European Union Priorities
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-793, in the name of Linda Fabiani, on the Scottish Government's European Union priorities.
We set out in our manifesto a commitment to make Scotland's voice louder in Europe. We are committed to achieving that for the benefit of the people of Scotland as a whole—to help Scottish businesses become wealthier for the good of all, and to allow our communities to live in a fairer society.
I say unequivocally that this is a pro-European Scottish Government. Fundamentally, we are committed to ensuring that Scotland plays the fullest role, and a positive role, in developing an effective European Union. Yes, we want to secure from the EU opportunities for regional development funding, for research funding, for learning opportunities for our students, and for business opportunities for our entrepreneurs. However, we also want to contribute from our Scottish traditions and heritage of justice, equality, democracy, opportunity and acceptance to a European Union that also protects and cherishes those values and makes them integral to its internal workings and its dealings with the rest of the world.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Not yet, thank you.
Yes, we acknowledge that there are some imperfections in the existing regulatory framework that are not helpful to Scottish interests. We will strive to improve those. And yes, we recognise that—in a very diverse EU of 27 member states and many more nations, regions, communities and identities—solutions have to be found that are inevitably compromises that cannot fully please everyone. However, we will do our utmost to ensure that Scotland is not disadvantaged by them in the areas that matter most to us.
Our first step towards ensuring this, and towards securing our interests, has been to agree what really matters to us in the European Union. We cannot waste our resource by trying to fight every battle; we have to concentrate on the things that matter most. We have determined that our six most important political objectives are: fisheries and aquaculture; EU treaty reform; the EU budget review; justice and home affairs issues; EU energy policy; and agriculture.
Does size matter in Europe? That question might sound facetious, but I am interested in whether, in contributing to a better Europe, this Government believes that there is no end to the size of Europe. Is there a limit to the number of countries that could join the European Union?
I am disappointed, as I thought that Ms MacDonald was going to give me the chance to say—and I will say it anyway—how wonderfully small independent nations do in Europe. In some ways, the eventual size of the European Union is constrained by what Europe is. The European Union is dependent on the countries of Europe.
The six objectives that I have set out are the Government's longer-term political goals. I hope that members can support them as representing the core of Scottish interests in Europe at present.
Will the minister give way?
No.
We shall focus a good deal of our efforts on ensuring that the developments in relation to our objectives are, at least, acceptable and, preferably, advantageous to us. In addition, we have compiled a table of 21 proposals that make up the Scottish Government's EU priorities. They include better regulation, energy, climate change and financial services, to name but a few. When addressing shortly forthcoming EU policies, the Government will focus its immediate attention on that table of priorities.
I am keen that the priorities should be accessible to all and that everyone should have the opportunity to contribute to their development. That is why the table is available on our website and has been widely distributed to our stakeholders. In determining our EU priorities as the Scottish Government, we have taken decisions that we consider to be in the overall Scottish interest. However, we have tried to base those decisions on discussion and consultation with others.
Part of the issue is what the Scottish Government does in Scotland once European policies have been set. One of the priorities that it has identified is structural funds. Is the minister as concerned as I am that, since May, there has been a tightening of the approach to structural funds in the south of Scotland that will make it harder for the area to access European regional development funding under the lowlands plan? Will she commit herself to re-examining the plan before it is signed, sealed and delivered, to allow the south of Scotland greater flexibility in that regard?
Everyone knows that Scotland got a much less generous structural funds settlement in the 2007 to 2013 round. However, the decision to have a set-up that distinguishes between lowlands and uplands and Highlands and Islands was taken many months ago. I am sure that Mr Swinney, the cabinet secretary with responsibility for structural funds, will read Mr Purvis's comments with interest.
The European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament is obviously a key player in European affairs in Scotland, tasked with scrutinising the Government's performance. As a former convener, I believe strongly in the role that the committee plays in parliamentary scrutiny and that its views are important in helping to inform the Government's policies. For that reason, I have committed myself not only to presenting our EU priorities to the committee on a six-monthly basis but to doing so ahead of official publication, ensuring that the committee has the opportunity to comment on the EU priorities that have been selected and to suggest others that it wishes to see included.
Will the minister give way?
Go on then.
I thank the minister for giving way at my third attempt. She will be aware that new route development funding is under threat as a result of revisions to current EU guidelines. Can she assure Parliament that the Government is doing all that it can to protect that funding, which is vital to the future of Prestwick airport in my constituency?
My role as minister with responsibility for Europe is to bring about co-ordination across portfolios, to ensure that Scotland's interests are looked after in the best possible way. The appropriate cabinet secretary will be extremely interested to read Mr Scott's comments.
In addition, I am keen for EMILE, which stands for European elected members information liaison and exchange—the EU is very good at acronyms—to play a role in the process of identifying priorities. The network is very useful, as it brings together members of the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament and local government, as well as Westminster. I shall ask for members' views at our meeting this evening.
Each of the priorities relates to one or more of the Scottish Government's overall objectives, and I hope that the outcome of each will contribute to those objectives. For example, we have prioritised the European structural funds programmes in support of a wealthier and fairer Scotland. As I said in response to Jeremy Purvis's question, Scotland has fewer resources from those funds than it has had in previous years, largely reflecting the fact that the enlarged European Union has many new areas in need of significant economic growth. We will continue to work to ensure that those funds are channelled appropriately and effectively into supporting projects in communities that will benefit economically from them.
We are working to deliver a greener Scotland, and we have identified several EU issues as important in that regard. One that I will single out, partly because it does not always receive much attention, is the soil thematic strategy. Scotland has an extremely good record on soil protection that we are keen to continue and develop. We have carried out a formal three-month consultation on the implications of the proposed soil framework directive in Scotland. Ultimately, we need to ensure that the Scottish position is incorporated into negotiations, as Scotland's soils are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom—they contain large amounts of carbon.
The EU proposal for the exchange of information on criminal records should also assist our objective of a safer and stronger Scotland. We welcome that proposal, as information on the criminal behaviour of citizens from other member states who live and work in Scotland will assist Scottish police forces in their efforts to prevent or detect crime. Exchange of information will also ensure that criminal activity by people from Scotland who are elsewhere in the EU will come to the attention of the Scottish police service.
Will the minister give way?
I have to move on—I am sorry.
We are working closely with the UK Government in taking forward the implementation of the framework decision on that proposal.
As part of our delivery of a healthier Scotland, we are carefully considering the EU white paper "A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues", which was published in May. We all know that that is an extremely important policy area. We already have strong strategic policies in place on physical activity and healthy eating, which jointly contribute to tackling obesity and overweight. We shall be happy to participate in the sharing of best practice, as recommended in the white paper. We hope to share our positive experiences with others and to learn from others to assist with continuously improving Scotland's health. There are many other initiatives on which I would be more than happy to give details.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. I am running short of time.
The list of our priorities contains both reserved and devolved issues. It is important to recognise that, although the Scottish Government does not have jurisdiction over certain areas, that does not mean that those areas do not affect Scotland. We will of course seek to work constructively with the UK Government to ensure that, when a proposal emerging from Brussels in a reserved area would potentially have an impact in Scotland, our interests are protected and appropriately represented by the UK Government.
You have one minute left.
Am I allowed longer, Presiding Officer, given the number of interventions that I have taken?
No.
I apologise to the Parliament as I cannot share all the extremely interesting information that I have in front of me.
In relation to all our priority issues, we acknowledge that, at present, the UK is the EU member state. Of course, we would rather it were different. However, we will work constructively with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly pursued through the existing mechanisms. In many cases, we find that what we want is in line with what the UK wants, and there is no difficulty. In cases in which that is less true, I assure members that we will press Scotland's case very firmly with UK ministers to ensure that their position reflects what Scotland needs, as far as that is possible under the existing system, which tends to constrain Scottish demands.
We will also work closely with the other devolved Administrations, with which we very often share common EU interests, and with other member states, with which we can exchange experiences and best practice.
I am happy—
Oh!
I am always happy—and Lord Foulkes looks very happy too.
I am happy to acknowledge that the Westminster Parliament has for many years undertaken excellent work on EU matters through the scrutiny committees of both its Houses. I recently met Michael Connarty, the chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and I was very encouraged by that committee's approach to the devolved Administrations. I want to continue to work with him to ensure that that work becomes a reality, particularly in relation to our EU priorities.
Scotland needs a European Union that works for us, yet neither we nor any one other country or person sets the EU's agenda. Therefore, we will concentrate on ensuring that, as the European Union continues to evolve, it does so in a way that we can support, along with the people of Scotland.
I am sorry that I have not been able to cover some of the other things that I know members are interested in, but I will be closing the debate and I will try to pick up on members' queries.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the importance of EU policies and legislation to the Parliament, its Committees and to Scotland and notes the priorities identified by the Scottish Government for particular attention.
I am delighted that the minister began by saying that she represents a pro-European Scottish Government, although I am not sure whether that can be said for all of her party. I am also not sure whether it is demonstrated by the SNP's somewhat bizarre attitude to the European treaty.
I am also glad that the minister mentioned, among other issues, the soil thematic strategy—not least because our own Sarah Boyack led for the United Kingdom in discussions on the framework directive on the protection of soils. That is relevant to remarks that I will make later in my speech.
I am pleased that the minister will, like her predecessor, attend the European and External Relations Committee every six months to present her EU priorities.
I will outline the background. In December 2005, the then Scottish Executive implemented a new process for selecting its EU priorities. Instead of focusing on the short-term plans of the presidency and the European Council, the Executive devised a more strategic approach, which focused on dossiers over the medium to long term. That comparatively new approach is based on the European Commission's legislative and work programme, the European Council's operational programme for the following two presidencies and the current European Parliament work programme.
Of the 21 dossiers before us today, 20 are from the list of 24 dossiers that was agreed by the previous Administration in February, when four overarching priorities were also identified: energy and climate change; sea fisheries; structural funds; and the draft spirit drinks directive. Issues with the draft spirit drinks directive have been successfully resolved, but it would be useful to know whether the current Scottish Government also has overarching priorities and, if so, what they are. It would also be useful to know which of the priorities listed by the Government involve positive action—and the timescale for that action—and which merely require a watching brief.
