“Inquiry into the Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7496, in the name of Irene Oldfather, on the report on the inquiry into the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland. I call Irene Oldfather to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee.
14:57
It is a privilege to open this afternoon’s debate on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee on a piece of work that has formed the core of our work programme over the past year—the Treaty of Lisbon.
The committee published its report in June and since then we have been actively engaging with stakeholders across the Parliament, exploring how we in the Parliament can take advantage of the opportunities that are provided. The treaty has ushered in a new European architecture, which does a number of things that are relevant to the work of the Parliament. For the first time, it formally recognises the principle of territorial cohesion. It also introduces the principle of consultation of regional Parliaments, enhances the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and invites greater engagement from the regions of Europe. Critically, the test of the changes lies in the answer to the question: will they enable us, here in the Scottish Parliament, to do our job better? I think that they will.
With the new subsidiarity mechanism, or early-warning system, member-state Parliaments can block European Union legislation if it does not accord with the principle of subsidiarity. That action should be taken at the most appropriate and effective level. Through that, the treaty offers the real prospect of improved democratic oversight of the EU’s decision-making process. It also offers the prospect of new routes of influence in areas that are of significant interest to Scotland, through better and improved liaison with the European Parliament and European Commission.
Given the devolved interest in many areas of EU competence, and the role of the UK Government as interlocutor with the EU, there is a need for improved mechanisms for representation of any policy area that might be of importance to the people of Scotland. As EU legislation takes precedence over national legislation, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government need to be vigilant, as even welcome or favourable legislation can have implications as to which level of government in the UK becomes decision maker in a given field. Scrutiny and improvement of the process will be essential to ensure clear mechanisms for dealing with conflict resolution.
The subsidiarity protocol offers a chance for the Scottish Parliament to challenge incursions into areas of devolved interest. To realise that power, the Parliament needs to work in partnership with the UK Parliament. A formal proposal to ensure co-operation between the UK and the Scottish Parliaments on the matter has been agreed in principle—that is part of the work that the committee has been doing since we published our report. The implication is that because the Scottish Parliament can get involved in such initiatives, we can exert more influence in the European Union.
In taking the proposed strategy forward, the EERC will retain its role in co-ordinating, horizon scanning, undertaking overarching inquiries—such as our inquiry into the EU budget review—or in doing work that a subject committee is unable to do. The committee will also continue to lead on analysis of the European Commission’s work programme, so that the Parliament can identify key issues in the future.
I hope that the new system will generate contributions to the debate from subject committees, which will be vital. The active scrutiny role will rest primarily with the subject committees, which will undertake work of their own volition. At the core of the proposed new model is the appointment by the subject committees of European reporters, who would act as conduits between the EERC and their committees and have specific roles. The idea is based on a model that has been successfully used by the Parliaments of Bavaria and Flanders. It builds on the aspiration of the Scottish constitutional convention that there should be strong links between European committees and the subject committees of the Scottish Parliament.
We propose to use the scrutiny process to give subject committees an overview of all proposals that come out of Brussels and an opportunity to intervene early in the process, if that is desired or required.
I am interested in developments in the Scottish Parliament. What response to the initiative has there been from conveners of the subject committees?
We have had a positive response. I have spoken at the Conveners Group on—I think—three occasions, and I think that there is recognition that we need to engage better. We also want engagement to be measured, because although we need to intervene early, we realise that a light touch is needed. Work should not impact on committees’ already heavy workloads. However, we must do a good job of policy co-ordination.
The proposals will require changes to the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament if they are to be fully effective. We are well advanced with a detailed plan for the development and implementation of the strategy on a pilot basis in January, should the proposed approach be endorsed by the Parliament at decision time. After the pilot, the strategy would be evaluated and the process would be in place for the start of the new parliamentary session in 2011.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee would undertake the necessary work on changes to the standing orders and would report to the Parliament on what was needed. Detailed guidance and training, and a system for management of information and intelligence, would be developed by the EERC, with support from the Brussels office and the Scottish Parliament information centre. That guidance would be in place for the forthcoming parliamentary session. What we propose is a legacy for the Parliament in the next session, so that it can up its game in a manageable way.
It would be remiss of me not to thank everyone who was involved in this substantial piece of work, from committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre to committee conveners, the minister and the Presiding Officer. I thank them for their constructive input along the way.
The evidence that the committee received was overwhelming, and I am grateful to academics, politicians, lawyers, representative bodies and members of the European Parliament for their contributions. There was consensus among those people that the treaty creates an opportunity, that radical change is needed to make the Parliament fit for purpose in the context of European scrutiny, and that we should embed in the Parliament a process that will realise that aspiration.
The Scottish Parliament does not want to be an observer on the European stage; we have a great deal to contribute and we want to be a participant. The committee’s proposals prove that Scotland can lead in ensuring transparency, accountability and equality in relation to the legislation that we review and produce.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the European and External Relations Committee’s 4th Report 2010 (Session 3), Inquiry into the Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland (SP Paper 469) and agrees to the introduction of a Parliament-wide strategy for European Union engagement and scrutiny, including the introduction on a pilot basis, and, if successful, permanently, of an early warning system for EU legislative proposals, as outlined in Annexe B to the Report.
15:04
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on the Scottish Government’s behalf to the committee’s report on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland.
As the convener indicated, the Lisbon treaty clearly has broad implications for Scotland. Extended and new competences mean that the EU will be active in a range of new areas. We already see that in policy areas that range from energy to sport. We need to ensure that Scotland’s interests are protected and promoted under the freedom, security and justice opt-in arrangements, and that we respond to the European Parliament’s increased powers by engaging effectively with members of the European Parliament.
The treaty has presented Scotland with increased opportunities to influence European legislation in new areas, and to feed into the European Union’s decision-making process on key policy areas for us such as justice, energy, climate change, agriculture and fisheries. The subsidiarity protocol provides, for the first time, a treaty-based role for this Parliament to engage in that process, too.
The Scottish Government welcomes the findings of the committee’s report. We have taken a positive and proactive approach to working with the Scottish Parliament throughout the inquiry and will continue to do so.
I am encouraged that a key recommendation of the report is for the Scottish Parliament to take on a more effective role in the EU policy-development process through a reinforced Scottish Parliament European strategy. The strategy involves an expanded role for the subject committees. That is a necessary step following the changes that the Lisbon treaty has introduced. Through the extension of shared and supporting competences, more of us will need an increased awareness of Europe.
