policy lines, influencing UK policy before council meetings and ensuring that our views come across and are delivered satisfactorily. We can seek to influence policy at different levels. At different working groups and meetings, including Wall-Grant meetings—or Grant-Wall meetings, depending on how we want to present them—we make sure that we get our views across. Our engagement in that process is deep and comprehensive at the political level and at officer level. We all seek to ensure that our views come across and that our voice is well heard.
We have issued the committee with a number of documents on the Italian presidency of the EU, which the Cabinet discussed last Wednesday. The Italian ambassador met some members, including me, last week. The Executive channels its resources effectively, and we seek to use our influence and set our priorities appropriately, without spreading ourselves too thinly, as was also discussed at Cabinet. The forward look for the Italian presidency was produced by the Executive's EU office and has been sent out to members and to all those in the EMILE network. It is available on our website, which I understand fulfils a commitment on the part of the Executive that was prompted by the committee. We have tried to be open and transparent about what we seek to do in Europe to allow committee members and wider civic Scotland to understand where the focus of the Executive's work will be.
The forward look document on the Italian presidency gives a clear indication of our priorities and where the Executive seeks to be. We will ensure that our interests are put across and that there is an understanding at a European level of the unique Scottish legal system when EU law is made. Through good intelligence, we can influence the process at the right time and ensure that Scotland's interests are well represented. The Executive makes sure that it alerts those who require to be alerted when relevant matters come up.
I was struck—as I expect were new members of the committee—by the wide diversity of interests involved in this area, by the sheer scale of the work that goes on in Europe and by the effects that that can and will have in Scotland and the UK. Clearly, priorities must be set. The forward look mentions 29 dossiers of importance to Scotland, and we have identified five of those as being of particular importance. If I were to ask members to guess what those dossiers are about, I suspect that they would not be far away, and that they would agree on what the priorities should be.
The IGC is critical for the institutional structure of Europe and how that will change, and our work on the draft treaty is critical. We have made some good, positive moves with regard to the IGC, but we need to ensure that that effort is maintained. Reform of the common agricultural policy is critically important to Scotland and work continues in that regard. Cod recovery measures represent another issue of great concern to Scotland. The committee will have views on the structural funds debate, and the Executive continues to work on that, particularly in relation to the third report on economic and social cohesion. The revised bathing water directive will be of particular importance in Scotland, and we want to be absolutely clear about our role in properly influencing, delivering and dealing with the directive.
Identifying those priorities is not to forget the other pieces of work that we are undertaking, but we felt that those priorities are appropriate for the Executive to work away on, notwithstanding the fact that individual ministers will have issues relating to their portfolios that they will require to examine and manage.
We think that that is a sensible and prudent approach to ensure that we focus our resources effectively and deliver our commitments. Through intensive liaison with our UK counterparts, the Commission, MEPs and others, we will seek to ensure that those matters are delivered through the system. I strongly believe that we have the opportunity over the next four years to ensure that Scottish interests are best met at a critical time for Europe because of the IGC and enlargement. We can do that collectively and by ensuring that we all know each other's priorities and responsibilities and where we need the real push in relation to what is best for Scotland's interests. I hope to work closely with MEPs, the committee and UK partners to ensure that that happens. We seek to share information and to ensure that officials work with clerks so that we can do our best to co-ordinate our activities to best meet the needs of Scotland.
Peter Peacock was at the most recent substantive discussion with the committee on objectives. We want to ensure that we address those issues. On promoting Scotland's interests in EU policy, we are quietly pleased and confident with our contribution to the Hain paper, which is of great benefit to Scotland. I am pleased that much of that work has fed into the IGC. Aspects of the Hain paper, such as the treaty reference to the role of regional Governments and regional Parliaments in ensuring subsidiarity, the reforms to make the Committee of the Regions more effective, and flexibility with regard to national and regional Parliaments so that the implementation of European legislation makes sense locally, are all a good step forward.
