European Union Involvement
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00797, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Scotland Bill European Union involvement.
15:26
The Scottish National Party stated in our manifesto, which helped to secure the first single-party majority rule in the history of the Scottish Parliament, that we would seek in the short term to strengthen the Scotland Bill under the devolution settlement and then hold a referendum in the second half of our term to give the people a choice on whether to proceed to independence. That is what we will do.
The Scottish Parliament and Government now have more than 12 years’ experience of dealing with the EU, and our experience of specific devolved interests now makes it clear that Scottish ministers should have a strengthened role in European discussion and decision making. Although we are always learning, we clearly have areas of expertise where we can act as a mature and effective contributor to the EU.
It is not just the SNP Government that thinks that is the right course of action, and it is not a new concept. Cross-party support for the concept stretches back to pre-devolution days. On St Andrew’s day in 1995, the Scottish Constitutional Convention published “Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right”. That document referred to the importance of Scotland’s relationships with EU institutions, Scotland’s representation in United Kingdom ministerial delegations to the Council of Ministers and, where appropriate, Scottish ministers leading UK delegations.
In 1998, the Conservative peer Lord Mackay tabled an amendment to the first Scotland Bill that would have required—in law—the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek the views of the Scottish Parliament on any devolved issue before a UK minister attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers relating to that issue. Of course, Lord Steel also suggested a clause in the Scotland Bill entitling Scottish ministers to be part of the UK delegation and to participate in discussions in the EU institutions.
Labour colleagues have also supported calls for Scotland to have direct representation. In 2004, the Scottish Executive’s European strategy included a statement from Andy Kerr that said:
“Ministerial attendance at Councils will take place where there is a Scottish policy issue to pursue.”
Unfortunately, years on, attendance is still being refused, in some cases.
As members are aware, the Scottish Government is proposing an amendment to the Scotland Bill for powers on statutory rights to attend Council of Ministers meetings, both formal and informal, and on attendance of officials at European Commission and Council working groups at which any non-reserved matter is to be considered. It also covers areas in which Scottish ministers have functions conferred on them directly by Westminster legislation, and executively devolved functions under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Will the cabinet secretary support the rights of Welsh and Northern Irish ministers in this regard?
There is currently no request from the Welsh and Northern Irish for statutory attendance, but they have supported my calls for attendance by devolved Administrations. Indeed, the Northern Irish have written to me expressing their interest in the case that we are pursuing. However, we are the only devolved Administration for which legislation is currently being debated in Westminster, so we have the opportunity to strengthen it. Whether the call is for statutory rights of attendance, which I am pursuing, or other means, the case for strengthening the legislation is absolute, and I am seeking agreement from the Parliament on that basis.
In this debate, we are seeking consensus on the need to strengthen our role in Europe under the current devolution settlement. The amendments that are before us give the impression that, despite the growing public momentum in support of more powers, there is a danger of some parties in Scotland going backwards rather than forwards in their thinking. The Tory amendment rejects even the UK Tory Government’s recognition that our role needs to be strengthened. I will listen to Labour’s argument, but it might have held for the first Scotland Bill Committee’s work, and had the bill been yet to enter debate and the amendment stage at Westminster. However, the Scotland Bill is now being debated at Westminster, and Labour should not paralyse the Scottish Parliament by stopping debates in the chamber. I notice that it has not done so for the previous four subject areas.
We need a stronger role in Europe because of our separate and distinct justice system, our climate change ambitions and our distinctive education system.
The question is why we need a stronger presence in Europe. Why, indeed? Why does not the Government consider the European Free Trade Association instead of the EU? We are much more likely to be effective in EFTA and to get more out of it that suits Scotland.
Margo MacDonald will well recognise that the Scottish Parliament needs sovereignty and the choice to make such decisions. We currently do not have that choice, but we would have it in an independent Scotland. In the meantime, under devolution, I want to ensure that the best interests of Scotland, whether in justice, climate change or education, are being pursued now, in 2011. However, Margo MacDonald’s point is about being recognised in the context of the sovereignty of choice, which treaties we would want to sign and which organisations we would want to be in.
Strengthened opportunities to access Europe would give Scotland greater influence over decisions and engagement on issues that directly affect Scottish industries and Scottish legislation, and would help us to meet our full economic potential. As the member state, the UK generally speaks on behalf of Scotland, even in areas such as justice, energy and education in which we clearly have a distinct devolved interest.
We have engaged and supported agendas on Europe constructively in all areas—none more so than justice. The UK is the only member state with more than one legal system. The Scottish ministers and law officers have played a key role in supporting the UK position in areas of civil, family and criminal law. Indeed, the European Commission’s vice-president Viviane Reding praised Scotland’s support for victims of crime when she met the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Luxembourg in June, and many elements of the victims road map, which the Commission published in May this year, reflect practice in Scotland.
Scotland is internationalist, responsible and engaged. Given our current limited powers, we have still been able to set world-beating climate change targets and a world-leading water policy, and to go from a near standing start to the front of the pack in our renewables capacity. In fact, the Prime Minister wrote to the First Minister on 1 August to welcome the Scottish ministers’ support for higher EU ambition on climate change, and he recognised that Scotland has good examples to share of the jobs, investment and growth potential of progressive climate change policies.
The Scottish ministers were delegates at the previous United Nations climate conference in Cancun. They played an active role in the UK delegation to support higher ambition and launch important initiatives on clean energy in developing countries. We plan to do the same in Durban this December. I single out the UK minister Chris Huhne for his positive spirit of co-operation on climate change and energy. Unfortunately, he is the exception rather than the norm, which is why the Scottish Government’s view is that we need statutory provisions.
The strength of the evidence from Scotland on the low-carbon economy is now being used by the UK, and the Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change attended June’s environment council. Stewart Stevenson was able to add real value in the council meeting as part of the UK delegation. He worked with Chris Huhne to influence sceptical EU member states to support a 30 per cent target. That shows where Scotland is making a real and meaningful contribution in council to influence the whole EU climate change agenda. We should build on that across other areas.
Will the minister give way?
I really want to make some progress.
We have also raised the bar by supporting minority languages. In 2010, Michael Russell spoke for the UK at the education, youth, culture and sport council using Gaelic. It is interesting that at the same council in the previous year, I observed from other countries delegations that comprised ministers and devolved and federal Government representatives with specific areas of expertise. Both spoke at the full Council as part of the delegation as well as the member state. That approach was put to excellent effect during the Belgian presidency, when Flemish ministers chaired the fisheries council, the environment council and the education, youth, culture and sport council with notable success in several areas. Those examples demonstrate the legitimacy and added value of drawing from expertise, wherever it may sit within the member state. Such thinking goes a long way towards supporting Scotland’s playing a greater role than simply attending in silence.
With your agreement, Presiding Officer, I am happy to take Mr McLetchie’s intervention if my time allows me to.
Yes, it does.
I thank the minister. Does she accept that the rules governing representation at meetings of the European Council are determined by the European Union and are applicable to all member state delegations? How can she reconcile that with the statutory provision that she claims to want when, for example, there may be a restricted session of a meeting at which only one minister per member state is allowed to be present? How are all the Scottish ministers, Welsh ministers and Northern Ireland ministers going to barge their way into that when it is contrary to the rules of the European Union?
Had David McLetchie—or, indeed, any Conservative member—been in the chamber during question time earlier instead of sleeping on the devolution job, let alone, as Jack McConnell said, sleeping on the job of the union, he might have heard Aileen McLeod make the precise point that there are provisions in the Treaty on European Union to allow representation by whomever the member state wants to contribute. The Belgian presidency has had Flemish ministers chairing—not just attending to make decisions—the fisheries council and the environment council. It is possible and can be done.
