Plenary, 05 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, December 5, 2002

Official Report 682KB pdf

---

Future of Europe Convention

The main debate this afternoon is on motion S1M-3678, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the future of Europe convention, and two amendments to the motion.

I invite those members leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.

I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. As a result of various interruptions, we are five minutes late in getting under way.

I am pleased that we are having a debate today on a topic that is of considerable importance to Scotland. I have had exchanges with the European Committee on this topic, but there was always an expectation on both our parts that we would debate it in the chamber.

The outcomes of the future of Europe debate and the decisions that flow from the subsequent intergovernmental conference will hold the key to the future development and direction of the European Union.

Parliament will recall that the convention on the future of Europe was launched in February to consider a wide range of potential reforms. Those reforms are intended to modernise the Union to prepare it for the impact of enlargement and to address public perceptions that the European Union has become too detached from its citizens.

The Scottish Executive strongly supports the work of the convention. We believe that the convention represents an innovative and inclusive approach that is entirely fitting for the issues at stake. We have sought to play a full part in the future of Europe debate. We are consulted on and contribute to the United Kingdom's position at the convention and I am pleased with the constructive working relationship that we have enjoyed in the life of the debate so far.

Our work with other influential European Union sub-member state Administrations culminated in the adoption of a declaration by 43 Administrations in Florence last month.

The First Minister has acted as rapporteur for a Committee of the Regions opinion on more democracy, transparency and efficiency in the EU. That opinion was adopted unanimously and will form a crucial plank of the committee's formal submission to the convention. The First Minister also made an important speech on that issue on 6 June to opinion formers in Brussels.

We will introduce policy proposals in advance of the convention's plenary debate on the role of sub-member state Administrations early in 2003.

The Executive is firmly pro-European. The European Union has delivered considerable benefits for Scotland and we believe that it will continue to do so. It has helped to secure lasting peace and stability in Europe. It provides the market for two thirds of our exports. It has delivered environmental, social and consumer benefits. Enlargement of the European Union will bring significant additional opportunities.

We are only a matter of days away from the crucial summit in Copenhagen when there will be the proposal to increase the number of member states. Through an enlarged European Union, we can help the fight against terrorism and crime because we recognise that the proponents of terrorism and crime are no respecters of boundaries.

European Union anti-terrorist measures, such as the European arrest warrant, will be more effective when they apply to 27 instead of 15 member states. Enlargement will also strengthen the European Union's anti-crime institutions.

Enlargement will bring large-scale economic benefits. Independent research suggests that the United Kingdom's gross domestic product might be boosted by up to £1.75 billion and that up to 300,000 extra British jobs might be created across the European Union. With its traditional outward focus and reputation for technical excellence and innovation, Scotland is ideally placed to make the most of those opportunities.

Will the minister comment on the potential for the expansion of jobs in Scotland, given the evident drift from Scotland to some of the eastern European countries?

I salute the work done by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry to alert Scottish business to the potential in the candidate nations. In many respects, those nations are still developing economies that need the expertise and excellence we have in renewable technologies, for example, or the excellence we have in decommissioning at Dounreay. I believe that we are well placed to seize opportunities where we find them.

We want an EU that is more effective, and able to respond quickly to changing situations. It must be more efficient, and able to deliver value for time and money, with less bureaucracy. It must also be easier to understand. People need to know what the union stands for and must feel that its treaties and principles are relevant. I want a union that is closer to the citizen—more democratic, more transparent and more accountable.

Does the minister agree that there are often occasions when we should be prepared to be a bit more disobedient as far as the European Union is concerned? It seems that other member countries are more willing to act to defend their indigenous industries than we are in the United Kingdom.

I cannot agree that breaking the rules ever puts one in a better position in the long term. However, just because one is pro-European, that does not mean that one accepts that everything that comes out of Europe is right. There will be occasions when we will disagree with Europe. The First Minister indicated just moments ago that we will fight a very hard case for Scotland's fishing industry. However, I cannot accept that breaking the rules pays dividends in the long term.

I believe that Scotland and other sub-member state Administrations have a significant part to play in delivering some of the aspirations that I have referred to. It is worth recalling that more than half of the EU's citizens are represented by a devolved Government. In the case of Scotland, 80 per cent of the functions devolved to this Parliament have a European Union dimension. We implement and enact European legislation, we administer European Union funds and we are the closest level of legislative Government to the citizens of Scotland. Increasing the role of devolved Government in the European Union is about enhancing, supporting and, above all, legitimising the way in which the European Union carries out its functions. Such reform offers solutions, and the convention cannot afford to overlook that.

Those themes have been the focus of the Executive's proposals, building on our previous policy statements. I am keen that those proposals are also informed by the views of this Parliament. I read with considerable interest the paper published this week by the European Committee, which continues to make a positive contribution to the debate.

We will take account of our consultation with Scottish civic society, which included seeking written views from major non-governmental organisations. We held regional seminars that were attended by small and medium-sized NGOs, we created a website seeking views by e-mail, we placed leaflets and posters in libraries, to attract the views of private individuals, and we wrote to schools. I am pleased that we were able to do that work in co-operation with the European Committee, which held a valuable seminar in the chamber on 16 September.

I have been encouraged by the response to our consultation. We received 38 written responses from organisations and private individuals, and 40 non-governmental organisations attended the seminars that we held in Dumfries, Edinburgh and Perth. Comments were very diverse, but there were some general themes. People want the European Union to focus on its core, headline activities. The majority of respondents saw a clear role for the European Union, but were concerned that it is overly bureaucratic and becomes involved in areas that are best left to other tiers of governance. There was some enthusiasm for examining the role that members of the European Parliament might play in reconnecting the European Union with its citizens. There was broad support for a constitutional treaty, provided that it is focused on the European Union's key objectives and does not pave the way for an expansion of European Union competence.

The message from business was that the Commission needs to sharpen its approach to economic growth and minimise unnecessary regulatory burdens, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. It was also felt that there should be a more rigorous application of the principle of subsidiarity.

I was particularly pleased to see responses from a number of schools. After all, who is the future of Europe debate for if not our young people? They offered a particular focus on environmental and social issues, broadly supported a constitutional treaty and registered a desire for greater publicity on the activities and decisions of the European Union.

Taking all these elements into account, I would like to outline the Executive's key policy views. We must focus on issues that relate directly to the responsibilities of sub-member state Administrations rather than seeking to comment on every single aspect of the European Union's future development. Subsidiarity is a key issue. We have already made several calls for the establishment of a political mechanism for monitoring the application of the subsidiarity principle at an early stage in the European Union's legislative process. There has been broad support for that at the convention, whatever mechanism is established, and I believe that active sub-member state involvement will be crucial.

On a related theme, we need to raise the constitutional profile of the subsidiarity principle, which extends beyond the member states themselves. We will repeat our calls for greater use of framework legislation, which would allow implementing authorities such as the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to put European Union laws into practice in a way that is appropriate to specific Scottish circumstances. We need the EU to consult sub-member state Administrations at an early stage in the development of legislation and policy. Time that is spent in getting proposals right at the beginning will save considerable time over the piece.

We need greater transparency—for example, through the European Council meeting in public when it carries out its legislative role. There should also be an assessment of the potential financial impact of EU legislation on implementing authorities, compared to the value of benefits. Rather than establish a detailed catalogue of competences, the new constitutional treaty could usefully include a set of principles to govern when and how the EU acts.