In September, I set out to the European and External Relations Committee the successful outcomes that we are seeing from the Government’s “Action Plan on European Engagement”. The action plan’s focused and proactive approach has delivered real results for Scotland in energy, research, justice and the marine environment. Ministers have a strong record of engagement, both in attendance at the Council of Ministers and in discussions with commissioners and MEPs.
European activity is central to many of our domestic responsibilities, and such activity continues to increase. Therefore, I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament has recognised the opportunities that the subsidiarity protocol offers and has proposed mechanisms to make the most of them. I welcome the recommendations to ensure formal co-operation with the UK Parliament and to seek a Scottish Government view as an integral part of any formal subsidiarity mechanism.
I am pleased to announce that the Scottish Government’s new explanatory memoranda—EM—management system is now operational and will be piloted with the Scottish Parliament over the coming months. The new system will help to facilitate the Parliament’s new responsibility to scrutinise European Commission proposals.
The Lisbon treaty introduced new fast-track infraction procedures with particular emphasis on implementing European legislation on time. The Scottish Government has made significant improvements in its handling of EU obligations and its transposition performance is leading the way among the devolved Administrations. Last month, I submitted to the committee a report that indicated that only two transposition cases were past their deadline. One has since been achieved, and the second is due to be laid before the Parliament early in the new year.
The committee’s report rightly identifies freedom, security and justice—which is one of the Scottish Government’s EU priorities—as an important area of EU engagement for Scotland. Scotland is in a unique position within the European Union. The UK is the only member state that contains two legislative jurisdictions and justice systems, so it is vital that policies on freedom, security and justice take account of the different legal system that we have in Scotland. The Lisbon treaty extends the opt-in to all FSJ matters, so we will continue to work closely with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland’s interests are properly and positively represented.
I take this opportunity to update the Parliament on the European Union Bill, which is the UK’s response to the Lisbon treaty. The subject matter of the bill and its provisions appear at first sight to be reserved, but there are significant potential implications for devolved interests, especially on justice. We have been in close discussion with the UK Government in order to protect Scotland’s interests. I will continue to press to ensure that the Scottish Government’s role under the memorandum of understanding in developing UK policy in the areas that the bill covers is fully respected. We have clear and robust processes in place to ensure that.
Does the minister agree that there is a case for saying that, should a referendum be held, information about results should be available at sub-state level?
I am very interested in referendums and I am delighted that the UK Government has an increased interest in them, whether on the alternative vote system or under the European Union Bill for when a change to the Lisbon treaty is proposed. However, we know of resistance in this place to referendums on our constitutional future.
Irene Oldfather is correct to identify Scotland’s interest in relation to the Lisbon treaty. If any discussions or proposed changes to the Lisbon treaty resulted in the UK Government wanting to hold a referendum, I would be sympathetic to the proposal that the results should be distinguishable. In different parts of the UK—in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—different perspectives can be taken. The working time directive is a good example of a subject on which Scotland might have had a different perspective from the rest of the UK.
The point is well made and important, despite my reservations in relation to a referendum by the Scottish Government. I suspect that we will return to issues that relate to the bill as it progresses through the UK Parliament and I am sure that the European and External Relations Committee will take a keen interest in what happens on that.
I return to implementation of the Lisbon treaty, the proposed work programme and the changes in the Parliament. I was pleased to work with the committee throughout its inquiry and I sought to provide positive and constructive ideas about how engagement could take place. I look forward to further engagement in the months ahead.
15:12
I welcome the European and External Relations Committee’s report on the Lisbon treaty’s impact on Scotland. This month marks the first anniversary of the treaty’s coming into force in December 2009.
The ever-expanding European Union, with 27 member states, is becoming a huge institution that has huge powers and influence over the citizens of Europe. We are debating the potential for the Parliament to be given the right to be more involved in scrutinising the Lisbon treaty’s extended competences. The Union began primarily by removing trade barriers across Europe and with treaties that promoted economic and social union, but it has grown to be much more.
To the ordinary man and woman on the street, the European Union in its most popular terms is responsible for some sensible decisions on consumer law, such as the legal requirement for manufacturers to fit plugs to all appliances. Those of us who are not very good at fitting a three-pin plug have come to accept that welcome decision of the EU, although not such a popular decision—it is just my view of the world—was the removal of 100W bulbs. As for the consolidation of charger models, the Commission has ensured through a memorandum of understanding that new interchangeable mobile phone chargers should reach the market by 2010 onwards. I am sure that I am not the first member to have complained that, every time I am lucky enough to get a new phone, it uses a different charger, even if the phone is of the same make as the previous one. The EU has made popular decisions that demonstrate the importance of economic union.
I mentioned those issues because it is important to note that the language that we as politicians use in relation to the EU—such as “infraction procedures” and “subsidiarity protocols”—is perhaps not the most accessible to the ordinary person on the street. It is our duty to ensure that the EU is an accessible institution to the people whom we represent. I am not surprised that Governments that have conducted referendums on the Lisbon treaty have struggled to make the case, because not enough has been done to make the EU a democratic and relevant institution. However, the Lisbon treaty could change that. Given the extended competences and the gathering of pace on co-operation on freedom, security and justice, it is imperative that the Scottish Parliament can influence matters in which it has a direct interest. For that reason, I commend the committee for its imaginative ideas on how we can initiate early warning systems to ensure that we do not lose out. If we do not have formal systems, the EU will simply make decisions that we will be affected by, so the committee’s report has an important status.
We want the fact that Scotland has a unique legal system to be respected. As Michael Clancy from the Law Society of Scotland has pointed out, there are no Scottish MEPs on the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, and it was not so long ago that there was not one lawyer who had been trained in Scots law on the Commission’s team of lawyers. We must be extremely vigilant about the possibility of our laws being encroached on without our knowledge. That is why an early warning system is critical.
In my experience, the Commission has been responsive to requests from Scottish Parliament committees that they be able to respond to, and to make submissions on, proposed legislative measures, but the ordinary legislative procedure is highly significant as it will allow us to make representations directly to the European Parliament.
The suggestion that we should appoint EU co-ordinators to each committee seems to be useful, because it cannot be the exclusive role of the European and External Relations Committee to scrutinise European matters. The point that the committee’s report tries to get across is that it is for the whole Parliament and its committee system to do that, which is what the recommendations are designed to achieve.
The report’s suggestions have a lot of potential, but the Parliament must be clear about the formal mechanisms that it wants to put in place for next session. As Irene Oldfather eloquently outlined, that is a legacy that we need to leave for the next four years. If we can do that, I think that we will have done our job.
