European and External Relations Committee, 14 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Official Report 300KB pdf

---

Regions with Legislative Power (Scottish Presidency)

The third agenda item, and the minister's final contribution to the meeting, concerns the Scottish Executive's presidency of the group of regions with legislative power, which is known as Regleg, and related activities to date. As the minister will know, the committee originally invited the First Minister to appear before us to hear from the horse's mouth the achievements to date, but we are delighted to have the minister with responsibility for external relations with us and we thank him for his recent response, which members will no doubt want to refer to. I understand that the minister wants to make a quick presentation.

I will do so very briefly, just to give some shape to the discussion. The committee has it from the horse's mouth because I am responsible for the Executive's external relations strategy, including the work that the First Minister does in his role in Regleg. I want to be absolutely clear about who should be coming to the committee. I am sure that the decision is correct because I handle the external relations portfolio on behalf of the Executive.

I will give a brief outline of what the key objectives were when the First Minister assumed the chair last November. I will then highlight the main achievements in the past nine months—in which the committee has a clear interest—before I describe the next steps, up to the fifth annual conference of minister-presidents, which is to be held in Edinburgh on 29 and 30 November, as I am sure members are aware.

I begin with the overarching aims of the Scottish presidency. First, the aim was to ensure that the European convention proposals on subsidiarity and the role of the regions were secured in the new EU constitutional treaty. That meant ensuring that there was no retrenchment and that gains were protected. Some nations wanted to remove the gains, but we ensured that that did not happen. We worked hard to prevent any shifts of competencies or procedures that might be harmful to Regleg or Scottish interests. That key objective was achieved. As we discussed earlier, the treaty contains important references to the role of the regions and to subsidiarity. It also contains proposals that reflect and support the enhanced role of the regions with legislative powers in Europe. The treaty also reinforces the importance of the principle of subsidiarity in European decision making. A crucial strand of Regleg's future work will be to continue to prepare and press hard for the effective implementation of the new provisions.

Secondly, Regleg has successfully represented the interests of the regions with legislative powers more generally, principally by arguing strongly for the full involvement of regions with legislative powers in the EU governance agenda, which we also discussed earlier. In particular, we seek effective dialogue with, and direct pre-legislative consultation by, the European Commission.

Finally, we are building on the effective work that Regleg has carried out on constitutional issues by developing its role further. We are keen to establish Regleg as a network for strategic co-ordination and a forum for the exchange of best practice. The co-ordination committee meets regularly with a remit set annually by the conference of minister-presidents and has been particularly effective in that regard. The annual conference of minister-presidents helps to strengthen Regleg as a network and a forum.

On milestones, we lobbied the European Commission for a consultation on governance issues. We have organised a number of Regleg events this year to raise the profile of legislative regions and to promote their interests. The First Minister gave a speech in Strasbourg in March to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe—CLRAE—on the priorities of the Scottish presidency of Regleg. In April, we held a very successful sub rosa—or Chatham House rules—seminar in Brussels on subsidiarity and the draft EU constitutional treaty. The event brought together senior officials and academics from Scotland and around Europe. Ideas from the seminar have been presented in a number of forums in Brussels.

In May, the First Minister gave a well-received speech to the European policy centre in Brussels, when he emphasised key messages about the need to involve the regions. The audience was drawn from across the EU's institutions. On the same visit, the First Minister represented Regleg in Brussels at the inaugural meeting of the systematic dialogue between the European Commission and associations of regional and local authorities. He welcomed the Commission's initiative in establishing the dialogue, and he emphasised that it was important that future meetings between commissioners and regional and local authorities should be a genuine two-way exchange of views. He repeated Regleg's calls for the Commission to consult the legislative regions directly at the pre-legislative stage.

Also in May, the First Minister represented Regleg at a conference in Berlin on subsidiarity, which was organised jointly by the Committee of the Regions' commission for constitutional affairs and European governance—COR-CONST—and the Bundesrat. He used his speech to emphasise the importance of putting in place arrangements for the new subsidiarity mechanisms that meet the needs of the legislative regions and allow the Committee of the Regions to respond quickly to new legislative proposals from the Commission. The Scottish Executive has lobbied the European Commission in other ways; for example, by writing to Mr Barroso to congratulate him on his confirmation as the new President of the European Commission. The First Minister used the opportunity to emphasise key Regleg messages and policy requirements.

