Scottish Government's European Policies
Item 3 is evidence from the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, Linda Fabiani, on the Scottish Government's European policies and priorities. I apologise to the minister for keeping her waiting. She is joined by Lynne Vallance, who is head of the EU strategy and co-ordination branch in the Government's Europe division. I welcome the minister and Miss Vallance to the meeting.
Members have in front of them a copy of the Scottish Government's EU priorities, which the minister will address before taking questions. She has 10 minutes for her opening statement.
Will you cut me off if I have not finished by then, convener?
Absolutely not. I may cut Alex Neil off, but I will not do that to you, minister.
Thank you.
Thank you for inviting me to present the Scottish Government's current EU priorities and to outline our future intentions on European policy. When I appeared before the committee in June, I spoke of my desire to work closely with the committee on EU affairs, as we all share the same goal of raising Scotland's voice in Europe. Given that that remains my intention, I was keen to come to the committee today to set out our EU priorities. I am also keen to seek the committee's views on those priorities before I present them to the joint ministerial committee on Europe at its meeting on 2 October. I will return to that later.
I will start by setting out in some detail the thinking behind the approach that the Government intends to take on EU matters. The EU is important to the Government and to Scotland, as many of the decisions that are taken in Brussels have an impact on many areas of Scottish life—on the economy, the environment and agriculture, to name but a few. The EU also provides us with considerable trade, tourism and cultural opportunities that we can use to our advantage.
The Government is determined to raise Scotland's voice in Europe. Indeed, that was one of our manifesto commitments. To do so, we need to be engaged with all the relevant players: the key EU institutions, the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and other member states. At the same time, we need to monitor closely all policy developments and on-going negotiations in Brussels and to consider their potential impact on Scottish interests.
The Government's approach to the EU falls into two separate categories: the current EU issues on which the Government needs to take action and the Government's approach to the EU over the medium to longer term. In the first category are the EU legislative proposals that are being discussed in Brussels at the moment and which are likely to have the greatest impact on Scottish interests in the not too distant future. The document in front of members has a table of 21 EU issues that will now be known as the Scottish Government's current EU priorities. We believe that Scottish efforts should be focused on those priorities, as they are the most important EU proposals and cover a wide range of policy areas. As members will note from the format of the table, all 21 issues combine to make a contribution to our five strategic objectives.
As negotiations unfold, it is vital that Scotland's voice on each of the 21 priorities is heard loud and clear in London and Brussels. Ministers and officials will therefore work closely with the UK Government as an equal, vocal and constructive partner to ensure that Scottish interests are reflected in the UK negotiating line. We will also use our relationships with key EU institutions and other member states to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented in Brussels at the earliest possible opportunity in negotiations.
Identifying the 21 priorities involved considerable discussion within the Government, but I would welcome members' views on them and on any other issues that members believe we have missed. I am happy to consider additions to the table before I present it to ministers of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations at the JMCE meeting on 2 October.
Although the Government intends to revise the list formally on a six-monthly basis, I am prepared to be flexible and, should an EU issue suddenly arise that merits immediate Scottish attention, I am more than happy to consider adding it to our table immediately, rather than awaiting the six-monthly revision. The key point is to protect Scottish interests in Europe. My ultimate goal is to finalise a table of priorities that all the key players with an interest in Europe agree. I hope that those key players will use any opportunity to raise Scotland's voice on any of the priorities.
As well as our current EU priorities, we have identified a list of key EU political objectives—crucial political issues that the Government will pursue within the EU framework. Those are fisheries and aquaculture; EU treaty reform; the EU budget review; justice and home affairs; EU energy policy; and agriculture. We have aims in each of those six areas, which we will pursue with the EU institutions, the UK Government and other member states to ensure that Scotland gets the best possible deal. The key political objectives will be revised every six months.
Some of our objectives are more pressing in timescale than others, depending on developments in Brussels. The EU reform treaty is my immediate priority—the intergovernmental conference negotiations are taking place as I speak. It is an important issue for the Government and I am looking forward to discussing it in detail in tomorrow's plenary debate.
