The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13404, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the European Union referendum.
14:21
Scotland has been a positive and integral part of the European Union for more than 40 years. Engagement with the European Union and its institutions has been and will remain a core priority for this Government, but we now stand near a crossroads. The outcome of the general election has resulted in the publication of a United Kingdom referendum bill—the European Union Referendum Bill—which lays the ground for an in/out referendum in the UK before the end of 2017. Although the Scottish Government made it clear in the run-up to the general election that we do not support the holding of a referendum on EU membership, a referendum is now a reality and we must deal with it.
The Westminster Parliament is debating the European Union Referendum Bill at second reading today. On the proposed franchise, the bill fails to meet the gold standard of the independence referendum. On reform, the Scottish National Party Government set out our views in “Scotland’s Agenda for EU Reform”, which was published on 20 August 2014. Those reforms can be achieved without treaty change.
We will make the positive case for the benefits that EU membership brings to Scotland and, indeed, to the rest of the UK. We will say why it is vital that our membership of the EU continue, and why it is incumbent on all of us to make the case for continued EU membership as a referendum approaches.
The Scottish Parliament has debated the importance of EU membership on a number of occasions, and there has been a strong consensus that continued EU membership matters to Scotland. An in/out referendum is now an inevitability, so we must continue to spell out the case for Scotland’s EU membership, going forward. In making that positive case, we will ensure that the facts are set out in order to tackle head on the unfounded fears and smears of those who want to see an EU exit for the UK, as they present them from a narrow isolationist position.
The First Minister was in Brussels last week, where she set out Scotland’s commitment to the EU in a speech to the European Policy Centre. Central to the First Minister’s argument for membership was that, as a country of 5 million people, we understand that we cannot act in isolation and that partnership among independent states is essential for progress, so the fundamental vision of the EU—of independent nations working together for a common good—appeals to us.
Co-operation is critical to success in the EU. In many areas, delivering the greater good can be successful only when 28 member states act together. It seems to be hopelessly optimistic to conclude that member states acting alone could deliver significant emissions reductions in the fight against climate change, or that they could take forward plans to develop a North Sea grid that will one day allow countries that border the North Sea to trade renewable energy.
The EU must look outward and act globally, or Europe will become the old continent of the past when the rest of the world moves on without it. Of course, the immediate economic arguments that support membership remain critical and cannot be overstated. Membership places our businesses within the world’s largest economy, whose 500 million citizens enjoy some of the highest standards of living on the globe.
About 20 million businesses operate in the EU single market supplying goods and services to consumers and businesses both in the EU and on the global market. The EU is a vital export market for Scottish firms; it accounted for almost half of Scotland’s international exports in 2013, and is worth a massive £12.9 billion each year. It has been estimated that those exports support more than 300,000 jobs.
Ernst & Young published a survey last month that confirmed that Scotland has become the most successful part of the UK outside London for attracting inward investment projects. Much of that is due to the skills of our workforce and the quality of life that we can offer, but for many investors our EU membership is a vital selling point. About 40 per cent of the 2,100 foreign-owned companies in Scotland in 2013 were owned by firms that are based in the EU. Realistically, how many such investors would come to Scotland if we were to find ourselves outside the EU? Let us not forget the benefits that EU funding delivers to Scotland, including €985 million of structural funds over the period 2014-20, or the €572 million of competitive funding that was won by Scottish universities in the period 2007-13.
However, membership of the EU goes beyond the purely economic rationale. The experience of the EU and our vision for the EU is one in which we can create a more equal and more inclusive society. The Scottish Government believes strongly in a Europe that tackles the question of social justice. The EU has been at the forefront of protecting the welfare of its citizens, promoting gender equality and improved conditions for workers, and strengthening consumer rights. That is the type of EU that we must continue to develop: a vision of a European Union of members who embrace and promote human rights through the convention on human rights, rather than dismiss them or seek to refute them, and that deals collectively with humanitarian issues—for example the Mediterranean refugees—with compassion and not hostility.
I also welcome the social, cultural and economic benefits that migration from the EU delivers to Scotland’s communities. The right to freedom of movement is also of huge benefit to Scots who move to live, study and work elsewhere in the EU. We estimate that 171,000 people who were born elsewhere in the EU currently live in Scotland. Contrary to the claims that one hears elsewhere about immigration acting as a drain on our society, it is estimated by University College London that EU migrants to the UK made a net contribution to the UK of about £20 billion between 2001 and 2011. Losing such an income would cost all of us.
By being a productive EU member, we can ensure that our voice is clearly heard in the world and that we are able to shape EU laws and policies to ensure that they are of maximum benefit to our citizens. Alternatives to EU membership, such as joining the European Free Trade Association, offer no such opportunity for the UK and would transform its status from law maker to mere law taker. As the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs highlighted in an interview a matter of days ago:
“In the EEA we have to implement all EU directives… we’re not around the table when they’re discussed in Brussels.”
None of us here today will be able to vote to amend the referendum bill, but that should not stop us expressing our views on it—in particular, on where it falls short of expectations. The Scottish Government believes that the bill falls short in a number of areas. The 16 and 17-year-olds who voted in our referendum proved themselves to be the engaged, thoughtful and concerned citizens we always knew they would be. The case for letting them vote in the EU referendum is overwhelming.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that Dr Sarah Wollaston, who is the MP for Totnes in south Devon, advocated precisely that point in this morning’s debate on the bill? She is, of course, a senior Conservative chair of committee.
I am very grateful to Stewart Stevenson for that intervention and am pleased to hear what he said because I think that the case for letting 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the EU referendum can and should be won. A united voice in the Scottish Parliament advocating votes for 16 and 17-year-olds will complement the voices at Westminster from a number of parties that are advocating the same, which will be important as the referendum bill progresses.
However, 171,000 EU citizens live in Scotland and can vote in Scottish parliamentary and local government elections; they were able to vote in the independence referendum, something on which all parties in the Parliament agreed. They have chosen to make Scotland their home, so the case for extending the vote to them in the EU referendum is strong; they should have a voice in the issues that affect our country. I do not understand why the UK Government is proposing to grant the right to vote to citizens of three other EU countries living in the UK—Ireland, Malta and Cyprus—but not to citizens of the remaining 24.
The polls have consistently shown that people in Scotland have a more favourable attitude to the EU than do their English counterparts. That is why the Scottish Government will argue for a double-majority provision—a double lock—in the bill, whereby the UK could leave the EU only if each constituent part of it voted to leave. That sort of territorial requirement is not unique; it is used in some federal states, for example Canada and Australia, and it should apply in this instance to the European Union Referendum Bill.
If Scotland votes no but the rest of the UK votes yes, how will double majority work?
I do not think that Scotland will vote no. Indeed, if we look at the opinion polls, it is well in advance—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, as long as there are no health and safety issues and the Conservatives are perfectly all right, I will continue.
I think that things are under control.
On the double majority, by the same logic, why were the people of Orkney and Shetland not given a veto during the independence referendum last year?
I think that the people of Orkney and Shetland have their own issues with their current MP. However, the point is that this is a national referendum about our future within the European Union. The provisions for the independence referendum were perfectly agreed to. Indeed, I think that Murdo Fraser argued this point and I did not see him proposing a double majority in that instance, when the legislation for our referendum was going through.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No.
On timing, no date has yet been set, but it is imperative that a referendum avoids the Scottish Parliament and local elections in May 2016 and May 2017. I hope that, should a date be set that we disagree with, we will be able to get consensus in this place.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I want to pursue some points on the EU reform agenda.
The Scottish Government has never argued that the EU is perfect, and we set out our suggestions in “Scotland’s Agenda for EU Reform”. The institutions of the EU have grown distant from citizens, so there is a need for those institutions to reconnect. We have identified two main ways in which the Scottish Government can contribute to that—first, by influencing the renewed EU institutions to pursue further regulatory reform so that EU regulation is more proportionate, consistent, accountable, transparent and targeted—for example, by implementing the agreed common fisheries policy reforms to decentralise fisheries management—and secondly by influencing the renewed EU institutions to prioritise economic and social policies that reflect the fundamental aspirations and concerns of its citizens.
The EU must address international problems that member states acting alone could not address; it must promote energy security through the energy union package and complete the digital single market. It must tackle climate change collectively, promote growth and competitiveness that are sustainable and experienced by all citizens of the EU, promote collective action on youth employment, introduce EU law to enable procurement practices that require the living wage to be paid, and introduce EU law and policy to facilitate and encourage member states to take action to combat the causes of ill health.
Those reforms are about doing things better and in a smarter way. They are about pursuing a continuous improvement agenda and changing the way the EU works as it expands and circumstances change. I believe that the existing treaty structures can accommodate that.
However, the Prime Minister has said that he wants to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with Europe. It is far from clear what he actually wants and whether his proposals will require treaty change. David Cameron seems to be neither clear nor, from yesterday, in control. I issue a word of warning: we should not cast the forthcoming negotiations between the UK and other member states in terms of there being winners and losers. The whole point of a more effective European Union is that everyone should gain from it. In my view, compromise does not mean concession.
A second warning is that we remain concerned about the UK Government’s rhetoric in some quarters, which creates the impression that EU membership is not beneficial at present and that it will become beneficial only if we achieve big enough reforms. That approach makes it harder to articulate the benefits that we already gain from membership. There is a real danger that the UK will focus the EU debate on a narrow agenda of the success or otherwise of the Prime Minister’s negotiations, rather than focusing on the bigger picture of the value and importance of the EU. We must remember that it is the overall position that will be the decision on the ballot and we must conduct the debate on EU membership with the bigger picture in mind.
I believe that the best way to tell the positive story of EU membership is to tell the individual stories of the people, businesses and sectors that benefit right now. I call on members of this Parliament to help to make the positive case for EU membership to the Scottish people and to people throughout these islands.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the European Union Referendum Bill on 28 May 2015 and the Prime Minister’s intention to renegotiate the UK’s terms of membership with the EU before a referendum; advocates the bill’s amendment to extend the voting franchise in the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds and all EU citizens resident in the UK; calls for the introduction of a double majority to ensure that none of the four constituent parts of the UK can be taken out of the EU against the will of its people; recognises the great value of Scotland’s place in the EU and will make a positive case for Scotland and the UK remaining in the EU by highlighting the economic, social, cultural and educational benefits of EU membership, and advocates the constructive reform of the EU from within the existing treaty framework.
14:35
I am pleased to take part in the debate. It is not that long since we had a debate on Europe, but this one takes place in very different circumstances. We now have a majority Conservative Government, and we will have an in/out EU referendum by the end of 2017. As we have this debate, the second reading of the European Union Referendum Bill is taking place in the UK Parliament. I accept that there is legislation to be passed and debate to be had on the terms of the referendum, but we have a majority Conservative Government in its early days, and it is in a position to decide those terms.