Alongside those measures, we need to consider reform of the Committee of the Regions. We would not wish such reform to come at the expense of an enhanced role for individual sub-member state Administrations, but it is clear that the committee will continue to have a role. Obliging the European Commission to justify formally the extent to which it does or does not take heed of the committee's opinions, for example, would help.

Taken together, those ideas represent a comprehensive and helpful contribution to the future of Europe debate. I look forward to hearing what members think the convention should deliver for Scotland and to the Executive's continuing engagement with the future of Europe debate over the remaining life of the convention and through to the intergovernmental conference. I am optimistic about the outcomes of the debate for the EU and for Scotland's place within the EU and I am confident that the Executive and the Parliament will play its part in those developments.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the many benefits that the European Union has delivered for Europe and for Scotland, welcomes the establishment of the Convention on the Future of Europe as an open and innovative means of addressing the issues now facing the European Union; believes that, in light of experience, the European Union needs to become more effective, efficient, easier to understand, democratic, transparent and accountable; recognises the role that Sub-Member State Administrations can play in realising these objectives; welcomes the Scottish Executive's engagement with Scottish civil society to stimulate discussion and to seek views on the Future of Europe; welcomes the contribution that the Executive has made to the debate so far, and calls on the Executive to press the Convention to bring forward proposals for strengthening the profile of the Subsidiarity Principle in the EU treaties, adopting a new mechanism for enforcing it which allows for full Sub-Member State Administration involvement, making greater use of framework legislation, consulting Sub-Member State Administrations at an early stage of policy development, generating greater transparency in European decision-making and introducing financial impact assessments for legislative proposals

I invite Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move amendment S1M-3678.1.

I will move amendment S1M-3678.1, in the name of Richard Lochhead, who sends his apologies for being unable at short notice to speak in the debate.

Scotland's place in the wider world has been a topic of important debate, negotiation and indeed treaty not just in recent years with the development of the EU, but for centuries beforehand. The SNP agrees with the sentiment in the first part of the motion, as we recognise the role that Europe has played and in particular the important reason why the EU was established—to prevent any future European wars.

We recognise ourselves as Europeans, as many Scots do. There is always a danger that, on this shared island, people speak about Europeans as "them" and do not recognise that Europe is not apart from us. We are European as a country and Europeans as people.

It is significant that there is no Scottish Parliament or Executive representation on the convention, although Business a.m. reported that Jack McConnell had pledged to fight for a place on it. He failed. Two SNP representatives—Professor Neil MacCormick and Councillor Keith Brown—are the only democratically elected Scottish representatives.

Given the emphasis that we all place on being a multiracial society, will the member explain what she meant when she said that we are European as a people?

Opinion polls that take the views of Scots are significant. Many Scots see themselves first as Scots, then as Europeans and thirdly as British. That is the view of the world of younger people in Scotland in particular and we must reflect that in our analysis.

The SNP supports a positive vision of enlargement, with more transparency, accountability, democracy and subsidiarity within the EU. We welcome the constitution or treaty—although we think that it should be subject to a referendum—and we see that Europe can develop in terms of confederation rather than federation. The SNP has consistently argued that any major constitutional change should be approved by referendum, whether in respect of the Maastricht treaty, devolution or future independence in Europe. I would be interested to know whether the minister agrees with that.

Scotland has played different roles as a nation state and as a sub-state. Some may want to view Scotland as a constitutional region. In our nation's history, we can point to times in which our focus has been to look north and east to our nordic neighbours—the Parliament played host to the Nordic Council seminar a few weeks ago—south to the Atlantic arc of Ireland and Portugal, east to the Baltic states and, of course, south to an auld alliance with France and a newer union with England.

In that context, I recognise the work of the convention and want to draw on some of the key debates. Scotland can see itself as an aspiring member state, a stateless nation or a constitutional region. Each provides a different prism through which to look at the convention's work and each perspective offers different angles on the evolving debate.

How does the current debate protect and promote the existing rights of devolved nations, particularly in an expanding Europe of accession states? From what perspective is the Executive trying to bat for Scotland? Is the Executive really batting for Britain and a centralised bigger member-state perspective and clawing back from the Liege declaration and the Flanders declaration that were signed by Henry McLeish? I fear that what we have seen from the Executive is missed opportunities and mixed messages.

Is it not the case that even under the limited powers of devolution, Jack McConnell is limiting the powers and influence of a devolved Scotland even further by failing to back the Liege declaration's call—which, importantly, is backed by the European Committee of this Parliament—for powers for sub-member state legislatures that would give full access to the European Court of Justice?

Is the member aware that the Scottish Executive has signed the Florence declaration, which encompasses much of what was discussed at Liege and Flanders?

I am aware of that, but if Irene Oldfather reads the SNP amendment she will see that our key consideration is access to the European Court of Justice. I will develop that point further. Jack McConnell is isolated among the so-called regions with legislative competence over direct access to European Court of Justice. Bearing in mind the crisis in our fishing industry, I think that that might prove to be essential. If members consider the recent ferries debacle, they will see that it would have been in Scotland's interest to have had direct access to the European Court of Justice when our subsidiarity was being infringed.

When it comes to Europe, who is serious about this nation playing as full a role as it can? Actions speak louder than words or, I fear, the spin of the presentation of the First Minister as rapporteur of the Committee of the Regions and chair of the group of regions with legislative competence. It is interesting that that group is made up of many small regional Governments that are all calling for access to the European Court of Justice—a position that the group's newly appointed chair does not support. We are in the strange situation in which even Germany, as a full member state, calls for access to the European Court of Justice for Parliaments such as this one, but the Scottish Executive and UK Government do not.

Jack McConnell has, on our behalf—although it has taken until today for the Executive to ask for Parliament's agreement to this—been talking up the need for a subsidiarity champion, yet the convention's Mendez de Vigo working group on subsidiarity has dumped the subsidiarity champion idea. The new plan is for national, member state Parliaments to review proposed EU legislation before its consideration by the European Parliament and to issue a reasoned objection if subsidiarity seems likely to be infringed.

Scotland will therefore have to rely on Westminster to decide whether our subsidiarity is being infringed. That movement makes it clear that an enlarged Europe with more, but smaller, member states is emerging and that the right of independent nation states is prevailing over those of devolved states. That reinforces the argument that Scotland's interests would be served as a full member state.

Who leads for Scotland? The Scottish Executive fishing minister speaks for Scotland but does not necessarily lead for Scotland. Is it not significant that the European Parliament's constitutional committee report, as adopted on 28 November this year, notes the possibility under article 203 of the EC treaty for regional ministers to represent their member state at the Council in accordance with the state's own constitutional arrangements. I had a very interesting discussion about that issue last week with the Belgian ambassador in London.

How is the Scottish Executive serving the Highlands and Islands when an Office for National Statistics blunder has meant that the Highlands and Islands has lost objective 1 status? The Executive must argue for reclassification of the transitional payment as objective 1 so that the Highlands and Islands can get transitional payments post-2006.