15:16
I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for reminding me of two positive outcomes of the Lisbon treaty, as I could not think of any.
As members will be aware, the Germans are already talking about reopening discussions on the treaty with a view to dealing with the hopelessly inadequate reserve fund that the euro-zone nations have cobbled together, so it is clear that the financial provisions—and possibly other provisions—of the Lisbon treaty are far from set in stone. As David Cameron has made clear, any changes in the treaty will require the approval of the British people in a referendum.
The gestation period of the committee’s report on the present treaty stretches back some two years. Since we began our deliberations all those weeks ago, no fewer than 20 members have served on the committee. I and our redoubtable convener are the only two members who have stayed on the committee over that time. I pay tribute to the clerks for their efforts in achieving continuity in preparing the report in those far from ideal circumstances.
Our work highlights the opportunity that the treaty presented for national Parliaments, devolved Parliaments and devolved Governments to play a greater role in the EU’s decision-making process. As a moderate Eurosceptic, I welcome any moves that would see powers being transferred from the continent back to this country.
The report argues strongly that there is a genuine need for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to have a greater say in areas that are of significant interest to Scotland, such as energy and climate change, and to have a stronger voice in existing priority areas such as agriculture and fisheries. I will say more about fisheries later.
The key point is that the Scottish Parliament needs to be more vigilant in scrutinising proposed European legislation. The so-called subsidiarity protocol offers a chance for the Scottish Parliament to challenge any incursion into areas of devolved interest but, in reality, it can do so only through the UK Parliament, so it is vital that there be a formal mechanism to ensure co-operation on that issue between the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The proposed eight-week period under the subsidiarity protocol is far from satisfactory. The report rightly suggests ways in which a devolved Parliament such as ours can ensure that the Scottish dimension is taken into account as timeously as possible.
The most important of the decision-making changes is the extension of the ordinary legislative procedure to 40 new articles, which cover around 95 per cent of EU legislative activity. That means that several of the areas that are now encompassed by the OLP—most notably, justice and security, judicial matters, agriculture and fisheries, and tourism—are major devolved competences of the Scottish Parliament. In the time that is available, I can deal with only two of them.
I turn first to justice matters. The UK, as the member state, has secured an opt-in for all freedom, security and justice matters, but that could have difficult and complex consequences for Scotland, which might be forced to adopt legislation that does not suit its legal system. Conversely, Scotland might be unable to take advantage of EU legislation that might be beneficial. The committee strongly urges the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland’s unique situation is represented in the formulation of any UK negotiating line.
On fisheries, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation claimed in evidence that extending the OLP to cover fisheries will bring potential advantages in influencing decision making. However, since the key factors that affect the Scottish fleet are not included in the OLP—I refer to the setting of total allowable catches, quotas and the vexed questions of discards and days at sea—what influence can be brought to bear through the OLP? I see little appetite among member states, and little scope in the new legislation, for the root-and-branch reform of the common fisheries policy, despite all the weasel words of good intent that we often hear from Brussels.
It would be impossible for the European and External Relations Committee to carry out scrutiny on such a hugely augmented raft of legislation, especially within such a constricted timeframe. Our report recommends that a more active approach be taken to early engagement using rapporteurs and working with the subject committees. We believe that the subject committees should have significant responsibility for making early contact in their individual policy areas, in the manner that was outlined by Irene Oldfather.
I commend the committee’s report on the impact of the Lisbon treaty to the chamber.
15:21
I am speaking in this debate as replacement for my colleague, Jim Hume, who is a member of the European and External Relations Committee. Unfortunately he cannot be with us today because of a family bereavement. I am sure that Parliament will join me in passing our condolences on to Jim and his family on such a sad day.
I congratulate the committee on the work that it has done in this area. I might be one of the 20 people to whom Ted Brocklebank referred, because I was a member of the European and External Relations Committee during the first year of this parliamentary session before I moved on to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. The gestation period of this important inquiry started when I was on the committee.
Much has been said about the Lisbon treaty by many people. Some of it is true, and some less so. However, people tend to forget that the Lisbon treaty was largely about reforming the institutions of Europe rather than about extending Europe’s power and scope. The European institutions were established for a Europe that had 12 or 15 members, but Europe now has 27 members. The European Union was no longer fit for purpose and it required major reform and change. That is largely what the Lisbon treaty is about.
Many of the treaty’s other aspects that have been criticised were about bringing together in one document the competences of Europe, and the areas in which Europe does not have competence, which is equally important. That was an important piece of work that was done during the bringing together of the Lisbon treaty.
I do not necessarily agree with everything in the treaty, and I do not necessarily think that it has gone far enough in democratising Europe, but it certainly has gone some way towards dealing with what was a clear democratic deficit within the European institutions. In particular, it extends the powers of the European Parliament for co-decision in a much wider area of European policies. In fact, the majority of European legislation requires co-decision with the European Parliament, and it now goes through the ordinary legislative procedure, to which Ted Brocklebank referred. That is an important change to how Europe works, and we will see significant changes in the nature of the European Union in the coming years as the European Parliament flexes its muscles in those new areas of power.
Another important aspect of the treaty is largely what today’s debate is about: the protocol around the applications of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. That is an important protocol that sets more limits around what the European Union can do, and it makes clear what national Parliaments and, for the first time ever in a European document, sub-national Parliaments with legislative powers can do. It is extremely important that we now have in a European treaty formal recognition that the Scottish Parliament, as a legislative assembly, has the right to a say when Europe extends its reach beyond what is appropriate in terms of subsidiarity and proportionality.
The committee’s report and the draft procedure that it has developed are sensible and wise, so I look forward to seeing how the experiment works. The suggestion that there should be a reporter from each committee is valuable. My immediate thought was that that could be a role for the committee’s deputy convener. It would obviously be a matter for each committee to consider, but I think that it would be useful for each deputy convener to take on the role of European reporter.
It is also important that the European and External Relations Committee has had discussions with Westminster. One thing that is clear is that, if the new system is going to work and Scotland is to have its say in European matters, we need clear procedures so that we are consulted immediately on any issue in which there are devolution implications. I am glad that the committee was able to bring the issue up; I may be able to say a few more words on it in my summing up.
We move to the open debate, with speeches of four minutes.
15:25
The Lisbon treaty is the culmination of almost a decade of attempts to reform the functioning of a constantly enlarging European Union. For some, it makes a decent attempt at addressing the EU’s democratic deficit, but for others it is nothing but a Brussels trap for power and centralisation.