We support changing the franchise in the UK to provide votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. The school debates during the Scottish independence referendum campaign were among the most informed and well-conducted debates that I took part in. Young people showed real interest and knowledge, which endorsed the decision to extend the franchise. We support the franchise in the EU referendum reflecting the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections, which would include EU citizens who are resident in the UK. Labour’s amendment also raises concerns about the date of any EU referendum, which should take place in its own space.
However, we cannot allow the debate about the process to dominate the public debate. The outcome of the referendum in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK is not guaranteed. These are the early days of the debate, and those of us who support continued membership of the EU must win the argument convincingly. There are facts that we cannot ignore: first, there is a range of views in Scotland; secondly, a UK Independence Party MEP has been elected to represent Scotland; and, thirdly, many will come to the debate with a fairly open mind and will look to understand the arguments and be persuaded one way or the other. There is a long way to go with the electorate, and it would be naive to assume that we know the outcome in Scotland.
We also cannot ignore the fact that, although there are many positive reasons to remain in the EU, some of which were outlined by the cabinet secretary and by the First Minister when she was in Brussels last week—I will come on to talk a bit more about those advantages—there will be arguments across the political and social spectrum that the EU is not working for Scotland. There will be concerns around business regulations, around the campaign that opposes the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and around the EU’s political direction. Those concerns need to be addressed in the debate.
As well as being a social, economic, cultural and educational union, the EU is a political animal. All parties that support continued membership of the EU are also talking about reform. However, a country needs to remain a member to achieve that reform.
There are huge economic challenges across Europe. Young people are finding it difficult to find employment, and we can see the social divide widening. Many economies face levels of poverty that they have not experienced for generations. There are social problems, community tensions, pressures on public services and workers’ rights, and rising concerns over tax avoidance and the implications of future trade deals.
For too many people, Europe—the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers—does not look as if it is responding adequately. It is often bureaucratic, slow to respond, inflexible and driven from the centre. Therefore, greater effort must be made to reform the Commission and its bureaucracy, the Parliament and its accountability, and the economic model of the eurozone, which, for too many economies, is imbalanced. However, those challenges can be met only from within, not by threats to leave.
The economic benefits of EU membership are hugely important to the Scottish economy. Across the UK, 200,000 companies directly benefit from EU membership, and £200 billion of annual exports and £450 billion of inward investment are tied to trade with our partners. Some 336,000 jobs are dependent on those relationships.
In Scotland, we benefit from a single market of more than 500 million consumers. Scottish exports to the EU account for almost 50 per cent of total international exports. Our economy also benefits from freedom of movement and the people from EU member states who choose to come to live and work in Scotland. Migration brings huge benefits to our country. Migrants contribute more to the economy than they use, and many businesses that I speak to in the food, agriculture and textiles sectors as well as our health sector and services could not operate without employees from EU member states. That is a fact of our economy and of who we are.
The debate cannot be about only the economy, economics or politics; it also has to be about our role in the world. We are faced with a choice between working with other nations across Europe to tackle the big challenges of our age and cutting ourselves off from the world. It must be about hearts and minds. The union is a social, cultural and educational one, too. Many of our environmental targets—our biodiversity, air quality and water quality targets—come from the EU, and we must do more to meet them. It is right to make efforts at a strategic, EU level to make shared progress.
The freedom of movement in Europe, which is one of the drivers of Euroscepticism, works both ways: thousands of British citizens live and work freely across the EU; we travel with no barriers across the EU; we are part of a European family, and we are more interconnected than ever. The challenges of the modern world, such as human trafficking, internet fraud and copyright crime, do not recognise borders. A few weeks ago, we held a debate on the Mediterranean crisis, which presents a complex set of challenges that need EU and international action. That is not an isolated situation; rather, it is one that encapsulates the demands of our modern world. As part of the EU we can influence decision making and help to find solutions to those challenges. We need to be part of the debate on moving a far too inward-looking, self-obsessed Europe into an outward-looking, globally orientated Europe.
Much progressive social policy originated in the EU, driving common standards for workers across the EU. We must argue for social solidarity and put that at the heart of the EU again. The EU can be an effective vehicle in advancing social conditions at work. Following campaigns by trade unions across Europe and by MEPs, the EU brought in measures to give part-time and temporary workers the same rights as full-time workers as regards training, pensions and maternity and other leave. It introduced EU-wide working-time laws and required, for the first time, a guaranteed right to paid holidays. Those significant rights were introduced by the EU at a time when it was easier to demonstrate to people how the EU benefits them. We are living in more complex times and the EU must demonstrate that it can respond to the modern economy.
The result of the referendum is not predetermined in Scotland or anywhere else. The initial polling suggests a yes result, but there is a long way to go and we cannot be complacent about the result. It is important that we get a clear result with support from across the UK. Those of us who take a progressive approach towards the UK continuing its membership of the EU should be emphasising the positive way forward.
I am concerned that we will fall into the trap of focusing on process and talking up divisions, which polling suggests do not exist, running the risk of souring the debate and creating false division and grievance. Let us not give the Eurosceptics or UKIP any succour. We should be tackling the debate head on and building a consensus across the UK for a future in Europe. Instead of talking up the political consequences of a UK exit from the EU, those of us who support staying in the EU should concentrate all our efforts on making the case for that.
To be generous, I understand the anxiety around a Conservative Government taking the referendum forward. I thought that the cabinet secretary’s comments on the Conservative agenda in comparison to that of other supporters of the EU were fair. I have plenty of disagreement with the Conservatives on their politics, and on the EU they have disagreements within their own Government.
On 9 June 1975, after the result of the previous referendum, Mrs Thatcher said:
“one cannot let this occasion pass without paying tribute to ... Winston Churchill ... and Harold Macmillan”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 June 1975; Vol 893 c 31.]
They were the original architects of what is before us—I have paraphrased slightly.
I can always depend on Stewart Stevenson to make an interesting intervention.
I am not convinced that the introduction of a double majority is the way to resolve some of the issues. I do not deny that different results across the UK would be difficult, but the current public reaction does not suggest that that will happen. A double majority is not a logical or credible solution. We recognise that it is a UK vote. We cannot weight votes depending on where a voter lives in the UK, because that would be undemocratic. Last week, Gordon Wilson pointed out that that would set a precedent for any future referendums, and given the ambition of many in the SNP, one would think that that would be something that they would want to avoid. There are also legal concerns because the vote will involve a member state, not individual parts of that state.
The debate will be more productive if we emphasise where we have agreement, and we agree that we want the UK to stay within an EU that works in the interests of the people of Scotland and the UK. Let us not engineer a disagreement between Scotland, England and Wales—such a situation helped to give the Tories the keys to Downing Street—and miss the bigger prize.
As a member of the EU, we have a voice on the world stage that would otherwise be lost. Whether in discussions about tackling climate change or in our relationship with the biggest economies in the world, we have influence far greater than our size would suggest. We live in the 21st century—a time that demands co-operation and partnerships. The European Union is a positive force of which we should remain a part.
I move amendment S4M-13404.4 to leave out from “calls for” to end and insert:
“believes that the EU referendum should not be held on the same date as any other election in Britain, including the Scottish Parliament election in 2016, as recommended by the Electoral Commission in its briefing, Referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union; highlights the substantial benefits of EU membership to Scotland and the UK’s economy through access to its single market; acknowledges the social, cultural and educational benefits of continued EU membership, and will make a positive progressive case for continued membership during the referendum while advocating constructive reform of the EU from within the existing treaty framework as strong and active members.”
14:44
I will say a brief word about the tragic death of my fellow Highlander, Charles Kennedy. His presence will be particularly missed in the forthcoming debates on Europe, because I am sure that he would have relished the opportunity to speak up for the UK’s continued membership of the European Union in debates of this kind.
There is a certain mischievous approach that has been adopted by the Scottish Government in the debate. We all know that Westminster will ultimately decide the European Union Referendum Bill, but the SNP is going to take every possible opportunity to use the EU referendum debates to further its own agenda, and this debate is an early warning of that. I suppose that it is quite natural for the SNP to do that.
David Cameron made it quite clear in our 2015 manifesto that a future Conservative Government would introduce a bill to enable a referendum on Britain’s future membership of the EU. We now comfortably have that mandate from the British people. Our commitment to allowing citizens of the UK a say in an in/out referendum on the EU has never been stronger. Change is required and I remind the Liberal Democrats that, not that long ago, they pushed the case for a referendum on EU membership with more vigour than we did. Now we have the acting Labour leader, Harriet Harman, supporting the Conservative Government on having a referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017.
Let us not forget that it was the SNP that wanted Britain out of the then European Community in the 1970s, with many members campaigning against EU membership right through the 80s and 90s. That was at the same time that the Conservative Government helped to create the single market under Mrs Thatcher. Later on, the Major Government successfully achieved the principle of subsidiarity, opting out of the excesses of the Maastricht treaty. The cabinet secretary may remember that the EU concessions, such as not joining the disastrous single currency or the social chapter, were achieved by John Major’s Conservative Government.
I am a committed supporter of the European Union but I do not always see it through rose-tinted spectacles. There is much wastage and also an erosion of national culture and authority that is counterproductive and unnecessary. Britain has always been an outward-looking nation—
I thank the member for taking an intervention.
Yes, Britain is an outward-looking country—or it was. The European Union Referendum Bill does not say that I am allowed to vote. Mind you, perhaps the competence of the Prime Minister will have to be called into question, because in clause 2(1)(a), the bill refers to
“the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency”—
And your point is?
Does that mean that I am allowed to vote in the referendum because I am allowed to vote in a parliamentary election in constituencies in Scotland?
Mr McGrigor, I will give you some extra time.
I do not know whether Christian Allard will be allowed to vote or not. That is my honest answer.
If countries such as France, Germany and Belgium want a federal model in the shape of the holy Roman empire, so be it, but we want to ensure that the EU serves all member nations equally in achieving the objectives that can be agreed upon.
We need a lighter and more flexible Europe, not one that smacks of authoritarianism. The Prime Minister is fighting for practical improvements for all EU member states, not just the UK. Those are good intentions that surely deserve support.
The argument presented by the Scottish Government in its motion talks about the double-lock majority, suggesting that if one constituent part of the UK—England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—votes to leave the EU, that should not force the other constituent parts to leave the EU. I fail to understand the logic of that argument, because the other three constituent parts of the UK were given no say at all in the SNP’s separatism agenda in the other referendum. Is that not a palpable sign of the Government’s inconsistency? The point that Neil Findlay made in an intervention deserves scrutiny, not the brush-off.
