Transposition of European Union Directives Inquiry
We had better start, as we have a long agenda. I welcome everyone to the sixth meeting in this calendar year of the European and External Relations Committee.
The first item relates to our inquiry into the transposition of European Union directives. Before I invite our reporters to report back, I point out that we have been notified of a correction to the evidence provided to the committee by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on 19 February. In response to a question from Ted Brocklebank, on the mining waste directive, SEPA referred to problems with personnel changes while the directive was being formulated. SEPA has advised us that the statement relates to the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive rather than to the mining waste directive. I thank SEPA for drawing that to our attention.
I invite our reporters for the inquiry into the transposition of EU directives to report back from their fact-finding visits. I will invite Alex Neil, Irene Oldfather and Iain Smith to speak to their reports and then open up the discussion. As there are three substantial items on the agenda, I hope that they will keep their reports fairly brief.
I thank Lucy Scharbert and Iain McIver for all their help arranging the visit and pulling together the report on the thoughts that we had and discussed during the visit.
A number of lessons came out of the visit to the two German Länder: Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. The first is that, for them, transposition is not a big issue—it is a non-event. They spend their resources on influencing legislation in Europe before it becomes legislation. They do not get heavily involved in transposition, if they are involved at all. Even at the federal level, it is reckoned that transposition is not such a big issue because it is fairly straightforward.
At federal level, the emphasis is on influencing the legislation—to the extent that we were told about a federal minister who could not get the federal Government to agree to a certain policy, so he went to the Council of Ministers and got it to agree to the policy. When it became European policy, it had to be implemented throughout Germany as it had to be implemented throughout Europe. It is clear that the emphasis is on influencing the legislation.
We have perhaps made a bit of a mountain out of a molehill as far as transposition is concerned, so the quicker we get this report done, the better, and we can concentrate on looking at ways to influence legislation. We can learn some lessons from and make some recommendations based on the German experience. The first is that the Länder have a minister in a post similar to Linda Fabiani's post in the Scottish Government. One minister covers federal and European affairs. Because there is a federal structure, the Länder feel the need to lobby and influence the federal Government. The second chamber of the federal Parliament is effectively a German council of ministers; it is made up of the ministers of the Länder. A lot of emphasis is put on influencing the German position before it goes to Europe and on ensuring that there is regular contact between the Parliament, the Government and the Länder, as well as German members of the European Parliament.
We need to have an early, detailed debate about the matter in relation to what is happening in the House of Commons. As members probably know, new guidelines that the Cabinet Office in London has issued affect how European legislation will be implemented, the role of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and, if the Lisbon treaty goes ahead, the role of this committee. It is certainly relevant to make recommendations based on our experience in Germany—I do not know what came out of the visits Irene Oldfather and Iain Smith made—and to apply them to the new arrangements for transposition and influencing legislation vis-à-vis the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee as well as the United Kingdom Government.
I have four questions that we need to answer fairly soon. How do we think the new Cabinet Office guidance affects the work of our committee? Are appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that important documents come to the notice of the committee? Does the committee seek sufficient information from the Scottish Government on EU documents before we clear them? In the past year, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee deemed 476 documents to be of significant legal or political importance; how many have we examined in the Scottish Parliament? One answer is, "Not a lot."
We should clear the transposition report and get on to the real meaty stuff, which is how we influence the UK's policy on Europe and European decision making. That is a far bigger cud to chew than transposition.
That was very helpful. We will not be able to discuss all those issues in the short time that we have for the item today, but we all agree that we need to have a subsequent discussion. All I intend to do today is go through the three reports. Although there will be time for brief comments and questions, we will have to discuss many of the big issues that you raise at a future meeting.
I ask Irene Oldfather to give her brief report.
I am happy to do so, convener. I assume that colleagues have read the report, which is not particularly long and outlines the technical issues.
I, too, thank the clerks and Iain McIver for the work they did preparing the report and arranging the meetings, which were interesting and useful. We were in Spain during an election campaign, so we are also grateful to the people who took the time to meet us, because that is always difficult.