Those examples demonstrate the legitimacy of that approach, so it is hard to believe that the previous UK Labour Government preferred to field a House of Lords representative—Lord Davies, who had responsibility for, among other things, bees—to represent the UK on fisheries at an informal council in Vigo, despite the fact 70 per cent of UK landings are by Scottish fishing vessels.
We are eager to ensure our involvement and that of the other devolved Administrations before the UK position is finalised. After 12 years of playing a key role in supporting the UK position, it is time for recognition and respect for that role, by making the most of our expertise and experience.
It is only fair to say that, from the outset, the UK coalition Government has offered a more constructive approach than the previous UK Labour Government. When I raised my concerns at the joint ministerial council on Europe in June 2010, William Hague undertook to write to his Cabinet colleagues to ask that they respond positively to approaches from devolved Administrations to attend and speak at council meetings. That is simply not being acted on often enough. It is disappointing that in fisheries, in which Scotland has the dominant interest in the UK, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, has been able to speak at only one agri-fish council, in September 2010, and then only after an intervention from the Prime Minister.
Our provisions for the Scotland Bill would avoid the need for the Prime Minister’s intervention. We are proposing a reasonable solution and following the thinking of previous Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians. David McLetchie and Jamie McGrigor might want to listen to this point. We recognise that if a Scottish minister leads a UK delegation they will need to contribute to that discussion on behalf of the UK line formed after discussion with the devolved Administrations. That is reasonable.
The motion is about constructive dialogue to achieve consensus to take forward the point that our representation needs to be strengthened. Achieving cross-party consensus here at Holyrood will always serve us well. That strengthening of representation can be secured in different ways, but the Scottish Government’s preference is for statutory provision. The bottom line is that it needs to be strengthened.
We will, of course, hear different views presented in this debate. At the end of the day, I hope that we can agree on the principle that our role needs to be strengthened. Scotland has a lot to say and to contribute within the European Union. I hope that we will hear support for that point in the speeches that follow, but within the current devolution settlement we still need a better way to ensure that that contribution can be made. That is what this debate is about.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that Scotland should have a strengthened role in European policy making; acknowledges the UK Government undertaking to respond positively to approaches from devolved administrations to attend and speak at meetings of the Council of the European Union; notes the present situation of Scottish ministers being required to write seeking permission to attend council meetings, and calls for Scottish ministers to be included in the delegation representing the UK at proceedings of EU institutions considering matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament or that are exercisable by Scottish ministers.
15:39
At a time when we as a Parliament are reflecting on the powers that we have and the additional powers that we need to best serve the people of Scotland, it is right that we look at how best we can pursue that agenda in the widest possible context.
Part of our concern about today’s debate is that it seems to be pushing us into making a decision about the extent and level of our EU involvement, following a debate lasting only 55 minutes. We have set up a new committee in the Parliament and have charged it with the robust scrutiny that we expect of all our committees. We expect it to take evidence from a wide range of people, to consider seriously the evidence that it hears and to come to the Parliament with its conclusions. So, I am left wondering why the Government is intent on pre-empting the committee by pushing the motion to a vote at the conclusion of only our second plenary meeting of the new term.
Even more surprising is the fact that the Scottish Government seems less than clear about what it wants to achieve in terms of its engagement with Europe. After the election—indeed, up until a few days ago—the First Minister seemed to be demanding a seat at the negotiating table and to have that enshrined in law. That demand was contained in a policy paper that was produced a few weeks ago, in which it was a proposed amendment to the Scotland Bill, and it was echoed in a draft of the motion for debate today that was kindly circulated by the minister last week. In spite of the softening of the motion that we are debating today, I wonder whether Ms Hyslop has reinstated the policy or whether the policy has changed in fact.
We were attacked yesterday by Annabel Goldie, who said that we were somehow relentlessly hostile to people who had a different point of view. Today, we seem to be being attacked—we can see it in the Conservative amendment—for taking the trouble to see whether there is consensus within the Parliament. I recognise that Labour perhaps cannot come to a decision because it does not have a leader, but the Westminster Parliament is now debating these points in the House of Lords and we are quite right to bring them forward.
I do not think that we should be criticised for seeking what might be a lowest common denominator in our position about a strengthened role. Parliament saying that it does not respect the right of the Government to try to engage with the Opposition parties makes it difficult for us to listen and respond—and that is an issue not just for this debate, but for Parliament going forward over the next few months.
Yes—but if the Government produces a proposition for the chamber, members must be clear about what is being proposed. We should be debating whatever the Government is trying to amend in the Scotland Bill, not some other aspect of what it would like to achieve as a transitional measure. The Government must be honest with the Parliament and say what it means.
I am not privy to the internal machinations of the SNP, but this seems to be a remarkable state of affairs even by the standards of the current Government. Perhaps the confusion explains the slightly strange tone of the Government motion—for strange it is. The motion seems to suggest that the present arrangement, whereby Scottish ministers can be part of a UK delegation, is not good enough. We would accept that and have said so in the past.
However, the obvious question for the Government is this: what is being done about the existing procedure and on what occasions, when it was relevant for the Government to be involved, has it been denied the opportunity to attend Council meetings? Ms Hyslop has given some examples of times when that has been the case; however, she has given us a longer catalogue of occasions when the Scottish Government was represented or was representative of the UK position. We need to be clear about where the balance of the argument lies.
I think that the Scottish Government has a point regarding the way in which the issue should be taken forward, which is why our amendment is couched as it is. Nevertheless, we must be absolutely clear about what we are talking about, so I would have welcomed some more information from the Government about that.
I realise that what motivates SNP ministers most is separation but, as matters stand, we are one part of a member state and the constitutional position, which David McLetchie alluded to, remains that under article 203 of the Treaty of European Union the representative to the Council of Ministers must hold a position at ministerial level and be authorised to commit the Government of the member state. Thus, members of regional and subnational Governments may attend as delegates of their member states when that delegation has been agreed at national level. In theory, that seems to be reasonable. We would be prepared to listen to the Government’s arguments for strengthening the procedure, but we have yet to have it demonstrated that that needs to be done in the way that Ms Hyslop suggests.
However, there is a certain irony about today’s debate. Just under a year ago I visited Brussels as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I think that Mr McLetchie was in the same delegation. We were there on the Europe 2020 strategy and to consider the impact of the Lisbon treaty. We had a series of interesting meetings and it became clear that there are already many ways in which the Government can contribute to shaping EU policy and decisions. The Commission officials we spoke to highlighted the need to produce a UK national reform programme, but also indicated to us that there was absolutely no reason why Scottish ministers should not set their own targets in relation to Europe 2020, and submit them directly. Perhaps the minister would like to say whether her Government did so.
Perhaps the most telling point, though, came in the same meeting, when officials indicated that autumn 2010 was the time when requests regarding the shape of the next programming period would be made. Once again, the need for a Scottish response was emphasised. In the same meeting, officials advised us of an initiative of the Welsh Assembly Government. I quote from the committee report:
“The Commission”
officials
“noted that the Welsh Assembly Government and Welsh Assembly had jointly met the Commission recently to outline their approach to Reform. This was contrasted with what the Commission considered a comparative ‘lack of engagement’ by Scottish actors”.
There are opportunities for the Scottish Government and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament to be even more involved than we are. I would very much appreciate it if Ms Hyslop could say in her closing statement whether the Government set targets for reform and whether they were submitted to the Commission. That is a particularly important agenda, and it will be increasingly important as we go forward.
As matters stand, the Scottish Government has to come up with a better policy for its engagement in Europe. It must clarify its position once and for all, and it should use the opportunities it already has and demonstrate that it understands the importance of that engagement for the sake of Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-00797.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“notes that the Scotland Bill Committee has been established in the Parliament to examine the case made by ministers for new powers in a number of areas including European policy making; believes that it is important that the views of the Scottish Government and the Parliament can be effectively represented in European policy making and that Scottish and UK ministers should work together to ensure that the correct approach is being taken to achieve this, and believes that the Parliament should come to a view on this matter once the Scotland Bill Committee has taken evidence on this issue and questioned ministers, as it will do in the course of its work.”
