European and External Relations Committee, 14 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Official Report 300KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Priorities (Dutch Presidency) Scottish Executive European Strategy

I welcome to the meeting the Scottish Executive minister with responsibility for external relations, Andy Kerr, who is accompanied by Alastair Wilson and Tim Simons from the external relations division. Nikki Brown will also be along later to help the minister out.

We will take evidence from the minister on the first three items on our agenda. In the first item, he will outline his priorities for the Dutch presidency of the European Union and, in the second item, he will talk about the Scottish Executive's European strategy and activities to date. I understand that the minister will first give a five or 10-minute presentation on both issues. I hope that all members can see the screen; if they cannot do so, they should look at the paper copies of the slides. We will then have a separate question session for each item.

First, let me associate myself with the convener's remarks about sending best wishes to Margaret Ewing and about this fantastic building. As this is your last meeting, convener, let me also acknowledge your elevation within your party. However, I probably draw the line at wishing you every success for the future because, after all, we are political opponents. I have enjoyed working with you on the committee and wish you all the best in your future role.

It is a pleasure to be back before the committee. Since our last meeting, significant things have happened, some of which we will cover today. As the convener pointed out, I plan to cover three main issues: ministerial priorities for the Dutch presidency; progress on the European strategy; and the Scottish presidency of the conference of regions with legislative power—or Regleg—which I know is of some interest to the committee. I will cover that issue in the second part of my presentation.

I understand that the Dutch ambassador will address the committee on the priorities of the Dutch presidency, but I want to provide a short overview of those priorities and what the Executive will be doing in that respect. Like the previous presidency, the Dutch presidency falls at a time of great change with the change of European Commission on 1 November; the newly elected European Parliament; and enlargement, which we have discussed many times. As it will be the first presidency to oversee an enlarged EU of 25 member states, its main priority is to ensure that it makes a success of that new arrangement. After all, that is a major challenge.

The second priority for the presidency is to strengthen the European economy. I have already had dialogue with Phil Gallie and other members about the Lisbon strategy, the aim of which is to make the EU the world's most dynamic economy by 2010. The presidency is placing a lot of emphasis on that and is overseeing preparations for the mid-term evaluation of the strategy. Indeed, it has identified a number of better regulation issues as priorities, which is an approach that I support.

An increasingly important area of work is the freedom, security and justice agenda. The Dutch aim to agree the five-year justice and home affairs work programme and to make progress on the fight against international crime and terrorism. The fourth priority is the European Union's financial and budgetary structure, which is of great interest not only to me but to the whole Executive. The period covered by the budgetary framework draws to a close at the end of 2006. Although a decision on the future financial perspectives package will not be taken until 2005, the Dutch are clearly keen to set down guidelines and principles by the end of the year. As a result, there will be some very interesting areas for discussion.

As far as the Executive's priorities for the Dutch presidency are concerned, we have considered the programme and have identified five key issues of particular importance to Scotland and on which we will focus our efforts. Members will not be surprised to find out what those issues are. The first is the justice and home affairs policy. We continue to work closely with the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs to influence the Commission's JHA work programme and ensure that the principles of Scots criminal and civil law are compatible with JHA instruments.

Fisheries policy continues to be an important priority for Scotland and we will work to ensure optimal and sustainable outcomes for Scottish fisheries in 2005 in the annual total allowable catch and quota negotiations.

Another big issue for us is European structural funds from 2006. The Commission published its proposals on the reform of structural funds on 14 July. The regulations are now being negotiated, and the Executive continues to work closely with the UK and other partners regarding the future of the funds.

On the follow-up to the intergovernmental conference, we will continue to work through Regleg—which will be the subject of later discussion—the Committee of the Regions and the UK Government to influence developments positively, particularly regarding the introduction of something that is on both the Executive's agenda and the committee's agenda: direct pre-legislative consultation of regions with legislative powers.

Agricultural reform remains a central part of our work. We will continue to interact with the Commission to ensure that we are correctly interpreting and applying the details of the common agricultural policy reform package. We will also monitor progress on the review of the rural development regulation. In addition to those priorities, my ministerial colleagues have highlighted their own EU priorities. I understand that those were sent to you on 2 September.

I will now move on to the European strategy, which was presented recently—in fact, I see from my notes that it was presented on 24 February, although it feels as though it was more recent than that. I would like to give you a brief update on the progress that we have made on implementing the Executive's European strategy. There have been some notable achievements since that time, some of which I will highlight for the committee. Our key priority for our engagement with Europe is growing the Scottish economy, which is a top priority of the partnership agreement. I would argue that we have made considerable progress. For example, tourism from Europe has been increasing. VisitScotland is using thematic campaigns in markets with direct routes to Scotland. A particularly good example of that is the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry, which is bearing fruit; the number of overseas visitors to Scotland in the first six months of this year was up 12 per cent on the same period last year.