It is important that the Executive should send a clear message. The Executive seems to want to make friends in Europe but do nothing on behalf of Scotland with that friendship. It wants to sit back and watch Westminster shape our future in Europe. I do not want to wait and watch. I want Scotland to decide for ourselves and form our own future as a full member state of the communities of Europe.

I move amendment S1M-3678.1, to leave out from "Scottish Executive's" to end and insert:

"Convention's proposal for a constitution or constitutional treaty for the European Union which will delimit the powers of the EU and member states; believes that the people of Scotland must be given the opportunity to approve any such treaty in a referendum; supports the Liege Declaration and the European Committee's calls for powers for sub-member state legislatures that would give Scotland full access to the European Court of Justice; urges the Scottish Executive to actively pursue this objective, and recognises that the most effective representation in the EU for small nations like Scotland is gained by full membership."

The Scottish Conservatives are delighted to have the opportunity to debate the future of Europe and Scotland's place in it. We are, of course, the party that took Scotland and the United Kingdom into the EU when many in the chamber were campaigning against it. Of course, there is never anybody in the Labour party now who campaigned against it. It is like trying to find someone who used to vote for Margaret Thatcher in Scotland—a lot of people did, but one can never find anyone who says that they did.

The Conservatives were at the heart of the enlargement when Spain, Portugal and Greece entered and attained membership. That is why we welcome enlargement, although we also see the need for reforms. We will not forget that that need is set against the background of a Europe that is perceived, rightly, to be distant from its citizens, elitist, undemocratic and secretive in the extreme. We welcome the Scottish Executive's reaffirmation of the principle of subsidiarity, which was set out and fought for by John Major's Government. It is interesting to note the remarkable similarity between the Conservative party's position, as submitted to the convention by my colleague from Westminster, Richard Spring, and that of the First Minister.

We must avoid forcing changes in the wrong direction. We should not use the principle that because an enlarged Europe will not be able to agree on everything, we should always settle matters by a majority. It would be better if we agreed that the European Union should not legislate or become involved when it cannot achieve unanimity. The people of Europe have consented to the pooling of sovereignty to such an extent that we have formed a federal state. The best way in which to bring Europe closer to the people is to return decisions back to the member states. For example, as Fiona Hyslop said, powers should be given back to the Scottish Parliament rather than to Westminster. That is preferable to going above the heads of the people of the member states and straight to the centralised European Union.

Does the member agree that another important way of ensuring that the people of the EU do not become disenchanted by the idea of Europeanism, would be to vote no to the euro? That issue undercuts all the constitutional questions that we are talking about.

It is clear that the euro is a federal currency and that it is one building block in producing a federal state. Now that I have used the word "federal", my Liberal Democrat colleagues will accuse me of being paranoid, but we should remember that the Liberal Democrat representative on the convention, Andrew Duff, is also head of the federalist group in the European Parliament. Europe is awash with quotes from major political figures extolling the concept of a more federalised Europe. Today, Romano Prodi said:

"National leaders should act on their commitment to make Europe a superpower".

In response to Margo MacDonald, I point out that we should remember that the euro is, by anyone's standard, a federal currency. We should also remember Europe's desire, as confirmed by Giscard d'Estaing and Romano Prodi, to expand qualified majority voting to cover practically every area, including foreign policy, defence and taxation. That can be seen only as a drive towards a united states of Europe. Of course, that is not my phrase; it is Giscard d'Estaing's. People might think that that is just a phrase, but Europe is fast becoming a federal state; it walks, talks and looks like a federal state in all but name. Europe's version of integration is becoming driven by federalism.

The matter gets worse because the Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff—I refer frequently to the Liberal Democrats because Jim Wallace is one—proposed in article 18 of his submission to the convention that in the future shape of Europe, a member state's decision to try to withdraw from Europe should not be up to the people of that country. He says that a state that wants to secede or pull away from membership of the European Union would require permission either from more than three quarters of the member states or all the citizens of Europe. The last time such a suggestion was made was in Yugoslavia.

Will the member give way?

The member is in his last minute. I am not prepared—

Does the member recognise that what he says on the withdrawal or acceptance of states flies in the face of the views of senior legal advisers?

There are different rules for Dr Ewing.

Those advisers were the Scottish judge who was the first ever top judge of the European Court of Justice, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, and the chief legal adviser to the Commission, Dr No?. They said that if a member state broke up, the umbrella of legislation that applied to the whole would continue to apply to the bits. That is settled law so there is no point in trying to restate it.

You asked for that Mr Wallace—you have 30 seconds left.

The intervention was not really relevant to the point that I was making. One reason for lodging our amendment was that we do not agree with the motion's congratulation of the Executive on the work that it has done. Most of the consultation has been done either by the Scottish Parliament's European Committee or by organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

In fact, when I asked the Scottish Executive a parliamentary question on what it had done, Jim Wallace said that its website on the future of Europe debate had received eight hits. When I asked the First Minister whom he had consulted on Scotland's position in his submission to the Committee of the Regions, he said that he had answered in a personal capacity. We cannot, therefore, agree that the Scottish Executive has consulted and included the whole of Scotland, as it clearly has not.

The UK's position on the form of the EU has been inconsistent. We went from supporting an elected upper chamber to supporting a permanent delegation to supporting a written constitution, and we have had no clear direction from the EU member states. I move amendment S1M-3678.2, to leave out from second "welcomes" to "so far" and insert:

"condemns the Scottish Executive's failure to engage Scottish civil society in the debate; is disappointed in the inconsistent position of Her Majesty's Government and the Prime Minister on the future shape of the EU; further re-affirms the principle of unanimity in key policy sectors".

I apologise for the fact that I have a heavy cold. I will try to plough my way through my speech as quickly as I can.

I welcome the debate. Wearing my committee hat, I recall the number of times that we asked the Deputy First Minister to try to secure a debate on this subject. I appreciate the fact that he has done so in advance of publishing the Executive's final submission to the convention. I know that he is willing to listen to views that members put forward, which is to be welcomed.

It is difficult to do justice to the motion in five minutes. I begin with a few words about the convention process. For the first time in the revision of treaties, the people of Europe are being consulted. The open and transparent way in which the convention is operating is appreciated as a genuine attempt to equip the Union for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

However, it is vital that we ensure that the convention listens to and acts on our views. Therefore, although the process must be welcomed, it is disappointing that the convention has not yet set up a working party on the role of regional and local government in Europe. There is still time to do that—some of the recommendations in the Napolitano report, which the European Parliament will vote on next month, refer to such measures. I urge all members to discuss those recommendations with MEPs in their parties and to consider how we can yet set up a working party to examine the specific role of local and regional government within the convention.

I welcome the fact that the Parliament is conducting its own deliberations in an open and transparent way. Colleagues from all parties welcomed the conference with civic Scotland that was held in the chamber on 16 September, which involved some 120 members of the public. Giving our ideas that kind of democratic legitimacy strengthens the case that we put forward.

The motion refers to the benefits that the European Union can bring. We started our conference on 16 September by asking the question: what is Europe for? There was a clear understanding that the EU is a force for peace and stability. Enlargement and the extension of the internal market to some 500 million consumers offer the possibility for trade and business development. Over the past few years, I have also been pleased with the social progress that Europe has made. Europe is about sustainable development and improvements in our environment. It is important to move away from the idea that it is only about foreign affairs.