There are other aspects that did not quite reach the draft. Through our substantial involvement with the regions with legislative power—Regleg—we want to ensure that we pick up some of those issues, so that they continue to be at the top of our agenda, and that the matters that are in the current draft agreement remain there.
It is worth updating the committee on another aspect of our work, which is the links with regions and countries. An action plan has been signed with Tuscany, and there are links in relation to economic development, arts and culture. We have considered cultural education; international policies with common interests; Bavaria in respect of European policy; land-use planning and development; justice and home affairs; pupil exchanges; tourism; the environment; and government administration. We are entering discussions, agreements and links with other countries on the basis of an agenda of mutual interest and mutual benefit, and with the intention of using our resources effectively. Tavish Scott is about to attend the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe to ensure that Scotland's interests are best represented there, too.
We are one of the key seven founder members of Regleg, which the First Minister will chair. The opportunity is there not only to influence at the top table of that organisation but to bring a major European body to Scotland when Regleg has its 2004 conference here.
Other areas are worth mentioning in relation to the positive image of Scotland overseas, for instance the prestigious and successful Smithsonian Folklife Festival in June and July, which had 1.5 million visitors. The event was positive for Scotland because it significantly raised the Scottish profile. One hundred performers and participants showcased traditional music, fashion, crafts and industry. It was an unrivalled opportunity to present Scotland, and was attended by Frank McAveety and others. We showcase Scotland as a must-visit destination at every opportunity—that is part of the broader strategy of tourism development throughout the Executive.
The IGC is a big issue for us all. I have mentioned the fact that we are quite pleased with the enhanced role for the regions. We want to ensure not only that there is no roll-back from what is currently in the documents but that, through Regleg, we push more in other areas, particularly in relation to the Committee of the Regions.
We want to ensure that, through the process of working with the United Kingdom and making our views known, the legal system in Scotland is understood and that further drafts appreciate particular nuances in Scotland. We want to ensure that work in the justice and home affairs stream recognises differences and that Scottish policy interests are protected.
On key EU issues apart from the IGC, enlargement presents challenging opportunities for Scotland. Our engagement with the accession nations is currently very dynamic. They are now at the top table with speaking rights, although not voting rights, which creates a new dimension in Europe. We must ensure that different voices are heard, and we are keen to develop further our links with the accession nations. We are working through the UK and Executive partnership arrangements that we are developing to ensure that we deal effectively with enlargement. I mentioned Regleg, so will not do so again. The major constitutional changes and the approaching elections bring a degree of uncertainty, but also opportunities to seek to influence Europe and the European scene.
The Executive is doing better in focusing on what we want to achieve from individual presidencies and in looking forward to ensure that we know where we are heading in Europe. We are delivering annotated council agendas to ensure that the committee is aware of the issues with which we are dealing—I have been advised that the committee requested that. We want to be effective within the UK delegation and in developing policies in the UK and Europe and to be more successful with the committee. I want to develop the relationship with the committee to ensure that we work effectively together so that Scotland's views are well represented.
The ministerial ad hoc group that I mentioned is considering some of those issues. I certainly want to report back to the committee once we have distilled our thoughts a wee bit further about how we can work more effectively with the committee and others in Europe. We want to ensure that we engage with the committee properly, and we will have views about such engagement. We want to ensure that the committee's role in scrutinising what the Executive does is carried out in the best possible manner and that the committee has the right information to do that job. There should be a joint team Scotland approach—I referred to that at the start of my presentation—and we should push with all our collective effort to ensure that, during this time of change and opportunity in Europe, we deliver as effectively as we can.
I apologise if my presentation has been a wee bit lengthy. I am on an interesting learning curve and my preparation for the meeting allowed me to get to grips with some of the wider portfolio matters. I am happy for members to make any comments or ask questions on areas about which I can further enlighten them.
