Official Report 182KB pdf
Item 2 concerns the Scottish Executive's European and external relations policies. I take great pleasure in welcoming to the committee Linda Fabiani, who is the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture. Members will recollect that Linda was a convener of the European and External Relations Committee in the previous parliamentary session. Welcome back, Linda. I hope that you will find your time on the other side of the table as enjoyable as you found your time in the chair.
It is a pleasure to be back at the committee so soon. I have to say that the table looks a lot longer from this end.
On behalf of the committee, I welcome your approach. We will certainly engage with you. I am sure that some members will from time to time be forthright, but you would expect that.
Yes.
I think that we will have a productive relationship.
Welcome, minister. Will you expand a little on a reply that you gave to Irene Oldfather during last week's question time? If memory serves me right and to paraphrase, Irene Oldfather asked whether you will stick by your manifesto pledge to withdraw from the common fisheries policy if you feel that Scotland does not get the benefit that it deserves. I do not want to put words into your mouth, but I think that you said that you would always fight to do the best that you could for Scottish fishermen. Of course, that is what Ross Finnie has been trying to do for the past eight years. What will you do differently? Will you stick by that manifesto pledge?
We have the common fisheries policy as was—the recent treaty negotiations have not come up with anything different. Certainly, it has been our view that we should withdraw from the common fisheries policy, as it does no good for Scottish fishermen. However, we must bear in mind that the decision to withdraw from the common fisheries policy would have to be taken by the member state. We will push for that if it is best for Scotland, and we are currently having discussions with industry reps on how the interests of Scottish fishermen can best be represented. As I said, we are seeking to represent Scotland in fisheries talks, as Scotland is the most relevant part of the UK in relation to fisheries.
I have in front of me a document that outlines the Executive's European and external relations policies. Under "Sea fisheries' dossiers", it draws attention to the fact that the Commission will
Discussions obviously go on at Cabinet level, too, and it is the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment who leads for the Government on fisheries. I will relay your concerns to him, and he will read the Official Report of this meeting.
I have a transcript of what was said by the minister at last week's question time—
I hope that it was close to what I said.
It was very close.
I have two points to make in answer to that question. First, I attended the JMC on Europe and it was quite an experience—we want to work constructively with Westminster—but I was not happy about the format of the meetings and being told that I would have a speaking slot. I felt that, given that it is a joint ministerial committee, equal weight should be given to the contributions from the devolved Administrations and Westminster. I presume that the format will change in the future, as what I said was well received.
It might be helpful for us—including for Mr Brocklebank—to get a note of the discussions that took place at that meeting. As the minister said, it is clear that the agreement on 21 June did not take account of the minister's party's position—although, personally, I do not think that withdrawing from the common fisheries policy is the right thing to do.
If the minister wishes to deal with that point now, that is fine, but I will then call Iain Smith.
The protocol for JMC meetings is for confidential minutes to be taken. That has been the way since the very start, when the JMC was set up under the memorandum of understanding.
I wish to pursue that point before bringing in Iain Smith. I understand that the minutes are confidential, but are you saying that you would therefore be unable to tell us what you raise at those meetings?
No, I would be happy to tell you in broad outline. When I went to the JMC, I said that I expected that we could discuss the Scottish Government's EU priorities at the next meeting of the JMC. As some of you will know, the Scottish Government has, certainly over the past four years, brought to this committee the Government's priorities in Europe and has talked them through with the committee. I intend to keep that up. At the JMC meeting that I attended, I said that I would like to talk about the Scottish Government's priorities at the next meeting. I asked for that to be put on the agenda. I said that I intended to come before the Scottish Parliament European and External Relations Committee beforehand to talk through those priorities so that, when I attended the next JMC, it would hear a view from both Government and Parliament. I feel that that is extremely important.
I would like to hear some indication from you—this afternoon if possible—of the new Government's priorities and how they differ from those of the previous Government, not just on Europe but across your Europe and external affairs remit. Other members may pick up on different areas later, but could you outline what the priorities of the Scottish National Party Government are on European issues and say how they differ from the priorities that were promoted by the previous Administration?