On fisheries policy, the Executive hosted several meetings in Brussels, involving member states interested in regional advisory councils. The Executive worked hard to ensure that the EU decision was steered through the council working groups. The decision came into force in July, following discussion by fisheries ministers at the May council meeting, which was attended by Ross Finnie. The North sea RAC is expected to be established first and the Executive continues to assist arrangements for the establishment of a secretariat in Scotland, with the first general meeting to be held in Edinburgh in November.

Thanks to the Executive's work with the UK Government, there are now specific references to the role of regions in the draft constitutional treaty, as agreed at the intergovernmental conference in June.

Levers form another critical part of our strategy for achieving our objectives. We have taken action in a number of areas. We have been working with members of the European Parliament. The day after the results of the European Parliament elections were announced, the First Minister wrote to all seven of Scotland's newly elected MEPs, inviting them to a briefing with Scottish ministers on 24 June, which was very productive. To reinforce our links with the European Parliament, Patricia Ferguson attended a reception for all UK MEPs in London last week, which was hosted by Jack Straw. Still on the subject of working with the UK, there have been eight meetings of the joint ministerial committee on Europe since February, including one that, as we speak, Malcolm Chisholm is attending on behalf of the Executive. Since February, Scottish ministers have attended five Council of Ministers meetings as part of the UK delegation. The record of ministerial attendance at all councils is now published on the Scottish Executive website.

Closer to home, the Executive now has a database of all our EU obligations concerning devolved or partly devolved matters. We now monitor the transposition and implementation of all those obligations across the board. You will shortly receive a report on that. Together with key stakeholders, we are undertaking a review of the European members information liaison exchange network—the EMILE network—with the aim of improving attendance and making its meetings more relevant and useful. Officials have met John Edward, Liz Holt, and Stephen Imrie to take that forward. I expect that the first of the meetings in the new format will take place early next year.

I continue to chair the Scottish international forum, which brings together organisations that are involved in promoting Scotland overseas. The aim is to share plans for work overseas and to identify opportunities for joint initiatives.

In conclusion, I hope that the committee sees that in our activities we have done quite a lot already to implement our strategy, although I recognise that there is much more to do. I am happy to answer questions on those two aspects of my report to the committee.

We can devote the next few minutes to questions on item 1 on the agenda, which is the minister's priorities for the Dutch presidency of the European Union.

The Dutch presidency started in July, so we are now halfway through it. What progress has been made, as opposed to the aspirations that you have talked about today?

Setting out the mid-term analysis of the Lisbon agenda is an important aspect. Arguably, the Dutch are making the right noises on governance, as well as on bringing Europe closer together in terms of people's perception and understanding of it. The Dutch presidency is doing useful work on rights and values, on informed citizens and on seeking to improve regulations—through the four-presidency initiative over two years.

The seminar that the Dutch presidency is holding on governance will be of use because that will flow through to the work programme for future presidencies. Work on issues such as impact assessment and simplification of legislation is in process. I find—I am sure that you do too—that we want to make things happen quickly, but these matters take time. Given the length of presidencies, there is a degree of commonality with the previous presidencies—in particular the Irish presidency—but nonetheless the aspirations are set, work is being done, conferences and meetings are being held and the right direction of travel is being taken.

Another issue is setting out the vision for how we better finance Europe and organise it financially, which is another big part of the Dutch presidency's work. The Dutch are laying a solid agenda. Work has been undertaken to analyse where we are now in respect of implementation. The mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy will be informative to us all and it will point out some weaknesses of implementation to date and indicate where attention needs to be focused. I do not think that they have their troubles to seek, as, in concert with those tasks, they are trying to organise a body that now has 25 members and deal with the constitutional matters that are going on in the background.

On the Lisbon agenda, Europe's economy is not performing. Are the Dutch doing anything that is liable to change the pretty gloomy current situation?

I am encouraged by their focus, supported by the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, on trying to step up activity on the labour market agenda, the internal market on services and capital, public finance and the budget of the organisation. I am particularly interested in the simplification of the legislative process and the impact assessment process, so that there is a proper impact assessment of the business effect of legislation that will come through and come out of Scotland. The other aspect being discussed that we are particularly keen on is having framework legislation at a European level but a bit more flexibility at a local level to take account of local circumstances.

I would argue, and will do so again when we discuss Regleg and other aspects of policy in Europe, that although the results may not be instantaneous, the direction of travel is right, particularly on the agenda for how we get the biggest market in the world working better. The intent is there and the work that the presidency is doing will help to support that activity.

Is there a realisation that the economic targets that were set at Lisbon and the balancing social requirements operate in opposing directions?