I see all the benefits of the UK remaining a member of the EU but, as a member of the European and External Relations Committee, I have consistently argued that reform of the EU is required. As the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, said at the weekend, we are simply calling for a fairer deal for Britain, and I am sure that that definitely includes Scotland. For my part, the Highlands and Islands desperately need the sort of EU investment that other nations enjoy.
David Cameron has yet to set out the specific details of the changes that we want, but clearly they will include opting out of an ever-closer EU, some way to adjust benefits for EU migrants and giving greater powers to national Parliaments to block EU legislation that could have a negative effect.
The debate should not be divisive. Questioning our relationship with Europe is not unnatural, as all relationships need questioning from time to time, but to do that in a divisive manner is simply unhelpful. Our Prime Minister will set out a programme of negotiations with our European partners to create a better deal, not just for Scotland and other parts of the UK but for the EU in general. We intend to make Europe work better, so why does the Scottish Government not get behind us, provide support and help us to deliver a better deal for Scotland?
I move amendment S4M-13404.2, to leave out from first “advocates” to end and insert:
“believes that the UK Parliament has the right to determine the franchise for such a referendum; recognises the vital importance of renegotiating the UK’s relationship with the EU, and pledges to work with the Prime Minister in order to achieve these changes and their subsequent approval in a UK-wide referendum.”
14:51
Our country makes the biggest impression on the globe when we are open, positive, diplomatic and generous. Of course, there have been periods in history that we would prefer to forget about and consign to the past, but we should be proud of what Britain does best when we seek partnership rather than difference.
As a Liberal, I am an internationalist with a hunger to share with others the opportunities and challenges that the world presents to us. That is why I am pro-Europe. We should not forget that out of the ruins of war came one of the most powerful global institutions to spread peace—the European Union. It may seem a rather grandiose claim to talk about peace and the European Union, but we should remember that we secure peace not just by procuring more missiles, tanks or fighter jets but by securing the more fundamental aspects of life. With wellbeing and sharing of the environment, economy and resources comes the wellbeing of everyone. Free markets, common social and employment standards, protection of our environment and shared diplomatic endeavours are functions of the European Union that I value and which deeply underpin our security and progress the wellbeing of us all.
I ask Willie Rennie to reflect on those comments and consider how those values have affected the people of Greece.
The attempt to create a single market and force economies together with a single currency has flaws. However, we need to work together. If we keep Greece in the European Union, that will benefit us all. We need to get through the current difficult period but we should not simply claim that Greece exiting the European Union would resolve the problems. I hope that Neil Findlay would agree with that.
When we share such functions, it is not possible to demand that everything be conducted in the fashion that we would deliver if we had full and sole control, but the sacrifices and compromises that we make through pooled sovereignty bring great advances. We all have our own numbers. For example, one in 10 jobs in the UK is linked to the EU single market and nearly half of British trade, which is worth around £500 billion, is with other EU member states. Around 300,000 Scottish jobs are linked to EU exports. Scotland is between £1.9 billion and £3.8 billion better off as a result of being part of Europe.
We can all get swamped in the numbers and competing statistics, but I prefer simply to rely on the concepts of internationalism, co-operation and solidarity. That is a state of mind and we in the Parliament should adhere to it.
I thank Jamie McGrigor for his remarks about Charles Kennedy. The campaign on the European Union that we should be conducting is one that I think Charles Kennedy, too, would have adopted. I am sure that he would have been a leading member of that campaign; he would have been a proud member, and I would have been proud that he was taking part in that yes campaign. Charles also had the ability to see the big picture. This is where my plea to the SNP comes in. I have a slight request for the SNP to try to see that bigger picture and cause that we are all striving towards.
On Sunday morning, when the sun was shining through the curtains of my bedroom at 5 o’clock, I had a choice: I could either go back to sleep or go out for a morning run. I decided to put my fell shoes on, I drove up to Glen Devon and, with the early morning sun shining on my back, I had a splendid few hours run up in the Ochil hills, looking down over the Forth valley. I find no greater pleasure than doing such a thing on a Sunday morning. However, when I regale my friends and family with the tales of my times on the hills, I can see their eyes glazing over after a certain amount of time. I have to accept that the world does not revolve around my appreciation of the hills.
There are parallels for the SNP—
Appreciation of Europe, perhaps?
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the wit.
There are parallels for the SNP, because the issue of independence was resolved last year. The world does not revolve around the SNP’s ambition for independence. I would suggest that the double-lock proposal from the SNP is simply another means to advance that ambition. That debate was last year; we need to move on. We all need to put our shoulder to the wheel to win this campaign. Pro-Europeans will never forgive the SNP if it devotes too much effort to highlighting the divisions within the United Kingdom and insufficient effort to the greater goal of membership of the European Union.
Instead of fretting about a double lock or double majority in the EU referendum, SNP members should embrace the positive campaign to keep the whole of the UK inside the European Union. At the heart of the SNP double-lock proposal, there is a defeatism and pessimism that I reject. There is an acceptance by the SNP that the UK will choose to leave the European Union and that therefore there must be some kind of protection for Scotland from that fate. It is that pessimism that is potentially damaging to the wider movement, and the SNP should desist from it.
I move amendment S4M-13404.1, to leave out from “calls for” to end and insert:
“believes that the UK is best served being a part of the EU and recognises the positive impact that membership has on Scotland; considers the pro-European case to be strong across the UK but recognises that pro-EU does not equate to anti-reform; is certain that EU membership is important for jobs, given that the EU is the UK’s largest export market; believes that pulling up the drawbridge on the EU and the single market would be a sure way to damage the economy of Scotland and the whole UK; further believes that withdrawal from the EU would be damaging to the UK’s social and cultural diversity; celebrates the UK’s membership of the EU, and looks forward to making the positive case for its continued membership in the months ahead.”
We now move to the open debate with five-minute speeches.
14:57
The debate about the UK’s membership of Europe is in the main this, and I quote:
“It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”
There is a lot of noise and not a lot of factual analysis. Macbeth, being a Scot, was not referring to Europe, of course, but he might well have been. The salient lesson for us is that this debate is about so much more than ambiguous facts or unfacts about welfare and migration. It is our job—our job—to make sure that the real debate takes place against this nasty, right-wing rhetoric.
Being one of the family of nations so often referred to by David Cameron means, according to him, that Scotland has the rights of an equal partner. It does not seem much like it. Alongside the voters of Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s voters must have the right to stop the UK’s withdrawal if the electorate here rejects it. That is not pessimism; that is equal partnership.
Our membership of the EU brings enormous benefits, including 300,000 jobs and important investment as well as a fundamental freedom to travel, study, live and work anywhere in Europe. We want to work from within the EU. We do not want to be forced out by a right-wing, UKIP-friendly Westminster Government.
We know that Europe is where we need to be, not just for trade but for the free movement of people and for our own human protections, and because of the great cultural melting pot that is formed by this block of 28 nations, each with its own unique background and history.
Around 171,000 people from elsewhere in the European Union live and work in Scotland. Although they are, by definition, EU citizens, they are to be denied a vote in the referendum. Even though they are paying their UK taxes, contributing to the economy and exercising their right to live here, they are to be excluded from voting in the referendum, as they were excluded from voting in the Westminster elections.
Some may argue that it is up to Westminster to decide the franchise, but that is only if the franchise does not discriminate and fly in the face of everything that I see as democracy, which is exactly what it does. I find it incomprehensible that citizens of the Commonwealth countries in Africa and of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Cyprus and Malta who live in the UK should be allowed to vote while their EU neighbours are denied that democratic opportunity.
The picture is illogical and insulting, and it looks rather like someone is gerrymandering the result. Those who live and work here, wherever in the EU they happen to come from, might be considered to be a little more likely to vote to stay in the EU than some Tory Eurosceptics might be. Creating an electorate that tallies with a desired outcome is not part of modern-day democracy.
That brings me to another crucial point about our electorate. Our young people between the ages of 16 and 18 have known no existence other than one in which they are part of the EU. Some of the comments that I have heard from Westminster today are at best ill-informed and at worst downright offensive.
I commend to all members here and in Westminster the campaign on votes at 16 that is being run by the Scottish Youth Parliament—which has a stall in this building this week, which members should visit—and other youth parliaments in this island. In her maiden speech in 1967, Dr Winnie Ewing spoke up for votes at 16. This is not a new argument, but some of the arguments that are being used in Westminster today are old.
The youngest of the young people in the group we are talking about were born in 1999. They are not familiar with living in the British empire or the Commonwealth. They generally have an assumption of their rights and protections as legislated for by the EU, so they take them for granted, and rightly so. Why would anyone feel that they need to question their rights to an education, to a safe place to live, not to be abused or trafficked, not to be raped or beaten up, and to have access to a fair working week and a reasonable standard of living?
Scotland’s young people voted in our recent referendum. Some voted against independence and many voted in favour. They voted because we in this Scottish Parliament believed in their fundamental right to do so. They are the people who will be responsible for our future and for paying our pensions through their taxes. Denying them the opportunity of contributing their view of Scotland’s place in Europe and removing a fundamental human right will impact on their futures.
I remind all members that those young people are our future MPs and MSPs, and we have to answer to them.
15:03
I tend to agree with The Guardian editorial this morning that suggested that the referendum was
“another chapter in the destructive Conservative psychodrama over Europe.”
However, other parties cannot afford to be too high and mighty on this issue. Famously, the Labour Party held a referendum 40 years ago because of divisions in the Labour Party; I was pleased to vote yes in that referendum, as I shall again in the upcoming one. Even more bizarrely—most people forget this—the SNP supported a referendum in 2007. I say that that was bizarre because it wanted a referendum because of one line in the Lisbon treaty about the conservation of marine biological resources—a line that had always been part of the original European treaty.
Let us forget about those issues from the past. Today, I am substantially in agreement with the SNP, apart from the issue of a double majority, not least because that is not going to happen. I recommend to the SNP a paper by Sionaidh Douglas-Scott of the University of Oxford that argues that, if there is a no vote, it will be necessary to amend relevant parts of devolution legislation via a legislative consent motion, which we all know is going to be enshrined in the forthcoming Scotland act as something that is mandatory. The relevant part of the Scotland Act 1998 is section 29(2)(d), which states that laws in this Parliament must not be incompatible with any of the convention rights or Community laws. It might be more worth while for the SNP to pursue that route, rather than a double majority.
I agree with the SNP and my own party about voting for 16 and 17-year-olds. That issue was well rehearsed in a debate a couple of weeks ago. I agree with much of what the First Minister said in her speech about Europe last week, including what she said about more freedom in relation to public health measures. I agree with what Kezia Dugdale said a few days ago: EU citizens should have the right to vote in this referendum. We need to say over and over again how much we value the contribution that EU citizens have made to this country during the course of this century—and before, of course, although it is in this century that they have come in larger numbers. Some 170,000 people in this country—some of the best people I know—are from the European Union. I will not name them personally to spare them embarrassment.