Another issue of priority to the Government is EU fisheries policy. We have set out our manifesto commitment to take the UK lead in the EU fisheries negotiations and my colleague Richard Lochhead has already raised the issue formally with the UK Government. I also intend to raise the matter at the JMCE meeting to ensure that other Whitehall departments are aware of our request. However, action is needed at not only UK but EU level and Scottish ministers will be inputting our views into both the IGC negotiations and discussions on the reform of the common fisheries policy, with a view to returning competence over conservation of marine resources to coastal states.
I turn to the Government's longer-term intentions in relation to the EU. We intend to consult on and publish a European strategy document in the coming months, which will set out our detailed priorities for EU and bilateral European business over our term in government. I envisage an important role for the European and External Relations Committee in contributing views on the development of the strategy document, as well as important roles for other key stakeholders. Discussion around the proposed strategy will be timed to coincide with the national conversation, which is due to be launched formally later this year. I see strong links between the two issues and I hope that the committee will pay particular attention to the EU aspects of the discussion in its work on the independence white paper.
I draw to the committee's attention the internal reforms that I am making to the way in which the Government handles its EU obligations. It is all very well ensuring that we are fully engaged in the development and negotiation of EU legislative proposals, but equally important is the way in which we implement them in national law. Our manifesto set out a number of commitments in this area. With advice from my officials and having read the previous committee's report on the scrutiny of legislation, I am considering ways in which we can improve our transposition processes to ensure that the legislation that we transpose accommodates Scottish-specific interests and does not impose unnecessary burdens on our businesses.
I apologise for the delay in providing the committee with the explanatory summary page to accompany our detailed paper of EU priorities. The difficulties surrounding the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth down south led to delays in the paper being finalised by ministerial colleagues. I am sure that the committee will accept my apology and appreciate the unforeseen situation on which some of my colleagues are having to focus their attention at the moment to ensure minimum possible disruption to the farming industry.
I am happy to take any questions or hear members' comments. I am restricted in the extent to which I can talk in detail about each of the current EU priorities, given that many of them fall to my ministerial colleagues. However, I am more than happy to pass on detailed questions on specific issues to the relevant cabinet secretary.
Thank you. Your apology on behalf of your colleagues is appreciated.
I have three questions. First, I want to ask about the First Minister's first trip to Brussels. In our earlier session this morning, Catherine Stihler MEP said that she had had to apologise to the EU fisheries commissioner on behalf of the First Minister, whom she accused of treating the commissioner as a political football. That seems a pretty ridiculous accusation. As the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, you should have the opportunity to respond to that allegation.
Secondly, I want to ask about our representation in Europe in the devolved setting. When we visited Europe last week, it was clear that one of the most influential stages in decision making is the Committee of Permanent Representatives. I understand that we have no observer status at that committee's meetings. Is that something that the Government will consider?
My final question is on the treaty. I understand that the Government—perhaps also the previous Executive—has made assessments in some policy areas of the potential impact of current drafts of the treaty on aspects of Scottish life. I am especially interested in marine policy. Ian Hudghton expressed concern over the provisions in the draft treaty on marine policy. I am also interested in energy, and there are other areas to consider. Will the Government consider making its impact assessments available to the committee in the run-up to the final negotiations on the treaty?
I accompanied the First Minister on his visit to Brussels. I do not think that he needs anybody to apologise on his behalf to anybody. The First Minister met four commissioners in Brussels: Commissioner Borg, on fisheries; Commissioner Mandelson, on trade; Commissioner McCreevy, on internal markets; and Commissioner Grybauskaite, on the budget. Commissioner Borg came to Aberdeen in June. Because the First Minister was unable to meet him then, the commissioner was happy to meet the First Minister in July. Indeed, he stated that he was keen to do so. As far as I am concerned, and as far as the First Minister is concerned, that was an entirely constructive meeting, and the invitation is there for such a meeting to happen again.
There have been no complaints from any of the commissioners.
No. Absolutely not.
Do you want to move on to the other questions that were posed?