I am not sure that there is such a realisation, because not everyone shares that view. It is arguable that the Dutch and others, like the Executive, recognise that the social agenda cannot exist without the business agenda. In other words, to produce the resources and to employ the people who will create the tax revenue to deliver public services, there is an absolute requirement to have a Europe that works well. I am quite happy that less priority is being placed on trans-European networks and large structural projects and that the organisational aspects of how we can run a better European economy are now being set out. As I said, I do not share that view that you put forward.

I thank the minister for making the points that he did about EMILE. It is important that we try to schedule those meetings a year ahead. They have been chopped and changed too much in the past, which is the reason for the low attendance. I know that from experience, as I have put the date in my diary only to find that the meeting was changed. That is an important point.

I want to make a point about meetings or seminars. As usual, there will be several seminars during the presidency. The Executive's paper refers to the seminar on regulations and Margaret Curran's report says that she will try to attend the seminar on social Europe. Will there be ministerial representation from the Executive at the seminar on regulations and at the other seminars? I think that it is important that there is.

We seek to be represented as well as we can at all such events, but that is sometimes difficult to achieve. I make the straightforward point that ministers find it difficult to be away from this Parliament on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. If I may be so bold, I think that the lack of a pairing system in this Parliament limits our ability to do that. I would have great intentions to attend more European meetings so that I could influence for Scotland, but it is difficult for me to do that in the parliamentary climate in which we work. We tend to spend recess time trying to build those bridges and we try to attend meetings that are organised outwith parliamentary time, but a fact of life is that ministers find it difficult to be away from this place on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

I hope that the Executive will persist, with the new leadership of the main Opposition party, in trying to get a pairing system. The lack of such a system detracts from our important work on Europe.

I welcome the minister's initiative to work closely with Scotland's MEPs. Will he elaborate on the "members' reports" that are mentioned in the Executive's written submission? Given the things that we are all trying to achieve, how will the Executive integrate the work of the MEPs, who have been left out on the periphery for far too long?

Members might think that I would say this anyway, but I am genuinely working hard to engage with the Scottish international forum, EMILE and the MEPs to ensure that the Scottish Government does its bit of the bargain by communicating directly with those people.

We wanted to ensure that, once the MEPs were elected, we addressed two big issues. Our first aim, which we more or less achieved, was to ensure that we had representation on all the important European committees. Secondly, we wanted to offer support to MEPs who chose to take up rapporteur roles within Europe. I am not sure whether officials can update the committee with information on what has happened as a result of that. It may be too early to give further details about those members' reports.

I have a meeting with John Edward in 10 days' time to talk through exactly how that system will work. We have had favourable indications from the MEPs, who have been positive about working much more closely and about acquiring rapporteurships or shadow rapporteurships.

I understand that a number of MEPs—I know of at least one—have already been appointed rapporteurs.

On the European constitution that was adopted by the IGC, the Executive's paper states:

"The Executive is in close touch with the UK Government to ensure that Scottish issues are reflected in the drafting of the Bill."

Will the minister elaborate on how the Executive will ensure that Scottish issues are treated in the Westminster bill?

The issue comes back to areas such as justice and home affairs and fisheries and agriculture, which we have set as priorities in our European strategy. On those issues, our aim is not to lose any positions that have been won in Europe and continuously to remind and reassure the UK Government about our priorities and to make it understand them. That is done through a variety of channels, such as through me or other ministers attending those meetings and through there being close contact between officials. We have an opportunity to comment pre-legislatively on what is happening at UK level to ensure that officials are aware of any implications for Scotland in any of the provisions that the Westminster Government is making.

The final thing that I want to ask you about, which has been a hobby horse of mine, is the N+2 rule, which I asked questions about in the chamber earlier in the year. We had information from the East of Scotland European Consortium that we were not meeting the deadline and therefore money would have to be remitted back to Brussels. You might recall answering a question from me on that, although perhaps it was not you. Are we meeting the deadlines, which are important?

As you know, the responsibility for that moved away from me, but I was familiar with it when it came under the finance remit. Steps have been taken, but I will need to come back to you with an absolutely up-to-date position. We put a number of comments into the system with the partnership bodies to ensure that if we were putting barriers in the way of meeting the deadlines, we would seek to remove them. I will come back to you once I am certain about where we are just now.

I want to touch on three points from pages 4 and 5 of the minister's submission. Before I do so I want to highlight something that Keith Raffan and the minister just touched on: the party pairing system, which is a feature of most mature democracies and legislatures. It is a matter of regret that in the past two years the Scottish National Party has failed to appreciate the importance of that. Again, that highlights the inherent hypocrisy of the party; it wants us to engage meaningfully in the important arena of Europe, but at the same time ministers are hamstrung by the lack of a pairing system. I hope, convener, that in your new role you will impress on the deputy leader in Scotland and your London-based leader the importance of introducing a pairing system, which I am sure would be welcomed by all parties.