We should remember what Fiona Hyslop said about the paper from University College London. I would like to read extracts from it, but because speeches have had to be shortened, I cannot. The title is “Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence” and it was published on 5 November 2014. Everybody should read that, given the myths that we hear.
Of course if there is undercutting of the minimum wage or other employment conditions, and European citizens are used to do that, we must make sure that the law is enforced; there must be no undercutting—although that of course is the fault of employers, not European citizens themselves.
As the cabinet secretary said, we need to focus in the next few weeks and months on the big picture and the current benefits of being a member of the European Union and not become obsessed with the changes, which will possibly not be all that major, which will cause problems in the Conservative Party.
The economic arguments are clear. Half of UK exports are to the European Union. It is the largest single market in the world and if we leave there will be implications for jobs and foreign direct investment.
We do not always agree with the direction of economic policy in Europe. In the recent election, Labour said that we would work to focus the EU on jobs and growth, and I am sure that we would all agree with that. Contrary to the line taken by Jamie McGrigor, Labour was proud to sign the social chapter in 1997. We could list many things that have sprung from that: the 48-hour maximum working week; minimum annual leave; extended maternity leave; new rights to request flexible working; holiday pay; and the same rights for part-time and full-time workers.
Environmental progress has resulted from Europe, with massive reductions in SO2 emissions, basic rules on the cleanliness of beaches and now concerted action on climate change—I could go on.
On consumer rights, EU laws provide for a refund or other remedies for consumers in cases involving defective products. The cabinet secretary mentioned structural funds amounting to €985 million, and university funding won by Scottish universities amounting to €572 million—other figures could be given.
The whole issue of research collaboration featured in a recent debate. I talked about collaboration on renewable energy—it could have been on many subjects.
The EU arrest warrant makes it easier to return fugitives for trial and of course there is our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights.
There are many positive arguments for Europe, but at the end of the day let us also put some emotion into the debate. There is an emotional case for Europe. Let us remember that the origins of the European Community after the war were to prevent any future wars in Europe, and many Conservatives were fully signed up for that at the time. Let us put forward a positive and emotional case for Europe and enjoy doing so over the next few months.
15:08
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in today’s important debate on the forthcoming EU referendum. It is now 40 years since the UK voted in favour of continuing its membership of the European Community when over 17 million voters across the UK said yes to Europe.
Like many in the chamber, I was too young back then to participate in what was the first ever referendum to be held across all four nations of the UK, but I am grateful that the voters made a positive choice to remain part of the common market. I believe that Scotland and the UK have benefited greatly from membership of the EU in the intervening 40 years.
More recently, I am proud to have been part of the yes campaign arguing in favour of Scotland’s independence. Although I am disappointed by the outcome, I felt privileged to have been part of a campaign that energised Scottish voters like never before. With the eyes of the world on Scotland, we held a democratic debate that resulted in an unprecedented level of voter engagement. I hope that we can build on that in the coming months, as the EU referendum campaign gathers momentum. I agree with Malcolm Chisholm: it is an emotional debate that should inspire passion in all of us. I look forward to that debate.
The UK Government has published its bill on the European Union referendum and I am extremely disappointed—like many others, I am sure—to note that the proposed franchise does not include votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I am a member of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee and much of our work has focused on the success of 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote in the independence referendum. Whether campaigning for yes or no, young people in schools and at work led the way in debating the big issues on independence in an intelligent and civilised manner. It was inspiring to see the energy and passion with which many of Scotland’s young people articulated their views throughout the campaign.
We are using the powers of this Parliament to bring forward proposals to lower the voting age for all future Scottish Parliament and local authority elections, which I know have cross-party support.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I do not have the time in my five minutes.
The case for entrusting 16 and 17-year-olds with a vote in the EU referendum is overwhelming. To deny our young people a say is undemocratic, and I urge Opposition MSPs to lobby their colleagues at Westminster to support the SNP amendment to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to take part in the vote.
I watched with interest last week when the First Minister spoke so passionately in support of the European Union at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. The First Minister rightly highlighted the EU’s considerable achievements over the past 60 years, in particular the role it has had to play in promoting peace, reconciliation and democracy across Europe. Economic arguments are often the focus of the EU question, but the award in 2012 of the Nobel peace prize to the EU perhaps demonstrates its most important achievement. On presenting the award, the Norwegian Nobel committee highlighted the stabilising role the EU has played in
“transforming most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.”
Helping to facilitate peace and reconciliation in post-war Europe is something of true worth.
As other members have said, it is estimated that more than 170,000 people born elsewhere in the EU now call Scotland home. Like others I have grown concerned about the apparent demonisation of EU migrants by certain sections of the media. Indeed, evidence shows that EU migrants bring significant economic and social benefits to our communities. A study by the University College London found that skilled EU migrants have provided an extra £20 billion to the UK economy over the past decade, by paying more in taxes than they take in benefits.
Some people forget that we are all able to benefit from the right to free movement in the EU, which has enabled thousands of Scots to travel and make new lives for themselves in countries all across Europe. Listening to Eurosceptics we would think that it is all one-way traffic, but we only have to travel to France, Spain or Italy—not to mention other European countries—to find many people from the UK who have settled in those countries quite happily.
There are considerable advantages to membership of the EU, but that is not to say that the European Union is not without its flaws. Reform is needed, though I believe that significant improvements can be made within the existing treaty framework. It is only by being a constructive member of the EU that we can successfully influence its legislation and policies.
My experience as one of the Parliament’s representatives on the EU Committee of the Regions has led me to conclude that more needs to be done to give the Scottish Parliament and regional Parliaments in Europe a greater voice in the EU decision-making process. Scotland is active at the EU level, but it cannot exercise full influence in the European Council. The EU certainly has its challenges to face. Reform is needed, but I believe strongly that Scotland’s interests are best served by working constructively with our partners and allies within the EU, rather than being on the periphery.
Others have spoken of the importance of the double-majority safeguard to ensure that Scotland, or any other nation of the UK, cannot be forced out of the EU against its will. As a multinational state, such a scenario is not unforeseeable and would undoubtedly have major constitutional implications. If those advocating withdrawal from the EU are so confident in their arguments, they should have nothing to fear from putting in place this democratic safeguard. Indeed, they should embrace it whole-heartedly.
15:14
Just over four decades ago I had my first vote in a referendum when I voted yes to staying in the European Economic Community. Britain’s relationship with Europe has provided some rough sailing for political parties and leaders—even for renowned yachtsman Ted Heath, who navigated the UK into the Common Market in 1973.
French President de Gaulle had rebuffed Britain on several previous occasions and had formed a powerful alliance with Germany. Stewart Stevenson was right to point out the contribution that Churchill made after the war as leader of the Opposition to ensure that there was a wider voice for Europeans and for Britain in Europe.
The referendum in 1975 was a clear victory for continued membership, with 67 per cent of the vote saying yes. However, the campaign was not a cosy one to run for Harold Wilson, who was the Prime Minister at the time. He had agreed that his Cabinet members were free from ministerial collective responsibility, and left-wing firebrand Tony Benn was a leading light in the no campaign. Perhaps the Wilson diaries should be required reading for the current Prime Minister.
John Major’s election victory surprised many commentators, and his time as leader was characterised by well-organised guerrilla tactics by a significant group of Eurosceptics who opposed the Maastricht agreement. That, along with black Wednesday, was undoubtedly a factor in Labour’s landslide victory in 1997.
I welcome this debate, and I support the thrust of the cabinet secretary’s motion. I welcome and endorse the idea that 16 and 17-year-olds and, of course, all EU citizens, should have a vote. In the restricted time that I have for my speech, I will touch briefly on a case study of how the EU works in practice to benefit Scotland generally, and my region—the Highlands and Islands—specifically. I am referring to the economic and social benefits of EU structural funds. I could have focused on other benefits of membership including energy security, international trade and social protection for workers, or on the benefits for business—given that the EU provides the market for almost half our international exports, thereby supporting more than 300,000 jobs in Scotland.
Structural funds have been vital for the Highlands and Islands. In the current programme, we received approximately €192 million of the €985 million for the whole of Scotland. That is not a paternalistic sop from Eurocrats, but a crucial economic tool to ensure that my region levers up to the EU average. It provides planning and economic opportunities to exploit emerging sectors including life sciences, renewable energy and the creative industries.
Transition region status—as Jamie McGrigor pointed out—helps my region to overcome natural handicaps and allows it to work with the rest of Scotland in contributing to the EU 2020 goals of promoting smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth within the EU economy.
Just for the record, I want to highlight—as other members have mentioned—that I am not claiming that the EU is perfect. We need reform, of course, but I believe that that is possible within the treaty framework, rather than through treaty change. There are two areas that we need to look at. First, the EU should focus on economic and social policies that make a real difference to ordinary hard-working families. Secondly, regulatory reform is crucial—for example, in the common fisheries policy. We need more decisions to be made at region level, and the key principles must be proportionality and subsidiarity.
I will focus briefly on EU migrants and access to the welfare system. As Daniel Kenealy of the University of Edinburgh said in evidence to the European and External Relations Committee this month, the issue is crucial for the UK Government—in his words, “Everything else is garnish.” He makes a sound argument with the following points: most migrants in the UK come from outside the EU; it is a two-way street and many UK citizens live and work across the EU; and EU migrants contribute more to the UK economy in taxes than they take out.
Perhaps in winding up the cabinet secretary can say whether there are any plans to reintroduce the Labour and Lib Dem fresh talent working in Scotland scheme, or can inform us of its current status.
I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, so I will just say that the referendum on the future of EU membership in 2017—or whenever it will be—is yet another crucial step on the rocky road that has characterised the debate over the past 10 years and beyond. No one is arguing that the EU is perfect or beyond reform, but it is a force for good for jobs, services and workers’ rights, and we must at all costs avoid the retreat to the margins and wastelands that withdrawal would be.
15:19
Forty years ago, Scotland, and indeed the UK, had just experienced the first EU referendum, at a time when the governing party was divided on the issue and the nature of the negotiations that were being carried out by the Government of the day were not entirely clear: no change there.
Of course, much has changed. A Europe of nine member states has become one of 28. Scotland was more Eurosceptic then than the rest of the UK, but now the reverse is true. My party has fully embraced the European Union, has recognised its importance to Scotland and, in contrast with the 1975 Government, Government ministers are not to be free to campaign on either side—or at least that seemed to be the position, until last night.