One of the most positive opportunities to arise from membership of the European Union is the opportunity for interregional co-operation. In my constituency, schoolchildren from what might be called a socially disadvantaged area participate with children from Pisa, Italy, in an intercultural exchange involving language and art. That is the kind of practical demonstration of the benefits of the European Union that citizens easily recognise.

However, we must face up to concerns about the way in which the EU operates and the fact that citizens feel it to be somewhat remote from their everyday lives. We must consider how we can make the Union more efficient and easier to understand.

As Europe's newest and youngest Parliament, we sometimes underestimate just how far we have come in adopting the principles and practices of modern governance. Indeed, I was in London last week at a meeting of the central-local government partnership, at which I mentioned the principles on which the Scottish Parliament is founded: the sharing of power, accountability and accessibility, openness and transparency, and equal opportunities. I believe—this view was articulated in the European Committee's report—that the EU could learn much from those basic principles and practices of good governance, which we in Scotland sometimes take for granted but which are often regarded as innovative elsewhere.

Will the member give way?

Yes, certainly.

No. We cannot keep doing this. The member's time is almost up.

I apologise to Margo MacDonald.

I want to say a few words about consultative legitimacy, an issue that is raised in the motion. The issue was addressed in a Committee of the Regions opinion prepared by Lord Tope and agreed by the COR the other week. The European Committee's report also deals with the matter. The specific issue is that bodies that are ultimately responsible for implementing legislation have a right to be consulted at an earlier, formative stage in the process. A great deal of support is emerging across Europe for greater access to the Commission at the pre-legislative phase.

I wanted to speak about many other matters, such as the simplification of the treaties, increasing awareness and having a Europe day to look at the European Commission's forward legislative programme. However, I can see that the Presiding Officer will not allow me to speak about those issues, so I will just say that a great deal of work has been going on across Europe to influence the debate on the future of Europe. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament is having the opportunity to have its say. I am reminded that, four years ago, that would not have been possible. It is important that we are playing our part and influencing the future of our children and our children's children in Europe. I am happy to support the motion.

We come now to the open debate, in which we will have speeches of four minutes.

A matter that concerned everyone on the European scene for many years was the secrecy of the European Council. Members of the European Parliament constantly tried to unveil the secrets and find out about major discussions. Sometimes we could find out, if we had a friend at court who told us what went on inside. That happened to me sometimes—I have to admit that it was usually through an Irish connection. That secrecy is still with us and is one of the big problems that all the institutions of Europe face. It is not good that there is secrecy about the UK's negotiations. Often, we cannot find out what has happened in the negotiations. In a world that is looking for more openness, be that in the UK, Europe or elsewhere, we are not doing too well in the secrecy stakes.

I welcome the work that the European Committee has done for its report. There is much need for simplification as far as European citizens are concerned. We need idiots' guides to the treaties, citizens' rights and the powers of the EU and member states. We also need a guide to petition access, because I do not think that many people realise that they have it. Perhaps we also need a good word about the Erasmus programme, which I had the pleasure of thinking up and introducing.

I congratulate the European Committee on its report on Scotland's representation in the European Union. I agree with section 149, which suggests that the Scottish Parliament should have a presence in Brussels as the Scottish Parliament and not through other presences that might be suggested as options. I also agree with section 113, which states:

"The … biggest area for improvement is … gathering and dissemination of information … the trick is secure access to the right sort of information at the right moment".

When I was a member of the European Committee, I always said that the problem is not that we look at and comment on legislation that has been passed; the problem is finding out when an issue important to Scotland is to be given to a rapporteur, so that we can approach that rapporteur with our input before he has has even drafted his full report. I am afraid that we have not got round to doing that, but I welcome the European Committee's report, which seems to agree with that stance.

I have a couple of points on the constitution. We do not agree with a superstate, of course. We believe in a supranational union that acknowledges shared sovereignty. Four tiers must be recognised: the member states, the EU, the internal territorial legislative units and local authorities, which obviously have a part to play. I believe that, in the future, the executive power should be the European Commission, which should be answerable to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and that the Council of Ministers should become part of a bicameral legislature. That is the only way in which we can ever hope to have a democratic Europe. People might disagree with that, but I think that that situation is inevitable.

I agree that subsidiarity should be redefined and I think that the members of the Committee of the Regions—I totally approve of that body, in whose setting up I was involved—should be sent by the regions, not the states. If they are not, it is a nonsense to call it the Committee of the Regions.

As Fiona Hyslop said, we support having a referendum on the major constitutional change that Europe faces. Given the powers that be in London, I doubt that we will get one, but we should still press for it.

As Fiona Hyslop also said, it is clearly ludicrous to say that the Committee of the Regions and legislative assemblies inside member states should not have access to the European Court of Justice.

Please wind up, Dr Ewing.

Is my time up already? I feel as though I have just got started.

My view is that an internal legislative assembly should be able to have direct representation in Europe. I reject the myth that being in Europe as part of the UK gives us clout. In fact, we have the opposite of clout. Look at fishing. Look at what happened with objective 1 funding. Look at the numerical representation that we would have if we were a normal country. Even though we will be surrounded by the new member states—all of them independent countries that will have a seat at the top table—the unambitious unionists are quite happy for us to be a substate.

I welcome the fact that we are debating this important issue, which the European Committee has been discussing for months. Having tried to follow the debate about the future of Europe, I think that it is appropriate that the key issues on our agenda today relate to transparency, subsidiarity—although I hate the word—and making the EU more efficient and effective. Above all, however, the key issues are about ways in which the EU institutions can relate more effectively to the citizens whom they represent.

The key to the debate is the need to increase the democratic legitimacy of the institutions of Europe, by reforming them and making them fit for the 21st century. The institutions were developed 50 years ago, in another era, after the second world war. As we start the new century, we are facing a larger Europe. The states that are joining the Union are looking for security, economic progress and the high quality of life that many of the states that are already in the EU almost take for granted. This is a radical time to be debating the future of Europe.

I was disappointed by the Tory amendment and by Ben Wallace's speech. The Executive and MSPs have made a significant effort to stimulate debate. I have been to a series of seminars—I am conscious that I have missed some—as well as debates and discussions on the issue. In those meetings, there has been an attempt to engage people from trade unions, small businesses and so on, rather than the usual suspects and people like us who are already engaged in politics. It is important that we increase awareness.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. Ben Wallace has already had a chance to speak.

I was also disappointed by the SNP's amendment, although I agree with some of the spirit behind it. Much of what Irene Oldfather would have talked about if she had had 20 minutes would have related to the detail of the committee's recommendations, which are about ensuring that Scotland's perspective is represented at the table. We do that through the UK Government and through a plethora of organisations in the convention on the future of Europe. The convention does not comprise many people and they are not necessarily the most representative: there is an appalling gender imbalance and there are few young people. There is an issue about how we who are outside the convention can have our voices heard inside it. That is why this debate is important.

In the UK, we have had the debate about our constitutional future; the challenge is to make it work. Every two weeks, the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament scrutinises forthcoming issues. We also talk to our colleagues in the European Parliament. The debate is about getting the best of both worlds: being part of the wider UK, being able to network with other regions and member states in Europe and being part of the bigger picture. When we are finally presented with the convention's conclusions, it will be very difficult to make major changes. That is why we need to make our comments now. It is also why our different political groups need to engage in that debate now from their different perspectives.