15:47
Many of us will recall Harold Wilson’s comment that
“a week is a long time in politics.”
With the Scottish National Party, three days appears to be a long time. Having drafted its initial motion on Monday calling for statutory rights for Scottish ministers to be part of British delegations to EU meetings, by Tuesday it had been watered down to the flimsy motion that we now have before us. Indeed, it is almost as flimsy as the paper that was launched by the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs earlier in the summer.
Having said that, I am delighted by the SNP’s spectacular U-turn, which rightly acknowledges the UK coalition Government’s commitment to giving a greater say to devolved Administrations on our relationship with Europe. However, the cabinet secretary’s motion fails to highlight the fact that we in Scotland have a strong role in European policy making through our partnerships within the United Kingdom. That is why I have lodged an amendment.
Although we may be tempted to enter a partisan debate on the role that Scotland would play in Europe if the SNP separated her from the rest of the UK family, I intend to consider the positive current position that Scotland enjoys with the EU. It is true that when it comes to fisheries, 70 per cent of UK landings are by the Scottish fleet. In that very clear sense, Scotland should have a greater say in decisions that are taken at the annual fisheries council in Brussels each December. Indeed, our own European and External Relations Committee made the point in its recent “Inquiry into the Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland” that there is scope in the treaty for national Parliaments, devolved Parliaments and devolved Governments to play a greater role in the EU’s decision-making process.
Although I acknowledge that it was unfortunate that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment was allegedly excluded by the previous Labour Government from attending a meeting in Vigo in April 2010 to discuss the future of the common fisheries policy, it is clear that our present Prime Minister, David Cameron, is open to greater flexibility. Indeed, in September of last year David Cameron agreed to allow Richard Lochhead to lead UK-level fisheries talks in Brussels on the on-going mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroes. The, as usual, gracious response from our First Minister Alex Salmond was:
“I am glad that … the Prime Minister has accepted the request for Richard Lochhead to speak on this vitally important issue for Scottish fishermen.”
Will the member give way?
I will quickly do so.
The issue is important. We might get warm words and the Prime Minister’s intervention, but the machine and establishment of Whitehall regularly refuse our requests to attend informal councils, so the matter is still problematic. There might be political will at ministerial level and warm words, but very rarely is the approach exercised by the machine. That is why we need a statutory power.
Rome was not built in a day, and neither was the United Kingdom.
I am somewhat confused as to why the SNP Administration initially thought it necessary to propose an amendment to the Scotland Bill to formalise in legislation the presence of Scottish ministers at EU meetings. It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The current arrangements appear to work and David Cameron has been true to his word in starting to develop the coalition Government’s respect agenda for Scotland. Within three days of becoming Prime Minister, he came to the Scottish Parliament to meet Mr Salmond. Blair did not do that and Brown did not do that. UK ministers now regularly appear before our parliamentary committees.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
The question that the SNP needs to answer is this: where do we draw the line on the attendance at EU meetings of ministers from devolved Assemblies? If the SNP’s underlying attitude were to be implemented, what would stop the Northern Irish or Welsh arguing for a greater say at European level? People from the Basque Country, the Catalans, the Flemish, the Bavarians and people from the five Italian regions would all want their interests to be represented at the Council of Ministers. It would be like the tower of Babel all over again; it would become unmanageable and unsustainable.
Scottish ministers should focus their attention on active discussions with their UK counterparts prior to meetings with our EU neighbours. It is called forward planning. Why not negotiate as one and argue as one, to achieve the best results for all people in the UK?
I am rendered breathless by the member’s description of the demands of the Basques and Catalans, but I want to ask him whether he thinks that Mr Cameron’s response to the Scottish Government is born out of respect for the Scottish Government or a knowledge of how to use power.
I think that David Cameron has a great respect for the Scottish Government, as do other members. At the joint ministerial committee on 8 June 2010, William Hague undertook to write to his Cabinet colleagues to ask them to respond positively to approaches from devolved Administrations to attend and speak at council meetings. He is one of David Cameron’s ministers, so I imagine that he would not have said that unless he meant it—[Interruption.] May I make some progress? Ministers should remember—
You have 20 seconds.
Oh. Right.
It is great that the SNP has watered down its motion. There is nothing like a sinner who repents, and today the SNP has repented. I will be charitable and say that the party might simply have realised that the Scottish people do not need unnecessary political and constitutional tinkering. What the Scottish people need is sustainable jobs and better living standards.
I move amendment S4M-00797.1, to leave out from “should” to end and insert:
“has a strengthened role in European policy making through its membership of the United Kingdom; welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to drop its unnecessary demand for Scottish ministers to have statutory rights to be included in UK delegations through an amendment to the Scotland Bill, and further welcomes the ongoing active cooperation and consultation between the Scottish and UK governments, which ensures that the interests of the Scottish people are fully represented in the European Union in both devolved and reserved matters.”
15:53
Scotland’s role and the involvement of the Scottish ministers in European policy making and legislative processes is one of those issues that we are often told are about the SNP picking fights—that has become an increasingly tedious cliché—or demanding additional rights that Scotland does not need or deserve. From my brief experience so far as convener of the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, I have to say that I am bemused as to why the issue is considered to be so controversial or party political. As far as I can see, there is a great deal of cross-party consensus—at least in the Scottish Parliament— not only about the undoubted importance and significant impact of decisions in Europe on aspects of Scottish life, but on the fact that Scotland’s interests in the European context are not necessarily identical to those of the UK as a whole, which creates a need for Scotland’s distinctive voice to be heard when decisions are being made.
Of course, we differ on the ultimate nature and extent of that voice. For me and for my party, the ideal would be for Scotland to be a full member of the European Union, as an independent state. The other parties obviously do not support that position, but in the context in which we find ourselves now, it should not be difficult for this Parliament to agree that the arrangements are inadequate and do not allow for Scotland’s best possible case to be made at European negotiating tables. We might debate how, and in what manner, the distinctive voice should be heard, but we can surely agree that it must be heard.
The Scottish Government has not sought to pick a fight with anyone; it has simply asked the Westminster Government—the present one and its predecessor—to listen and respond to the entirely reasonable case that Scotland has distinctive interests and concerns in Europe that would be best argued and articulated by the people who have the greatest knowledge and understanding of the issues: our Scottish ministers.
We should not be overly surprised that successive UK Governments have been less receptive to that reasonable case than we might expect. After all, few institutions, particularly ones that are as venerable and—dare I say it?—as self-important as Westminster, give up power without some resistance. However, in this chamber, where we all represent the interests of devolved Scotland, one does not have to be a nationalist to accept that the current arrangements could and should be greatly improved.
When it comes to matters as important to Scotland’s economy and to the livelihoods of significant numbers of Scots as the common agricultural policy—to give just one example of where a member of the Scottish Government is responsible for implementing decisions that are made in Europe—an ad hoc system simply is not adequate. Where it is clear that the Scottish dimension is distinct from or different to that of other parts of the UK, it is only common sense that the Scottish experts should be in the rooms where the negotiations are going on and the decisions are being made. With the best will in the world, for a UK minister who represents the whole of the UK, the Scottish dimension will be at best an addendum and more often an afterthought—frequently, it will not be considered at all. That is not meant as an attack or even a criticism, necessarily—it is a UK minister's job to represent the UK, after all.
What we should be critical of is a refusal by a Westminster Government of any political stripe to compensate for that by agreeing in partnership with the Scottish Government a proper and fit-for-purpose system that ensures that Scottish ministers are present on the European stage whenever Scotland’s interests require them to be. Nor is it too much to ask that Westminster recognise that it is those same Scottish ministers who are the best judges of when and on what issues the distinctive Scottish dimension needs to be represented.
