European Treaty
The next item of business is a debate on the European treaty.
As a minister of the Scottish Government, it is a great pleasure for me to lead the debate in our Parliament. Some members will point to the fact that the Scotland Act 1998 prevents this Government from directly participating in the international discussions that are under way on the draft European Union reform treaty. Our clear view is that, for all the influencing that we can do—and, in fact, do—through the United Kingdom Government, Scotland would be best able to represent its interests as an independent member state of the European Union.
Will the minister give way?
No.
The devolution settlement demands that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament be closely involved in a huge range of European issues. Much of the legislation that the Scottish Parliament deals with starts in Brussels, and decisions that are made at the European level affect the lives of everyone who lives in Scotland.
Members who were at yesterday's European and External Relations Committee meeting know first hand the variety and detail of this Government's EU priorities. Those priorities and our engagement with the EU in general reflect the fact that it yields great economic, social and cultural benefit to the people of Scotland. The international co-operation that it affords means that many of our priorities on the environment, the economy and energy will be delivered in partnership with it and its member states.
However, anyone who followed the discussion at the committee yesterday will also know how difficult and divisive any treaty reform can be. Therefore, it is entirely right that the Parliament should consider and form views on the structure and processes of the European Union. Although we may not always like every outcome of the EU's activities, this Government will be a reliable, consistent and competent partner on the European stage. Members will be aware that the First Minister and I visited Brussels in the first 100 days of this Government to start building the contacts that will allow us to raise Scotland's voice in Europe.
I will mention some facts about the draft EU reform treaty. First, the timescales and process that emerged from the European Council in June were clear but demanding. The intergovernmental conference has been tasked with producing a text for agreement in mid-October, with formal sign-off at the European Council in December. The mandate to which the IGC is working means that much of what will be in the reform treaty text that emerges is already decided. Equally important, much is still up for grabs. I would not take seriously the claims of anyone who thinks that they can predict how all the discussions will go, but it is right that this Government is clear about what it can and cannot accept.
It is worth saying what is good about the treaty that is likely to emerge. Negotiating a document among 27 partners with a wide range of interests will never be easy going, but the treaty is an important contribution—indeed, it is the only one on the table—to helping an enlarged EU do some of its business better. We should all welcome steps towards improving the efficiency and transparency of the governance of the EU.
Some members are, of course, sceptical of the European Union. I am sure that they will welcome the clarity that the reform treaty brings to the voluntary nature of membership of the EU. It seems likely that the treaty will include a provision that asserts the right of any member state to withdraw from the union. There is no irrevocable transfer of powers to the union.
At the European and External Relations Committee yesterday, Margo MacDonald asked about passerelle clauses, and I will answer her question now. Some passerelle clauses exist in the current treaties. New ones in the reform treaty would extend the use of procedures that allow decisions that currently require unanimity to be taken by majority voting. Some people have raised concerns about those clauses, which would allow simplified treaty revision without an intergovernmental conference—I understand that those provisions are what Ms MacDonald referred to yesterday as "the ratchet clause". I understand those concerns, but the fact that any such change requires the agreement of all the member states and that, in the most significant cases, a single national Parliament is allowed to block such a move means that there is comfort that such flexibility will not be misused. That in-built veto on the loss of a veto is a decision that the UK should accept but, of course, I would be more comfortable if we, like many small independent countries, were at the top table considering directly whether that was the correct thing to do.
The minister and I covered some of this ground yesterday. Does she understand my concern that it is a poor bargain to trade a veto, which finishes a matter once and for all, for her assurance that the system is likely to work well? The two things cannot be equated legally, and it is an extension of the law.
It is a veto on a veto that Scotland will not have. We should have it; we should be up there with all the other small independent countries that will have that right if the treaty goes through.
As it is a reform treaty and not a constitution, we should welcome the clear delineation of competences. However, this Government profoundly opposes where things have got to with the common fisheries policy. The identification of conservation of marine biological resources as an exclusive competence of the EU is a measure to which we continue to object. It puts the objectionable common fisheries policy directly into the treaty base for the first time and would make it all the harder to retreat from that policy, as we wish to.
