Official Report 535KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2015 of the European and External Relations Committee. It is our last meeting before we rise for the summer recess. As usual, I request that mobile phones be switched off or turned to silent. As members will see, we have a very full agenda, so we will move on swiftly.
Agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union and our connecting Scotland inquiry. I am delighted to welcome back to the committee Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, and, from the Scottish Government, Colin Imrie, deputy director and the head of European relations. I believe that the cabinet secretary wishes to make a brief opening statement.
Good morning, convener, and thank you for the invitation to speak to you. I am aware that, since my previous appearance, the committee has continued with the second strand of its connecting Scotland inquiry and has been taking evidence on the UK’s relationship with the EU in response to the UK’s announcement of an in/out referendum on EU membership. I will take this opportunity to outline the Government’s position on some of the points that the committee considered during its session on EU reform and the EU referendum.
First, the Scottish Government believes that the European Union Referendum Bill, which is currently being debated at Westminster, falls short of meeting the required standards. Although we welcome the UK Government’s decision not to hold a referendum on the same day as next year’s Scottish Parliament elections, we are disappointed that, despite the best efforts of MPs, the franchise will not be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is especially disappointing given that that group of people showed beyond doubt that they were able to take part in the independence referendum debate as mature and conscientious citizens. They deserve their say in their future.
Secondly, given the strong case for extending the vote in the EU referendum to the 171,000 EU citizens who have chosen to make Scotland their home, it is wrong that the bill contains no provision for that to happen. Moreover, the Scottish Government will continue to argue that double majority voting should apply to this referendum. It cannot be right that even if Scotland were to vote in favour of remaining in the EU it could still be dragged out against its will. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to explaining why Scotland and the UK should remain in the EU and will argue the positive case for the UK’s and Scotland’s continued membership.
The Prime Minister wants to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s EU membership before the referendum. It is vital that Scotland’s voice is heard in that process and that Scotland’s interests are protected, and we shall pursue the matter with the UK Government. It is still too early to tell exactly what the Prime Minister wants or, indeed, whether his proposals will require treaty change, although that might become clearer during the European Council meeting that begins today. In areas where there is common cause—for example, better regulation—we will support the UK, but it could be difficult for us to accept proposals to change immigration rules given the benefits of immigration to our country.
In my view, the real risk to the UK’s membership of the EU lies in the renegotiation process between the UK and member states being defined in terms of winners and losers. That could polarise opinion and focus minds only on what the Prime Minister achieves, ignoring the benefits that the EU delivers right now. The whole point of having a more effective European Union is that everyone should gain from it. In my view, compromise should not mean concession.
I have said before that the EU is not perfect and that some areas need to be reformed. Indeed, last August, we published “Scotland’s Agenda for EU Reform”, which highlights how EU institutions must prioritise policies that are responsive to and that reflect its citizens’ concerns. We believe that reform that would be beneficial to all member states can take place within the existing treaty framework, including more autonomy for member states to tackle pressing issues such as public health or the completion of the single market in services. We also make the case for regulatory reform to address the stock of EU legislation that imposes unnecessary burdens on enterprise and citizens.
As for other issues, the committee will know that I am greatly concerned by the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean. We will encourage the UK Government to play its part in implementing the priority actions proposed under the EU agenda on migration. We recognise our obligations to refugees and continue to press the UK Government to participate fully in proposed EU action, including relocation and resettlement. I also put on record that the Scottish Government is committed to the European convention on human rights and will robustly and unequivocally oppose any proposals that weaken its protection.
On the connecting Scotland inquiry, I welcome the evidence showing the great variety of Scottish organisations that are engaging internationally for the benefit of our local communities and their partners worldwide. The Government recognises and values highly their contribution to Scotland’s positive global reputation. The international framework, which we discussed at my previous appearance before the committee, and our internationalisation agenda demonstrate the Government’s commitment to supporting Scottish organisations in their international engagement, and we will continue our dialogue with stakeholders on how that can best be done.
I am happy to answer the committee’s questions.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. Much like our agenda, a lot has been packed into that short statement.
I note that the top two agenda items at the European Council meeting that starts today are migration, including the crisis in the Mediterranean, and the Greek situation. Is there scope for suggesting that those two very important issues might be much more important than some of the other agenda items that have been suggested?
One concern, which I think is reasonable, is that British politicians tend to see their priorities as the main ones and do not recognise that there are other European and global issues that might take precedence and that our focus might not always be their focus. Clearly, the Greek situation is of paramount importance. It is being discussed and, I hope, resolved.
