The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12670, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on Scotland’s place in Europe.
14:21
Scotland has been a progressive and integral part of the European Union for the past 40 years. Engagement with the EU and its institutions is a core priority for this Government. It is a priority that is central to our programme for government with its focus on driving sustainable growth and, tied to that, tackling inequality. That flows from Scotland’s economic strategy, which has internationalisation and engagement with the European Union at its core.
I want to focus on Scotland’s place in the European Union. First, I will focus on our strategic priorities for engagement in the EU, our successes and how we are building on those successes. Secondly, I want to focus on the benefits that EU membership brings to Scotland and vice versa, and why it is vital that that membership continues.
Lastly, I want to spell out why it would be unacceptable for Scotland to be dragged from the European Union against her will and why we need to put in place appropriate safeguards to prevent that from happening.
The institutions in Brussels have undergone considerable renewal and change over the past year or so. Elections to the European Parliament in May 2014 returned many new members of the European Parliament from across Europe. They also returned a number of members of strengthened Eurosceptic parties—a symptom, perhaps, of the frustration felt by EU citizens that the institutions have grown too remote from the citizens they are meant to serve.
A new European Commission, under the presidency of Jean-Claude Juncker, has taken office, with significant changes to its feel and structure. That includes a beefed-up role for vice-presidents, who, over the next five years, will be responsible for overseeing the delivery of key strategic objectives in, for example, energy, economic growth and the completion of the single market.
The Commission has now published its work programme for 2015, which is a 23-point plan aimed at progressing the Commission’s EU 2020 growth strategy. The programme is designed to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth across the entire continent. It fits squarely with our own economic agenda, which, as well as an economic focus, has a social focus. I wrote to the European and External Relations Committee earlier this year to set out the key areas of interest for the Scottish Government. A copy of that letter is available in the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Critical issues for Scotland in that work programme include ensuring the successful agreement of the so-called Juncker investment package, which is a loan guarantee fund designed to deliver up to €315 billion in funding to kick-start a pipeline of capital projects across the EU, including, we hope, in Scotland.
We also attach great importance to the completion of the single market in digital infrastructure, the abolition of EU roaming charges and the delivery of an ambitious international climate agreement, in discussions on which Scotland has been a leader.
The minister will be aware of the importance of structural funding to the region that I partly represent. At the back end of last year, there was some concern about decisions on how that funding will be distributed in the Highlands and Islands being centralised more to Edinburgh rather than being made, as has been the case in the past, by partners in the Highlands and Islands. Can the minister give an assurance that that will not be the case and that the decisions will be taken in the Highlands and Islands?
That is an issue that the member has raised previously, and I know that he has had reassurances from this Government. We share his concerns, and I am happy to give him further reassurances in that regard.
I also want to provide some reassurance on the horizon 2020 programme, which Liam McArthur, Claire Baker and members of the academic sector have raised with me. It should be said that we see it as a very successful programme. Scottish academics and institutions have received a great deal of funding from it—we have punched above our weight—so any further reduction in horizon 2020 funding would give us cause for concern. I raised the issue with the United Kingdom Government, and it would be fair to say that, when I did so, a number of UK Government ministers who were present shared my concern.
I hope that the Juncker investment package will provide opportunities for educational establishments and academic institutions to access more funding. Although there has been a monetary reduction in the budget for the horizon 2020 programme, the funding has increased by around 38 per cent. I intend to provide further reassurances on that in the course of the debate.
I will touch on the benefits of EU membership shortly, but it is important to see the EU not just as a place where rules and regulations are made, important as they are; the EU is so much more than that. It is a marketplace for exchanging ideas and for showcasing areas in which Scotland can display leadership.
We have displayed leadership through our hard-working Brussels office in the field of energy policy, which I know is of interest to members. We have worked closely with other states and sub-states to increase the visibility of marine renewable energy, and Scotland has played a leading role in the vanguard initiative, which, as members will know, is a collaboration of 25 innovative European regions that aims to influence EU innovation and industrial policies through collaboration.
The initiative has been active on advanced manufacturing, in which Scotland most certainly has a role to play, and we look forward to welcoming its members to Edinburgh for a visit next week. We have also gathered support among a number of EU member states as a consequence of lobbying for the right to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol following the referral of the Scottish Government’s case to the European Court of Justice.
The Scottish Government has never argued that the EU is perfect—no member state that I have come across has ever argued that. The institutions of the EU have grown distant from its citizens and there is a need for those institutions to reconnect. Key to that is pursuing an agenda that generally adds value and addresses those issues that are problems for citizens across the EU. That is why we welcomed the Commission’s plans to tackle stubbornly high youth unemployment, to promote energy security through the energy union package and to tackle climate change or build a north seas grid. Members will be aware of our document, “Scotland’s Priorities for EU Reform”.
The Commission’s agenda needs to address many other issues, including tackling red tape, for example by decentralising fisheries management, reducing the complexity of the common agricultural policy, extending impact assessments to the additional stages of the regulatory process and giving sub-national Parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament a greater say in ensuring that proposed EU legislation respects the subsidiarity principle.
The Commission’s regulatory fitness and performance—REFIT—programme, which will examine the suitability of existing rules, is welcome. Indeed, the Scottish Government has seconded a senior official to the European Commission to undertake a review of the birds and habitats directives under the REFIT programme. That is an issue that a number of environmental organisations have raised with me and my colleague Dr McLeod. I give an assurance that we will look to the REFIT programme to maintain and increase standards.
The sort of reforms that I have just argued for are about doing things in the EU better and smarter. Of course, EU institutions must also do their part to ensure that they operate transparently, and perhaps that is most important for the current negotiations that are taking place on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I am pleased that the Commission has taken on board the issue of transparency and we are now seeing documentation and discussions online. While the Scottish Government acknowledges that TTIP could well bring benefits, we believe that more needs to be done to address our concerns about the potential impact on the national health service, public services and, of course, the investor-state dispute settlement. We will continue to monitor TTIP.
On the issue of TTIP, would the minister accept that we probably have more common ground with some of our European neighbours than we do with the London Government as far as commitment to public services is concerned?
I am doing my best to be as consensual as I can in the debate. The UK Government knows our position and that we are asking for a black-and-white exemption for the NHS. That is what the people, the Scottish Government and a number of parties in the chamber want. People are not convinced by what we are hearing from the Commission at the moment. If the UK Government and the Commission are telling us that there is no threat to the NHS, I can see no reason why we should not see the black-and-white exemption that the First Minister herself has called for. As the member said, that commitment is shared across Europe when it comes to public services.
In spite of all the concerns that we have, the treaty framework is a suitable legal basis for effecting that necessary change. We do not believe that there is a need for treaty change for the reforms to take place. Indeed, many of them can best be accomplished through existing programmes being operated by the European Commission, such as EU 2020.
Politicians, political parties, civic society and perhaps the business sector need to talk more about the benefits of being part of the European Union. We do not do enough of that. Membership of the European Union gives us access to 500 million citizens and around 20 million businesses that operate in the EU single market.
The EU is a vital export market for Scottish firms, accounting for almost half—46 per cent—of Scotland’s international exports in 2013, which is worth a massive almost £13 billion each year. Almost 40 per cent of the 2,100 foreign-owned businesses in Scotland in 2013 were owned by firms based in the EU, and in every year since 2006 Scotland has been ranked as one of the top two areas of the UK outside London for attracting inward investment. Research suggests that more than 330,000 Scottish jobs were associated with exports to the EU.
Does the minister agree that there is still more to be done within the domestic market to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to look at the potential for export within the European market?
I agree entirely. Internationalisation is one of the four priorities of Scotland’s economic strategy, which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister launched a couple of weeks ago. One top of that, I agree that too few companies in Scotland export to too few sectors in too few countries. It is a priority of the Scottish Government and agencies such as Scottish Development International to increase that pool, and small and medium-sized businesses must certainly be a part of that.
It is important that we do not just view our relationship with the EU as simply a business transaction. It is much more than that. President Juncker has been very clear that protecting the welfare of our citizens in the EU, promoting equality, improving conditions for workers, and strengthening consumer rights are an important part of the agenda and the relationship.
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. It is estimated that 171,000 people who were born elsewhere in the EU live in Scotland. It is very much a two-way exchange that benefits both Scotland and, I would hope, the rest of the European Union.
There is a lot of negative rhetoric about migration from Europe. A study from University College London says that, between 2001 and 2011, EU migrants were responsible for a net benefit to the UK of £20 billion. All of us as politicians have an important job to ensure that we do not let ourselves get dragged down into negativity or hostility in this debate.
Scotland wants to continue to be a constructive member of the EU. We have a general election coming up seven weeks on Thursday, and part of that discussion and debate has been about an in/out referendum. The Scottish Government does not support the Prime Minister’s proposals for such a referendum. We believe that it puts our membership, our businesses and our academic sector at risk.
As parliamentarians, we should not wait for that in/out referendum to put the positive case for Europe on the table. In that regard—
Will you draw to a close, please?
I will end on this point. We believe that there should be a double-majority system for that referendum. We believe that Scotland and indeed other parts of the United Kingdom should not be dragged outside the European Union against their will.
That is why we state in our motion that the UK should not be dragged out of Europe if there is not a majority in favour of that not just in the entire UK but in each of those countries. This Government will continue to press for a double-majority voting system in the event of a future referendum. After all, if Scotland is an equal member of the United Kingdom, its voice should be listened to.
I move,
That the Parliament supports Scotland’s place in the European Union (EU) and its role as an active and constructive member; recognises the importance of the EU single market, which gives Scotland access to 500 million people and 22 million businesses across the EU; further recognises the additional social, cultural and educational benefits of EU membership; highlights the importance of ensuring that Scotland can make a contribution to EU policy-making, particularly in light of the recommendations of the Smith Commission, to support the work of the Scottish Government to deliver sustainable growth, address long-standing inequalities and protect Scotland’s public services; understands the importance of protecting Scotland’s EU membership, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s double majority proposal, which would prevent Scotland from being taken out of the EU against the will of its people.
14:37
I am pleased to be opening this debate for Labour. This is my first opening speech in this area of my portfolio. Previously, as a lead on rural affairs, food and the environment, I have often spoken about the importance of Europe to the delivery of policy in those areas. They are good examples of Scotland’s positive relationship with Europe, and I will return to them later in my opening comments.
The first election that I voted in was for the European Parliament. Unfortunately I was—and continue to be—part of the minority of the electorate who takes part in those elections. Just over 33 per cent of the electorate took part in May 2014, and that was in a year when interest in elections in Scotland was high. Across Europe, the picture was not much better. Although turnout was higher than a third, which was our figure, it was still the lowest recorded turnout.
In many ways, Europe is high on the political agenda for the political classes, but it remains low for voters.
Will the member take a brief intervention?
I ask the member to be brief as I am quite short of time.
Does the member recall that, when the UK entered the European Union in 1973, most of the major broadcasting and print media organisations had correspondents in Brussels? I understand that virtually none now does. Perhaps some of the responsibility lies there.
I am pleased to say that I do not have much recall of 1973, but the member makes a fair point. It is not just down to politicians. It is also down to our society and our media to represent fairly Europe working for us.
I suggest that high on the agenda of reasons why people do not engage with elections is a lack of understanding of what Europe delivers for us in a modern world combined with a lack of confidence that Europe is working for the ordinary person.
We are seeing huge economic challenges across Europe. Our fellow Europeans in many economies are suffering levels of poverty and economic downturn that have not been experienced for many years. Many countries are seeing a crisis in youth unemployment, which leads to significant social problems and often depopulation, as those who can do so are leaving those countries for opportunities elsewhere.
To too many people, it looks as if Europe—the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers—is not responding. It is still often bureaucratic, slow to respond, driven from the centre and inflexible. Here is my first reference to my previous area of knowledge: the common agricultural policy takes up 38 per cent of the EU budget. That is a reduction on previous years, but it is still a significant share of Europe’s support. During the recent reform process, attempts were made to increase the environmental delivery of the policy, to support rural economies, to deliver fairness across the member states and to have an increased focus on jobs and the economy.
However, progress in those areas has been slow, and I question whether the process is working in the public interest. The role that the European Parliament played in those negotiations was important, as it was the first example of co-decision making, but change is slow and challenging. We need greater reform of the European Commission and its bureaucracy; of the European Parliament and its accountability; and of the economic model of the eurozone, which is, for too many economies, now imbalanced.
How do we ensure that we have a Europe that works more transparently in the interests of all its people? As many members will say this afternoon, Europe is hugely important for our economy—it seems to be one area in our proposals that we agree on.
Across the UK, approximately 3 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU, as are 200,000 companies and £200 billion-worth of annual exports, and £450 billion of inward investment that is tied to trade with those partners. In Scotland, we benefit from access to a single market with more than 500 million consumers, and Scottish exports to the EU account for almost 50 per cent of our international exports.
We must also recognise the benefits that we get from EU members who choose to live and work here. We in Scotland have a long tradition of welcoming and working with people from other countries. As a Fife MSP, I represent an area that has a long history of working with the Polish community in particular. We should recognise the contribution to our economy that people make when they come here, especially as we have an ageing population and need people to help to drive our economy.