Whatever the merits of another referendum, we are likely to have one. Therefore, it seems to be appropriate to make the referendum one in which the public can engage as fully as they did in the Scottish referendum. That surely ought to mean not only votes for 16 and 17-year-olds but for people from other European states, whose citizens live among us, as well as for EU citizens from Cyprus, Malta and Ireland.
An irony of the debate is that, at the same time as the Westminster Government is saying no to votes for colleagues including Christian Allard, it is proposing legislation known as the “votes for life bill” to extend the franchise to UK citizens who have not lived in the UK for 15 years or more. Whatever their historic ties to the UK, it cannot be said that they would likely be directly affected in the way that Mr Allard will be affected if the decision is taken by the UK to pull out of the EU. I know that that legislation will not impact on the referendum if it is passed, but it suggests the UK Government’s direction of travel.
The Scottish Government has proposed the double lock, so that Scotland cannot be pulled out of Europe against her will. The United Kingdom has no written constitution; other states, such as Canada, do. In Canada, all federal states must agree to any proposal on the monarchy. Such protection for a country’s constituent parts is not unknown. I am heartened that the SNP amendment at Westminster today has support from both Wales and Northern Ireland.
The EU is important to Scotland. In 2013, it was the destination for 46 per cent of Scotland’s total exports, and 300,000 jobs depend on it. There are frustrations with the EU and it needs reform: subsidiarity and proportionality must be given much greater respect, and the importance that is given to subsidiarity in the treaty of Lisbon must be adhered to.
Red tape should be reduced and we need clarification of how the relationship between countries in the euro zone and those outside it should work, in order to ensure that the interests of those on the outside are fully protected. Surely wanting to reform from within is a more credible position than being perceived to be negotiating from within, but with one hand on the exit door?
Last week, we heard evidence in the European and External Relations Committee that negotiations may not be straightforward. Professor Keating of the University of Aberdeen and the Economic and Social Research Council centre on constitutional change said, in relation to welfare benefits:
“If Britain starts trying to restrict things, there will certainly be reciprocal action against British citizens elsewhere.”
Dr Daniel Kenealy of the University of Edinburgh’s academy of government said:
“If there is a dialogue between the UK and Europe about reforming the European Union for the benefit of everybody ... the public may have more of an appetite for a longer debate, as opposed to what would happen if the debate is presented as a battle with Europe.”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 4 June 2015; c 17-18.]
A battle with Europe might suit some people on the Tory right, but I question whether it would, ultimately, benefit the United Kingdom.
We must ensure that the debate extends beyond the question whether removing in-work benefits would require treaty change, to a debate about what Europe is for and what type of Europe we want. Do we want to see a UK that turns its back on fellow Europeans and that refuses to provide financial assistance to Greece, Spain and Portugal, as John Redwood and the Tory right believe? Do we want a UK that turns its back on the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean or do we want one that recognises that the issue is not just a problem for Italy, Malta and Greece, but for Europe as a whole? Do we want a UK that wants to roll back its employment and social protection and instead to seek to protect the City and its financial services industry, and which is reluctant to curb its bankers’ bonuses?
The UK Government talks tough on Europe, but its actions suggest that it does not understand Europe fully. The Tory and Liberal coalition started a balance of competence review, which was a review of what the EU does and how it affects us in the UK. Its purpose was to inform debate but not to draw conclusions. It was concluded in December 2014. In March, the House of Lords EU Select Committee said:
“It has so far made no impact on the public debate on the UK-EU relationship.”
As Professor Keating said:
“the review did not find any competences that could be appropriately repatriated to the United Kingdom”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 4 June 2015; c 3.]
Last week in Brussels, the First Minister said:
“Scotland has much to offer the EU, but we have also much to learn.”
I hope that the UK Government will heed those words. The alternative—Fortress Britannia—is not a prospect that I, for one, would welcome.
15:25
You will not be surprised, Presiding Officer, to hear that I will be supporting the Scottish Government tonight, especially because I feel that I am being isolated by the proposed legislation. I am not alone, however; many EU citizens live in Scotland and the UK, so I feel that we have not yet seen the end of the matter. The franchise that has been designed by the Conservatives will be challenged not only at Westminster and in this Parliament, but outside, as it should be.
We must send a strong message from this chamber—a message of solidarity to amend the UK Government’s European Union Referendum Bill. A lot of my colleagues have used quotations, so perhaps I will use one too. Many of my constituents and people in the north-east are quite surprised when they hear that, as things stand, I will not have a vote in the referendum that could take us out of the EU. One person from Aberdeenshire East said this morning:
“I go to Christian Allard whenever I have difficulties in my constituency, and he is to be denied a vote.”
That was, of course, our former First Minister, Alex Salmond. That is not the first time he has mentioned the issue in the House of Commons, and he is not the only one who is doing so.
It is important to understand that the issue is not only about EU nationals who are resident in the UK; it is also about 16 and 17-year-olds. We should all be included in the franchise. When the referendum takes place, imagine if people such as me and young people of 16 and 17 go to the polling station on polling day because we have not heard about the franchise. People will stand in front of the table and see a list that will, of course, include their names because they were allowed to vote in other elections. Those people will be denied a vote and that should not be so. That should not be right.
My first vote in a referendum was in 1997 for this Parliament. Thereafter I voted in every Scottish election—particularly in every European election—and, of course, I voted last year. This is not a question of denying people a vote that they have never had; it is to deny them a vote that they have enjoyed. I have spent most of my life living and working in Scotland, but more important is that I have been voting here. It is the same for 16 and 17-year-olds. They voted for the first time last year, and this Parliament has decided that they can vote in every Scottish parliamentary election. It is important to keep those people engaged and locked in, and to ensure that they get engaged in the democratic process. There is no point asking somebody to go to a polling station one day but not to go on another day. We all went voting last year. We will vote in 2016 and the Scottish election, but if the referendum happens in 2017, we will not be allowed to vote in it. That does not make sense at all in a modern 21st-century Scotland.
This is a matter of respect, so I absolutely agree with the Scottish Government about the double-majority clause. We need that to ensure that no UK nation will be pulled out of the European Union against its democratic will. We heard about the family of nations—Christina McKelvie reminded us of that. This is also about EU citizenship and respect not only for this nation—Scotland—but for our EU partners. We do not know what we are going to vote on. We do not know whether I will be able to vote. Negotiations have not taken place, and we do not know what the agenda will be. I feel for the people who will be allowed to vote and who have to think about it in the coming year because they have no idea what they are to vote on. This is about democracy, inclusion and respect.
A lot of EU nationals—there are 90,000 in Scotland and 1.5 million across the UK—have seen me as a voice for them and for the disenfranchised, and I can understand that. A lot of petitions online will encourage members to join them.
I go back to what I said earlier about the European Union Referendum Bill. It is not yet certain whether we will be allowed to vote under clause 2(1)(a). I think that there is a misunderstanding there, but there is no misunderstanding about paragraph (b), however. It appears that I am not allowed to vote, but that members of the House of Lords are. I end on that archaic and absolutely undemocratic approach to how we should conduct ourselves in the 21st century.
15:30
On 1 November 2013, I was pleased to have the opportunity to lodge a motion before Parliament noting the 20th anniversary of the formal establishment of the European Union in its current guise. In the nearly 22 years that have followed its establishment, the EU has not got everything right, but I believe that few members would argue that we are anything but better off for it. I know that I can go anywhere in the Central Scotland region and it will not take me long to find projects and communities that EU funding has helped.
That is why I thank the cabinet secretary and the Government for securing this debate to allow us to discuss the merits of our continued membership of the European Union. Free movement of trade has enhanced our society and enriched our culture as well as our exports. Free movement of labour is often criticised by politicians and political commentators alike but, as a McMahon, it would be sheer hypocrisy for me to come here today with anything but praise for it and for the contribution that European migrants have made to Scotland.
It was a great Scot and European, Robin Cook MP, who, as the first Labour Foreign Secretary for 18 years, opted into the European Union’s social chapter. That was one of the first decisions that was taken by the last Labour Government, and it was also one of the most important. Older or, shall I say, more experienced colleagues may recall that the social chapter was described in 1989 by none other than the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, as
“a throwback to a Marxist period, a class struggle period”.
Those of us who value the contributions of trade unions ought to be concerned about the plans that her ideological successors have for the social chapter and for workers rights. Their Dickensian proposals for strike ballots suggest that they will not miss an opportunity to target the Labour movement.
It is very important that we remain vigilant to the danger of Cameron and co negotiating away any hard-won rights that they can. We cannot allow the rollback of health and safety at work laws to be painted as a victory for Britain. If they try to take Britain out of the EU-wide laws on working time, it will be our responsibility to inform the public that it is European laws that limit the amount of time that people can be obligated to work by their employer to 48 hours a week, and that guarantee the right to a paid holiday. Employees whose company changes hands automatically retain the same conditions that they had under their previous employers, and those in large companies are granted a voice in the workplace through the European works councils.
The gains of the trade union movement throughout Europe, which are enacted in law in much of the EU’s social agenda, allow our workers to be more secure in their jobs. The values that are thus espoused and the rights that are created are incompatible with the agenda of the Conservative Government, which—even when it was constrained by the Liberal Democrats—enacted charges against employees who were trying to take their employers to work tribunals and encouraged workers to sell their labour rights for shares.
I welcome the pro-European tone of the cabinet secretary and of many members who have spoken today, but I suggest that they ought to tread carefully with some of their statements so as not to inflame anti-EU rhetoric. When I say that I am thinking in particular about their justification for voting against Labour amendments to force private companies that are working on public sector contracts to pay their staff the living wage.
Only a few weeks ago, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, told BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” that it was European law that meant that her party could not support Scottish Labour proposals under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill last year. At the time, the noted solicitors, Thompsons, submitted a report to the Parliament stating how enshrining the living wage in procurement reform was possible. Trade unionists Dave Moxham and Dave Watson, who I am sure are respected across the chamber, have written about how our Parliament could enact such legislation if the will was there. If that was not enough, the First Minister’s claim had already been dismissed by the EU when the previous First Minister made it.
The EU referendum is an opportunity to have a debate about our rights, about jobs and about Scotland’s place in the world. It is not an opportunity for political parties to try to justify their past mistakes. The EU did not force the Government to vote down the living wage. In the run-up to the referendum there will be enough people who are willing to throw stones at the EU and to do down the very real contributions that it makes to our daily lives. It is important that those of us who consider ourselves pro-European rally round the organisation and do not pass on the blame to the EU in order to make our own political lives that bit easier.