Stick to the agenda.

That is the agenda. It is important that our ministers are available for selection and able to play a meaningful part in decision making at a European level.

The first of the three points that I wanted to raise relates to paragraph 2 on page 4 of the briefing paper, which refers to working with the new European Parliament. Minister, will you expand on how work is being developed? You have obviously had meetings with the First Minister, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services and new MEPs.

The second point relates to page 5 of the paper, which refers to your brief, where you talk about the scenarios that the Dutch are developing for greater efficiency of policy development. The Commission is obviously striving to demonstrate where funds are being used efficiently. How are you working with the Dutch in that regard?

Thirdly, on page 5 you also refer to six member states including the UK. Does that include the Netherlands?

Yes, it includes the Netherlands.

I share the view that the convener expressed that the new MEPs are an underused resource and we want to correct that through encouraging early contact, understanding one another's systems and trying to ensure that we get team Scotland's influences correct. We will continue to work hard on that. We are trying to ensure that we have proper contact between MEPs' offices and Executive officials and we are also offering MEPs our support as and when they pick up issues that we might seek to pursue jointly. For example, the work that was done on the bathing waters directive by one of the MEPs was critical to Scotland.

It is about getting in there early, giving MEPs reassurance that we want to be of assistance, building up that bond, which we are trying to do, and offering practical support where we can. We can use them as our eyes and ears for matters in Europe to which we think we need to draw some force. There is a win-win situation for us all there. It is one of those things that one needs to work fairly hard at to make sure it works effectively but, nonetheless, I thought that the meeting that Tavish Scott, the First Minister and I had was a good start. Officials may want to add to that if there are any other developments at an official level that it would be of use for you to know of.

There is a big financial debate over the European Parliament's budget and the Dutch are trying to influence the debate on what the budget should be. To paraphrase the Dutch approach to this, it is about making the money work better rather than about the amount of money. You mentioned the fact that some Governments have concerns about the size of the budget. However, the Dutch are trying to make progress on the legislative burden that is placed on businesses and individuals in Europe and we support them in that. We should undertake much more strict impact assessment of where the legislation will take us to understand what effect the legislation will have. A focused effort is being made to reduce the legislative burden. All the aspects of the work of the Dutch to produce better regulations are very useful as is the four-presidency initiative across the Irish, Dutch, Luxembourg and UK presidencies.

Those are the areas that I want to report to the committee. I do not know whether the officials have anything to add.

My question relates to the point that was made by Keith Raffan. In your written brief you state:

"The Executive is in close touch with the UK Government to ensure that Scottish issues are reflected in the drafting of the Bill."

That refers to the bill on amendment of the EU constitution. Can you clarify whether it is the UK Government's intention to have one bill to amend the 1972 act and another to provide for a referendum, or whether the same legislation will amend the 1972 act and make provision for a referendum?

There will be one piece of legislation that will include the referendum.

Will the legislation make provision for identifying votes for and against the constitution in different parts of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the precedent that was set at the time of the 1975 referendum?

I am advised that that is currently under consideration, but that there is no definitive answer yet.

What is the Executive's view on that?

I imagine that we would want to see the Scottish result.

Good. I urge you to do so.

Have you sought any role for the Scottish Parliament in the ratification process for the constitution?

I am not sure formally where that discussion would be. Maybe Nikki Brown can help.

Ratification is formally for the UK Parliament. The Executive has not sought any role for the Scottish Parliament separately.

Does the minister believe that ministers should consider that?

The issue came up in the earlier discussions that I had about this some time ago. I always look at such things fairly simply. I would not expect the UK Government to ratify anything of ours; therefore, I do not expect to ratify anything of the UK Government's. That is fairly straightforward. I knew that discussions on the matter were continuing at official level, but those were about policy positions and where we are.

Irene Oldfather wants to ask a question.

Thanks, convener. I thought that you had forgotten about me. I think that I was the second member to put my hand up. Never mind.

You will have to blame the clerks for that.

I thank the minister for his presentation. I have three points to raise with him about the priorities that he outlined. He mentioned fisheries and welcomed the setting up of the regional advisory councils. The committee would echo that—that was something that we called for when we reported on the common fisheries policy. Did I pick up the minister correctly? Is the first meeting to be held in November in Edinburgh? If that is the case, we should welcome that and congratulate the UK Government on negotiations to set that up.

Secondly, the minister said that the Executive is working closely with the UK and other partners on Scotland's role in the future of structural funds. He will be aware that the committee produced a report on the matter. What is the timescale for the UK discussions? With which other partners is the Scottish Executive discussing the matter?