Thank you, minister. You have covered a lot of ground in a short time, which we welcome. I remind members that we should constrain the first half hour of questions to Europe, EU legislation and Scotland's role in Europe—we will deal with external relations later.
The minister referred to the Italian presidency and the meeting with the Italian ambassador last week. It seems that the Italians' top priority is to get the European constitution set up. Does the Scottish Executive see Scotland as having a regional Government or a national Government, or does it see Scotland within the terms of the constitution? Does the minister have any opinion on what the ambassador said when he stated quite clearly that the constitution represents the setting up of a state?
I was not at the meeting where the ambassador said that. The IGC seeks to tidy up how Europe works. In terms of representation, it seeks to get the collective interests of all the different countries of Europe into the right shape. Yes, we will get a legal personality out of the discussions at the IGC and we will have a different arrangement, with a full-time president and essentially a minister for foreign affairs. However, as I discussed with Neil MacCormick, the aim is to make Europe much more accessible by changing structures to make it much more democratically accountable and transparent. I do not share the view that that will lead to a state, because nation states will retain major powers. There is to be a tidying up, and there are to be substantial changes with regard to the legal personality, the full-time president, foreign affairs and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, but those will not take away nation states' rights to express the democratic will within their own nations.
I want to pick up on your use of the words "tidying up". If the draft constitution was a document that simply recognised the requirement for enlargement and set out to tidy things up, everyone would understand that, given the confusion that seems to reign at times within Europe. However, given some of the changes that will be made, it can hardly be called a tidying-up exercise. You have guarded against some changes, for example to the Scottish legal system and the supremacy of the European courts. However, there is to be a foreign minister who will speak for Europe as a whole. Is the Scottish Executive concerned about Scotland's voice being heard in instances when the views of Scotland and of the UK differ on European and foreign affairs?
Given the early stage of my involvement with Europe, I defer to people with greater knowledge of Europe than I have, but when I hear Neil MacCormick say, "Here is the old document. Here is the new one. This is a much better, more transparent, more workable and user-friendly document for the citizen than we had before," I think that that is a step forward.
We can all create an image of what we think Europe will look like. If we have a minister for foreign affairs, that person will be controlled from within Europe to ensure that Europe is represented on a wider stage, but that will not take away the responsibilities of democratically elected Governments of nation states. I simply do not see such a foreign minister in the same way as you do, as someone strutting the world stage advocating a separate European policy. I see that person as someone who can represent the views of Europe on wider stages, but who is controlled and influenced by, and responsible to, a democratic structure within Europe, which the new framework in the draft constitution seeks to establish.
I have a range of questions that I would like to ask, but I realise that my time is limited. To whom will the foreign minister be responsible? Will the foreign minister report to the European Commission?
The Italian presidency put great emphasis on the reform of measures relating to animal welfare, hallmarking and asylum seeking. Why should the reform of animal welfare measures be a priority for the Italians? We enforce animal welfare legislation, but a major problem in Europe is the fact that the Italian Government and others do not enforce it. Why do we need more legislation that will damage our industry in the UK when that legislation is not enforced in Europe as a whole?
With due respect, I simply do not agree with that view. We hear comments to the effect that the French, the Greeks or the Spanish do not do this or that; indeed, we have created a culture in the UK and Scotland in which those views are somehow taken as fact.
All European nations have been subject to infraction proceedings because they have not implemented certain directives and treaties or carried out certain responsibilities. We should not pluck names out of the air and use those countries as examples to illustrate how we are burdening our business community with measures that other European countries are choosing to ignore. That is not the case. I have asked leaders of the Scottish business community, with whom I have had lengthy engagement, to give me the facts about the issue. To be blunt, I have to say that the facts do not support people's view that certain European countries do not implement treaties as effectively as others.
As for the proposed European Union minister of foreign affairs, there will be a degree of control in that respect. After all, that person will chair the foreign affairs council, which will consist of other politicians. Policy will be decided democratically and the question of how we seek to influence the minister's role will work its way back to nation states. We can follow the line back to ensure that the minister's role has a democratic structure and is accountable.