My party made its opposition clear when the issue was discussed during the drawing up of the previous treaty, and this Government will continue to make the case for reform of the common fisheries policy and for returning competence over the conservation of marine biological resources to coastal states. Had we been at the negotiating table directly, we could have made clear to all concerned the depth of our opposition.
We are also not happy with some of the institutional effects that will probably emerge from the treaty. As a result of the enlargement process, the UK Government is preparing once again to reduce the number of members of the European Parliament who represent Scotland. We have made our opposition to that clear, but the solution is also clear: an independent Scotland would have twice the number of MEPs that it currently has. In the short term, we think that there is a strong case for looking again at the UK legislation that provides that Scotland will have only 6 MEPs from 2009.
One area that is up for grabs at the IGC and on which we are working closely with the UK Government is the framework for justice and home affairs policy. We supported the UK line at the European Council in June and are working with the UK Government to continue to ensure that the UK negotiating position at the IGC takes full account of our interests in defending the unique justice and legal systems in Scotland.
On many of the issues currently under consideration, the challenge to us following any ratification will be to ensure that the UK Government implements the treaty framework in a way that allows Scottish interests to be reflected properly. The same is true of this Parliament and its Westminster equivalent in relation to the new subsidiarity proposals. I hope that this Parliament will be able to build a constructive relationship with Westminster to ensure that Scotland's voice is present in the operation of the new mechanism.
In conclusion, I hope that members share my view that this Government and this Parliament should continue to take a close interest in developments at the IGC and beyond, but I reiterate that any deal that entrenches the common fisheries policy would be something that this Government would oppose clearly and vocally.
I have a sense of déjà vu, as I find myself on the Opposition front bench for the first time since the Tory Government in the 1990s—even more so as I once again debate a European treaty. I am pleased that this time we are having an afternoon debate rather than the hours and hours of all-night sittings that we endured with the Maastricht treaty in 1992. I point out to Conservative colleagues that the Maastricht treaty was infinitely more significant in its transfer of powers and its extension of qualified majority voting than the treaty that we are debating today. I also point out to them that the Tory Government at the time was implacably opposed to a referendum, as Baroness Thatcher had been on the even more far-reaching Single European Act six years before.
I thank Linda Fabiani for giving us some limited pointers today and at the European and External Relations Committee yesterday about the Government's attitude to the treaty. I must say that before that I was completely in the dark about SNP policy. All I had to go by was The Herald on 7 September quoting a senior source, who said:
"The party is not sure whether it wants a referendum, and if there is one, it is not sure which way it would campaign".
Come to think of it, Linda Fabiani addressed neither of those issues in her speech.
We in the Labour Party believe that the amending treaty will allow the EU to move on from debates about institutions to creating an outward-looking Europe, which we desperately need to meet the fundamental challenges of globalisation, climate change, terrorism and international development.
The treaty does not embody a far-reaching European constitution, although no doubt the next speaker will argue that it does. It is a traditional amending treaty, with some pragmatic evolutionary changes that streamline decision making, improve efficiency and safeguard democratic accountability through providing an enhanced role for the Parliaments of member states. As the Conservative MEP John Purvis said at the European and External Relations Committee yesterday:
"We need to do something to modernise the Community so that it works properly."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 18 September 2007; c 49.]
The treaty does precisely that: it sets out the EU's powers and their limits without changing fundamentally the relationship between the EU and member states.
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for giving way and welcome him to the Labour front bench in his new role. Does he think that Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, is telling lies—or does he just have it wrong—when he says:
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact"?
There are obviously limited transfers, but the significance of the UK position is that the UK Government has not bought into the whole treaty, so the treaty that it has agreed is different in significant respects from the treaty in Luxembourg or other European countries.
I thought that Margo MacDonald was going to ask about qualified majority voting, which is one of the more controversial issues that has arisen in connection with the treaty. In that regard, the extensions that apply to the UK are modest but sensible.
I turn to the issue of a referendum, which I suspect will dominate the debate. As I have said, the treaty is not a constitutional treaty as originally envisaged, but a standard reforming treaty. There is therefore no case for holding a referendum on the basis of precedent, and no such case arises from the Labour UK manifesto; neither do I believe that there is a case in principle, given that referendums should be reserved for areas of substantial constitutional change.