In “Scotland’s Agenda for EU Reform”, which was published last August, we argued that the Mediterranean situation should inform the EU’s approach to certain issues; however, the EU has still not come to terms with it. Its agenda on migration is very important, but we need to look at the reports that are coming out of the European council, particularly from the Italians. The Parliament and the committee have been very sensitive to the pressure on the Italians and have recognised that the issue is Europe wide.
It is understandable and right that the two items that you have mentioned should dominate the agenda. Reports suggest that David Cameron will be looking to negotiate a revised situation over this evening’s informal dinner, but until we hear what has happened we will not know what is being asked or said. Nevertheless, you are quite right to point out that the fact that that particular issue might be important to David Cameron and the UK does not mean that it is top of the agenda for other European countries.
Last week, we commemorated and celebrated refugee week, and one of the guest speakers at the reception in the Parliament was a survivor of what has been happening in the Mediterranean, who lost people in a really horrific incident last year. His story was compelling, not just because of the tragedies that he had been through but because of the humanity that he had been shown both in Italy and when he arrived in this country. The Scottish Government has said that it is interested in relocation and resettlement, but do you think that, under the United Nations convention for refugees, we—not just as a Government or as a country, but as part of the human race—have a responsibility to hold out a hand to people who are in need and not to conflate that with an artificial debate about migration and immigration being bad things?
A lot of the debate on and the issues around human rights in the UK have tended to focus on what might perceived as negative or technical and legal areas, whereas the whole point of human rights and the European convention on human rights is ensuring that the best standards of humanitarian response are available on a global scale.
There are a number of dimensions to such issues, one of which is our response on a humanitarian level. I am heartened by the collective cross-party response in the Parliament, in recent debates and questions, which recognises that focus and emphasis. There has to be an immediate response to what is happening in the Mediterranean as of now, but it is nothing new. Tens of thousands of people are estimated to have died in the Mediterranean over a period of decades.
The causes of the issues must be resolved, but they will not be resolved immediately. Some of them are the consequences of what is happening in war-torn countries; some of them are, and will increasingly be, to do with what is happening in the north of Africa, particularly in relation to climate change over the long term. That is another reason why we must act collectively in the European Union and more widely to tackle climate change. Long-term pressures will give rise to issues of migration from that source in addition to the economic and asylum issues of people fleeing areas of conflict. The responsibility for some of the conflict there can be cast on the United Kingdom over recent decades, given how it has behaved in various wars and other activities. That is a collective responsibility for a whole load of issues in different areas.
There is a danger that we treat the immediate short-term issue of humanitarian rescue as an either/or matter—we either do that or we try to tackle the long-term strategic issues—when we can do both and it is a requirement that we do both. That is another argument for the EU doing such things collectively. The fact that Italy is the first port of call for people seeking to come to Europe does not mean that it must bear complete responsibility. It is really important that that is reiterated.
As you will know, the committee has taken evidence from various sources. One of the sources that particularly concerns me is the college sector. It has stated to the committee that it has yet to feel the benefit of the international framework. What strategies have you put in place to overcome that?
Both in my current role and when I was the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, I have encouraged the colleges to think more collectively about what they do internationally. The former First Minister Henry McLeish was involved with Scotland’s Colleges International in working out collectively what the main opportunities are and what colleges can do.
I have supported some of our colleges’ activities in China, in particular. With the new regionalisation, rather than work individually, colleges might find it easier to work more strategically in that regard. We are always open to discussion with them. Indeed, our colleagues in the lifelong learning part of the Scottish Government will be working with them with a focus on education in international areas.
Colin Imrie might wish to add something about what the Scottish Government provides for colleges working internationally.
It is important that we work with the college sector to see what we can do. Through Scotland Europa and other organisations, a lot of work is done on European engagement, which is the area that I know most about.
In a broader sense, having a collective approach to that engagement would make the work in that area stronger. Through the Brussels office, we are keen to work with the college sector to see what we can do on engagement in the real opportunities that exist particularly in the vocational area now that programmes such as Erasmus have been opened out to that area and to see how colleges can take that forward.
Turning to some of the more obvious opportunities, one of the strengths of the Scottish education system is the Scottish credit and qualifications system, which is one of the few systems in the world that has both vocational and academic elements. Our colleges’ expertise and experience in vocational education is sought and is of interest elsewhere. With that collective approach, we have models that work and that other countries are interested in, although, for a lot of things, countries have to identify their own asks and their own approaches.