I went into the visit thinking that because devolution in Spain took place in 1978-79, the Catalan Parliament and the Catalan Government would be way ahead of us on these issues. I have to say that I did not come out of our meetings with that firm impression. I honestly feel that in the short time that we have been in operation, the Parliament in particular, as opposed to the Government, has put in place quite robust procedures in relation not only to transposition but to scrutinising the Government and the Executive on European matters.
In the report, we have set out the formal and the informal situation. Some of the arrangements look quite good on paper. I have had meetings with the Catalan European committee before, as it was part of our network of regional parliamentary European committees. The problem is that the personnel involved change. I do not think that one person on the committee had been in NORPEC, so everyone was coming into it new and no one had found their feet in relation to how to ensure that the Catalan Parliament was engaging early.
One question we asked was, "What representation does the Catalan Government have in Brussels?" Like Scotland, the Government has 17 members of staff in Brussels, but the Catalan Parliament has no one there. That is interesting, given that it has been in operation for some time and the Scottish Parliament has been in operation for only nine years, and we have had a representative in Brussels for about four or five years.
The same themes come through almost everywhere you go. One is that people say that the earlier you engage, the better. It was clear from our discussions with the Catalan Government that it was keen to get in on the process early. It mentioned that it has two representatives, who are shared by 17 Spanish autonomous regions, who work in the equivalent of the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union. It is their job to represent the regions. Obviously, the 17 regions and the member state have to find ways of reaching agreements and, sometimes, informal mechanisms work best.
We are one step ahead of the game in that we have Brussels representation, but it would be useful if we could use that more effectively and get in earlier in the process.
Some of the relationships between the Catalan Government and the national Government are enshrined in statute. There were discussions about how they got to where they are by taking one step at a time. We could further examine the statutory relationship between the Catalan Government and the federal Government.
Like the German Parliament, the Catalans use their members of the European Parliament quite a bit. It is quite interesting that the minister we met also serves on the Committee of the Regions. The Catalan Government uses that quite a bit more than we do. In Scotland, the Government has decided not to have any representation on the Committee of the Regions.
My report says most of what it is important to say, so I will be brief. I would like to thank Lucy Scharbert and our European officer for their assistance in arranging the visit to Belgium and for drafting my very well-crafted words in the report.
The key thing to point out is that the constitutional situation in Belgium is different from that in other areas. One of the officials to whom we spoke described it as more of a confederal than a federal situation. The chambers of the regional and, indeed, cultural Parliaments are seen, in a European context, as being at the same level as national Parliaments. In areas in which a regional or cultural Parliament has competence, it has exclusive competence, although there are some areas in which it is unclear who has that exclusive competence and a constitutional court must be used to determine who does.
The Belgian Parliament has virtually no engagement in the legislative process of transposing law until the last stage. Transposition is seen as the responsibility of the regional Government, not the regional Parliament. The process for transposing law from Europe is, however, exactly the same as the process for introducing any domestic law. The Flemish Government has a number of statutory consultation bodies that are involved in the production of the first draft of a bill, which then goes out for wider consultation. The second draft of the bill goes to the constitutional or administrative court, which determines the competencies, and the third draft goes before the Parliament.
I thank the reporters and echo their words about the help of the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre.
The clerks will produce a paper for next week that will pick up on many of the points that have been made, particularly the general points that Alex Neil made in his presentation. As the minister is due in one minute, we cannot have a substantial discussion at this stage. Does anyone have any brief questions that they would like to ask?
We will just wait until we can have a longer discussion.
I will suspend the meeting to allow time for the minister to come in. We will start the next part of our meeting at 10:15, as scheduled.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We have with us the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, Linda Fabiani, who is here to give evidence as part of our inquiry into the transposition of European Union directives. She is accompanied by Lynne Vallance from the Government's Europe division and Patrick Layden, who is the deputy solicitor with the Government's legal department.
I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the inquiry into the transposition of EU directives.