Sure. On our representation in the EU, our Brussels office is working closely with the UK perm rep. We are well aware of what happens at those meetings, although we do not have official observer status. That is not to say that we will not look at that in the future.
Both ministers and officials are working to ensure that the UK Government's approach to the IGC takes account of all Scottish interests. There will be a debate on the European treaty in Parliament tomorrow. There are issues regarding the treaty on which we are in agreement with the UK Government, including some of the justice and home affairs matters that Gil Paterson asked a question about in the chamber last week, which I detailed then. Scotland's competence over its marine environment has always been a red-line issue for the Scottish National Party, and it is no different now that we are in government. I will emphasise that when I attend the JMCE. We are awaiting the final text of the treaty before we make any final decision on our part in it.
I am happy to pass on your question about impact assessments to the cabinet secretaries.
I have two questions, one on fisheries and one on aquaculture. Nobody on the committee has expressed more concern than I have about the CFP and its effects on Scottish fishermen. Nevertheless, is it realistic to expect a Scottish minister to lead the UK delegation on fisheries? I accept that two thirds of the UK's fisheries are in Scottish waters, but there are also strong fisheries interests in the west country, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. How realistic is it to expect a Scottish minister to lead the whole UK team, given the diverse nature of our fisheries and the fact that it is highly unlikely that the English and Northern Irish would be happy with that situation?
My second question is about aquaculture. As you know, the Council adopted a regulation to prevent the Norwegians from dumping salmon. As you also know, five countries—Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Poland and Spain—want to suspend anti-dumping regulations. How strong a part will you play in defending Scottish salmon interests against attempts to get rid of the regulations?
It is true that we have issues with the common fisheries policy, but we are clear that we want member states to have their own jurisdiction over it.
There is no reason why our minister should not lead UK fisheries negotiations. Scotland has more of an interest in fisheries than any other part of the UK—that is beyond doubt and nobody argues with it. There have been other times when Scottish ministers have led in Council meetings. For instance, the Lord Advocate often leads and I understand that the former Minister for Justice led at one Council meeting, as did the former Minister for Education and Young People. I think that there have been other instances, too. There is no reason whatsoever why our cabinet secretary cannot be the lead minister in fisheries negotiations and work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and everyone else to agree a UK position.
Even though Scotland's interests might differ from those of Northern Ireland and the west country? Would the cabinet secretary hold the jackets if different areas all had separate interests?
We work increasingly closely with the devolved Administrations. However, I am not convinced that those who currently lead for us in such negotiations have our best interests at heart. The arrangement works both ways.
As regards anti-dumping procedures against the Norwegian farmed salmon industry, it is essential that those measures are kept in place because we need to allow our industry to develop in a stable financial climate. Over time, we will continue to refine the strategic framework for Scottish aquaculture so that we can ensure the sustainability of the industry. Currently, there is a minimum import price in place, which is undergoing an interim review. The World Trade Organization is investigating the application of the anti-dumping measures. We are totally supportive of our industry in Scotland and we will maintain our position as part of the UK negotiations.
It is rather curious that you should be asked why it is inappropriate for a Scottish minister to lead negotiations in Europe and then be asked why we are not doing enough about salmon dumping, which I would have thought was a peculiarly Scottish concern.
I have two questions that you might not be able to answer today because they are specific, but perhaps you will take them to your ministerial colleagues. One of the papers submitted to the committee refers to the upcoming health check on the common agricultural policy that is due to be completed next year. One of the proposals is to cap the subsidy levels at both the higher and lower ends of the scale.
Although we always knew that certain farm businesses received large subsidies, we did not know their identity. You might have seen in the newspapers last week that the recipients have been revealed under freedom of information legislation. Certain businesses are receiving huge sums, many in excess of £1 million. There is a case to be made for a cap on the subsidy levels that businesses receive, certainly at the high end of the scale. Subsidies of £1 million or £3 million to particular estates do not do much to sustain ordinary small farms or even larger farms that are trying to make their business more efficient. It might be sensible to redistribute the money in a more equitable manner.