Thirdly, on the IGC, there seems to be a six-week timetable for our input to the UK as part of the pre-legislative process in respect of the proposed European Commission legislation. That is a tight timetable. Do you agree that it is important to get involved in the process as far upstream as possible? You mentioned a new unit that will monitor the transposition and implementation of Community obligations across the board. Might that unit have a role to play in working with the Scottish Parliament, this committee and others to ensure that we are tapped in as far upstream as possible?

I will need to consider the final point about the work that is done through the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business on the transposition and monitoring of obligations to ensure that we are doing what we need to do.

On Irene Oldfather's other point, the key is to ensure that we are notified as quickly as possible, which is the upstream engagement that she described. We are trying to ensure that we get information at official level when we require it so that we can influence matters. In other words, if we receive a letter that says, "By the way, the closing date is in a week's time," we have a problem. We are working with colleagues at UK level to ensure that early-warning systems are working and that people understand the relevance of issues to the Executive and Parliament. We need to continue to make that known. People who are more involved in European matters on a daily basis understand that, but in parts of Government—any Government, anywhere in the world—the system does not always deliver as it should. I have always wanted to ensure that we can influence the process as early as possible and I welcome the new system, which will add greatly to our chances of achieving that.

You asked when we can expect conclusions on structural funds; you will not be surprised to hear that we are at an early stage in a fairly long process. We continue to present our case and to influence the process through the analysis and work that we contribute in the Executive and at UK level. Those are major discussions and will continue to be so. Such negotiations on European matters are difficult and we will need to monitor the situation closely and effectively to ensure that no one is uncertain about our views on the way forward, and to ensure that if we take a stride forward we can maintain the new position. That applies to any European matter. The officials might want to add something to that.

Will you confirm the point about the meeting on fisheries in Edinburgh?

Yes, the first meeting will be held in Edinburgh. We are pleased about that—the committee and the Executive have taken a great interest in the matter. We should take credit for, and publicise, the fact that one of the benefits of our work has been to bring that meeting to Edinburgh.

There is an early warning on legislation and we might be unhappy about something getting into the system that we think might infringe subsidiarity. You explained that the Executive works with the UK Government, the Committee of the Regions and others to ensure that there will be an opportunity within the new IGC framework to flag up such matters and to ensure that regions' powers are protected. I realise that these are early days, but has thought been given to the mechanisms that might be put in place to ensure that that happens? How would we highlight our concerns about a potential infringement of subsidiarity? Would we do that via the UK Government, the European Commission or the Committee of the Regions? Have you had discussions on that matter?

The officials might correct me, but I believe that if a third of nation states in Europe have a problem and they flag it up, that will put the brakes on developing legislation. Therefore, it is through the nation state—the UK—that we would say that we believed that there was an infringement. If we felt that the matter was important, we would make representations to the UK Government and then the matter would be passed on to Europe. If we gathered support for our position from a third of nations, we could bring a halt to the development of the legislation, directive or whatever.

I clarify that that measure is for national Parliaments as opposed to Governments.

Indeed.

Does the minister therefore see a working relationship with the database on EU obligations that will be set up? That is a positive development. When this committee was first set up, we all tried to scrutinise the Executive and to examine whether directives had been transposed properly. It seemed to take ages to get information back and it was a cumbersome process. There are some positive developments on which we could build to ensure that we get early warning of when things are going wrong so that we can pick them up much more quickly and highlight that through the appropriate channels.

I will be looking for a similar, if not the same, system. I want to have a closer look at the situation because one database is for agreed matters that we are monitoring then transposing and the other is for potential matters. I will come back to the committee when I have thought that through. It might also be that a similar database is being developed somewhere in the UK Government, which we could piggyback on. I have no idea, but I am happy to endorse the principle that Irene Oldfather presented—that there should be some form of monitoring system. If we adopt that, I will report back to the committee on how that will best be achieved and how the committee can fit into that process.

I will follow up on Irene Oldfather's point about the establishment—at last—of a North sea regional advisory council on fisheries. That is a tremendous achievement for the Executive and the Parliament. We have been battling for it for a long time. I think I picked up from the minister's comments that it will be the first such regional fisheries management body for the waters around Europe. Did he say that the secretariat would be based here in Edinburgh?

The first meeting will be held in Edinburgh and the secretariat will be in Scotland. I will leave it at that because we are still working on those matters.

Fair enough. The development is very important; members of all parties have been pushing for it for years. It is a remarkable achievement, given the centralisation that tends to happen in the European Union.