Will the member explain what the differences are between the previous constitution, which was rejected, and the current treaty?
That would take all day.
As my friend indicates, that would take a great deal of time, because many significant changes have been made. Crucially, the UK has decided not to be part of areas of the treaty, particularly in judicial and home affairs, which Linda Fabiani welcomed, and in many other significant areas such as tax, social security and the protocol on the charter.
It will be interesting to hear the views of other parties on that—although I fear that their views will be predictable. The Tories' call for a referendum is pure game playing and is born of political desperation. It makes a nonsense of the strongly stated previous position that they had when they were in Government and is based on a misrepresentation of what the treaty involves. There is far less transfer in this treaty than in the previous treaties and the constitutional concept has been abandoned.
In a brief note submitted yesterday, the Scottish Government seemed to indicate that it would support the treaty
"but not if the Government's red line concerning exclusive competence over marine biological resources under the CPF is ignored."
Linda Fabiani seemed to indicate yesterday in evidence to the European and External Relations Committee—although, again, not today—that that would trigger support for a referendum. However, there is nothing new in the treaty that changes the current situation in that regard, so it is not clear to me why the SNP would support a referendum—and, presumably, a no vote—merely to end up with the status quo in relation to the common fisheries policy if the treaty was rejected. Perhaps the SNP needs to clarify its position on the common fisheries policy more generally. Does it still support withdrawal from the CFP, with the inevitable consequence of withdrawal from the EU, or has that policy gone to the shredder as well?
The trouble is that the SNP's whole position on Europe is weak, inconsistent and full of contradictions, quite apart from the serious difficulties that were highlighted by Commissioner Borg in his interview in The Scotsman today. It is clear from that interview that it might take months or even years for an independent Scotland to renegotiate entry into the EU, assuming that that was still SNP policy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am in my last minute, so I cannot take an intervention.
I will allow a quick intervention.
Commissioner Borg has said that yesterday he gave a personal opinion that was taken out of context and he made it clear that what he said was all speculation. He also said that it was not in his competence to comment on that area. Does the member accept that? Does he accept that what he is saying is a dose of spurious nonsense?
I accept that there are a range of views. I was merely quoting the views of a commissioner, whose views obviously have to be taken seriously.
The truth is that while the SNP prevaricates, Labour has taken decisive action to negotiate a progressive and evolutionary treaty that is good for Scotland, good for Britain and good for Europe. I commend it to the chamber.
I call Ted Brocklebank. Mr Brocklebank, you have four minutes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
"To me, this old ideological debate about Britain in Europe seems increasingly out of place and time … We need … a radical reform of the EU budget and an end to backward-looking attempts at European state-building … We do not need a constitutional treaty that fundamentally changes the relationship between member states and the EU."
I hope that nobody on the Labour benches disagrees with those comments, which were made in a recent article in The Sunday Times by Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's closest Cabinet confidant. If that is what Ed Balls is writing, it is what Gordon Brown is thinking—and there is nothing in there that Conservatives would disagree with.
If one is to believe those who oppose a referendum—such as Malcolm Chisholm, whom I welcome to the Opposition front bench—the reform treaty is not about fundamental change or transfer of sovereignty. That, however, is not what Giscard D'Estaing—the man who drafted the original treaty—thinks. He claims that the new version
"still contains all the key elements"
of the constitution. The Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos says that the reform treaty still contains 98 per cent of the constitutional treaty, and that
"the wrapping has been changed, but not the content".
Far from giving up on Ed Balls's backward-looking state building, all the ingredients of the superstate are still there.
We were told that the role of EU foreign minister had been ditched; in fact, just the name has been changed. The new title is high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. We are still to have an EU President. He will have 3,500 civil servants and will speak to the world in our name—he will be, in effect, Mr Europe.
As for our vaunted foreign policy safeguard—the most important of Gordon Brown's red-line issues—we now learn that the guarantees on foreign policy are not legally binding. Conservatives accept that different treaty arrangements are needed for a Union of 27 countries—compared the arrangements that were needed for a Union of six originally—but that is not what the reform treaty is, and Gordon Brown really has to stop trying to convince us that it is. In the new mood of consensus, I look forward to having a consensual debate, and I cannot see why it should not be consensual—after all, members of every party seem to want a referendum in some shape or form. Tony Blair said:
"you cannot … have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and bring it back with a few amendments".