I do not complain about the fact that there is a mixture of reserved and devolved issues in the list of priorities, since that replicates the pre-election situation. However, the Parliament and its committees may wish to pay most attention to the issues that are devolved or which impact directly on devolved matters—as the reform treaty does.
If there is a great deal of continuity between the previous Administration and this one when it comes to EU priorities, the same cannot be said of this Administration's new category of EU political objectives. We may wonder what the connection is between the priorities and the objectives. My initial thought was that the priorities had been written by civil servants and the objectives by politicians.
The objectives are full of SNP obsessions. The first objective, on fisheries and aquaculture, is dominated by the "capital importance" of Scotland's fisheries minister acting as UK lead minister at the fisheries council. Scottish ministers have led EU negotiations for the UK at not only the fisheries council but a number of EU councils. As I said, in February, Sarah Boyack led on the framework directive on the protection of soils, which is one of the 21 dossiers before us today.
If Scottish ministers lead for the UK, that is, of course, based on their securing an agreed UK position—something that has been achieved on many occasions on many subjects for EU councils. The benefit of that approach is that the Scottish position gets the backing of the UK, with its powerful voice at every EU council. Scotland gains strength in Europe through being part of the UK delegation—that is the opposite of what the SNP persistently claims.
Can the member give an example of how we benefited from being part of a strong UK delegation when the matter under discussion was the banning of British beef, given that in Scotland we did not have any of the infection concerned?
There are hundreds of examples of when we have benefited. I am not saying that one or two exceptions cannot be found, but the fact is that, on an enormous number of occasions, Scotland has benefited from being part of the UK delegation.
What effort has the SNP put into securing an agreed position on fishing rather than posturing about constitutional arguments? How does Richard Lochhead help his chances of leading the UK delegation by telling the SNP conference that he is being gagged by the UK and that he is not allowed to have his say or represent the Scottish interest? He should instead build up trust with the UK Government and satisfy it that he would stand up for the Scottish fishing interest as part of standing up for the UK fishing interest.
Today is not a day for detailed debate on fishing, but my understanding is that there is not such a great gulf between Scottish fishermen and the UK Government as we are sometimes led to believe.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have not got time to take interventions now—time is running away from me.
At yesterday's meeting of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, the head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation gave the impression that he was, to a considerable extent, content with the negotiations as they have been led by the UK Government. I should perhaps also refer to the cod recovery plan, as it is one of the dossiers that is before members today. As the Scottish Executive, we helped to negotiate that plan as part of the UK, and it is now leading to a significant degree of recovery, opening up the possibility of review as outlined in the dossier. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to start negotiating and to stop its counterproductive posturing.
The Administration's second EU political objective, and the minister's immediate priority—according to what she said at the European and External Affairs Committee on 18 September—is our old friend the EU treaty. There is specific reference to the red line of our exclusive competence over marine biological resources—about which more in a moment—but also a welcome endorsement in the statement of political objectives for the rest of the treaty. The Government says that it acknowledges the value of institutional reforms that will make the Union more efficient and yet also more transparent and democratic in its decision making.
The Scottish Government is therefore in the ridiculous position of endorsing the whole treaty apart from one line, on the basis of which it is calling for rejection and a referendum. That position is all the more absurd because that one line does not change the status quo in any material way. The fisheries provisions in the reform treaty replicate the existing division of powers and merely put the existing position into legal form. Why has the Scottish Government got itself into that ridiculous position, and what does it hope to gain from such pointless posturing? We can speculate, but perhaps the minister will tell us in her winding-up speech.
On the treaty more generally—I anticipate what the next speaker will perhaps say in covering the most controversial points—the mandate for the intergovernmental conference made it clear that the constitutional concept has been abandoned. Of particular relevance to this Parliament is a secure, comprehensive and legally binding opt-in on all justice and home affairs measures. On qualified majority voting, several of the extensions do not apply to the UK, many are of a purely technical nature and the rest are modest and sensible—for example, decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries will be taken by qualified majority voting. Any extension of qualified majority voting will be subject to a triple lock comprising the Council of Ministers, national Parliaments and the European Parliament. Any transfer of powers is massively less significant than those that were contained in the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act, both of which were signed by the Conservative Government without a referendum.
The EU treaty is a traditional amending treaty, with some pragmatic evolutionary changes that will streamline decision making, improve efficiency and safeguard democratic accountability. It will also allow the EU to move on from debates about institutions to creating the outward-looking Europe that we desperately need to meet the fundamental challenges of globalisation, climate change, terrorism and international development. The UK Government will propose a declaration that will spell out those new priorities at the next Council meeting in December. The new agenda is about tackling climate change and energy security; combating terrorism and organised crime; reducing global poverty; reforming the EU budget; renewing the focus on completing the single market through, for example, the liberalisation of the energy sector; and making a commitment to free trade and openness, but in a way that does not damage the developing world.
With regard to that, we should give full support to the efforts of David Martin MEP to delay the European partnership agreements between the EU and some of the poorest countries in the world that are due to come into force at the end of the year. That is the outward-looking, globally-focused Europe that we desperately need, and that will be the ultimate prize of signing the treaty.
I am fond of the Yiddish word "chutzpah". It is perhaps best exemplified by the story about the Jewish boy who admitted murdering his parents, but begged for leniency on the ground that he was an orphan. We cannot fault this Administration for a lack of chutzpah in its aspirations concerning Europe. The SNP Government has announced no fewer than 21 headings that are priorities for its relations with the EU and, as we have heard, it has identified a further six EU political objectives, which, we are told, are issues that will remain to the fore over the longer term.
The SNP says that it is also developing a more detailed Europe strategy, which will be published next year. Leaving aside the question whether having so many priorities across such a diverse range of areas means that nothing is really a priority, the Government can rightly be accused of chutzpah because so many of the EU policies that it seeks to influence are on reserved matters.
Scottish Conservatives believe that the most important EU priority currently is the reform treaty. We whole-heartedly support the campaign to give the British people a referendum on the treaty, as was promised in Labour's election manifesto.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will later, but I want to make a little progress. I intend to return to the topic but, first, I will say a word or two about the Government's stated priority of fisheries and aquaculture.
I am probably the last person in the chamber to need convincing that the common fisheries policy has been an environmental, social and economic disaster for Scotland. However, I do not think that it is realistic of the SNP to argue that Richard Lochhead should act as lead minister for the UK at the fisheries council. Although around 70 per cent of Britain's fishing industry is based in Scotland, other parts of the UK—including Northern Ireland and the west country—are home to relatively large fishing communities.
Will Ted Brocklebank take an intervention?
I will in a minute.
The UK minister has a clear obligation to represent fishermen not only in England, but in the devolved territories as well. His Scottish counterpart has no such obligation. Indeed, for certain species, Scots fishermen could be in direct competition with fishermen from other regions. Frankly, the only person who can represent those competing interests is the UK minister.
Can the member clarify the Tory position on the common fisheries policy? Is it still that Scotland should come out, or is it that Scotland should stay in?
David Cameron shares my view that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster not only for Scotland, but for the rest of the UK. As the member will be aware, the Conservatives are currently reviewing their whole fisheries policy.
Where the SNP Government can have influence over the EU is in backing the Scottish Conservatives' demand for a UK referendum on the reform treaty.
Can the member explain why the Conservative Government did not have a referendum on the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty or—above all—the major decision initially to enter the European Economic Community?
The simple reason is that we gave no commitment to do so in any manifesto at the time.
I am not going to step into the spat between Linda Fabiani and Malcolm Chisholm over the SNP's so-called red-line issue of competence over marine resources. I am in little doubt that competence over UK fisheries was ceded to the EU in the 1973 treaty—a principle that was enshrined in the declaration that member countries should have equal access to a common resource. Sovereignty over UK waters was never abandoned; management of our fisheries was. It is because the reform treaty affects the ultimate sovereignty of the United Kingdom that we really need to hear the voice of the British people. Those who argue—as Gordon Brown tries to—that the treaty is not the constitutional treaty and that, therefore, the Labour manifesto pledge does not count have only to listen to the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons, which says that the treaty is virtually identical. No wonder that Gisela Stuart, a Labour back bencher, calls the Prime Minister's position "neither competent nor coherent".
We accept that enlargement requires changes. It makes sense to reorganise some aspects of EU voting and to modify the rotation of the presidency to cope with new members. However, that does not mean that a charter of fundamental rights and majority voting on issues such as energy and justice should piggyback on those changes. Despite what the Europhiles tell us, our tax and benefits systems are not safe from Europe, and our freedom in foreign policy will undoubtedly be curtailed. The reform treaty is very far from the harmless, tidying-up exercise that Malcolm Chisholm tries to portray it as; it is yet another step on the road to political union. In all its essentials, it is the constitutional treaty writ large.
Members should not take my word for that; they should listen to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who masterminded the whole idea. As recently as 29 October, he said that the treaty has been drafted in a way that is "impenetrable for the public". He went on to say:
"In the Treaty of Lisbon, the tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed."
Could anything be clearer?
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only a minute left.
Gordon Brown tries to convince us that our vaunted opt-outs, which of course can be overturned by the European Court of Justice, mean that we are safe from interference for perhaps as long as a decade. However, the one thing that we understand about the Eurocrats is that they are infinitely patient and determined.
When the voters are allowed to express an opinion, they repeatedly reject the European juggernaut. The Norwegians said no to membership; the Danes said no to Maastricht, the Irish said no to the treaty of Nice; the Swedes said no to the euro. Each time, the governing class sent the people back to the polls to get the answer right.
The SNP can show real chutzpah by joining with this most unionist of parties to make a UK referendum on the reform treaty its top EU priority and by holding a debate in this chamber sooner rather than later to send a clear warning to Gordon Brown that if he fails to honour his party's election pledge to give the British people a say on Europe, he will do so at his peril.
I missed the debate on the European treaty in September and the European and External Relations Committee's evidence session with the minister on EU priorities, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I have a confession to make: I am a committed European. It is pertinent that we are having this debate in remembrance week, because we must remember that the European Union came about after the European continent was devastated by two massive world wars. It is also pertinent to note that, of the 27 member states of the European Union, 25 have been under occupation or dictatorship at some point in the past century—only Britain and Sweden managed to avoid those fates.