The transposition exercise is an important starting point in implementing legislation that is fit for purpose. I am keen to talk about the Scottish Government's transposition procedures and the work that I am doing to improve them, which is just one aspect of the wider work that we are doing to develop an action plan for our European work. I hope that our experience will prove valuable to the committee as it develops its findings.
I will begin by restating the obvious. The development of EU law is of great importance to the Scottish people. It has a major impact on our day-to-day lives as it regulates many of our businesses, industries, goods, services and environments and it overrides national law in many areas. It is therefore vital that the public have confidence that the Scottish Government's process of transposing EU law is transparent and robust and addresses all the relevant areas.
The Government is determined to root out any weak processes that might lead to the inadequate implementation of laws that then place burdens or inconveniences on the Scottish public and their businesses.
The way in which Scotland implements EU law is far from poor. If you look at the internal market scoreboard, you will see that the United Kingdom, as the member state, has one of the top performance ratios in Europe, and a strong reputation for implementation and compliance. Of course, Scotland makes a major contribution to that good performance. However, irrespective of our reputation, there is always room for improvement, and I am sure that the committee's inquiry will come up with some suggestions that I can consider further.
Before the Government took office, we committed ourselves to reforming the way in which Scotland deals with its EU obligations. Among other things, we made a commitment to introduce enhanced internal procedures for implementing European legislation in Scotland and introduce better post-implementation monitoring. I am happy to report that we are well on the way to implementing those commitments.
I have had the opportunity to look at our internal transposition procedures in more detail and assess whether they are fit for purpose. In doing so, I have found that the two main problems are a lack of clear internal processes and a lack of transparency in our processes. I intend to rectify both problems by developing new procedures for transposing EU law in Scotland. They will clarify the Government's various roles and responsibilities, from initial proposal development and negotiation through to implementation of directives and monitoring their effectiveness. They will set out how Scotland feeds in to the process of EU law and how and at what stages we will engage with stakeholders and work with the Scottish Parliament. They will also contribute towards our better regulation agenda by emphasising our commitment to reducing the burden of bureaucracy and regulation on business.
In developing those procedures, we will look to external and internal stakeholders for their views. We will also look at the procedures of relevant EU member states and regions for examples of best practice. Finally, we will of course carefully consider the findings of this committee's inquiry and consider incorporating into our procedures any relevant recommendations that you make.
For the first time, our procedures will be set out in a publicly available Scotland-specific guidance booklet that will provide our officials with a clear and consistent policy for dealing with new EU laws. It will provide stakeholders in the community with greater clarity and confidence in the Government's approach and a clear understanding of how and when they will be consulted.
The guidance will also assist subject committees that scrutinise the implementation of EU legislation in understanding the process. A draft of the guidance will form the basis of consultation in the summer and I look forward to receiving views on it from key stakeholders, especially this committee. The publication of the guidance towards the end of the year will lead to a marked improvement in the transparency of these processes, which, I understand, many witnesses have criticised.
I am striving for a revised system that will lead to better management, improved consultation, increased clarity and, ideally, better law that will improve the lives of people in Scotland. I am sure that we all share the same ambition.
Along with Lynne Vallance and Patrick Layden, I will do my best to answer the committee's questions.
Thank you.
The inquiry has focused on the transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the transposition process. I am sure that members welcome the publication of a transposition guide, but do you support the provision to the Parliament of a transposition memorandum for each directive that, for example, sets out the Government's proposed approach to transposition, a timetable for implementation and details of the consultation that will be undertaken, and that makes it clear whether you are relying on the procedure in section 57(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 and, if so, why?
At the moment, we are committed to providing transposition notes when transposing EU directives, which, if I remember rightly, is a practice that began just before the end of the previous parliamentary session. Of course, if the effort to produce a note is disproportionate to its benefit for a reader, it will not be provided. That said, we intend to continue the practice. I also encourage subject committees to flag up instances when a note might be appropriate but has not been provided.
A note will be provided if we judge that it is appropriate or that it adds something. It will not be required if, say, a particular timescale is simply being changed from two years to three years.