I have a quick question about the white paper that the UK Government published this morning on its approach to the IGC. Committee members received copies of the paper only this afternoon and have not had time to digest it. Presumably the Executive received an advance copy. Will you respond to the paper and tell us whether you are happy with it? Have you got what you wanted from it?
We are fairly content—indeed, we are more than satisfied—with the contents of the paper. We were involved in most stages of its development to ensure that we could influence policy at the right moment. Moreover, the white paper touches on the Hain paper, which I mentioned earlier and which draws together some of the good work that has been done in Wales, Scotland and—to an extent—Northern Ireland. Even though there were difficulties in Northern Ireland at the time, officials there still sought to ensure that that work was done.
As I said, we are happy with the white paper and believe that it takes our interests into account. We welcome the fact that our views have been expressed in it and I repeat that we were involved at all stages of its development. I hope that that helps the committee.
You mentioned earlier that the Hain paper missed out some issues that you now want to pursue elsewhere. Which issues were you referring to?
The Committee of the Regions, which was highlighted in the Hain paper when it was finally published, was not picked up in the IGC process. We also want to pursue the issue of a pre-legislative process to ensure that sub-member states and regional Governments are fixed into the system and are involved in consultation on, and the development of, legislation at the pre-legislative stage. We will seek to recover that position through our work on Regleg.
I thank the minister for his comprehensive presentation. I guess that I come at the matter from a position that is diametrically opposed to that of my colleague Phil Gallie. I welcome the minister's comments on the IGC and believe that the committee endorses the view that there should be regional consultation on EU matters. The UK has worked hard to progress that issue.
Are you confident that the Scottish Executive can work with the UK Government through the IGC process to ensure that proposals on regional consultation are retained and that regions across Europe are given that element of democracy?
In your introduction, you mentioned the Scottish euro preparations committee. Obviously the decision on whether we join the euro is a reserved matter. However, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer's five economic tests be met, are you confident that the Scottish Executive is working with business in preparation for any decision and will you give us a little bit of detail about any preparations to ensure that we in Scotland are up to speed on the issue?
We will need to work hard to get the two aspects that I have just mentioned back on the IGC agenda. We must ensure that they do not get thrown on the cutting room floor—so to speak—in the rush to come to an agreement. We will focus a lot of our energies, in our engagement with the UK, on ensuring that that does not happen. Issues can sometimes be lost in the efforts to broker a deal, but we are confident that we can avoid that happening. The debates and discussions are big, but we have focused on ensuring that there is no roll-back in terms of the Hain document and that we can take it forward a wee bit more effectively.
On our relationship with the UK delegations and our influence on UK policy, the fact that the policy that was born through the Hain paper became part of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish effort and got right through the process relatively undamaged, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, is good. We simply need to keep our efforts focused.
The prepare-and-decide strategy is absolutely correct. I am involved in addressing the issue in a number of ways. I regularly attend the euro ministers meeting in London; that is a forum in which we exchange information on where we are in our preparation, on the common work that we are doing and on what we can learn from each other about what should be done to prepare. If anything, our joining the euro will be a genuine national effort when it occurs, although the Treasury will retain the central co-ordinating role.
A guidance document has been issued recently to local authorities on their roles and responsibilities and the work that they need to do. We are also seeking to ensure that businesses are aware of what is going on. The meeting that took place in Edinburgh last Tuesday, which was chaired by Alistair Darling and attended by me, Tavish Scott, Jim Wallace and the First Minister, gave an insight into the wide range of stages of preparation and the views of some of the business organisations—the banks and others—who were round the table.