It is difficult to imagine the process coming to a conclusion at the moment, because there are very different political strands in Europe. One strand advocates an approach similar to the one that we take, with asymmetrical devolution and different solutions throughout the UK. We make that work and we network. There is the much more prescriptive approach, which is perhaps the French style, which is to write everything down—

I beg your pardon; I pressed the wrong button. May we have Miss Boyack's sound back, please? You have it back, Miss Boyack.

I had not noticed you warning me, but I take that as a subtle hint that I should finish soon.

You have about 20 seconds.

Concluding the process will be a challenge. That is why we need the debate. The Executive motion is positive. It challenges us to make the most of the changes that are happening in Europe.

There will be new states in the European Union, some of which have had conflicts in the past couple of decades. They are looking for security and the economic, social and environmental progress that we have started to take for granted.

We are now part of Europe and the challenge is to make that work more effectively. That means more transparency. I welcome Jim Wallace's comments about Council meetings, which take place in secret but make laws that apply to us all. There will still be scope for negotiation and little discussions in the backrooms, but the big decisions that affect us all—and, in future, the 500 million citizens of Europe—need to be taken in public. That ethos should run throughout the whole European Union and its dealings.

I am glad that Murray Tosh is not the President of the United States. If he was, I would shudder to think that he had pressed the wrong button.

I will try to be brief. I know that time is of the essence, so I will try to do my speech in three and a half minutes.

The British empire is gone, apart from some small dependencies and islands with an estimated total population of 125,000. The Commonwealth has undergone change and will, no doubt, continue to do so. The big power brokers are the United States and China. I believe that it is imperative that a small country such as Britain should be a major player in Europe. The mechanism that is under discussion today is therefore of supreme importance.

There is now a queue of probable new entrants from eastern Europe, plus Cyprus and Turkey. That means considerable diversity. The Conservatives oppose a European constitution because that would be a further step down the road to a unitary superstate. A new treaty, rather than a constitution, would be preferred. Most member states share that view.

The nearest analogies to a European superstate of which I can think would be the Roman and Napoleonic empires, along with Hitler's third Reich, but all three used warfare to conquer and dictatorship to rule. As has been said, the Conservatives want arrangements to be based on a common, basic set of laws—rather than a constitution—with the emphasis on securing a single market for trade.

A key function of the convention should be to promote and develop democracy and accountability not only at a European level, but within nation states. The power to initiate legislation must be transferred from the Commission to the European Parliament. That is democracy. What do we read in Jim Wallace's motion? We read the coalition's favourite words:

"effective, efficient … democratic, transparent and accountable".

I am not criticising Jim Wallace's choice of words, but we hear those words repeatedly from members of the Executive parties.

At the national level, member states' Parliaments should have greater powers, along with Governments and civic society. The subsidiarity principle—that power should be devolved to the level closest to the citizen wherever possible—is at the core of Conservative thinking on the convention. A Conservative MEP, Timothy Kirkhope, has proposed the creation of the post of European arbiter, who would be elected every five years to adjudicate on cases in which it was felt that competencies had been allocated to the wrong institution.

Decisions on the future of Europe will have a direct effect on present and future generations. On that, we are all united.

I will not attempt to emulate John Young and speak as quickly as he did, but I will try to stay within my time.

I have been a member of the European Committee since the start of 2001. The committee is characterised by a genuine desire to serve the Scottish Parliament's needs and to forge successful links with the EU. In our future of Europe debate, we brought together an extensive report that expresses the committee's collective view on the situation as we find it. Many of the report's conclusions were arrived at following prolonged discussion and compromise, so that all members could sign up to it. Other aspects were quite easily agreed on.

I concur with the view expressed by other members that the most important justification for the European Union is the fact that it has saved western Europe from the kind of conflicts that scourged the whole continent in the 20th century—the first and second world wars, in which all Europeans, including Scots, English, Irish and Welsh Europeans, paid a very heavy price for the stupidity of politicians. All the EU's economic and political structures are by-products of that important reason for its existence.

The convention on the future of Europe became necessary because those who had become too closely involved in the processes of Europe were losing touch with the people whom they were supposed to engage and serve. That is the convention's value. It attempts to engage nations, regions and peoples in the debate on the way ahead for the EU. My colleague Lloyd Quinan is engaged in that process at the moment and at the weekend. As the European Committee's report bears witness, we engaged citizens in the debate in a Scottish parliamentary convention in September.

The way ahead must take into account all the diverse views of the EU's people. The SNP's view is that the EU should exercise certain powers based on pooled sovereignty from its member states, but that each state should retain sovereignty in constitutional, fiscal and other areas.

As far as I can tell, there is little disagreement—except on the part of the Conservatives—on the need for a constitution or constitutional treaty for the EU. Not to have one is to maintain a situation in which precedents can be established by the political experts in Europe. Those people often have their own agendas in mind, which might lock people, regions and nations into situations not of their choosing. Rather than viewing constitutions as iron bands, we should treat them as something that might control the wilder, federal inclinations of some people in Europe.

I totally support the SNP amendment's call for any new constitutional arrangement for the EU to be put to the people of Scotland in a referendum. Apart from giving the constitution democratic endorsement, such an exercise would engage the people, which is surely part of the reason for having the convention.

The SNP amendment also supports the proposal in the European Committee's report that

"‘regions' with legislative powers should have the right of direct access to the European Court of Justice to challenge Community legislation."

I point out that the word "regions" was given inverted commas in deference to SNP committee members. Without a right of direct access, the process is a bit of a waste of time.

Although I believe that the European Committee does the best that it can, given the constraints under which it acts, I am often consumed by a great cloud of despair when I contemplate the voluntary blindness of my non-SNP colleagues, who cannot see that all our discussions on our vital access to Europe would be so much easier were Scotland a normal, independent nation. I say to Sarah Boyack, who thinks that the debate is over, that the debate will not be over until the Scottish flag flies in its own right, representing a normal nation, both in Europe and at the United Nations.

I support the motion in Jim Wallace's name. Sarah Boyack's views on our efforts to engage with the people of Scotland certainly chime with mine. I would be surprised if the Parliament were not unanimous in thinking that the work of the convention on the future of Europe is vital. The convention is undertaking key work, which will shape the decisions that are taken at the intergovernmental conference in 2004. The Parliament has consistently supported the development of Scotland's influence on the corridors of power at EU level.

In past years, the challenge that has been faced at every level of government has been how to engage civic society in the development of policy in the EU. As Irene Oldfather said, the Parliament made a good start by holding our own convention—the conference that we held in the chamber in September—which involved participants from all over Scotland, including some young people. For many years, I have been eager to witness such engagement.

Ben Wallace has met someone who has always been very positive about Europe. I campaigned for the yes campaign in the 1975 referendum, when I was living and working in London. I am a member of the executive committee of the European Movement in Scotland, a cross-party organisation whose patrons include Jack McConnell, Alex Salmond, Jim Wallace and Lord Younger. I am a member of the Labour Movement in Europe Scotland and was formerly a member of the association of democratic socialists in Europe.