That is not to ignore the challenges that can be presented. However, the BBC ran a report last week on immigration that presented a number of findings that politicians cannot ignore. Yes, we need welfare, housing and education systems that balance the needs of everyone, but the report showed that migrants contribute more to the economy than they use in resources. Many businesses I speak to, in the food, agricultural and textile sectors, could not operate without employees from EU member states. Migration brings huge benefits to our country: that is a fact of our economy, and of who we are.
I am sure that members in the chamber will disagree on various points during the debate, but those of us who believe that the European Union is a good thing and is beneficial to Scotland and the UK, and who support its founding principles and recognise that if it did not already exist, we would—in an expanding and globalised world—have to create it, need to support membership in a positive way.
Of course we need to work to improve the benefits of the EU and not deny the difficult times that it is currently facing, but we must argue strongly that, ultimately, it is a positive union that contributes to our modern world and our economy. We should not underestimate the global challenges that are facing Europe. Other economies and continents with greater populations that are increasing their investment in education and enterprise and have growing markets and industries will all present economic challenges.
Labour’s amendment recognises that future trade deals are important, but it reflects our position on the protection of public services in trade deals. By facing the increasing challenge of global competitiveness through working collectively, EU members will be in a stronger position than if they were working alone. We will be in a better position to get the best deals on trade, to tackle pollution and to take action on money laundering and corruption as well as in a number of other areas.
European co-operation is important in so many areas. So many of our modern challenges—for example, internet fraud, copyright crime and human trafficking—do not recognise borders. If we look back at the horsemeat scandal a few years ago and consider the complex food systems that we now have to deal with, we see that it was a prime example of addressing a problem through European co-operation.
Scotland, as part of the UK, can demonstrate how the European Parliament and the European Commission can be used for good. So many of our progressive social policies originated in the EU: for example, driving common standards for workers across the EU in maternity leave, paternity leave and working hours. Many of our environmental targets come from the EU—on biodiversity, air quality and water quality—and we must do more to deliver on those.
Scotland has ambitious targets in those areas, but in recent years we have not been meeting them. At present, the Commission is prepared to take legal action over air quality, given the lack of progress in that area across the UK. In those areas we have a responsibility to do more to deliver, and our actions will support the EU’s credibility.
The European Parliament has championed new initiatives to reduce youth unemployment and is the focus for much debate on progressive working practices. Labour’s amendment calls for that to be a central focus of on-going European activity. It was therefore disappointing last week to see Scottish National Party members of the European Parliament abstain on a vote to phase out precarious employment and tackle the exploitative nature of too many zero-hour contracts. That is the kind of thing that Europe should lead on, and it was disappointing not to have the SNP’s support.
Our amendment also states our opposition to the proposed cuts to horizon 2020 that the minister referred to. I raised my concerns with the minister last week and I am glad that he recognised that point. Scottish universities benefit considerably from that fund; it meets the objectives of economic growth and investment in research and we must do more to resist the cuts to it.
There are still concerns that, as things stand, the proposed changes that the minister referred to are not an appropriate funding mechanism for research and development and may hinder innovation across Europe. That is why Labour members in the European Parliament are looking to amend the proposals on horizon 2020.
This afternoon, we will not be supporting other parties’ proposals. Encouragingly, all of them recognise the importance of EU membership. However, we do not support an in/out referendum as presented by the Conservatives. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the people of the UK.
The SNP has attempted to put its case for a veto. I do not believe that that is a credible position. In September last year, Scotland voted to stay in the UK, with the full knowledge that there was the possibility of an EU referendum. We voted to be part of the UK and any vote on a national basis would have to be treated as such. It would have to be a collective decision by people living in the UK. Nicola Sturgeon claims that a referendum is inevitable, almost regardless of who wins the general election. That is not true; Labour does not support a referendum.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am in my final minute.
Labour does not support a referendum as we know that it will cause uncertainty for business. A referendum is not in the interests of the UK.
I look forward to the debate. We have different views across the chamber on referendums and on Scotland’s place in the UK and in the EU but I hope that we do not miss the opportunity this afternoon to put forward the positive case for our involvement in Europe and to recognise not only the challenges that it presents but the opportunities and advantages that it offers us.
I move amendment S4M-12670.2, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert:
“believes that the best future for the UK is within the EU; highlights the many advantages that being within the EU brings to Scotland, including access to the single market and subsequent trading opportunities and employment that this brings; acknowledges the social, cultural and educational benefits of continued EU membership; believes that the EU should have a clear focus on tackling youth unemployment and inequality across member states and opposes the proposed cuts to the Horizon 2020 fund; further believes that the EU should be taking a lead in tackling exploitative work practices, and recognises the need to protect public services in any trade negotiations; welcomes the proposals from the Smith Commission for improvement of the Concordat on the Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues, which recognises the important role that Scotland has to play in negotiations on devolved policy matters; supports the reform agenda in the EU, and believes that the UK should lead on this as a strong member of the EU.”
14:46
I welcome the debate as it gives me the chance to dispel the myths and scaremongering that are coming from members on the Government benches about Scotland’s membership of the European Union.
The debate also gives me the opportunity to once again reaffirm the commitment of Conservatives to making the EU work in the best interests of Scotland and the wider UK. That is the whole point—this club has to work for its members. That will only be achievable by reforming the EU through renegotiation with our European partners to create a new, favourable settlement for the UK and for the rest of Europe—to cut out red tape and excessive baggage for everyone, including new entrants, and to encourage growth and an end to stagnation.
When the Conservatives win the forthcoming general election with an overall majority and David Cameron is returned to Downing Street, we can begin the process of bringing about that necessary change. It has always been a cast-iron guarantee of the UK Government to then put to the British people a simple question—“Do you wish to stay in the EU on the basis of a reformed EU or do you not?” That referendum is likely to happen in late 2017.
If Conservative ministers achieve those reforms and transform the EU and the UK’s relationship with it, David Cameron has stated that he will campaign for the UK to remain a member state. As a committed European myself, I will be joining the Prime Minister in that pro-EU campaign, but only if reform in the interests of Scotland and the UK has been delivered. Let us dispel SNP myth one: the majority of Conservatives north and south of the border are not anti-European; we simply want change in Europe, as do the British people. I am sure that the minister will accept that.
It is not only the UK that wants to see change. Countries across the EU, including Angela Merkel’s Germany and the Netherlands, have argued that the EU in its present form is too centralist and is not working for member states. Indeed, the Dutch phrase, “European where necessary, national where possible,” shows the shift away from ever closer union. That phrase comes from one of the original six countries, which was originally so federalist, so another SNP myth that it is only the UK Government that sees EU reform as a priority is dismissed as well.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only six minutes, so I want to make progress.
The SNP asserts that Scotland has no appetite for a referendum on EU membership, despite the fact that polling has consistently shown that almost 60 per cent of Scots want a referendum, including more than 60 per cent of SNP voters. There is a trace of arrogance in the Scottish Government’s motion, which suggests that it thinks, “We know best, so we won’t trouble you with a direct say on EU membership.” However, it is clear that the majority of Scots want a say.
Our amendment justifiably highlights the need for a referendum that is UK wide, that takes place on a one-person-one-vote basis and in which the question is decided by a simple majority, as in the 1975 referendum. Let us remember that, in the 1975 referendum, the SNP campaigned against continued membership of the common market, whereas the majority of Conservatives—myself included—supported our position in Europe.
The Government’s motion turns that principle on its head, with its cumbersome double-majority proposal, which would split the UK into its constituent parts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the referendum question. The Government suggests that Scotland should not be forced to leave the EU even if the rest of the UK chooses to do so. It is ironic that the SNP should make a proposal of that nature. I do not recall it arguing in the referendum to break up the United Kingdom that, if another constituent part of the UK did not want to leave, separation would not happen.
As a member of the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, I spent a considerable amount of time with colleagues conducting an inquiry into an independent Scotland’s position in the EU. I will not rehash the arguments on whether article 48 or article 49 of the Treaty on European Union should apply. However, I will say that it was shown that an independent Scotland would not automatically be admitted as a member of the EU and, equally, that Scotland could not remain as part of the EU if the UK chose to leave it. The SNP position is simply untenable, and it is conjecture.
Members are probably united on the part in the Government’s motion that speaks about the benefits to Scotland of EU membership through the single market. Access to consumers and businesses on the continent has obviously been of huge economic importance to Scotland. We are also probably united on the reference to the social, cultural and educational benefits of EU membership. To give one example, the benefit of objective 1 status to the Highlands and Islands was the construction of a number of causeways and bridges and other infrastructure projects, which have left a valuable legacy. I emphasise that those benefits were possible only as a result of UK membership of the EU. It is a pity that the Highlands and Islands no longer has objective 1 status.
The proposal for a 2017 referendum has come about for various reasons. Businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the UK find that the extent of European interference in their everyday life is sometimes excessive and that red tape can strangle creativity. People to whom I have spoken over many years continue to feel that the people who take decisions in Brussels are remote and removed from those who elected them, although that does not apply to every decision. There are concerns that the relaxed nature of European rules means that people arriving in the UK are allowed to claim benefits without having worked here. Although EU enlargement is welcome, it must not lead to unmanageable consequences for member states.
Please draw to a close.
I am just going to close.
For all those reasons and many more, the need for a referendum on EU membership will become more apparent in the next two years, during which the British people will take part in a debate on Scotland’s and the UK’s position in the EU.
I move amendment S4M-12670.1, to leave out from “role” to end and insert:
“influential position as part of the UK as an active and constructive member state; recognises the UK Government’s track record of delivering positive change in Europe; notes the importance of the single market to the UK, which gives the UK economy access to 500 million consumers and 22 million businesses across the EU; acknowledges the additional social, cultural and educational benefits of EU membership for Scotland and the wider UK; welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to negotiate a new settlement for the UK in Europe followed by an in-out referendum before the end of 2017; notes that no other mainstream political party has publicly given a commitment to give the UK electorate a choice in a referendum on EU membership; further notes that the 1975 referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Economic Community was held on the basis of a simple one-person-one-vote system, and observes that the UK Government agreed with the Scottish Government to legislate for a fair, legal and decisive referendum in Scotland with no additional requirements other than a simple majority of votes.”
We move to the open debate, with speeches of six minutes or thereby.
14:53
In the past four years, as convener of the European and External Relations Committee, I have learned a lot about Europe, including a lot about its strengths. The basic principle of the EU is that it is a peacemaker, with a strong and positive corporate self-interest in ensuring the safety and protection of all the nations. There are weaknesses and sometimes tensions, and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership is a good example of that. I commend to colleagues the committee’s report on that partnership.
The EU is a pragmatic creation. In spite of its huge size, the answers to challenging situations can usually be found. There is an underlying consensus that is not much discussed. It is just there because all the member nations want pretty much the same things—they want equality, fairness, tolerance, and our human rights to be protected and they do not want illegal wars—and they have an overarching European Parliament that upholds those values. That can be difficult, given some of the Eurosceptic MEPs who were elected in the most recent elections, some of whom have called for the human rights laws to be abolished.
The EU has another side: it is also a vast trading market of 500 million people and 22 million businesses. Scotland’s substantial export markets are constantly building trade with our European partners. However, when it comes to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, there are serious concerns to be addressed, with the protection of public services being paramount.
The EU is much more than a simple free trade association. The EU principles reflect those of the Scottish Government. We welcome the role that the EU plays in protecting the social welfare of its citizens, including people who need to claim benefits. We seek to influence the decisions that will impact on us daily. We want to work from within the EU, not be forced out by a right-wing, UK Independence Party-friendly Westminster Government. We know that Europe is where we need to be for trade, the free movement of people, our own human protection and the great cultural melting pot that is this bloc of nations, each with its unique background and history.
Last Wednesday night, I had the great privilege and pleasure of hosting the Latvian ambassador, who brought some of the most amazingly talented musicians to play some Rachmaninoff for us. However, they finished with their own rendition of “Loch Lomond”, which was the most beautiful piece of music that I have ever heard in my life.
Let us not forget the foundations and origins of Europe. Let us not forget the founder countries, which all tell their own stories. They are France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. We do not have to go far to understand the reasons for the foundation of the EU.
I do not want an in/out referendum. The Scottish Government does not want one but, once again, we are being shoved into a battle that we do not need or support. I want changes in Europe but the mechanisms are already in place for us to work towards them. The existing treaties provide the framework. There is no need to try to renegotiate them now, no matter how big members want to appear in front of their colleagues at Westminster.
As is often the case, the EU institutions will not do much of their own publicity. The shrill voices of extremists—I use the word deliberately—will be as loud as they are daft, but Scots are not fooled by that nonsense. While David Coburn slings abuse at our Minister for Europe and International Development, he is happy to pick up the €5 million or so that he will collect for staffing, his salary and expenses but denigrate the institution that gives him that opportunity.