Let us get the facts straight. The treaty is a watered-down version of the European constitution, which was drafted by a constitutional convention—an innovative method that involved representatives from all member states. Scotland’s voice was the late Professor Neil MacCormick, an expert in constitutional law. It is the first time a European treaty has been drawn up in such a transparent and representative manner, so the propaganda that it has somehow been imposed on member states is laughable.
The SNP had one issue with the constitution—or Lisbon treaty , as it is now called—and that was the common fisheries policy. It is our view that fisheries should be repatriated to member states, and to that end I welcome the European Union’s reform of the CFP that is due for 2013. Despite the fisheries aspect, however, there is no denying that the institutional reforms that the treaty makes are pivotal for the functioning of a union of 27 states. For instance, it strengthens the role of national Parliaments and gives greater recognition to Europe’s regional and local entities.
In fact, the Lisbon treaty is a major turning point for the Scottish Parliament and the European and External Relations Committee, as both will have an increased role to play in scrutinising the EU decision-making process. I therefore welcome the committee report and its proposed EU strategy, in particular the proposal to create for each subject committee European Union co-ordinators, who can advise on European Union policy and look out for emerging legislation. We could have avoided so much Labour spin in the Health and Sport Committee if there had been an EU co-ordinator telling us from the start that minimum pricing is perfectly legal under EU law.
I am particularly interested by the new protocol on the application of subsidiarity. The Scottish Parliament will have less than eight weeks to formulate a stance and feed it back to Westminster, if it ever considers that the protocol has been breached. In that respect, the committee is absolutely right to express concern that Whitehall departments could ignore the Scottish position.
Unlike other European countries such as Germany, Belgium or Austria, whose constitutions oblige central Government to consult regional parliaments, the UK Government has no legal obligation to consult devolved Administrations and to seek a common position. While nations such as Bavaria, the Basque Country and Flanders have the constitutional power to shape the overall member state position, the most that Scotland can hope for is an informal agreement. In my view, that is inadequate and I encourage the committee to do all that it can to establish a strong and credible mechanism with London and other devolved Administrations, whereby the Scottish position is heard and considered at every stage.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry. I have only four minutes; otherwise, I would certainly give way.
What a nightmare that must sound to centralist London, which for all these years has been coming up with its Eurosceptic positions all alone. For years, Labour denied the Scottish ministers the opportunity to represent the UK at EU council meetings.
To conclude, the Lisbon treaty gives our Parliament a greater opportunity for involvement, but the challenge that now faces us is to ensure that we can take advantage. It is also clear that, while many Länder and other regions of Europe are treated as equals in their respective member states, Scotland’s voice has been subdued by an overparanoid and centralist London for almost 40 years of EU membership. Scotland must have real influence in Europe, and it can do so only with its own votes in the Council of Ministers, 13 Scottish MEPs, an independent civil service in Brussels, and its very own Scottish commissioner.
15:30
I congratulate the members of the European and External Relations Committee on their welcome report, as well as the clerks to the committee, those from SPICe who were involved in the research team and all the witnesses who have been mentioned by my colleagues. For once—and only once—I agree with Ian McKee about the late Professor Neil MacCormick and mention my own dear friend, Kenneth Munro, who used to head the office in Scotland for European Union matters. Those two people are legends in their own time. I was an enthusiastic member of the European and External Relations Committee and, like others, served with Irene Oldfather and Iain Smith, although I do not remember serving with Ted Brocklebank.
I have been very impressed with the issues that the committee has raised in its report, which are important. However, one issue is critical and requires to be agreed and endorsed by the Parliament today. I refer to the evidence that was given by Professor Michael Keating, who said that it is vital that the Parliament agrees—among others—the committee’s recommendation that there be established a formal mechanism for dispute resolution covering all areas where the UK, as a member state, may have a different opinion from the devolved Scottish Parliament, so that Scotland’s interests are protected. The report tells us clearly that there will be times when the opt-in will be good for Scotland and times when the opt-out will be better for Scotland. That is where there is potential for real dispute, which is why it is vital that the matter is resolved. We are grateful to Professor Michael Keating and others for making that point.
As the minister said, nowhere is that more important than in the area of justice and home affairs. Scotland has a rich justice system to protect. We should pay particular regard to the evidence that was given to the Parliament by Donald Henderson, the EU director for the Scottish Government, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland, and Professor Becker of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. They all spelled out to the Parliament what the implications are for the new opt-in system relating to freedom, security and justice matters. It is vital that Scotland’s interests are protected, and I hope that the Parliament endorses that recommendation with enthusiasm today.
I know, from my work with eastern European countries, that there are many aspects of work in which we can share knowledge and experience. I am especially keen to see that being developed in practical ways. I could cite many examples of situations in which co-operation would be of mutual benefit but will cite one that is topical today: Bulgaria and Romania know how to keep the trains running in exceptionally severe weather. Maybe Scotland has an immediate need to co-operate in that area, starting now. A second area for co-operation is police and security matters. I would be happy to share with appropriate personnel the detail of my experience and why I cite that as my second choice. With the new and extended competencies come opportunities to develop enhanced co-operation between enforcement agencies across Europe, which—I agree with the committee—is to be viewed as a positive development.
The evidence that was provided to committee members by a range of experts is important reading for all who are concerned with our freedom, security and justice, but time does not permit me or them to speak about that today. However, that evidence convinces me that the recommendations of the European and External Relations Committee are appropriate. The committee has responded extremely well to the challenges that I know are significant for the Parliament. It is almost too easy for us parliamentarians to say that European politics is for the MEPs. Our attitude must change, simply because the Lisbon treaty now extends the range and reach of shared competencies between the EU and member states. We know that many areas of shared or supporting competence are devolved matters. We know, too, that most areas of devolved competence are now subject to some degree of EU involvement. So, if we are not to imperil the people of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament must agree the recommendations about the way in which we work as parliamentarians on committees and how we are vigilant about issues related to our committees coming across the horizon.
Ian McKee will know and will, perhaps, bear testimony to the fact that I campaigned tenaciously on the issue of cross-border health care and EU legislation. I hope that that gives the minister a response to her previous question about those members who have an interest in European matters. I hope that I have demonstrated to her an absolute interest in all European matters, and I congratulate everyone who is associated with this piece of work.
15:35
I add my congratulations to the committee on the lucidity of its report.