Of course, there might be some Westminster politicians who would prefer to deny that Scotland’s interests are ever different from, or discrete from, those of the UK. However, I would gently suggest to them that they lost that argument the day that Scotland’s devolved Parliament came into being. Of course, no one elected to this chamber would ever subscribe to such a view in this day and age.
If we move forward on the shared assumption, therefore, that Scotland does have her own corner to fight in Europe, we should also be able to agree that any system in which Scottish ministers have to ask to be in attendance at discussions on crucial issues, as though begging for a great favour, the granting of which seems to be dependent on the mood of Westminster on any given day, does not represent a good arrangement for anyone. It does not look like respect to me, in either direction. It is not good for intergovernmental relations, and it is certainly not good for Scotland.
I believe that the Scottish Government is doing the right thing by seeking to find a way to resolve the situation by agreement and consensus and I believe that a broad consensus already exists in this chamber. We should build on that to secure proper arrangements for Scotland’s interests to be represented in Europe on an on-going basis by the people who are best qualified to do so: the cabinet secretaries and ministers of our Scottish Government.
15:58
This is a somewhat unusual debate, in that we are debating an issue that is still to be considered by the Scotland Bill Committee. There also seems to be a degree of confusion about the amendment that the SNP attached to the briefing note that it sent out.
As has been said many times before, devolution is a process, not an event. The relationships that we are discussing have developed greatly since 1999. The concordats that were put in place in the early stages of devolution have moved on. The work in the Scotland Bill is a continuation of that, and there is a chance to develop Scotland’s voice in the UK and have it be represented at an EU level. I acknowledge that there are tensions around representation, as there were before an SNP Government came along. However, when I read the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing I was interested to discover that when Kenny MacAskill was denied the opportunity to attend a formal council meeting in September 2009, it was the first time in 11 years of devolution that that had happened.
Informal councils, which I have attended, can be just as important in proactively trying to build relationships, change policies and influence things. However, we are frequently refused attendance at informal councils. Does James Kelly acknowledge that?
Obviously that is a matter for the UK Government. It needs to assess not only Scotland’s role, but the roles of Northern Ireland and Wales, and decide on appropriate representation at formal and informal councils.
The SNP must accept that we are not an independent nation; we operate, as Patricia Ferguson outlined, within the UK state. As such, the UK is the main representative, and it must work out how best to ensure that the UK as a whole is represented in the EU. Within that, I want Scotland to have a strong voice and to be represented appropriately.
In terms of this debate, there is a process to go through. We have set up the Scotland Bill Committee—it was the wish of the SNP to set up such a committee to consider the six items that Alex Salmond, as First Minister, put forward in his acceptance speech when he was elected as First Minister. If we establish a committee and dedicate parliamentary resources and the time of parliamentarians, we want the committee to consider the issues, hear and test the arguments, and take appropriate evidence. The committee should then bring its report to the Parliament, as has happened many times, in order for the Parliament to give appropriate consideration to the issue.
The SNP Government’s three-page document does not do justice to the issue—to give it appropriate consideration, we need more detail. It is important to have an element of consistency in these matters, so that whatever is agreed for Scotland can be seen to be applied consistently in Northern Ireland and Wales. It must also be competent. Some of the rules on representation are decided by the EU. We do not want to draft something in a motion, or to include something in the Scotland Bill, that is not competent.
Opportunities exist for the wider Parliament to engage on European affairs. I acknowledge the role of the European and External Relations Committee. We have heard from Christina McKelvie, and that committee’s previous convener, Irene Oldfather, was a great advocate of the role of Scotland in Europe and ensured that the committee was proactive. As a member of the Justice Committee, I am aware that the committee this week appointed Roderick Campbell as an EU reporter to assess the European impact on justice matters. There is a role for the European and External Relations Committee and other committees of the Parliament to interact positively with Europe to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has an ability to influence European policy.
We want to engage constructively and positively. We want the Scottish Government to work in co-operation with the UK Government to ensure that we have proper representation in Europe. In this debate, we must go through the process and ensure proper consideration of the evidence and facts before arriving at a position.
16:05
Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Yesterday and this morning, we heard the Scottish Government set out its programme for government and we debated the priorities for the year ahead. This afternoon’s debate is in stark contrast to such wide-ranging discussion of Scotland’s priorities, as it is about our insufficient opportunity to participate in the most important decision-making bodies of Europe, which means that Scotland’s priorities can be bypassed or ignored.
James Kelly says that we have conduits of influence but, if we are not at the top table, we are not where decisions are made. The stories of Scottish ministers being excluded from discussions in Europe and even at times being refused a presence on a delegation are not new, but they remain utterly scandalous. The fact is that things do not have to be that way. It is not as if we are asking for something that does not already exist. A look at some of our European neighbours illustrates that ensuring European representation from devolved Governments is perfectly possible and effective.
As the cabinet secretary said, Belgium has had clear and agreed divisions of subjects between levels of government since 1994. On some topics, the federal Government takes the lead role, while on others, a minister from a region takes the lead role. In most discussions, a minister is automatically backed by a representative from a different tier of government. For example, when the federal Government takes the lead role for Belgium in Europe, a regional representative is present to ensure that the regional Government’s needs are fully taken into account and represented, and vice versa. Far from having to write a begging letter for permission to attend, as is the situation for this country, the Scottish ministers should have that accepted assumption of representation on UK delegations.
On subjects that fall almost entirely within one region’s competence, such as fishing, that region acts as the sole representative for Belgium. If only the Scottish Government had sole responsibility for representing Scotland’s fishing industry in Europe. Fishermen have far greater faith in Richard Lochhead’s abilities than they do in members of the Conservative Party, which—let us not forget—once described the fishing industry as expendable.
Scotland is home to more than 70 per cent of the UK’s fishing industry, so of course the issue is far more important to Scotland than it is to the rest of the UK. Despite that, as has been mentioned, the Scottish Government’s fisheries secretary was denied permission last April to attend an agriculture and fisheries council meeting, so that his place could be taken by an unelected member of the House of Lords who knew nothing about fishing and who was responsible for bee health. That situation was not just utterly farcical but an insult to everyone who is involved in Scotland’s fishing industries and whose livelihoods depend on the discussions and decisions in Europe.
As the common fisheries policy is up for reform in the next year, it is more important than ever that Scotland is given the voice that it needs in European discussions. Similarly, the common agricultural policy is to be reformed. As Scottish farming is a very different beast from farming south of the border, Scotland has a clear need to play a full and active part in every UK delegation that deals with devolved policy.
On justice matters, can a UK representative really be expected to take into account Scotland’s unique legal system without a Scottish Government presence on the delegation? It is clear that we are expected to hope so, given that Kenny MacAskill has been refused permission to attend justice and home affairs council meetings three times in the past two years.
The way in which the UK Government approaches European discussions is a relic from a pre-devolution era and is long overdue for reform. Given that many decisions are made in Europe, Scotland simply cannot afford to continue to run the risk that UK delegations might ignore devolved Governments’ needs.
Along with my colleagues in the SNP, I firmly believe that, as Christina McKelvie said, Scotland would be best served through independence and having its own representation in the EU. However, until Scotland reaches that point, we cannot continue with the status quo. Scottish Government participation in every UK delegation to the EU on issues that affect Scotland should be the norm, as happens in other countries. I hope that, through the debate and the resolution, the Parliament will send out a clear message on the issue.
16:10
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments that she is trying to be consensual and to take all parties with her on the issue. She said that that is indicated by the fact that the motion is different from the one that was originally intended. It is just a pity that the bulk of her speech seemed to be predicated on the original motion and that she sought to advance the arguments and sentiments that were outlined in it. I would have welcomed a slightly different approach from her that involved taking other parties in the Parliament with her.