09:15
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I had doubted whether there was much common ground to be found with the UK Government on renegotiations, but when I looked at the priority areas in “Scotland’s Agenda for EU Reform”, which was prepared last August, I was struck by the notion that there might be some common ground in the area of regulatory reform. Will you on expand on where you think there might be any common ground with the UK Government?
You are right to identify regulation as one of the key areas that we could and should be able to work on. Our Government has made a big push on better regulation domestically and internationally. For example, we passed the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which sets out some of our approaches. We certainly have a lot to contribute to the EU’s regulatory fitness and performance—or REFIT—programme, which, to be fair, I should point out that the UK Government has already significantly contributed to.
It is important to work out what practical reforms would improve the regulatory framework in Scotland and, indeed, the UK. We are calling for proportionate regulation and greater adherence to the principle of proportionality to make burdensome and complex legislation that is not necessary to achieve the given objectives a thing of the past. Moreover, where EU legislation provides for sanctions and penalties for non-compliance with its provisions, greater flexibility is required to ensure that those sanctions and penalties are aligned with the level of risk that is posed by non-compliance.
With regard to consistent regulation, we need to prevent competence creep in respect of the European treaties and consider where it is more appropriate to have regulations rather than directives. That is quite important, as it could in and of itself help to relieve some of the burdens. The greater use of regulations that create a framework of principles instead of directives that impose detailed rules could, where appropriate, be helpful. We are also calling for accountable, transparent and more targeted regulation.
Those things, which are in fact part of the REFIT agenda, could assist and, importantly, could be achieved without treaty change. They are practical things that can be done. There could be convergence between what the UK Government is trying to achieve and what we want in this area and reforms that member states are already working towards. No matter whether we call that a renegotiation or a continuance of the reform package, we can have a shared agenda on those things. As I said at the outset, how such matters are presented by David Cameron in his renegotiation might be different from what might be seen or presented by member states, but we can play a good role in leading on that, and I think that we could reach consensus in that area.
I do not know whether the Scottish Government has a view at all on the timetable for the eventual referendum. Is there a timetable for on-going dialogue with the UK Government on what is going on beyond the joint ministerial committee meetings?
We have asked for a more formal forum to discuss the on-going issues around negotiation and have made it quite clear that we should be a part of that. I think that Wales and Northern Ireland would also be interested in that, because it is clear that the consequences of certain issues will have an impact on and import for the devolved Administrations. Indeed, the proposal was suggested by our First Minister at last Friday’s British-Irish Council meeting.
The problem with relying just on JMCs is that they do not meet that often or that regularly. The previous meeting was held last week, and it was attended by the Minister for Europe and International Development, Humza Yousaf, who again proposed that there be a better mechanism for knowing about the on-going issues that might emerge even from the meetings that are being held today and tomorrow.
As for timescales, I suspect that the Prime Minister will choose a date when he is likely to get what, from his perspective, will be the best result, but we would need a crystal ball to forecast that. Nevertheless, I think that there is a window; it would, for a variety of reasons, be extremely unwise for everyone if a referendum on EU membership was held during the UK’s presidency of the European Council.
In that respect, there is, as I have said, a window for negotiations to take place. However, we are already seeing the pressures that exist and other countries focusing on other matters. In the 2016-17 period that we are coming to, other member states will be having their own domestic elections, and that might close the window for the reasonable negotiation period in which the Prime Minister can have discussions with other countries. The autumn of 2016 is therefore looking increasingly more likely, but this issue is just not within our gift.
Along with other Westminster colleagues in different parties, we have already brought some influence to bear with regard to the decision that the referendum should not be held on the same day as the Scottish elections. The Electoral Commission has looked at the last time that there was a referendum on constitutional issues and our experience of holding local elections and Parliament elections together, and it has given a very good objective response on what should be done and when it should not be done.
As you would expect, we are preparing for different scenarios. We would encourage the UK Government to engage more with the Scottish Government, not just on the technicalities of timing and so on but on content. Europe is moving apace on a whole variety of issues and if we focus only on the areas of potential renegotiation, there is a danger that Scotland and the UK will be left behind on a whole other agenda. I therefore recommend that engagement take place on the long-term strategic issues in the EU as well as on the Prime Minister’s negotiating position.
The committee will be collecting a lot of evidence—and rightly so—and, importantly, will be giving an opportunity for many Scots to understand what is being asked of us. How can we quickly collate all that information? Will someone be looking at all the information from all the committees in order to put together the proposals for Scotland’s aspirations and how they should be represented, not only in the UK Government but at the European Commission? As you will appreciate, this is a very serious issue. Will there be someone in charge who will collate all the information from all the committees and maximise it to ensure that we are well represented?