My understanding is that such notes apply only at the point that a particular piece of legislation goes to the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The memorandum that I have suggested would come in at a much earlier stage—before, indeed, consultation takes place—to ensure that members have a clear view about timescales and the extent of consultation. Moreover, what about section 57(1) of the Scotland Act 1998? Will the Scottish Government simply leave such matters to Westminster? If so, why? At the moment, Parliament does not really know whether it can still give a view at that very early stage.
The guidance that I have mentioned will set out all those processes. If the committee feels that we should look at the issue in much more detail, it should relay that to us along with the results of its inquiry. We will also welcome the committee's comments on the booklet that we will produce.
This issue is at the crux of concerns about transparency that have been expressed in our inquiry. As witnesses have pointed out, it is often unclear until the last minute exactly how the Scottish Government intends to transpose EU legislation. A number of different routes could be taken. For example, there might be a review of existing legislation, which might show that there is no need to do anything new; primary or secondary legislation might be introduced; or the issue might be left to Westminster to legislate on because of cross-UK issues or because only part of the responsibility is devolved. I have to say that the final option is sometimes the first course of action. The fact that there seems to be no clear indication of who makes decisions—and, indeed, of how and when decisions are made—can affect stakeholders' ability to input into the process. However, it should be said that, with primary legislation, there is more opportunity for the Parliament and stakeholders to be involved.
Does the Scottish Government have clear guidance on how it determines the particular route of transposition, who makes that decision and the point at which stakeholders become involved in the process? Although stakeholders might well have a view on whether certain routes are appropriate, it appears that they do not get a say in the process until the Government has decided which route to take.
You are absolutely right: that was indeed the case for eight years and various committee inquiries over that period showed that the perception was one of a lack of clarity. I want to tackle that perception, which is why, for the first time, there will be guidance that sets out how we will involve stakeholders early in the process and ensure that people can feed in their views. It will provide much more clarity about the Government's processes. I understand that the UK Government has had transposition guidance for some time now. We will look to that for examples of best practice.
The member is right: it is time a Government in Scotland produced guidance that clearly lays out its position on this matter to ensure that we can stand up for Scotland and its interests. I am always willing to take advice from stakeholders, parliamentarians and committee members on how to improve all these procedures. By setting out this guidance for the first time, we can work to improve matters.
Mr Layden wishes to say something about current practice.
Patrick Layden (Scottish Government Legal Directorate):
With regard to choosing the method of transposition, it is, as Mr Smith said, sometimes difficult to decide whether to use primary or subordinate legislation or to draw on existing law. It is a function of the area in which the directive has been made and the existing state of domestic law.
In deciding the best way of implementing a particular directive, one would, from a technical point of view, simply look around the armoury. I know of occasions when primary legislation has been used, but subordinate legislation is more often used as it is easier to adjust in the drafting process. It allows section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to be brought in and it is quicker, which ensures that EU obligations can be implemented on time. In transposing the environmental assessment directive, the previous Administration used subordinate legislation first, then incorporated that legislation into an act of the Scottish Parliament.
Because we have to have very frequent discussions on these matters with our Westminster colleagues, we have to rely to some extent on when they get round to thinking about them. As a result of those—I think, sensible—negotiations with Westminster on the best way forward, it is not always possible to say at some fixed early point precisely what route we will take.
Is the minister aware of research into transposition that is being carried out at the school of law at the University of Dundee? In their submission to the inquiry, the researchers say:
"If effectiveness is judged by timeliness, then the Scottish Government has transposed later than the other GB administrations on 8/18 occasions and altogether has transposed late on 17/31 occasions."
I can see from the minister's references to better management and increased clarity that she realises that changes have to be made. While she is producing the new guidance, will she review timeliness?
Absolutely. I believe that that comment from the Dundee study refers to the previous Administration. I have taken such points on board. We will always want to improve on timeliness, although I am not knocking every instance of late transposition under the previous Administration—there are sometimes very good reasons why it has happened. Of course we would wish to be timeous in everything we do. I have established internal procedures that I believe will monitor our achievements much better.