If we are to be forced into a referendum, we will demand that, as Scotland is one of the four nations that David Cameron has called on many occasions “this family of nations”—it was only a family of nations during the independence referendum and does not seem to be one now—in which each is an equal member, its decision will need to be the same as that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the vote to be carried. It is neither democratic nor legitimate to tolerate a situation in which one of the family imposes its will upon the other three. I am very disappointed that Labour will not back that very important right as an equal member of the said family of nations.
Members might remember the former president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso. Everybody listened to him during the Scottish referendum and perhaps they should listen to him now. He said:
“What will be the influence of Britain, or the Prime Minister of Britain, if he was not part of the European Union? His influence would be zero.”
Before Mr Cameron sails off into the sunset with his union jack flying and his supporters from UKIP applauding his achievement, he needs to think very carefully about his job prospects as well as those of the people of the UK. The sunset might well turn out to be an exit from the strong and protective arms of his much-valued family of nations.
15:49
I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to speak in support of Claire Baker’s amendment.
At a time when countries are fighting for their right to be part of Europe and clinging on to the European Union, the Conservative Party is threatening to pull Britain out of Europe. Although there is much debate about Britain’s place in Europe, we have to recognise that we are much stronger, and Europe is much stronger, if we work together. Membership of the EU gives us many benefits, and leaving the European Union would only be detrimental to that prosperity. Our relationship is a give-and-take one; its symbiotic nature is what allows such great progress. That partnership with the EU is necessary in order to solve the challenges that present themselves, which are best dealt with by working together.
Economically, EU membership allows access to a single market with millions of people and numerous opportunities for investment and increased competitiveness. Leaving that single market would not be in our best interests. It involves 3 million jobs, 25,000 companies, £200 billion in exports each year and £450 billion in investments. That is what we have to show for our ties to Europe.
We must welcome any changes that might be beneficial to the European Union, the United Kingdom and Scotland. The employment and social aspects in the “Annual Growth Survey 2015”, which was put to a vote in the European Parliament last week, failed to gain the necessary support as a result of the negative votes from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and UKIP MEPs, and abstentions on the part of the SNP and the Greens.
Precarious employment situations, such as zero-hours contracts, affect nearly 1.4 million UK workers. The rights of the workers and supporting the favourable changes that the EU is trying to make for the good of the member states are important.
It is clear that the benefits of continuing our membership of the European Union are numerous. That close relationship with Europe is essential to both parties and it is undoubtedly crucial to our interests to stay part of that relationship.
It was suggested by the Smith commission that Scotland be allowed to have a greater influence over UK policy positions with regard to Europe. With that in mind, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Angela Constance, represented the UK at the EU education, youth, culture and sport council in December last year. That direct engagement demonstrates that Scotland’s voice plays an important role on European issues.
Our place in the world is not defined by being a part of Europe but it is strengthened by it. The key is to keep the United Kingdom in the EU and improve on the position so that we can maximise the progress that we—the UK and the EU—can make together.
There is no doubt that EU membership brings many advantages to Scotland. While the future of the United Kingdom undoubtedly lies within the EU, we need to be leading the way for an improved European Union rather than threatening to leave it. I believe that the EU should take the lead in issues such as tackling exploitative work practices and should recognise the need to protect public services in any trade negotiations. We in the Labour Party want to have those jobs across Europe, not just Scotland; we want fair working conditions in Scotland, UK and across Europe. The Labour Party is the party that backs those measures in the UK.
15:04
I start my contribution to this timely and important debate with a 1736 quote that is to be found in the diaries of a French minister, René de Voyer, who was the first person to use in writing the well-known expression, laissez-faire. He wrote, “Laissez-faire”—or let it be—
“should be the motto of all public powers, since the world was civilised ... That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbours is a detestable notion! Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle and our national interest is opposed to it.”
That motto was also the essence of Adam Smith’s thinking—although he supported not an economy free from Government interference, but free trade between nations as a condition of the growth of those nations.
Laissez-faire is only half of the motto. The other half is laissez-passer—the right of free movement, not only of goods but, more important, of people, which is at the heart of the European project that is the EU.
I believe that we are where Adam Smith would have liked the people of Scotland to be—at the heart of Europe, free to trade and free to set up businesses and work across the EU. That is very much needed. As Dennis Robertson said to the minister in his intervention, it is important that small and medium-sized businesses are encouraged to work with the rest of the EU. Similarly, it is very important that our people are encouraged to live, work and participate all across the EU. It is important that we have not only the movement of goods, trade and businesses but the movement of people. It is how the EU is constructed.
I have found plenty of malice and malignity of heart in the debate about the European Union since I came to Britain. I was surprised about it. I find particularly detestable the notion that the UK cannot pursue its agenda to grow its own economy without rejoicing at its neighbours’ economic failings. That is something that we find often on television and the press, especially in the UK and London media.
Failings are many in the UK, just like in other EU countries and the EU is not perfect, as the minister said in his opening remarks. However, I assure members that the attitude of ridiculing other nations of the EU when they have problems has never been reciprocal. On the contrary, I have found that people across the EU have great respect for the UK—a respect that some politicians undermine here regularly. When I say “here”, of course I do not mean in this Parliament.
Former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard was one of the first voices to express worry about that. He made it clear that if the UK was so desperate to exit the EU, the EU might be better without the UK. The truth is that for us to do well, we need our neighbours to do well. Instead of blaming the EU for our Westminster Government’s shortcomings, we need our London-based politicians to change their tune. Our national interest, of the UK or Scotland, is in direct opposition to an exit from the EU—the so-called Brexit. In France, they call it Le Brexit, so famous is it.
The former head of the French Government made his views clear on that point. He said:
“British elites are afraid of the isolation that would result, that may weaken the City ... But the English bank is part paralyzing factors today, it is highly more speculative than others. It is a paralysis for real economy.”
That comment is the result of a constant attack on the EU. I do not know whether Michel Rocard agrees with the Scottish Government’s double-majority proposal, but he made it clear that the problem is political, in London, not even with the people of England and certainly not with the people of Scotland.
Given my many years working in the fishing industry, I understand maybe better than most that the EU is far from perfect—again, as the minister said in his opening remarks. However, I point out that other EU countries have been a lot more successful in negotiating at EU level than the UK has. For example, I welcome the Scottish Government proposal on fisheries. Yes, we should continue to move away from a centralised approach to fisheries management in favour of greater flexibility and the further delegation of powers to national and regional level. The member state should be granted further autonomy in relation to inshore waters to ensure the survival of Scottish fishermen’s traditional fishing grounds.
It is not only about fishing but agriculture and migration from outside the EU. The Justice Committee is taking evidence on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill. The horrific stories that we have heard of migrants coming from outside the EU would be a lot worse if we were isolated and not part of the EU. The free movement of people is so important.
I finish with a quote from not Adam Smith, but his contemporary Voltaire. Adam Smith kept a bust of Voltaire in his home—members will not find one in my office—and Voltaire knew what Scotland’s place in Europe was when he said:
“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation”.
Scotland’s place in the EU is where we are today and it is what we all are. This EU migrant—this EU citizen—will vote for the Scottish Government’s motion.
15:10
I welcome the debate and I thank Humza Yousaf—or, as I like to call him, the minister—for allowing Parliament this opportunity.
The motion and the amendments are somewhat revealing. The Labour amendment, which I am happy to confirm that we will support, sets out fairly the broad benefits as well as some of the specific areas of strength. It also rightly identifies the opportunities to improve things—not least through the Smith commission proposals.
The SNP motion has much of the same, and I very much welcome the conciliatory and reasonable tone that the minister adopted in his opening remarks, despite some of the siren voices on his back benches that perhaps encouraged him to do otherwise. However, the motion could not resist the dog whistle to its party’s base at its end—a little like the Tories’ amendment.
Jamie McGrigor’s amendment achieves the twin feats of being factually incorrect and ideologically misguided. The UK Government does not demand treaty reform and an in/out referendum; that is a Tory Party demand. The Tories appear to be in a bind over UKIP and their long-standing internal divisions over Europe and as a result, despite Mr McGrigor’s reassurance, they seem to be hell-bent on driving the UK out of an economic, social and political union that has served us well for more than four decades. I agree that an in/out referendum is more meaningful than one that is based on the minutiae of a treaty change, but that policy is a sign of the weakness of the Tories and the Prime Minister. It is not a sign of strength nor, indeed, is it a sign of leadership.
As I said, the SNP motion is fine up to a point, but it lapses regrettably into playing the independence card towards the end. Let us be clear: the preferred option is not an in/out referendum. That route holds nothing for business or for safeguarding the hard-fought economic recovery that we are seeing, but if there is a referendum we will need all progressive voices to be united in support of keeping the UK, including Scotland, in the EU. Jamie McGrigor made one point in his speech with which I probably have some sympathy. Like him, I do not recall in the referendum campaign any suggestion of a double lock being offered to Orkney or Shetland in the event that Glasgow and areas of the central belt had dragged us out of the UK.
Will Liam McArthur take an intervention?
No, thank you.
It is too easy to link the SNP’s calls for a retreat from the UK to UKIP’s and the Tories’ calls for a retreat from Europe. There is a remarkable similarity in the rhetoric about so-called rule from London and rule from Europe—that the best people to make decisions about what happens in Scotland are the people in Scotland, and the best people to make decisions about what will happen in the UK are the people in the UK. I know that the minister will refute that charge and I accept his genuinely felt commitment to a pro-Europe agenda, but it highlights the scale of the SNP’s task. The SNP is having to work all the harder to convince voters that its principal objective is to keep the UK in the EU, and that it does not secretly hope for Brexit, so that independence plans can thereafter be dusted down.
As I said during the referendum debate, UK exit from the EU is not in the interests even of an independent Scotland. Just ask Scotland’s farmers. Farmers are not the only ones who benefit from our EU membership, nor are they the only ones to point out—with some justification—that the EU is far from perfect, but the economic benefits of membership are plain for all to see. It is the largest single market and incorporates two of our most significant trading partners outside the UK, in the shape of France and Germany. Scotland is a high-skill economy with an export focus, and the EU gives opportunities across a range of sectors, from food and drink to energy. We have seen Scotland profit from freedom of movement: many Scots make up the 1.5 million UK citizens who live and work elsewhere in the EU. My now wife and I are evidence of that from our time spent in Brussels. Again, that benefits key sectors, from our higher education sector—which is attractive to others from throughout the EU who want to come and study here—to our tourism offering.
The Labour amendment fairly points to the benefits that are to be derived from initiatives such as horizon 2020, and the importance of that to industry and academia has been well underscored already, but the £2.5 billion that has been secured for small and medium-sized enterprise engagement picks up a point that was reiterated during the horizon 2020 event that was hosted by the European and External Relations Committee here in Parliament not so long ago.
Freedom of movement also illustrates the social dimension to our EU membership, which is further underscored by the benefits that are derived from structural funds, which represent recognition that the EU itself will be undermined if it is seen to benefit only some and not all. The Highlands and Islands have benefited from objective 1 status, but I remind Jamie McGrigor that it is testimony to the success of that programme that we are no longer eligible for it, because we have seen relative economic growth as a result.
The single market is not just about the survival of the fittest. It has always been recognised that there is a social dimension to the single market, and we have seen that through workplace reforms over many years, as Claire Baker said. Everything from environmental reform to cross-border collaboration in tackling crime demonstrates our ability to act collaboratively at EU level in order to meet objectives that cannot be met by individual nations alone.
Christina McKelvie was absolutely right to draw attention to the EU’s role in being a force for peace. As people who have the lived experience of the world wars are now dying off, we risk losing sight of that fundamental purpose. We have travelled a remarkable distance since 1945, and even since the 1958 objective of using economic integration to bind in Germany’s industrial base in coal and steel so as to make war if not impossible, then certainly a good deal more difficult. That is something that we should never underestimate.
The risks remain. We see that in the Balkan conflict and the Russian influence in Ukraine. We are not out of the woods. That is not to say that we are not uncritical of the EU. I bear the scars of fisheries council meetings, as Christian Allard does. The EU is guilty of mission creep and it has a tendency to want to micromanage, and national interests can often be dressed up as EU-wide interests. We must engage with the EU institutions and partners on the need to improve. The Smith proposals give us a way of doing that, by improving the mechanisms at official and ministerial levels within the UK. John Swinney and Mike Moore are to be commended on the commitment and dedication that they have shown to that particular aspect of the Smith recommendations. We need to be vigilant and to ensure that that is now delivered in practice.
I welcome the positive tone of the debate in acknowledging the benefits that are derived from the EU and the commitment across the piece to be critical friends where that need be, and to improve the way in which the UK engages with the EU in the future.
15:18
Scotland is often described as being on the periphery of Europe. Although that may be true in a geographic sense, our strong cultural, historical and political connection to Europe suggests otherwise. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Scottish culture or the development of our political system without an appreciation of our historic links to other European nations. We need only look at the quintessential markers of Scottish nationhood to realise that Scotland itself is a product of Europe and of our interactions with our European neighbours.