The Lisbon treaty was signed on 12 December 2007 when the market-driven economy seemed at its zenith, although as we now know, it was already crumbling from within. The treaty was a bid to bring a united Europe abreast of the United States of America as an economic motor, and in that context there was a role for Scotland as a financial services centre. What remains of that bid today? At the time, Gordon Brown’s Labour Government rather looked down on the European business of widget making, preferring the grown-up game of speculating on asset-backed securities—what a lovely secure concept! However, that was in fact like loaning millions to Homer Simpson. The result was that investment banks, including the high-street retail banks, now regarded by many as a form of international banditry, slumped. Bankers, however, survive and as Professor John Kay argued in 2009, their recovery is heading towards a double dip at least.
In this quite different world, Lisbon’s Europe still presents possibilities for Scotland. As the great constitutionalist Lord Bryce wrote in his book “The American Commonwealth”, never underestimate the powers of convention and manoeuvre in semi-federal structures. There are formal treaties, such as Lisbon, and two other factors—the balance of power in Europe and the tendency of small countries with distinctive resources to use that balance to bargain for particular rights.
We have heard of the two-speed Europe, which demonstrably exists, but there is also an evolving and intriguing two-directional Europe: a Franco-English nuclear alliance with would-be great power pretensions and enough aircraft carriers to go with it, and a German-Scandinavian industrial, ecological, potentially low-carbon Europe. What has changed is the influence of energy on the balance of European power. If the 2008 bust was a replay of the South Sea bubble of the 1720s, we now face the sort of revolution that faced James Watt and the steam engine—a large and feeble contraption—in the 1760s, and the evolution of a new marine energy technology that is only beginning to get into its stride.
Using current technology, Scotland has about 20 per cent of Europe’s marine energy resources, but with improved turbines and power storage systems—pump storage has almost doubled in efficiency to 90 per cent—we could greatly increase that. We also have the potential to provide carbon capture for up to 15 years of the CO2 emissions from northern Europe. We are the most convenient break-bulk centre for goods to and from the far east, making use of the opening up of the north-east passage between China and the ports of the Rhine delta. In other words, if we were to subtract Scotland from Europe in five or six years, Europe would look significantly different.
Those factors mean that in securing our political and economic chances, only independence will enable us to manoeuvre with success. However, we must keep a wary and, I hope, emulating eye on the success of Norway, and the overcentralisation and lobbyism of what I would style the Brussels-London-Paris triangle, because all those places are far closer to each other than to us.
15:39
When the business manager called me and said, “Frank, we want you to speak about Lisbon,” I clearly misunderstood the message and thought about the last time that Scotland made a great contribution in Lisbon—obviously, that was the 1967 European cup-winning side. On the internet page that I checked, the national symbol for each player was shown down the left-hand side; one of the most emotional moments was seeing that every player’s national symbol was the Scottish flag. I do not think that that will ever happen again with any future champions league winners.
In the real debate, I follow on from Christopher Harvie’s speech; my speech may not be as erudite, but it may be a bit more populist. We need to learn the lessons that we have had in Europe. My opinion is that the issue will not go away; it may well emerge come the debate on it within the UK coalition Government. I await with interest the emissaries of Ted Brocklebank in the Conservative party in the House of Commons emerging over the next couple of years on Europe.
There is also the debate about powers. It is interesting that we are having this debate on the very day that we have debated the Scotland Bill, because many of the speeches by SNP members in this debate act as a counterpoint to the speeches that they made in the debate on the Scotland Bill—other than on the absolute position, which I respect, of arguing for an independent Scotland.
Having spent the previous couple of days in Brussels, I returned to what should be an advanced European nation that is able to cope with many difficulties. However, when I arrived in Glasgow city centre at midnight on Tuesday I realised that a nuclear attack must have taken place, given the condition of the streets.
In those brief two days—I have been a member of the European and External Relations Committee for only a brief period—I learned a number of important lessons and took away some key messages, which members have already mentioned. Clearly, the Lisbon treaty addresses, in the way in which powers of competence are redefined, the ways in which nation states or regions—however we are defined or would like to be defined in the future—make a contribution to Europe. It strikes me that we have an opportunity, through our parliamentary procedure and our Government strategy, to try to exercise our influence on the European stage more effectively.
In the discussions of equivalent nation states or regions that we spoke about in our two days in Brussels, there are four important messages. One is that we need to influence the decision makers. I touch on what Christopher Harvie said about the axes of power that may exist, in terms of either defence or economic regeneration and industrial policy. Obviously, I would prefer the latter to the former. We need to influence that. Are we aware of developments early doors as a result of the Government’s European strategy? In addition, do we have the right people in all the right places in Europe? We must not assume that the matter is solely the responsibility of the European office. A number of discussions touched on how we can ensure that individuals from Scotland influence much of the committee decision making through, perhaps, the role that they play within the Council itself and in all the bureaucracy that exists in Europe.
Secondly, what is our relationship with our MEPs and beyond? That issue was raised constantly and I welcome the committee report’s recommendations about regular liaison with our MEPs. How do we engage with rapporteurs and various other agents in the infrastructure and ecology of Brussels? We would welcome such engagement.
There are a number of important issues that we need to touch on. I welcome the idea of having EU co-ordinators within parliamentary committees. I love the buzzwords that come up throughout the documents; I have developed an understanding of “upstream”, “horizon scanning” and “downstream”, so my advanced knowledge is markedly better this week than it was last week. I think that what they mean is, “Have we got the right people in the right place trying to do the right things?” I would say that that was the fundamental message. Although the key policy areas are clearly there in the European strategy, it is important that we try to realign with the MEPs.
Obviously, much of the debate is about how we can continue to influence some of the resource allocation in Europe. That is an important issue. I note with interest that European Union funds may still be available for sport. I return to my initial comments about how we can ensure that we produce the level of talent through our sporting investment, with the support of the EU, that could perhaps result in another Scottish team having the success that we had on that wonderful summer’s night in May 1967.
15:44
I do not know whether I can follow Jock Stein’s team, but I will do my best.
I am here as a member of the European and External Relations Committee, although I was not a member of the committee when it looked into the important issues of how the Lisbon treaty will affect Scotland’s role in the EU decision-making process and how the Scottish Parliament can take advantage of the new powers for sub-national Parliaments that are contained in the treaty.
Although the SNP was wary of the treaty at its inception, realpolitik dictates that, for the greater benefit of the people of Scotland, we must make its provisions work in the best interests of our country. The Parliament should use all the opportunities that are provided to scrutinise proposed European legislation to best effect. In particular, we must look positively on the treaty because it provides the committee with an active scrutiny role and possibilities to assess any possible breach of subsidiarity. My late friend and SNP colleague Professor Neil MacCormick, who has been mentioned by a number of members, was a strong supporter of the treaty and led the debate on its likely effects in Scotland. I believe that his role deserves recognition, because he put the Scottish stamp on the Lisbon treaty.
