Scottish Government European Priorities
The next item on our agenda is again to take evidence from the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, this time on the Scottish Government's EU priorities. We welcome for this item Lynne Vallance and Craig Egner, who is from the Scottish Government's EU office. I invite Linda Fabiani to make a brief opening statement before we proceed to questions.
Thank you for inviting me to talk to the committee about our revision of our long-term EU political objectives and current EU priorities. As the committee knows, I intend to review the table of priorities on a six-monthly basis.
Much has happened in the months since I first presented the priorities to the committee on 18 September last year. It is right that the priorities are reviewed regularly, to ensure that the Government continues to focus on those EU policy issues that are of greatest importance to Scotland. I stress that I see the table of EU priorities as a work in progress. I am happy to consider amending the table at any time, if a proposal that is emerging from Brussels merits inclusion. My key aim is to ensure that we have a table of priorities that includes all the issues that are of greatest importance to Scotland here and now. To achieve that, I will continue to work closely with the committee and stakeholders. I will consider any suggestions from members for additions to the current list.
We agree with Mr Neil that it is imperative that we identify issues of particular relevance to Scottish interests, so that we can influence the policy development and negotiation stages at the earliest possible opportunity. That point is closely linked to the transposition process, to which Mr Neil's earlier observation related. Timely and effective transposition will be much more easily achieved if we have already ensured that Scottish circumstances are taken into account at the negotiation stage.
I turn to the revisions that the Cabinet has just agreed. There is a slight revision to the terminology of the key EU political objectives. In the interests of simplicity, we have renamed them "long-term EU political objectives", because that is exactly what they are. We will pursue those objectives within the European Union over the coming years. We have reduced the number of objectives to five, removing the EU reform treaty from the list. We have not done so because we no longer consider the treaty a priority. On the contrary, there is important work to be done to make the most of the new subsidiarity safeguards. Earlier today, I heard that over the coming months the committee will consider the Parliament's role in that regard. However, the primary policy effect of the treaty on Scotland will be the extension of the codecision procedure to justice and home affairs. Because justice and home affairs is another of our key political objectives, it makes sense that we should remove the duplication.
I turn to the table of current EU priorities that members have before them. Members will note that five priorities have been removed from the list, mainly because negotiations have been finalised. Those priorities are: the Scotland rural development programme; the marine strategy directive; EU institutional reform; recognition and supervision of suspended sentences and alternative sanctions; and the European qualifications framework. Members will see that three priorities have been added: the animal health strategy; the framework decision on the enforcement of in absentia judgments; and e-justice. As is now the practice, our table of current EU priorities will be published on our website and widely disseminated to stakeholders. I am keen to hear what people think about the direction that the Government is taking on European Union matters.
I am pleased with the engagement that the Government has enjoyed with the committee and stakeholders to date. We have made good progress on raising Scotland's voice in Europe, but we can still do more. I am encouraging ministerial colleagues to increase their engagement in European matters. The action plan on European engagement that we are putting together will set out our plans for building on the constructive relationships that we have forged so far. I look forward to presenting the action plan to the committee at the end of next month.
However, it is not only the Government that can help to improve Scotland's place in Europe, and I welcome the work of the committee in assisting in the process. I know that some committee members have already been to Brussels and Germany, and that Mr Neil has been in Bavaria. That all serves to raise Scotland's voice in Europe, which is a goal of great importance to me.
I am happy to answer any questions. If committee members seek detailed responses on policy, I will happily engage with my ministerial colleagues and report back. I am pleased to have Lynne Vallance here to assist me, and particularly pleased to have Craig Egner here too. He has come over from our Brussels office, and I think that this is the first time that an official from that office has addressed the European and External Relations Committee. That is a mark of how much more closely we are working together.
When you came to the committee in September and spoke about your priorities and objectives, it was agreed, I think, to revise the document to provide a greater emphasis on delivery and on measurement of progress in relation to the priorities. The committee therefore welcomes the inclusion of two new questions on monitoring and measurement. However, it is disappointing that the content of many of the dossiers, especially in relation to the actions of the Scottish Government, is substantively the same as the content of the dossiers that were submitted in September.