Today, we have a more formalised relationship with our European neighbours, and the legislation that we scrutinise in our committees and debate in this chamber is always considered within a European legal context. Clearly, Scotland has benefited greatly from its European interactions, and I believe that Scotland should continue to build on those connections as a constructive member of the European Union.
However, after being instructed that a no vote in last year’s referendum was the only way to secure Scotland’s participation in the EU, our EU membership and our ability effectively to influence European policy are now under threat from the Tory party. David Cameron’s commitment to an in/out referendum on our EU membership threatens to undermine decades of European co-operation and the vital economic benefits of a single market that gives Scotland access to 500 million people and 22 million businesses across Europe.
It is the threat to Scotland’s participation in the single market that I am particularly concerned about: I believe that removal of our EU membership would seriously undermine Scotland’s long-term economic objectives. The EU accounts for nearly half of Scotland’s international exports, and in 2011 those European exports supported more than 336,000 jobs in Scotland.
It is difficult to understand how our withdrawal from the European single market would improve economic relations with Europe, particularly in light of the €985 million investment that Scotland currently receives from the European regional development fund and the European social fund. In reality, the loss of EU membership would not only threaten jobs; it would also undermine investment and our ability to create sustainable growth.
Putting aside economics for a moment, the threat of the UK Government’s proposed EU referendum is a symptom of a more general rise in hostility against Europe from the Westminster elite. That hostility has also shown itself in the Tory threat to withdraw the UK from the European Court of Human Rights. That move would place us alongside Belarus as one of the few European states not to have ratified the European convention on human rights. We have also seen that hostility focused against migrants as the UK Government toughens its rhetoric against Europeans who wish to work hard and build a life in the UK. It is an unedifying spectacle to see UK parties tack to the right as a response to the siren calls from UKIP. It is essential that we continue to challenge the UK Government’s politically motivated and illogical immigration rhetoric.
As the minister mentioned in his opening speech, University College London found that EU migrants contributed more than £20 billion to the economy between 2001 and 2011. Workers from EU 15 countries such as France and Germany contributed 64 per cent more in tax than they received in benefits, and migrants from newer accession states paid 12 per cent more than they received. That shoots down the argument that Jamie McGrigor used earlier about people coming here and taking benefits. The figures give the lie to that argument. European migrants make positive economic, social and cultural contributions to Scotland, and they deserve better than a Westminster political culture that is locked in a race to the bottom on immigration.
The clear difference in approach that we see at Westminster, compared with that at Holyrood, is indicative of the diverging political cultures of the two Parliaments. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the UK Government does not reflect the views of the people of Scotland and that it does not prioritise the Scottish position on a range of European policy issues.
Research by Durham University and the University of East Anglia concluded that although a majority of constituencies in England would vote to leave the EU, only four seats in Scotland would vote to do likewise. Dr Hanretty of the University of East Anglia said that the findings show that
“Scottish views on the European Union are distinct from English views”
and that—I want to quote very carefully here—
“Even looking at constituencies just north of the border—areas that are by no means bedrocks of SNP support—you find a more favourable opinion of the EU than you do in the north of England.”
Those findings show why it is essential that Scotland has a democratic safeguard against the threat of the UK Government’s in/out referendum. I therefore fully support the introduction of a four-nation consent clause as part of any future EU referendum bill to ensure that the voices of the respective UK nations are respected.
We were told to vote no to be part of the family of nations. We cannot be a family if one particular member of that family can drag the other three members out of the EU. That is not a family of nations. Scotland cannot be dragged out of Europe against the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland.
I conclude by reaffirming the importance of the UK’s European Union membership but say also that Scotland’s interests would, ultimately, best be served by having our own voice on the European stage. The proposals that the Smith commission outlined, which would see greater Scottish Government and UK Government co-operation on European representation, are welcome, but there are still limitations to that approach. I know that I will not be alone in expressing concern about the UK Government’s ability to represent accurately our interests on energy policy, fisheries and many other portfolio areas.
I look forward to the day when Scotland’s voice is heard unimpeded at the top tables of Europe. Given the evidence from recent polling, that day might come sooner rather than later.
15:23
I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s day.
As Jamie McGrigor said in his speech, many myths are peddled about the EU, but in my experience they come mostly from people who want Britain to leave it. In assessing our relationship with the EU, we should focus on the facts and the positives. I therefore welcome the debate, which allows us to do that.
Being a member of what is arguably the world’s biggest marketplace provides huge advantages for both Britain and Scotland. We cannot afford to lose the ability to export goods and services across all of the EU without customs and other barriers, because over half of our exports go to the rest of the EU.
UK membership gives access to a growing single market that is governed by a single set of regulations and which cuts costs and facilitates much greater potential trade. In total, 60 per cent of British trade is with other EU countries. That trade involves 700,000 companies across Britain and provides three and a half million jobs. Were Britain not in the EU, it would be on its own in a world of powerful regional trading blocs, including the North American free trade agreement. On our own, we would be isolated and unable to negotiate with the United States of America and China in the way that only the power of the EU can achieve for us. Those blocs would all have the advantages of large domestic markets in global trade negotiations, which would leave the UK at a comparative disadvantage.
The petty-minded Euroscepticism of the current and previous Conservative Governments has put us at a disadvantage when it comes to economic interaction with the wider world. We should stay and influence the EU, making it more democratic and increasing benefits for all EU member states and its citizens.
Most of the progressive legislation that we have on workers’ rights has come from Europe: by acting in concert, European countries have to some extent avoided a race to the bottom on workers’ rights. Why would working people want to jeopardise policies such as the working time directive, which is a key piece of health and safety legislation, by leaving the EU?
Unfortunately, as Claire Baker said, the SNP has, I am disappointed to say, refused to support some of those measures. An example of that is the vote that took place in the European Parliament which was aimed at addressing workplace exploitation by restricting and reducing atypical forms of employment. That vote on the employment and social aspects in the “Annual Growth Survey 2015” report failed to gain enough support because the Conservative, Lib Dem and UKIP MEPs voted against it, while Nicola Sturgeon’s UK coalition of the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru abstained. Labour was left as the only UK party to support the calls on EU member states to combat precarious employment, such as zero-hours contracts. That shows once again that Labour is the only party that is genuinely standing up for workers’ rights.
Primary among the myths that we hear is the one that tries to make people believe that the EU forces Britain to adopt laws on human rights that are contrary to British tradition. However, the rulings that right-wing politicians object to come from the European Court of Human Rights. That tribunal is not a part of the EU system; it is an institution of the Council of Europe—an honourable British creation that predates the EU.
Those sceptics also argue that Britain’s market is too valuable for the rest of the continent to ignore, so the British Government could negotiate a trade deal that would preserve all the advantages of membership in the single market without any of the political and financial costs. However, that ignores the realpolitik that although the UK is an important market for the rest of the EU, any free-trade agreement would have a price. For example, in exchange for access to the single market, Norway and Switzerland make major contributions to the EU’s cohesion funds, and they have to adopt EU standards without having any say in how they are written. Also, Norway’s net contribution to the EU budget is higher per capita than Britain’s net contribution.
Britain would most certainly lose its influence in many international forums. By negotiating as one bloc in world trade talks, the European Union gives its members—the UK included—a powerful and united voice when they speak to China and the United States. If Britain exits, it loses that.
Many of the arguments for retaining Britain’s place in the European Union are similar to the arguments for retaining Scotland’s place in Britain. Just as Scotland’s interests are in Britain, Britain’s interests are clearly in Europe, so we should follow the path to where our interests lie. Just as Scotland recently voted with practical good sense to remain part of Britain, Britain should determine similarly, based on reality and not myths, to remain part of the EU.
There is a modest amount of time available for constructive interventions, should anyone want to make them. You have six minutes or thereabouts, Mr Mason.
15:29
I will have to judge whether any interventions are constructive.
My first vote, as an 18-year-old, was in June 1975, on membership of the European Economic Community. I remember definitely voting for being in the EEC.
I see Europe as a family of nations, and we are part of that family. It would be strange to be in Europe but not in the European Union. That is the situation that Norway finds itself in—bound by many of the decisions but with no real voice, as Mr McMahon described. Let us remember, as Liam McArthur put it well, how successful the EU has been in one of its core objectives—to prevent further wars in Europe, which had been part of all our ancestors’ lives for many centuries.
One of the problems that the UK has in deciding any constitutional issue is that it has no constitution—at least no constitution in the sense in which virtually all grown-up democratic countries have written constitutions that include provision for changing the constitution and making major decisions, such as whether to enter or leave the EU.
Far be it from me to criticise the wonderful UK, but in that regard at least it has a major flaw. Mind you, having mentioned one major constitutional flaw in the UK, another one immediately comes to mind: the House of Lords. We are quite used to saying that it is undemocratic, as if that was normal but, for other modern democratic countries—certainly European countries—having one chamber unelected would be anathema. Why is that relevant here today? Because there is no democratic check on the House of Commons.
The Government’s motion proposes that each of the four parts of the UK should have to vote no to the EU before the UK could leave. A similar result would be achieved if the UK had a second chamber that was elected and whose membership consisted of 25 per cent for England, 25 per cent for Scotland, 25 per cent for Wales and 25 per cent for Northern Ireland. Then, a 75 per cent majority for such a major constitutional change would provide a democratic brake on any English Government.
I spent two years of my life living in London and three years in Nepal. In those places, I worked in two separate international charities. I worked with many different European people, as well as with folk from outside Europe. Of all the nationalities that I have worked with, I feel most close to the Dutch—despite the fact that I do not have any of their language. Scotland has a huge amount in common with the Netherlands, and with other countries for that matter. We are both relatively small countries. We both have a strong maritime history. We have a similar religious mix of reformed and Catholic churches.
As Mr McMahon put it, the UK is really too small to compete on the world stage with large countries such as the United States, China, Russia and India. We need to work together as a European family.
Another reason why the UK is too small is to do with our export industries, including whisky, food and drink, and specialist engineering. A market of 64 million is too small to grow companies for the world stage. The EU has a market of some 500 million. Through it, we get better trade agreements for selling worldwide.
Some people would say that we have failed to grow companies based in Scotland and that we have failed to keep key sectors in public ownership. I ask myself: is that a fault of the EU or a fault of the UK? I suggest that, in both those cases, the fault lies with the UK. Other EU countries have not privatised rail, electricity and so on, and they have been much better at keeping local companies local, as is the case with manufacturing in Germany.
Are our businesses and jobs safer in the EU or in the UK? It seems clear to me that the UK is the bigger risk, with its desire to sell anything for a quick buck, whereas several other European countries are better at taking a long-term view and investing for the future.
Another strength of the EU has been its confederalist approach, with subsidiarity lying at the heart of decision making. That contrasts with the UK, which has had a very centralist approach—it has conceded only the minimum of devolution and done so reluctantly, when forced to do so.
I will try to make my intervention as constructive as possible. I am interested in the point that John Mason makes about the similarity among our European partners. Does he agree that France is one of the most centralised societies and economies in the European Union and that it has been a driver of much of what has happened at an EU level?
From my knowledge of France, I agree that the country is very centralised. Although I am arguing more for the EU as one institution, rather than its constituent parts, I take Liam McArthur’s point.
As Michael McMahon mentioned, the EU has often taken a more progressive approach than the UK on issues of concern to Scotland, such as the working time directive, financial regulation, caps on bankers’ bonuses and immigration. On the latter, Scotland is short of people and we need more in order to grow our economy.
To go back to Liam McArthur’s point, small countries are respected more in the EU than they are in the UK. For example, smaller countries get proportionately more MEPs in order to counterbalance the big countries. In Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain, it takes more than 800,000 people to get one MEP, but in Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Finland, it takes less than 500,000. That is the kind of practical arrangement that Christina McKelvie mentioned, where the EU is much better than the UK. The EU takes into account population and recognises the importance of the individual state. In fact, the United States does that as well. In the UK, though, that does not happen, and we have a rigid legalistic approach, in which we insist that every MP should represent the same number of registered voters. If we followed the European model, Scotland would have more MPs at Westminster.
There are many other examples of how small countries in the EU can punch above their weight and club together to counteract the bigger countries. We can see clearly that smaller countries feel safer in the EU and see the EU as a good protection against traditionally predatory larger neighbours. In that way, Scotland can feel safer there.
I am Scottish first but European second. I am very happy to be both and I want it to continue that way.
15:36
I am pleased to take part in today’s debate on Scotland’s place in Europe. I have always seen the advantages for Scotland from being in the United Kingdom as part of the European Union. The EU single market allows for easy access to trade, education and support in developing our economy and society. The European Union is an exceptional partner in development. With the proper relations, our partnership with Europe can assist with many issues that face our nation.
However, there is a lack of strategy on improving Scotland’s ability to draw funds into the third sector, develop infrastructure and support industry. I strongly encourage the Scottish Government—in fact, I demand it—to take a stronger role in guiding and supporting our third sector and private industry to apply for European funds. At the European and External Relations Committee, I have brought up the need for better access to European support and grants, but I have yet to see progress from the Scottish Government on that.