The protocol on application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality provides an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to take part in the scrutiny process for legislative proposals from the European Commission. That opportunity to address the democratic deficit that we have all heard of is, of course, to be welcomed, and the extension of qualified majority voting in the Council will add to the efficiency of the processes. I particularly welcome the introduction of the charter of fundamental rights to European primary law. Protocol 30 clarifies the application of the EU charter of fundamental rights, which reconfirms existing rights. That is to be welcomed. I must also mention that the recognition of the possibility of a state’s withdrawal from the EU—I think that Ted Brocklebank will be fully in favour of that—is a sign of political maturity that has been sadly lacking in the past.
Turning to how we can make our influence felt, I am pleased that the Minister for Culture and External Affairs has provided summaries following each joint ministerial committee meeting and I look forward to the further discussions among the Administrations that are involved in the JMC process as they move towards greater openness in those discussions. I hope that the European and External Relations Committee will lead the Scottish Parliament towards greater and more influential involvement at the EU level of governance. With more and more legislative influence from Brussels becoming evident each year, the Lisbon treaty gives us an opportunity to directly intervene in European legislative proposals up to the point of objecting to any proposals that do not conform with the principles of subsidiarity. That is where the Scottish Parliament’s European strategy, which was developed to ensure that we can engage with, scrutinise and monitor EU legislation, must be used to best advantage.
We cannot afford to find ourselves at the fag end of processes that affect the day-to-day lives of Scotland’s citizens. That would leave us as mere administrators of the decisions of others. Let us therefore ensure that our Scottish Parliament is as proactive as possible in the implementation of the treaty, to the benefit of Scotland.
15:48
It has been a short but interesting debate on this important topic. A number of important points have been raised by members. Pauline McNeill mentioned the issue of mobile chargers. Having a basket full of old mobile chargers in my garage that go back more years than I care to remember, I certainly look forward to the day when I do not need to get a new charger when I change my phone. However, there are other areas in which Europe provides direct benefits to British and Scottish citizens. For example, in air travel, even Ryanair has to listen to the European Union and give compensation when it fails to deliver services to air passengers. We would not have been able to do something about that in Scotland alone, but as part of the European Union, we have been able to ensure that, when disruption is caused to air passengers, it can be dealt with.
Ian McKee mentioned the fact that the Lisbon treaty came out of the European constitutional convention. I am pleased to note that that was a constitutional convention that the SNP actually got involved in. It is a valuable lesson that the treaty came out of that convention. It was about democratising the European Union, and the European Parliament has been significantly strengthened as a result. One reason why some people are so opposed to the Lisbon treaty is that it is taking some of the power away from the Council of Ministers and the Commission and giving it to a democratically elected European Parliament.
Helen Eadie mentioned the opt-in provisions on justice and home affairs, and said that sometimes it will be good for us to opt in, and sometimes to opt out, which is very important. There are Eurosceptics who have opposed all European involvement in justice and home affairs, even to the extent of opposing things such as the European arrest warrant, which allows us to give our citizens greater protection. We have that option, and we need to work with the UK Government on the procedures with regard to when it would be appropriate for Scotland to opt in even if the rest of the UK does not want to do so, and vice versa.
It is always interesting to listen to my committee colleague Christopher Harvie. He manages to get into every debate such key issues as our friends in the banking sector and the things that they got up to, as well as the north-east passage. He makes an important point: the European dimension is necessary with regard to the financial sector, because we need to work across boundaries to ensure that we avoid the type of behaviour from the bankers that resulted in the situation that we are now in.
It is difficult to comment on a speech by Frank McAveety, because he always takes an interesting angle on the issue in question. I am just about old enough to remember 1967 and Lisbon. He pointed out that a number of speeches from SNP members seemed to be more appropriate to this morning’s debate, as they addressed the question of independence rather than how we deal with the Lisbon treaty; that is a bit of a red herring in my view.
I am the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which the European and External Relations Committee highlighted as one of the committees that has a particular interest in Europe, certainly with regard to energy issues. Europe has shared interests, so it is appropriate that the European Union has a shared competence in energy matters on things such as security of supply; we know what happened with the gas market a couple of years ago.
We know that on climate change, emissions have to be reduced throughout Europe. The Scottish Government has indicated that without action in Europe to increase its targets, it will be difficult for Scotland to reach the 42 per cent target. The document “Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”, which was published last week, suggests that we would be able to reach only 32 per cent.
Renewable energy is an area in which Europe is pressing forward, through the development of carbon capture and storage, and—very importantly—the European supergrid, which will allow us to ensure that renewable energy sources from all over Europe can spread throughout Europe.
Those things are all important, and the Lisbon treaty helps us to deliver them.
15:52
I will do my best to find something to say, but I think it will be a struggle.
I was immediately struck by Ted Brocklebank’s point that 20 members—some 15 per cent of all MSPs—had participated in the process. As a substitute on the European and External Relations Committee, I am sad to report that I have not yet been called on to deputise for Mr Brocklebank on any of the occasions when evidence was taken in the inquiry.
Today we have had the Scotland Bill, Bill Kidd’s nuclear weapons-free classrooms debate and now the Lisbon treaty—all my favourite things in one concentrated session. I pay tribute to Irene Oldfather for the way in which she set out the committee’s report with some clarity. She identified in detail the challenges to Scotland from the Lisbon treaty, and the need to ensure that Scotland is able to engage with colleagues at Westminster in an effective manner—which was the key point—to further its interests.
I welcome Irene Oldfather’s approach to the committee conveners: I was encouraged by the response that she was able to detail and I look forward to seeing how that develops in the new year.
The minister gave a positive welcome to the committee, and her contribution was the first occasion I can recall on which there was no repetition of the independence litany. I give thanks for such small mercies. I know it was there beneath the surface, unspoken, but we got through the whole debate without having it positioned.
Pauline McNeill made a sensible and well-illustrated contribution. Although I may not share her enthusiasm—she had certain reservations, but she is more enthusiastic about the whole European project than I am—I thought that her points were clear and well made. In particular, I appreciated her illustration of the benefits of and the need for the early-warning system with regard to the potential consequences for the legal system. Helen Eadie expanded on that and brought in to support it evidence from a number of the experts who have appeared before the committee.