The Executive's EU office will organise a further sub rosa seminar on 22 October, which will cover better regulation issues and will complement April's subsidiarity seminar. It will examine the use of the Commission's new consultation arrangements and how to ensure that the impact assessments on new legislative proposals are as useful as possible.

On next steps, my letter to the committee of 20 August outlined Regleg events proposed over the remainder of Scotland's presidency. The First Minister and I see our main priorities for the last three months of Scotland's presidency as follows: first, to raise awareness of Regleg and issues affecting the legislative regions among new members of the European Commission and the European Parliament; secondly, to plan for the implementation of the new constitutional treaty and, in particular, to ensure that we secure the right subsidiarity early-warning mechanism for the regions with legislative powers and take full advantage of the new provisions on consultation; thirdly, to work with the Committee of the Regions to ensure that any arrangements for handling subsidiarity that the Committee of the Regions puts in place meet the needs of the legislative regions—the subsidiarity early-warning mechanism is an important part of that work; and last, to continue to press for direct pre-legislative consultation for the legislative regions as a matter of course.

The First Minister will give a keynote political speech in Brussels on 9 November. His speech will publicise the main outcomes and messages from the discussion on EU governance that the Executive's Brussels office is organising on 22 October. He will use that speech to deliver key Regleg messages in the run-up to the Edinburgh conference. The First Minister will use his time in Brussels to engage with new MEPs and commissioners.

The fifth annual conference of minister-presidents, to be held in Edinburgh on 29 and 30 November, is a unique opportunity for Scotland to raise its profile further in an important European constitutional debate. The proceedings will focus on the EU constitutional treaty, subsidiarity and governance, and working with other organisations, notably the Committee of the Regions. We expect representatives from the European Commission, the European Parliament and the UK Government, and many others, to attend, as well as minister-presidents from legislative regions throughout Europe. I hope that members of this committee will be able to attend. The annual conference sees the formal handover of presidencies. I am pleased to inform the committee that Bavaria has been nominated for the next Regleg presidency. The Executive is delighted to support that nomination.

That is a quick run round where we have been and where we are going. I hope that it has been useful to the committee. I am happy to take questions.

The aims that you outline seem to be mainly constitutional matters rather than policy objectives. Similarly, the milestones do not seem to have any coherent policy objectives. You talked about the First Minister giving a speech and about a sub rosa conference or seminar, another speech, a dialogue, another conference, and then another sub rosa event. Those things do not seem to be directly concerned with delivering improvements for the people of Scotland or, indeed, the people of other regions who are represented on Regleg. Can you name some policy objectives in health, education, the environment, transport or any other devolved area and say, "This is what we are aiming to do in Regleg to improve things for the people of Scotland and other regions in Europe"?

With due respect, the member fundamentally misunderstands the role of Regleg, which is about the constitutional arrangements to involve nations with legislative powers. The work that we do, and the work that we seek to do, is about the process of constitutional arrangements in Europe, which, I argue, deliver on the particular issues that you raise, such as health and education. Regleg is about how we as a nation with our own legislature make Europe work better for us. That is the purpose and the drive of Regleg. Other forums deal with particular policy lines for the Executive. We try to achieve results by making Europe—the governance arrangements and the constitutional set-up—work better for us. I differ with you on the purpose of the organisation; its purpose is to do not what you mentioned, but what it is doing—securing the role of Regleg members at the heart of decision making, power and influence in Europe.

In your letter to the convener, you state that Regleg does not

"represent to the Commission the views of members on specific sectoral dossiers."

You say:

"Other organisations, such as the Committee of the Regions, exist for that purpose."

Surely the reason for setting up Regleg was the recognition that not all members of the Committee of the Regions are the same because some have legislative powers and some do not. Of course, it is probably more difficult to get a consensus in the Committee of the Regions because it has a bigger membership. If members of Regleg have a unanimous view on a specific sectoral dossier, why should not Regleg represent that view directly to the Commission?

You talk about the Committee of the Regions, but the people around that table who do not have legislative powers in their home states will do that through their Governments. That is where their influence over sectoral matters lies. The reason for having Regleg is to acknowledge the difference that exists in democratic accountability here in Scotland—it is different from in other nations. On what we want the Regleg nations to do, it is vive la différence, because our role in Europe is different from theirs. We need to recognise that difference and say, "We have got a Scottish Executive and a Scottish Parliament and we want you to work with us in a certain way that recognises the democratically accountable systems that we have." I argue that your question is based on a misunderstanding of what Regleg is about. It is not about specific sectoral issues but about the way in which Europe engages with countries, such as Scotland, that have a Parliament and an Executive.