I believe that the research goes up almost to the present.
Is the minister saying that things have changed since May? What procedures has she put in place to ensure that?
Of course things have changed.
It is like night and day.
I am sure that the minister will want to answer the question herself.
The most recent report came out in the past few weeks. We are looking at it now.
I believe that our internal procedures for cross-Government working and for ensuring that all portfolios are totally aware of their obligations in that regard are much more robust. We have a much clearer procedure for monitoring such matters internally, from the First Minister through the Cabinet and across all the portfolios.
We will examine that closely and will no doubt report on it in our final report.
When the Scottish Environment Protection Agency gave evidence, it suggested that in certain cases in which the Scottish Government had chosen to exercise section 57(1) of the Scotland Act 1998, SEPA had been left to represent Scottish interests during the UK transposition process with little assistance from the Scottish Government. Why would that have been the case?
I would have to know which cases SEPA was talking about and when they occurred before I could answer that question in any detail. Whether that was the case or whether it was SEPA's perception that it was the case, the issue should be examined.
SEPA is a Scottish Government body that exists to represent Scottish interests. As a Government body and a stakeholder in the process, it should be working with the Government's strategy, and speaking to appropriate ministers to ensure that it acts transparently, with the Government and in the best interests of Scotland.
Criticism was also voiced by Scottish Water, which in its submission said:
"across all subject areas, directives are handled by a number of different departments within the Scottish Government and there is no single point of contact … where an interested party may ascertain which forthcoming EU Directives will be implemented and the timetable for transposition."
Does the minister agree that it would be useful to have a single point of contact in the Scottish Government?
When I served on the European and External Relations Committee, I heard many witnesses say that there was patchiness in handling of such matters by the previous Administration. The Scottish Government believes in all departments working together closely and in a cross-cutting manner across all portfolios.
As I have said to the committee before, there is a point of contact for matters European—the European division. However, it is vital that we mainstream handling of European issues across the Government so that everyone takes ownership of them. What comes out of Europe affects every aspect of Scottish life, so it is relevant to everyone who works in government. The internal procedures that we have put in place will mean that people will find that the position is much clearer and that the service is much more joined up than was previously the case. As Europe minister, one of my roles is to ensure that that is the case.
How far ahead are you in making final decisions on what the guidance will look like? Have you gone 70 to 80 per cent of the way towards doing that? I would like to know to what extent the committee can exert influence as we move forward.
What stakeholder engagement has there been on the development of new procedures? To whom have you spoken and what feedback have they given you? I am interested in whether it is similar to the feedback that we have received.
Lastly, can you give an example of how internal procedures have changed or can you generalise on how things are operating differently?
I will pass that question over to Lynne Vallance, because she has day-to-day engagement with other officers. We are fairly far down the road in developing draft guidance. I want to consult properly over the summer, with a view to full publication of the guidance towards the end of the year.
As a minister, I am always open to being influenced by Parliament. On the work in question, the committee has most influence and is extremely important. The committee's inquiry will be completed in plenty of time for us to take on board any recommendations that we feel should be taken on board. It might also be useful to ask Lynne Vallance, for example, to tell you about our plans on the guidance, when you have completed your inquiry.
I invite Lynne Vallance to say more about stakeholder engagement. It is not for me to pass judgment on what the previous Administration did. Lynne can tell you what measures we have put in place recently that will enhance our work in this area.
Lynne Vallance (Scottish Government Europe, External Affairs and Culture Directorate):
As the minister said, we intend to consult on the guidance over the summer. As regards our internal processes, we have already created a new Government database that is much more user friendly for officials and which holds all the relevant information that is needed to allow us to track and monitor transposition of each directive. In addition, we have been working with officials and lawyers on drafting the guidance. We want to be confident that the guidance for officials is clear and transparent so that there is consistency across all Government departments on implementation of directives.
As regards stakeholder engagement, we are working with the Government's regulatory reform group, with which we will sit down next month specifically to talk through the changes that we are making to the processes and the guidance that we will publish in the summer. We will seek the group's input on what the final guidance will look like.