Ted Brocklebank again emphasised the need for vigilance and the need for a formal mechanism. In fact, in some nations in Europe, there is even a constitutionally established mechanism. The key point that I return to, which Irene Oldfather made, is that the mechanism needs to be effective.
Ian McKee made up for Fiona Hyslop, of course, with a paranoid contribution in which the more naked independence arguments were brought out. He was followed by Christopher Harvie, with one of his idiosyncratic, if illuminating, polemics. His independent commentary is always fascinating and intriguingly caustic. His speeches always make us think, even when their relevance to immediate concerns and matters at hand can be tenuous. We will lose Mr Harvie at the next election. The Deputy Presiding Officer should lobby the BBC. He would be the ideal man to do the Royal Institution Christmas lectures next year. He could give us five polemics over our Christmas holiday period, which I am sure that we would all be better for.
Frank McAveety illustrated why he will be an engaging and entertaining member of the European and External Relations Committee. Helen Eadie and I must both wish that he had been a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee during all the years in which we have struggled through its meetings. Mr McAveety talked about engagement for Scotland’s future advantage. He also brought up the ghost of 1967. What happened then is seared in my memory for reasons that he might not expect. My parents were away on holiday, and the lady who came to look after us did not have a television set, so her entire family descended on us. That evening was an education in many ways that I had not quite expected. It burns in my consciousness even to this day.
Bill Kidd made a business-like speech. I will close by taking on board a point that he made, which sums up the great expectation of and hope for the SNP Government. He said that he was sceptical of the treaty initially, but realpolitik means that, in the best interests of Scotland, we must make its provisions work. How we look forward to that attitude being applied to the Scotland Bill as it makes progress.
15:56
Irene Oldfather asked whether the changes will enable us to do our job better, and illustrated throughout her speech that the answer to that question is yes. I endorse the words of Jackson Carlaw in congratulating her on the constant work that she has done on Europe. I hope that she now thinks that we will meet some of her expectations in basing Europe in our work better than we have done in the past.
The European and External Relations Committee has shown that it is a linchpin in leading the way to ensuring that we are better Europeans and that we do our job as democrats in ensuring that the EU becomes more democratic.
Irene Oldfather talked about embedding in our parliamentary system, and she said that we should not be observers. I think that Iain Smith also said that. The word “embed” is critical to how we progress matters. We do not want to be observers. We want the system to be embedded in our parliamentary system because, if it is not, something will certainly fall through a loophole somewhere.
Fiona Hyslop talked about a treaty-based role for the Parliament and the implications for justice in particular. I agree that dangers lie in that area if we do not properly set up systems through which we can look to see everything that will impact on the Scottish Parliament.
Ted Brocklebank described himself as a “moderate Eurosceptic”. I agree with most of what he said. I am impressed that he has never missed a meeting of the committee; perhaps he is more enthusiastic than he makes out. He pointed out that the opt-out procedure can be used only through the UK Government. Others have made that point. It is therefore essential that we have a proper and consistent dialogue with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland is part of the process.
Ted Brocklebank also talked about freedom, security and justice. I think that we need to scrutinise that area most. Perhaps Scotland has a lot to offer Europe in that area. For example, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is the largest user of the European Police Office. I like to think that we have something to offer Europe in that regard. We have lessons that can be learned. We are one of the few countries in the 27 member states whose system is based on a common law system. I have spoken many times in the Parliament about where Europe has unfairly encroached on our family law. When we have completed our legislative process, Europe has wanted to go a little bit further than we would want to go. That demonstrates to me that we need formal mechanisms to ensure that we will not go where we have no desire to go.
Iain Smith talked about the expansion of the co-decision procedure to cover a wider range of issues. I agree that it is about making the EU much more democratic. Therefore, the European Parliament’s powers in that respect have to be welcomed.
I agree with Ian McKee that the Lisbon treaty is a turning point. Helen Eadie, another long-standing proponent of a stronger Europe, says that our attitude has to change, and I agree with that. She amplified the point that Scotland’s interest will be protected better in relation to the opt-out if we have more formal procedures with the UK.
Irene Oldfather let me see a letter from the House of Lords showing that there has been discussion about the House of Lords and the House of Commons incorporating the view of the Scottish Parliament into what they do in relation to Europe. That probably answers the question that was raised earlier about having that recognised by the UK Parliament.
As ever, Christopher Harvie made a marvellously compiled speech. He got to the heart of the issue, which is that we have to consider the balance of power in Europe. He is right that energy issues have probably changed the balance of power. We will see where that ends up.
I have always known that Lisbon has a different meaning for my colleague Frank McAveety than it has for most people. As a novice member of the European and External Relations Committee, he has mastered the Eurospeak in a way that only he could do. He boils it down to the issues of influencing the decision makers, access to power and realigning ourselves with MEPs.
Bill Kidd is right to ask us to recognise the work of Neil MacCormick, and I am happy to do that. Bill Kidd said that we should not come in at the fag end of discussions—I have always liked that phrase, but I am not often allowed to use it.
I am pleased to support the report that the European and External Relations Committee has compiled. The legacy for the next session of Parliament must be to embed a formal system in our work to ensure that the powers of the European Parliament are properly scrutinised in Scotland’s best interests.
16:01
The debate has been informed and engaging. I particularly appreciated the reflections on the role of Professor Neil MacCormick and Ken Munro in Scotland’s contribution to developing European constitutional policy. I also appreciated the thoughtful comments from Chris Harvie and Frank McAveety. It is important to reflect that we can take on more roles and responsibility and be proactive with direct EU engagement. I welcome the Parliament-wide strategy for European engagement and scrutiny.
The debate has involved confessions. We had a confession from Pauline McNeill that she cannot change a plug, but she made a relevant point about how we can ensure that people can relate to decisions that are made by Europe. We had the confession that Iain Smith is one of some 20 MSPs who have at one point been a member of the European and External Relations Committee. I confess that I am not and have never been a member of the European and External Relations Committee, but I very much appreciate the work that it does.
The introduction of new competencies and the extension of existing ones has required a great deal of cross-organisational response from the Scottish Government and Scotland’s public bodies. We have recently discussed with sportscotland, VisitScotland and Creative Scotland how to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available, such as those on the EU’s new sport policy, and how to co-ordinate responses to Commission consultations, such as the recent consultation on the future EU programme for culture.
We have stepped up engagement with the European Parliament and our MEPs, particularly on key interest areas. For example, our engagement on common agricultural policy reform has included hosting a visit to Scotland from Paolo De Castro, the chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and regular contact with George Lyon MEP.