It is important that we recognise that Europe does not curtail the legislative ambitions of individual member states, but rather sets a minimum standard for others to follow. That is particularly true in consideration of the impact of European legislation on the rights of female workers. The EU ensures that its members must give both parents the right to time off when a child is born or adopted. EU laws reverse the burden of proof in discrimination cases and give part-time and temporary workers the same legal rights as full-time workers with respect to leave, maternity rights, pensions and training.
I am very pleased by the broad consensus in favour of continuing membership of the EU, and I look forward to campaigning with colleagues to retain not only our membership of the organisation but the benefits that workers in Scotland get from it.
15:35
Scotland has a long, historical and independent connection with Europe that predates the union with England—indeed, the alliance with France up to 1560 lasted for nearly 200 years—and it is still going strong.
Our universities have always had close ties with Europe and our people settled there long before there was a European Union. Currently, more than 300,000 Scottish jobs depend on our membership of the single market, which, with its 500 million citizens, is the biggest in the world.
As Scottish parliamentarians, our task is to protect and nurture that legacy, and to not allow our country’s aspirations to be limited or dictated to by the negative anti-European agenda that has brought the referendum to the table. That is why it is crucial that the UK negotiating position must be representative of the whole of the UK and not just the fears of the Tory party in England. We are told that we are a family of nations, so the UK must respect that and seek to deliver positive changes that address particular circumstances that are important to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to England.
Dr Eve Hepburn of the University of Edinburgh, who is a contributor to the European and External Relations Committee, warned:
“It appears that the interests of the devolved administrations have been overlooked in the case of the UK’s current efforts to renegotiate the UK’s terms of agreement ... despite the impact that this will undoubtedly have on their interests and competences.”
We cannot allow that to happen. Surely the joint ministerial committee on Europe cannot continue to meet simply to listen to the devolved Administrations’ issues and then ignore them. It must form a genuine UK position that reflects all our interests. One way of bringing that about might be for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations to meet to find some common ground on which to negotiate. I am sure that our Scottish Government will be keen to take that forward.
On the question of the double majority, why is it that the position of Scotland and Wales is supported by the Labour First Minister of Wales, yet Scottish Labour cannot even bring itself to support its own country’s interests?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you—I have only five minutes.
If England votes to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay in, Scottish Labour will be happy to see Scotland being dragged out of Europe, which would have a disastrous impact on Scottish jobs. In any case, the double-majority idea provides the UK with the opportunity to really demonstrate that it meant what it said in its family of nations sermon. When we think about it, we realise that it provides the Prime Minister with a valuable insurance policy in the event that he cannot persuade voters in England to stay in the EU.
The referendum must not be a vote that is determined by the larger nation’s voter numbers; all the nations must have an equal voice, otherwise there will be no union.
Dr Dan Kenealy, who is a regular and welcome contributor to the European and External Relations Committee, described the issue of EU migrants to the UK as
“the set piece of the renegotiation drama”
and said—as David Stewart mentioned—that everything else was “garnish”. Voters—particularly those in England—need to know that migration is a two-way relationship, that most migrants to the UK come from outside the EU and that EU migrants contribute more to the UK economy in taxes than they take out.
Dr Kenealy went on to remind us that the European Court of Justice has made it clear that anyone who moves to another country simply to claim benefits is not entitled to do so, so it would be ridiculous if people in England voted to leave the EU because they objected to EU migrants coming to England to work or look for work, or to study. All the political parties must be clear on that and make sure that people have the facts.
Dr Kenealy said that the UK Government’s aims in this area
“would require the UK to amend, or secure an opt-out from, EU directives ... concerned with free movement and ... social security systems”,
but that carries the risk that any changes could fall foul of the Court of Justice. That takes us more towards treaty reform as a means of securing any changes free from interference from the court, but we know that there is no appetite for that, particularly when Mr Juncker has expressly ruled that out as far as free movement is concerned. There is no time to effect the treaty changes, not to mention the referendums that would be required in other member states.
Where do we go from here? Our other guest at the European and External Relations Committee, David Frost, a former diplomat with considerable experience, said that we might be heading for a classic euro fudge, with the EU appearing to concede, or be willing to offer, major reforms down the line and Mr Cameron trumpeting those as sufficient gains to enable him to recommend a yes vote. Meanwhile, the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being sidelined because of a euro fudge to save the skin of the Tories does not sound to me to be a recipe to keep the union ticking over. Scotland’s interests must be protected and Scottish MSPs must stand up for Scotland if England votes no.
15:40
I admit that, like others, I was not a wild enthusiast for the idea of a referendum on European Union membership, but I acknowledge it as a reality. Malcolm Chisholm described it as being perhaps a “destructive Conservative psychodrama”. Well, I suppose we can only hope, but let us not be complacent that that will be the consequence.
In the run-up to and during the campaign, the Greens will make a case for continued membership of the European Union. Greens throughout these islands will make that case but it will be a distinctive case and very different from the case that Mr Cameron will make if he comes back from the European Union with a package of reforms that are pro free market and pro big business. He will set out a very different kind of Europe from the one that I wish to live in.
There is a great deal to be proud of about the social and environmental protections that have been achieved across the European Union, but they involve precisely the kind of regulations that many on the Conservative right wish to ditch. They want a Europe of free markets; I want a Europe of social and environmental protection. We will make a case for membership of the EU, but we have a much deeper case to win on progressive economics within the European Union, the protection of human rights, a humane society and opposing the idea that free markets should be a policy priority for the European Union but that people should be not free but subjected to humiliating welfare policies designed to remove their ability to decide where they want to move to. The idea that capital is freer than people in the European Union is a recipe for even deeper exploitation.
If I understood correctly Mr Findlay’s point in the exchange that he had with Mr Rennie earlier, he was arguing that countries like Greece are threatened not by the European Union per se but by its obsession with austerity and free-market economics.
I was just going to make the point that the free movement of capital and labour is not being done in the interests of people but in the interests of capital—that is the whole problem that we have.
I agree with Mr Findlay.
Is there a case for reform of the European Union? Of course there is, but I would like to see a reform agenda that is led by a focus on citizens’ democracy within the European Union and taking some power away from the unelected Commission and asserting that the European Union is a union of European citizens, not a union of European Governments. We must put power in the hands of voters and their directly elected representatives, rather than in those of Governments and their appointees.
There is also a case for reform of the area of corporate lobbying, which has far too powerful an influence at European level, and of competition law, which all too often restricts the ability of Governments to protect the common good of their citizens.
Moving on to the rules by which the referendum will be conducted, I agree with the comments that have been made about EU citizens having the right to vote and, of course, 16 and 17-year-olds having that right. After the experience of the independence referendum, the only argument against 16 and 17-year-olds having the ability to vote is based on a fear of young people’s democratic empowerment. That is the only basis on which those in the Conservative Party oppose it.
On the date of the referendum, there has been opposition to the suggestion—it might be receding now, but we should kill it off for good—that the referendum might clash with the Holyrood election. Although my amendment was not selected for debate and I suspect that the Labour amendment might not find its way into the final resolution at the end of the day, I suggest to the cabinet secretary that the political parties in the Scottish Parliament write jointly to the Prime Minister making clear the absolute unacceptability of any clash with the Scottish Parliament election.
As for the proposal of a double majority, I am open to hearing the argument for it, but I am a little sceptical. First, I am not convinced that it is realistic. The rules of a referendum have to be agreed by all sides, and I just do not see that it is likely that the other side of the border or the other side of the debate will agree to the double-majority proposal.
Secondly, I am not convinced that it is necessarily fair. I can see why it might seem so from a Scottish perspective, but if Scotland voted to stay in and England voted to leave, the question is still whether the UK as a whole stays or leaves, and I am not sure that there is a consistent answer to that question.
You must conclude.
Thirdly, it strikes me as a potential distraction from the priority on which we should all be united, which is making the case for the whole of these islands—Scotland and the rest of the UK—to remain a part of the European Union. For that reason, I think that we should focus on making that argument.
15:46
It might be just as well for me to declare at the outset a personal and family interest, since my niece, who is a scientist, lives and works in Sweden. Jo enjoys her time there, and Jamie, my nephew, lives and works in Denmark, where he is a teacher. I have a great-nephew and a great-niece who, in Danish, are halfdan—in other words, they are half-Danish and half-Scots. If it had not been for the freedom to go and work in Europe without any great difficulty, I suspect that the history of my family in modern times might have been a bit different.
We have heard a bit about who can vote. The answer for Christian Allard is extremely straightforward. The Liberal party has eight members of the House of Commons and 101 members of the House of Lords. Pro rata, that means that the SNP can appoint probably 707 members to the House of Lords, and I propose that Christian Allard be the first of them, because he will then meet the necessary requirements to allow him to vote.
Let us go a bit deeper into the bill that the Tories have brought before us. We discover some interesting things. While Christian Allard might not be allowed to vote, he is allowed to be a permitted participant for the referendum. He can register a campaign, contribute all his worldly wealth, go into hock if he wishes, and campaign for a particular result. By the way, that provision includes 16 and 17-year-olds. They can establish campaigns and be permitted participants. They are allowed to influence the outcome but not to be part of the outcome. That is a quite bizarre way of bringing forward legislation. Christian Allard would consider the matter carefully and cast his vote appropriately, and that would be true of many of our citizens.
Even more bizarre, we come to the situation of the citizens of Gibraltar, who are allowed to vote in European elections in the extended constituency of South West England. They will be allowed to vote in the referendum. That is fascinating. By the way, peers who are not even UK or EU citizens but who are electors in the City of London will be entitled to vote.
The bill—this tawdry piece of paper from the Tory Government—is riddled with inconsistencies. It denies the vote to citizens of Europe who have the greatest stake in the referendum and who contribute mightily to the economies of the UK and of Scotland, while many of the parasites—simply by owning property in the City of London—can participate and set up campaigns on whichever side of the argument they are on. A totally bizarre bill is before us.
I do not stand before members as an uncritical supporter of the EU. Representing fishermen in Scotland, I of course share with them the discomfort that, when a fishing boat that is registered in Scotland goes out, it is covered by our regulations, but it can be alongside and in the same place off our shores as, for example, a Spanish boat that is working to different legislation. We have to fix that, but we can do that and we are making some progress.
I am going to really live dangerously. Last week, I lived dangerously when I quoted Alastair Campbell, who spoke excellent sense when he described Charles Kennedy as somebody who spoke “human”. However, I am going to go even further and quote Margaret Thatcher, which is really living dangerously.
In June 1975, in the debate after the result of the previous European referendum, Margaret Thatcher said:
“we join”
the Prime Minister
“in rejoicing”—
that was a favourite word of hers—
“over this excellent result ... We are particularly pleased ... with the strong ‘Yes’ from each of the”
constituent nations
“of the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 June 1975; Vol 893, c 31.]