My second question is about transport. It is key to the development of the internal market that all parts of the community have good transport links. We have a particular and on-going problem in Scotland because the transport budget is somewhat limited. The Opposition parties insisted that we spend some money on the Edinburgh tram system, which I do not think will benefit greatly my constituents in the South of Scotland.
However, there is nothing in the minister's papers on what contribution Europe can make, if any, to developing transport links. I wonder whether we should consider that. For instance, the A75 linking Northern Ireland to Carlisle is a Euroroute, but I am not aware of any European funding ever having been obtained for it; developments on the west coast rail link, although great for passengers, will probably squeeze out freight capacity; and Eurostar trains ordered for regional and Scottish links to the Channel tunnel not only have not been used but have now been leased to the French nationalised railway and are running in France. In all sorts of transport issues, there could be strong EU involvement.
I will refer Mr Morgan's points on the information on farm subsidies that was published at the weekend to the appropriate cabinet secretary, who will decide whether he wishes to take a view.
An options paper on the CAP health check is expected to be published for consultation in November. Obviously, we will make representations. We will aim to ensure that, in negotiations on the CAP, full account is taken of any Scottish interests. Alasdair Morgan's question about capping the CAP is, of course, one for the cabinet secretary.
From what we have been told, initial reforms in the health check will focus on how well existing measures have been working since the 2003 reforms. There will be an opportunity for simplification. I understand that the European Commission is already discussing possible improvements to cross-compliance. Of course, we will welcome any further measures that help to cut needless red tape. We have to build on the good work that was done in the 2003 reforms. We will continue to work in partnership with key stakeholders to ensure the long-term viability of farming in Scotland.
A green paper on urban transport is forthcoming, so that might be included in our next set of priorities. It is too early to be able take a view, but officials in the Brussels office will keep us up to date.
Before I invite other questions, I will just say that, in previous discussions, we were conscious of the short timescale for the presentation of the Government's EU priorities to the committee and for the forthcoming JMCE. However, we had an agreement with you, minister, and with your officials, that you would be able to answer questions on the detail of each of the current priorities. I therefore have to record my disappointment, for the benefit of the committee, that a lot of information will be passed back to portfolio holders. This is an opportunity missed for the committee to engage meaningfully—as you want us to do—in agreeing joint priorities. I do not know whether it can be considered in the future, but what has happened today is certainly not my understanding of what was going to happen.
At the previous meeting at which she addressed us, the minister said clearly that standing up for Scotland was top of her agenda. She has also set out clearly today the importance of the EU to Scotland—she mentioned trade, tourism and cultural opportunities. Of course, the European institute of technology is also in the dossiers. I want the position in relation to the common fisheries policy to be clear, as the minister has said that it is a red-line issue. If there is no change in the wording of the treaty, will the SNP seek to withdraw from the common fisheries policy or from Europe? What exactly will the position be?
I will first respond to what the convener said. Everyone could understand that timescales were always going to be difficult for us the first time we came forward with our EU priorities. Those priorities have to go through the Cabinet and through all the different ministers whose portfolios are affected. It is not I who set the timescale for the JMCE meetings. I had to work to those timescales and we tried very hard to get information to the committee on time.
I pledge that any detailed questions that committee members come up with today will be quickly passed on to cabinet secretaries and ministers for response. If there is agreement on those questions, the issues could be considered for further discussion prior to the JMCE.
I appreciate that. It was because of the very tight timescale that we sympathised with the minister's position, but we were clear that, at this committee meeting, we wanted to hear detailed responses to detailed questions, rather than hearing that those questions would be referred back to cabinet secretaries. I am sure that we can sort that out in the future, but I have to express the committee's disappointment.
I am disappointed that you are disappointed, convener.
Good.
Back to Ms Oldfather—
Alasdair Morgan's question was about new policy that has not even been discussed. Asking the minister to outline on the Cabinet's behalf an entirely new policy on capping agricultural grants would be unfair.
I am grateful for the deputy convener's support, but I was referring to the minister's comments, rather than to Alasdair Morgan's question. Not even I would be so unkind to the minister.