I have come along to the committee this afternoon to talk generally about matters across my portfolio that are relevant to the committee. We have not yet completely formulated our view of what our priorities should be. I am working very hard on that, taking soundings and information from many different people. Our view on our priorities will then be brought to this committee. It is not entirely fair to expect me to come to the committee after such a short time and lay out the Government's priorities for Europe in a very definitive manner.
Why are you here?
I am here because I was asked to come here to give broad outlines across my portfolio.
I will try to be helpful.
Thank you.
We are trying to get a sense, at a high level, of the Government's priorities. Those will be drawn from a number of sources, including manifestos. We want to get a feel about the direction of travel. We are not expecting a huge level of detail—I would not expect that from the minister at this stage. However, a broad outline of the direction of travel would be enormously useful for the committee, which is going on an away day to establish its programme of work. For part of that, we would wish to reflect on where the Executive is going.
Thank you for that clarification. I thought that Iain Smith was asking for the number of portfolios that we would follow in relation to what comes from the committee.
I was asking about the priorities. That does not mean telling us about everything.
Okay. Scotland having a stronger voice in Europe would sum it up for us. That is very much in line with some of the things in the legacy paper that the predecessor committee left, which I presume you will be studying at your away day. I know that the convener has already looked at it, and Irene Oldfather probably knows it inside out. Other members will be picking up on it, too.
As far as I am aware, that report was not published but a copy was leaked. Has that report now been published? Can we access it?
I ask Lynne Vallance to answer that. Practically everybody I know has read the report, but I do not know whether it has officially been published. Has it been published?
No.
I remember that, back in February and March, it seemed to be the common talk of everyone. I suspect that it would be easy to get hold of the report if anybody wished to read it.
It was not published because it contained restricted advice to ministers in the previous Executive. That Executive decided that it was not prepared to release policy advice to ministers into the public domain.
Is the minister suggesting that that is no longer the case and that it will be made available?
We cannot publish something that came from the previous Government.
It is not possible for the new Government to see advice that was put to the previous Administration.
On the basis that everybody has seen it—[Laughter.]
That is a good idea. Those of you who have read the report that Jim Wallace compiled as a reporter to the previous committee will know that a lot of its contents are reflected in the report that we are talking about. The previous committee and the Parliament shared the concerns in that report.
But I wonder whether, at some point, you will return to us with your view on the report. That would be helpful.
Yes.
In your introduction and your comments about priorities you mentioned links with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations. I am particularly interested in that because I am one of the Parliament's representatives on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Are you thinking about strengthening the role of bodies such as the British-Irish Council? Now that devolution has been fully restored in Northern Ireland, there may be opportunities to develop the role of the British-Irish Council and its parliamentary arm, the BIIPB, which is rather unsatisfactory and could be improved.
We certainly support a strong British-Irish Council. There is a meeting due in July, but it has not been confirmed yet. The British-Irish Council, of course, operates at ministerial and official level. I take your point about transparency and will feed that back. I understand why you hold that view. You are a member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and I know that every group in the Parliament nominates someone to go to it. Perhaps there could be some crossover between the two bodies in terms of knowledge base. We will consider whether we could suggest that to the other members as a way forward.
I want to widen the discussion a bit. There are three areas that I would like to—
There are always three areas with you, Alex.
I know. This weekend, there were discussions about the new so-called EU reform treaty. Do you want to say a word or two about where we go from here in terms of the Scottish Government's involvement? Between now and the intergovernmental conference to finalise the treaty, there will be loads of discussion in Europe and the EU institutions. Given that you have only been in the job for three or four weeks, it would be totally unfair to ask for a definitive position, so I am not asking for that. In effect, the veto has been lifted in certain devolved areas, although it is also too early to ask for a definitive list of those areas and to ask what the impact on them will be. Will the Scottish Government take the general approach of raising a number of issues with the UK Government and of adopting a position on the EU reform treaty?