Only last week I had the privilege of attending a meeting in Edinburgh at which Gisela Stuart, one of the democratically elected United Kingdom representatives at the convention, was the guest speaker. Gisela outlined the work of the working group that she chairs, which is considering the role of Parliaments across the EU. She was very interested to learn about the work that Scotland's politicians are doing in the context of the EU and was able to hear the views of many members of the public who attended the meeting.

I have no doubt that it is critical for every member of the Parliament to campaign actively to ensure that the voices of our people are heard more clearly in Europe. The ways in which we can do that are outlined in the European Committee's report. We have said that a constitutional treaty should be drafted that will simplify all existing legislation—that is an important task. We must strive to improve access and increase participation. Sharing power and accountability are also important.

The initiatives that the Scottish Executive took in the Flanders, Liège and Florence declarations and that the Scottish Parliament's European Committee took this October, as a founder member of a new network of regional parliamentary European committees, are to be applauded. Those initiatives are designed to strengthen the voices of regional Parliaments across the EU. At the most recent meeting of the European Committee, we agreed that the committee convener should be in contact with the conveners of European committees of other regional Parliaments.

Helen Eadie highlights the good work that the Parliament has done to engage with people. Does she find it regrettable that the Scottish Executive's motion does not mention the role that the Parliament, the European Committee and members of all parties have played in promoting the debate on the future of Europe?

From discussions with the Deputy First Minister, officials of the Scottish Executive and Labour members of the Executive, I know that the Executive is committed to and supportive of initiatives that the European Committee has taken. For example, recently I spoke to the Deputy First Minister about organising school quizzes throughout Scotland and found that I was pushing at an open door. Whenever we approach the Scottish Executive, our initiatives are taken up.

We understand the complexities of the European Union's decision-making process. The challenge for us all is to simplify and make much more transparent the way in which decisions are made. Irene Oldfather mentioned the goal and prize of peace, which motivated the founding fathers and mothers of the EU. We are still challenged and exercised by those goals. Only by securing agreements and treaties, as the convention proposes, and by enlarging the European Union, can we ensure the peaceful development of Europe for our people.

Because of the work of the Parliament's European Committee, the Scottish Executive, our partners in local government and members of the European Parliament, Scotland is making a real impact. Scotland is punching above its weight in Europe. Scotland's enthusiasm for and involvement in Europe is renowned at all levels of government in Europe. I welcome recent developments in the European Committee, which now deals with pre-Council agenda setting as well as post-Council scrutiny.

The main challenge that confronts us is that of ensuring connectivity between Europe's citizens and Europe's institutions. I believe that the Parliament's European Committee has forged a positive relationship with the Scottish Executive and with ministers, who have embraced enthusiastically the commitment of all enthusiasts for Europe in Scotland.

The great thing about having a middle slot in a debate of this nature is that one may unashamedly make a couple of constituency points. I intend to do that.

In Donald Gorrie fashion, I will dispose of what has been said so far by saying that Europe is a good thing. The two points that I want to make will come as no surprise to members.

There has been mention today of objective 1 assistance for the Highlands. We have heard the allegation that the calculation was made wrongly in the first place and that it is not in the power of Europe to go back and regrant objective 1 assistance.

It is.

Some people have said that. The point is that the past is the past and we cannot change it. However, we can change the future.

As Dr Ewing will recall, when the decision was made, John Farquhar Munro and I—and others—made what I believe was the cogent argument that had Inverness not been included in the equation for the Highlands and Islands, other parts of the Highlands would have qualified for objective 1 assistance. At a recent Finance Committee meeting, I took that up with witnesses, and it was confirmed that that was the case. When Wales applied for objective 1 assistance, it fine-tuned the boundaries for its application and so was successful.

I exhort the Executive and the powers that be to ensure that next time round we look for a more sensitive and accurately targeted method of securing objective 1 funding. That relates to the efficiency and transparency that we have talked about.

My second point will come as absolutely no surprise to members, because it touches on the dairy industry. For the record, I declare an interest in my brother's cheese-making business. I remember that when I was involved in the business some years ago, we had to do up what was essentially an old steading and turn it into premises in which one could make cheese in proper modern conditions. I remember visiting a camembert-making plant in France and being struck by the different interpretation of the laws. We have all heard that argument before, again and again—I see Jim Wallace looking wearily at his papers. The point is that one should not carp or criticise, because it is a strong reason to engage with Europe. It would make enormous sense for us to get in there and put our views across further.

I remember when Nora Radcliffe and I were in Brussels earlier in the year. We talked to MEPs, who bemoaned the difficulty of getting a story about the hard work of all parties into the press.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not important that the member addresses the terms of the motion? I understand that he has not mentioned the word "convention" once.

I think that the member is just within the limits and no more. Not too much more cheese, please.

I want to make a point about transparency, which is within the terms of the motion. It is a sad fact that the good work of our MEPs cannot always be got at. I think that Fiona Hyslop would accept that as a fair and valid point.

I support the motion. The more that we can engage with ordinary people to get them to understand, and the more that we can converse with Europe, the more that we can tackle problems such as the fine tuning of objective 1 funding and the carping about regulations, and bring across the value of Europe to the ordinary people of this country, who matter.

Quoting selectively from history is always difficult and dangerous. John Young mentioned Rome, Napoleon and Hitler as historical analogies. I prefer to use the Hanseatic league and Charlemagne's holy Roman empire as better analogies of the sort of European Union that we hope to create.

We have to recognise that the argument about the UK and Scotland remaining in the European Union might be set, as Sarah Boyack said. The debate now is about the type of union that we want to create and whether it has a social aspect or whether it is simply a free market. I certainly do not believe that the free market can be allowed to remain unregulated and uncontrolled. We require there to be a social dimension to Europe.

Our society is at an historic juncture. We can either go in the direction of a north European democracy, to which I think our membership of the European Union would add and from which we would gain a great deal, or we can go down the road taken by the United States, the UK at present and, indeed, Australia, which would present significant problems. Where the societies and economies of those countries are going holds no allure for me. We have growing disparities of income, wealth and power; we have the dislocation of political aspects, such as lower turnouts in elections; and we have myriad social problems.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

The fact of the matter is that going into Europe offers great opportunities. It is about making a choice that is not simply about better economic fortunes for ourselves, but about what sort of society we want to create not only for ourselves but for the whole of the European Union as it is and as it expands. That we will go in that direction is probably an historical inevitability. It would be better if we were to go willingly rather than grudgingly and if we were to go sooner rather than later. We must go in that direction.

My colleagues have made points about independence in Europe with which I fully agree. It is a pity that Wendy Alexander is not in the chamber. Her view is that the issue is about interdependence rather than independence. It is about both independence and interdependence. That raises the question of fields and levels of responsibility.

In the 21st century Europe in which we live and in which our children's children's children will grow up, some matters will be dealt with at a European level and others, such as those affecting a small island such as the UK, will be dealt with on an inter-island basis. I submit that it is better to have matters dealt with on the basis of equality than to be dictated to. Some matters, such as whom and what to tax and what to spend the revenue on, will remain within the control of the democratically elected representatives of our nation state.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not take an intervention.

In the new European Union that will develop, it is not a question of independence or of interdependence; it is a question of both. It is a question of fields and levels of responsibility.