Irene Oldfather posed a question of substance, which I leave the minister to deal with.
The question was about our position on fisheries and the red-line issue. When the proposed constitution was discussed, our position was always that we would call for a referendum on the constitution if the fisheries issue was not addressed to our satisfaction. That position has not changed. However, we cannot possibly state our position clearly until we have seen the text that will come back from the IGC. An awful lot is in the document. Once we have the final version, we will make our view plain.
The European Council has said clearly that the substance of what is proposed will not change. If the substance does not change and marine biological conservation remains an exclusive right while the common fisheries policy is a shared competence, what will be your position?
Our position has not changed. The Government's red-line issue is the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources in the common fisheries policy. None of us knows what will be in the final text that goes from the intergovernmental conference to the Council of Ministers in December. Once we see that, we will make plain our position—
You refer to a "red-line issue". What does that mean?
Let the minister finish before asking another question.
The phrase means the same thing as it did before. We would call for a referendum on the treaty.
So you are not calling for a referendum now.
We have not seen the final text.
So at this point in time, the SNP's position is not to have a referendum on the treaty.
We have to wait and see what the text is. We have made it clear that our position has not changed: if competence over marine resources does not change, we will wish to have a referendum. However, until we see the final text, we do not know what will be in the treaty.
Is it fair to say that there is a difference between the SNP's position and the Government's position?
Exactly.
Okay. That is now on the record. That is interesting.
I have one further related point. Marine biological conservation is an exclusive competence in the draft treaty. Is the minister seeking clarification of what that means or seeking removal of that as an exclusive competence?
I will try to respond to what I think you are saying. The common fisheries policy has huge shortcomings for Scotland—we are all aware of that. Pulling away from that policy would lead to much-improved management of Scottish fisheries, better prospects for fishermen and fishing communities and a general improvement in the environment around Scotland.
We do not yet have the final text of the treaty from the IGC. If the treaty retains that exclusive competence, an opportunity will have been missed to move away from the regulation by which the European Union pursues its common fisheries policy. Our position would be that we could not support a treaty that entrenched that EU competence over fisheries.
There are shared competences and exclusive competences. The draft treaty says that marine biological conservation is an exclusive competence. The common fisheries policy, other than marine biological conservation, is a shared competence. Are you seeking clarification of what marine biological conservation means or are you seeking removal of that as an exclusive competence?
We will always look to Scotland's best interests. Scotland's best interests would be served by Scotland's having competence over all those issues. We are negotiating with the UK and we await the text from the IGC. When we see that final text, we will make our position clear.
Okay. We have had a fair run at that.
I will move on to another issue. The better regulation agenda is a priority for the Government. I am interested to see how the council of economic advisers and the national economic forum, which would sit below it, fit into the policy developments on better regulation. Will they have any input?
Before the election it was an SNP priority to look at regulations on a one in, one out basis. Will you address that in Government? I am also interested in hearing how the European strategy document that you are developing will dovetail with the Government's work on the national conversation: there will be, if you like, an international conversation. How will those processes come together? Will they mirror each other? Are they the same process or part of the same process? Will there be similar outcomes?
I will start by addressing better regulation. We welcome the latest developments on better regulation, which is vital if we are to compete effectively in the global economy. I understand that the current state of play is that the Portuguese presidency is pushing ahead with the simplification, codification and withdrawal of pending proposals and the reduction of administrative burdens. As we discussed previously, it was agreed at the European Council meeting in March to cut red tape by 25 per cent within five years.
We are committed to reducing the burdens on business, charities and the voluntary sector that arise from European Union directives and regulations. That means ensuring that there is no gold plating and no unnecessary introduction of unhelpful EU regulations. It also means involving Scottish businesses at a very early stage in formulation and reviews, and liaising closely with them on the transposition of EU regulations that are already in progress.
I think that John Park referred to the industry-led regulatory review group, which advises us on all aspects of better regulation. It is not convinced that an administrative burden measurement exercise, such as the one adopted in Europe, is either suitable or appropriate in Scotland. It has doubts about the effectiveness and reliability of such an exercise. Nevertheless, we will keep under close scrutiny the issue of how we properly measure the costs and benefits of regulation.
As far as one in, one out and the transposition of directives is concerned, I am currently discussing with Lynne Vallance and other officials the best way in which to reform those internal procedures. I want to get more substantive information about our proposals to the committee at a later date. The Government's response to the previous session's "Report on an inquiry into the scrutiny of European legislation" marks the beginning of a dialogue between the Government and the committee and I am keen to ensure that we work together on the issue. I think that there is consensus in the Government and the committee that we should improve our transposition systems. I will come back to the committee with detailed proposals.
The council of economic advisers was set up to advise the Government on economic matters and to create an environment that would help business and the economy to prosper. Do you see any role for it?
Sorry, I thought that you were talking about the regulatory review group. I did not pick up that you were talking about the wider issue of the economic advisers. Their remit is under discussion with the First Minister. Should better regulation be part of its remit, I will let you know.
I will take the minister back to the fisheries issue. Has the Government been in dialogue with the Northern Ireland devolved Government and fishing communities in the south of England about the possibility of a Scottish minister leading the United Kingdom team on fisheries? If that is the case, what has been the outcome of those discussions? What do other communities think of that possibility? Do they support it or oppose it?
I have had one full meeting with our Northern Ireland counterparts, which was prior to the last JMCE that I went to. I will meet them again, prior to the upcoming JMCE, and I hope that our Welsh colleagues will be able to attend, too.
It is clear that we all have common interests. The discussions are in their early days, but I have not picked up that the other devolved Administrations have any worries about a Scottish minister leading the fisheries negotiations. As I said, Richard Lochhead, as Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, has already written to the UK Government about that and discussed it with the relevant minister at the time, who I think was Mr Miliband—of course, that has now changed.
I have a question about the EU's energy policy, from which any reference to nuclear power is absent. How does that interface with the Government's strategy and our discussions on the matter in general? Nuclear power does not seem to be mentioned in any European energy policy. What does the Government have to say about that?
The energy policy for Europe is clear in not taking a position on nuclear power—it leaves that entirely to member states. This Government's position on nuclear power is quite plain and has been—and, I am sure, will continue to be—debated by the Parliament on many occasions.
I have a question to tack on to that. Why does the minister think that the European energy policy—which I think will become an exclusive competence—does not take account of nuclear power?
The minister has stressed that the Scottish Government considers all the changes in Europe from the point of view of their impact on Scotland's interests. How many of the 59 new areas that will be subject to qualified majority voting have been assessed, analysed and reported on as regards their impact on Scotland and Scottish policy making?
The minister said that marine biology was a red-line issue, of which I had been unaware. I congratulate her Government on threatening to do a Norway if it does not manage to get that fixed. On red lines in general, is she satisfied that Her Majesty's Government can protect vital British interests with the red lines that former Prime Minister Blair said he had drawn, given that Margot Wallström, vice-president of the European Commission, said:
"Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter … The Charter will be binding for the European institutions, and also for member states when they implement EU law"?
In other words, she opined that the red lines do not amount to a row of beans. Does the minister agree?
I will deal with your question about energy first. We welcomed the energy policy for Europe. It is currently with member states in the Commission, as thinking is developed on how to achieve the targets that have been set. As a country with huge potential renewable energy resources and opportunities for carbon storage, Scotland is well placed to contribute to that agenda. The Commission programmes will create genuine opportunities for us to seek additional funding and partnerships with other member states in relation to offshore grids, carbon storage and renewable energy. In July, the First Minister had a constructive discussion with the appropriate commissioner, Commissioner Piebalgs, who supports European carbon sequestration projects. I repeat that the energy policy for Europe takes no position on nuclear power and leaves the matter entirely to member states to decide on.
In regard to the 59 areas that will be subject to QMV, we track everything that comes in. That will inform future decisions on what the Government deems to be its priorities and what we put before the committee.
Are you unconcerned about any of those issues just now?
They are all being tracked and any concerns will be flagged up to us. We will then be able to decide whether we want to put them into our priorities. Those priorities will be continually revised and presented every six months. The 21 dossiers are on issues that we feel could have an impact on Scotland.
As I have said, the red-line issue for us is about whether we demand a referendum on the treaty. I do not think that I said that we were considering doing a Norway. We will always consider Scotland's best interests. When we get information back, we will decide on our future strategy.
The treaty has to be signed next month. How much time have you got?
It is December.
I thought that an intergovernmental meeting would be held next month.
Yes, the final text comes out next month, but it will be December before the Council has to sign up to it.
Minister, you said earlier that there was considerable discussion in the Government about what the current EU priorities should be. However, 20 out of the 21 dossiers are from the previous Administration. Do you therefore think that the previous Administration got its engagement with Europe right?
I certainly do not think that we should throw the baby out with the bath water. The previous Administration tracked things that it was absolutely right to track. You will have noticed that we dropped three or four dossiers, but that was because they had come to a natural conclusion.
This committee always appreciated knowing what the Government's EU priorities were. That will continue. However, a difference with the new Administration is that we are now presenting our political priorities as well. We think it fair that the Parliament should know what our priorities are in our term of government. I also think that we are more prepared to be flexible when this committee, on behalf of the Parliament, comes forward with an idea and says, "We think you might have missed this." When that happens, I will be happy to consider the idea and make adaptations.
There will always be issues of concern to Scotland on which we can find common ground. The difference now with this Government lies in just how hard we are going to push Scotland's best interests. I am talking, for example, about the joint ministerial committee on Europe. I intend to engage much more with that committee than ever happened before, and I intend to engage with the other devolved Administrations to consider our best interests.
That is useful to know, but I want to pursue the point. Rhetoric surrounds the political objectives: we have themes for them, but we do not have detail. When will the detail emerge? Will that be part of the European strategy?
A further—and key—question is this: how do your six political objectives relate to the dossiers? I get the sense that there is simply a watching brief on the current EU priorities. If we consider the descriptions of what the Scottish Government is doing, we see that it is negotiating with the United Kingdom to ensure that Scottish interests are paramount. That description does not give sufficient detail to allow a real understanding of what the Government is trying to do.
As I think I said earlier, we will bring the full European strategy to you. We intend it to be part of the conversation that we are having, and I hope that this committee will play its part in contributing to that conversation.
Our longer-term political goals have been laid out clearly. They are the big issues that the Government thinks have to be addressed so that we can really ensure that Scotland's best interests are looked after. The key EU dossiers come out of Europe, and we have no real control of what comes out of Europe. All that we can do is track the dossiers, consider them and decide what our priorities must be. They can then be fed into our objectives so that we always do the best for Scotland.
Following the conversation and consultation—when we will listen to what people have to say—we will come back to the committee with a full strategy. I imagine that that will be after the turn of the year, in the early part of next year.
So, for the reasons that you have explained, there is no linkage between the current priorities in the dossiers and the Government's political objectives. When the Government arrived at its current priorities, what consultation was undertaken with stakeholders, and how did the Government reflect on the committee's priorities as outlined in annex C of the committee's fourth report in the second session? I believe that you were the convener of the committee at the time. Which of the committee's and the Parliament's priorities actually fed into the Government's priorities today?
First, there are linkages: everything that comes out of Europe is relevant to Scotland, and it all links into our political objectives—it is not possible to separate them.
I think that the second part of the question was on the Government's discussions with stakeholders on reaching our objectives. Every Government has to reach its objectives in relation to what it considers important and what comes out of Europe, and that is what we have done. As the convener said, in the main, our objectives are similar to those that the previous Administration set out in its dossiers. Of course they are: we are talking about the things that come out of Europe that people sensibly see have a direct relationship to Scotland—things on which we have to input. We have put our objectives on the net and people can give us their responses—all stakeholders know what is on the website.
Part of the on-going development to which I have referred is the fact that committee members and others can come back to us on the objectives. For example, John Park raised business and the better regulation agenda. In that context, the appropriate bodies that represent businesses can respond to what we have put on the net—they can tell us that we should do this or that. We are here to listen and to be flexible, and that is what we will do.