So say all of us, and—as we know—Labour's 2005 manifesto promised us a referendum. Labour's former Minister for Europe, Keith Vaz, and a growing number of back benchers and trade unionists have all said that they favour a referendum, so why is Gordon Brown—and Malcolm Chisholm—prevaricating?
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, if Irene Oldfather is brief.
I have a lot of questions to ask the member, but I will make my intervention brief. Why did the Conservatives not support a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, which far further extended the powers of the European Union?
The question today is, why did Labour pledge a referendum in its manifesto and then go back on that pledge?
Linda Fabiani says that the SNP might campaign for a referendum if certain red-line issues, including aspects of fisheries, are not addressed in the final text of the treaty. The Lib Dems, too, have belatedly come round to the view that a referendum might not be a bad idea, although Sir Ming's idea is that the referendum should be on UK membership of the EU. I thought that we had already had that referendum. Maybe Ming has been converted to the Québecois notion of neverendums.
As we know, European treaty negotiations are reserved to another place and Gordon Brown will make the eventual decision, but today we have an excellent opportunity to send him a unified message from the Scottish Parliament. I believe that the Prime Minister's instincts are against the building of a European superstate. Ed Balls—his master's voice—says that that is what was wrong with the constitutional treaty, but as we have seen and heard, the reform treaty is 98 per cent of the original. I ask Gordon Brown to do what Tony Blair promised: to put his trust in the British people and give us a referendum.
This is a highly relevant debate on a subject of vital importance to Scotland, the United Kingdom and the future direction of Europe. The EU reform treaty is rather like an operation to unclog heart valves and blood vessels and make the body work more efficiently. It aims to make the European Union, which was designed for a membership of six, work for a Community of 27 countries. It focuses not on the tedious constitutional debate itself but on the things that matter for Europe's citizens, such as energy security, climate change, organised crime and terrorism, and a more effective international voice for Europe.
I say clearly that the treaty is good for Scotland and good for Britain. It will streamline the Commission, allow more effective decision making in the Council and ensure that democratic accountability is transformed, not just by allowing the European Parliament a more substantial role but by giving national Parliaments a central role, which Linda Fabiani touched on.
As it happens, the changes will increase the weight given to population and therefore the UK's share of the votes, thereby increasing Scotland's influence through the United Kingdom. Those changes are important, but they do not increase the power of the European Union as such and they certainly do not merit the furore that we have had from the ever-present Eurosceptics, clearly still alive and well on the Conservative benches—as they have been for the past 30 years. During that time, the Conservative party has been motivated—and blighted—by Europe but, as was pointed out earlier, it did not under the saintly Mrs Thatcher allow a referendum on the much further reaching changes in the Maastricht treaty.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will carry on a little, if members do not mind.
I want to make two central points. The first is that it is high time that we changed the tone of the debate from one of carping criticism and strident negativity to one that puts Britain at the heart of Europe—the words, but unfortunately not always the attitude, of Tony Blair. An influential Britain or an irrelevant Britain—that is the choice facing us, which Ted Brocklebank and others should recognise. It is time for us to accept and welcome the European Union.
My second point is directed at the SNP Government. Governments should govern, but the SNP Administration clearly just administers. It is unbelievable that we are not presented with a motion on the SNP Government's attitude to the treaty, which is due to be signed this autumn in Lisbon.
Does the member accept that the business managers from both the Conservative and Labour parties agreed that we should have a debate without a motion? We have had that discussion already, so he is fighting old ground that is not really relevant. Should he not get on to the matter in front of us?
With respect, I am not fighting old ground: the point is fundamental to how the Parliament operates. We should be holding the SNP Government to account—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if Mr Crawford wants to make further interventions, let him stand up and offer them rather than make comments from the side.
My point is about the accountability of the SNP Government. The truth is that the SNP has no policies on the treaty. A policy is perhaps beginning to come out from Linda Fabiani, but it should be before members for consideration. I understand that she said yesterday that the SNP Government's priority was to get the best deal for Scotland. Pardon me, but I thought that that was the approach of the previous Executive and, indeed, that it would be the approach of any alternative Scottish Executive. It hardly informs the debate to know that.