We must be honest and recognise that, on many issues and not just European ones, some people at Westminster, under the previous Labour Government and probably the present Government, have not woken up to the reality of devolution. Frankly, their attitude towards the Parliament and its representatives needs to change for the better. Those people need to acknowledge our legitimate role in representing people in Scotland and the interests that are the Parliament’s responsibility.
The debate has been influenced by that failure to recognise our proper role in advancing policy issues, but if we are to make progress, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to enter into the debate more positively and constructively. If the Government seeks to advance the debate by trying to argue about independence by whatever means, it will not get consensus and it will not bring people on board. If the Government wants agreement, it must recognise that we are talking about how to advance our case within the specific terms that we are part of the United Kingdom. The Government must accept that we are considering how best to argue for Scotland’s interests within the United Kingdom in the European sphere—specifically, the sphere of the European Commission and, to a lesser extent, the European Parliament.
Hugh Henry puts his finger on the precise point that I have been trying to make. On areas such as justice or climate change, the issue is about what we can contribute and what we can do to advance the case. We recognise that it is a positive agenda to try to ensure that contributions are made and collaboration takes place in advance, so that the United Kingdom position is informed by the interests of the devolved Administrations, particularly Scotland. I think that that is the point that Hugh Henry is making, and I agree with him.
And yet, the tone and sentiment of the cabinet secretary’s speech seemed to be somewhat different. Perhaps she will reflect on how she can take people with her to advance the debate.
The Government must advance its case if it is to persuade us that there is a problem and that, in the context of the United Kingdom, something needs to change at Westminster in its attitude to the Scottish Parliament and Government. So far, to an extent, we have heard sentiment and emotion and one or two examples thrown in here and there, but no specific case has been made and no evidence advanced. We do not have a paper that indicates the full extent of the problem and which argues, line by line and case by case, that, in those examples, a change should have been made.
If the Government is to persuade us, it needs to have the confidence of its argument and show us the evidence and statistics that back it up. If it does so, it will get a positive approach. As Patricia Ferguson and James Kelly on the Labour side have said, we accept that there are times when the Scottish Government should, as Scotland’s representatives, be more engaged and have a greater role to play. I know that some tend to concentrate on fisheries issues but as Maureen Watt and others have pointed out there are certain significant aspects of the justice debate that only Scottish representatives can fully understand and articulate and which cannot be addressed by representatives from another place who have little understanding of or empathy with our legal system.
If the Government wants to win its case and the argument and if it is trying to say that this is all about being positive and responsible, it should bring us the evidence and make the case. Whether that happens through the Scotland Bill Committee, other committees of this Parliament or indeed the full chamber, we should all soberly and responsibly reflect on these issues. We will stand beside the Government if it can demonstrate that there is something to be gained and an argument to be proven.
16:16
I am delighted to be speaking in this debate on the Scottish Government’s motion that Scottish Government ministers be routinely included in the UK delegation attending proceedings of an EU institution where devolved matters are being discussed, including—most significantly—meetings of the EU Council of Ministers. That will certainly be an improvement on the current situation, in which a written request has to be lodged with Whitehall. That request might be declined—and, as the cabinet secretary highlighted in her remarks, often is. Having spent five years at the European Parliament in Brussels and now as a member of the European and External Relations Committee and EU reporter for the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee I have absolutely no doubt that this is an important step forward in strengthening the representation of Scotland’s interests in Europe. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that such a move will greatly enhance the Parliament’s authority with regard to EU legislative and policy decisions that impact on our devolved competencies.
We should never forget that when the EU legislates it does not reduce the powers of Government; instead, it diminishes the legislative power of Parliaments. Where EU legislation affects devolved matters this Parliament loses power and yet as matters stand we cannot ensure that a minister from this Parliament attends those meetings. That means that we as a Parliament have no one whom we can hold to account for laws and policies that are agreed on and, as a result, I urge colleagues to regard the motion under consideration first and foremost as a mechanism to protect the Parliament’s legislative prerogatives and duty of accountability.
What is being sought is agreement for Scottish ministers to attend meetings of EU institutions at which a devolved competence or function is under consideration. In my view, it simply cannot be correct that, if a policy that is under the competence of or is exercisable by this Parliament is under discussion by the EU, a Scottish minister must rely on an invitation from Whitehall to be able to attend.
The EU is probably the most powerful regulatory authority in the world, with its influence extending well beyond the headline policy issues of agriculture, fisheries and structural funds with which we are familiar and all of which directly impact, of course, on our devolved competencies. Beyond those issues, EU legislation plays an increasing role in determining the regulatory environment in which Scotland’s industry, commerce and, increasingly, public sector operate. EU competencies extend into education, research and development, transport, the environment and justice and home affairs, each of which is devolved to this Parliament and all of which directly affect Scotland’s economy and society.
The current situation is an anomaly that was created by devolution and now needs to be resolved. Before devolution, there were no constraints on the attendance of Scottish Office ministers at meetings of the EU Council of Ministers where matters of importance to Scotland were being discussed. Indeed, because of their expertise in the policy area under review and its significance to the people of Scotland, Scottish ministers routinely attended Council meetings and frequently led the UK delegation. As a result, the delegation was stronger.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make progress.
As the responsibilities previously exercised by the Scottish Office now fall to this Parliament and Scotland’s devolved Government, it is the responsibility of Scottish Government ministers and members of this Parliament to ensure that Scotland’s interests in EU matters are fully and properly reflected in EU-level discussions.
Nothing in what is being proposed will undermine the status or the authority of the UK Government in EU institutions or violate EU rules. As I said, since 1993 the EU treaties have permitted ministers from our devolved Governments not only to attend council meetings but to sign binding agreements on behalf of their member state, precisely because EU legislation impacted on policies for which they, rather than the national Government, are responsible.
The motion simply seeks to ensure that the Scottish Government will enjoy the same access to EU discussions as comparable legislatures across the EU. Based on my experience in Brussels, the UK Government should be under a statutory obligation to include Scottish ministers in a UK delegation when EU legislative proposals that impact on the competences of this Parliament are being debated, and the Scotland Bill should be amended accordingly.
Of course, ultimately Scotland’s voice will be fully represented in the EU only when it takes its seat at the top table as a fully independent member state. That would ensure that agreement on EU legislation was signed off by a Scottish minister at that table and not by someone else, somewhere else, on our behalf. That would be a much better place for Scotland to be than our having to depend on London remembering—or not—to put forward our case. Indeed, in a recent speech to the David Hume Institute, Sir John Grant, the former UK permanent representative to the EU, made clear the benefits of being a full member state inside the EU when he said:
“In Brussels, a nation (and Scotland is indubitably a nation) is either a Member State or a region. If it is a Member State, it has a seat at the table not just in Ministerial meetings, but in all the preparatory work in the myriad working groups that deal with the mass of business that makes up the EU’s regulatory role. It has an Ambassador, a seat at the European Council, and, crucially, a Commissioner, able to represent its interests within the Commission. As a region, it has none of these things. It is about as binary as it gets.”
In the meantime, we must ensure that Scotland is properly represented in EU negotiations within the constraints of the current constitutional settlement. I hope that the Parliament will give its full support to the Government’s motion.
16:22
I congratulate Hugh Henry on a very considered contribution. Like others, I welcome the debate. Like Aileen McLeod, in a previous life I earned a crust in Brussels—I tried to persuade UK businesses, charities and other organisations of the importance of engaging early, seriously and in a sustained fashion with the EU. At times, that seemed to be more of an uphill struggle than it should have been.
More recently, as an adviser in the previous Scottish Executive, I had direct experience of negotiations with the Commission and between member states. I can testify to the fact that the scars of a December fisheries council take a while to heal.
However, since then, further EU enlargement and the growing clout of the European Parliament have altered the dynamics of negotiations and the way in which policy is formed, which presents new challenges to each member state in getting its voice heard and achieving its objectives. It is therefore right that we should assess how best to ensure that Scotland’s needs are properly reflected in such a vital area.