My second point is also about fisheries. The minister referred to the annual circus at which TACs and quotas for fisheries are set. I had brief experience of the pre-Christmas shoot-out that happens every year when short-term political decisions tend to be made about what should be long-term scientific objectives for conservation of fish stocks. Are we making any headway towards a better longer-term management structure for decision making about fisheries? The regional advisory council will help with that and should have some input into the matter. However, there is a structural problem.

The council will assist greatly. Some of the other work that we are doing on powers of emergency conservation for nation states, relative stability and so on will help. I would prefer that you raised that matter with Ross Finnie because he is so much closer to those matters than I am in terms of that annual shoot-out, jamboree or whatever you call it. He is probably in a better position to report on that.

RACs allow a bit more sense into the system and also—with regard to the council that will be set up in Scotland—make it work better. However, I defer to Ross Finnie on the substantial part of the question.

We are making progress: it feels like progress and it looks like progress. What we have achieved to date is substantial, although there is more work to be done.

I pick up on John Home Robertson's point. The submission from Ross Finnie, which is among the papers that you have given to the committee, suggests that decisions on fisheries will be delayed because there is an enlarged EU. The situation in December is difficult in any case, but the minister is suggesting that it will be even more difficult because of the need for translation among the 25 members of the council of ministers. It would be helpful for us to know the Executive's endgame for fisheries management because your other document states that the regional advisory councils are seen as a step towards effective management. It would be good to know how you define effective management. I have time to take only one more question.

As you know minister, I always try to be fair and I do not expect you to answer my questions today, so perhaps you could take them back to the relevant ministers. There are two questions for the Minister for Education and Young People about the European dimension for education and the education funding programmes—the simplifying and merging of the existing Comenius, Leonardo, Erasmus and Grundtvig schemes—and the implications for language teaching and particularly the European white paper on youth. We want to encourage exchange between our young people and those from other European countries. The second point is about the Copenhagen and Bologna process to do with vocational education and uniform educational qualifications. I would like to be kept posted on that.

There are also two questions for the Minister for Health and Community Care. The first is about the working time directive, which has already had serious implications for the NHS. The recent SIMAP and Jaeger judgments are alluded to in the minister's report, but their impact is not; we need more information on that. The final issue is the sharing of best practice, to which the Minister for Health and Community Care alludes, but he does not mention the public health crisis with hepatitis C, the rate of which runs in Scotland at two or three times the rate in England and Wales. It is also quite prevalent in many of the countries that have just come into the EU from eastern Europe. We should consider a joint approach; hepatitis C is prevalent among intravenous drug users so we could learn from those new countries and they might be able to learn from us.

Those are detailed questions and I am happy to come back to the member on them. Should I reply through you, convener?

Yes, thank you.

We move on to the next set of questions about the Executive's European strategy.

Irene Oldfather referred to the majority report on structural funding that the committee prepared. On the Executive's stand, comment is made on structural funding in its strategy. Is the minister prepared to ignore this committee's majority report—a step I would applaud—and support the national Government's limit on EU gross national income contributions for European structural funds at 1 per cent?

We have supported the 1 per cent figure rather than the 1.4 per cent figure—if I remember the figures correctly. That is very serious money. The Dutch are asking whether we are using that money in the best way we can. Is it being used wisely and is it getting the value that we expect? We have supported that position and will continue to do so.

I welcome that statement.

I have another point about the constitution, which must form a major part of the Executive's thinking and strategy as we look to the future. In an earlier paper, you referred to the fact that 75 per cent of what we do in the Scottish Parliament is, in effect, controlled by Europe and European policy. What would that percentage be for the Scottish Parliament when or if we signed up to the constitution?

It would probably be the same, but I look to my officials. I do not know whether anyone has done any analysis, but my gut reaction is that the percentage would be the same. You used the word "controlled", but we have moved into a new Europe where nation states have much more control over the agenda, so we are not being controlled by Europe. We are part of Europe and we are in the driving seat. I do not think that that sort of emotive language helps people to understand the relationship that we now have with Europe.

But we—

Convener, if I can help—

I cannot have both of you speaking at once. Phil, would you like to finish your point?

On European control or otherwise, Irene Oldfather reiterated the point that the timescale for consultation between the European Commission, the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament is totally unrealistic, yet one of the major planks of the Executive's strategy for accepting the constitution is that it will give this Parliament a greater say in legislation in Europe. Given the difficulty that Irene Oldfather highlighted, do you feel that it will be of benefit to us?

I do, because it is a substantial step forward, but it is also our job to make it work. We can set deadlines at any point on the time horizon and they can be extended or even shortened, but there is a deadline and we need to work within it. We are trying to ensure that the whole legislative process in EU governance becomes much more manageable and much more influenced by the Scottish Executive and other regions with legislative powers. I think that it is a step forward.