I believe strongly that Britain and Scotland should have been more involved in Europe right from the start and that we have suffered as a result of being the tail-end Charlies of Europe. Rather than being in at the start and helping to shape and mould it, we have spent too much time sitting on the sidelines carping and moaning. We were not in at the start when the Community was formed 50 years ago but had to fight to be allowed in 16 years later. We were not in when the single European currency was being developed. We lost the chance to bid for the European Central Bank, which could even have been located in Edinburgh, which would have cemented our position as a leading world financial centre.
I am just about old enough to remember the UK joining the EEC in 1973. I certainly remember the 1975 referendum; it was snowing and our school sports day was cancelled, but I was delighted that the UK voted to stay in Europe. However, even with that membership confirmed, Britain and Scotland have not been served well by either Conservative or Labour Governments because of the negative approach that they have taken to Europe throughout the time that we have been a member.
I hope that we do not see the same from the SNP Government. I hope that its number 1 priority will be to engage positively with Europe both directly and through the member state, the United Kingdom. I am not saying that it should do so uncritically or that we should not act to protect Scotland's specific interests where necessary, but we have to do that in a way that will build good will for Scotland so that our concerns are listened to when it matters. It is particularly important that the Government does not get hung up on constitutional niceties with the United Kingdom Government, but concentrates on putting forward the best possible case in Scotland's interests.
We have already heard much about fishing. The SNP is obsessed with whose name is on the name-plate on the table when the fisheries council has its vital meeting in December. However, everyone who has had the pleasure of having supper—as I have many times—with Europe's longest-serving fisheries minister, Ross Finnie, following the fisheries council, knows that what goes on at the council meetings does not always take place in the formal meetings at which the formal decisions are taken. Much of it goes on at length in bilateral negotiations with the Commission and other member state delegations. Scotland's minister has been fully involved in such discussions—I have had verbatim reports of them from Ross Finnie on many occasions, as have many of my colleagues.
The process starts much earlier than that. The Scottish Executive puts forward its case to the Commission long before any proposals are drawn up. That has improved the quality of the scientific evidence that the Commission has to base its information on. The minister acknowledges that in the EU priorities document, which was presented first to the European and External Relations Committee in September. It states:
"As in previous years, the Government will ensure that the EU Commission is fully aware of the importance of fisheries issues to Scotland."
Ross Finnie should be congratulated on his efforts over eight years to ensure that Scotland's interests were taken seriously by both the Commission and the UK Government. I hope that the SNP Government will not blow that by concentrating on who sits at the table rather than on what is said at the table.
Does the member also think that Ross Finnie should be congratulated on the fact that the Scottish white-fish fleet dropped from 650 boats to 120 boats on his watch?
Bertie Armstrong said yesterday that the fleet is at about the right level right now, and the Government has acknowledged that we needed to reduce the fishing effort in order to protect the long-term interests of the fleet.
The problem with the Conservatives' position on fisheries is that they have never come up with anything that they would put in place of the common fisheries policy. They would have had a free-for-all in the North Sea and there would be no fish left to fish for.
Fisheries are also at the heart of the debate on the draft EU reform treaty. I believe that ratification of the draft reform treaty is not only necessary but vital to protect Scotland in Europe in the long term. The draft treaty enshrines the principles of subsidiarity and specifically prevents the EU from acting in areas where it does not have competence or where it is more appropriate for action to be taken at a more local level. It also specifically recognises the role of sub-member state legislatures such as the Scottish Parliament and requires member state Parliaments to consult with devolved Parliaments where legislative competence is solely or jointly held. That is a significant improvement on the current situation.
Modernising the procedures of the European Union is vital in light of the changes that have happened to a European Economic Community that had a membership of six and a European Community that had a membership of 12 or 15. It is recognised throughout the chamber that the old rules are no longer appropriate for a European Union of 27. More powers for the European Parliament will lead to democratic legitimacy, and the extension of qualified majority voting means not only that Britain will lose its veto on some things but that Britain's interests on certain issues cannot be vetoed by other countries. That is important.
I will conclude by considering briefly the issue of exclusive competence over marine resources. The minister said that the SNP was pro-Europe, but I want the Government to consider the issue carefully. In summing up the debate on 19 September, Bruce Crawford said:
"we are profoundly opposed to the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP as an exclusive competence of the union."—[Official Report, 19 September 2007, c 1883.]
However, that has always been the case. Article 102 of the Act Concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments of the Treaties 1972, which preceded the UK's entry into the EEC, stated:
"From the sixth year after Accession at the latest, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea."
In case anyone still does not know what that means, the European Court of Justice ruled in 1979 that
"since the expiration on 1 January 1979 of the transitional period laid down by Article 102 of the Act of Accession, power to adopt, as part of the Common Fisheries Policy, measures relating to the conservation of the resources of the sea has belonged fully and definitively to the community."
There are no ifs and no buts. The act of accession that was negotiated by the Conservative Government in 1972 gives exclusive competence over the conservation of marine resources to the European Union.
The SNP must answer this question: given that the draft treaty does not change the position, if the draft treaty is not ratified and the position remains exactly the same, what will be the SNP's position on Europe? Will it be in Europe or out? It must answer that question; the current position is untenable.
Nothing illustrates better than the history of the fishing industry in Europe the need for Scotland to be independently represented at the top table. If we study the history of the Scottish fishing industry over the past 35 years, since Ted Heath threw away many of our fishing industry's rights and protections in return for very minor concessions, we see that, during the intervening period, the Scottish fishing industry has been the giveaway part of the negotiations by Westminster at every cut and turn. Fishing does not matter all that much in the English economy, but in the Scottish economy it is vital. It is a vital Scottish national interest, although it is not such a vital interest south of the border.
Will the member give way?
I will not give way just now.
The result has been that, in the intervening 35 years, fishing—one of Scotland's key industries—has been the main area to suffer in negotiations in Europe.
Iain Smith and Malcolm Chisholm describe the issue of a seat at the top table as a nicety, but that nicety means that we get votes. If we have votes in Europe, we have power. If we have power, not only can we defend the fishing industry and other vital Scottish national interests, we can promote our interests as well as our wider view of how Europe and the wider world can develop.
Let me give members a very good example of where the argument that the big countries in Europe decide matters falls down: who supported George Bush on Iraq and who did not. Tony Blair, the leader of one of the big four countries in Europe, was George Bush's biggest supporter, but he could never persuade the other member states to support and pursue Bush's policy in Iraq. That is a good example of why Malcolm Chisholm and Iain Smith were—as usual—talking nonsense when they said that only the big boys have any influence in Europe.
Will Alex Neil give way?
I will take an intervention from somebody who never talks nonsense: Mike Rumbles.
Alex Neil, the Scottish National Party minister for "Newsnight", is a little bit behind the times. At the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee yesterday, Bertie Armstrong made it clear that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's policy is in line with UK fishing policy and that the size of the fishing fleet for Scotland is about right. He was very pro the UK position. Does Alex Neil not accept that we are in the right position with the UK Government arguing for the Scottish fishermen's interests, as Bertie Armstrong said?
When we listen to the fishermen, I do not think that we find them thinking that Europe or the UK has been in the right position. We have a minister down in London who will not even answer a phone call from our Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on vital Scottish interests. When it comes to other areas of policy, many of the developments in Europe are vital to Scotland's economic interests. A seat at the table is not just a nicety.
Malcolm Chisholm tries to rubbish people who say that the so-called reform treaty is the constitutional treaty by another name but, as Ted Brocklebank pointed out, the recent report by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which is chaired by Michael Connarty and has a Labour majority, stated that the reform treaty was
"substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty."
It went on to say that it was "likely to be misleading" for the UK Government to claim that the treaty no longer had the characteristics of a constitution and warned that the special UK opt-outs and protocols that the Government has secured to protect its so-called red lines may not prove effective in practice. It also criticised the secretive process by which the draft of the new treaty was compiled.
Criticism of the process and substance of the so-called reform treaty is not confined to the SNP or Tories but is shared with many Labour MPs in the House of Commons. It is important that Scotland is at the heart of Europe. Many of the big decisions that were previously made in London are now made in Brussels but, until Scotland gets a seat at the top table as a member state with a vote and the power that goes with it, we will not be truly at the heart of Europe.
I had hoped that the debate would move beyond who sits in what chair at what table in what room. To be fair to the minister, she tried to move beyond that. I will talk about the things that I believe matter to the people of Europe.
Like Iain Smith, I think it important to reflect only a few days before remembrance Sunday that one of the most important benefits that the architecture of the European Union has delivered is peace in Europe. Robert Schuman, who was French foreign minister and one of the European Union's founding fathers, said:
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create … solidarity."
It is no coincidence that the first European Community was set up to regulate coal and steel—the raw materials of war—and use them for the economic prosperity of the people of Europe. The extension of Europe to the east consolidates that principle. The fall of the Berlin wall must be one of the most significant democratic events of our generation.
As well as being a force for peace, the European Union has provided us with opportunities. Export is vital to the Scottish economy, and many of our key markets lie in mainland Europe and, increasingly, in the new Europe. The enlarged Europe provides us with a consumer base of more than 400 million citizens. About 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland depend on that trade. Trade between the UK and the bloc of 10 new member states has increased by 400 per cent since 1990, which is 10 times faster than trade with the rest of the world. Our tourism industry relies on visitors from Europe. Our economy is intrinsically linked to that of the European Union,
However, Europe is more than just a trading bloc. There are social benefits and opportunities, and there is a social agenda that must be driven forward. We must look for opportunities for our young people to learn together and benefit from exposure to different languages and cultures. Those opportunities not only promote understanding but equip young people with the language and information technology tools to compete in the job market of the 21st century. Programmes such as Erasmus, Socrates and Comenius have allowed young Scottish people from all communities and backgrounds to broaden their linguistic and cultural horizons. We must look for every opportunity to continue that work. The Government should consider making the promotion of strong educational links one of its EU priorities.