Linda Fabiani also said as recently as yesterday that the SNP had yet to take a view on the treaty. As Malcolm Chisholm rightly said, it would help to know whether the SNP still supports the scrapping of the common fisheries policy. The comments of the fisheries commissioner, who said that scrapping it was not legally possible and who also negated the idea that an independent Scotland would have a seamless entry into the EU, are very important in that context. What, too, is the SNP position on the charter of fundamental rights or the voting reforms?
I hope that the minister will tell us why we have no Government motion on the matter, why the SNP is running away from the issue, why it has no stated position on vital questions and whether she agrees that such a position undermines the SNP's pretensions as a Government—not just of a devolved Scotland but of any sort.
The challenges of treaty reform include how to enlarge Europe and be inclusive and at the same time produce sensible legislation in an architecture that allows appropriate scrutiny and ensures that citizens believe that we are acting in their best interests. We must add to that the importance of subsidiarity and proportionality, ensuring that Europe acts only when necessary and that other spheres of government have their rights protected, and the challenge of balancing the internal market with appropriate social measures to improve the living standards of citizens.
In rising to those challenges, we have intergovernmentally agreed the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty and the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. We now have the opportunity to agree the reform treaty. We have not had a referendum on any of the previous treaties, and at this point 26 of the 27 member states do not intend to call a referendum on the reform treaty.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—because no one took my interventions, and because I have a lot to say. If I have time later, I will let Mr McLetchie in, but I want to pick up on the points that the SNP would not let me in on.
Article 3.1 of the amended treaty sets out that the clear role of European Union is to
"promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples."
I want to move this discussion back to the pragmatic—back to the basics and away from the constitutional issues and the academic debates. Let us apply the test and ask ourselves this: does the amended treaty allow us, as Scottish politicians in the Scottish Parliament, to do our job better? I suggest that it does. When the European and External Relations Committee yesterday asked MEPs of all political persuasions—including John Purvis—whether they generally supported the treaty, the answer, with a few caveats, was yes. Without reform, the European policy-making process will grind if not to a halt at least to a snail's pace. Anyone who has been involved in the process post-enlargement knows exactly what that would mean.
In the previous session of Parliament, the European and External Relations Committee looked closely at the issue of scrutiny, and we will continue our deliberations during this session. As parliamentarians, it is our job to ensure that we thoroughly scrutinise European legislation. The revised treaty acknowledges, for the first time, that national Parliaments should have a role in deciding whether an EU action is necessary. Article 8b specifically refers to the "principle of participatory democracy" and the right of citizens to be consulted. That will allow us to influence the debate early and to flag up, via the member state, areas in which we feel that subsidiarity is not being applied and our policy interests not protected.
I am running late but I have to pick up on some points that the minister made but did not clarify. The SNP's position is as clear as mud. The minister said that fishing and the reduction in the number of MEPs in Scotland were two of the most important issues for her, yet she came to the European and External Relations Committee and told us that, when she went to the joint ministerial committee on Europe, she did not raise either of those issues. Will she explain that to the Parliament?
The minister may know Richard Corbett, a constitutional expert who has written a number of books on the European Parliament. He has clearly said that the draft reform treaty makes no changes to the allocation of competence in the common fisheries policy or to the conservation of marine biological resources under the policy. Community competence over fisheries is shared, except for conservation measures, where it has been exclusive since the UK's treaty of accession came into force in 1979. Where has the SNP been on this issue for the past 28 years, if it claims that fishing is now a red-line issue? I look forward to hearing the minister summing up.
I start by offering my apologies: I will have to leave the debate early as some constituents will be making representations on the debate immediately after decision time.
I congratulate the minister on the proactive and pragmatic approach that she and the Government are taking to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly represented and promoted during negotiations on the treaty.