How should we play an active part? We can participate or we can spectate. At present, as Scotland is not an independent member of the European Union, we are simply spectators. I do not want to use inflammatory language about being bag-carriers, but we cannot participate to any great extent. We can go to a convention, but we cannot vote. We do not have the right to participate in consideration of whether there should be qualified majority voting on this, that or the next thing.

If we are to play a part in the formation of a new Europe—which might not be the same as the Europe that we are discussing or actively seeking at the moment—and to participate in the journey that Europe is undertaking, we require to be represented as an independent nation state.

Although I hope that we participate in the convention as fully as we can, ultimately, if we are to make the best of Europe—which is essential for our society and for future generations—we must participate in such events as an independent nation state. We should not necessarily seek greater powers, but we should not accept fewer powers.

We move to winding-up speeches. We are on schedule.

The European Union is adapting, modernising and, above all, expanding into a new role for the 21st century. I am afraid that the same cannot be said of the Opposition parties from which we have heard. As we might expect, they seem to be well and truly stuck in their respective grooves.

The Tories still have an unhealthy obsession with the F-word and they are fundamentally Eurosceptic—which, in normal language, means anti-European. Although that is not the position of Ben Wallace, who makes constructive contributions to the European Committee's deliberations, it is the position of his party. As for the nationalists, as ever, they are more interested in breaking up the British union than they are in developing the European Union. I am glad that I have got that off my chest.

I pay tribute to all my colleagues on the European Committee, regardless of their party. We have had a constructive discussion about the future of Europe. Our inquiry led to the publication yesterday of our report on the future of Europe. The report's key recommendation is the establishment of a clear role for regions with legislative power within the EU. We also propose that the EU should adopt the underlying principles adopted by the Scottish Parliament: power sharing, accountability, access and participation and equal opportunities. Those principles have served as good, sound principles for the Parliament and they could usefully be adopted by the European Parliament.

A Europe of 500 million people that extends from the Atlantic to the Russian border is a phenomenal enterprise. It represents a colossal economic market that should offer the basis for a new era of security and development. As John Young indicated, it is completely different from all the dynasties and blocs that have gone before. It is not an empire that is controlled by one strong nation; it is a free partnership of nations, regions and peoples.

The expansion of the EU is an extremely ambitious enterprise. The existing institutions are under great strain with just 15 members and they cannot possibly survive in a union of 25 members plus. The rotating presidency will become impossible. The Council must be radically reformed. The Commission must be brought under effective control and scrutiny. The European Parliament must take on more responsibility and prove itself worthy of that responsibility. From a Scottish perspective, we must co-operate with regions such as Flanders and Catalonia to establish clear rights and responsibilities for regions with legislative powers in modern Europe.

I hate the word "subsidiarity", but if we get the right conclusions to the convention's deliberations on the future of Europe, the principle of subsidiarity should be so deeply engrained in the culture of the union that the word need never be spoken again. That should be the objective. An obvious example of how the idea could work better is the management of the fisheries adjacent to our coasts.

The European Union is about prosperity, security and co-operation among the peoples of Europe. It means policies and funding to address social and environmental problems and the active engagement of people throughout the union in a new citizens' Europe. That will not simply happen. There is a lot of cynicism out there about every level of representative government, but people may have forgotten just how awful all the alternatives to democracy and co-operation can be. I happen to be one of the older members of this Parliament, but even I was born three years after the end of the second world war. Nevertheless, during my time in Bosnia, I saw a little glimpse of how badly things can go wrong even in today's Europe.

The importance of achieving a successful outcome to the future of Europe debate cannot be overemphasised. The alternatives to democracy and co-operation in Europe could be a return to the European history of division and poverty and far worse. We owe it to future generations to get it right.

The debate has been interesting to say the least. John Home Robertson and several other members, including Irene Oldfather, Colin Campbell and Sarah Boyack, mentioned the peace benefits as the reason for bringing Europeans together. However, none of them seemed to remember that perhaps the key factor was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO played a major part in bringing Europeans together and in keeping the peace. We must all remember that.

I want to pick up on the comments that Irene Oldfather made. I sympathise with her having a cold, but I suspect that in tramping around Europe she has picked up some European germs. I ask her to keep them to herself, but not her European thoughts, because some of her thoughts are very relevant indeed.

Remembering that the debate centred on the convention, Irene Oldfather acknowledged that the convention has been a disappointment to her. The convention has been a disappointment to me as well, because it has concentrated too much on what I see as a drive towards federalism. The convention envisages a constitution that would bond all nations together in a way that suggests that, in the longer term, we would operate under a single European state. The convention should have been an opportunity to examine the real issues of Europe, which are the issues that bother the people in all our constituencies and areas.

I appreciate Phil Gallie's sentiments, but I want to put on record the fact that the disappointment that we share about some aspects of the convention is probably for different reasons. If I may mention one aspect that I am particularly disappointed in—

Okay, I take the point. Whether or not Irene Oldfather's disappointment is for different reasons, she expressed some disappointment in the convention.

My disappointment centres on the fact that the convention has failed to focus on key issues, such as the way in which the Commission has managed its finances. Just a few years ago, the European Parliament dismissed the Commission for failing to manage European financial affairs correctly. We seem to be moving towards that scenario again. It surprises me that no one mentioned that in today's debate despite the fact that I am sure that every one of our constituents would feel strongly about it. We have talked about great visions for Europe, but when we come down to it, there are concerns about issues such as bureaucracy. The convention seems to have failed to address that and that is also disappointing.

Jim Wallace spoke about all the benefits of Europe, including the potential for more jobs. Let us be realistic. We are all for enlargement because it seems to make sense, but with that has to come reform. Until now, reforms have been too inadequate to meet the needs of enlargement. The convention could have addressed that issue and brought members together on it. The convention has missed many opportunities.

I am concerned that majority voting is being considered. That would be detrimental to the subsidiarity that has been the aim of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The convention should have addressed the kind of issues that I have mentioned. Instead, it has been guided by the Prodis and some of the other senior political figures in Europe who seem to see a federal Europe as the ultimate aim for us all.

Many members have said that the convention is discussing reforms to the European Union and that it should be working to make the EU more efficient and to bring it closer to citizens. As a concept, the convention is broadly welcomed.

I suggest that one of the main purposes of the convention is to open up to all Europe's citizens and their representatives the process of reforming the EU. I suggest that the convention has a duty to all democratic institutions in the EU to clarify the role in the EU of nations and regions other than member states. Today's debate has reminded us of the importance of Europe in our lives and why it is so important that our voices are heard and that we are all involved.

The principle of subsidiarity, which has been mentioned many times, should mean that European decision making reaches right down to the localities where the decisions made will have an effect; it should ensure that those decisions are taken appropriately and locally. From what I have heard today, I suggest that subsidiarity has to be better defined, especially for countries such as Scotland where it is important that people understand the concept.

As a member of the Committee of the Regions, I am constantly reminded that regions come in all shapes and sizes. I sit as an MSP and can comment from a Scottish perspective; other members might refer to their often small council areas. However, the Committee of the Regions has made a contribution to the debate on the convention with two key points that are relevant to Scotland.

First, the Committee of the Regions supports the proposal to grant the regions a specific status in the treaty, in the same way that the status of national Parliaments is recognised. It also supports the proposal to detail the areas in which the regions are involved, their responsibilities and the practical arrangements and procedures governing their participation. The Committee of the Regions also recognises that the principle of subsidiarity must be incorporated at sub-national level because, in many member states, local authorities share administrative responsibility for EU-related matters.