I will give an example. We will not ask you about the detail of the common agricultural policy health check, but we note that the wording is identical to that used in the previous dossier, almost to the last word. In future, it might be useful to have a more succinct document, but one that provides a detailed update on progress and, crucially, which describes the steps taken by the Scottish Government in delivering on that particular priority.
It would also be useful to have an explanation of substantive changes, especially when issues such as the Lisbon treaty have been removed from the list—although I accept that you touched on that point briefly in your opening remarks. It would also be helpful to have some indication of the effectiveness of the Scottish Government's role in relation to the priorities that have been removed.
Often, the fiches will not show many changes. We all acknowledge that things in Europe do not move fast. If I come to the committee every six months, it is likely that many things will not have changed in the intervening period.
I hear what you say, but we have to remember that the fiches are disseminated to all our stakeholders and are put on the website as well. There is information for lots of people. If you are saying that the committee would like more detailed information at some point, we would be willing to consider providing that, whether by letter or by some other means.
I forget what your final point was.
I highlighted a more general issue. I wanted to focus on the steps taken by the Scottish Government in delivering the priorities. With respect, we feel that we could have obtained much of the information from the parliamentary officer in Brussels or from somebody in a similar position. In this area as in others, we are frustrated that we are not learning much about what the Scottish Government is actually doing and saying. That point will come up again in relation to various topics over the next hour. That was my key point.
I will raise a key point in response. More information is coming to the Parliament from this Government than was ever offered by any previous Administration. This is a work in progress. We are working towards achieving transparency and clarity with stakeholders and parliamentarians. We are not yet a year into this Government but already we have made huge strides. Your comments will be taken on board, but the committee has to take on board that the willingness to engage shown by this Government has never been shown before.
I hope that the minister will recognise that these are intended as constructive comments to improve the process and its transparency and to ensure that the committee is able properly to scrutinise the Government. I echo the convener's point that it would be helpful if we could have a summary of the key actions that have been taken by the Scottish Government in the six months since the previous report and the key issues that are anticipated in the next six months, so that we have something to check progress against.
You said that five priorities have been removed because they have been completed. It would be useful if, when priorities are removed from the list, we could see a closing report that said whether the Government had achieved the objectives that were set. We know how priorities will be monitored and measured, but we do not have a report that tells us whether the objectives—Scotland's objectives, as well as the Government's—have been met.
Your final point is hugely constructive. I see no reason why we could not give you a couple of lines about why a priority has been removed. Equally, the next time that I report to the committee, it might also be worth our giving members a couple of succinct lines on why something else has been taken on board, as well as the general narrative.
I am aware that, while negotiations are on-going—whether they involve discussions with the United Kingdom Government, the Commission, the European Parliament or stakeholders—it is not always appropriate to put everything into the public domain. Anyone can accept that reasonable position, given that we are working for the benefit of the country and its stakeholders.
We constantly keep in mind the issue of how much information we can give, because transparency is extremely important to us. However, it must be borne in mind that it is not always possible or, indeed, sensible to publish details of on-going negotiations. That is especially true in relation to giving advance notice of what the Government intends to do.
I am not talking about the details of negotiations; I am talking about getting an indication of the action that has been taken. I would like to know what meetings there have been with which people, or the date on which the Council of Ministers will be looking at an issue and so on. For example, has anything happened in the past six months with regard to the dossier on CAP reform? As the convener said, there is virtually no change on that from one paper to the next, and it would be useful to have some indication of what has happened in the previous six months and the likely level of progress in the next six months.
I hear what you say. However, we are not an independent European state, which means that we have to work with the UK Government on a lot of these issues and, sometimes, the UK Government works pretty slowly as well.
Certainly.
Minister, last September, you talked to the committee about the development of a European strategy. Can you give us an update on that? We expected to see something in that regard early this year. How does that strategy relate to the wider work that you are doing to develop other international strategies? How does it link into the guidance that you will produce on the transposition of EU directives?
Mr Park is right to note that all those issues hang together very well. Our action plan on European engagement is part of our international strategy. I have been invited to come back to the committee—at the end of April, I think—to talk about such matters.
I will ask Lynne Vallance to talk about the European engagement action plan.
We are currently working on the action plan. The minister will talk to the committee about it on 29 April as part of her presentation on the international framework. The action plan will set out the Government's objectives in relation to Europe and the relationships that it intends to build with stakeholders, the committee, the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and the EU institutions in order to deliver those objectives. It will also cover the bilateral relationships that the Government intends to develop.