As a former member of the European Committee of the Regions, and as Scotland's sole representative on the COR as an alternate member to the last constitutional IGC, I am well aware of the extent to which the period immediately prior to a decision of the European Council is often the most productive for effecting changes and influencing the final treaty. The minister is absolutely right not to jeopardise Scotland's interests by prematurely anticipating the contents of the draft treaty.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, but I will try to address the point that Robert Brown made. We do not have a motion today simply because we do not know what the treaty will say. What kind of motion would we have? It is entirely right to leave the options open in the meantime.
I also want to address a point that Malcolm Chisholm made. While I was reading today's papers, I remembered that, in the seven years during which I worked in Brussels, the only people in the whole of the European Union who strolled the corridors of power trying to convince everyone else that Scotland would be some kind of pariah standing apart from the European Union were the fevered Labour members. Nobody else I spoke to, from any group or from any country, held that view. It is interesting to consider what would happen if Commissioner Borg's statements were carried to their logical conclusion. For example, if Belgium broke up—as is currently being talked about by all the mainstream parties—his office would be outside the European Union in Brussels. It is a strange logic, but some people find it attractive.
It is sad but true that the Scottish Parliament has no direct role yet in negotiating or ratifying the treaty, but Scotland has vital interests in key issues such as fisheries policy, the Scottish justice and legal system, energy policy and representation in the European Parliament that cannot be properly promoted without the clear voice of Scotland's Government being heard. To maximise that voice, I hope that, wherever possible—I realise that doing so will sometimes not be possible—parties will take a team Scotland approach that seeks to galvanise the views of our MEPs of whichever party, members of the Scottish Parliament's European and External Relations Committee of whichever party, and Scotland's representatives on the European Committee of the Regions from whichever nominating institution and of whichever party, and that all parties will seek to give mutual support and reinforce areas of agreement that are in Scotland's interests. That was the key role that the European elected members information and liaison exchange group—EMILE, which was set up by the former First Minister, Mr McConnell some years ago, should have had. It never carried out that role, but most people in the parties outwith the then Scottish Executive believed that that would have been its most productive role.
I say to those who are sceptical that we can find areas of agreement on which we can work together, that all the parties that are represented in the chamber—I think—opposed reducing the number of MEPs from Scotland from seven to six, and that there is broad agreement in areas that relate to Scotland's distinct legal system. I make that point because, in my experience in Europe, countries such as the Republic of Ireland have for many years achieved fantastic deals from Brussels as a result of all the parties adopting a united approach. All the parties in that country work together as team Ireland and achieve a great deal by doing so. Obviously, they have fundamental differences but, by and large, they work together when it comes to important national interests.
It is right that the EU treaty should streamline the EU and that it should start to return power to national Parliaments—indeed, I hope that one day it will return power to the Scottish Parliament. That such changes should be considered in a union of 27 members is right. It is inevitable that compromises will be made—that is simply part of the game—but we should take a team Scotland approach in the areas in which we can agree, so that, like countries such as Ireland, we work together and achieve real progress in Scotland's interest.
I, too, welcome this debate. I agree with Linda Fabiani that it is competent, but I also agree with Robert Brown that it would have been better if we had a motion and amendments.
I hope that Ted Brocklebank will forgive me for giving him a wee history lesson. On 1 January 1973, a Tory Government took the biggest step with respect to Europe by taking us into it without holding a referendum, although a commitment on holding a referendum was included in the Tories' manifesto. A Labour Government then gave the people of Britain the opportunity to vote, and we voted by a majority of two to one in favour of staying in Europe. I remember well what happened: I was the organiser for the European Movement in Scotland and helped to deliver that majority. However, I will not take all the credit for doing so, as I had a keen, young, enthusiastic student working with me who went around Scotland day and night delivering leaflets to ensure that we got a majority. That student was David McLetchie. People are asking where he is today and what his view is. He said to me then that the results confirmed once and for all the United Kingdom path within Europe. I say to Ming Campbell that that did it once and for all. We do not need any more referenda on our place with Europe.
There is only one member to whom I would give way—Margo.
I want to complete the history lesson. I campaigned on the slogan "No voice, no entry" not because I was against what has become the European Union, but because I did not think that George Foulkes had all the answers.
I do not claim to have all the answers, and I know that Margo does not, either.