I welcome the more measured tone of the Government’s motion and, indeed, much of the cabinet secretary’s speech, particularly if it signals a move away from the demand for a statutory right to be included in the UK delegation. That approach is fundamentally flawed and is at odds with the practice in other member states—I have heard many members mention Belgium as an exemplar of constitutional good practice, which I think would come as a bit of a shock to most Belgians. It would also appear to suggest that SNP ministers are equally happy to support demands from their Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts to have exactly the same statutory right. Such a situation would be ludicrous. The response from those whom we seek to influence would be one of incredulity, which would make more uncertain our ability to secure our key negotiating aims.
The SNP has long obsessed about bums on seats, yet what matters in these negotiations is not who reads out the agreed statement in the formal council but how that statement is agreed in advance and what involvement Scottish ministers, their officials and, indeed, wider stakeholders in Scotland have had in the process, as well as the input into the informal bilaterals that are held with the Commission, the presidency and other member states. That is recognised by the current UK coalition Government, which is why it has been made clear that, when Scottish ministers wish to participate in delegations when issues related to devolved competence are being discussed, that will present no difficulty.
The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs appears to object to having to intimate that she or her ministerial colleagues might wish to attend a council meeting, yet in order to manage arrangements for that delegation, that would seem only sensible.
Although I am aware of the utterly unjustified decision by the previous UK Government to deny Richard Lochhead a place at the informal fisheries council in Vigo, I am unaware of any appropriate request by a Scottish minister having been turned down since May 2010. Indeed, I understand that on a number of occasions last year, the UK Secretary of State for Justice accepted requests from the Scottish Government to attend justice and home affairs councils, only for the Scottish minister in question to no-show. There may have been very good reasons for that on each of the four occasions on which it occurred, but it paints a rather different picture from the one that the SNP, in the main, offers.
With the greatest respect, severe weather and the ash cloud influenced those events.
In all four cases? [Interruption.] I am sure that the minister will be able to clarify that for the record.
I welcome the more moderate tone of the Government’s motion, but I think that the amendments of Patricia Ferguson and Jamie McGrigor give a more balanced assessment of where we are and how we might go about deciding where improvements need to be made.
There is a debate to be had about how we stimulate wider interest in the contribution that Scotland can make to the development of Europe but, whatever conclusions are reached, there is no getting away from the fact that we are talking about negotiations. Scotland—the UK—will not always get its way. There are times when Scottish ministers may need to compromise to secure the full weight of UK votes in negotiations. That is the simple reality. The complex, multilayered style of EU negotiations does not lend itself to the megaphone diplomacy and one-way understanding of respect that too often characterises some of the SNP’s negotiations with Westminster. Such an approach will do nothing to enhance Scotland’s influence.
However, it is better than advocating that Scottish ministers should withdraw from the UK delegation in the middle of key negotiations—a brainwave that was hit upon by Messrs Salmond and Lochhead, when they were in opposition, during the fisheries council of December 2002. I am not sure whether a gypsy soothsayer had a hand in developing that strategy, but I am pleased that the SNP has dropped that sort of hare-brained approach to influencing Europe. I hope that the demand for statutory representation will now be dropped and that the tone of the cabinet secretary’s speech will be reflected in the Scottish Government’s approach to engaging with the Scotland Bill to ensure that our influence is felt effectively at EU level.
16:27
The modern world is an interdependent one. Decision making is exercised at many levels of government and across geographical boundaries, so how we operate effectively in a supra-national structure such as the EU has a crucial bearing on what happens in communities far away from Brussels.
I was surprised to find out that between 60 and 80 per cent of the legislation that is passed in Scotland originates from the EU. That is an astounding figure, particularly given that Scottish ministers are not represented at meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is not just unfair; it is unusual. As other members have said, other member states have already pioneered a path. It is normal for other federal and devolved legislative bodies in Bavaria, Flanders, Catalonia and Salzburg to speak directly in Brussels. That is also more efficient, given the different policy directions that different regions of member states take. Germany, Belgium, Spain and Austria all allow ministers from their sub-nations and autonomous regions representation in the Council of the EU and power to directly affect legislation and policy regarding issues over which they have competence.
We are not asking for a seat on the Council of Europe, although that is our ultimate ambition, as several members of my party have said. The fact that, even though that is the case, we are willing to sign up to a motion that, as others have said, falls far short of that ambition shows that we are far from intransigent and far from indulging in megaphone diplomacy. It is about showing a spirit of compromise and collaboration. It is also about process—James Kelly mentioned that devolution is a process. We are trying to make progress by building consensus.
In the motion, we seek to influence policies that are made at an EU level and which are implemented in Scotland so that Scottish ministers can put forward the specific needs of Scots. We seek to build consensus around the motion so that Scotland can catch up, to some extent, with the way in which modern, multilevel states operate to influence the EU, which, for better or worse, has considerable control over all our lives.
Scottish ministers should be entitled to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers. The conclusion of the debate should be that attendance at EU meetings be placed on a statutory footing, as in Germany, Belgium, Spain and Austria, because relying on William Hague’s advice to his Cabinet colleagues has been unreliable and ineffective, as the cabinet secretary pointed out.
In Germany, when matters that are within the competence of the Länder are discussed in Brussels, a Land minister accompanies the federal minster to meetings of the Council of Ministers and they sit side by side at the negotiating table to decide what is best for the state, based on a true understanding of the citizens’ needs and wishes.
Since 1997, before Scottish devolution, Spain has permitted a representative from the autonomous communities to supplement Spanish delegations in Europe. We are way behind.
Each of the Austrian Länder has responsibility to represent Austria at the EU if they have responsibility at the national level. Similar to the example of Belgium, Land ministers can take the place of federal ministers in the Council if the negotiation affects their competence.
The south of Scotland, which I represent, would greatly benefit if Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, attended agriculture councils to represent our needs. Fishing has been mentioned, but there are many other relevant issues. For example, 300 square miles of the south of Scotland’s land mass is taken up by Galloway forest park. Forestry is managed differently in Scotland and England, so the Scottish forestry strategy must be represented, debated and have an impact on EU policy negotiations at council meetings.
I appeal to members of all parties to realise the logic of that position. There is no formal and binding basis for issues that are devolved to Scotland to be represented at the EU level. The test should be: if the EU did not exist would Scottish ministers have competence to act? If so, they should be invited to influence policy that UK ministers advance and should have the right to attend the EU-level meetings where many of the decisions are made.
16:32
When I listened to Liam McArthur’s speech, I thought that I was back in Maastricht a few years ago, when a brutal German professor of politics and economics explained that one had to have power to play the game and be in the power game to win in Europe. We were there from the Scottish Parliament, all bright eyed and bushy tailed, to explain why we should play a bigger part in the Committee of the Regions alongside Antwerp’s mayor and somebody else like that whose name I forget. That panacea was absolutely no use. We seem to have forgotten it and moved on to direct representation.
The cabinet secretary sounded like a girl guide, playing by the rules and citing good behaviour for the past 12 years as having earned us the right to statutory representation. She cited Belgium as having given Flanders the whip hand at one point. Oh, quelle surprise! If we knew anything about the politics of Belgium, we would realise why that was a political bauble or crumbs from the table. That game is played in Belgium as much as it is in the United Kingdom.
The cabinet secretary cited Richard Lochhead’s experience as proof of the fact that we are overlooked in Scotland. The man knows the Christian name of every haddie in the North Sea, so of course he should be at the European fishing negotiations. Of course he could and should lead for the UK—I do not doubt that—but the rules say that states count and we are not a state. Power counts, not influence.
Richard Lochhead has done his very best, as did Ross Finnie before him. Ross Finnie was the same: he was on first-name terms with the fish. As a result, he was well respected in Europe and listened to. He did his level best to represent the interests of the fishing communities and others in Scotland, but we do not have power and will not have it until we are a state.