Our relationship with Europe is not without its issues. Scottish universities have raised concerns over the planned diversion of €2.7 billion from horizon 2020—the European Union’s main research fund—to a new European stimulus fund that is officially called the European fund for strategic investments. Scottish and other United Kingdom research institutions have benefited a great deal from the horizon 2020 fund and the resulting grants from the European Research Council. What discussions has the cabinet secretary—or the minister—had with UK colleagues on counteracting that near-sighted decision on the EU’s part?
As I said, I greatly support Scotland’s membership of the EU through the UK, and I want that relationship to develop further. However, many organisations in Scotland do not apply for or have failed to get EU funding. I again call on the Scottish Government to identify officials, organisations and agencies that can guide the third sector and private industry through the maze of the funding system, because it is their right to apply for such funding. I look forward to the minister commenting on that.
Such funding has consistently been underspent, and we in Scotland have consistently missed out on opportunities to get our fair share of funding. I am concerned about the EU’s concentration on giving new member states opportunities, and I am worried about the organisations and communities in Scotland that have received no funding. History can be cruel, but it can also be kind. It would have been kind if we had been able to consistently apply for and utilise the opportunities that Europe has offered us, and it is cruel that we have not been able to do so. I hope that we can find ways of redressing that.
Two of the biggest areas in which we have missed out on opportunities are our infrastructure and our communications sector. Because most of Scotland is rural, many people could benefit from good communications and good infrastructure facilities. Europe could have helped us with that. The fact that the EU has reduced its budget for internet facilities is damaging.
I will be interested to hear from the minister how he can help us to organise support for the third sector, which is crucial given the scenario of shrinking resources that we face in Scotland. Many of my constituents in Glasgow come to me daily to complain that funding has been reduced or even stopped. We have lost opportunities in the past, and I hope that we will not lose them in the future. I am more than happy to support the minister in trying to redress the situation.
15:42
As my colleague Stewart Maxwell said at the start of his speech, Scotland may well be on the fringes of Europe geographically, but in terms of our natural resources and what we bring to the table, Scotland is very much at the heart of Europe. We are a small country with about 1 per cent of the population of the European Union, but we bring to the table huge resources in fishing and renewable energy potential; we have world-class food and drink products; and we make a contribution that is well beyond our size in science, medicine and innovation.
If Scotland were pulled out of Europe against our will, it would be as much of a disaster for our European friends as it would be for us. The scandalous thing about that prospect is that none of it is Scotland’s doing. It has all come about because of the failure of England’s political parties to persuade ordinary people in that country that the European ideal brings more benefits than drawbacks. That failure has allowed extreme elements—fuelled by a hysterically anti-European media that is all too ready to peddle the message on behalf of those extremists—to fill the credibility gap. It has come about because England’s political parties feel compelled to appease that anti-European agenda rather than take it on and expose it for what it is.
It is not acceptable for a Prime Minister to talk up the idea of a family of nations one minute then tell us that we will all do what England decides on Europe the next. In that context, how on earth can any Scottish parliamentarian support Scotland being pulled from the heart of Europe on the back of such a negative and regressive political agenda elsewhere? Scottish MSPs and MPs of all parties must stand up for Scotland if Scotland decides to stay in the European Union and England decides to leave.
That scenario can happen only if the Tories get back into power because Labour cannot defeat them, even by aping them as best they can, sticking to the same spending plans and voting with them to cut another £30 billion from public spending. The real test will come if the Tories form the next Government and fail to get the changes that they claim they want Europe to agree to. In those circumstances, the prospect of the UK Government recommending leaving Europe would be real and the consequences for Scotland would be dire.
Membership of the European Union gives Scotland direct access to a market of 500 million citizens, the world’s biggest economy and more than 20 million businesses. More than 300,000 jobs in Scotland are associated with exports to the EU, which accounts for almost half of our international exports. More than 150,000 citizens from other member states live, work or study here, and many thousands of Scots do so throughout Europe. Most of that would be thrown into chaos and the consequent damaging effect on jobs and Scotland’s economy would be catastrophic.
Many of those who have given evidence at the European and External Relations Committee and from across Europe have said that their clear hope is that the UK does not leave Europe. That perhaps applies to none more so than Ireland, which is celebrating St Patrick’s day—I say Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh, or happy St Patrick’s day to everybody. Taoiseach Enda Kenny has spoken publicly of his hope that the UK remains in Europe but has nevertheless recently set up a new department to look at the issues that would arise for Ireland as a result of a possible UK exit. On the negative side, there would be border control issues to resolve, but some also look to the fact that more than 250 foreign banks that have their European bases in London might consider moving to Dublin—or Scotland, of course, under different circumstances. Some view that as a positive outcome of a UK exit but, on balance, the Irish hope is very much that the UK stays in Europe.
I suppose that it is technically possible for the UK to operate outwith the key strategic priorities in Juncker’s 10-point strategy for Europe, but it is hard to see how a UK that was outside Europe could develop alternative and possibly competing strategies on things such as the digital single market or the €315 billion investment plan. Who knows? The UK might end up with its own brand of TTIP or a UK TTIP. None of that is impossible, but it is unlikely that any positive impacts that an isolated UK achieved would have anything like the success of a pan-European approach to some of those matters.
I am certain that Europe needs to connect with its citizens in a more direct, simple and easy-to-understand way than it does at the moment. Eurobabble is a language that is hard for ordinary people to understand, and the quicker Europe realises that and does something about it, the better. From looking at the EU and Commission’s public-facing websites, we could be forgiven for thinking that they were designed by officials for the amusement of academics. They need to simplify their communication methods with the public and make Europe easier to understand for citizens, through showcasing the many positive stories that there are to tell.
Should there ultimately be an in/out referendum on Europe in which England votes to leave but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote to stay in, the UK must respect the mandates of this so-called family of nations and stay in. Any move to force Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland out of Europe against the wishes and best interests of the people there will inevitably trigger a constitutional crisis that will be more serious than the question of membership of the European Union. At that point, the will of the Scottish people will be the sole determinant of our future.
15:49
In the same way as others did, I campaigned in the 1975 referendum that Harold Wilson called to solve internal political difficulties in the Labour Party, which was then the party of government. The result was a yes vote. My party took a position against because of the sell-out of the fishing industry but, for my part, I was always firmly on the yes side and voted accordingly with a heavy heart, knowing that I was disagreeing with my party.
Of course, 1975 was not the start of the story. The UK joined the then European Economic Community in 1973 under a Tory Prime Minister, but things go somewhat further back than that. A UK member of Parliament who had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials was the moving spirit behind the European convention on human rights. Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister who took the UK into that, and he was a proud signatory to the convention when it came into operation on 3 September 1953.
Of course, it goes back further than that. In 1320, when Scotland sought to protect its independence, it was to the Pope in Rome that Scotland wrote, because the Pope was not simply the head of a church; he also had a key secular role in co-ordinating international relationships. Scotland is no stranger to Europe and has no distant connection with it. Scotland has always had an intimate connection with Europe.
Jamie McGrigor and others derided the idea of four-nation consent, saying among other things that it would be inconceivable for different parts of the UK to go different ways. However, that is to neglect what has already happened. In 1982, Greenland—an autonomous country within Denmark—voted to leave the EU, and by 1985 it successfully did so, despite having that relationship. I do not commend that approach, because I would wish to stay in Europe, but Greenland’s choice was to go. The example shows that it is entirely possible for there to be different decisions and different effects even within a single existing member state.
Jamie McGrigor also seemed to imply that Spain should withdraw access to benefits from the nearly 1 million UK citizens who live in that country.
Reference has been made to Norway and Switzerland. For a while, one of my nieces lived in Norway—and commuted daily to Sweden to work, I may say, never showing her passport or anything else at a European boundary, which I thought was quite interesting. There is certainly increasing disquiet in Norway, first at the economic contribution that it requires to make to the European Union as a price for being in the European Economic Area, but also at its having to be bound by the rules of the European Union while having no say in how they work.
We heard someone say that France is substantially more centralised than the UK. I think that that will come as a great surprise to many people in France. Gabriel Chevallier’s satirical novel of 1934, “Clochemerle”, which was made into a successful TV series in 1972, was all about the local mayor wanting to build a new—forgive me, Presiding Officer; this is literally what he said—pissoir in the town square, and to this day there is considerable local authority in the towns and villages of France. Indeed, in the real life Clochemerle—Vaux-en-Beaujolais—the mayor is there every Thursday for two hours while she takes her lunch and eats her sandwiches; in that tiny little village, she is there. France is a far less centralised country than we might imagine if we listen to some people in this debate.
I turn to the amendments. For the most part, I could find myself being relatively comfortable with the Labour Party’s amendment, but it fails to understand the reality of the UK’s engagement with the European Union when it states at the end:
“believes that the UK should lead ... as a strong member of the EU.”
The one thing that the UK is not is
“a strong member of the EU.”
The UK has never, to this day, properly engaged with the internal workings of the EU. The moment the Irish got in in 1973, they sent their people across, they got into the grass roots and they were involved in the very early stages of formulating European policy. The UK has always waited until the policy has been formed before saying, “This winna do—we’ve got to change it”, by which time it is too late. I suspect that, if the UK had engaged properly, the EU would now be operating in a way that would satisfy many of Jamie McGrigor’s colleagues who are less sympathetic to the idea of the EU—leaving aside its operation—than he is.
In conclusion, I was interested to hear that the Tories are essentially saying, “Let the people speak.” Article 3 of protocol 1 of the ECHR, on elections, means that we have to have democracy. A majority of the UK’s legislators are unelected, so we are in breach of that protocol. I would love to have a referendum on the House of Lords, and I suspect that I know how it would turn out: perhaps that is why the Tories will not have one.
15:55
One of the founding principles of the European Union back in its early days as the European Coal and Steel Community was the commitment to
“the equalisation and improvement of the living conditions of workers”.
While Europe can often seem distant from our daily lives, the reality is that we have the European Union to thank for many of the rights and freedoms that we enjoy every day. Rights such as paid holidays for all; equal pay for women; equal rights for part-time workers; maternity rights from day 1 and statutory maternity leave for up to a year; and safer workplaces and action to tackle working hours are all real benefits that make a real difference every day.
We have a single market that allows Scottish businesses access to 500 million people, with one set of rules on issues of common concern, rather than 28 sets of rules. The EU allows Scots to live, study or work anywhere within it and has helped to keep the peace in Europe for 70 years.
While Europe makes a real difference to our lives, the turn-out at European elections is low, as Claire Baker highlighted. There is a growing disenchantment across Europe with European institutions that often appear to put markets before people and which seem remote and detached from the lives that people lead.
However, in the UK—despite the best efforts of some sections of the tabloid press—support for remaining in the EU is now on the increase; according to YouGov, it has risen steadily since 2012, particularly among women and voters in Scotland and in London. That is an encouraging sign for those of us who believe that Scotland’s role is at the heart of Europe.
Scottish Labour’s amendment calls on the EU to focus on tackling inequality and exploitative working practices, and highlights the importance of focusing on measures to protect our public services in trade negotiations, which is particularly topical in light of the current debate on TTIP.
If the European vision is to prosper, it must be about offering hope and opportunities for its citizens, ensuring that globalisation works for working people and guaranteeing that, alongside jobs, there are decent rights.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
One of the most pressing challenges that we face, not just in Scotland but across the EU, is equal pay and the continued gender pay gap that means that, on average, women in Europe are paid 16.2 per cent less than men. Yet, in a recent debate on promoting greater equality, which included agreeing action to reduce the gender pay gap, combat violence against women and promote paid paternity leave, the UK’s Tory MEPs voted against taking action, revealing once more that, when it comes to making life fairer for working people in the UK, the Tories choose not to act. That comes as no surprise from a party that chooses to offer tax breaks to millionaires and to ignore tax avoidance while ordinary families the length of the UK pay the price of austerity. Scottish Labour knows that we only succeed in Scotland when working families succeed. We cannot rebuild our economy based on low wages and temporary and insecure work.
The Tories’ actions, both in Europe and at home, show exactly why Scottish families cannot afford another Tory Government, which is what we will get if the SNP has its way and the Tories are the largest party in May.
It is not just Tory MEPs who are letting down hard-working families in Europe. One of the biggest issues facing the UK is tax evasion, and tackling that problem is one of Scottish Labour’s top priorities. Tax evasion costs European Governments €1 trillion a year, or €2,000 for each and every one of us. That is more than the budget deficits of all member states combined, more than Europe spends on healthcare each year and four times what we spend on education. Yet, in a vote in the European Parliament, SNP MEPs joined UKIP and the Tories and refused to support action to fight tax evasion, tax fraud and aggressive tax avoidance.
While zero-hours contracts are an increasing problem across Scotland, leaving more and more families unable to plan from one week to the next, SNP MEPs, rather than take action, again sat on their hands and abstained, as Michael McMahon highlighted.
Cara Hilton is going through a roll-call of MEPs who voted on the amendment that she is talking about. Does she know that David Martin MEP voted against it?
David Martin made an error, which was corrected—
Members: Oh!
Order, please.