Europe has also been a force for equalities. It was to the European Union that we looked for legislation to improve the rights of mothers and part-time workers. The Daphne initiative, which promotes projects that tackle violence against women and children, is one of the principled programmes that have been set out by the Commission, although to my mind it is not promoted enough. The Daphne II programme extends to 2008 and there could be a Daphne III programme after that. If we influence that agenda, we can ensure that Scottish groups have access to information and resources. I hope that we will take forward work in that area.
The minister will also be aware of the 60 per cent target for female employment by 2010, which will be influenced by progress on child care. In deciding on our European priorities, we must not forget the links between domestic programmes and European programmes.
I hope that, in the spirit of consensus, I have given the Government one or two things to ponder, but I want to say a few things about the SNP's position. The minister provided the European and External Relations Committee with a helpful table of the Government's priorities. I note that the table contains 21 priorities, 20 of which are exactly the same as those in the helpful table that Tom McCabe provided to the committee when he had responsibility for Europe. We can only conclude that there is a great deal of consensus and that, in standing up for Europe, the SNP recognises that we in the Labour Party did a pretty good job of that too.
We still have not heard whether the SNP will vote no on the treaty. I hope that the minister will tell us that when she sums up. If marine biological resources remain an exclusive competence, will the SNP vote no? It must make its position clear to the Parliament.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute and I want to finish my speech, but I hope that the minister will tell us the answer when she sums up.
Will the SNP put our manufacturing jobs, our trading position and our export market at risk? Will it return us to a position of isolation in Europe? It cannot be right to do that. How can our interests be represented from the outside?
Europe is on our doorstep. It is not a wish or an aspiration. It is not an idea, a dream or, as it is for Eurosceptics—I miss Phil Gallie in this debate—a nightmare. It is none of the above. It is a reality. We must move forward to create from that reality opportunities for our businesses, our young people, our communities and our citizens.
I say to members whose agenda is to withdraw from Europe and to say no to reform: the choice is between integration and isolation. It is a choice between moving forward or anchoring in the past. Scotland and the UK can fulfil their potential as key players in the new Europe of the 21st century. We can leave to our children and grandchildren a heritage of peace and prosperity, but if we are to do that, we need to be at the heart of Europe, as part of a strong United Kingdom.
Unlike Iain Smith, I have an overpowering sense of déjà vu and feel that I have stumbled into what the Deputy First Minister called "groundhog day" at First Minister's question time. This morning, we enjoyed one of the more lively debates that we have had. It was a debate about debates and whether the Parliament should have more debates as a means of better fulfilling its scrutiny role in relation to the forthcoming budget. I do not want to pre-empt the result at decision time, because I might be proved wrong, but it looks like the outcome is a foregone conclusion—members who do not want to know the result should look away now. It seems clear that the Tories are intent on helping the SNP minority Government to prevent debate.
Meanwhile, here we are debating ministers' EU priorities, weeks after the previous debate on the subject. I do not dispute that the subject is important. Our role in Europe and our relationship with European partners are central to our future success, as the minister and other members pointed out. However, I wonder why there is enough parliamentary time to schedule two debates on Europe in as many months, given that there is time only for a statement and questions on a minority Government's entire budget.
In a nice piece of political and parliamentary symmetry, it seems that the Tories and the SNP are in political harmony again, as they were this morning. Both parties demand a referendum on the EU reform treaty. The Tory objective is clear. Tories would campaign to strike down the reform treaty. They make no secret of their dislike of the EU, and their rage against most aspects of what the EU stands for and does is genuine and runs deep.
The SNP's froth and fury appear a little more synthetic. The SNP has set out its red-line issues—that is what grown-up Governments do, I understand. I will certainly not dispute the importance of fishing and energy to Scotland and in particular to the future success of constituencies such as Orkney. However, the suggestion that the reform treaty that is to be signed in December proposes radical changes to fisheries or energy policy does not stand up to scrutiny.
On energy, article 176a states:
"measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
It is not about the UK Government foisting nuclear new build on reluctant Scots—among whom I count myself—or a desperate attempt to grab Scotland's oil in the unlikely event of Scotland deciding to embark on the road to independence. Indeed, as the current EU priorities document makes clear, there are opportunities for Scotland to seek additional funding in partnership with other member states, particularly in relation to offshore grids, carbon storage, clean coal and green and renewable energy.
Could there be a parallel between energy policy and the steel policy—the member might be too young to remember it, but I do—whereby a quota was allocated from Brussels? Could exploitation rates and recovery be set in Brussels rather than in London, as currently happens?
I thank Margo MacDonald for making the point, but I do not regard that as a risk. Article 176a should reassure us on that.
The European reform treaty will streamline the role of the European Commission, clarify responsibilities of institutions and increase the role, not just of the directly elected European Parliament but of national Parliaments. It safeguards UK red lines and, in keeping with the approach adopted for previous amending treaties, does not require to be ratified by referendum in this country.
Liberal Democrats and many other members agree with Irene Oldfather that the SNP minority Government's priorities for Europe bear a striking resemblance to the priorities that were published by the previous Scottish Executive.
I focus on two issues of particular importance to my constituency and to Scotland as a whole: fishing and agriculture. We have heard much from the current Administration about the importance that it attaches to our fishing industry. I support the sentiment, but I question the obsession with seating plans in the Council of Ministers, which other members have mentioned. Ensuring that the position that is adopted by the UK delegation and backed by UK votes supports Scottish interests is what is vital. Making the case in bilateral negotiations with the Commission and in the council chamber based on the best available scientific evidence is where our energies should be directed.
However, changes are needed to the way in which the important EU-Norway talks take place. More political oversight by member states is certainly required. I would be interested to know whether the minister can share any more detail on what the EU priorities document refers to as
"a number of specific proposals"
in this regard.
It was interesting to note what the document says in relation to the cod recovery plan. It states:
"A wide range of actions have been taken … which have significantly reduced fishing mortality rates … the Scottish whitefish fleet has been reduced by over 150 vessels in order to bring fishing capacity more in line with fishing opportunities".
As Malcolm Chisholm implied, all those measures to bring catching capacity more into line with available stocks were opposed tooth and nail by the SNP in opposition. More mature members will recall that rarely a day went by in Decembers past without the current cabinet secretary feverishly sounding the death knell for Scotland's fishing industry, like a demented cross between Cassandra and Quasimodo.
I am encouraged by a great deal of the strategy that relates to agriculture. The commitment to increasing simplicity and reducing bureaucracy for our farmers and crofters is not new, but it needs to be pressed ahead with urgently. The cabinet secretary made clear his support for reviewing the system of penalties and appeals. I welcome that announcement because I have been arguing for such a change for some time. I hope that there can be progress in short order, not just to improve how we operate the system but to secure a more proportionate approach at EU level.
In the short term, the need to reach agreement on the Scotland rural development programme is paramount. The difficulties that are faced by Scotland's farming communities are well documented, so agreement on the SRDP in early course would be welcome.
The document highlights many opportunities for Scotland in energy, financial services and education. It also makes clear a number of genuine challenges in structural funds and aquaculture, as well as in farming and fishing, as I said. However, it will require the Government to work collaboratively and constructively with our EU partners, nations and regions. It will also require Scottish ministers to adopt a similar approach in relation to their UK counterparts.
Listening to the various contributions to the debate has been rather like studying one of those gardening programmes that goes on about flowerbeds and paths without ever mentioning the elephant standing in the middle of the lawn. Something has to be done to alter the balance.
There are two aspects to the elephant. The first is that there is no longer a contest between a core Europe and a peripheral Europe. There is a core Europe—France and Germany—that goes back to the old geography of the European steel and coal community. There is a peripheral Europe based on the Locarno pact of the 1920s that set up a satisfactory barrier between that area and Russia. That takes us back to the realm of realpolitik and it is as well that we understand its geography.
The second aspect concerns questions of transportation and energy. We saw earlier this week the opening of the new St Pancras station in London, which gives London two world-class international rail terminals, one of which—the one at Waterloo—is already derelict. However, there is no fast connection to the north of Britain—to Scotland or the north of England—and no likelihood of one in the foreseeable future.
The other element is energy. When this Parliament was established in 1999, oil stood at $10 a barrel; it now stands at almost exactly 10 times that. Oil is the thing on which European production depends fundamentally. There exists off the Scottish coast the capability to transform tidal and wave energy into electricity to the extent that Siemens of Germany is greatly interested in it. It is an enormous resource in Scotland's favour and, whether we like it or not, it will be developed in the next five years. I wrote a history of North Sea oil; I know the importance of timetabling in the past and I know how it will affect us today. This nation could step in and steer the development of that resource, which would give us enormous political clout in Europe, but we can do so only if we start to plan for that now and in negotiation with the European core.
I make that point explicitly. Who owns our resources? Who owns the freight operations that were British Rail's, for example? The German state railways took them over at the beginning of July and no one noticed. Who owns our airports? Who owns our transmission systems? Electricité de France is the owner of London Electricity. Its chief public relations officer is one Andrew Brown, who may know something that his brother does not.
We must concede that Europe has won in that regard. I will quote Rudyard Kipling's famous poem:
"For, now De Ruyter's topsails
Off naked Chatham show,
We dare not meet him with our fleet—
And this the Dutchmen know!"
I have lived among Dutchmen, or at least Kipling's version of Dutchmen, for the past 25 years, and I have seen the machine in operation—it works well. We can make our peace with it. We can, after all, supply to Europe some idealistic conviction about a united Europe. That goes back to our relations with the Hansa in the 14th century or to Professor Lorimer who, in the 19th century, was the first person to suggest a European federation.
The question is not of co-operation but of takeover, to a great extent. We must realise that, in a deindustrialised United Kingdom, we do not have much alternative. Thank you.
Will the member give way?
I have.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The practice has been to have a minister on the front bench to listen to the debate. Have we dispensed with that?
I have noted that.
I am not sure how to follow that.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I will start on a positive note by paying tribute to our MEPs, whom I do not think that we have mentioned. It is widely acknowledged that they regularly work together in Scotland's best interests, and long may that continue.