Although I wish the Government well in trying to improve the lot of those who have to deal with the European institutions, I warn it to guard against hoping for too much. Even Catalunya wants full representation, and it has an awful lot more than we have in relation to Europe.
16:34
Members will recall the First Minister’s address to Parliament in the heady days following his election victory, and the six demands that he insisted were essential if we were to improve the Scotland Bill. Now, none of those demands was territorial, which is no doubt a great relief to people who live in Berwick-upon-Tweed, but one of them was to give Scotland
“a guaranteed say in the forums”
of the European Union.
Roll forward to August, when the Scottish Government published a paper on involvement in the European Union. That, as Hugh Henry ably pointed out, is a rather flimsy and insubstantial publication of barely a page and a half with a policy rationale of dubious worth. Nonetheless, it supports the proposition that the Scotland Bill should be amended to give Scottish ministers
“a statutory right to be included in the UK delegation attending relevant proceedings of an EU Institution.”
But let us look at the motion that has emerged for debate today. The lion that roared has turned into the mouse that squeaked. The demand for statutory rights has completely disappeared from the text. Instead, rather plaintively and pathetically, we are asked to note the present situation of Scottish ministers being required to seek permission to attend council meetings. And so it has come to pass that Scotland’s great, girning Government has been reduced to complaining about writer’s cramp—it does not like writing letters to Whitehall.
So it is that the six demands are now five demands. Judging by the Government’s total failure to answer basic questions about corporation tax and its reluctance to unveil its plans for the customs posts at the border between Scotland and England that will be necessary to police a separate excise duty regime, I confidently predict that other demands will go the same way.
Let us look at the Scottish Government’s paper on the subject. In the policy rationale, the sole incident in 12 years of devolution and intergovernmental co-operation that provides the basis for the statutory right proposal is a case in which a request that a Scottish minister be part of the UK delegation was refused. It occurred in 2009, thus predating the change in the UK Government, which the minister was gracious enough to acknowledge has improved matters. However, in fairness to the preceding UK Government, it is worth noting that the reason for the refusal in 2009 was that the agenda for the meeting focused solely on reserved migration issues and did not relate to a devolved responsibility. Interestingly, if we look at the terms in the motion, we can see that the Scottish Government wants to be represented only when a devolved matter or a matter that lies within the competence or responsibility of Scottish ministers is to be discussed. Accordingly, I am led to ask what on earth the Government is moaning about.
Moreover, the experience with the justice and home affairs council is enlightening in other respects. In 2010, four separate meetings of the justice and home affairs council were held—in February, April, June and December. Her Majesty’s Government’s Justice Secretary and Home Secretary accepted a request from the Scottish Government to attend, but the relevant Scottish minister failed to do so. He did not turn up. He was a no-show. That was not megaphone diplomacy; it was empty-chair diplomacy. This is the Government that says that our interests are being overlooked or neglected, but it does not even turn up at meetings that it says it wants to attend.
Will the member give way?
By all means.
I have already covered the issue of the ash cloud and the weather. Our attendance has been exemplary. I might have been a bit overenthusiastic in being positive about what we can offer, but will David McLetchie please acknowledge that the problem lies in the working groups, informal councils and negotiation and collaboration in pre-meetings? Does he recognise that there is generally room for improvement? Will he please answer that very simple question?
To be perfectly honest, I would answer many more questions if the minister were not so economical with the truth. There were not four volcanic interruptions in February, April, June and December when the minister failed to show at a meeting that the Government said that it wanted to attend and which supposedly affected Scotland’s interests.
The idea that we are excluded from attending is nonsense. Scottish ministers have attended 45 council meetings since 2007 and of those Richard Lochhead has attended 25—the man is hardly ever out of the place. The fact of the matter is that intergovernmental co-operation, and arriving at and presenting a common UK position, is alive and well, which is a good thing. There is no need to amend the Scotland Bill in the way that is proposed. By trying to do so, the Scottish Government is in effect trying to pre-empt the position and elbow out the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland, so there is not much respect being shown there.
That is the real reason why the Scottish Government is in retreat on the issue. The penny has finally dropped that it is not practical under existing EU rules and procedures, which are not going to be changed any time soon just to suit the interests of Scotland alone. Frankly, I suspect that the second reason is that the other devolved Administrations have rightly objected to this pre-emptive attack on their interests, which are equally valid and important.
As Liam McArthur rightly pointed out, what is far more important than who speaks at any given meeting is the discussion at official and ministerial level that precedes the meetings, with a view to arriving at an agreed position in the interests of all our citizens and all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. That is precisely what is happening and what has been happening over the past 12 years. The Scottish Government should be gracious enough to accept that instead of trying to manufacture a wholly synthetic dispute.
I call Patricia Ferguson, who has a generous seven minutes.
16:41
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
This has been a short debate, but it is a debate on an important issue. In spite of its short length, there have been some thoughtful contributions, which I will speak about in a moment. However, Hugh Henry was right to highlight our difficulty in following the Government’s case, not least for the reasons that Mr McLetchie has just put forward. This is happening at a time when the EU is moving towards greater interest and participation in the principle of subsidiarity. We must therefore engage with that process and, outwith the mechanisms put in place by the JMCs, there are many ways in which the Scottish Government can do that. I am not convinced, but I hope to be by the minister, that the Scottish Government always takes the opportunities that are afforded to it in that respect.
I am intrigued by the member’s contention that the EU is moving towards more devolution of power. Can she outline briefly how she sees that?
I think that the Europe 2020 agenda is entirely about that. It is a very interesting discussion, which I know the European and External Relations Committee began in the previous session. That is why a number of parliamentary committees now have reporters who specifically look at what is coming from Europe so that the discussion in Parliament can be developed before being fed back to the Government, which can then share that with the other devolved nations and, indeed, the UK Government. It is an interesting time to be involved in such discussion.
Will the member give way?
I will indulge Margo MacDonald.
I am very grateful, because this is a very important point. We have heard over the past few weeks with regard to the trouble in the euro zone that what is intended for Europe by the leading states in Europe is federal union. Now, is that not at odds with the idea of devolving power as far down as possible to what we call sub-nations?
I am sure that an argument about that is going on in Europe—in fact, I think that it has been going on since before the creation of the EU—and that federalism is perhaps what some nations would prefer and like. However, what we actually have and what has been agreed in Europe is the principle of subsidiarity. We need to be more engaged with that principle and to take it forward as part of our agenda. I hope that every committee in the Parliament is working in that way. One of the SNP speakers—they will forgive me if I forget who it was—mentioned that a vast quantity of legislation is coming from that direction. That process is vital and is one of the ways in which we can all be part of that agenda.
Jamie McGrigor made an interesting point about the effect of competition from devolved Administrations to take a place at the Council of Ministers on behalf of the UK. How the UK Government manages that aspiration is an issue. We have a shared agenda on many issues by dint of devolution. There are often small delegations, and we must be careful about what we are doing. If we are going to take forward the discussion in a constructive way, it must involve all the devolved nations.
Joan McAlpine and other colleagues have mentioned Catalonia. I gently point out that the devolved regions in Spain operate in different ways, and that Catalonia’s representation is different from that of Galicia, for example. The process and the devolution there are asymmetric, so the representation is asymmetric. That is not an argument against the Government’s proposition; rather, it is an example of how complicated the whole structure can be.
Several colleagues have mentioned Belgium, and Margo MacDonald touched on some issues in the politics of that country. Belgium has not had a Government for more than a year, and it is struggling to ensure that a Government is put in place because of how it is structured and because of the competing politics there. When I have been there, it has certainly seemed to manage quite well without a Government, but perhaps none of us has a vested interest in pursuing that point.