On how we intend to engage with stakeholders, the first step, obviously, is the Cabinet clearing the document before the minister presents it to the committee at the end of April. The idea is that there will then be a summer programme of events in which the minister, other members of the Cabinet and officials will engage with policy stakeholders and the general public to promote the ideas in the action plan. They will look for comments and seek support. The action plan will be finalised towards the end of the year and will then be published. Obviously, the committee will have a big role to play in the quite wide consultation exercise that will take place, which we envisage will last several months over the summer period.
So there has been no stakeholder engagement yet. You are progressing matters internally.
That is right.
We hear things through the grapevine. I think that a similar approach has been taken with the China strategy and that there has been wider stakeholder engagement with that. You are not following the same process, but there will be wider stakeholder engagement once the formal strategy is launched.
You are right. We had a stakeholder event for the China strategy, and I recently held a stakeholder event for the international strategy. The thing about the Europe action plan is that a specific parliamentary committee deals with European matters. We have defined the structures that we must go through, and different groups have been set up, so there are obvious people to speak to and take into account before we go out to wider stakeholders. We have thought through our approach and reckon that what the European and External Relations Committee and our European Parliament colleagues come back with will be important. We will go wider and try to pull everything together.
I have a wider question. What is meant by "a priority"? I will give an example. That the strategic energy review is a priority is understandable—I do not think that any of us would dispute that review's importance to Scotland. However, the proposed European small business act is not a priority at the moment. What difference does it make if something is a priority? What does something get if it is a priority that it will not get if it is not a priority? What are the criteria for deciding whether an issue is a priority?
Earlier, committee members talked about the need for considering the things that are coming out of Europe right at the beginning. We have a Government office in Europe and officers in Scotland who look closely at Europe's intentions. We study those intentions and decide what the main priority themes are for Scotland to consider.
You mentioned the proposed European small business act. That comes under the better regulation agenda, which is a priority under our wealthier and fairer objective. I am always keen to point out that the Government sees things as priorities, and we submit proposals to the Cabinet with our view of what our broad-reaching priorities should be. However, if the committee, for example, thinks that we have missed an extremely important issue, it should let us know, and we will take it on board.
Members may remember that, during the past six months, I added to our priorities a justice and home affairs issue. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice's officials said, "We think this is important. We'd like it to be a priority." Obviously, everything that comes out of Europe that affects Scotland is a priority for Scotland. There are broad headings, but you can be confident that that does not mean that we do not take notice of anything else. Everything that comes out of Europe is scrutinised.
Perhaps Craig Egner can say something about how the process works in the Government's office in Brussels and how information is relayed to Lynne Vallance's office in Scotland, for example.
Craig Egner (Scottish Government Europe, External Affairs and Culture Directorate):
In the end, judgment calls are involved—we are not talking about an exact science—and, ultimately, the priorities of the presidency of the day drive the development of our priorities. Those priorities tend to come under fairly broad strategic headings, under which there will be quite a lot of issues. For example, the proposed small business act has been mentioned, and another area is fisheries. Internal and external fish negotiations involve many issues in addition to the setting of catch and effort limits at the end of the year—a lot is going on in fisheries. It should not be assumed that the Government is not addressing such issues.
We try to float our objectives fairly early on in the process with a number of stakeholders in Brussels and with local authority representatives, the Parliament's office and MEPs there. We are always looking to improve and streamline the process and are open to suggestions about how we could do that. We also work closely with the Scottish Government's Europe division back in Edinburgh on those matters. It is an iterative process rather than an exact science, which is why we value the opportunity today to consult the committee on the issues that we have identified.
So there are no set criteria against which you measure what should and should not be a priority. For example, the action plan on urban transport is not a priority, yet we are about to spend probably billions of pounds on urban transport in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow and on the trams in Edinburgh. Can you take me through the process that does not make that action plan a priority?
If you feel that that is a big priority, put it to us and we will speak to the appropriate minister who oversees that area. You all have input into the process.
I am not saying that it is a priority; what I am trying to get at is the process and the methodology that are used to decide what is and is not a priority. I am trying to get an understanding of whether it is a political call by the relevant minister that one issue is a priority and another one is not, which would be perfectly understandable, or whether the process is more—I do not want to use the word scientific—logical than that.