I found it interesting to note which country was top for implementing EU regulations. It is not Belgium or the UK, but Norway, which is not a member of the EU but which nonetheless seeks to trade with the EU. The Norwegians have the best track record on implementation, but I have to say that the democratic deficit there is enormous, because they are implementing EU legislation over which they have no influence. I thought that that was quite interesting and it conveys the point that I am trying to make. We are part of the process and we need to make it work for Scotland and for the UK, instead of being outside the process, as other nations are, with no influence.

I will not go on to the regions with legislative power, because I know that we are coming to that later, but I would like to ask two things about the strategy. The first concerns the UK presidency in the second half of next year, from July to December. What role do you envisage the Scottish Executive, and even the Scottish Parliament, playing in that? My second point, which I have touched on before, concerns co-operation agreements. We have covered the issue and I do not want to go into it at length, but we have now got the network of regional parliamentary European committees—NORPEC—set up. There is to be a conference later this year and new members are being invited to that in addition to our committee and the equivalent committee from Catalonia. Are you thinking of those co-operation agreements mirroring the building up of NORPEC?

I shall ask my officials to respond in detail to that latter question—I am not sure that I can respond to it adequately. On the first question on the UK presidency, our objective at the moment is to start influencing the priorities for the presidency. We are doing that through discussions at ministerial level and official level. We are looking at justice, security, sustainability, global stability and making the enlarged union work, which will be a constant theme for the next period.

Were you talking about our links policy with regard to the partnerships that we are working with?

We shall, obviously, with enlargement have a presidency much less frequently, so I hope that there will be a prominent Scottish role. I am talking about the co-operation agreements, which we have touched on before. Wales does things differently. It is one of the motor regions, along with four or five others, whereas we tend to do bilaterals. Are you taking note of what we are doing with NORPEC and might the Executive mirror the relationships that we are building up with European committees in other regional Parliaments in Europe?

To close down a point on the UK presidency, we are obviously keen to ensure that Scotland plays a significant role during the presidency. With events such as the G8 summit coming to Scotland, I expect that we shall also see some significant European events coming here. Nineteen presidency events are scheduled to take place, 12 of which are definite and seven of which are provisional. We want to bring as many of them as we can to Scotland, but there are pressures from all over the UK for that to happen.

Please keep us posted on that.

Indeed. In terms of links policy, we have already developed four co-operation agreements. We are working on those and we continue to ensure that they are meaningful and that they deliver on our strategy. We are engaging with European partners to further develop that policy. We have had people in all the new EU accession states. We are having meaningful discussions on developing our co-operation and links strategy. As ministers, we have to reach conclusions on that soon, but we have received a number of requests from countries that want to be more involved with us. Likewise, we have our target nations. The work continues, and fairly soon I hope to report to the committee on the stage at which it is.

The questions are always these: what is our strategy? What key values underpin it? How will it deliver for Scotland? What is in it for us and the new partner? Officials and I are working on those testing criteria. What are the criteria for a links strategy? What policy do we need to secure? That may sound simple, but when we lay out that strategy and what we want to achieve from links, then consider where we want to be and who wants to be with us, we find that it is difficult because there are demands that we cannot meet because we must not spread ourselves too thin. If such things are going to work, they must go deep.

Do you think you are spread too thin?

I do not think that we are spread too thin at the moment—

We do not have a minister for Europe to mirror this committee. Gordon Jackson and Robin Cook have advocated that we should have a minister with exclusive responsibility for Europe and external relations. You have got so much to cover that you are spreading yourself too thin, are you not?

No—that is wrong. I do not agree with that analysis. My job is to ensure that every minister in the Scottish Executive knows what our strategy is and their role in it. My job is to sit at the centre and deliver the strategy, which I can do through every minister, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

I noticed some nonsense in the media at the start of the silly season when one week we were being criticised for junketing abroad and the next I was being criticised for not junketing abroad enough.

My job is to secure the strategy and to make every minister know their role within it, so that when a minister goes to another nation he or she does not go to do what they want to do, but to develop the European strategy, as well as other bilateral agreements. That is the role; that is why we have a European strategy, why we are developing our international strategy and why we are focusing on the issues.

Since first I sat in the chamber in 1999, people have lobbied ministers for many different things. I think that we have got it right. My role is a co-ordinating role, a driving role and a central role, but everybody and every minister has a role to play in promoting Scotland, in influencing legislation in favour of Scotland, and in ensuring that we do the best that we can at European level. That is one strategy. Another equally legitimate strategy is to argue for a separate minister. At the moment I do not share that view, because we are achieving our aims with the route that we have chosen.