I was interested in Margo MacDonald’s comment on the Committee of the Regions. I have always seen the Committee of the Regions as a way in which back-bench MSPs could take part in discussions in Europe. I have never thought that it is the end of the story or the most fantastic mechanism that there could be, but it is the only mechanism that allows MSPs to participate in those discussions. Our colleagues in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also participate in them. Will the minister clarify in her closing speech why her Government now wishes to ensure that the places on that committee will go only to local government colleagues and will no longer be given to MSPs?
I wonder why it is thought that an amendment to the Scotland Bill can change the EU’s constitution. The EU decides who can formally take representation and act on behalf of member states—that is laid down in the article to which I referred in my opening speech. Therefore, I do not understand how an amendment to the Scotland Bill can achieve that, although I understand the idea of having a much clearer process that gives Scotland a greater opportunity to consider that matter. I have great sympathy with the Government on that.
Will the minister clarify in her closing speech whether the Government is still pursuing the amendment to the Scotland Bill that has been talked about? I know that she said that the motion is intended to allow more consensus around the issue, but almost all the speeches from SNP back-bench members have been about a motion that we do not have rather than the one that we do. I welcome the minister’s more consensual approach and the tone of the Government’s motion, but I get the feeling from the contributions of SNP back-bench members that they do not share its view, unfortunately. I would welcome the Government’s clarification on that.
The debate has been interesting, and it will be interesting to follow the debate in the Scotland Bill Committee. I certainly look forward to doing that and to debating that committee’s report when it comes before Parliament in due course.
16:49
The motion has resulted in a lively and interesting exchange.
It is difficult: it seems as if we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. If we try to get some kind of consensus and come to the chamber before the event, we are accused of somehow weakening our position. If we had come and said that, regardless of what other people think, our view is that we demand a statutory provision and that that is the only basis for discussion, we would have been accused of steamrollering. I am genuinely trying to find a way of having a discussion and recognising all contributions and the need for a strengthened role.
That strengthened role can be delivered in different ways. In relation to Liam McArthur’s comments, I made the important point about the pre-work that is required. That is one of the problematic areas for us that we are trying to seek improvements on to ensure the arguments are set.
I want to address a number of points because very important points have been made. On whether we can make the proposed change, I should point out that it is for the member state to decide who it sends to council meetings—it is not for the Commission. The amendment to the Scotland Bill that we have suggested might not be what everybody wants—we are still supportive of it and are happy to continue to persuade people of it—but in any case it relates to the representation in the UK delegation, which is for the UK, not the Commission, to decide.
I agree that we might not want to follow Belgium in some of the ructions in its politics and where it has been, but the irony of the disruption in Belgium was that, regardless of its problems in forming a domestic Government, Belgium was able to Chair the Council of Ministers and hold the presidency reasonably well. It had some successes in taking people forward in a number of ways.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I want to carry on and address some of the specific points that have been raised.
Patricia Ferguson asked whether we submitted a national reform programme on Europe. Yes, we did, and we also contributed to the UK response. I also responded about activity on the cohesion policy. Alex Neil recently met the relevant commissioner, and there have been numerous official-level meetings on that point. That is part of our contribution.
We can contribute in many different ways; the issue is really what happens in council meetings. I have been in council meetings when I have had to sit behind the UK Government minister but have seen other nations have both their national and regional Governments contributing and taking part in the decision-making process. What we are seeking—which was set out ably by a number of members; Maureen Watt, Aileen McLeod and Joan McAlpine all gave examples of other countries that have a similar set-up—is not unusual or unnatural. It happens elsewhere, and we have a lot to offer.
It happens elsewhere because in Germany, for example, the federal Government depends on regional Governments to keep it in power. That is why it happens—the politics of Germany. The Westminster Government does not depend on us.
Margo MacDonald’s theme throughout the debate has been that the issue is about power. Of course it is about power, but it is also about how the situation can be made to work in the United Kingdom, which I acknowledge is different from Germany and Spain. We have to find our own solutions, and the issue is whether there is a better solution than what is currently available.
There are a number of other areas that I want to address. We have experience, and we can contribute. We are using the JMCs, whether on Europe or on domestic issues, to inform progress. At the JMC on Europe in particular, we are constructively contributing to the process. At the moment, there are discussions on the financial framework and budget deliberations, which we are trying to influence as best we can.
It is also important to recognise that there have been problems. We have a situation in which the UK speaks on behalf of Scotland in areas such as fisheries. Clearly, Richard Lochhead’s experience is valuable and is recognised as such in Scotland, and we should have a better approach in Europe. Attending or speaking at the Council of Ministers meetings should be seen as the concluding stage of a collaborative working process to advance and protect the UK’s collective interest in Europe. That is what we are trying to do, but the position has to be shaped and agreed among the devolved Administrations and Whitehall at a much earlier stage in the policy formulation process. That is another area in which we are seeking improvements.
The devolved Administrations know fine what we are doing because I have talked to them about the issue. They just happen not to have legislation that can be influenced going through Westminster just now.
I want to get on record the facts in response to David McLetchie’s points about Kenny MacAskill and his attendance at meetings. In February, there was snow; in April and June, we were a minority Government and ministers were required to be here to vote; and in December there was the ash cloud from the volcano. It is, therefore, a bit unfair to slight Kenny MacAskill in that way.
There are opportunities to inform and influence. Unfortunately, regardless of the political support that has been given—for example, in words from William Hague—which I have acknowledged even in the motion, there is still a blockage to our ability to attend, which is why we are trying to establish a process to ensure our attendance as part of the delegations. Some members seem to be confusing attendance as part of a delegation with leading a delegation. That is not what is being called for even in our proposed amendment to the Scotland Bill although, in some cases, that would be appropriate. I quote somebody who has a reasonable point to make:
“We might want Scotland’s rights guaranteed. It should be able to participate in the discussions in the Council of Ministers. ... On matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but which have a wider UK interest and concern, we propose that the right should be established in law that members of the Scottish Executive can participate in the discussions. ... where non-reserved matters affect only Scotland and not other parts of the United Kingdom, we would argue that Scottish Ministers should be the sole representatives. ... Salmon farming is almost an exclusively Scottish interest, and therefore when it is dealt with it should be led by a Scottish Minister.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 30 March 1998; Vol 309, c 926.]
That was Jim Wallace speaking in a Westminster debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998. It is not a new concept that we should have that representation.
Given the maturity and experience of the Scottish Government, is it not reasonable for us to have the right not only to attend as part of a UK delegation but to be able to inform developments, particularly in areas in which we have experience and expertise? I am not sure what the other parties fear. If we are confident that we can co-operate, we should have no problem with that. The Conservatives do not seem to know whether they want more power. They want independence for themselves but not for their country. Labour might not have a leader, but that does not mean that Labour members cannot take a lead in the Parliament.
Debates are already taking place at Westminster and, according to one of the lords who used to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, there is the worrying situation that they might not even respect our Scotland Bill Committee. Patricia Ferguson said that we should wait for the conclusions of the Scotland Bill Committee that is currently sitting. However, somebody who used to be a Deputy First Minister has said in the debates in the past few days that Westminster might not even accept the views of this Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee.
Will the minister give way?
Sorry—I have already taken an intervention.
Now is the time and this is the place to be debating this. We must try to inform the process now, as there will not be another opportunity to influence the current devolution settlement. We are being constructive and positive, and we have come up with a reasonable position. I hope that members have confidence in their own arguments. I admit that what we are asking members to vote on today is simply about strengthening Scotland’s position. If members vote against the motion, they are voting against strengthening Scotland’s position—it is a very straightforward motion. I accept Hugh Henry’s point and am more than happy to come forward with the line-by-line experience, although I do not want to bore members to tears with the detail in the process. I am happy to do that, but surely to goodness we can have a bit of confidence that we have something to offer through attendance on European delegations. I ask members please to have a bit of confidence in themselves, confidence in this country and confidence that we can have a stronger role in Europe.