Work is done in Brussels not just by our MEPs, but by the Scottish Government's Brussels office, which the European and External Relations Committee visited recently. The impressive team there provides an effective and loud voice for Scotland at EU level. Other Scottish interests are also represented at Scotland house. I would not like to speak in a debate about Europe without mentioning the role of Scotland Europa, which is one of the most effective member-led organisations that I have encountered. It does an excellent job of co-ordinating wider Scottish interests in Brussels and, as I said of the MEPs' work, long may that continue.
I have a keen interest in how European matters relate to Scotland. I am particularly interested in how Europe shapes the key issues that face Scottish workers, such as employment, employability and globalisation. I will focus on those issues today, because it is vital that Scotland works in partnership with the UK and the EU to meet the challenge that the rise of globalisation poses.
The EU's main response to the threats that low-wage economies pose has been the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, which is about sustaining employment and delivering more and better jobs throughout Europe. Delivering more and better jobs would be a worthy EU priority for the Scottish Government.
That is important because the threat of globalisation is not going away. If members do not believe me, they just need to ask the workers at Young's Seafood in Annan—we debated them and some of their problems last week—or the people who lost their jobs not long ago at Lexmark International in Rosyth. If we are to have a wealthier and fairer Scotland, surely employment and productivity should be in the Government's EU priorities. However, what we are seeing is the better regulation agenda. I support that priority, as long as it is about more effective regulation as opposed to deregulation. If Scotland is to have high performing workplaces and a vibrant economy, treating workers fairly, protecting their health and safety, and investing in their talents is absolutely fundamental. For that reason, I agree with the stress that the European Congress of Trade Unions places on the social dimension of the EU being an essential driver to innovation, productivity and sustainable growth.
There is a fixation in Scotland with business regulation. The myth out there is that EU regulation adds to the pressures that UK and Scottish businesses face. Recently, I dug up the interesting fact that the World Bank currently places Scotland, as part of the UK, at 6th out of 178 countries in its "ease of doing business" rankings. In the wider discussion on regulation and business performance, that point is interesting to note.
The ranking is clear evidence—as it should be to all members—that Scotland, as part of the UK, is not over-regulated. Instead of fixating on red tape, our focus should be on helping the Commission in that regard. One of the most effective ways of influencing policy on red tape is to do that at the developmental stage in Europe. We should work with the Commission to ensure that the better regulation agenda is a priority. We need to make a real difference in that regard: the Scottish voice must be heard.
It has long been recognised that Scotland punches above its weight in terms of influencing the wider policy agenda in Europe. John Purvis MEP highlighted that in evidence at a recent meeting of the European and External Relations Committee. He said:
"Scotland house does an excellent job. Scotland has a high profile in Europe—its profile rates at least as highly as the profiles of Bavaria and Catalonia. Scotland has that profile as part of the United Kingdom; because the United Kingdom is one of the big countries in the Council of Ministers and has a large number of MEPs and so on, we punch way above what one might think would be our weight."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 18 September 2007; c 54.]
The contribution was an interesting one for him to have made.
I hear the member's argument that Scotland punches above its weight by being part of a larger country. Can he list any countries in Europe that are keen to give up their place on the Council of Ministers to benefit from such a situation? Are there any analogous situations around Europe?
It is pretty clear that independent opinion out there considers that we are doing very well. Scotland is punching well above its weight. We have heard that from MEPs and interest groups around Europe. I am quite comfortable about where we are on the issue.
If members are wondering whether I am genuinely worried about the sort of message that I am putting about on red tape and regulation, I ask them to look at the comments that Sir George Mathewson made last week when he gave evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. I am a little bit concerned about the issue. In her summing up, I seek reassurance from the minister that the SNP Government will make no attempt through the better regulation agenda to undermine progressive social legislation at EU level. When the minister gives the chamber that reassurance, will she confirm that she will ensure that Scottish interests are at the forefront of her discussions with Westminster on EU issues? Will she also confirm that the Government will stand up for workers' rights in Scotland at all times?
It is my belief that one of the key priorities for the Scottish Government—it is probably the key priority for the Government and the Parliament—is to represent effectively the interests of Scotland and its people in the EU. I realise that that is much easier to say than it is to do, but it would be much easier to do if the Scottish Government sought to do that as an independent member of a confederal Europe. I am talking about a European Union that is based on the authority of sovereign nation states that voluntarily pool their sovereignty in key areas of common purpose.
As things stand, I know that too often the Scottish Government has to provide a corrective to the distorting prism of the representations of UK ministers. Even so, it can do that only to the extent that the priorities of the people of Scotland are represented at all by those ministers in the EU.
As we know, there was no red line on fisheries for Gordon Brown when he signed up to the new EU reform treaty. I acknowledge and support the Scottish Government making internal and external fisheries negotiations a top priority. In particular, I support the Government in seeking radical reform in the Scottish interest with a view to the competence over conservation of marine resources being returned to coastal states.
I am not sure whether the member listened to my colleague Iain Smith, who set out the evidence, which was confirmed by the European Court of Justice in 1979, on the powers over the conservation of marine resources. If there is no change on that, will the SNP Government's position be to oppose the treaty?
There is no change; we are seeking a change—that is the point of what we are saying.
The Scottish Government may not be surprised that I support it on the issue, but it will be surprised to find support for the proposition among other members. During a previous debate on the issue in 2004, a then Westminster member of Parliament, who is now a member of this Parliament and who is still at Westminster, was quoted in The Herald newspaper on 26 April 2004 as saying:
"I think there is an argument for repatriation of control over fisheries and that the SNP has a valid point".
That was quoted in the Official Report of 29 April 2004. The MP was not Alex Salmond, but Lord Foulkes. It is a shame that Lord Foulkes has left the chamber, but perhaps one day he will extend his support for the principle of repatriation of powers to Scotland to the powers that are currently exercised by the Westminster Parliament, in which he sits, at least on a Tuesday.
The fisheries issue exemplifies the difference between the representations that can be made by an independent nation state in its own interest and the misrepresentations of a nation's interests when pursued by another state on its behalf. Simply put, if we choose not to exercise power over ourselves, we allow others to exercise power over us. The problem is that those others may not, and usually do not, exercise that power in our interest, but in theirs. Fishing is a vital Scottish interest but, as far as Westminster is concerned, it rates only as a bargaining chip that is to be used to promote other interests. That is why we should have as our first priority the independence that will allow us properly to represent the interests of the people of Scotland within the EU.
On independence, I should highlight what may appear to a disinterested observer to be a puzzling development, whereby Wendy Alexander, the leader of a unionist party in Scotland, accuses the SNP of being in league with the Tories to undermine the union while, at the same time, she is sitting down with her fellow unionists in the Tories to devise a strategy to save the union—Tartan Tories and grubby deals. If that is not confusing enough, I remember that on 4 May, when I had the privilege of appearing with David Whitton on the "Scotland at Ten" programme on the night of the election, he sneeringly suggested that the SNP might look to do a deal with the Tories and laughed off my suggestion that it was much more likely that his party would work with the Tories. I have often wondered since then how he feels about his party's coalition with the Tories on his local council, East Dunbartonshire Council, as well as the rainbow alliance of Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour in the Parliament.
One of the Government's priorities is its vision for a fairer Scotland. That vision must include priorities, which are shared with the EU, for Scotland to be a welcoming place where respect for and celebration of the diversity of cultures and communities in the EU have resonance in a Scotland that welcomes people from throughout the EU who seek to visit, work and live here. In that context, I associate myself with the remarks of another Labour MP, Keith Vaz, who said in a debate this week that Gordon Brown's mantra of British jobs for British workers could be regarded as "employment apartheid", with its implication that foreigners are stealing our jobs.
In my constituency, and throughout Scotland, a significant number of EU nationals, mainly from Eastern Europe, have contributed hugely to the local economy and to the enrichment of our culture. I agree that the Westminster Government's unemployment figures are hopelessly fiddled, to the extent that they describe those who claim benefit, rather than those who are not in gainful, meaningful employment, but even those figures are declining. With the claimant count decreasing, how can it be that jobs are being stolen by EU nationals? More crucially, how does Gordon Brown seek to fulfil his promise of British jobs for British workers? The immigration and other EU provisions that his Government has willingly and rightly signed up to do not allow the exclusion of other EU nationals from employment opportunities in this country. Could it be that that will be Labour's latest broken promise?
By contrast, I hope and believe that the Scottish Government will promote the real priorities of the people of Scotland—on EU reform, which has to happen; on competence over fisheries, which must happen for the sake of our fish stocks and fishing industry; and on the raft of justice and home affairs measures, which must acknowledge and accommodate Scotland's distinct legal system. That is the way forward to a fairer Scotland and a fairer EU.
Patrick Harvie is right that there is a core Europe and a peripheral Europe, but neither he nor any ministers have addressed the key question of how the Scottish Government will work with peripheral Europe.
On a point of information, I am Christopher Harvie, not Patrick Harvie.
I beg the member's pardon. There is a Patrick in one place and a Christopher in another—I apologise.
The other regions in Europe meet that challenge by working with and through the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe. I wait with interest to find out how the minister proposes to carry out that task.
I endorse all that was said by Irene Oldfather and Iain Smith this afternoon. Their words were particularly apposite, given that we all believe that one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of the EU is to ensure peace.
As Malcolm Chisholm said in his speech, we question the SNP's key priorities in relation to its EU work. When I was reflecting on all the priorities that have been set by the Scottish Government, I looked at the relevant website and asked myself, "How is the Government matching its priorities with the priorities of the people of Scotland?" The Government's key priorities in Europe are listed as fisheries; agriculture; energy policy; EU treaty reform; institutional structure and EU budget reform; and justice and home affairs. However, even though the EU has only limited competence in health matters, I believe that Parliament must demand that the Scottish Government makes health one of its key EU political objectives, for the sake of our people. As we have all witnessed in the eight and a half years since the Parliament was opened, health has commanded the greatest number of column inches—more than any other issue raised by the people of Scotland. However, again, the SNP is more exercised about creating a constitutional argument than engaging directly with Europe on key health issues.
I agree with the point that was made earlier by Patrick Harvie—I think that it was Patrick Harvie, anyway. Have I got it right this time?
No.