You have not done any stakeholder engagement so far; you will be doing that in the future. You have been doing internal work.
We have been working with officials, who have been talking to their policy stakeholders. Now that we have a draft of the guidance, the next step is to work with the regulatory reform group.
I have a comment and a question. In her opening remarks, the minister said that we had a strong reputation for implementation and compliance, but the problem is that that does not win us much kudos with voters or with organisations. I do not think that addressing the University of Dundee's complaint about late implementation will get the Government many votes, but never mind.
Ted Brocklebank mentioned section 57(1) of the Scotland Act 1998, but NFU Scotland's point was about section 57(2), which it feels means that the Scottish Government is required to
"implement EU legislation in full without any deviation from its wording".—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 8 January 2008; c 269.]
The implication is that the UK Government is not bound quite so strictly, and that Scotland could therefore be at a disadvantage. What do you say to that?
Many issues arise in the context of the differential implementation argument, but the best thing for me to do is to pass over to our legal bod, who deals with such matters day and daily.
The short answer is that we are not at a disadvantage in comparison with the UK Government. Our obligation is to implement EU obligations on time and in full, which is precisely the same obligation that UK ministers have. All that section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 says is that we cannot do anything that is incompatible with Community law—but neither can the UK Government.
What is compatible with Community law depends on the nature of the Community instrument. If it is a regulation, we might not need internal legislation, except in relation to offences. Regulations are applicable and enforceable and come into immediate force without our having to do anything more.
With a directive, the obligation on member states and on the Scottish Government is to secure the result that is required by the directive. Within the scope of the directive, how it does that is up to the Administration in question, so it is possible for different Governments in the EU to implement a directive in different ways, provided that the end result is what is required by the directive. In such cases, we sometimes enact legislation that is different from legislation that the UK enacts and from that which other member states enact. That is fine, provided that it secures the result that is required by the European directive. In that sense, we are in the same position as the UK Government.
Thank you. I will settle for that.
Thank you. That was clear and helpful.
We touched on section 57(1), but we did not discuss it directly. Would it be useful to have specific criteria to determine when it is appropriate to use section 57(1)? Some witnesses told us that it is sometimes appropriate to let the UK do the transposition, but Parliament sometimes feels that it is not involved and that it does not know when transposition is happening. It certainly does not know what the criteria are. Can we make progress on that?
Officials in the Europe division communicate and discuss options daily with their UK counterparts. There is often common cause between the UK Government and the Scottish Government about what has to happen. Section 57(1) allows the UK Government to continue to implement law, but few directives are implemented in that way. We are considering the matter and we hope to address it in a section of the guidance so that people are clear about what section 57(1) means. Perhaps we will give some examples of where it is best used.
We have no problem with working with the UK Government on implementation, where that approach suits Scotland. Our first question is always, "What suits Scotland best?" That will always be the main criterion that we use.
To put it bluntly, under the legislative consent motion procedure, if the UK Parliament intends to legislate on a devolved matter, it requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament, but that does not appear to apply in relation to European legislation. Would it be helpful if the Scottish Parliament was required to agree to a legislative consent motion when you propose to use section 57(1)?
I am not prepared to answer yes or no to that straight away. On the surface, that does not strike me as a sensible way to go forward.
I repeat that, generally, we have good relationships with the UK at both official and ministerial levels in relation to the way in which we implement European directives. Of course there are issues, but things are starting to get better. There was a breakthrough last week when it was accepted that the devolved legislatures are equal partners around the table of the joint ministerial committee on Europe. We agreed ways of moving forward with the UK and the other devolved legislatures and we have that forum to discuss such issues. The mechanisms exist to enable us to say what is best for Scotland.
Although the Scottish Government disagrees with the UK at times—for example, on the representation of Scotland at fisheries councils—we do not want to put any more mechanisms in place that could interrupt that relationship.
That said, if the committee, representing Parliament, believed that Scotland was being done down in some way because Parliament did not have the right to take a view on a matter, and if you wanted the Government of Scotland to consider that, we would be more than happy to do so.