Constitutional mechanisms and arrangements are not an end in themselves.

Absolutely not.

They are a means to bring about policy change and policy improvements.

To go back to what I said in response to your initial question, the policy improvement is the fact that when anything happens to do with bathing water, health or education here in Scotland, we have better governance and early warnings. If subsidiarity might be infringed, we can deal with matters through the United Kingdom Government. I argue that that improvement to the policy process improves the policy and has a front-line effect on European legislation.

That returns to our difference of opinion on Regleg's purpose. I think that Regleg should ensure that Europe works better with countries such as ours. On health, education, the environment, transport, jobs and growing the economy, our policy impact is better because we have prior notice, closer communication, early warnings and because, under the new structures, a third of nations can say, "Hold on." We can do that through the UK Government. Those are the benefits of Regleg and why it exists.

Will you confirm that Regleg never has discussed and never will discuss matters such as health, education, transport, fishing, the environment and all the other devolved subjects that we discuss in the Scottish Parliament?

Regleg has not discussed those subjects, because doing so is not its purpose. If its purpose changes, it may discuss them.

I regret that the First Minister has not come here to answer the questions that we have asked about Regleg over several months, especially as Regleg meetings are described as conferences of minister-presidents of regions with legislative power.

We are 10 months into our presidency and you have given us a list of activities that have been undertaken, but our profile has been subterranean. Few people outside the Parliament building have any idea that we have had the Regleg presidency, which gave us a major opportunity to be prominent on the European stage—I am a profound pro-European—and to advocate Europe's cause. That has not happened.

All that we are left with is a leaflet that you will supposedly publish about Regleg's objectives and work. You said that you would let us have that as soon as it was ready. It is a pity that the leaflet was not ready at the beginning of our presidency, and instead will be ready towards the end.

We are also left with the conference in November, which I seriously hope will be major. I am glad that all committee members and not just a committee representative, as your letter suggests, will be invited, because we must try to make the most of the last eight weeks of our presidency. We should let the Scottish people know that we have had the presidency, of which hardly any of them are aware.

Was that a question?

It was a comment.

I say with due respect to the member that some people out there might not know that the committee exists. It is a matter of battering through the fact that we gained the presidency, as we do on every occasion and as the First Minister has done in every major speech. In the lead-up to his gaining the presidency, we worked assiduously through press releases, Parliament, the First Minister's speeches and responses to questions in the chamber to put Regleg on the agenda. The big event will be the conference, and work continues for that. I sincerely hope that the conference will be a big event whose role is recognised.

Perhaps I can send the member information on the number of press releases that we have issued and the activity that we have undertaken to put Regleg on the agenda. We are fighting for space with other items on the political agenda and sometimes the subject is not reported. However, members can rest assured that there was no policy intent to keep the profile of the presidency subterranean. In his speeches, the events in which he is involved, the people whom he entertains and tries to influence, and the letters that he writes, the First Minister always puts the matter at the forefront, but we cannot control the agenda. Every interested organisation should know that the First Minister has the presidency. If any organisation does not know, it soon will, because of the big conference that we will hold in Edinburgh.

I would like many Executive activities to have more coverage and I am sure that committee members want more coverage for the stuff that they do, but obtaining that is a difficult task. However, we have gained as much as we can from the presidency so far and we want to gain more.

I will pinpoint two questions. The First Minister played up the presidency as a major post that he held for Scotland.

What you say contradicts the previous questioner. You say that the First Minister played up the presidency as a major post. That is what he tried to do; the profile was not subterranean.

That was when he was first given the post.

So that we can understand the objectives that were achieved, will you explain what new provisions that were not previously agreed by the convention on the future of Europe back in 2002 now exist in Europe because the post came to Scotland?

As I have tried to say—and I hope that members will understand—a process has to be gone through for European issues. These are not overnight events. Our role in Regleg was over a committed period and a major success was that we did not lose anything, when the Spanish were out to say, "We do not want this." In negotiations, we were supporting our position and they were trying to take away from our position. Regleg and the First Minister played a key role in ensuring that we did not lose any ground on greater involvement. I am sure that the committee would support that. People say things in meetings that are reported but there is no done deal. It is when negotiations occur that you need to bolster your support. I would argue that Regleg played a critical role in ensuring that our position was held.