Christopher Harvie, then; I am sorry.
Last week's debate on poets and prose featured political posturing on landscape and the environment. This is our second debate on EU matters within a few weeks. What are the people of Scotland to think about the Scottish Parliament? We all have finite energy and the Scottish Government, while energetically pursuing a referendum on the reform of the treaties, simply will not have the time or energy to pursue some of the real issues of the people of Scotland, such as health, which—as our postbags tell us—must be one of the matters of greatest concern to the public. In fact, a member of the public would have to read to the very bottom of the page on the Scottish Executive's website that deals with its European priorities before they found even a little mention of health. Further, that mention—at the bottom of the pile—is limited almost entirely to lifestyle issues and does not mention any of the bigger health issues that appear on the EU website's page on its programme of work for 2008, even given the limitation of the EU's competence in health.
The Scottish Government would prefer to have debates about poets and landscapes instead of the big issues that are exercising the minds of our people. It would prefer to spend energy and financial resources on structures and referendums while individuals die without care in the community packages—that is caused by SNP-inspired cuts in local government. The Government should dwell instead on EU-wide action to stop hospital-acquired infections and on addressing, with the rest of the EU, how we can best secure more research resources for cancer. Let Scotland help set, and not simply follow, the EU agenda. It has limited competence to do so, but it would be possible.
I know that the people of Scotland would prefer that we concentrate our finite energy and resources on health, which should be one of the key political objectives in relation to the EU. It is scandalous that it is not one of the key EU priorities of this Government, given all the claims that the SNP has made in recent years to be fighting on behalf of the people. We should not be in any doubt that, although health is a matter of limited competence for the EU, those health matters in which it can play an important part are of critical importance for clinicians in Scotland.
You keep going on about political objectives in relation to the EU. May I say to you—
No, not to me.
Sorry, Presiding Officer. May I say to Helen Eadie that this is the first time that a Scottish Government has had EU political objectives.
That is simply not true, as Irene Oldfather made clear earlier. If Linda Fabiani had been listening, she would have picked that up. Obviously, she was not listening.
Community co-operation on health is clearly regarded as important on, for example, major health threats including pandemics, bioterrorism and dealing with issues relating to the free movement of goods and services. That has special importance in the context of EU policy, because health workers from eastern European countries are taking up employment opportunities in this country, leaving their own countries denuded of professional expertise. It also has special importance in the context of waiting times for patient care in hospitals. The cabinet secretary recently announced that she will, in certain cases, allow patients to go abroad. How is she addressing the issues identified by the EU's high-level group on health services and medical care? Issues arise across Europe in relation to the quality control of health services, and yet the cabinet secretary is proposing to send patients from Scotland while those issues are apparently not on her radar screen.
The European Commission is considering issues relating to the current legal uncertainty and is considering the incorporation of key European Court of Justice rulings regarding treaty provisions on the free movement of patients, professionals and health services. Another critical issue on the EU agenda is that of hospital-acquired infections. That has to be one of the issues of most concern for everyone in Scotland.
I feel sure that this Parliament will join me in saying that we want the Scottish Government to engage energetically with the EU. I do not want to read in newspapers or policy papers that only Richard Lochhead or Kenny MacAskill has gone to EU meetings—wherever they are held and whatever sign is in front of them. I want to read that this Government has sent its health minister to contribute where possible and to bring back examples where Scotland can co-operate productively for the health of our nation. The time is now for the Scottish Government to stop playing politics with the lives of our nation's people and to be energetic on people's real-world issues. It should stop being obsessed only with fisheries and the names on the nameplates at meetings of councils of ministers. Instead, it should ensure that the cabinet secretary does a job of work for us in the EU on public health matters.
Unlike Helen Eadie, I shall try to confine my remarks to the Government's EU priorities—rather than rant about the health service.
I welcome the chance—
On a point—[Interruption.]
Order.
I welcome the chance to debate in this Parliament our country's place and role in Europe. Some members would have us confined to our own kailyard, but I am a member of an outward-looking and progressive party and I think it important that we consider how our Parliament and our country can engage with the rest of the world community—primarily with our fellow European citizens.
Despite sharing with Linda Fabiani the perspective of independence in Europe for Scotland, I strongly support her efforts and those of the Scottish Government to represent Scotland's interests in the devolved context. The Scottish Government's long-term key EU political objectives are especially welcome in that regard. The Government has established those objectives clearly, in relation to specific policy areas—fisheries, the EU budget review, agriculture and so on.
I would like to focus briefly on an area that has already been discussed at length—fisheries. Members will be aware that negotiations on the common fisheries policy are on-going. I sit on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and it is my very great pleasure to be involved in considering that policy in some detail. To that end—as Malcolm Chisholm and Mike Rumbles mentioned—the Scottish Fishermen's Federation attended yesterday's committee meeting. However, Malcolm Chisholm and Mike Rumbles did not mention that during the evidence presented by Bertie Armstrong of the SFF, we learned that, since the SNP came to power, the British Government has suddenly started to listen to the voices of Scottish fishermen, giving them access that they did not have before. We can therefore see that, merely by the election of an SNP Government, the position of Scotland's fishing industry has been strengthened. I am glad to see that Mike Rumbles concurs.
By the actions that the Government proposes to take, the industry can be strengthened even further. That is why I am squarely behind the Government's view that Richard Lochhead should act as the UK's lead minister in the EU fisheries council.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have just been called a minister by Liam McArthur, so I will gladly take an intervention.
That proves that flattery gets you everywhere.
Does the member believe that if the cabinet secretary took the advice that the current First Minister offered Ross Finnie back in 2002—that he should pull out of the negotiations and stop negotiating at all—it would necessarily be in Scotland's interests?
Not necessarily. I will deal with that point later in my speech.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the Scottish fishing fleet has the most significant share of the UK fleet. It is also incontrovertible that fishing is of greater significance to the Scottish economy than it is to the UK economy as a whole. Therefore, I think that all Scotland's fishing industry will be behind the Scottish Government's proposal that our minister should take the lead at the fisheries council.
I know that my colleagues in the Government will not mind when I say that although I support that measure, I believe that it is only a half measure, albeit a welcome one. As long as we remain suspended in the halfway house of devolution, half measures might sometimes be all that we can take. Any logical analysis of the situation will lead to the realisation that Scotland's position in the EU would be better served by its being an independent, full member state—although logic has always been in short supply among some members of the Parliament. However, that is certainly my position and that of the Government.
I note that just last week, on 30 October, Linda Fabiani told the Parliament's European and External Relations Committee that she was not convinced that the UK joint ministerial committee on Europe
"is working as it should be in relation to how the UK Government deals with the devolved Administrations."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 30 October 2007; c 126.]
Only independence in Europe will deliver for Scotland. Only when we have our seat at the top table will we be able to contribute to the EU's deliberations on how to protect the environment, on how countries will continue to trade with one another and on how they will continue to coexist.
Many members, including me, are wearing the red poppy or the white poppy, lest we forget. My grandparents' generation saw our continent being scarred by war—not once, but twice. As Iain Smith and Irene Oldfather said, the EU has ensured stability for our continent. I welcome that—it represents the ultimate success of the EU as an institution—but the EU is changing. Big is no longer beautiful; power does not reside exclusively with the larger members.
In July 2006, Margot Wallström, the vice-president of the European Commission, said that big states do not have the same clout in the EU that they once had. Power now resides with small members such as Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus and with medium-sized members such as Ireland, Denmark and Finland. John Park suggested that Scotland punches above its weight in the EU, but the real issue is that all the countries that I have just listed have greater weight in the EU than we do. I look forward to the day when Scotland joins those states as a member of the EU.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you clarify whether, when a member makes a point of order, proceedings should be halted so that all members can hear it? I did not hear Mrs Eadie's point of order because the member who was speaking continued to speak and proceedings were not halted.
Unfortunately, it is sometimes a feature of proceedings in the chamber that members are unable to hear what other members are saying. That happens all the time. I very much deprecate the fact that it does and I hope that members have heard what you have said.
"Este tratado? Nada mau … para Sócrates!" I apologise for not using one of the Parliament's normal languages. I was in a Portuguese bar when that was said to me. A very understanding Portuguese gentleman and I were watching the Portuguese Prime Minister being interviewed on television in a way that Gordon Brown has not been interviewed on television here. The Portuguese Prime Minister was having to answer some very hard questions.
Portugal is a country that, like Ireland, embraced the European Union but has found, since the EU's expansion, that it is perhaps not all a bed of roses for the country's economic development. Many of the factories that took advantage of Portuguese membership of the EU have now gone to the newer members of the EU, and there is very bad unemployment in Portugal.
The Portuguese gentleman, of short acquaintance, explained to me that there would be plenty work in the new European Union "para Sócrates"—for the Prime Minister and his like; for the grandes senhores—because plenty more bureaucrats would be needed in Europe. His comment made me think about what is in it for us. That is why I was interested to hear what Liam McArthur said about energy.
I have been concerned that control over energy policy will move to Brussels and away from London—further away from us. I can see strategic reasons for that. We know that Russia is prepared to use oil as an economic and political weapon. We can see the temptation for Europe to ensure that it has the same level of control over the supply of energy and the concentration of investment in different forms of energy. I would like Scotland to be represented in the international forum that takes that decision.
We have spoken a great deal about fishing, and I will not even attempt to talk about fish—I like mine with black pepper and a twist of lemon. We have not got down to the level at which most folk understand fish and fishing. I will say no more about it, however, other than that I am glad that the SNP has—I think—now widened its reasons to be a little more critically analytical of the new treaty when it is finally published. There is more in the treaty that we should be concerned about than fishing.
We should be concerned about what Michael Connarty said, having examined the claims that were made by Gordon Brown, about the possibility of rubbing out the red lines that have been drawn in fields such as legal affairs through application to the European Court of Justice. I am also concerned about what Chris Harvie said: he told us that there is a future for us in Europe, and he mentioned all sorts of academic co-operation. I am reminded that, without the sort of status that independent representation would give us, that is a bit like the discussion at Yalta after the war, when Stalin asked, "And how many battalions does the Pope have?" People thought that the Pope and the Catholic Church would be influential in the post-war settlement, but in fact they did not have power; rather, they had influence. I would prefer us to have power.