From a Parliament point of view, you might be as well to direct your question to the convener or the Presiding Officer. That said, you make an important point. I can tell you what the Government is doing. We have a regular meeting round at which the minister for Europe meets all the other ministers who have an interest in European issues—which, by and large, means everyone—to ensure that we have what we might call a rolling anticipation of issues that we should be either feeding into or responding to. We can respond to what we hear from the UK with regard to its priorities for negotiation, and we can feed that into the Cabinet for it to take a collective view. For example, human rights have been a prime area of concern. Given that Michael Gove has yet to announce his views and proposals on human rights, the issue might come back again. To date, it has been a key focus across Government, because it affects social justice and our own justice portfolios.
As for the Parliament, I would like all of its different committees to identify issues in their portfolios that relate to the future of Europe. In any case, the committees should already be doing that, given that the Parliament was set up in such a way to encourage that kind of approach. The EU is of huge importance to us with regard to not just economic issues but the future of the leadership that Scotland and the UK can have in a number of areas. Climate change is an obvious issue, but I realise that that is for another committee, not this one. As an experienced MSP, I know about the pressures on committees, even those such as your own that do not have much legislation to deal with, and I know that, going into the final year of the session, other committees will have a big burden of legislation. However, that should not preclude their holding evidence sessions at different points.
How committees collate this information is a matter for them, but I am happy to work with them on it. As Rod Campbell has pointed out, we do not know the timetable for this exercise, but perhaps we should set ourselves key milestones for when we as a Parliament will want collectively to review where we are. We have recently had a number of debates on the international framework, the European agenda and EU reform perspectives, and there is the committee’s own programme of what it expects to deal with. Through the convener and clerks, we could work reasonably well together to anticipate when—say, in the autumn or at Christmas time—we might want to revisit where things stand.
You have more or less met my hope and aspiration on this matter. I agree that the time factor is important. We do not know how the negotiations are going to go with the UK and the European Union; we need to make sure that all the good advice that we get from our citizens is available at very short notice, and we need to talk to each other and keep the information up to date as it comes in.
I appreciate the pressures that are on everyone and all the committees but, given the importance of this issue, I hope that, between the Scottish Government and our committees, we can ensure that all the information that comes in is collated almost immediately so that we have it on the shelf. That means that, if there is any pressure to turn things round quickly, we will be almost in position, and it will be just a matter of dusting the information down. I would like to be in such a position, and I hope that you agree and that you will explore that possibility.
That would be best practice anyway. I am happy to discuss with the convener how best we can do that.
The UK Government has indicated that it is going to
“pursue reform of the European Union for the benefit of all member states”,
and that it wants to
“build on exempting the UK’s smallest businesses from new EU regulations and on the EU trade deal with the USA; ... preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have their own currencies”
and
“expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms.”
Does the cabinet secretary agree with those aims?
I have just gone through the issues particularly with regard to REFIT, some of which will benefit small businesses. As I have said, much of the reform agenda is already happening, but I suppose that the issue is what will be evidenced as new in the negotiation. Is that the real test, or is the general direction of travel that we are actually improving things?
The committee might not be aware of this, but Scotland is already making its contribution by looking at the habitats directive and how we can strip it back to enable progress without the burdens that have been put on businesses and organisations in the past. As I have said to Rod Campbell, the REFIT better regulation agenda is an area where we can find common ground, and our experience on regulatory reform and what we are doing in that area could help. What we do not have, however, are practical examples. We have an idea of the general area that the Prime Minister wants to work in, but we do not have any detail on the specific things that he wants to change.
As for opening up areas for business, one of the big areas of interest to this Parliament and Government is the digital single market, given the significant opportunities that it will have for Scotland. However, there are issues that we have to be aware of in relation to the creative industries and what the impact on film and broadcasting might be. The first presentation of the European Commission’s digital single market proposals was made to the Committee on Culture and Education, at which I led the delegation and gave the initial response on behalf of the UK Government.
Those are areas where, if you are asking whether we are engaged and interested, the answer is yes. I have given you two examples where, in practical terms, Scotland is already plugged in and engaged, and we certainly want to see progress on that. I do not think that there is a conflict in that respect.
09:30
What would the Scottish Government’s position be on national Parliaments being able to work together to block unwanted legislation, which is something that the UK Government has suggested, especially in relation to countries that have their own currencies? Do you agree with the aim of preserving
“the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protection for those countries”
with single currencies?