The question of the role of Parliament arises, as it does in relation to several other issues. I am sure that that will be reflected in our report. Transposition of EU directives is a concrete example. Because of the way in which things have worked out in the past on European issues, Parliament has perhaps not been as involved as it might have been.
Transposition is the tail end of the process of European legislation. We know from our research and study visits that in Germany and other countries, at state and substate levels, influencing the legislation is much more important than transposition. You are reviewing transposition, but are you simultaneously reviewing how we can influence legislation earlier? We heard a good example in Bavaria. The people we spoke to there had seen an early draft of the services directive. They reckon that, if the directive had been implemented in its original draft form, 41 legislative changes would require to have been made at Land level. We were told that, as a result of their influence, about three changes were required, all of which were to the benefit of Bavaria, whereas most of the others would have been to its detriment. The people to whom we spoke told us that they did that work both directly, with the European Parliament, and through the German federal Government.
Is the new Scottish Government looking at how—albeit in this temporarily devolved situation—it can bring greater influence to bear on European legislation at a much earlier stage? If we managed to do that, we would also make the transposition process a bit easier.
Absolutely. That is crucial. Certainly, the committee has been on about that for a long time, including in the previous session of Parliament. It is crucial that Parliament, through the European and External Relations Committee and its subject committees, gets in there early, as is the case for the Government—indeed, we are already doing that. Deciding on priorities is the first stage in the process of transposing directives, after which we should publish the documents, take views from stakeholders, and discuss the Scottish case with the UK Government, if it differs from that of the UK.
Of course, as we know, Parliament and the Government always have the option of going straight to Europe: we can exert influence through our MEPs. Generally, where the issue affects Scotland, our MEPs come together regardless of party affiliation to try to influence the outcome as best they can. We can also go straight to the European Commission. As a Government, we have had many direct discussions with the Commission.
In implementing all of this, it is crucial that stakeholders are involved early in the process. Within the guidance, we are working on that. We want everyone to be able to make their views known early and to hear what is happening. That will benefit us all. I think that people will welcome it.
The Bavarian Land has nearly 50 people who work more or less full time in Brussels, and Baden-Württemberg has more than 30 people. Obviously, Scotland has a presence in Brussels, but our representation in Brussels may need to be strengthened, particularly when we compare it with that of our competitor regions. It is blatantly evident that those representatives are in Brussels to take people out to lunch—people were open and honest about that. They are there to ensure that their region influences European legislation, even at the stage of an idea that is being floated by Brussels bureaucrats. I am thinking of applying for one of those jobs. From what we heard, it is clear that the investment is worth while. Will you review the Scottish Government's presence in Brussels to see whether it needs to be strengthened?
Lynne Vallance has reliably informed me that our Brussels office started out with 11 people and that we now have 12—or 11 and a half. I am trying to strengthen our presence there, but these things take time. I came away from my first visit to the Brussels office thinking that staff in Brussels and Scotland did not work together enough. I am not saying that the people in the Europe division were not doing that but—as I said earlier—we need to ensure that we mainstream our work across departments. We are starting to see more joint working in energy and agriculture, for example. People are working together across the water, so to speak. There is also much more ministerial engagement than was the case in the past.
Scotland House is a great benefit. It gives us a physical presence in Brussels: Scotland Europa, the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament all have offices there. We are increasing our engagement. Whether the staff complement—and the budget for lunches—will be increased will be subject to an on-going monitoring exercise for the head of the civil service, in conjunction with others.
Transposition impacts seriously on law, businesses and individuals. Is more time needed to scrutinise the detail of legislation rather than the process, and should the committee be involved in that?
That question comes up every so often, and it takes us back to the question of what the committee is for. That is a discussion for the committee. The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee is a scrutiny committee, and it also has a scrutiny reserve, which this Scottish Parliament committee does not have.