Would you see it as being your responsibility to go to Brussels, for instance, and to speak to other member states about increasing the power of the Scottish Parliament to influence EU legislation? Do you agree that it is unusual, and perhaps unacceptable, that a Parliament that has primary legislative powers does not have a direct mechanism within the EU to influence legislation that it is asked directly to implement?

No. I argue that COR and Regleg fulfil that role. I do not want to move into that area, because we will discuss it in a minute, but that has arguably been the raison d'être of Regleg since it was formed. I do not think that there is a deficit or a gap. I do not agree with that analysis.

The previous First Minister argued that Scotland should have direct access to the European Court of Justice in order to enforce subsidiarity. Why did the current Executive change that policy? You do not support that any longer.

We felt that such a challenge would be available to us through the UK Government as appropriate, which will deliver for us if required.

The previous First Minister did not think that that was satisfactory.

Well, he is the previous First Minister.

In terms of prosecuting Scotland's case, since you have taken office Scotland has not led any meetings of the Council of Ministers, whereas previously it led three. What criteria do you use to decide when you should request to lead the Council of Ministers?

I think that people get lost in arguing on the head of a pin about that issue. I have spoken to ministers and have been part of delegations and I believe that we are getting our views across and influencing what is being said at the top table, which is the situation in which we want to be. The argument over who leads what is largely irrelevant as long as Scotland's policy objective is being pursued by whoever is leading the UK delegation.

As I said, I do not go to Europe with other ministers—some of the officials at this table might have done so—but I know that we get across our views about our policy objectives and that those views are translated into action at the top table. That is what we want to achieve. If and when we can lead a council of ministers, we will do so. However, as I have said before, what is important is what is said and what is delivered, not the route that is taken.

I have to say that I think that my colleagues on the Committee of the Regions would be horrified to hear the convener's remarks about nobody representing regions within Europe.

Earlier, the minister spoke about more framework legislation, which, I am sure, will be welcomed. I am confounded by why Phil Gallie seems to think that more framework legislation and an earlier input into the system mean that there will be an increase in bureaucracy and a decrease in democracy. I do not understand the logic of his position.

Does the minister have any concerns about resources in that regard? If more framework legislation is coming out of the European Commission, we will have to do more work in Scotland and the UK to put flesh on the bones. Will there be enough resources to allow us to do that? My question relates to the points that Keith Raffan made earlier.

It is difficult to answer that question specifically because we need to work the system. I am convinced that, if we get Scotland plc working as effectively as it should, by using all of the resources that we have at the UK, MEP, Executive and Scottish Parliament levels, and if we work towards our objectives with organisations that are able to work in partnership with us, we will have a critical mass that will be successful.

I want to see what happens. My perception is that we will be able to handle the work. If that proves not to be the case, we will have an issue to address within the Executive and I am certain that we would do so.

In paragraph 10(e) of your paper on the European strategy, you state:

"We will seek to prepare those CoR Opinions that help us to secure our EU policy objectives, and use our membership of CPMR to promote our interests."

How many Committee of the Regions opinions has Scotland authored either since 1999 or since you took office?

In terms of influence and participation, the First Minister's role in the Bundesrat seminar helped to shape the approach of the Committee of the Regions to the implementation of the subsidiarity mechanism, which helped to ensure that the approach suited our objectives. We also contributed to the drafting of the opinion by Dr Schausberger and Lord Tope on the constitutional treaty. Further, gaining contacts with the new member states through the Committee of the Regions is important for delivering the agenda that we pursue through Regleg, the Committee of the Regions, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and other organisations.

The key issue for me, in the meetings that I have with people who come to Scotland or whom I go to see, is to continue to set the tone of the debate around subsidiarity and the influence of regions with legislative power. That is the same for every minister in the Executive and we seek to do our best in that regard. Arguably, the success of our strategy is shown by the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference on the proposed treaty, in which subsidiarity and the role of Parliaments with legislative powers such as ours are significantly included in various sections. We have contributed to opinions, but we are also working to ensure that that agenda moves on.

As an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions, I know that the UK delegation to the committee has been criticised for having too many opinions. The UK delegation works together and there is certainly a strong Scottish input at UK delegation meetings.

That was a good advert. Thank you, Irene.

The minister's statement on the Dutch presidency mentions the Executive's international strategy, which, I presume, will dovetail into the European strategy. The statement says that the strategy will be published "shortly". What does that mean?

I am keen to publish it very shortly.

Will you come back to discuss the strategy with the committee, given that it will have some relevance to our current inquiry?

Yes. I hope that the strategy will be published before the recess.

Do you mean the October recess?

Absolutely.

A few months ago, you told the committee that the concordats between the Scottish Government and the UK Government were under consideration. How is that review going?

I will need to come back to the committee to give an accurate update on where we are with that review.

It would be helpful if you wrote to the committee on that.

Sure—sorry about that.