We get input from officials, both in Brussels and in Edinburgh, who discuss the effect that the issues will have on Scotland. That is always up there. The judgment call is about how an issue affects Scotland. That approach informs all our priorities; it also helps to focus ministers' and officials' minds on moving forward. Otherwise, we would just say, "Look what comes out of Europe—there is so much."
We also speak to a number of stakeholders. Members should bear in mind the fact that the dossiers on the Scottish Government's EU priorities will all go on the website. We know that many European stakeholders take notice of those priorities. They are not slow in coming back to us to say that we should make a particular issue an EU priority, and we would then look at that.
I will ask the minister one or two questions about fisheries and aquaculture. Not only is that area a priority but making progress on it is one of the Government's long-term political objectives. That causes you some problems, because although it is a Scottish Government priority, it is clearly not a UK Government priority.
The Government's revised objectives state that you
"wish to see withdrawal or dismantling of the CFP".
I concur with the statement that the common fisheries policy has
"led to damage to our key fish stocks and marine environment"
and all the rest of it, but how can you practically dismantle the CFP? Realistically, you cannot withdraw from it because that is not within the competence of the Scottish Government.
He has noticed.
It is no surprise that Mr Brocklebank has asked that question. Everyone is aware that this Government feels strongly about the issue. It is also clear to me that adoption of the Lisbon treaty, with the CFP entrenched within it, is another move to make it more difficult to dismantle the CFP. However, we will always work towards our aim. Richard Lochhead works very hard in the interests of Scotland in that regard.
If you want more detail on how all that is done, I am happy to ask Richard Lochhead, who is the appropriate cabinet secretary, to give you that. If you want detail on the day-to-day stuff that we are doing in Brussels in relation to fisheries, I am happy to hand over to Craig Egner for that.
In the 34 years since Edward Heath took us into the common fisheries policy—let me get that out in the open before somebody else says it—we have failed lamentably to dismantle the CFP or to tackle the business of withdrawing from it. Despite what Iain Smith said, it would be totally possible for a UK Government to do that. Can you or one of your officials explain how the situation will improve over the next 34 years, given that it is not in the interests of Spain, France, Ireland and so many others to dismantle the CFP?
We have to remember that it is not just Scotland that is upset with the common fisheries policy. Richard Lochhead is spearheading the setting up of an expert group of like-minded member states so that we can try to influence the Commission collectively to change the common fisheries policy. That work is on-going; it is an absolute and long-term priority for this Government. We will always work towards it, and we welcome any support that we can get in that regard.
My final point is more to do with aquaculture than sea fisheries. You will know of the vexed question of the dumping of salmon on the market by Norway. You will also know that a minimum import price was set some years ago. However, we are now right back down to that minimum price and dumping is clearly going on. Will you give us more information about the role that our negotiators are playing in that area?
There has been ministerial contact with the trade commissioner about that, but I will pass over to Craig Egner for the details, on which he has been working closely.
There is no dispute that this is a major issue for Scotland. The Scottish Government and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—formerly the Department of Trade and Industry—have been talking to the Commission about the matter at regular intervals. Two things are going on. As you probably know, Norway brought a complaint against the EU to a World Trade Organization panel, and some members of the panel found in Norway's favour. In the first instance, the Commission will have to look at amending the measures that are in place.
Alongside that, the Commission is undertaking an internal review of the minimum import price. It is asking two fundamental questions in that process: whether dumping is still going on; and whether dumping would recur if it got rid of the minimum import price. That is where we are. Dumping might not be going on at the moment, but the UK Government believes that if the minimum import price were to be removed, it most certainly would recur, given the build-up in Norwegian production that we are seeing at the moment and what is, in our view, the absence of market opportunities elsewhere. There are expanding markets in China and the United States, of course, but the big question is whether they could mop up the surplus, were extra production to come online.
All I can say is that we are continuing to talk to the Commission about the situation, stressing our view that dumping would recur and therefore that the minimum import price should remain. We have brought the Irish Government and the Irish salmon farming industry in with us. We are working hard to produce a case for the Commission that shows clearly that, given the build-up in Norwegian production, the only thing that can happen as a consequence of removing the minimum import price is that the market will be flooded and product will be sold below the cost of production, which is the definition of dumping. It is a big problem. As the minister said, there has been ministerial contact with the Commission, and I guarantee that there will be more. We continue to work very hard on behalf of the Scottish and Irish industries.