Because of what is happening in Greece in particular, much of the focus has obviously been on the eurozone and countries that have the euro, but in the nine countries that do not have the euro, there is significant interest in how their interests are being dealt with. The debate over the balance of power and where power should lie is not a new one; indeed, it is a matter of regular debate in Europe, with tensions—or expressions of that debate—last arising in relation to the extent to which the European Parliament has any locus with regard to checks and balances on the European Council.
The Prime Minister is seeking further movement in relation to national Parliaments, but he is not the first person to raise that issue; the Dutch have at various times and in various ways raised the issue with regard to what might happen. Since 2009, of course, we have had a system for flagging up areas of national concern. I think that what David Cameron is proposing—again, we have no details and would need a bit more information—is some kind of red card that would act as a veto.
Although we already have a yellow card and an orange card system that national Parliaments can use to flag up issues and concerns—and although it is important for such a system to exist—the yellow card has been used only twice since 2009, the first time to object to the Monti II proposals in relation to the right to strike, which the Commission subsequently dropped, and the second time to flag up the European prosecution issue in relation to the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office. Indeed, this Parliament and its committees had real concerns about the proposal, so it was flagged up.
I cannot give you an example of the orange card system, because it has not been used. The fact that previous opportunities for national Parliaments to flag up issues and to intervene have not been used very much raises the interesting question whether we need a red card at all. In the two cases in which the system has been used—the right to strike and a European public prosecutor’s office—it was not just the UK but the rest of the EU that had concerns, particularly on the latter point. I should say, though, that the Monti proposals were particularly relevant to us. It shows that the red card proposal might be all about making an argument to have the power to do something without necessarily needing it. After all, the weaker warning card system has never been used or has not been used often. That might give you my understanding of the issue.
Your second point was in relation to the currency issue, which I addressed first.
Indeed. Thank you. Do I have time to ask one more small question, convener?
If you are very quick.
One of the difficulties that Scotland faces because of the fall in the euro is that our agricultural subsidies are going to be worth a lot less this year than they would otherwise have been compared with other years. Does the cabinet secretary understand the difficulties that that will have for Scottish farming?
As far as subsidies are concerned, it is important that, in general, we have a buoyant European economy. Some of that buoyancy relies on what is happening in the eurozone, but a lot of it also relies on what is happening with growth, investment and expansion in the economy more widely, so it is in our interests to have a buoyant European economy more generally.
Although a lot of Scotland’s exports are agricultural or very much depend on our work in agriculture, we do not work in isolation or say that the state of Scottish agriculture will always rely just on the value of the euro. We have to pursue other areas. For example, with regard to its wider connecting Scotland agenda, the committee might be interested in the First Minister’s announcement of the creation of an innovation investment hub location for the Scottish Government in Dublin, and agriculture will be one of the areas of co-operation in that respect. In many ways, we are clearly competitors with Ireland when it comes to agriculture, but on a global scale there is an opportunity for us to collaborate on, say, promotion. That sort of work relies not on the value of the euro but on developing good relationships.
A good example of co-operation between Scotland and Ireland is the access 6 programme and its collaborative work with food and drink companies, particularly the small to medium-sized enterprises that are important to growth in that area, on accessing European money and funding. We cannot rely just on the value of the euro to determine the strength of our system, but you will have heard it argued that we have one of the lowest percentages of agricultural subsidies in Europe. That is nothing to do with the value of the euro; it is just because we are not an independent country. Of course, it would have been a different matter had the country voted differently at the referendum, but I am not going to go there, because we have had that question resolved and I accept it. The point is that there are different pressures and dynamics.
I would like to explore the First Minister’s proposal that a forum should be identified that would allow the devolved Governments to have a direct input into the negotiations. How was that received by the UK Government?
My understanding is that we have not really had a response. I was not at the British-Irish Council, so I was not party to the discussions that took place, but I think that there is a view that the relationship with the EU is a reserved matter and that the UK therefore does not have to consult. I find that very odd, because of course it will have an impact. We have just had a big discussion about agriculture and we have discussed business. Those are issues that are devolved to Scotland and there are a lot of responsibilities involved in handling them, never mind the migration issues that could have an impact domestically in Scotland on services that rely on well-qualified and skilled workers. It is not simply the case that the relationship with the EU is technically a reserved matter. It has already been recognised that there are clearly issues that we need to be involved in.
Let me give an example. We, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, were invited by the UK Government to take part in the balance of competences review, because it was recognised by the UK Government and at the JMC Europe that everyone needs to understand the impact and import of any changes to the balance of competences, which is what David Cameron is trying to do in relation to the negotiations. Having been invited to provide evidence, which we duly did—that also informed our own reform agenda, which we published in August last year—and having been invited to take part in the discussions, all of a sudden we were uninvited.