Interestingly enough, I have with me a briefing on that from Lynne Vallance's office, where they are working through the sheaves of documentation that came out of the negotiations, and looking towards the IGC.
It would be useful for our away day if the Executive could say where the treaty might impact on devolved areas and what the issues might be, because this committee might, perhaps in conjunction with the Justice Committee, have to address such issues.
From an initial look, it appears that energy, climate change, justice and home affairs will be the main areas. I understand that we now have the date of the committee's away day, so we will work that out.
The second area that I want to ask about is Malawi. As a devolved Parliament, we are restricted in our budget, if nothing else, in respect of how much we can do to help the developing world, although we would all like to do much more. I am looking for the general thrust of Government policy—given that you were appointed only three or four weeks ago, that is all we can fairly ask for at this stage. I take it that the new Government will support the continuation and development of the previous Executive's policies on helping and giving priority to Malawi.
Yes. That is an issue that I have considered closely. In fact, I had an interesting meeting this morning with the Malawi steering group. There are lots of different groups involved in Malawi—I discover a new one every day. The Malawi steering group, which I met this morning, is an important one that includes representation from Parliament. Karen Gillon attends the group—
Does she attend as the chair of the cross-party group on Malawi?
No. She attends as the representative of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is good input because the CPA is very much involved in Malawi.
The business group that is involved in helping Malawi has a huge role to play, as getting the economy right must be the number 1 priority.
I have written down the other wee bits that you have asked about and I will come to them, but I begin by saying that the First Minister is very keen that we do not put policy development in silos. It is not a case of asking whose responsibility it is to do something; we are working across portfolios on all those issues.
I will start at the opposite end from Alex Neil, who went international. You began your remarks by saying that you are responsible for relations with Westminster. It strikes me that the same potential issues arise across lots of portfolios—I accept what you said about that. One of our most important relationships with Westminster is to do with money, because almost the entire Scottish budget will be determined by the residuals that come out of the comprehensive spending review at Westminster. Previously, the minister who was most interested in that was also responsible for external relations, so there was no crossover. To what extent will you get involved in discussions with Westminster about the comprehensive spending review? I do not know whether we get involved in that at all, but I am interested to hear about that.
I thought that people were saying that John Swinney was the minister for everything.
It was whether you have any input on the elections.
I do not think so—and I certainly hope not.
As a supplementary, other than your relationships with Westminster that involve relationships that it has with bodies outside the UK, such as Ireland, Europe and Malawi, do you have any involvement with Westminster under the heading external relations?
I do not quite understand what you mean.
Do you get involved with Westminster's responsibility for intra-United Kingdom affairs?
No.
Irene Oldfather is next.
Go on—ask me an easy one, Irene.
Okay. I think that there was a slight misunderstanding earlier, to be honest: when the committee met last week and talked about its away day, it decided that it would be helpful to know what the changes in priorities were. In a sense, I apologise for that.
Och, I am sorry, too.
I will raise two points with you. I know that you have a view on the reduction of the number of Scottish MEPs and I want to find out how you propose to take that forward. I know that you said at question time that you would argue to maintain seven MEPs. When did you first become aware of the proposed reduction and what actions have you taken on it to date?
Oh, gosh! First of all, I have written to the Electoral Commission about retaining seven MEPs, because we feel that it is important. It is interesting that all seven MEPs have jointly signed a letter expressing their concerns about it as well, which you have probably seen. We will back them up on that as far as we possibly can.
It stands for European elected members information and liaison exchange.
What came first: the name or the acronym? You choose.
To come back to the reduction in the number of MEPs, I have a copy of the letter dated 4 June. Did you have an opportunity to raise that at the joint ministerial committee on the Europe? It is important.
I considered raising the matter but, as I said earlier, it was a strange meeting and I hope that those meetings will be handled differently in future. I did not feel as if it was a joint meeting and an opportunity for a joint discussion between representatives from Westminster, Scotland and the north of Ireland. The meeting was fairly short, which seems to be the format that has been used in recent years, and I hope that that will change. I thought of raising that particular issue but I did not because I knew that the MEPs would raise it with Westminster and their parliamentary groups.