That is very helpful, but it leads us to question why that information is not in the dossier. The aquaculture dossier is almost exactly the same as it was six months ago. That illustrates the point that I made earlier, which is that we feel that it would be useful to have such information in the dossier, which is of particular interest to us and no doubt, to the wider public.
I want to follow through on that theme. The linkages between the Government's objectives and the EU priorities are not clear. We are not clear about whether you are looking at the European Commission's annual policy strategy or legislative work programme or about what the committee's input has been. I want to be constructive. I know that the minister has consistently offered to work in partnership with the committee, but I do not see reflected any of the evidence that we have taken or the correspondence that we have had with the minister over the past few months on the Lisbon treaty or the EU budget review, for example. I appreciate that the minister has explained that the implications of the Lisbon treaty will be on justice and home affairs, but it would be helpful if we had a clear analysis of what the Government thinks will be the effects of the Lisbon treaty on us in the Scottish Parliament. Regional Governments and Parliaments throughout Europe are having such discussions at the moment. Despite what the Government says about taking account of the views of stakeholders, including the views of this committee, I do not see the linkages between our agenda and the Government's agenda.
I have two other points to make on subject areas. The Government has provided a paper on the European institute of technology, but the position is similar to the one with the paper on the common agricultural policy, to which I think Alex Neil referred. I do not have the previous paper in front of me, but the current one looks remarkably like the one that we saw six months ago. The European institute of technology is important to Scotland. The dossiers ask "How will this priority be monitored?" However, the content of the dossiers is almost the same for every single priority—they just use different wording. There are references throughout to liaison with UK colleagues, Whitehall and the Commission. We are falling short. Other than the dialogue between you and us, we have no way of putting things right. We have to be forthright about how we would like to proceed in a constructive way. The papers before us today do not take me any further forward than I was six months ago. We know that the European Parliament will discuss the European institute of technology this week.
I will let the minister take on board those points.
I can be blunt as well. This is the second time that I have come to the committee with more information than the committee was ever given in the eight years of the two previous Administrations. I am here to ask for input. The dossiers are not yet published on the internet and will not be published until we have got the committee's input. As I said, this is an on-going process. The will is there from the Government and I know that the will is there from the committee. I acknowledge that the committee wants to have input, but the committee must acknowledge that we are coming forward with a degree of information that is new in respect of how the Parliament works with its Government on European priorities.
On the Lisbon treaty and subsidiarity, I have already said that I am happy to support the committee in taking matters to Westminster. Members have said that there has not been a great deal of progress, but let us not forget that we are under constitutional constraints here. We are not the Government of a nation state of Europe that can make decisions and act quickly. We have to work with the UK Government on all these issues, because the UK is the member state. The UK Government does not always respond to us timeously. It does not see Scotland as the absolute priority, which is how this Government and the committee see Scotland. That must be taken on board. Yes, I am happy to work together, but I am not that happy that, given the degree of information that we are providing—we are providing much more than was ever provided before—I am sitting here being told that we are not doing enough. There has to be constructiveness on both sides.
I can respond to that only by saying that I have been on this committee for a long time and the fact is that we established the system of discussing EU priorities about four years ago. It has certainly been in place for some time.
The crux of the matter is how we can get better involvement. Although the Government says that it wants to take account of the committee as a stakeholder, there is no evidence of that in the priorities before us. We have had correspondence with you on certain issues—for example, the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU budget review—that have been removed from the list of priorities. Let us set the UK to one side for a moment. One of our jobs is to scrutinise the Government, but despite the fact that we have been in dialogue with you on certain matters of interest, they have been taken off the list of priorities. I am not clear about the linkages, and I am certainly not clear about our involvement as a stakeholder and as the committee responsible for scrutinising for you on such matters.
Since our previous appearance before the committee, we have already made changes to the fiches and added two new sections. Perhaps when we check the Official Report of today's meeting we might add more information. I think that I have already conceded Iain Smith's point that we could give a few lines about why we have dropped certain issues. If, after I leave, in its discussion of the matter either in private or in public, in the Official Report, the committee reaches a view that it could hold the Government to account or we could all work together much better if this or that were done, I will be more than happy to take what it says on board.