We seek to ensure that Scotland is ready and that we have got our end of the bargain completed, which is the implementation plan. We are now on the third implementation plan and we are ensuring that the Executive can cope with the changes. We are telling businesses and local government to begin to think about the issues and to prepare. The public sector has a huge responsibility with regard to euro preparations; nonetheless, we have also been telling businesses that are seeking to change and modernise their systems to think about the euro and what may be ahead.
For example, the banks have a multitude of customers—the same customers, depending on the policies and products that the different banks offer—and must find out how best to communicate with policy holders so that those people do not end up receiving 35 or 40 different letters from their insurance company, bank, mortgage company and credit card company. First, we must ensure that money is not wasted on posting all those letters. Secondly, we must ensure that the information is not given in a way that mystifies the process for people. We are focusing on such issues and we are confident that we will meet our responsibilities under the third implementation plan. We are also trying to ensure—I am now wearing my local government hat—that local authorities are involved in the process.
The retention of public confidence is critical. It is interesting that, when the euro began, the doubters said that the whole world would collapse. However, the process leading up to the start of the euro and beyond was relatively—I use that word advisedly—free of what people expected to happen. The other aspect of our work is to learn from countries that have been through the joining process to ensure that we follow examples of best practice. The prepare-and-decide strategy will allow us to move into an implementation phase if the five key tests are met and the referendum produces a positive result.
Obviously, you are aware of the long lead-in time for business, for example. Contingency planning—for simple things such as soft-drinks machines right through to financial accounting—will be extremely relevant for business. Will those issues emerge and be developed through the euro preparations committee? Will the Executive have a role to play in that?
We have a critical role to play in raising the issues that you mention. In the public sector, the issues are, for example, the payment of benefits and the 20p in the parking meter. We need to think about all such issues. For business, the issue is, for example, nice round numbers for something—I nearly mentioned a brand, which I should not do—from a soft-drinks machine.
We must ensure that there is no profiteering in that period. That was a big concern. More critically, we must ensure that, in the planning process for euro day—if and when it comes—we have worked back from that day to find out what measures we need to take to ensure that it happens effectively. The lead-in time for euro day is acceptable for the way in which we plan that process.
I recall decimalisation day, although it was a few years ago.
You are too young for that, minister.
I was very young at the time, but I remember the excitement of it all. I recall through misty eyes that the advertising and effort for decimalisation were a huge thing. To be blunt, if we adopt the euro, they will have to be a huge thing again.
The British Government's white paper on the IGC and draft constitutional treaty was published only earlier today. It was good of the minister to give us some brief, initial, off-the-cuff comments. Presumably we will get a considered response from the Executive on that white paper in the fullness of time. What form will that response take? Will it be some kind of public document? I suggest a discussion document, which could initiate a national debate on the matter. Will the Executive try to lead such a national debate, so that we can listen to people's views not only on the proposals, but on possible amendments to the draft treaty, especially on matters with a particularly Scottish dimension?
I apologise for looking as though we are in a bit of chaos—I am a bit edgy because I just opened a bottle, which crumbled, and there is glass everywhere.
I have found the work that the United Kingdom Government has been doing to try to put over the European message—not the euro message—instructive on what can be done to engage with the public. I would prefer to come back to you with more detailed plans, but I envisage a debate. The more that people understand what is going on in Europe, the more they will appreciate the effect that Europe has on our lives and the steps that have been taken on enlargement, European security and trade. The more people who are engaged in that discussion, the better.
I want to think about that in more detail with my UK colleagues. If we are going to engage in such an initiative, I would want it to be UK wide so that the messages are understood. We would have our role within that, as part of a UK-wide campaign. That is probably the best way to approach such a question. I commit to thinking about that and will come back to you on the detail.
I return to our original point about the draft treaty. I am not saying that it is recommended reading for everyone, but it is a user-friendly document about the institutions of Europe. The interest in enlargement and the discussion that we are having around the euro and Europe mean that the mood is right to do something such as you suggested. However, I do not want to come up with something now; I want to have a wee think about how best to do it.