How would Margo MacDonald estimate the influence of Pope John Paul II on events in east Europe after 1989?
His influence was immense, because he came straight from Poland and he was in tune with the times. He did not have to push water uphill, which we would have to. I think that there is a difference, with all due respect.
I am much more inclined to listen to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and to Margot Wallström. They have explained that there are two types of player in Europe: the big players and the small players. We will not even be a small player; we will be the small cousin of a smaller player. I do not see how we can possibly venture into the new Europe without taking people with us and having people understand.
That is where the referendum comes in. Portugal, Ireland, the Netherlands, France and other mainly pro-European countries still want to hold referenda. That way, we spread information and people have to analyse things and look at them honestly and openly. I do not know why Gordon Brown does not want to hold a referendum. Does he think that he would lose it, because there is a fear in England that sovereignty would be lost? That is probably the answer. We should have a discussion on whether sovereignty would be lost, bearing in mind what Michael Connarty's European Scrutiny Committee has come up with.
I will not take up my full time. I am happy to have been able to contribute to the debate, and I am glad that it was not too much about fishing.
Linda Fabiani said at the start of the debate that fisheries policy is at the top of the Government's list of six objectives for Europe, but she then failed to mention the subject in the rest of her speech. If fishing is the SNP Government's top objective for Europe, I would have thought that Richard Lochhead and Mike Russell, or another minister, would have given Linda Fabiani a hand this afternoon. There was, at one point, nobody on the front bench. Having said that, I see that just five minutes ago Mike Russell came in for the closing speeches.
I apologise to the chamber for having had to go to the toilet.
I am sure that that is a case of too much information, although the front bench would not have been left vacant if the minister had been appropriately accompanied.
Unlike the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, members throughout the chamber have focused on fishing, which has been a theme of the debate and is one of the most important European issues. I will not be the exception.
In December last year, when the SNP was in opposition, it published 10 priorities to place our fishing communities on the road to recovery. At the time, the shadow fisheries minister, Richard Lochhead, outlined the priorities: decoupling cod management from other species; increased quotas, including a substantial increase in the haddock quota; an increase in the number of days at sea; a revised aid package for the onshore industry; a haddock promotion campaign; a campaign to scrap the common fisheries policy; securing the quota from decommissioned vessels for active vessels; a reduction in industrial fishing; a review of the scientific assessment methodology; and, last but not least, an insistence that Scotland must lead the UK's delegation at the EU fisheries council next month.
Parliament would like the minister to tell us in her closing speech how many of those 10 priorities she believes Richard Lochhead will successfully deliver. I suspect that he will deliver very few, if any, of them. Is that why the minister steered clear of fishing in her speech? In the previous session of Parliament—and during the election campaign—we heard a great deal about how important leading the UK's delegation at the talks is for Scotland and how Richard Lochhead would not take no for an answer. Now, we hear nothing about that—except from Jamie Hepburn. He forgot that he is not supposed to remind everybody that Richard Lochhead demanded to lead the UK delegation. I am afraid that Jamie Hepburn will have gone down the pecking order because of his comments. He forgot the party line.
Can the minister tell us the reasons for the ministerial silence on the subject?
Yes.
Good. Would she like to do that?
I am happy to.
As I explained at the end of my speech, the Deputy Presiding Officer did not allow me extra time to make up for the many interventions that I took in the interests of debate, so I had to cut a lot out of my speech. I presume that Mr Rumbles will not get any extra time for taking my lengthy intervention.
The minister did not, in that lengthy intervention, address my question. Of course, that is what we have come to expect from the Government.
Malcolm Chisholm dealt with the issue very effectively. For the Conservatives, Ted Brocklebank—
A fine speech.
He often gives fine speeches, which I enjoy, but in this debate he betrayed the anti-Europeanism of the modern Conservative party. In contrast, Iain Smith, who opened the debate for the Liberal Democrats, reminded us about the genesis of the European Community. He alluded to remembrance day, when we remember the fallen, especially in two world wars. Another European war between EU member states is inconceivable. When we criticise aspects of the European Union, let us not forget the big picture. Fifty-five million people died in the second world war—that must never, ever happen again. That is one of the major reasons why the Liberal Democrats are proud pro-Europeans.
Does the member accept that the peace was kept in Europe for all those years not by the EU, but by NATO? Many countries in Western Europe were not members of the EU during that time, whereas they were all members of NATO, with some singular exceptions.
Mr Rumbles, you are now well into your last minute.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I will treat Murdo Fraser's intervention with the contempt it deserves. Peace in Europe had nothing to do with NATO—I will take the debate about NATO and Europe at a different time.
Alex Neil, the SNP minister for Newsnight, made an entertaining contribution—as ever—but I am afraid that his views are completely out of date. Unfortunately, as I am running out of time, I will have to skip my comment on Alex Neil's performance.
The SNP's Minister for Parliamentary Business, Bruce Crawford, has made it clear that a referendum on the European treaty is a red line for the SNP due to its position on marine conservation—but the treaty does not change that. We have a new alliance between the SNP and the Conservatives—an alliance that we will see again at decision time. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I look forward to exposing that new alliance to the people.
For eight years in this Parliament, no debate on Europe was complete without a robust contribution from our erstwhile colleague Phil Gallie, who is sadly no longer with us. I am sure that members are aware that he has ambitions to join the European Parliament and that they wish him well in that ambition—if only so that we can see more colourful debates in the Parliament in Strasbourg.
I have no wish to be seen as the poor man's Phil Gallie, but I thought it might be worth reflecting on what he might have made of this debate and the Government's EU policies. To pick up a point that John Scott made in his intervention, Phil Gallie would have wanted to reiterate the point that was made about the air route development fund. There is a serious threat to the future of that fund, in particular to the development of new routes. The air route development fund is vital to airports such as Prestwick, and to the wider Scottish economy. The fund was robustly supported by the SNP when it was in opposition—Fergus Ewing spoke up for it on many occasions—and it would be helpful to get some reassurance from the Government that it will fight to retain it.
We have heard throughout the debate that the Government has announced no fewer than 21 priority areas relating to EU policy and six political objectives. Like Ted Brocklebank, I wonder whether, if we have so many priorities, any of them can be a singular priority. I also wonder why the Government has identified so many areas that are reserved to Westminster. I look forward to reading the more detailed Europe strategy document when it is published in the new year—it will make excellent bedtime reading, particularly for insomniacs, at that time of year.
Phil Gallie would have been disappointed if I did not spend most of my time addressing the European reform treaty, which many members have spoken about. The issue is: should there be a referendum? It does not necessarily follow that there should be a referendum on every treaty the UK Parliament enters into, but this treaty is simply the old EU constitution, which was rejected in a referendum by people in France and by people in the Netherlands. It is that same old EU constitution, dressed up and given a different name.
Malcolm Chisholm said that the treaty is simply another amending treaty. Let us look at some of the characteristics of the new reform treaty. It creates an EU president. The holder of the new post will control 3,500 civil servants and, unlike the current arrangement whereby the presidency rotates every six months, it is a semi-permanent position.
There will be a new EU foreign minister, but we will not call him or her the foreign minister—we will call them the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. The Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, let the cat out of the bag when he said:
"It's the original job as proposed but they just put on this long title".
We will have a single European external affairs action service—which will effectively be an EU diplomatic service.
We will have a single legal personality for the EU, allowing it for the first time to join international organisations in its own right. The treaty will be self-amending, which will allow further adjustments to be made without the need to go back to an intergovernmental conference. The national veto will be abolished in 60 new areas and we will have new powers for the EU over criminal justice matters. To all intents and purposes, it is simply the constitution rewrit.
Members should not take my word for it; they should consider what other European leaders have said. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said:
"The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part".
Bertie Ahern said that,
"thankfully, they haven't changed the substance—90 per cent of it is still there".
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who drafted a lot of the constitution, said that
"the public is being led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly".
That sums it up.
Its supporters say that the treaty is not the same as the constitution because we are not having an anthem or a flag, but at any European event one hears the "Ode to Joy" from Beethoven's ninth symphony—unless, perhaps, I misheard it. And did I imagine seeing flying on a flagpole outside this building the European flag that one sees flying everywhere—12 gold stars on a blue base? Was it a mirage? Does a European flag not already exist, as does an anthem? Of course it does. That is why we need a referendum. As Margo MacDonald said, the Labour party does not want a referendum because it is afraid that it will lose it.
Shamefully, the Labour party is supported in its stance by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats will not back a referendum on the treaty because they say that they want a referendum on the wider issue of whether we sign up to the treaty or pull out of Europe altogether. That creates an entirely false choice between swallowing the lot or getting out. It is like taking somebody to a restaurant with an extensive menu and telling them that if they will not eat the tripe they will have to go hungry. That is what the Liberal Democrats are saying, and it is neither liberal nor democratic. Only the Conservatives are prepared to offer a referendum because only we trust the people.
The treaty represents another massive transfer of sovereignty to the EU, and the people are not being consulted. It is time to say no. I hope that, in proposing a referendum, we will have the support of the SNP. By all means let us have a debate in Parliament on the issue. Presiding Officer, you know that that is what Phil Gallie would have wanted.
The debate has been wide ranging and interesting; it has strayed way beyond the EU treaty, although that has been a central feature. I will go through what we have heard from the political parties one by one, starting with the Conservatives. I will comment mainly on the EU treaty.
I was astonished by Murdo Fraser's remarks at the end of his speech and amazed that he had the gall to talk about massive transfers of sovereignty to the EU—transfers that pale into insignificance compared with those of the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government passed at Westminster without any concessions or talk of a referendum.
I did not think that I would have to repeat the points about the proposed EU president. Murdo Fraser must know that he or she will have no executive powers. Indeed, the Commission opposed that because it would have strengthened the hand of Government against the Commission.
We heard the same old scare stories about the proposed high representative for foreign affairs, who will express a view only when it is agreed unanimously by EU foreign ministers. Murdo Fraser also talked about massive powers over criminal justice, but surely even he realises the secure, comprehensive, legally binding opt-in on justice and home affairs matters that the UK Government has secured.