On 18 September 2007, Alex Neil asked you about the very point that Irene Oldfather has just raised about the analysis of the Lisbon treaty's impact on Scotland, and you dealt with the issue in your letter to the committee dated 26 November 2007. Interestingly, you said:
"I … confirm that there has been significant analysis of the implications of the Treaty for Scotland. It would not be appropriate for all the details of this analysis to be provided to the Committee, as much of the analysis has been undertaken as policy consideration."
I suppose that that might be one reason why we cannot find out what your thoughts are, but are you seriously suggesting that although "all the details" of your analysis of the treaty's impact on Scotland cannot be provided, we cannot get any information at all about it?
I said in my introduction that as a result of the extension of the co-decision procedure, the treaty has implications mainly for justice and home affairs, which is one of our long-term objectives. I feel that we have given the committee a reason why the issue is no longer on our list of priorities. All the justice and home affairs measures under that heading now form part of our justice and home affairs priorities.
The EU budget review, which Irene Oldfather mentioned, is another of our long-term political objectives. It is not that nothing is being done or that no information is being relayed on these issues.
On justice and home affairs, in our letter dated 5 November 2007, we specifically asked you about
"The nature and extent of the Scottish Government contribution to the UK Government's position on the EU Reform Treaty as set out in the White Paper and Explanatory Memorandum, especially in relation to the safeguards on Justice".
Despite your two subsequent responses, we are still none the wiser about your discussions with the UK Government on the issue. Indeed, in your response to our letter dated 17 December 2007, you stated that you had gone
"into the most appropriate level of detail on the issues"
that we raised. I must say that the letter that you referred to, which was raised at last week's meeting, caused the committee great concern.
I suppose that we are approaching the same topic from different points of view, but our fundamental problem is how we can scrutinise what the Government is doing if we do not have any detail on these key and substantive European issues. I take your point about what happened in the past but, with respect, it was your job as convener of the previous European and External Relation Committee to hold the previous Government to account and it is our job to hold the present Government to account. We have a problem with the transparency of the Government's position on many of these issues and simply have no way of knowing what the Government is saying and doing behind the scenes.
Before Linda Fabiani answers, I have a comment. We need to understand each others' needs. There is a clear distinction to be made. When the Scottish Government is in negotiations with the UK Government I, as a committee member, would not expect all the information to be made available, because the Scottish Government must protect its negotiating position. For example, I would not have expected the Government to be too forthcoming with information on the impact of the Lisbon treaty in relation to energy and the marine environment during the period of negotiation. However, now that that negotiation is finished, I expect to see the analysis of the impact that the Government anticipates as a result of the Lisbon treaty on energy and the marine environment and on other matters.
Confusion may be arising because there is a difference between providing information during a period of negotiation and providing it after that. In the run-up to the decision on the Lisbon treaty, which took place last week in the House of Commons, I would not have expected the Government to disclose its hand. However, now that the treaty has in effect been agreed to by the House of Commons, and assuming that the Irish do not scupper it—although I hope that they do—I expect the Government to make available information such as the analysis of the impact on energy and the marine environment. That is a fair distinction.
That is absolutely right and it is along the lines of what I was going to say. At the time of the letter that the convener mentioned, we were still pushing the UK Government to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, as it promised in its manifesto. There was a lot going on. I was attending JMCE meetings for talks on the treaty. As Alex Neil said, the decision on the treaty was pushed through in the House of Commons only last week.
At any given point, I may be constrained in what I can say when asked about such matters. We should also bear in mind the fact that legal advice is often taken on such matters and that it is a feature of our code that the content of legal advice is not commented on. Therefore, it is not reasonable for the committee to expect that the Government will relay every single detail of what it does so that that can be scrutinised. That certainly did not happen in the past—as convener of the European and External Relations Committee in the previous session of Parliament and having had to hold the previous Administration to account, I can vouch for that.
We have moved on and are in a new situation. I have said that I am happy to give information and have a degree of transparency that I feel did not exist before. We should progress in that spirit. My concession is that everything that is said will be taken on board, but the committee must make the concession that it is not always possible for us to give all the information at the time when it is asked for. That is sometimes because of the constraints of working with the UK Government, which we do constructively in the majority of cases, and sometimes because legal advice cannot be passed on.