SNP MEPs made a conscious decision not to sign up to action on exploitative zero-hours contracts. That mirrors the position that SNP MSPs have taken in the chamber today, so I am quite astounded that the minister raised that issue at all. SNP MEPs sat on their hands and abstained, leaving Labour as the only UK party to support calls on EU member states to combat zero-hour contracts.
We hear a lot of hot air in this place from the SNP about the party being on the side of working people, but time and time again SNP members sit on their hands and make excuses rather than take action to improve the lives of hard-working families. The message is clear: there is only one party that will stand up for workers’ rights, and that is the Labour Party. We will not abstain when it comes to taking action for working people.
One area that Europe must focus on more is that of tackling child poverty, and the upcoming reforms in the EU give us the opportunity to push children and their rights up to the top of the European political agenda.
A recent Save the Children report highlights the fact that the number of children at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe has risen by almost 1 million in recent years to a staggering 27 million children—poverty that does not just leave children hungry or cold, but which robs them of their dreams, their hopes and their rights, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Much more needs to be done by every single member state to put children’s rights at the centre of the European Union’s work and to fight the unacceptable reality of child poverty right across Europe.
The best future for the UK is within the European Union but we need to work to reform the EU to make it more relevant to people’s lives. We need to ensure that when there is an opportunity to take action at the European level to protect and enhance the rights of Scottish families, we take it.
People need to see the difference that being a member of the EU makes every day. Europe’s future will only be secure if we put the fight for social justice back at its heart.
In Europe—and here in the UK—we achieve more together than we do apart and we must do all that we can to ensure that Scotland and the UK are at the heart of Europe, shaping its future, rather than retreat into the narrow, nasty isolationism and often blatant racism promoted by UKIP.
16:02
This debate occurs against the backdrop of a UK general election, and with Eurosceptic parties on the rise elsewhere in the UK—and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland—the political narrative is becoming ever more insular and isolationist, as Willie Coffey said earlier.
However, research that was conducted by YouGov in August 2014—and referred to in a report by the renowned think tank Chatham House that was published in January—showed that voters in Scotland would vote to stay in the EU. According to that survey, the only other area in the UK that would vote to stay in the EU was London. The survey also found that Scottish voters are more pro-European, more supportive of overseas development aid and more likely than English voters to say that ethics should play a role in foreign policy.
The Chatham House report concluded that
“Heightened scrutiny over the position of an independent Scotland within the EU”
during the referendum period may have driven Scottish voters to consider the value of EU membership, which resulted in a move to a more pro-EU viewpoint.
According to the research, the Scottish public has largely positive associations regarding the benefits of EU membership, such as protection of citizens’ rights and peace and security, while the negative associations are bureaucracy and loss of power, with perhaps a very mixed position on the question of freedom of movement and the limitations on that.
The YouGov survey results showed that Scots would vote to remain in the EU by a 2:1 margin, with 59 per cent of Scots saying that they would vote to stay and only 24 per cent indicating that they would vote to leave, while the rest of the UK would—albeit narrowly—vote to leave the EU.
I know that other, more recent polling evidence suggests a tighter situation, but I think that it is accepted by most commentators that, at the very least, Scotland is less Eurosceptic than the rest of the UK.
I thank Roderick Campbell for taking my intervention. He will be aware of the BBC Scotland survey that was carried out last week in relation to attitudes towards immigration. There is not a direct read-across, of course, but the attitudes to immigration north of the border and south of the border were remarkably similar. I think that that perhaps gives the lie more to what Stewart Maxwell said than to what Roderick Campbell is saying, but it does not indicate the divergence that Roderick Campbell has alluded to.
Different polls produce different results, but I think the BBC poll has been criticised by some people in relation to what was meant by immigration. We will keep that debate for another time.
It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that the rest of the UK would vote to leave the EU and that Scotland would vote to stay in the EU. It would be indefensible for us to be taken out of Europe against our wishes. I reassure my colleague Liam McArthur that I am not aware of anyone in the SNP who somehow believes in or secretly wants a British exit from the EU.
Should a bill on an EU referendum be tabled, it would be right and proper for a simple amendment to be in play requiring all four constituent nations to vote for withdrawal. We need proper protection against any constituent nation being removed from the EU against its will. As many members have referred to, during the referendum campaign, many unionist campaigners talked about a family of nations, but it cannot be a family of nations if one of those nations can be taken out of another union against its will. It is not just the SNP that believes that. The proposal was also commended by Carwyn Jones, who agreed that it was “worth considering”. He warned:
“If the UK leaves the EU on the basis of English votes, it would trigger a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have not seen.”—[Record of Proceedings, National Assembly for Wales, 4 November 2014.]
We cannot risk our place in the EU by pandering to those who would take us out of it against our will.
Although I realise that the EU is not perfect and that its institutions must reconnect with citizens across the EU, I believe that we can achieve reform and improve EU policy without changing the treaties. The emphasis must be on reform. It is important to note that the UK Government’s balance of competences review has to date shown little progress on the issue of repatriating competences from the EU to national Governments. If anything, the review has illustrated how the UK has benefited from the current situation. That is rather at odds with the Conservatives’ intention to use the findings as a basis from which to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU.
Membership of the EU is vital to securing Scotland’s interests and provides the best international framework for Scotland. We benefit from the world’s largest economic and trading area, which is capable of competing with the most advanced economies in the world. We have access to a market of 500 million people and 22 million businesses across the EU, and approximately 336,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on exports to the EU. Therefore, to withdraw would be disastrous for our economy and would put jobs at risk.
It is not just the SNP that recognises the risks of leaving the EU and the downside of a referendum. Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat colleague of Mr McArthur, has said:
“The prospect of a referendum and possible exit from the EU is deeply unsettling for businesses trading in the European single market, from the car industry to financial services”.
I could not agree more. To ensure that Britain trades successfully in the modern world, it must stay in the EU. It is clear that the UK and Scotland would not be taken seriously by the Americans or the Chinese if we were isolated from our European neighbours. Steve Odell, chief executive of Ford of Europe, has said:
“I would strongly advise against leaving the EU for business purposes, and for employment purposes in the UK.”
The EU is not simply a trade association. It strengthens peace, security, justice and prosperity across Europe and we are enriched by the free movement of peoples across the EU. EU migrants have made a positive contribution to the UK in economic and cultural terms. The negative rhetoric on EU migration is hugely concerning, particularly as the indications are that migrants who come to our country to work contribute far more to the country than they take out, as Mr Maxwell referred to.
We need to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard within the EU. With others, we are pushing to ensure that any economic benefits from TTIP cannot be at the expense of our NHS or other public services. That is why the SNP is pushing for a double lock to be enshrined in TTIP that would explicitly exempt the NHS from its scope and respect the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.
The Smith commission report states that the UK Government should
“recognise the need to reflect fully the views of the other devolved administrations when drawing up any revised governance arrangements in relation to Scottish Government representation of the UK to the EU.”
We do not yet know what that will mean in practice—the devil will be in the detail—but we will follow with interest the bill that comes from the Smith commission proposals as it passes through the Westminster Parliament.
Scotland’s interests are best served by being in the EU, not out of it.
16:08
Europe is complex. I sometimes wonder whether the complexity of Europe in people’s minds means that, when it comes to the election of our MEPs, people stay at home. In the referendum, 85 per cent of people went to the polls, because they were energised and excited and they had something that they believed that they could take part in. For many, Europe seems to be somewhere else, which is strange because we are European. An attitude has grown up in the UK that the UK is a stand-alone within Europe. We need to try to shift that.
As a member of the European Union, we are extremely fortunate because, apart from the economic advantages that many members have mentioned, there is a cultural aspect, which interests me.
When we look at the migrants who are coming into our country, schools and universities, we see an embracement of Europe in its wider context, especially from our younger people. I smiled when Murdo Fraser said at committee a few weeks ago, “Who, in this modern day, speaks French?” Well, apart from Mr Allard, the French and many other people, a lot of children in the playgrounds are speaking French, German or Spanish.
When I consider that cultural embracement of languages, I feel quite embarrassed because I struggle with English never mind any other language. My colleague John Mason said that he has a love of the Dutch but fails to be able to speak the language. Is that something that happened within the UK and the Scots? Have we not embraced the ability to speak different languages? We need to try to push that forward because, if we are to be successful—we are successful to some degree—to internationalise our products and to take them to the European market, we need to engage and to be able to speak the language of Europe.
Een schip op het strand is een baken in zee. That is a Dutch saying that a ship that is stranded on the beach is a warning to the sailor. Perhaps that is the Dutch capturing in their language exactly the position that the UK will be in. If the UK leaves, that will warn everyone else of the dangers and promote cohesiveness in the EU.
I always appreciate interventions from my friend and colleague Stewart Stevenson.
The opportunities exist for us to embrace the cultural aspect of Europe and to ensure that our young people take the opportunities that are before them.
We often hear about the oil and gas industry, especially in the north-east of Scotland. Some people say that there is a crisis. There is no crisis. The problem is that there will be a skills shortage that could impact on the industry and its future. However, if our young people embrace migration and the free movement that we have, we can be very successful. Our fishing industry relies heavily on people coming from other countries. Poor lowly Ross County Football Club has brought many Spanish people to Inverness to follow its goalkeeper, who seems to be keeping the team away from the relegation zone—just.
Scotland remains part of the UK and we need to ensure that, when we engage in Europe and the European Parliament, Scotland’s voice, knowledge and expertise are heard. When Richard Lochhead goes to Europe, we should listen to his voice, knowledge and expertise on fishing and agriculture. He knows the industry and would be respected in Europe. It is time to recognise the importance of having Scottish ministers at the top table in Europe. The UK Government needs to consider who has the knowledge and can best serve not only Scotland but the UK when it comes to negotiations.
I am proud to be a Scot and a European. I am proud of the fact that we embrace people from all parts of the world and, certainly, Europe. I am delighted about Italian cuisine, which I love. I also love French cuisine. Mr Allard makes a wonderful beef bourguignon, although he has yet to bring it to my table. In Europe, we have a wonderful aspect that we can embrace and we should embrace the culture.
When it comes to the European elections, we should be saying to people on whose doors we knock, “This is your opportunity to have your voice heard again.” It is important. We should not get back into a situation of sitting on our hands during elections. I am looking forward to the general election, in which I believe that the Scottish voice will be heard in the UK Parliament, perhaps in a way that will influence our direction in Europe. I sincerely hope that that is the case.
However, let us put one myth to rest. We are European. When Jamie McGrigor says that the SNP has many myths around our situation within Europe, he is misinformed. We are European and I believe that we will remain in Europe because, unlike Jamie McGrigor, I am not sure that Mr Cameron will be Prime Minister after the general election.
16:16
Since joining in 1973, the UK’s place in the European Union—or the European Economic Community, as it was known then—has been a topic of political debate across the country. There are many views on that, but I believe that Scotland has clearly benefited from being part of the EU, and will continue to do so in the future.
I want to focus today on the benefits that EU membership can bring to Scotland and on the influence that Scotland can have on the future direction of the EU. The EU is hugely important to Scotland’s economy. Some 40 per cent of foreign direct investment into Scotland comes from firms that are based in EU member states. In the other direction, the EU is where nearly 50 per cent of Scotland’s international exports go. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland are directly and indirectly reliant on our being part of the EU. EU competition law ensures a level playing field for our businesses when operating on the continent. The European regional development fund and the European social fund deliver around £700 million in funding to Scotland. Tens of millions of that will be spent on social projects and economic development in Fife, helping people there get back into work, enhancing our economic competitiveness and developing our environment and our resource efficiency, all while improving social inclusion.
Take, for example, West Fife Enterprise. The organisation was set up in the wake of the closure of coal mines across west Fife. One of the key local leaders at the time was councillor—later MSP—Helen Eadie. It has worked hard for nearly 30 years to help people in Fife improve their life and work opportunities. It works closely with more than 200 companies that operate in Fife, shaping the vocational training that West Fife Enterprise provides. That approach not only helps people who need support in gaining new skills and jobs, but also helps local companies to find new employees with the skills and knowledge that they need to grow their businesses.
West Fife has received nearly £2 million from the European social fund and the European regional development fund for a number of projects in the past 10 years or so. With direct support for that and many other projects, as well as the indirect economic benefits of being part of the European Union, it is abundantly clear that our continued membership of the EU is good for Fife. The same can be said for any part of the country, whether it be the east end of Glasgow, which receives millions from the social fund and the regional development fund each year, or the financial district of Edinburgh, which benefits from the free movement of goods and services within the EU.
The economic benefits extend beyond the EU’s borders. The European Union has negotiated trade agreements with countries all over the world. It gives us a stronger voice on the international economic stage because, in 2010, the 27 member states of the EU accounted for more than a quarter of global GDP.
However, the benefits are not purely economic. More than 150,000 EU citizens are resident in Scotland. Citizens of other EU member states enrich Scotland and add to our multicultural society. Students from the EU make our colleges and universities even better, and Scottish students benefit from being part of exchange schemes like Erasmus, which allow them to experience new learning environments and different cultures. Tens of thousands of Scottish people live in other EU countries, encountering new cultures and picking up skills and expertise that they bring back home. We all benefit from that.