Secondly, the Committee of the Regions reiterated its call for the Committee and those regions that have legislative powers to be granted the right to bring proceedings before the European Court of Justice where the subsidiarity principle is not respected. Will the Deputy First Minister explain the Scottish Executive's opposition to those two key proposals from the Committee of the Regions?

Scotland has a long tradition of good relations with the nations of Europe and the SNP whole-heartedly supports the constitutional development of the EU in a way that is favourable to democracy. We welcome enlargement, not least because, as others have said, it provides a context for peace, enhancement of prosperity, co-operation and the environment. Those are all very good things.

We also support a European constitution that will delimit the powers exercised at EU, member state and regional level. However, we have always argued that major constitutional change should be approved through referenda.

In the debate, we have considered, to an extent, how the Scottish Parliament fits in and what our role is. Of even more relevance is the question that we should be asking: what has changed for us with devolution? We say, "Not very much." I give an example in conclusion. More than half the applicant countries are the same size as, or smaller than, Scotland, but they will all have a guaranteed seat at the top table, with permanent representation on the Council of Ministers, the right to nominate a commissioner, and considerably more members of the European Parliament per head of population. They are, quite rightly, set to enjoy first-class status, while Scotland will not. That is the basis of our amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and to have heard the contributions of members from all parts of the chamber. As I indicated at the outset, we see the debate as an important part of developing the discussion in Scotland and as helping to inform the submission that the Executive will make to the future of Europe convention.

I thought that Ben Wallace was a bit churlish when, in an intervention, he said that the motion did not recognise the role that the Parliament and its European Committee had played. I went out of my way in my opening speech to pay tribute to the work of the European Committee, in relation both to its most recent report, which was published on Tuesday, and to the work that it did at the end of last year, the report on which we debated in February.

The minister's motion was lodged yesterday, and we lodged an amendment to it. We had no idea what he was going to say in his speech, but it is a fact that his motion did not acknowledge the cross-party parliamentary role of the committee.

I regret giving way to enable Ben Wallace to make that fairly pointless intervention. I mentioned that role in my opening speech, but Ben Wallace's intervention came later. His amendment relates to what he claims is a

"failure to engage Scottish civil society".

That is churlish. We not only consulted the European Committee, we launched a wide-ranging consultation with Scottish civic society at many different levels. There was an opportunity for people to contribute. Ben Wallace says that the CBI collected some views, but that should not detract from the fact that we expressly went out and invited many large bodies, such as the CBI, to give us their views. The response may not have been as large as many people would have hoped for, but that underlines the need for the convention's work on trying to engage more people in the European debate.

I will address the next point to get it out of the way—I speak of the inevitable amendment from the SNP and the view that if Scotland had a seat at the top table, everything would be hunky-dory. We hear that view often, and I know that SNP members have to go through the motions of saying it. They get so obsessed with who is sitting at the table that they never give much thought to what is being said there. When we agree the common line with the United Kingdom, the most important point is that the person who represents Scottish interests has the clout of the United Kingdom at the table—they are not obsessing about the shape of the furniture.

A number of members talked about the importance of having a constitution for Europe. There was general support—except from the Conservatives—for a constitution. I say to John Young that I cannot accept that those who support a constitution for Europe fall into the same mould as the Romans, Napoleon and Hitler. I do not think that they sought to dominate Europe by way of a constitution; they sought other ways of achieving that.

Will the minister give way?

I have been fairly generous with interventions.

Will the minister give way?

Yes.

As the minister is addressing the issue of the constitution, can he advise whether the Executive supports holding a referendum on any constitution treaty? Can he explain why the Executive is opposed to direct access for this Parliament to the European Court of Justice?

I will deal with the second question in due course. As far as a referendum is concerned, that would be a matter for the Westminster Parliament. We are giving the people of Scotland an opportunity to express their views on those matters; we could not have given them more opportunity than we have tried to encourage in recent months.

I will give way to John Young now. It was unfair of me not to do so earlier.

I am grateful to the minister. I simply made the point that the Romans, Napoleon and Hitler conquered vast areas of Europe and ruled by dictatorship. Of course, Europe today does not.

I agree fundamentally with John Young. The important point about constitutions is that they are in place to restrain wilder excesses. Colin Campbell made the point well. What is important in our consideration of constitutions is that we must not be driven by the constitution itself. We need to work out the principles of what we want to establish and devise the constitution to fit the Europe and the principles that we want to put in place.

Winnie Ewing and Sarah Boyack mentioned openness at meetings of the Council of Ministers. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we would support that development and reform of those meetings.

A number of members referred quite properly to the importance of subsidiarity. Kenny MacAskill referred to it as the level of responsibility at which decisions are made. That is an important issue for a Parliament such as the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, 80 per cent of our devolved competencies have a European dimension. We have argued that we should consider creating a political mechanism to police subsidiarity and that we should do so before decisions are made. There is strong support for that suggestion. The basis for my reservation about the judicial route is that, by its very nature, appeals would be made after a decision had been made, and the judicial route tends to be pretty cumbersome. We need a political, rather than a judicial, approach, because a political approach is liable to proceed more speedily. However, I accept that the European Committee is absolutely right to set out that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Before the SNP gets too carried away, I should point out that when Jack McConnell signed the Florence declaration, he said that measures within the declaration, such as calls for regional access to the European Court of Justice or guarantees of representation at the Council of Ministers, apply less to Scotland. He also said that he understood well why those issues were important to other members of the group.

The declaration demonstrates clearly the maturity and flexibility that exists within the group. That is to our credit and bodes well for the future. Jack McConnell's point is that, from our perspective, the need for the judicial approach is not as great as it is perceived to be by other countries and that we should focus our attention on establishing an ex ante method of political scrutiny.

I turn to the rights and responsibilities of sub-member state administrations. We highlighted the importance of framework decision making in respect of SMSAs. Perhaps that would not have dealt entirely with Jamie Stone's perennial cheese problem, but it might have helped when we were implementing European legislation. We recognise that Brussels cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to Europe that applies equally to parts of Finland, Greece, Tuscany and Scotland. We believe that we need more framework decision making within which we can devise legislation that matches Scottish circumstances. Winnie Ewing mentioned the importance of early access to decision making, to which I also referred in my opening speech.

Phil Gallie said that with enlargement must come reform. That was the point that the leaders of the European Union had in mind when they established the convention. If the European Union of today is not engaging sufficiently well with its citizens, how much more difficult will it be for it to do so when we have a much greater population in the new, enlarged European Union? That is why the convention has a lot to live up to—

You have not done that.

Phil Gallie can say that we have not done that, but the convention is still sitting, which means that it has not produced its final report. Much work remains to be done and an inter-governmental conference is still to come.

We should not lose sight of what has been achieved. Sarah Boyack said that some of the countries that are coming into the European Union had suffered conflict in the past two decades. We need only cast our minds back 20 years to remember that many of the applicant nations were under communist rule. If people had said then that within 20 years those nations would be embraced by the European Union, they would have thought that Europe would have travelled a long way. However, Europe has done so, which is why it is so important to get the structures of the European Union right. I have much pleasure in commending the motion to the Parliament.