Have you cut your hand, minister?
No, it is just that there are small bits of glass everywhere. Questioners may fire away.
I concur with your assessment of the draft constitution and Neil MacCormick's comments. To ensure that things do not end up on the cutting room floor—to use your colourful phrase—I would like to ask about the mechanics of the IGC after 4 October. Will we have officials there who can alert you quickly to what is happening?
We will have officials there who will have influenced the process by setting out our areas of concern and who will be looking out for matters that might cause us concern.
Will ministers occasionally attend?
That has not yet been decided, but I expect so.
On Dennis Canavan's point about a national debate, do you agree that there is a need to counter the Booker-prize nominees in the tabloid press and ensure that the correct information gets out about the draft constitution? We should try to ensure that the people of Scotland receive facts, not fiction.
That is one of the responsibilities of everyone in this room. If we are to engage properly in a debate, your suggested approach is absolutely correct. We need to talk about the size of Europe, the fact that it is changing, the fact that there is a greater role for regional Parliaments and the fact that the Scottish Parliament can take part in that.
I will copy my response to Dennis Canavan to the committee.
I hope that you will spend less time thinking about it and more time doing something. It is important that some of the messages that are coming out about Europe are counteracted.
To be fair, we try to do that. However, there is a difference between trying to counteract something and getting coverage in the media, as you know. It might be that we would come up with a formal process in relation to the promotion of Europe.
A few more colourful press releases rather than the usual staid Scottish Executive ones might help. If you want to get the attention of the press, you should speak to them as colourfully as you have occasionally spoken to us today.
Or as colourfully as you have in the past.
On enlargement, what preparations are the Executive and ministers making to ensure that business in Scotland is able to take advantage of the new markets after 1 May next year? A lot of the new members have historic trade links with Scotland. What analysis has been done that will ensure that we are poised to take maximum advantage of the new markets?
The only such visit that I have been on as a minister was to the Czech Republic. We have a number of agreements running with the Government there. During my two-day visit, I saw an impressive degree of engagement with the business community and involvement with Scottish and UK businesses on the part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I hate to appear to be heretical in the eyes of some members of the committee, but I am seeking to ensure that our experience of public-private partnerships and major infrastructure projects is developed in relation to the new member states.
We are doing work in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia, but if we try to focus on the 10 accession states and, at a later date, the other states that are due to join, we will spread our resources too thinly. It is important, therefore, that we take an approach that involves the building of networks. I hope to report back to the committee by the end of the year on developments involving our partnership involvement in relation to economic development.
The public sector spend that will go into the infrastructure of the accession states will be considerable. Therefore, the opportunities to be part of that process will also be considerable. I am quite confident that Scottish companies will be able to play a full part in that and that there will be a resultant economic gain.
Do you have any minister-led trade missions to any of the new member states planned for the next six months?
Scottish Development International will be taking care of most of the trade missions. I am advised that no minister-led missions are planned, but there will be trade missions and I will come back to you with the details.
In your presentation, you rightly mentioned the importance of people knowing each other's priorities—whether at European, UK or devolved level—and the importance of sharing information. How could this committee, and other committees, support ministers? For example, how could the Environment and Rural Development Committee support the minister with responsibility for fisheries? How can we develop a system or protocol whereby, after we have had a robust debate here at home on what the negotiating strategy should be, we can work collectively to support the ministers in their negotiations, as opposed to having individuals or committees undermining those negotiations?
That is important. In the coming months and years, I hope that we can develop a relationship that will allow us to do that more effectively. We must speak with one voice in Europe; if we give out mixed messages, we dilute the messages and therefore the outcome. We need to have the good intentions that you hinted at in your question to ensure that we understand each other and that Scotland speaks with one voice. All the different players who affect Scotland's influence in Europe, whether formally or informally—they will not necessarily be members of the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament—should ensure that a common voice is heard. That will be critical in some of the big debates in the forthcoming IGC—in particular, on transport, farming and fishing.