I suggest that the committee might want to write formally to the Electoral Commission to make representations about the number of seats. I understand that the Electoral Commission will consider just the formula and the process rather than the actual numbers, but perhaps it would be appropriate for the committee to indicate that we favour a formula that would retain the existing numbers. I understand that we have something like 24 hours in which to do that.
You have until Friday.
Great. In that case, does the committee agree to that?
You mentioned the new constitution for Europe—the constitution that will not speak its name. The strategy is not to mention the constitution and upset the natives. However, some elements of the old new constitution—or the draft constitution—are being implemented. What attention will we be paying to that and what will be its impact on Scotland? Will it have any locus in Scotland? We might have to consider that Scots law is peculiar to Scotland rather than to the UK, and we do not want ministers in another place signing things off without any thought of redress to the general public.
Did you say that some of the constitution has already been implemented?
I should not have said "implemented", but some elements have been agreed to and signed off in Europe that might impact on Scotland.
I can only repeat what I said earlier. We have a quick checklist of what has been happening, but it is still far too early to say. Lynne Vallance's office is going through the treaty reform very carefully and examining what is being taken forward to the intergovernmental conference. We will consider the matter in full, but Gil Paterson knows how much detail such documents can contain. Professor Neil MacCormick is also examining the situation very closely on behalf of the Government, so I am certain that the information that comes back to us will be entirely robust.
Associated with my previous question is the European promise of a referendum for the peoples of Europe. It looks as if there are no fixed parameters for setting that referendum, so things have changed. Does the Scottish Government have a view on what is going to happen at Westminster and what input it will have on the major changes that are going to take place in Europe?
The UK line is that because it is not a constitution but an amending treaty, there will be no need for a referendum. Again, all I can say is that we are looking closely at all the different issues, and we will keep in touch with the UK on that. I have no reason to suspect that we will not have an open discussion and relationship with the UK Government. Of course, it is in flux at the moment and things will change, but I have no reason to suspect that its talks with the devolved Administrations will not be constructive.
I welcome your comments on Malawi and I acknowledge the importance of reviewing what has been done in order to ascertain what works. Have you any further thoughts on how you will progress the Executive's international development policy? Are you considering other countries that might come under the ambit of the policy, and will you announce increased funding for the international development budget?
I am sure that you are aware that we are working towards doubling the aid budget—you would not have asked that question if you were not. That is important to us. We have made a commitment to Malawi, but other places need international aid to assist them in securing a sustainable future, and Scotland has historically made input to other countries. We are considering the issue.
What is your timescale for doubling the aid budget? When do you expect to make an announcement?
I will be completely up front, as I have been in discussion with key players in the field. I will not throw money at international development just so that I can say I have spent it. We must be strategic and ensure that everything we do in international development is sustainable—the word seems to be overused—as we try to do in our approach to Malawi. We want people eventually to be able to take responsibility for their future because they have the resources—monetary or otherwise—to do so. I am taking advice on that.
Will that happen in the first 100 days of the Administration?
I hope that I will be able to make an announcement fairly quickly, but I repeat that international development is too important to be done for the sake of it.
What is the current aid budget? I ask so that the committee can gain a global understanding of the amount of money that we are talking about.
The budget line was £3 million, but last year the previous Executive raised it to £4.5 million.
Does that mean that you hope to increase it to £9 million?
I would spend more than that, if it was down to me. During the comprehensive spending review and future budget processes I will fight for every penny I can get for the international aid budget.
I am not clear whether an increase to £6 million or to £9 million would fulfil your manifesto commitment.
I am considering all the options. I hope that we can raise the international aid budget to £9 million.
Thank you.
Practical difficulties might emerge in the weeks ahead, particularly when you are wearing your external affairs hat. Members of committees—not just this one—and ministers will be required to travel to other places on parliamentary business from time to time. Given the tight voting situation in the Parliament, how would such arrangements be organised?
With Tory support.
Where do you want to go, Ted?
Let me give members an example of what I mean. At this afternoon's Parliamentary Bureau meeting, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will make an approach to the bureau regarding two members going off to India in September or October of this year. That may or may not be resolved this afternoon, but it occurs to me that members might be away on other occasions and that, unless a policy is evolved, such situations will be wide open to all kinds of political ambush.
The minister might want to express a view on that, but it would be a matter for the parliamentary whips and the Minister for Parliamentary Business rather than for the minister. However, I invite the minister to offer a view, if she wishes.
That is the job of my colleague the Minister for Parliamentary Business and his equivalents across the parties.
I thought I could tempt the convener into giving her view.
It was a nice try, Ted.
I am sorry for my late arrival and I apologise if this issue was touched on earlier. This Administration said clearly that it is not in favour of gold plating regulations. Given that many of the matters that we are talking about will come from Europe and go through not only this committee but the minister's department, is the minister looking to introduce new measures to ensure that there is no gold plating? Can the minister share information on that with us just now?
I refer Mr Park to the previous European and External Relations Committee's excellent report, which Jim Wallace compiled, on the transposition of new regulations. We will use that as our starting point for moving forward and we will keep the committee informed.
Will you have a direct role in implementing new measures, or will you share that task with other ministers?
My role would be to head up the process, but other ministers will be involved across the board. For example, John Swinney, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, will have a role to play. EU directives also often impact on rural affairs in Scotland. In fact, Jim Wallace used examples of such impacts in his report.
They are mine now.
Oh, are they? Darn!
You can try hard to be charming, but they are mine.
They are ours.
Yes, they are ours.
I agree that they are wonderful—
What was I going to say, now? Oh, aye, another report that we did—I cannot remember what I was going to say. However, when the then Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform came to talk to this committee's predecessor committee about European directives, we put him on the spot, if I remember correctly, about ensuring that systems were put in place in the Government's Brussels office to enable European issues to be dealt with more easily. I presume that poor Lynne Vallance is working on that as we speak.
I understand from the clerks that the transposition notes are what you wanted to refer to earlier, minister. You are right—the clerks are exceptionally good.
I bet it was Jim Johnston who remembered that.
I have some questions for you, minister. First, though, I do not believe that we have had a formal response from the Executive yet on the Jim Wallace report to which you referred. Can you indicate when one will be forthcoming? I understand that you may not be able to do that just now. It would be most helpful for our discussions if we could have a response before the committee's away day.
I will ensure that you have that.
Like others, I am delighted to hear about your continuing commitment to focusing on Malawi. I understood that the agreement was being monitored and reviewed on a six-monthly basis and that a review was due this month. Are you planning a visit? How do you intend to conduct the review? Is it different from the work that you described whereby people will consider what does and does not work, which I imagine would form part of a review in any case?
The two things are slightly different. The review that you are talking about is carried out on a six-monthly basis. From what I have picked up, one meeting is held at official level and the next is held at ministerial level. There will be a review in mid-July. One of the relevant officers is going out to meet their counterpart in Malawi.
Who is paying?
I hope that it will suit our partners in Malawi to have the meeting during the October recess, so that I can visit. That will enable me to provide reassurance, which is important, and to get agreement on how we proceed. It is not about my going out there and saying, "I think we should be doing this, this and this" but rather, "These are my thoughts. What are yours and how do they tie in?" It is important that the work is spearheaded by the people in Malawi, who know what the problems are and how they have to be addressed.
So, you are not going to take the opportunity to visit during the summer recess. An early visit would do exactly what you are describing by sending the right message of reassurance to people in Malawi.
I am not going to do that. Of course I considered going, but there are big issues in Malawi at the moment. You will know that the President's wife died and that a period of mourning comes to an end next week. That means that certain work has not been done. There is also a bit of a constitutional wrangle going on at parliamentary and Government level, which is going through the courts. There might end up being an election in Malawi later this year, which would be out of time. I hope that that does not happen, because it might be unsettling. I would rather that things were settled politically before I went. I have my fingers crossed that by the time I go in October, people in Malawi will have got over this blip. I would rather not go out while there is turmoil; there will be many other things on people's minds.