Does the member believe that, when Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said that the treaty is simply the EU constitution under a different name, he was wrong?
He was referring not to the opt-ins that the UK Government has negotiated, but to the wider treaty for the rest of Europe. There is more truth in that, but it is still not the whole truth. As I said, the constitutional principle has been abandoned.
Ted Brocklebank was honest enough to admit that no changes to the common fisheries policy would be made through the treaty, but he suggested that he wanted the CFP to be rejected. That raised the question in my mind whether rejection of the CFP was code for coming out of the EU altogether. The same question could be asked of the SNP, given its attitude to the common fisheries policy.
I agreed with what Iain Smith said in the preamble to his speech. The idealistic vision of Europe that he painted is one that I have had throughout my adult life. It is particularly appropriate to remember that vision in armistice week, as Irene Oldfather and Helen Eadie said.
Iain Smith reminded us that Ross Finnie should be congratulated on ensuring that our interests were taken seriously in Europe. I agree, but I remind Iain Smith that other ministers who were involved in Europe at the time ought to be congratulated, too.
Liam McArthur made an interesting speech. I am glad that he quoted article 176a of the treaty, on energy, in detail, because it addressed Margo MacDonald's concerns about energy policy. We should all be pleased about the role that the EU will play in relation to promoting energy efficiency and the development of new, renewable forms of energy. That does not take away from the energy policies of member states.
Will the member take an intervention?
I gave way to Margo MacDonald in my earlier speech and I suspect that I will be pushed for time in this one. How long do I have, Presiding Officer?
Five minutes.
Five minutes altogether—I do not have very long at all.
I have dealt with the energy point. Margo MacDonald's question, what is in it for us, was answered very well—
Mr Chisholm, you have five minutes more at this stage.
Right. I am still not taking an intervention from Margo MacDonald at this point. I might take an intervention from her if there is time left.
What my Labour colleagues said answered Margo MacDonald's question on what is in it for us. Margo MacDonald overstated the point about the Westminster European Scrutiny Committee and the argument that the red lines had all been rubbed out. Even the chair of the committee, Michael Connarty, said that three of the four red lines were absolutely sound and I believe that David Miliband has since clarified the fourth. I have reason to believe that all four red lines are absolutely sound.
Irene Oldfather emphasised the economic advantages of the European Union. We could give many facts to illustrate that, such as that more than 3 million jobs in the UK are related to exports to the EU and that half our trade in goods and services is with other EU countries—we could go on. Irene Oldfather also reminded us helpfully about the social programmes. I am sure that those of us who know about the Daphne II initiative would join her in commending its excellent work in combating violence against women.
I echo John Park's tribute to the MEPs. I mentioned some of David Martin's recent work, but let us pay tribute to all the MEPs, Scotland House and Scotland Europa for the sterling work that they do. I hope that all members agree with John Park's emphasis on ensuring more and better jobs in Europe and on the social dimension of the EU. I was pleased that the UK Government's document "Global Europe: Meeting the Economic and Security Challenges", which was published a couple of weeks ago, placed heavy emphasis on jobs and prosperity as part of the new agenda for Europe.
Helen Eadie made a passionate speech about health issues and emphasised that one of the fundamental reasons for Europe is that it has kept the peace. I agree with that and I hope that everyone else does, too.
I turn to the SNP. Christopher Harvie started with an interesting metaphor about a three-part elephant and made interesting points about transportation, energy and geography. I agreed with him entirely—as I did this time last week—when he emphasised the importance of tidal and wave energy. I thank him for once again providing a historical perspective and emphasising how we in Scotland can help create an idealistic perspective on the notion of a united Europe.
Alex Neil talked a great deal about fishing. I was pleased that Mike Rumbles intervened on him to remind us what the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation said at yesterday's meeting of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Mike Rumbles, who was at the meeting, said that the president said that Scottish fishing objectives were now in line with UK objectives.
Will the member take an intervention?
How long do I have now, Presiding Officer?
Just under two minutes.
In that case, I had better just carry on.
Alex Neil talked about the special UK opt-outs, as he described them, and said that they would not prove effective in practice. I have already dealt with that point, although I will take an intervention from Mr Neil if he so wishes.
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for taking a quick intervention. He mentioned the contribution to yesterday's meeting of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee by the leader of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, but he forgot to mention the point that Jamie Hepburn made—that the leader of the fishermen told the committee that, since the SNP Government came to power, London has listened to the fishermen for the first and only time.
The main point of Jamie Hepburn's speech was that it was vital that Richard Lochhead take the lead at the fisheries councils. However, he went on to say that the views of Scottish fishermen were already being taken into account, so there was a total contradiction at the heart of his speech.
Keith Brown, unlike all other SNP members, at least tried to address the issue of the red line and marine biological resources. It was interesting to hear him say that that red line, which is what the Government says its whole case against the treaty is based on, did not represent any change. Is that the Government's view? The situation seems to be getting even more bizarre as we go through the afternoon. However, I agreed with what Keith Brown said about the contribution of EU nationals to the economy and to society more generally.
It is vital that Linda Fabiani uses her winding-up speech to clarify the Scottish Government's attitude to the EU reform treaty and a referendum on it. She said at the European and External Relations Committee that that was her immediate priority, and we heard from one of her colleagues that nothing is changed by that one line in the treaty. Does the minister think that that one line about marine biological resources changes anything in the treaty, and does that lead her to support a referendum?
The debate has been interesting. I cannot address all the points that have been made, although I will say at the outset that some interesting contributions have been made. The debate is about the Government's EU priorities; I thank those who recognised that, and those who talked in a decent way about the European background and the benefits that Europe has brought.
There seems to be some confusion about political objectives and the Government's priorities, so it might be helpful if I were to restate our position on the main EU political objectives. Those are the things that we believe are the most fundamental to Scotland's interests and the things for which we will work hardest to get the best outcomes for Scotland. This is the first time that a Government in Scotland has published and spoken about its key EU political objectives. The current positions on those objectives are not always positions that we would fully accept; that is one of the reasons why they are priorities. In being constructive about Europe, I emphasise that there are a number of issues on which we think that the EU has got it wrong; we are not afraid to say that, nor are we afraid to work tirelessly for improvements.
We believe that the EU, regrettably, has persistently got many major decisions on fisheries wrong, as others have said. Fisheries and fish farming are important elements of the Scottish economy. As a result, we will continue to push to take the UK lead in EU fisheries negotiations, to ensure that the UK position in those negotiations properly represents what our fishing communities need. We will continue strongly to oppose the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy as an exclusive competence of the EU, as the text of the reform treaty now states.
Will Linda Fabiani take an intervention?
No.
The conservation of marine biological resources as an exclusive competence would be set out in the treaty for the first time. There is legal opinion that the current position depends only on case law, following a decision by the European Court of Justice based on a particular, and perhaps questionable, reading of one article of the UK accession treaty. Case law would be much easier to overturn than treaty text. For the first time, that exclusive competence will be written in a treaty.
Order. There are far too many conversations going on in the chamber. Members should listen to the debate.
We have worked closely with the UK Government to protect Scottish interests as the negotiations have progressed but, unfortunately, it has not pressed our case for the amendment of the wording on exclusive competence on the conservation of marine biological resources. There is still time for the UK Government to push for that wording to be changed. Unless or until it is changed, the Scottish Government will continue to believe that it is not in Scotland's best interests and will ask the UK Government to fulfil its own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on a treaty that Michael Connarty—a member of the Government party and the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster—says has not changed substantively from the constitutional treaty. It is entirely disingenuous for some members to suggest that those who wish a referendum to be held on the reform treaty are anti-Europe and want to come out of the European Union. That is ridiculous.
I turn to our changing priorities on Europe. There has been talk about how 21 priorities is too many and how that is three fewer priorities than the previous Administration had. Like the previous Administration, we consider what comes out of Europe that is of importance to Scotland. That is how we will define our priorities. The previous Administration had 24 priorities, three of which are now complete, and we have picked up on the others. That is right; most members have Scotland's interests at heart, although we have different political means of meeting that objective.
We will formally revise the priorities table every six months. However, I realise that EU issues can often become hot political topics almost overnight and I intend to be flexible with our list of priority issues. Should an EU issue suddenly arise that a stakeholder considers merits immediate attention, I will consider adding it to our table immediately. The aim of our European engagement will always be to protect Scottish interests, and I consider the table of priorities as one tool with which to achieve that aim. Indeed, Kenny MacAskill, my other ministerial colleagues and I have identified a further issue that has arisen since we initially agreed the list in August. We have agreed to add to the list the framework decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences and alternative sanctions, which is being discussed at working group level in the European Council.
The framework decision seeks to establish a system by which member states would recognise arrangements for post-custodial statutory supervision and certain non-custodial sentences that were made in one another's jurisdictions. In situations in which an offender was sentenced in an EU country other than his normal state of residence, that would allow him or her to return home and have the sentenced supervised by the home authorities.
We support the general aims of the framework decision, largely because it makes successful rehabilitation more likely and can allow for better public protection. Therefore, it is important that we work closely with the UK Government to ensure that our concerns are taken into account in all the negotiations, which can have significant implications for the Scottish justice system. We will devote significant time and effort to achieving that in the coming months. Hence the framework decision's inclusion in our list of EU priorities.
I hope that members will take that inclusion in the spirit in which it is intended: we are willing to listen to concerns about European legislation and to consider others' priorities. However, I say to Helen Eadie that she should not be under any illusion that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is not speaking to anyone in Europe. She is discussing with many small independent countries and other regions in Europe how best we can defend our health service. Helen Eadie must have a basic understanding of how the system works before she comes to the Parliament and starts saying terrible things.
The minister is in her last minute.
It is important for me to stress that I want the Government to move beyond the necessary degree of reaction and set out a wider vision of Europe from a Scottish perspective, looking into the future. We want to publish a proposed European strategy, which will set out our European ambitions for the Government and for Scotland. My intention is that, following a period of consultation, we will publish a European strategy document that sets out our ambitions for fulfilling our EU manifesto commitments. When we do so, we will always act in the best interests of Scotland.