Our beaches are maintained to standards that are set by the EU. We benefit from Europe-wide standards on consumer protection. In Fife and across Scotland, we have untold numbers of farmers and rural workers who benefit from the common agricultural policy and the open market across the entire continent for their produce. We work together across Europe on climate change.
The EU provides important protections to workers, guaranteeing employee protections not just for Scottish and British workers but for those in countries with far less advanced worker protection schemes across the continent.
Recently the EU capped charges for the use of mobile phones when roaming across the EU. The European Parliament hopes soon to go further and abolish the charges outright. Similarly, the European Parliament recently voted in favour of capping credit and debit card transaction fees, a move that would save British businesses nearly £0.5 billion a year. On those and hundreds of other similar issues, being part of the European Union makes business and ordinary people’s lives easier.
We are part of the European arrest warrant. According to the European Commission, prior to the European arrest warrant’s introduction, extradition procedures took on average one year to complete. That has now been cut to an average of 48 days. That, alongside a multitude of arrangements designed to maximise cross-border co-operation on policing, means that Police Scotland and the Crown Office are able to investigate crimes more easily and prosecute them more effectively. We are able to co-operate on transnational issues such as human trafficking with ease.
That is not to say that the EU has no flaws. There is a constant need for reform and refinement, but it is not good enough to seek to leave an enduring and powerful political, economic and social union because it is imperfect. The solution to those flaws is to seek to fix them, not abandon the whole process.
We often congratulate ourselves on how pro-European the people of Scotland are. That is a mistake. We must continue to argue the case for staying in the EU. We must highlight the benefits that derive from our continued membership and the potential losses that would arise if we left, but we must also say what being in the EU says about us. It shows that we want to be open to the world and part of things that are bigger than ourselves. We want to co-operate with others and not close ourselves off. We want to contribute to the world and influence global affairs.
Scotland’s place in the EU is at its heart. We benefit from the economic and social union inherent in the European Union. We all enjoy the direct and indirect benefits of our continued membership. Being a part of the EU is a powerful statement about our place in the world and how we view ourselves.
We should use our place in the EU to press the case for action on inequality and on vital issues such as youth unemployment. That would be of far more practical help to the people of Scotland than the partisan and divisive agendas that others seek to pursue.
We should ensure that we do everything we can to protect and strengthen our position in the EU. It is clear that our voice is amplified on the world stage by our continued membership of the EU and is amplified within the EU itself by our continued membership of the UK.
16:22
In 2012 this Parliament hosted an exhibition of the Wallace letters, which included the Lübeck letter, which is considered to be one of the few artefacts remaining with a connection to Wallace. It was written in 1297 and stated that Scotland was ready to trade with the ports of the Hanseatic League.
That is just one example of Scotland reaching out to trade with our European neighbours, as we do now as enthusiastic, engaged and committed members of the European Union, and it was aye thus.
Scottish links to Europe, ancient and modern, can be found across the whole of the European Union. Bruges, for example, was one of the great commercial centres of Europe and at one point most of the wool being exported from Scotland to the rest of Europe went through its ports. A community of Scottish merchants settled there more than 700 years ago.
Bruges today holds the College of Europe, which was the first university to offer studies in European affairs. The Scottish Government funds scholarships to that institution to this day. That is another example of how Scotland’s prosperity over the centuries has been bound with the ability to trade, travel and work in Europe.
Just as Scots have always worked and lived in Europe, now 160,000-odd people from other EU states have chosen to live and work in Scotland. As has been detailed in many of the speeches this afternoon, they make a massive contribution to Scotland’s economy and culture.
Those European connections are an essential part of who we are. Scotland has always been a nation that looks outwards to its neighbours in Wales, England, Ireland, Northern Ireland and the other nations of Europe. We also welcome visitors to our land. Indeed, it is that that has led historian Tom Devine to describe us as a “mongrel nation”. When I reflect on that, I realise that it means that I am a Scottish citizen, a British citizen and a European citizen. However, if this Scottish citizen embraces a European citizenship, but is told that being a British citizen makes that impossible, that is a personal conflict for me, and for our whole nation. Those who cannot see that it would be a constitutional conflict have their heads in the sand.
Liam McArthur mentioned the second world war. In 1946, Winston Churchill made a famous speech in Zurich, which helped to inspire early pro-European attitudes following the second world war. He said that a stronger European partnership would
“make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause.”
Scotland has made and makes a great contribution to the European cause. There is no doubt that my preference would be that we do that as an independent nation, but nonetheless, as a member of the family of nations of the UK, we continue to make our contribution to Europe.
Does Clare Adamson agree that although Scotland makes an important contribution to Europe, Europe makes an important contribution to Scotland?
I concur absolutely. It is a two-way street; an exchange of ideas, influence and trade that has served Scotland and the rest of Europe well over the centuries.
In my time in this Parliament I have been greatly honoured to witness small nations take the presidency of the EU: Denmark, Lithuania and, notably, Ireland, which concluded the negotiations on the EU’s finances up until 2020. Those small nations are similar in size to Scotland and they have taken a pivotal role in Europe. We should continue to play our role as a small nation within this family of nations.
We find ourselves in a very Eurosceptic position. Margaret Thatcher made a speech in Bruges that seemed out of kilter at the time. It was Eurosceptic, which was unheard of in the EU. Unfortunately, the rhetoric from some Conservatives and UKIP has led us to a much more Eurosceptic position than existed then. Thatcher was arguing not that we should come out of Europe, but that we should change the way in which Europe works. Now, with David Cameron’s proposal to hold an in/out referendum, we find ourselves in a position that seems alien to Scotland and that very few politicians in this country would argue for in any circumstances.
I appreciate that in his speech Jamie McGrigor talked of his pro-European stance, but unfortunately that is not the rhetoric that is coming through during this election campaign. I take no pleasure in this, but I will quote from David Coburn’s written evidence to the European and External Relations Committee. He said:
“UKIP and its anti-establishment, anti EU FDD Group allies have been highly successful in highlighting and warning Scottish business, Agriculture, Fisheries and the Scots in general of damaging European directives issued by an out of touch oligarchic unelected Commission supervised by a eunuch European Parliament.”
Challenging and intemperate language from Mr Coburn—and not for the first time. That is what is driving the call for an in/out referendum on Europe. It is not the position that Jamie McGrigor laid out this afternoon.
I hope that Scotland will embrace the opportunities of a renegotiated position in Europe; one that could reinforce public trust in the EU’s governance and its ability to improve materially the lives of people in relation to what it can do on workers’ rights, as many of my Labour colleagues have mentioned today. There is also an opportunity to prioritise economic policies that stimulate sustainable growth and to have social policies that ensure that everyone can benefit from that growth and improve their country. There is also an opportunity to complete the as yet incomplete dream of a big European project that will bind us absolutely. If we look at some of the challenges of global warming, we see that perhaps there is an opportunity to have a renewable energy grid across Europe, which could interlink out countries even more, through a great European project of the type that has come up over the years.
I, for one, want to stay in Europe.
We turn to closing speeches. I call Cameron Buchanan.
16:30
It is ironic that I have never heard the SNP members speak so much about family, when not long ago they were voting to leave a different family. Anyway, I would like to thank members for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate, and to support my colleague Jamie McGrigor’s amendment.
It is clear that all of us across the chamber value Scotland’s and the wider UK’s ties with Europe, and that is very much to be welcomed. Having spent time at the Sorbonne in Paris, and with my exposure to Europe’s rich tapestry of culture and language through past business activities, I can certainly agree that there is an intrinsic cultural, social and economic value to Scotland’s interactions with our friends across the continent.
We must nevertheless accept that many people throughout the United Kingdom feel that the European Union must change. It is fair to say that it is not the same institution that the UK chose to join in 1973, or that the UK electorate voted two to one to remain part of in 1975.
The Conservative amendment refers to negotiating
“a new settlement for the UK”.
Would that involve treaty change? If it involves treaty change, would that not lead to countries such as Ireland that can allow treaty change only through a referendum in their countries having a veto over any negotiations that the UK may undertake?
I thank Mr Stevenson for that comment. It is not just a treaty change. We are trying to alter some of the petty rules that we have got in the European Union. There are too many petty rules, and we have not yet defined the negotiations, although we know what the petty rules are.
The European Union today is too bureaucratic and too undemocratic. It is known more to the general public for unnecessary interference than for the positive benefits that membership brings, such as the single market and free trade. The creep of EU red tape continues, while ever-closer union looms large at the expense of our national sovereignty.
Since 1975, the geopolitical environment has changed. We have experienced one of the worst economic crises in living memory. Forty years have passed since the British people last had a say on the EU and that is simply not good enough. That is why the Conservatives have committed to negotiate a new settlement—not a treaty—for the UK in Europe, followed by an in/out referendum before the end of 2017.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly. Bien sûr.
I thank the member for taking an intervention. I would like to ask whether Mr Cameron Buchanan will help me on one particular matter. We have been talking about having a referendum to take Britain out of the EU. We had a referendum last year in which I participated, as did many EU migrants. Will we participate in that referendum or not?
Our referendum is not to take Britain out of the EU. It is to renegotiate the terms—
Will I get a vote?
Of course you will.
Can you ensure that?
I cannot. It is not my—
Order. Mr Buchanan, are you taking another intervention? If not, I cannot allow conversations across the chamber.
I am sorry.
That is why the UK, in 2013, launched a campaign to cut EU red tape. In the first year alone, that campaign brought about savings to UK businesses of more than £200 million. Further reforms, potentially worth up to £500 million to UK businesses, are still being implemented.
Further, as part of the cut EU red tape campaign, the UK Government supports the adoption of a common sense filter for all new European Commission proposals, called the COMPETE principles. It is also out to put a stop to the practice of gold plating, ensuring that Government does not go beyond the minimum requirements of EU law when implementing EU directives, unless it is clearly in the UK interest. Those are a few examples of the many things that we are trying to do to reform the EU.
The Conservatives have cut the EU budget for the first time in its history. We got Britain out of eurozone bailouts and we protected our rebate. The Conservatives have campaigned to end the travelling circus of the European Parliament decamping from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month, which reportedly costs £928 million over a seven-year cycle. The Conservatives have a track record on change in Europe, but we are going further than that: we want the UK’s membership of the EU to have a popular mandate, and we want to serve the best interests of the British people.
Forty years ago, the referendum on the European Community was held on the basis of a simple one-person-one-vote system. The referendum on independence last year had no additional requirements other than a simple majority of votes. To suggest additional terms such as a double majority that could potentially prevent the UK from leaving the EU even if three out of the four constituent parts had voted in favour is not democracy in action. That is not a popular vote, and according to the recent Chatham house-YouGov survey, it is not what the people of Great Britain want. Some 60 per cent of the public are now in favour of a referendum and only 24 per cent are opposed to it.
My hope is that together we can bring about the necessary reforms to change the European Union for the better. It is for the British people from all corners of the United Kingdom to decide whether they wish to stay in it. Either way, the Conservatives will respect that decision.
I will vote in favour of Jamie McGrigor’s amendment.
I remind members that everyone who has participated in a debate should be in the chamber for the closing speeches. I was about to say that I noted that Hanzala Malik was not in the chamber and that I would be grateful for an explanation of that, but I have just seen him enter the chamber.
16:36
As I said in my opening speech, that was my first speech in our European team as such with committee members and MSPs who have an interest in Europe. I have found the debate very interesting and encouraging, with largely positive contributions.
As a literature graduate, I very much welcomed Christian Allard’s cultural comments and the Dutch from Stewart Stevenson, which managed to entertain us.
Members have covered a wide range of issues, including workforce issues. Michael McMahon described the workforce benefits that have successfully been fought for in the EU and more that we need to do on that.
Cara Hilton talked about tackling tax avoidance and the greater role that the EU can play in that.
Christian Allard talked about the need for co-operation and highlighted trafficking as an important angle. In a modern world, we need to work in co-operation to solve those problems.
Many members have talked about the need for the EU to be less remote and more engaged with its electorate. Dennis Robertson described the feeling of remoteness very well and gave a good description of the role of culture, our languages, performances and human relationships to better improve our engagement with Europe.
There are three different proposals before us, which I imagine will not gain much cross-party support across the chamber at decision time. That is a pity, because it appears that there is much that we agree on. Europe is positive for Scotland and good for our economy, being part of the Union brings us positive social and cultural benefits, and there is much that we can learn from each other.
Last year, I went to the first rural parliament conference in Scotland. We have seen that model working well in Europe to the benefit of rural communities.
We have a long history of trade with and movement in Europe. Our modern institutions support those relationships in a way that looks to bring fairness and prosperity to Europe.
In many ways, we are in a strong position in Europe, notwithstanding the comments that were made—I am afraid that I cannot remember which member made them—about the current Conservative Government’s approach to Europe. The Conservatives certainly have a different history of Europe. They are not enthusiastically European, although that is not universal in that party.
I believe that Nick Clegg has represented the UK Government only once in Europe, in the early phases of the coalition. Sometimes I imagine where we would be now if that had continued.