She recognised the importance of achieving that support from each of the constituent nations. Perhaps the Tories should consider what their dear leader said in 1975 when considering the position that they now wish to take.
I hope that the Labour and Liberal amendments resonate around the chamber but, because they would delete important things from the Government’s motion, I suspect that we will not support them. For my part, I would be happy to support their contents, if not their deletions.
15:51
Good afternoon, Presiding Officer. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is attempting to renegotiate the terms of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union ahead of a referendum in 2017. As we all know, at the top of Cameron’s list of demands for renegotiation in the EU is addressing freedom of movement and migrant rights.
The debate has been dominated by the issue of immigration. However, the relationship with the European Union is complex. Alongside the freedom of movement in the European Union that citizens of member states have, there is free trade. European Union membership also provides a wide range of rights and responsibilities, and funding streams that Scottish institutions can access.
In recent years, other European member states have elected Eurosceptic parties, and there is definitely a climate for reform, but the wish for proper democratic accountability for decisions and the difficulties of implementing the so-called yellow card mechanism to block European Commission proposals require informed discussion. Unfortunately, the tone of the public debate in recent years has been quite the opposite of that. European Union migrants have become the bogeyman to blame for anything from housing shortages to littering in our streets. That has been stoked by UKIP and the anti-immigration media. As I have said before, a lot of the anti-immigration rhetoric is basically racism, and it shows its true colours.
Various statistics show that European migrants contribute more to our economy. I do not need to repeat that, as several MSPs have mentioned it.
The Scottish Government frequently states that Scotland has a different approach to immigration, but that is not really backed up by any evidence. Research by the University of Oxford’s migration observatory revealed that the majority of Scots support a reduction in immigration. Some 58 per cent of the population feel that way. However, that figure is lower than the figure for England and Wales, which is 75 per cent. That speaks volumes in itself.
It is worth repeating that there is no point in the Scottish Government saying that we want more immigrants to come to Scotland if we are not actively combating the racism in our society.
I turn to the proposal that there should be a double majority. Dr Daniel Kenealy from the University of Edinburgh’s academy of government made a point very well. In his submission to the European and External Relations Committee, he stated:
“It would be useful if the Scottish Government could be clearer about what, if any, distinct and specific interests Scotland has in this process as opposed to repeatedly calling for a multiple-veto lock.”
Those are interesting comments from Dr Kenealy. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can address them and give us some clarity on her thoughts. Every time that I have asked her searching questions, I have had silence, rather than an answer, but I hope that I will get some answers today.
We have to be clear about our direction of travel and where and how we want to go. At the moment we are trying to renegotiate, so it is important that we back our Government at this stage. If and when a referendum is needed, we should address that at that stage. I would also be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s comments on how she plans to address the findings on immigration.
15:56
There have been some fine pro-Europe speeches from across the chamber. We have even heard words of praise about the European Union’s benefits from Conservative members, which I suspect might not be repeated too often by their colleagues south of the border. Nevertheless, there is some unity across the chamber.
I draw attention to Stewart Maxwell’s comments on the Nobel peace prize and the fact that the European Union has helped to turn a continent of war into a continent of peace. He talked about peace, reconciliation and democracy. At the core of the European Union is that fundamental value and benefit that we have secured, and I thank Stewart Maxwell for his comments. Those who have lived in a European Union without war often take it for granted that it will always be so. We should not forget that the European Union has contributed significantly to that situation.
I concluded my opening remarks with a plea to SNP members to focus on what unites, rather than divides, us. I am afraid that, apart from Stewart Maxwell, far too many SNP members sought to assert the position that the rest of the United Kingdom will vote to leave the European Union. That pessimism should be rejected. We should work together to ensure that we stay in the European Union. According to the polling over the past few decades, more often than not, Britain has been a pro-Europe nation—it has wanted to stay in, rather than get out.
Of course, there are the Nigel Farages of the world. However, we should not make the mistake of assuming that everyone in England shares Nigel Farage’s views—far from it, which is why he suffered so badly in the recent general election. His support for a kind of anti-Europe scepticism was roundly rejected. We should take comfort from that and give more credit to people from across the United Kingdom for being pro Europe.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
Even the bookies reckon that Britain will stay in the European Union; they predict that we will all vote to stay in it. Rather than assuming that England and the rest of the United Kingdom will vote to leave, and therefore that we will have to have a get-out clause to stay in the EU, let us work together to build on the pro-Europe consensus that is developing across the UK.
There have been a few references to Charles Kennedy today. Back in 2013 he said something that was particularly prescient:
“Now more than ever, membership of a strong, confident, effective and outward-looking European Union should be an absolute priority for all European nations. Playing games with something so important is dangerous and short-sighted.”
I leave those words hanging for the SNP. Let us work together to stay in the European Union. It is of great benefit to us in Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I may come to regret this, but I reluctantly agree that Christian Allard should have a vote in the European referendum. I do not want this to be a precedent for all other situations. There may be occasions when I might want to prevent him from voting—particularly in the Scottish Parliament chamber—but on this occasion, and not just because we agree on the issue, I believe that he should have a vote. It may have consequences for those who vote in future general elections, which we need to consider, but we need to make sure that on this occasion—because of the effect that the referendum could have on EU citizens and on the rest of the EU—such EU citizens should have a vote.
As a long-term advocate of votes at 16, I think that we should make that change too—I hope as a precursor to changes to the franchise across the UK for other elections. So far, there has been some resistance to that, particularly from the Conservative Party, but I hope that the referendum can be used as a battering ram to get the changes that we are all striving for in our democracy.
The Liberal Democrats had been in favour of a referendum if powers were to be ceded to the EU, but we now accept that a referendum is on the way and we need to seize the opportunity to put the right case for the EU and for Britain’s place at the heart of it. Too often, we are timid about the benefits of the EU because we fear some people’s scepticism. We should be talking about the benefits of our influence in the world as a bloc of 500 million people—the influence that we can have for good, progressive politics around the world—and the benefits of the free movement of people within the continent of Europe; the economic single market; the common social and employment standards; and the efforts that the EU makes to tackle climate change.
Those are the big goals that we can achieve through the European Union referendum debate. We all need to work together to seize that opportunity. Let us put that opportunity before people in Scotland so that they understand the benefits, including students being able to go to university in other parts of the continent without their education being disrupted.
The fact that we can go to Spain to work for a time and that people from Spain can come and work here too is a shared benefit. Another benefit is that, if someone has a business here in Scotland, we can make sure that they can trade with people across the EU with as limited a number of barriers as possible. Those are big benefits that being in the EU can bring.
The sharing of a common goal—the peace that we all sought so many decades ago and which we take for granted now—is something that we should work for, and work for together.
16:02
I thank all the members in the chamber who have taken the opportunity to tell me what I think. The truth is that while I still have the freedom to do so under this fairly centralising authoritarian Government, I will decide what I think, and I think that the Conservative Party has an excellent record with regard to its engagement with the European Union.
We were not in at the ground floor—we were not part of the European Coal and Steel Community; we were not part of the original six. However, we very quickly took the opportunity—once we had seen the passing of Charles de Gaulle—to get ourselves into that European union. Of course, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who was responsible for taking this country into the EU.
In fact, there have been many times when certain political parties in this country have decided that either a substantial part of their membership or their entire active membership should campaign against our presence in Europe. The Conservative Party is no different and, as we go forward towards the referendum, there will no doubt be Conservatives who campaign against our continued membership of the EU. However, there will no doubt be others in other political parties who will do the same.
Let me address some of the things that have been discussed during the debate. Many have made the typical move to get right in there and express themselves in their own terms and on their own particular area of interest, but I hope that I can explain my views in a fairly simple way that is easy to understand.
First, we are talking about a promise by David Cameron that he will renegotiate the terms of our membership and put that to the British people in a referendum—
Will the member take an intervention?
Excuse me—not at the moment.
That referendum will be decided by a simple yes or no: we accept those terms or we reject them.
Will the member give way?
No—not at the moment.
We must not get confused about the fact that we are discussing the European Union. The suggestions that the debate should cover the European convention on human rights simply conflate two current issues that are not really related.
A lot has been said about how many projects in the United Kingdom and Scotland have benefited from EU funding. However, that is something of a red herring given that, as one of the few net contributors to Europe, we actually pay for that funding, and then some, for other countries.
We have heard about the importance of our economic connections and trade with Europe. However, figures have been skewed to prove arguments that cannot be proven. Although a high proportion of the material that Scotland produces and sells outside the United Kingdom goes to Europe, to achieve that high percentage figure, we must ignore the fact that the vast majority of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, in 2012-13, which is the latest year for which I have figures, we had £12.9 billion of trade with Europe but £46.2 billion of trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an argument to remain part of the United Kingdom. It is also, I might suggest, an argument to remain part of the European Union. However, there is not one case for EU membership that is not at least a stronger case for continued UK membership, which puts the Scottish National Party in a position that it cannot defend.
I will address a couple of other issues that have been central to the debate. The issue of the franchise is again something of a red herring in the argument. We in Scotland have argued that we should control the franchise for the Scottish Parliament and that we should decide who can vote in our elections. We have decided that we will include 16 and 17-year-olds. The Westminster Parliament has told us that we can have that power. Is it not therefore a little ironic that we should then want to decide how the Westminster Parliament controls its franchise? I say that that is its choice. If we wish to influence it, we should do so through the means that are available to us.
I will address the issue of the double majority, as it has been described by many in the debate. I can remember 1979, when we had a referendum in Scotland in which a 40 per cent rule was applied. Under that rule, 40 per cent of the electorate had to vote in a particular direction before we could get a certain result. That was considered by many at the time to be inappropriate, which is why, during the Scottish referendum, the only test was a simple majority. If we had a double-majority rule under which all the nations in the United Kingdom were required to vote a particular way to achieve a certain outcome, that would introduce a hurdle that the SNP would find it would have to address when it inevitably brings back its referendum on Scottish independence.
On immigration, I believe that eastern European immigrants are absolutely vital to the economy of the United Kingdom and particularly of Scotland.
You must close, please.
However, it is only fair that, if they come here, they should come to a job. For that reason, it is only appropriate that we should take action to prevent so-called benefits tourism.
You must close, please.
Willie Coffey told us that that does not happen, so no worries there, then.
16:08
The tenor of the majority of the debate has been that, for many reasons, it is in the interests of Scotland and the broader UK to remain in the EU. Many speakers have accepted that changes need to be made, but they have suggested that it would be easier to tackle those changes from within the EU. We are right to argue that Britain’s potential exit from the EU poses huge risks for British jobs, trade and investment. As many speakers have said, the EU is still by far our biggest export market. Tariff-free access to 500 million customers is hugely important for our businesses. Half our inward investment comes from the EU, and a significant proportion of investment from outside the EU is helped by our status as a gateway to the single market.