It is not just a case of trying to influence things for our own agenda; it would be sensible to have that co-operation and involvement, whether through more regular contact within the JMC Europe structure or in a different forum. I suspect that, because some of the discussion is on business and some is on other areas, we could just expand the bilaterals that we have. For example, the finance ministers meet on a bilateral and sometimes quadrilateral basis. We also need to consider whether that can be done in relation to Europe. We are doing it on the welfare issues relating to the Scotland Bill, so why should we not see developments on European aspects in a similar vein? That would allow dialogue between the relevant ministers, and any support from the committee in that area would be helpful. It is not just a case of wanting to be involved because we want to make a political argument; it is common sense to do that.
There is a bit of an irony in the UK Government going to Europe and trying to unpick a union when it is such a vociferous defender of the UK as it stands. It seems to have a little Englander attitude, and it is taking an Anglocentric approach that needs to be adjusted to take into account the four nations of the UK. The approach seems to be very much driven by Conservative Party politics as opposed to the national interest, as it were.
In the Scottish Government’s view, is there any scope for the devolution of powers from Europe to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament? I am thinking about the fishing industry, for example, on which we are arguing for a more regional approach. We could have a distinctive voice in any negotiation with Europe—if it was a serious negotiation, of course. Some allege that what we are seeing now is more a political exercise on behalf of the UK Tory Government to satisfy its back benchers and to say, “We are taking on Europe.” The UK Government will announce that it has achieved this, that and the next thing when it comes back, but that will not amount to a hill of beans. Is there a real agenda to be pursued of repatriating some powers to Scotland in order to improve governance?
That is a very interesting analysis. We are quite clear that there is a real agenda for reform that we want to pursue and with which we can engage. It must be a sensible reform that could achieve real results, in part on regulation issues.
You make a good point about regionalisation, which we think should happen with fisheries policy. To an extent there has been some progress with fisheries policy, but we could and should make more progress. There is a danger that, in pursuing a very narrow political agenda—the negotiation covered 10 areas, and is now down to five—it becomes so narrow that we miss out on some of the progress that we could be making in other areas. Other parts of the European Union may want to engage on that agenda.
On the political point, I suppose that the issue is the strength that the Prime Minister may or may not have in trying to engage with other countries. If other countries perceive—as you highlight in your remarks—that the move is all about appeasing back benchers in the Prime Minister’s party rather than taking the country on a journey of change, that will completely weaken our negotiating position.
We want real negotiation in important areas. For example, why we are not pursuing more of a social Europe? That relates to how we improve opportunities. There have been some big successes in the past around workers’ rights, equality issues and a variety of other areas. On climate change, again, the UK has been very strong. We have supported the UK in the European Council, but, if we are diverted towards talking only about a narrow agenda for negotiation that does not impact on the environment or on social issues such as jobs, we could be missing a trick.
I am being quite circumspect in my remarks about the politics of what David Cameron is doing, but that is the danger in his approach. We need a voice of reason, which I think the Scottish Parliament and its committees can be, to say that there is not just a choice between reform and no reform but a chance for meaningful reform that will impact on people’s everyday lives and jobs, and our organisations.
The European Union has never been stuck in aspic—it has always moved. I want us to be constructive in moving the EU forward at pace, and I think that we can do that. Increasingly, the Scottish voice is being listened to.
On the back Adam Ingram’s questions, I note that one of the recommendations from the Smith commission was to improve the current concordat on the co-ordination of European Union policy issues. I believe that the Cabinet Office guidance that has been issued does not allow you to share any of the outcomes of the JMC discussions until after the Council meeting. Has there been any progress on the update to that concordat via the Smith recommendations? Do you believe that the transparency that should be there is not there?
09:45
To be fair to our relations with the UK Government, the meeting was only last week. We always give the committee feedback on the JMC Europe meetings. I used to lead on those meetings, but I have asked Humza Yousaf, as the Minister for Europe and International Development, to do so. I will attend if and when required.
On the progress that has been made, we have provided evidence over recent months of what could and should happen. To encourage colleagues—particularly in Brussels—to have a better relationship with us we have provided examples of good practice as well as examples of when things have not worked as well.
The example of my leading the UK on audiovisual issues at the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council is an important one. I had a chance to influence the UK’s position, which I managed to adapt in a way that I thought was more conducive not only to our interests but to those of the UK. Nonetheless, I would reflect that that is the only council in which we ever seem to be able to get to lead on and speak on behalf of the UK. Practice elsewhere would be helpful.