We have worked closely with the UK Government on freedom, security and justice issues for many years, providing input from the Scottish perspective. We will continue to build on that experience and ensure that our interests are properly and positively represented. Although snow prevented the Lord Advocate from attending last week’s justice and home affairs council, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice attended the November council. The Parliament now has the opportunity to comment on whether the Commission’s legislative proposals adhere to the subsidiarity principle when they concern areas of devolved competence. Together, we can ensure that we have early intelligence gathering and that we have robust systems in place to do that.
On openness on our engagement with the UK Government, the Scottish Government has already taken steps to give the committee a better understanding of the work of the joint ministerial committee on Europe by providing summary reports following each meeting. I have consistently said that I favour as much openness as appropriate around the process, bearing it in mind that a certain level of confidentiality is required to allow full and free intergovernmental discussion to take place. The snow on Monday meant that I could not travel to London for the recent JMC Europe but, in a telephone call with David Lidington, I raised several points on the Commission’s new energy 2020 strategy and the EU budget review. Officials who attended noted that HM Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change are keen to continue their close working relationship with us on those issues.
Energy is a good example. A number of members touched on the subject. It was mentioned that the strategic, proactive and focused approach through our EU action plan is delivering results for Scotland. This week, as part of the UK delegation, Jim Mather took a full part in the EU co-ordination that was central to the Cancun conference. That is another example of how Scotland is maximising our experience. Christopher Harvie’s analysis of the power proposals and, indeed the strategic direction of Europe, was interesting in terms of where Scotland can influence, particularly in relation to marine energy.
I turn to research. We are working actively with business, academia and policy makers to look at the opportunities through the next framework programme for research and development—another interest of the Parliament. In the new year, we will host an event to launch our strategic engagement approach on this area. We will provide information on the future of European research and innovation and outline the benefits of engagement in European research and innovation programmes. We will debate and discuss future priorities for Scotland in a European context.
Engaging early and directly with Europe will ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard. I know that I am in danger of disappointing Jackson Carlaw in saying that I agree with Ian McKee: we want greater direct access to the European Union by bypassing Westminster. Until such time, we accept our duties and obligations as a devolved Government in taking forward Scotland’s interests.
As we debate the Parliament’s new EU strategy and our engagement with Europe more generally, it is important to make Scotland’s voice louder. We will do that if we can find common ground and work together to develop a shared view across the Parliament, Government and all our MEPs. The budget review—including review of the CAP, cohesion and some cross-cutting issues on Europe 2020, energy and the single market—provides opportunities for us to do so across the parties. As well as carrying added weight in the EU and presenting a unified and positive position to the commission and EU institutions on key challenges, we can help to highlight Scotland as a valued, trusted and reliable partner in EU policy.
Irene Oldfather should get a long-service medal for her perseverance on the issue. She and all members of the European and External Relations Committee should be pleased with the report and recommendations, which are a valued contribution in taking forward the Parliament’s work in this area.
16:07
The debate has been informative. As other members have said, the Lisbon treaty has a direct impact on areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In recognition of that, the committee undertook an inquiry into the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland. I join with other members in thanking the committee clerks for all their hard work in preparing the report. I thank the convener and admire her tenacity in pushing the subject and securing this welcome chamber debate.
Irene Oldfather mentioned in her opening speech that the committee’s recommendations look to the Government taking a much more proactive approach—having an early-warning system, if you like—to identify legislation that has a direct effect on the Scottish Parliament. It is important to get that right.
I turn to some comments that were made in the debate. In her first speech, Fiona Hyslop raised the issue of subsidiarity, as did Ian McKee, albeit that his comments were in a different vein. Subsidiarity is important. Like other committee members, I believe that it allows the Scottish Parliament greater opportunities to become involved. That is why we must have in place a system to ensure that we monitor the memoranda that come forward and other European areas that affect Scotland. I also welcome the recognition of the need for closer working with Westminster and the revised explanatory memoranda management system. The minister also referred to that in her first speech.
Pauline McNeill spoke about what the EU means to the public. I agree with her on the light bulb issue. I also know where to buy old-style light bulbs. I can give her the name of the shop where I have just bought about 40 old-style light bulbs. I wanted to do that before they were taken off the shelves. Pauline McNeill made an important point when she said that we may talk about light bulbs and other such issues, but the key point is what the general public takes out of Europe and what the Parliament can get across to them. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that the public knows exactly what is happening in Europe and how Europe affects them. That important point may have been missed by some.
Pauline McNeill also mentioned freedom, security and justice, as did Helen Eadie. They were absolutely right to mention the uniqueness of the Scots law system and why it must be protected. We have to be very vigilant on the issue.
Ted Brocklebank outlined many areas of the treaty. Like other members, he reiterated the need for vigilance, in particular on the CFP, in which he has a special interest. That is probably why he has been on the European and External Relations Committee for so long. He is absolutely right to say that we have to keep an eye on that one.
Iain Smith was right to remind us that the treaty is about reforming the institution of Europe. That point was well made, because it is sometimes missed.
As ever, Chris Harvie brought new insights to the debate. In particular, he highlighted the significance of energy to the European Union and the importance and uniqueness of Scotland’s position and development in the area. We must monitor and pay close attention to that issue.
Today’s debate is about the Lisbon treaty, but Frank McAveety mentioned Lisbon in another context. He made an important point about the influence that the Scottish Parliament should have in Europe. That issue had not been mentioned before, although it has been thought about. He referred to our relationship with MEPs, which is an important point and is discussed in the committee’s report. The committee was right to raise the issue. Neatly, the member finished on the subject of sport, as he had begun.
Bill Kidd reminded us that the Lisbon treaty has had a rocky road. I am pleased that Pauline McNeill and others recognised the late Professor Neil MacCormick as a great proponent of Europe and a very good statesman.
Having participated in an earlier debate with Jackson Carlaw, I can say only that his summing up was as entertaining as ever; I will leave it at that.
Iain Smith and Pauline McNeill made positive contributions when summing up and reiterated the need for co-operation. That is what it is all about. It is important to stress that, if we co-operate, we can get things right.
Sometimes when we talk about Europe, people do not quite understand what we are talking about. It is our duty to ensure that they do. I have been a member of the European and External Relations Committee for between 10 months and a year, but I must admit that I am still getting my head around some of the acronyms that it uses. We are Europeans, so we should behave like Europeans and engage with the European Community.
It is a good move for the Scottish Parliament that recognises that Europe plays a huge part not just in the lives of Scots but in the Scottish Parliament. I commend the committee’s report to the Parliament.