I spoke about working across the Government, and one of the joys of the Parliament is surely that we work together across the Parliament. I believe that the subject committees have a lot of responsibility in transposition. It is obviously for the subject committees to work that out, in conjunction with this committee, but I remember from my time on the previous session's committee the view that subject committees should take some responsibility for such things as the impact of transposed legislation on their subject areas. It is very much for the committees to work out.
The minister comes to the discussion from a unique perspective, having been in jobs on both sides of the committee table. Do you have a view on the role of the committee? You spoke about the importance of mainstreaming and co-ordination on Europe within Government. Do you feel that there is a parallel role for the committee?
I had another question, but I have forgotten what it was.
We will go with that question to begin with.
This is an entirely personal view that comes from my time as committee convener. I think that the committee is extremely interesting to work on, but it is very much what its members decide to make it. There is an overarching aspect to its work. Considering the amount of legislation that comes out of Europe, the committee cannot possibly deal with it all in any great detail, so it has to take an overarching, co-ordinating role that fires out issues to other committees.
The relationships that we started to build up in the previous session with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Select Committee are also important, especially considering what is happening in respect of subsidiarity. It is important always to be on the ball. That is a great role for the committee.
The committee should also stand up for Scotland, and there are other issues that it should be examining. For example, the previous session's committee went straight to the Commission with stakeholder events, views and submissions on the maritime strategy. To me, that is an extremely important role for the committee. However, as I said, it is up to the committee, its members and Parliament to decide on its role.
I have remembered my second question.
I knew that I was speaking for too long.
The question is on the scrutiny reserve. You may recall that, when we debated Europe in the Parliament a few years ago, we put to the then minister Jim Wallace the idea of Scotland's having some kind of scrutiny reserve. You have mentioned it today, so are you giving it consideration?
What I am considering is what the best option for Scotland is. Relationships should be built up not just with and among the committees here and at Westminster, but at Government level. I am pleased that the chair of the Commons committee and I are working closely on how to ensure that Scotland's point of view is taken into account when the Westminster committee examines what comes before it. We are currently carrying out a wee pilot scheme to ensure that that happens on all occasions, because there have been times when Westminster has proposed something and, without having consulted us, let it be implicit that Scotland does not have a problem with it.
How can the European and External Relations Committee be involved in that process? Should it be involved? We do not know about a pilot, but perhaps we could influence it or contribute to it through our discussions with stakeholders.
Again, it is for the committee to decide what it wants to do. The committee will be considering the subsidiarity principle to ensure that Scotland takes maximum advantage of and benefits from it. That might well be something for the committee to discuss at that point. It should be remembered that the European and External Relations Committee can go straight to the European Union as well.
Will you provide us with details of the pilot scheme that you mentioned? If you cannot do so now, you could send them to the committee.
I should clarify that. When I said it was a pilot scheme, it is not that we have set up something hugely formal. Michael Connarty and I got together to talk about the potential for Scotland to be missed out, and about the implication that Scotland has been consulted when it has not. We said that we would keep records of how often that happens, and then meet again to discuss it and strengthen the situation where appropriate. I have not therefore set up anything formal.
I suggest—perhaps it has happened already—that the convener of the European and External Relations Committee and the convener of the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons could get together to talk about such issues, which are so important.
We have certainly had meetings, but we had not heard of what you referred to as the "pilot", so thank you for clarifying that.
Does anyone have a final question?
In relation to that final point, it would be helpful for us to know about such things. The committee could have a role in the discussions and could contribute. For example, on many occasions, even in the loose terms of the minister's "pilot", it has been highlighted that Scotland has not been consulted on relevant issues. If we are to do a proper job of scrutinising the Government and contributing to policy development, we also need to know about things like the minister's pilot.
How can we facilitate that exchange of information? Perhaps we can task the clerks with working with officials on that.
Explanatory memoranda are issued to Westminster. It would probably be most useful for the committee to make a direct input to Westminster on transposition: we could perhaps come back to the issue and compare notes, having ensured that Scotland's interests have been served.
We have another substantial agenda item to deal with. I thank the minister and her officials and suspend the meeting for a five-minute break before we go on to discuss the EU priorities and objectives of the Scottish Government.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—