Although there is agreement to amend the memorandum of understanding, we have yet to see anything formally. Colin Imrie might be able to provide further information on that.
Work has been going on for the past few months at official level to follow up the commitments that were given at the joint ministerial committee at principal level—Prime Minister and First Minister level—last December. As the cabinet secretary said, we have provided evidence. Along with our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues, we have also been working with the UK permanent representation in Brussels to provide examples of how we can strengthen the role of the offices over there to ensure that we have more impact. However, the cabinet secretary is right—we are still waiting on the detail of progress.
And we are not the only country that is seeking to do that. On a regular basis, other countries, such as Germany or Spain, do it and see that as part of their constitutional arrangements.
We have heard evidence from some of the regions across Europe on their rights and responsibilities and the practice of conferring on them the right to represent their issues from a local point of view.
We had a Chatham House seminar here in Edinburgh with the Europa institute, jointly held with the Flanders Government and the University of Leuven. It was a useful opportunity to look at the most sophisticated way in which regional bodies can represent their country effectively and—a crucial issue—reach agreement in line with the negotiation timetables that exist in Europe. It has always been a fear that somehow we might block the ability of the UK to negotiate. There were representatives from the Foreign Office there, so there were some positive elements. These are the arguments that we are putting forward in conjunction with our Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues to seek to make improvements. There is some progress at the Brussels end but we still need to see what will be proposed at the UK end.
The Flanders Government is an excellent example. We have had some of its representatives before the committee and I visited others while I was in New York to see its reach and the opportunities that it has in the US. It is not just within Europe—that wider scope was very interesting.
It is hard to envisage the Prime Minister rushing into the referendum holding up a victory on exempting the smallest businesses from new EU regulations as a referendum breaker. For some, the big-ticket issue is migration and immigration. You mentioned that in your opening remarks, cabinet secretary. From the evidence that we have heard at the committee so far, we know that a larger number of migrants are coming to the UK from outside the EU than from within the EU. Will you outline for us the difference in thinking between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the migration and immigration issue? Do you think that that issue will ultimately require a treaty change?
The problem is that we do not know what the Prime Minister’s position is; that is the real issue. In broad terms, we understand that his concerns are not so much about migration as they are about benefits. From what we can gather, the issue is actually about restricting the rights of migrants in work to claim benefits. That is different from the broader agenda on migration, the total numbers and so on.
What is in Scotland’s interests in relation to migration is to have talented, skilled and committed people come here to work and to contribute to our society. They do that; we have seen very good reports from City University London showing that there is far more economic benefit of migrants to Scotland—and the UK—than there are disbenefits; migrants are net contributors to our economy. If we no longer had those migrants, who would pick up the tab for the taxes that they are paying into our economy to pay for health, education and so on? The issue can be seen through a different lens, depending on where you are coming from.
The Prime Minister’s concern relates to benefits—whether he can introduce benefit changes and whether the changes that he wants to make would restrict the freedom of movement of migrants. If the changes were to affect freedom of movement, that would be a fundamental red line for many countries; expressions from across the EU have made that quite explicit. If, however, he wants to get into the detail of when migrants from the EU can or cannot claim benefits, that is a different territory. Benefits are different territory from crude decisions about numbers of migrants coming from the EU, although the benefits aspect might influence or change how many people came from different parts of the EU.
There are different benefits systems in different countries of the EU. Some are contributory and some are to do with residence. The issue that some countries have is the definition of what benefits are. This is not a new discussion; it was discussed in 2011 by a number of countries, including the Netherlands and Germany. It can be easier for countries that have a contributory benefits system—people get benefits after they have contributed for a certain length of time—to adapt their situation for EU migrants than it is for those countries that have a residence-based system.
I am speculating here because I have received no details from the UK Government on what it is looking at. Other countries have changed their benefits systems—Ireland changed its system a couple of years ago. That did not require treaty change, but it was a change to the benefits system. If the issue is cast as being to do with migration, you hit against the principle of freedom of movement, which is a basic tenet of the EU and its treaties. That would be a problem. However, if the Prime Minister is trying to amend and adapt the benefits system, that is a different issue. The UK system is already different from that of other countries and a lot of the change might be internal. The question would be whether it required treaty change or agreement. However, changes have been made by some countries—for example, to address discrepancies between Denmark and Sweden in how students were treated in relation to benefits at different times.