I do not want to push you too far on the subject, minister, but, other than simply placing the Scottish Government's current EU priorities on the net, was any specific consultation undertaken?
Department officials are in constant contact with stakeholders. Their role is then to speak to the relevant cabinet secretary or minister in order that a view can be taken on what has been fed into the process and so that decisions on the priorities can be made. A Government decides on its priorities—that is plain to see—but we are willing to listen to anyone who wants to feed into the process. In deciding on those priorities, we are confident that, in the main, we have taken on board the views of those who will be most affected. We did that by way of discussions with officials who are, after all, the people who sit in the middle, between ministers and stakeholders. After that process, we published our priorities. If stakeholders wish to contribute further, they are welcome to do so.
Committees welcome the opportunity of regular dialogue with the appropriate minister. As a former committee convener, the minister knows the specific role that consultation has for stakeholders. I would hate to think that the Government is leaving its consultations to portfolio officials—whoever they are—as a matter of course. I am sure that the minister did not mean to suggest that. I hope that there is a focus to all of this.
Of course there is a focus. We are three months down the line in terms of the new Government coming into operation. I am quite pleased about the way in which we have addressed the issue. We are saying to stakeholders and the committee, "This is us being open and transparent. Please consult us."
I think you will find that it is five months, minister.
I return to the business of what I call the constitution—because I am old fashioned—but which others call the reform treaty. One clause has been referred to as the ratchet clause—we asked the MEPs about it earlier. I appreciate fully that the SNP Government has not worked out its position on the provisions of the new constitution or reform treaty. That said, it is sailing close to the wind on the matter, as there is little time left in which to work one out. Does the Government have a position on the principle that is enshrined in the ratchet clause?
There are issues in the treaty on which we have negotiated with the UK Government and reached agreement. For example, on some of the matters relating to justice and home affairs and to energy and climate change, it looks as if the text of the treaty will be useful to Scottish interests. We are having a full debate on the subject in the chamber tomorrow afternoon. I hope that the various issues for the parties will emerge then.
On the ratchet clause, I will be up front and say that I do not know enough about what Mrs MacDonald is talking about to be able to answer the question properly. I will take the matter on board and I should be able to give her an answer in the debate tomorrow.
That is helpful. Thank you, minister.
Minister, you talked about national priorities, one of which is the common fisheries policy. Do you envisage links between your domestic agenda—the national policies and priorities of the SNP Government—and the European agenda?
Absolutely.
I will give you an example.
Please do. I cannot work out how it would be otherwise.
You will be aware that I have a specific interest in Alzheimer's, which the First Minister said would be a national priority for the SNP Government. I do not see the link between your objectives and your priorities in the healthier Scotland agenda and the European agenda. A number of member states and regions throughout Europe have said specifically that they wish to make dementia a European public health priority. Are you looking to include that in your list of priorities, given that it is one of the SNP Government's domestic policy priorities?
The EU makes recommendations in relation to the health agenda. Of course we will consider any recommendations on any specific health matter in relation to our national policy. I will pass on your concern about Alzheimer's and dementia to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.
There is an opportunity to work in partnership with others in Europe to influence the agenda. Now that Alzheimer's is a national priority in Scotland, I hope that you are looking to take it forward in Europe.
I acknowledge Irene Oldfather's interest in Alzheimer's and the sterling work that she has done on it over the years. I will check out exactly where we are at and get back to you. Should I get back to the committee or to Irene Oldfather, convener? I will take your advice on that.
I think that you should get back to the committee.
Okay. I will also pass on the concern to the cabinet secretary.
I have been asked to ask you about the timescale for the internal review of the transposition procedures and whether you will be engaging with stakeholders on it.
We are working on the internal review of transposition procedures and are already engaging with stakeholders. I hope to have the full strategy for Europe before the committee near the beginning of next year, as part of the conversation that we are launching formally on 30 November.
Thank you for coming to give evidence to the committee.
Meeting closed at 12:42.