Notwithstanding that, we have strengths in Europe. By continuing to have the pound rather than the euro, we have the advantage of our own currency while we retain full access to the single market.
It is important that we make a strong case for staying in the European Union. The costs of leaving the Community, which we have been part of for more than four decades, far outweigh any outcomes that we would get in return. It is vital that we play a full part in the future of an organisation that was founded to oppose aggression between states.
We should ensure that Britain continues to have an impact on Europe in the best way possible. As Christian Allard described, free movement in the European Union allows Scottish people to move, live, work and study throughout the countries that are part of the EU as well as allowing other EU citizens to come to Scotland. That is vital for the growth of the country as well as Europe as a whole. Shutting ourselves out of the opportunity to move freely throughout much of Europe would be detrimental not only to those who benefit from coming to Scotland and the UK, but to our citizens who benefit from the opportunities that other parts of Europe offer.
The member talks about the EU migrants who come to this country and contribute to society. One of the great contributions that we migrants can make is that we are allowed to vote, which I and many others did in last year’s referendum. Would the Labour Party support my voting in the referendum that the Conservative Party wants?
Is the member asking about voting rights in a possible referendum on the EU?
Yes. Would I have the right to vote?
I do not support a referendum. I hope that, after May, we will have a Labour Government and there will be no referendum.
Christina McKelvie talked about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I was pleased to have the SNP’s support earlier this year when it joined Labour and the Greens to protect the NHS from private incursions by US healthcare providers. It is imperative that the NHS is exempt from any trade agreement.
Trade agreements are important. We want to get the benefits from an increasingly global marketplace and we need to seek new opportunities. If we do not take the opportunities, other countries and markets will. However, member states across the EU will have concerns about what impact TTIP could have on their public services. We in the UK must not accept the inclusion of the NHS in it.
This morning, the European and External Relations Committee published its report, “The implications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for Scotland.” The committee conducted an in-depth inquiry into the issue and I will take time to look at its conclusions, but I welcome the focus on the protection of the NHS.
In this morning’s media, the minister talked about a Eurosceptic Westminster. Stewart Maxwell wrapped up all the UK parties together in that regard. That misrepresents parties’ positions on Europe to suit a nationalist narrative. Labour, the Liberals and the Greens are not Eurosceptic.
I was talking specifically about the Tory Government and its policies. I think that I made several explicit references to the Tory party. I did not mention Labour once. I am sorry that the member took that view, because that is not what I intended.
I accept Stewart Maxwell’s response. I thought that, in talking about a Westminster elite, he had wrapped up the parties together, but I appreciate that clarification.
Yesterday, the First Minister was in London calling for Welsh voters to vote for Plaid Cymru and for English voters to vote Green. The consequence of that would not be that Britain dances to UKIP’s tune, but that it dances to the Conservative’s tune for the next five years. It would also guarantee an in/out referendum that most people in the chamber do not want to see.
Stewart Maxwell and Willie Coffey made some points that looked to rerun aspects of last year’s referendum. I know that some members were disappointed with the referendum result, but the majority of people voted to stay in the UK. Members were right to say that the debate suggested that people in Scotland want to stay in Europe. The vote showed that the arguments around EU membership, the strength of the UK as the member state and the retention of the rebate and other UK benefits won the day. However, the SNP’s case on Europe at the time was neither credible nor supported by a significant majority of EU experts. It did not have the support of the decision makers, who repeatedly highlighted the difficulties of securing the agreement of 28 member states. That was the key thing.
Those MSPs who sounded as though they were positively looking forward to an in/out referendum, which would cause a constitutional crisis, should reflect on last year’s reports about Fiona Hyslop’s concerns over the price of Scotland leaving the EU and negotiating its own membership—those concerns were glossed over in the subsequent white paper. That was last year. We must move on to the circumstances presented to us.
As Liam McArthur said, the Smith commission made proposals for strengthening Scotland’s role in the UK and the EU. Good practice is in place. Last December, Angela Constance attended and spoke at both the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council and the education, youth, culture and sport council as the sole UK representative. At last December’s agriculture and fisheries council, key Scottish objectives were secured. I was much encouraged by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment’s positive report to the European and External Relations Committee on Scotland’s EU engagement through the UK.
Of course, there have been weaknesses—Lord Rupert Ponsonby, the seventh Baron de Mauley, leading on fishing negotiations when Richard Lochhead was there is a case in point, and I was critical of that decision at the time. We must learn lessons from such examples. However, if we improve Scotland’s role in the UK delegation, as I believe that the Smith proposals will do, Scotland will carry influence as one of the larger member states. Let us improve our working relationships but retain the advantages that come from the UK’s membership of the EU.
Liam McArthur gave a fair analysis of the problems with the double-majority proposal. As I said earlier, I do not think that that proposal is credible. It would be similar to a majority making a decision in last year’s referendum but those in a local authority area being able to veto it. Scotland voted to stay in the UK last year in the knowledge that there could be an EU referendum, and we chose to continue to make decisions in such reserved areas together.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. There has been some rehashing of old arguments and rehearsal of future ones and, with our different proposals, we will not find much agreement at decision time. However, there is much more agreement than disagreement in the chamber. Rod Campbell set out some of the positive arguments, including supportive comments from businesses about the importance of the UK’s role in Europe.
We have a task before us to continue to strengthen the UK’s membership of the EU and to win the arguments, not just economic but emotional. The EU is a union built around the desire for peace and co-operation. We have a responsibility to tell our story of Europe—both its history and its future—and to continue to play a positive part in it.
16:46
In my opening speech I should have welcomed the fact that Claire Baker is making her first opening and winding-up speeches for Labour in her new role. She did so very well and very succinctly and got to the heart of many issues. As she said, and as many members have reflected, this has been a good positive debate about the benefits of the EU. I do not know whether similar debates in other Parliaments and Assemblies across these islands would be as positive as this debate in the Scottish Parliament has been. I commend all members for that.
There has been a supportive approach, and I am encouraged that there is broad agreement around the Scottish Government’s EU priorities. Members of the European and External Relations Committee have questioned the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs and me on those priorities, and during those meetings I have found broad agreement, which I am pleased has been reflected here in the chamber.
I will pick up on a few of the points that have been raised. All of us have said that Scotland’s relationship with the European Union has been about more than just trade and investment; there is also a social purpose to it, in respect of reducing inequality and fighting poverty.
I had better respond to comments that were made by Claire Baker and Anne McTaggart—and possibly by Cara Hilton and Michael McMahon—regarding voting by SNP MEPs. I had a look at the matter that was mentioned. First, it was not a legally binding vote by any stretch of the imagination—the vote was on an own-initiative report. The reason why SNP and Green MEPs and the rest of the group to which Labour MEPs belong voted against the proposal—or abstained, in our case—was that the definition of “atypical labour” could include lone parents on part-time contracts, for example. Interpretation was the problem. Generally speaking, all of us will look towards the European Union to ensure that fighting inequality and reducing poverty are at the heart of the matter.
I am greatly heartened by the level of support that members have shown for Scotland’s continued membership of the European Union and the real benefits that we get from it—not just access to the half a billion European consumers and businesses, but more than that.
Liam McArthur and other members made a good point about structural funds. Perhaps we are not good at delving down and making them relevant to what they actually mean to people. There is the €985 million that has been mentioned by various members. Add to that the match funding from the Scottish Government, which takes the amount up to €1.9 billion. What does that actually mean? What does it do for the people whom we represent? Examples include the European structural funds funded Ayrshire youth employment service, which so far has created 1,250 job opportunities in Ayrshire and has benefited from about £1.6 billion of funding.
The minister is outlining many of the positive aspects of being in Europe—and there are many. Why is it, then, that people seem to be disengaged when it comes to voting in European elections? We have these absolutely positive benefits of being members of the European Union, but we do not seem to be getting that message across. Who is failing?
We all bear responsibility. That goes back to the point that I was just trying to make, which is that if we do not translate the positive benefits of European membership into what they mean for people’s everyday lives, why would people be interested? On top of that, in our EU reform agenda we have said clearly that the European Union should be tackling issues that matter to people—the mass youth unemployment across the European continent being one example.
I hope that this comment will be helpful. In response to Dennis Robertson’s legitimate concern, it does not help that member states across Europe have track records of going along to Council meetings, signing up to inevitable compromise agreements and then tearing apart the agreement that they have signed up to in order to protect themselves from criticism on the aspect of the compromise that their citizens are slightly less enamoured with.
Who would have thought it? Politicians playing politics. However, that can happen, and I agree with Liam McArthur that it is not helpful.
Scotland will continue to have the opportunity to bid into a range of EU competitive funding programmes. Scottish universities have managed to win €572 million of funding over the period 2007-14. To give members a sense of scale, that represents more than 1.3 per cent of the entire EU research budget. I would like to reassure Claire Baker and others who have raised the issue of the reduction of horizon 2020. We do not want to see any further reduction there, but we hope that academic and research institutions will benefit as a result of the Juncker investment package.
I understand Hanzala Malik’s point about third sector organisations trying to tap into EU funding, but it was slightly unfair of him to say that no progress has been made. I have recently spoken to Hanzala and other members of the European and External Relations Committee about the funding portal that Scotland Europa has created, for the exact reason that he mentioned. The beta version of that funding portal has been launched; it will become a one-stop shop for information on the 40 or so EU funds that are currently available to organisations in Scotland. It will also provide information on projects that are currently running or are completed that involve Scottish partners, as well as information on project partners.
Perhaps I was a little unfair. It is just that I feel very passionate about the third sector and our small companies. Rather than just a one-stop shop, I want to see officers on the ground, supporting people to do the job. At the moment, that is missing.
I refer Hanzala Malik to Scotland Europa, which does an excellent job in that regard. It has a number of organisations. However, there is always more that we can do and I am happy to reflect on that. As he will know, the Brussels office is very hard working, as are Scottish Development International and other partners.
The benefits that flow from European Union membership—be it the talent pool that migration to Scotland brings, the economics or the free trade—are not advanced by arguing for the status quo. We all agree that things need to change and that a degree of reform is needed.
Dennis Robertson made a very good point about the apathy of EU voters. I think that that apathy stems from a feeling that there is little that individuals can do to change things in Europe. If, as he says he does, the minister agrees that there should be reform, is it a good thing that the Conservative Party is pushing for reform in the things that come out of Europe that are not beneficial, rather than in the things that are beneficial?
It is interesting that the Conservatives’ own review of the balance of competences—which looked through departments with a fine-tooth comb with regard to their relationship with Europe and whether there is a need for reform—found that the balance is just about right. Jamie McGrigor started his speech earlier by saying how pro-European he is, but then spent the next six minutes telling us everything that is wrong with Europe. I could almost hear the gritting of his teeth as he was doing so. The point is that where reform is necessary, it will not be achieved by holding a gun to Europe’s head.
The EU needs to show that it means business by tackling the bureaucracy that Jamie McGrigor mentioned and by having a root-and-branch review of existing regulatory burdens. The REFIT programme is therefore welcome, with the caveat that it must not lower any environmental standards, and so on. As Jamie McGrigor talked about reforms, I waited to hear what reforms he wants to be made. The Conservatives have yet to produce a list of their top three reforms and an indication of whether they would require treaty change.
Michael McMahon was good in highlighting the alternatives to membership of the EU, which could be extremely dangerous. He mentioned Norway and Switzerland and said that membership of the European Free Trade Association would be unacceptable, because it would mean that Europe would be running our country, but we would not be able to have any say in Europe. As he was making that point, I could hear the voice of the late great Margo MacDonald—we fully agree that the best place for Scotland is within the European Union, as is the case at present.
We hope that there will not be an in/out referendum on membership of the EU. We do not support the holding of such a referendum, but if there is one we do not have to wait for it in order to argue for the benefits of the EU. We have never argued that there should not be a vote for all people of the UK. In the Scottish independence referendum, nobody seriously argued that everybody across the UK should get a vote, because it was a vote for the Scottish people.
On behalf of all the people from the EU who, like me, voted in last year’s independence referendum, in the unlikely event that David Cameron is elected and a referendum is held on whether to get out of the EU, will the minister push the Westminster Government to ensure that we will have a vote, too?
We do not want a referendum, but we feel that if one is held Christian Allard and others like him should not be disenfranchised.
A decision to come out of the EU could have potentially devastating impacts on our economy, on the migrant communities who live here and on the academic sector. In this family of nations in which we are supposed to have an equal voice in the UK, it would be unimaginable for Scotland to be somehow dragged against its will out of the EU. That would be totally unacceptable. That is why our motion simply says that Scotland should have an equal voice. It would be quite incredible were we to find ourselves at 5 o’clock in a situation in which, although the Labour First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, says that the proposal that Scotland should have an equal voice is worth considering, the Labour Party in Scotland votes against it.
Claire Baker rose—
The minister has 10 seconds left.
I hope that members across the Parliament will vote to give Scotland an equal voice in the European Union and that they will not allow us to be dragged outside the EU against our will. Let us continue to make the case for Scotland—and, indeed, the UK—to remain in the EU.