There seems to be an idea that everything is new under the sun because it comes from Britain, whereas quite often the issues have been considered at a more practical level by other countries in the past. Until we have the detail, all that I am giving you is speculation and an analysis of what has happened. Until we know what the Prime Minister will actually ask for, it is very difficult for us to give you a view.
Do you think that there would be time for treaty change, if that were required, within the rough timeframe that we are looking at? We think that the referendum will be in 2017.
We get mixed messages. Some messages from the UK—for example, from Philip Hammond, previously—indicated that it was the end result that mattered, whether or not it required treaty change. Then the emphasis changed and it became all about treaty change. It goes back to Adam Ingram’s point. The treaty-change aspect seems to be more about managing the back benchers of the Conservative Party than achieving change. Treaty change deferred to some point in the future might be something that the Prime Minister will try to achieve.
There has also been speculation that the UK Government might have anticipated that, at some point, other countries will require treaty change for other reasons in relation to the eurozone. From some of the reports that are coming out of France and Germany on their discussions, it looks like treaty change might not be required to achieve what they want. The UK might have wanted to piggyback on what was happening anyway by opening up the treaties for other reasons. That is just speculation, but any major treaty changes that other countries might want to implement are unlikely to happen when they are running into elections, so the French and German elections in 2017 might have an impact on the timescale.
The committee is looking for evidence, but I cannot provide it because the facts and proposals are not there. However, it is something to consider and we need to keep close to the matter as we proceed.
Yesterday, the European Commission had a bit of a reshuffle and appointed Jonathan Faull to a post with responsibility for analysis of, and response to, Brexit. Obviously, the European Commission is now taking very seriously the potential for lots of change. Mr Faull will work closely with Frans Timmermans, who is responsible for better regulation, which has been an issue for the committee. Has the Scottish Government been invited to take part in that group?
The one that was set up just yesterday?
Yes.
I have not opened my mail yet, so I am not sure. We are obviously aware of President Juncker’s appointment of the individual whom you mentioned. In our discussions, we will work with other European institutions and, primarily, the UK Government, because that is where we need to have our primary relationship to influence the matter.
Will you seek to be included in that group or, at least, to be given a hearing by it?
I reserve judgment as to where it might go and why it is there. We do not have direct accountability to the European President or the European Commission. We are accountable to the Parliament and we work through our relationships.
I want to plan for there not to be a Brexit. That is what we will put more of our time and attention into. It is not only in Britain’s interest but in Scotland’s. That is where we place our emphasis.
There is a certain complacency. There is an anticipation that, even if it comes to a referendum, the vote will be to remain in the EU. The polls in Scotland certainly seem to show that that would be likely, but it is not possible to predict any referendum in any country at any time. If we learn anything from our recent referendum, it is that we can have quite a lot of change in polls and positioning, particularly as we go into the immediate lead-up to the referendum.
We should not be complacent in any shape or form. Those of us who want Scotland and the UK to remain part of the European Union must actively set out that positive case. We should not wait until the European Union Referendum Bill is passed or until we hear what the negotiating position is. We should make the case now because, as politicians, we should continuously justify the relationships and memberships on which we are all agreed. I hope that the Parliament will support the Government in campaigning positively to remain part of the European Union.
Thank you very much. I put you under a bit of pressure there. Sorry about that.
I will change tack to our connecting Scotland inquiry, cabinet secretary. How are you doing on pursuing post-study work visas with the UK Government?
Humza Yousaf recently had a useful meeting with one of the senior members in the Westminster parliamentary system to ensure that it is aware of our issues. He is also meeting—I cannot remember whether it is today or tomorrow—the cross-party group that has been established on the post-study work visa. The membership of that group includes Claire Baker from Labour and, I think, Liz Smith from the Conservatives.
We have 159 names of people from institutions, universities, colleges and businesses who support the position. We think that it is an area in which, with a Scottish consensus around it that we are seeking to build, we can have influence. We are not there yet, but the establishment of the cross-party working group on the post-study work visa is an important development. I am sure that, if you sought evidence from the minister for Europe about progress on that at the appropriate time, he would be more than willing to share that with you.
I know that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee took evidence from some university principals on the UK visas and immigration issue the other day. We should maybe communicate with that committee on the matter as well.
We will finish there. We are on time, but we have a full agenda today. Thank you very much for your evidence to the committee, cabinet secretary. We probably have some other questions that we would like to raise with you. Is it okay for us to write to you, seeking that information?
Yes, indeed. We can discuss timescales for a response.
Thank you and good luck.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses.
10:01 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance