Official Report 192KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is to take evidence on the Scottish Government's EU priorities from the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution. The minister is accompanied by Deborah Smith and Donald Henderson from the Scottish Government's Culture, External Affairs and Tourism Directorate.
Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to come back to the committee. I enjoy these occasions and hope that I will have regular opportunities to update the committee on what we are undertaking, and to discuss both the issues of the day and longer-term issues. I would like to place in context where we are, as my doing so might lead to a better-informed questioning session.
Thank you. I am sure that you have provoked a number of questions from my colleagues, but before I open up to general questions, I will pick up on a few points that you raised in your introduction and that relate to your previous meeting with the committee.
Indeed: the summer, such as it was, has passed. I think that there is still some work to be done on the plan. I will be very happy to bring it to the committee and to a wider audience when I think that we have fully scoped the issues that we want to address next year. As I said, I do not think that we are there yet, and I want to ensure that we do things properly. I apologise for keeping the committee hanging on and I hope that the document will be everything you expect it to be, when it appears.
You also referred to the India plan. I appreciate that you want to widen its scope, but we were promised that it would be published in late spring or early summer. We are running considerably behind on it, as well.
As the poet Burns said;
Why don't we.
Are you referring to the memorandum of understanding that exists between the Administrations of these islands in terms of the JMC process?
Pardon?
Are you referring to the memorandum of understanding that exists between the Administrations of these islands through the JMC process?
Yes.
As I indicated, we have no difficulties with the memorandum of understanding. However, it remains on the table because not all the Administrations have signed up to it.
In the past, we have asked the Scottish Government to keep us abreast of dates and agendas of JMC meetings. In the spirit of openness and positive engagement, would that be possible?
I have no difficulty with that. However, it is the desire of the rest of the structure, particularly the Westminster side, that meetings should not be minuted and, indeed, that no minutes or agendas should be released. The Calman commission recommended that that be changed and that the process become more transparent. I and the Scottish Government fully support such a move, but it cannot be done unilaterally. If any committee members have—shall we say—influence with the Westminster Government, they might want to persuade it to view the proposal more positively. If that happened, your desire would become reality.
Thank you very much.
We are fully aware of the European Commission's priorities. We try to keep a useful and positive contact with every part of the overall European structure, and the key priorities that we have identified—renewable energy and climate change, the marine environment, justice, and research and creativity—are all pretty much central to the messages that we are receiving from every part of that structure. 2009 is the year of innovation and creativity. I met the director general for culture during my most recent visit three weeks ago, and we talked specifically about how we might work together on issues related to creativity. There is also an on-going commitment on justice.
I have two further points to make. I will then bring in my colleagues.
I am sorry that you are surprised. You should distinguish between the core objectives that we are trying to achieve and normal discourse about abnormal events, if I might put it in that way. In the financial sector, there is a focus on the difficulties that have occurred, how to right them and how we will move forward. We are also focused on that, and there is keen engagement between ministers and officials about what is taking place in the sector.
But the financial crisis is not in your priorities.
It is very much our focus in what we are trying to achieve. As you know, convener, the list of priorities was overlong, so we are focusing on what we can achieve. I would achieve even more were I able to represent Scotland in the right way as opposed to being one step removed.
We could go into a debate about constitutional issues, but I would rather concentrate on the subjects.
It has not dropped off. We had this conversation the last time I was at the committee. I am sorry that I was obviously not clear enough, so let me be crystal clear. I was concerned, in coming into office, that we had a list of many, many priorities. It seemed to me—I thought that there was consensus—that that was not the best approach and that we should pick key topics on which to focus our attention. That did not mean that we would stop doing everything else. Rather, we would have key topics and say, "These are the things we need to achieve." Of course, unless we were half-witted or in dereliction of our duties, we would be aware that the budget process and its reform is a constant theme that runs through everything.
Does the minister feel that the EU budget should increase, decrease or remain the same?
If you want to have a full discussion about the EU budget, we will do that, but I do not want to take a position on the budget without you and I having the opportunity to have a fully informed discussion. Unfortunately, I am not here to give my view on the Scottish Government's position on the EU budget. If you would like to invite me back to have a full meeting on the budget, we will have a robust discussion. I can tell you that I expect an independent Scotland to be a net contributor, which will strengthen our position.
I want to explore an area that is set out in the action plan on European engagement, and which the minister mentioned earlier in relation to the treaty of Lisbon—presuming that it comes into force. I am talking about the subsidiarity protocol.
For the first time, there will be a proper treaty that recognises the role of sub-state legislatures. The method we choose for it to operate will be the key issue. I have corresponded with the Presiding Officer, as the committee is aware, and Bruce Crawford and I have been considering the issue from a governmental perspective. From that perspective, we have to be alert to everything on the horizon and to sift that out so that we can work out what our attitude should be and how we want our MEPs, among others, to operate.
Earlier this year, the committee held an event in conjunction with other sub-state entities and their representatives that are the equivalent of this committee. We also met a member of the European Commission whose name escapes me, unfortunately. He made it quite clear that the EU has no way of making sure that subsidiarity principles are adhered to in member states; it is really a matter for each state. I appreciate that the minister has a particular solution for Scotland's position—it is one that I share, although I know that the convener does not want us to discuss that. Clearly, we are not in that position just now. Is there a concern that because the EU is so state-led subsidiarity principles might not be adhered to?
Yes, there is such a concern. Without giving away the contents of the JMC, I have wanted that issue to be addressed at each meeting I have been to. It will be necessary for the United Kingdom Government to focus on that as an issue on which it would like to assist the Parliaments and Assemblies of these islands in getting involved. To be fair, I think that there will be a willingness to do so, which is why I said in my opening statement that I hope to work with Baroness Kinnock and the ministers in the other devolved regions to ensure that that happens.
That sounds positive, and I am glad to hear it. Of course, aside from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, there are other sub-state entities in Scotland—local authorities. How do you envisage local authorities being included in the process?
That is a very good question. The answer will emerge once we find out what the United Kingdom Government intends to do with us, how we will have the debate and how we can widen it. You are right to draw attention to that being a stage beyond where we are. First of all, we need to get the state entity engaged and playing. However, I am mindful that we need to include local authorities.
I return to the four key policy areas in the action plan. My understanding is that the draft plan had about 20 priorities, but we now have four key policy areas. The minister mentioned consultation in his opening statement. Was any consultation carried out in picking the four key areas? How were they chosen?
We focused on areas in which most activity is taking place and where the Scottish Government's priorities dovetailed most closely with the list of priorities in the draft plan, and with the opportunities that we feel exist. No formal consultation around Scotland was carried out, but we carried out what we might call a tour d'horizon of what we were doing, what we felt needed to be done, the priorities in Europe and where most could be achieved.
Those comments are helpful, but Sandra White's point was about engagement with stakeholders. The minister consistently uses the word "we", which I assume to mean the Scottish Government. What—[Interruption.]
Sandra White is indicating that that was not her point. I do not want to intrude on a private grief, but I understood the question and I thought that I had answered it. Perhaps Sandra White will tell me whether I have answered it.
Sandra can continue, but I will perhaps return to the issue.
In his opening statement, the minister mentioned consultation—which is what I was getting at—and explained perfectly well that it was consultation regarding how the Government's priorities would fit with the European Union's work. In my opinion, 20 priorities would be too many. It is much better to have homed in on a smaller number—say four or six. The convener might want to intervene and ask about stakeholders. I will not answer for the minister, but he has mentioned consultation.
Carry on.
As the minister said, the Government has chosen policy areas in which we can get more bang for our buck in Europe. First, on energy, I believe that Scotland was going to be part of the carbon capture activity, so I would like an update on that, if possible.
Let me deal with the energy issue first. As part of the European energy programme for recovery, which was considered at the spring council this year, a number of investment projects were undertaken that were of relevance to Scotland. One of them was the Longannet carbon capture experiment, which is receiving European investment, so it is—
It is on the UK list.
It is on the UK list, as is the Aberdeen offshore demonstrator, which is another energy project. There is a close interface between the two. We view European co-operation in such areas as extremely important.
Thank you; I will perhaps come back on something else.
I will follow through on Sandra White's point about consultation. Clearly, unemployment is a huge issue for us at the moment. Have you consulted or had any discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress?
I would have such consultations only if I intended not to say anything about or have any involvement with unemployment.
You have said on a number of occasions that you have four priority areas, but the point about having such priorities is presumably to focus, to bring added value and—as you indicated earlier—to examine what is important to Scotland, from Scotland's perspective. It is important that we discuss how you chose those four areas over and above the other areas that, as you are clearly indicating, are still somewhere on the horizon.
They are more than on the horizon; they are the theme and the subtext of the activity that we undertake. The priority areas are the high points of that activity. I am seeking every possible analogy to help the committee to understand how I see this landscape.
If we take your point that a reduced number of priorities gives you the potential to be more effective, how will you assess, monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your pursuit of those four priorities? I presume that you will review them.
That is a very good question, and I would welcome the involvement of the committee in monitoring the priorities over a period of time and seeing how we do. The assessment has to be both objective and subjective. Let me draw that point out.
I am glad that you see the need for objectivity. You will be aware that one of the pitfalls in the European Union is that effectiveness has to be measured in terms that are more significant than the production of documents with warm words in them. There are plenty of people in Europe who will claim all sorts of progress and effectiveness, but we must look at these matters objectively.
I agree. One of my reasons for sharpening my axe—it is a slightly dangerous step to take because, in taking it, I put myself up to be judged on the things that I choose—is that it is better to look for peak performance, so to speak, in a smaller number of areas and to measure that objectively.
I understand that you have to focus on priorities and I understand why you would focus on arts and creativity. From meeting the Czech and Swedish presidencies, we know that their number 1 focus has been the economic recovery plans and so on. Scotland is of course, unfortunately, suffering and we have rather a lot of financial services in Scotland. Will you assure me that we will remain focused on economic recovery within the EU?
Yes, absolutely. I have tried to make it as clear as I can—I make the point again to you, Mr Hume—that economic recovery is entirely the context in which we are operating at this time. No meeting that I go to does not address that issue; no council meeting that ministers go to does not have that as a text.
On a slightly different note, the action plan mentions that you like to work closely with the other devolved Administrations. How exactly is that process working and how do you see Scotland benefiting from working with other small nations?
Where it is possible to pool our resources and get some mutual advantage, we will do so. Donald Henderson might want to say a word or two about the event in Strasbourg, because he was there and I was not. I hear that it was a great success.
We can work together constructively in numerous ways. Everyone in Brussels has their own networks and it is not surprising that much is shared between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of us gets to parts of commissioner and institutional machinery that the others do not so there is an opportunity to work together in that way.
I suppose that that is almost like the United Kingdom. Are there any other devolved Parliaments or regional Länder with which we have or seek to have such a close relationship?
There are probably no others with which we have quite the same relationship, for reasons of history and constitutional make-up. However, we have had close relationships with several German Länder offices in Brussels since the office was created 10 years ago, likewise with the Catalunyan office and the Flemish Administration as a whole, given that it is based in Brussels. We also have some connections with one or two French and Italian regions. We are not looking to make such connections only within English-speaking Europe or the United Kingdom, it is simply that working with Wales and Northern Ireland gives us particular advantages in addition to working with Länder, Catalunya and Flanders.
One of the key subject areas, to which the minister has referred once or twice already, has been the marine environment. In reference to a previous question, I think you said that there had been "objective progress" in that area. Will you outline to us where there has been progress?
Mr Lochhead knows more about that subject than I do, so I think that you should listen to an expert rather than to an enthusiastic amateur. However, I can point to the way in which the Scottish Government's arguments about localised management seem to have grown substantially in Europe. The fishing industry's role in conservation is setting a strong example and is well respected. I know as somebody who was in that department and who has been to the fisheries council how well respected the industry's role is and that it has created an enormous amount of interest. We are actively engaged with the present process of devising the correct policy for the European Union post-common fisheries policy. In every regard, the Scottish Government's work with the fishing industry in Europe has been positive and it has worked through the issues in a constructive way. The context for that is that things would be even better if we were able to do that work directly.
That seems to be in direct contradiction to what we hear from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which only last week put out a statement that the past year had been particularly difficult, that the industry's total allowable catch for every species other than North Sea cod had been cut, that the number of days at sea was inadequate, that fuel prices are soaring and that the industry is facing an extremely difficult future. That does not sound like progress.
That is not precisely what the federation said, Mr Brocklebank.
I have the statement here. It says:
Of course, but that is not what you asked me about. You asked me what progress was being made in the European Union to represent the Scottish fishing industry. I told you about work with the fishing industry to make substantial changes. If you had asked me about the difficulties that the fishing industry in Scotland faces, I would have said that there are considerable difficulties that are recognised by Richard Lochhead and those who work with him. He is doing some very constructive work, and the work that is being done on the future of the fishing industry emerged in the report that was published last week. The annual round of negotiations is also under way.
Progress usually means that things are improving but, to judge by what I have just read out to you and from what fishermen are saying, things are not improving but getting worse.
The fishing industry would acknowledge every piece of work that is being done by Richard Lochhead. Without acknowledging that work, you are not giving the complete story.
Let us change the subject. As you are aware, Iceland has applied for membership of the European Union. It has even more important fisheries connections than Scotland has. In your negotiations with Europe, will you make representations, through the United Kingdom Government, to find out whether special conditions are being applied to Iceland's application for membership and whether Iceland will receive things that Scotland could also receive?
It would be good if we could be one of the decision makers in that matter instead of having to leave it to someone else to make the decision. Yes, we will engage fully with that process in a positive spirit—indeed, we have already done so. We believe in a wide membership of the European Union although we recognise that that presents issues for the Scottish fishing industry, as well as other issues for Scotland, which we will wish to discuss.
In your opening answers, you stated that you would like to take the lead role in some of the negotiations on behalf of Scotland. However, it is not possible for you to take the lead in the fisheries council, as you would be leading on a situation in which there are interests that conflict with those of Scotland—interests from the west country, from Ireland and so on.
That strikes me as an interesting illustration of why we should be able to put our own case as an independent nation.
I guess that it also means regular attendance at Council of Ministers meetings—is that correct?
As regular as possible, yes.
You pointed out that there have been 10 opportunities for ministers to attend those meetings, yet the total number of meetings this year has been 41, which leaves 31 meetings that have been unattended.
I do not know what point you are attempting to make—perhaps that ministers are reluctant to attend council meetings. Ministers have attended 10 council meetings in Brussels. Sometimes, they are refused attendance; sometimes, they are not even told what is on the agenda; and, sometimes, council meetings are not relevant because they deal with non-devolved areas—the issues may be of relevance, but we are not allowed to participate. If you give me a list of those 31 meetings, I will tell you—for every single occasion—who attempted to go to the meeting and the reason why that did not happen.
I will be happy to provide you with that list. You will be aware that the agendas and dates of council meetings are widely published. My point was that, if you want to raise Scotland's profile as you set out in your introductory statement, your attendance at those meetings is crucial. As Mr Brocklebank has said, if you want to influence the agenda, you must be there.
There is little point in continuing these exchanges but, for the record, I say that your point is not valid. We make every attempt to attend council meetings when we can but, on some important occasions, we do not get to attend. The point that I would make, in countering your point, is that the best way to attend would be to ensure that there was a seat at the table for us.
We look forward to receiving an explanation. I will provide you with each of the meeting dates.
Could you tell the committee what engagement the Scottish Government has had with regard to the Spanish presidency, and what outcomes you expect to come from that?
There has been limited engagement so far. Donald Henderson might want to talk about what we are endeavouring to do in that regard, as he has the day-to-day responsibility for that area.
I think that "limited" is probably a good description of the engagement at the moment. However, we are talking to members of the Spanish permanent representation in Brussels, who came along to an event that we held in Scotland House yesterday on water management. We are also talking more broadly to the troika that includes Belgium and Hungary, which will each in turn assume the presidency after the Spanish. Through engagement with that trio, we hope to gain intelligence about people's intentions and, where possible, influence them—however, inevitably, when three countries come together for the presidency in that way, you should expect to explore ideas with people more than you should expect to be able to bring about decisions as a direct result of your having fed in an idea.
On that issue of working with others, I notice that the action plan indicates that it is the intention of the Scottish Government to work with others who have similar policy interests and to build relations with those countries. Would you outline what has been done in that regard so far?
The particular target areas that we are talking about, or who we are trying to work with on issues?
I presume that, as the action plan has identified four specific areas, those would be the areas with regard to which you would be working with others.
I indicated that Mr MacAskill had met the Swedish justice minister, and I know that the Solicitor General has attended a number of bilateral events on justice issues.
I am grateful for that information, but I was asking about the section of the action plan that talks about building relationships with other member states. Other than the bilateral meetings on fishing that Mr Lochhead was engaged in, are there any examples of that approach that you would like to share with us?
My colleagues take regular opportunities to have those visits. Shona Robison has been involved with the Swedish presidency on a number of health issues, which are not in our list of four priorities but are important to the work that she is doing. I would be happy to furnish the member with a list of other examples. Whenever there is a visiting ambassador or representative, I make sure that I meet them. Last week, I met the Lithuanian ambassador. At those meetings, consideration is given to the opportunities that exist in Europe for further discussion between officials or ministers. We are building a network or web, and that process is paying dividends.
Are there any particular outcomes to which you want to draw the committee's attention?
There are none to which I want to draw the committee's attention now, but I hope that Scotland is in the process of normalising its relationships, which is the ultimate outcome.
To date, there have been no particular outcomes that you can think of that have been positive for Scotland.
There are a number of positive indications. There is a meeting today or tomorrow—I think that it is tomorrow—with the Polish ambassador. Out of the Polish relationship, some indications have emerged of possible work on one or two fronts. We discussed some energy issues with the Lithuanian ambassador, which he was interested in taking forward. Through analysis over a period of time, it would be possible to identify some extremely positive outcomes from the process of normalisation.
Would it be worth asking the minister to provide the committee with a list of those outcomes, convener? I sense a little coyness.
I would be the last person to be coy. I am happy to provide the committee with an analysis of those relationships and how they develop, but that would have to be done over a period of time.
I am conscious that the action plan lays out short-term objectives, so I would have thought that the outcomes that would be achieved as a result of those elements of the action plan would be achieved in the shorter term rather than in the longer term.
There is a series of short-term outcomes that are obvious to me, which I am happy to outline to you. There are also some longer-term advantages. The policy is bearing fruit in the normalisation of our relationships that is taking place.
We will discuss those matters further in private session, after which we might write to the minister, if that would be agreeable.
I would be happy to respond to you.
Several members want to ask questions, but Sandra White has a follow-up.
I want to follow up on the four main priorities. Are those priorities prioritised? I do not know the inner workings of ministerial processes, but it would seem eminently sensible that, if you are working with the UK Government and the UK Government has the final say on carbon capture, that would be one of your priorities. Are the priorities prioritised depending on what comes through the EU—you mentioned a meeting with the Swedish presidency on justice—or do you just take them as read?
When opportunities arise, we take them, as well as pursuing our own agenda. In other words, we are promoting the four policy priorities and making progress on them, but when we see a particular opportunity, we will take it.
Just to follow up on that, how flexible are the priorities?
They are very flexible—they can be extended in every direction, as we see fit. I do not think that they are infinitely flexible, but we might be getting into the realms of philosophy.
I am pleased to hear the minister say that because, in the past, ministers have always indicated a willingness to work with and engage with the committee on issues that become EU priorities that are relevant or important to the committee's work programme.
I would be happy to consider such issues, as long as we do not find ourselves back in the situation of having a list of 21 priorities. The main priorities are at the pinnacle or the tip of a much larger iceberg of activity. If an issue is promoted to the tip, by definition another issue moves off the tip. Work is still done on it, but it moves off the tip. I would be willing to discuss that with the committee.
I say that because the minister will be aware that the committee has produced a report on the impact of the financial crisis that was widely welcomed. Later on, we will discuss how to take forward the discussion that we have had with you today.
If you were to come to me—I presume that you would approach Mr Swinney, as well—to say that you would like to discuss with us actions that we are taking and to suggest actions that we might take, I am sure that we would be happy to have that conversation.
The action plan states that the Scottish Government envisages "a deeper engagement" with the European Parliament due to the impact of the Lisbon treaty. Will you explain what that deeper engagement might be? In the event that the Lisbon treaty is not ratified, will there be no deeper engagement?
If there is no Lisbon treaty, all bets are off. The voters of Ireland have a significant impact on what happens, and I am not going to gainsay them. After the vote on Friday, I think that the Czechs and Poles would need to finish the job of ratification, too.
Although we must await the outcome of the Irish referendum, I know that you are an enthusiastic supporter of Europe. Indeed, on the most recent occasion when you gave evidence to the committee, you said that we should be "evangelical" in communicating European issues to our citizens. Leaving aside subsidiarity, have you analysed other issues in the Lisbon treaty that are of relevance and importance to Scotland?
There are issues of relevance to Scotland and a substantive debate took place in Scotland, but all that seems a long time ago. That is one problem with the Lisbon treaty: we have been waiting for the other shoe to drop for some time. When we know what the situation is after Friday, it will be important for us all to return to the issue and ask, "What's next for us? How does this work for us?"
Has your team analysed how proposed new article 2.3, on territorial cohesion, might impact on Scotland? I think that most regions in Europe think that the promotion of territorial as well as economic cohesion would bring substantive added value to our economies.
We agree with you in general that there is potential for improvement, but we need to work out precisely how we will do that best. Work has been and is being done by officials on such matters, which we will share and debate with the committee. However, the first thing to do will be to say, "Right, the other shoe has dropped. Now how do we get the best out of the situation?" I am presuming that the other shoe will drop; if it does not do so, who knows what will happen?
We will wait with interest. When you last gave evidence to the committee, I think that you said that work was on-going, so I thought that you might be able to provide a more detailed update today. We will write to you on the issue.
I may know that already—
But you may not want to tell us—
I just do not think that this is the place to have that discussion.
The committee stands by its reputation of constructive engagement with ministers, and we will certainly continue to engage in that way. We also have a role in scrutinising the Government, which I know that you appreciate.
I encourage always—to quote Thomas Hardy.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
“Brussels Bulletin”