That is excellent to know, minister. Thank you. Let us move on to Europe.
Back to Europe.
Back to Europe, indeed. You spoke about your first visit to the JMC on Europe and your intention to involve this committee in establishing Scotland's priorities for Europe. What will be the process for that? When will a paper come from the Executive to the committee? When will the next JMC take place and how do you expect us to establish the priorities that you will take forward?
The next JMC will take place in October. Over the summer recess, we will consider the 24 priorities that were set by the previous Government. I do not think that the previous committee had any great issues about any of those priorities. I hope to be able to give you a flavour of what we are looking at when the committee has its away day. Following that, I hope to make a fairly quick appearance at the committee to talk specifically about the Executive's EU priorities so that, when I meet my devolved counterparts prior to the JMC, I will be able to tell Westminster—prior to the meeting, in the appropriate papers—that we have considered our priorities and say how the Parliament feels about them. We feel strongly that that is the best way forward, if that suits you, convener.
Yes, that is a welcome opportunity. We will leave it to the clerks to liaise with your officials about the practicalities of giving that effect. The committee would welcome that.
"Co-ordinate" is perhaps too strong a word. Things in relation to Europe—the things that John Park talked about, for example—will come through my office: I will see them all. However, the actual practice will be more portfolio based. For example, if something came through about farming, it would go to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. "Overarching" is a better word, which Lynne Vallance has just suggested. I am overarching.
Okay. I will check my dictionary to ensure that I understand exactly what that means.
There are some basic issues. We will have to wait and see who the appropriate new ministers are when the new Prime Minister has picked his Cabinet. Early on, I wrote to my counterparts, telling them that I would appreciate the chance to meet them. I also met quite a lot of people when I attended my first JMC. That was very useful, although some of those people might not be there the next time.
I detect from your comments that you found value in the joint ministerial committee arrangements and that you want them to continue.
The arrangements have huge potential value. I am willing to say that, because the talks on the European constitution and so on were close, the meeting to which I went was perhaps not entirely typical. However, it is vital to have informal links with counterparts in Westminster, Europe, Ireland and Wales and to have the formal mechanisms that are set out in the memorandum of understanding, which allow us to have joint discussion and to talk properly about and iron out any disagreements—"disputes" is perhaps too strong a word—so that everyone knows where everyone else is coming from.
I have one final question before I see whether other members are interested in pursuing matters. I will ask about the constitution. The debate for me is about clarity more than anything else. I understand that in the Administration's first 100 days it will produce an independence white paper, in which the committee may well have an interest. Are you the ministerial lead for that? I say out of mischievousness that I understand that Alex Neil wrote the paper's first draft way back in January. Will you build on that first draft or do you have a different approach?
The First Minister's office will lead on that.
I am looking for absolute clarity. Which minister is in charge of the white paper? You are part of the First Minister's office.
The First Minister's office will be responsible. When appropriate, we will let you know who is leading.
Okay—thank you.
I have two quick points. The minister might have to write to us about them, but I thought it important to raise them. The committee has been interested in how the co-operation agreements with Tuscany, Catalonia and so on are working and what they are delivering for us. The committee may well consider that, so I am interested in whether the Executive has had the opportunity—it might not have—to examine those agreements.
I can answer to an extent. If you want further information, Lynne Vallance will take a note and provide it to you.
I have not heard anything. Because of the election, we have left the matter in the hands of civil servants to take up on our behalf, but it is good to know that people will actively pursue the issue.
I thank the minister for coming to a committee meeting early in the session. Her comments will help us to shape the agenda for our away day. We look forward to the dialogue continuing and the clerks will pick up several action points in conjunction with the minister's officials. If we do not see you before the away day at the end of August, minister, we look forward to seeing you then.
I look forward to seeing the committee.
We might ask some slightly more detailed questions, but there you go—you would expect that of us. I close the meeting but ask members to stay for a moment.
Meeting closed at 16:15.
Previous
Interests