There were two points, and you have not really answered Alex Neil's second point. Can you give us more information about the impact assessment now?
We will go away and consider what you have said. As I said, we always take notice of what a parliamentary committee says. We will look at the Official Report of the meeting to see what has been said and make our decision accordingly.
On the other point, about the earlier stage of the process, the Government was willing to make clear its position on the fisheries aspect of the EU reform treaty, even though, no doubt, it was discussing that with the UK Government. Therefore, it is not immediately apparent why something could not have been said about justice and home affairs. Even if what you say is true, you must understand the difficulty that the situation causes the committee and the Parliament. How can we hold you to account if we do not know what your position is? Do we not have a right to try to influence that position at an earlier stage, as well as a right to hold you to account after everything has been dealt with?
Of course you have a right to try to influence. We worked hand in hand with the UK Government on the justice and home affairs issues for the Lisbon treaty. There were issues that affected Scotland and we wanted to ensure that the UK Government took those issues on board. We worked closely with the UK Government and it took positions in private—as a Government can—that I would not dream of putting into the public domain. That is as it should be. All those considerations must be taken on board when it comes to timing the relaying of information that will end up in the public domain.
If you want to write to me to ask for more detail, as minister I will make the judgment on what level of detail it is appropriate to provide once matters such as how we work with our partners have been taken into account. I think that that is eminently fair.
We will reflect on that. With due respect, I hesitated to write to you again because we waited two months for a reply to our most recent letter and when I got the reply, it more or less said, "You've already got the appropriate level of detail." I was very shocked by that, and if you read the Official Report of last week's meeting, you will find that it is fair to say that some of my colleagues shared my concerns.
The issue is on-going. We touched on it in our questioning on the transposition of directives. We accept that you do a lot of work with the UK Government. In one of your answers, you said that you were in discussion with the European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster, but we feel that the issue for us and, more generally, for the Scottish Parliament is where we fit into the discussion of the issues.
I do not claim that the situation was any different in the past—it may well be that we are talking about an institutional or cultural problem that has spread from one Administration to the next. I am quite happy to admit that that might be the case. However, from where I am sitting, it seems that the committee has a particular problem in holding the Scottish Government to account on European issues, because of the difficulty of getting all the relevant information.
I want to make two points. First, let me make it clear that my discussions with the parliamentary committee at Westminster had nothing to do with my discussions with the UK Government, nor were they any indication that that committee is able to hold us to account—that is not its job. Our discussions were on an entirely different subject—they were purely about operational matters in relation to transposition.
As far as your most recent letter is concerned, please accept my apologies for the time that it took to respond to it, which I acknowledge was a fault. However, many letters have been exchanged and that is the only one that I have heard any complaint about. I think that our record in responding to letters—with that one exception—stands up to scrutiny.
Given that the minister has asked for our views on priorities, there are two subject areas that I ask her to reflect on. When the committee took evidence from Professor Bachtler on the EU budget recently, he suggested that the adoption of a more strategic approach to accessing research and development funding would be beneficial to Scotland. Does the minister have a view on that?
My second point is about the EU solidarity fund and flood relief for Wales, Northern Ireland, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and South West England, which the European Parliament is likely to agree to this week. I am not aware that solidarity funding has been applied for to deal with flooding in this country. Given that the minister is keen to offer Scotland's perspective and to stand up for Scotland, did she give any consideration to making such an application?
Research and development is one of our three priorities in the EU budget review. As a Government, we are examining the issue closely because we need to obtain the benefits that come from investment in that area. Interestingly, R and D was one of the issues that came up at the international stakeholder event that John Park asked about, and one of the inquiries that the committee did in the second session of Parliament highlighted its importance.
On flooding, I will be straight—I do not know the answer. I will get on to Mr Swinney, who has portfolio responsibility for that area, and will respond to you quickly—certainly in less than two months, the convener will be pleased to learn. I will be happy to give further consideration to the details of the EU solidarity fund.
We have no further questions, so I thank you and your colleagues very much. That was a useful and frank exchange that will allow us to make progress in the future.
I suspend the meeting briefly while our next witnesses take their seats.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—