On governance issues, consultation and impact assessment, we are influencing the Europe-wide agenda through the Dutch presidency. We do not stop and start—the Irish presidency reflected the previous presidency, the Dutch presidency reflects the Irish presidency, and future other presidencies will reflect previous ones. Things do not change overnight, but through the First Minister's role, we have seen a sustained agenda on subsidiarity and the role of regions with legislative power. I cannot say that it was dark one day and light the next, but I can say that many of the underpinning policy objectives of Regleg have been achieved.

We still want to do more. That is why we speak at conferences, go to meetings of COR-CONST, have major speeches, and have sub rosa meetings. All that work influences what happens, but things do not happen overnight.

Regleg is for bodies with legislative powers. As a result of Regleg, do any such bodies have new powers that bodies without legislative powers do not have?

I imagine that pre-legislative work comes into that, but perhaps Nikki Brown can answer your question.

Treaty provisions on subsidiarity mechanisms will involve regional Parliaments with legislative powers, whereas regions without Parliaments with legislative powers, by definition, will not be involved.

Do those provisions not cover local authorities as well?

It depends how member states implement the subsidiarity mechanism. In the UK, we expect that the UK Parliament will consult the regional Administrations; the UK Government has said that that is what it expects will happen. It has not mentioned going out to consult all the local authorities as well.

It is still difficult to pinpoint whether all that is a result of Regleg.

With due respect, how can you pinpoint anything to do with policy development? I cannot; I think that it is an impossible task. Ideas on policy delivery, implementation and influence are all very difficult to pinpoint, as we should know, as politicians. Nonetheless, I would say that there has been sustained activity around subsidiarity, governance and the way in which Parliaments such as our own are involved in Europe. We have had great successes and should not forget that.

I sympathise with the minister over the unwarranted attack by Keith Raffan on publicity for Regleg.

Supported by a Tory! That must make you uncomfortable, minister.

l suggest that, because of public perceptions of Europe, the minister will have some difficulty with achieving publicity.

When he spoke about Regleg's involvements, he said that its principal consideration at present was signing up to the constitution for Europe. It is far from certain that that will be accepted. I would have thought that one of the jobs that Regleg could be doing would be to consider the implications if people across Europe were to reject the constitution. Is Regleg considering alternatives?

The answer to that is no. Risk assessment might be worth discussing—in the European debate, different nations have different ideas and we will play our own role—but unless other organisations in Europe are doing it, I am not sure that such work is going on.

A number of things that would be very useful for regional Governments and Parliaments can be done without the constitutional treaty. They include improved standards of consultation. The Commission has already brought forward proposals on minimum standards for consultation and we are keeping up the pressure to improve those minimum standards and to improve direct consultation. That does not need treaty change; it is something that we would be doing anyway and it makes sense to continue to press for it in parallel with work to plan for the treaty's implementation.

So the proportion of time that is devoted to implementation of the constitution is relatively small for Regleg.

All the work is important. It would make sense for Regleg to examine what the treaty will do if it is ratified and implemented and for it to determine how best to plan for implementation. We should also consider what we can do in advance of or instead of the implementation of the treaty—if that is what it comes to.

I would like a little bit more information in relation to some points made by Dennis Canavan. How do Regleg, CLRAE, the Committee of the Regions and NORPEC all work together? What advantage comes from having all the various organisations?

That goes back to my earlier points about the critical mass required to make policy shift and change. The First Minister has worked with those different organisations, as have other ministers. In relation to how Europe structures itself, the issue is about trying to create a critical mass for change around governance and subsidiarity issues concerning Parliaments such as ours. It is difficult and unrealistic to say what, specifically, the achievements are—people can translate and take ownership of achievements in different ways. The different organisations create a critical weight, which allows change to take place. CLRAE, COR and Regleg have combined to make a credible argument. If a major nation state such as Spain says that it wants to undo the arrangements, they will not be undone, because of the different forces at play.

I return to an earlier point: we cannot trace any policy or governance arrangement back to a particular event. However, there is a process of osmosis and support; there are external organisations, internal organisations and different influences at play. They all come to a critical mass and that makes change happen. I think that Regleg is one of the organisations that make critical change occur.