The minister referred to the opportunities that should arise as a result of the enlargement of the European Union. However, the downside of enlargement in 2006 will be diminished access to structural funds and regional development funds. What scope will there be to maximise the advantages that Scotland can take from those funds between now and 2006? What scope will there be to substitute for those funds after 2006? Can we ensure that we maintain a reasonable budget for that purpose?
As members will know, work is continuing in that area. The first thing to do is to ensure that we spend the money that we have, doing so within the N+2 guidelines. We must ensure that no money goes back to Europe that should not go back.
We have made our views known on the future of structural funds. Discussions will continue. We want to ensure that Scotland does not lose out financially and that the benefits of the past will continue. We are working closely and hard with Whitehall to ensure that we do not lose out. With regard to where we will end up, I do not have a crystal ball to gaze into. However, we will still have a regional interest and we will still have cohesion issues that are important to us. We are batting hard to maintain the impact that structural funds have on Scotland, wherever those funds come from and however they come to us.
The European Union is enlarging and that will affect our ability to qualify for certain funds. We will have to manage those funds more effectively. We continue to work in a number of distinct areas but, at the moment, I cannot give a clear answer on the future of the funds. Clearly, that will be for others. However, we will continue to make our voice heard effectively, to ensure that Scotland does not lose out.
There has been talk of renationalising funding for regional development and so on. I hope that you can assure us that Scotland's claim will be made strongly from the start.
If funding is to be renationalised, we will want to ensure that we get our fair share. If the system changes in some way, we will want to ensure that the bottom line remains the same. We will maintain a fair share for Scotland. Whatever the structure and however the process moves in the future, our bottom line is always to ensure that we know where the process is heading so that we can influence it and get our fair share.
Let us not just think of the bottom line. Let us go for the top line.
Indeed.
I want to ask about your top priorities, of which you say there are five. You have mentioned the IGC and structural funding; the other three are the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the bathing water directive. Does the Executive feel that it has learnt any lessons from the first four years of the Parliament that may lead to a change in tactics or mechanisms for influencing those issues?
To put it bluntly, I cannot answer that question just now, and I would like to discuss the matter more fully with officials. If I have learned anything about the finance and public services portfolio, it is that we must focus on key issues and stick with them. We must ensure that everybody knows our position and get everybody to buy into it. The Executive needs to structure its effort and set its priorities clearly. Once the priorities are set, we need to get buy-in from civic Scotland, wider Scottish interests, MSPs, MEPs and others to ensure that the voice is not distilled downwards in some way.
I have to pass on the question whether any lessons have been learnt, although my officials may want to comment on the specific question about previous processes. I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment.
Alastair Wilson (Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department):
I have little to add at this stage. We have been learning, just as the Parliament has been learning, the importance of focusing on key objectives and getting collective buy-in to them. That has got to be one of the most important points. So much is coming out of Brussels that we cannot realistically hope to influence everything. We have to be selective, agree those priorities and go for them systematically.
Thank you. You can always come back to us with further comments on any of the issues that we have been discussing.
Thank you, convener. I shall do that.
Keith Raffan talked about having an informed debate, but that is, to some extent, pretty pointless if the public will not have a say in signing on to the constitution.
I refer you to the list of convention text proposals that you passed to committee members in the document that you supplied prior to the meeting. It seems to me that the points that you have identified are the key issues within the convention. I feel that if we are to be well informed and have accurate information, rather than relying on the tabloid press, there should be greater detail against each of those points to explain what they mean. As we live in a democracy, an alternative view of what they could mean might also be of help. Would you consider that?
I would be happy to consider that. I would also want to work with colleagues in EMILE, where there are other opportunities. A couple of weeks ago, we discussed the fact that we need to get out and about on some of those issues. I am happy to consider Mr Gallie's suggestion and come back to the committee on that point.