It is not only about economics; it is also about security and values. With a proxy war taking place in Ukraine, it makes little sense for Britain to call for maximum European unity on sanctions for Russia and in the next breath threaten to leave the EU.
The hard end of our security will continue to be provided by NATO, but we should not underestimate the importance of the shared values of peace, democracy and the peaceful resolution of disputes that are embodied by EU membership.
We in the Labour Party support Britain’s membership in the European Union. Our hard-working members of the European Parliament are always at the heart of the decision-making processes in Brussels.
The First Minister has argued that the four constituent parts of the UK should each have a veto—known as a double-lock system—in the referendum. However, the majority of the people in all four constitutive parts of the UK see the decision on the EU as one that should be taken by the population as whole and not by the separate parts. As a few members flagged up in their speeches, the double-lock proposal may come back to haunt us.
A survey conducted by researchers at the University of Edinburgh suggests that the majority of people in Scotland—55 per cent—are in favour of the UK deciding on the future of its EU membership as a single political entity. We should recognise clearly the proposal for what it is: headline grabbing and issue deflecting. We cannot spend the next two years saying that Scotland’s voice is not being heard and that we are not being treated with respect by the UK Government.
The First Minister has suggested that an EU referendum result in which Scotland votes yes and England votes no could trigger demands for a second independence referendum. We duly hope that that does not happen. We hope that Scotland is not forced to choose between two unions—our union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland and our union with our European partners. That is why we in Scottish Labour will spend all our time and energy making the positive case for EU membership both for Scotland and for the UK.
The argument for staying in the EU will be about far more than what we politicians do in this Parliament. It will involve businesses, universities, people at work and people in all walks of life. I hope that it will include young people. There will be much debate about the details of the referendum over the coming weeks. We believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to take part in the EU referendum. The picture from Scotland’s referendum was clear: 16 and 17-year-olds are a sophisticated, nuanced group of voters. They are engaged. They care just as much as those who are older and, as Siobhan McMahon kindly put it, “more experienced”. They most certainly deserve to be full participants.
We in the Labour Party are also committed to letting EU citizens vote in the referendum. EU citizens who have decided to make the UK their home—who live here, work here, raise families here and pay taxes here—should be given the opportunity to vote on a matter of huge significance for the future.
During the referendum we will make a positive, progressive case for continued membership while advocating, as a strong and active member, constructive reform of the EU from within the existing treaty framework. The notion of a double lock for the four parts of the UK might serve as a good headline, but it is not supported generally by people across the UK and it is a poor substitute for a genuine statement of aims.
Labour is committed to doing all that we can to ensure that young people and EU citizens are allowed to vote in the referendum. I therefore fully support amendment in the name of my colleague Claire Baker.
16:15
I will start by adding the voice of the Scottish Government to that of Willie Rennie with regard to what he said about his late colleague, Charles Kennedy. Over the weekend, I shared a platform with Willie Rennie at the Pakistan Welfare Trust, when he described Charles Kennedy as having a “gentle voice of reason”. I think that all of us would have liked to have heard that gentle voice during the campaign in the weeks and months ahead.
Today’s debate has been good, with excellent contributions. I did not mean to sound so surprised when I said that. We have heard excellent speeches on the benefits of the European Union to Scotland; many members have spoken about the business benefits, the economic benefits, the academic benefits, the social benefits and the democratic benefits. Malcolm Chisholm was exceptionally good when he noted that the facts and figures will get us only so far, and that the debate requires passion and emotion. That was interesting because we were told during the independence referendum that we should be looking at the issues through a rational and logical prism, and that emotion should be discarded. However, I agree with what Malcolm Chisholm had to say.
Those who believe in the European Union agree, I think, that the campaign has to be positive. Although there are, of course, risks to leaving the European Union—many have been highlighted, including the risks to jobs, and various facts and figures have been mentioned—we would not do the campaign justice if we did not talk about the positives that a reformed EU could achieve and which are already achieved for the citizens of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. As a side point, my view is that the campaign should not necessarily be led from the front by politicians or big businesses, because that can often put people off.
Jamie McGrigor was right to suggest that it is healthy for us to question, criticise and analyse our relationship with the European Union. I have not heard any member say that the European Union is perfect—far from it. Everyone believes that the European Union requires reform. The Scottish Government has produced a 20-page document that the member is well versed in, as I know from sitting in committee being grilled by him on our reform agenda.
On top of that, further detail was added by the First Minister during her recent visit to Brussels, where she spoke about giving member states more autonomy when it comes to social and public health issues, and cited the example of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. She also talked about better regulation as opposed to more regulation, and spoke about how reform can work for people who live in Scotland. In that regard, David Stewart quite rightly mentioned reforms to the common fisheries policy. She also spoke about tackling social issues that matter to the citizens of Europe—for example, the scourge of youth unemployment, the figures for which are far too high across the continent.
However, although I will listen during the campaign to come, I have not heard from the Conservatives during their speeches today what reforms require treaty change and what parts of the treaty need to be changed. That information is not forthcoming. However, we hear senior Conservative ministers—including the Prime Minister—saying that they believe that treaty change is required. Of course, when they say that, they do not go into the various difficulties that treaty change would impose, including referendums in many countries, including Ireland, and the pragmatic problems of trying to ratify treaty changes in parliaments such as Greece’s current one.
Does the minister agree that not travelling down to Strasbourg every three weeks would require a treaty change?
If that is Jamie McGrigor’s fundamental reason for why we need treaty change and why we need to reform our relationship with the European Union, I have perhaps missed the point.
Will the minister give way?
I will not just now; I want to make progress. However, I will address the point that Neil Findlay made when he intervened on the cabinet secretary.
Willie Rennie, Malcolm Chisholm, Claire Baker and others talked about internationalisation and why they feel that Europe is important from that perspective. We in the SNP are also internationalists, which is why we believe that if we work in co-operation across the EU, we can achieve great results. Peacetime was mentioned by Stewart Maxwell and was reflected on by Willie Rennie very well. The importance of the EU with regard to climate change was spoken about, too. The EU is also important in relation to some of the other big challenges that the continent faces. The cabinet secretary has played a leading role with regard to the refugee crisis of refugees crossing the Mediterranean from north Africa to Europe. There has been a suggestion on how to tackle that problem, with resettlement being part of it. The Scottish Government very much believes that resettlement has to be part of the solution, as well as our tackling the problem at source.
Talking of reform, let me spend a minute discussing the issue that has dominated contributions from the chamber, which is reform to the franchise for the referendum. Members from across the Parliament spoke very well about why 16 and 17-year-olds must be given the vote. Claire Baker spoke very well about that, as did Malcolm Chisholm, Christina McKelvie and Stewart Maxwell. Many members spoke about their experiences during the independence referendum campaign of going into high schools and being asked very tough questions. I would say that 16 and 17-year-olds were the primary success of the Scottish referendum.
On the point about 16 and 17-year-olds, Alex Johnstone said that we should try to influence Westminster and the UK Government through the means that are available to us. We just did: we had a general election and 56 out of 59 MPs in Scotland were elected on the mandate that 16 and 17-year-olds should be given the vote here in Scotland. They will not, however, be given the vote, even though we have that mandate in Scotland.
I do not need to add too much more on the issue of EU citizens not being given the vote, because Christian Allard in particular made his points about that so well, so passionately and so strongly. The Conservative Party often says that it prides itself on being a party of logic and reason, but I have never heard such nonsensical, unfair and ludicrous rules of electoral engagement in all my days. The UK Government proposals for the EU referendum will disenfranchise people who have chosen to make Scotland and the United Kingdom their home not for years, but for decades. Anybody listening to Christian Allard’s speech will see that he and his family have made their home here in Scotland. People come to Christian Allard for help and assistance in his role as a member of the Scottish Parliament. If they require his help, he does his duty to them, but he has been completely and utterly disenfranchised.
If the Conservatives said that no foreign national would be allowed a vote, I would still be against that, of course, but I would understand the consistency and the logic. However, that is not the case; the Conservatives would give the vote to some foreign nationals but not to others. They would give the vote to people from the Commonwealth, which includes two European countries, and they would lump Ireland in, as well as ex-pats and others who have not contributed to this country for perhaps up to 15 years, but they would disenfranchise those who have contributed, simply because of the colour of their passport.
Is the minister trying to give the impression that there is some devious thought process afoot here, or will he simply acknowledge that the franchise will be granted to exactly the same people who were entitled to vote on 7 May?
First, the franchise will not be granted to exactly the same people who were allowed to vote on 7 May. The Lords are an example, which Stewart Stevenson gave very well.
I do not think that there is any “devious thought process”; I think that there is no thought process when it comes to the franchise. How can there be when somebody from Fiji can vote, but somebody from France cannot, and when somebody from the Solomon Islands can, but somebody from Spain cannot?
David Stewart and others talked about the benefits that migrants, and EU migrants in particular, have brought. Many members quoted the UCL study and its figure that EU citizens have contributed £20 billion to the UK over the past decade. He asked me specifically about the post-study work visa, which would not affect EU migrants but would affect those from outwith the EU. I am pleased to say—he might have seen this over the weekend—that we will have a cross-party steering group on that, which Claire Baker will be sitting on, to take that issue forward.
Other parties have spoken extensively about the double lock. I reassure Mr Rennie that we in the SNP are not pessimistic. In fact, if anything, we are told far too often that we are increasingly optimistic. It is true—we are very optimistic. I believe, as Mr Rennie does, that the people of the United Kingdom will vote to stay within the European Union, but we would not be doing our job as a Government if we were not prudent in protecting Scots and Scottish citizens.
Will the minister give way?
If I have time, I will take an intervention.
Briefly, Mr Rennie.
If the minister is so optimistic, why does he not just drop the double-lock proposals, because they are no longer needed?
We will not do so for exactly the reason that I just gave. We would not be doing our job as a Government if we did not take every available measure to protect the people of Scotland.
It is not just us. On his recent visit to Scotland, Carwyn Jones, Labour’s First Minister of Wales, said:
“Any decision to leave the EU, taken against the wishes of the people of Wales or Scotland, would be unacceptable and steps must be taken to ensure this does not happen.”
Will the minister take an intervention?
You need to close, minister.
I accept that we can have a debate about what those steps may be, but the double lock is a very sensible proposition.
The debate has been very good and it has been positive. As Malcolm Chisholm said, we should ensure that in the months to come there is emotion and passion. Undoubtedly, the united voice of this Parliament should say that Scotland and the UK are stronger for being in the EU and the EU is stronger for having the UK and Scotland as part of it.
Previous
Topical Question Time