I would like to finish this part of the meeting in about three minutes' time.

I suppose that this could be taken as an example of what I would call alphabet soup syndrome. There is undeniably a plethora of organisations—with strange names—in and around the European Union, all with worthy objectives. Members of Opposition parties have been trying to make out that Regleg is just another one of those organisations, which is not going to do anything. It is important to emphasise that Regleg is something very different. It involves major regions with major powers from around Europe, which are determined to have their say.

It is a good thing that the Scottish Executive has played the lead in the early stages. What relationships have been struck up with specific major regions in other parts of Europe? Have we struck up particularly good relationships with people in Italy, Spain and Germany, which are likely to be valuable for Scotland in the future?

I believe that this is the premier league of European sub-national Governments, as I think the phrase goes. There are countries that have their own arrangements, such as Scotland. Arguably, we are on a different level from other parts of that alphabet soup, as Mr Home Robertson described it, and that should be recognised. If we consider those countries with whom we have co-operation agreements, that provides an indicator of where our engagement has increased at certain levels. Relations with Bavaria and other nations will continue to develop. Regleg separates those nations out, because of the unique, positive fact that they have their own legislative powers. I would argue that we are talking about the premier league of sub-nation states in Europe.

I agree absolutely with what the minister says. Like the First Minister, he seems to be in a no-win situation. If he participates in those organisations he is criticised and if he does not he is criticised. It seems that many of the big players that the minister has been talking about, who are pivotal in Regleg, are also advancing the policy case within COR. It has been helpful to have the First Minister in both organisations working with his colleagues who are leading other legislative Parliaments.

Minister, do you feel that the sharing of good practice in relation to proximity to citizens and how we go about consulting citizens is worthy of some discussion at those meetings? Do you think that the networking that Regleg allows for—in particular, promoting Scotland to key players throughout Europe, as we hope to do in November—is of benefit to Scotland? It is difficult to put a price tag on such things, but they bring real and tangible benefits to both Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.

I share that view. You are absolutely correct about the articles and protocols on subsidiarity and about the nations with similar legislative organisation and bodies to ours. We can play a significant role in the governance debate; the committee can also play that role at the Edinburgh conference. We want positively to engage with the committee to ensure that our shared views come across in those discussions.

If Regleg did not exist, we would have to invent it. The organisation exists for a purpose; it is different from other organisations and it has more shove behind it because of its democratic accountability. We should be proud of what we have done with it and of where it is going.

Let us at least hope that we can go out with a bang at the November conference. What do you see as the theme of that conference? In your response to the committee's letter, you state:

"Representatives of certain other legislative regions from around the world are also likely to attend as observers."

Does that mean that an invitation has been extended to members of the National Conference of State Legislatures in the United States and to legislative regions in the Commonwealth? It is important that they are invited.

That has not yet been considered, but I will look into the matter because you have raised it. It is an interesting concept. The focus will be on the treaty, on governance and subsidiarity.

You state in the response:

"Representatives of certain other legislative regions from around the world are also likely to attend as observers."

That would be a good thing.

We have not yet decided where representatives will come from or how to select them, which is a difficult question.

It is getting late.

I take your point.

Thank you, minister. We will let you go now, but I have no doubt that we will return to those issues in due course and we will continue to monitor closely the final two months of the First Minister's tenure as president of Regleg.

As members do not wish to raise further related points, I will suspend the meeting for five minutes for a comfort break.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We can now kick off the final part of the meeting.

On a point of order, convener. I am concerned about the fact that some members of the committee received advance copies of the minister's statement on Regleg. It is quite inappropriate that copies of a statement that he was giving to this committee were made available to only some members. The minister should either deliver his statement and not give any members a copy or make copies available to all members.

That is certainly a matter of serious concern. Do members want to comment on that? No? Then I suggest that I make inquiries with the minister and let the committee know the outcome.

We should ask the clerk to communicate with the minister's officials. The situation is completely wrong and should not have happened.

It would certainly be inappropriate if certain members of a committee were briefed beforehand on a minister's statement. I will look into the matter.

Can we clarify which members received an advance copy?

I cannot answer that question.

I understand that certain members had advance copies of the minister's statement and I would like the clerks to look into the matter and report back to us at the next meeting.

I will look into the point that Mr Raffan raises and let the rest of the committee know the outcome.