Malcolm Chisholm and Irene Oldfather have eloquently deployed all the arguments that I wanted to make about the referendum. The treaty is not a greater step—in fact, it is a lesser step—than the Maastricht treaty or the Single European Act. I remember all my late nights as Opposition spokesman on Europe with Robin Cook when we argued strongly against what the Tory Government was doing. There is an irony for Margo.
The member may be on first-name terms with Margo MacDonald outside the chamber, but he should not be on first-name terms with her inside it.
Indeed. There is an irony, Mrs MacDonald.
My second point is about Alex Salmond's spurious point that an independent Scotland would automatically become a member of the European Union. That is manifest nonsense. Alex Salmond quotes Robin Cook in aid, but I can tell members that I knew Robin Cook. I worked with him day in, day out—night in, night out—on this subject.
One minute.
I know that Robin Cook did not hold that view. David Clark, who was his assistant, has confirmed to me that that was not his view.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute, for goodness' sake. The member ought to know how this place runs.
It is not just Commissioner Borg who says that an independent Scotland would not become a member. The Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe, which is an independent advisory information service—has said that there is no precedent for a devolved part of a European Union member state becoming independent and remaining in the EU as a separate entity. Imagine trying to convince Spain that Scotland should become a separate member. It would be impossible.
The SNP is entirely preoccupied with only one issue on Europe, and that is fishing. I can understand why Alex Salmond is concerned about fishing, but I ask whoever will reply on behalf of the SNP Government to clarify what the SNP's view will be if that issue is sorted out. Unless the SNP can answer that question, it will be found wanting yet again.
Several members have said how critical it is that the treaty be passed and incorporated. Robert Brown said that it is needed to unclog the arteries. In 2005, all the same arguments were made about how we so desperately needed a European constitution, but the constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands. In the two years that have passed since then, the wheels have not fallen off, the institutions still function perfectly well and business carries on pretty much as normal.
At the previous general election, the British people were promised a referendum on the constitution. The proposed treaty is almost identical to that constitution. Therefore, it is only right that we get a referendum on the treaty. Robert Brown criticised the Conservative stance by saying that we are shouting for a referendum. He said that that was clearly wrong, but he forgot to say—I wanted to mention this to him in a point of information—that in the 2005 general election his party promised a referendum on the constitution.
Given the Tories' obvious enthusiasm for a referendum on the European constitution, why do they not support a referendum on the Scottish constitution? Surely if the people have a right to a referendum on one constitution, they have a right to a referendum on another constitution.
We on the Conservative benches were taking bets on how long it would take an SNP member to intervene to make that point. I am disappointed that it has taken so long. Let me answer the question directly. At the general election, more than 90 per cent of people voted for parties that pledged to have a referendum on the constitution. At the most recent Scottish Parliament elections, fewer than 40 per cent of people voted for parties that want a referendum on independence for Scotland. One referendum has a clear mandate, the other does not. Most of the seats that the SNP took at the Scottish Parliament election came from parties such as the Scottish Socialist Party, which also wanted independence for Scotland.
Only 10 of the 250 proposals that have been put forward to the intergovernmental conference are different from those that were included in the previous constitution. As Mr Brocklebank clearly outlined, other European leaders have made that point: the Irish Prime Minister has said that 90 per cent of the proposals are the same, the Spanish foreign minister has said that 98 per cent of the proposals are the same.
Will the member take an intervention?
No thanks.
Furthermore, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has said that
"the public is being led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."
As we have heard, the treaty will mean an EU president, an EU foreign minister, national vetoes being lost in more than 60 areas, including parts of energy and transport, sections of employment law, the diplomatic service, some parts of justice and home affairs, and intellectual property.
Not only will member states lose their vetoes in more than 60 areas, the treaty makes it far more difficult for them to block legislation, as the threshold is reduced from approximately 74 per cent of votes to 55 per cent of members. That means that even if 11 of the 27 member states agree, they will be unable to block legislation.
I asked Labour members whether there were differences between the constitution and the treaty, and was not given a response. We were promised a referendum on the constitution. The treaty is almost identical to it, so we should get a referendum on the treaty.
Last week, the European and External Relations Committee visited Brussels, where I was struck by the dedication, enthusiasm and professionalism of our representatives. They are closely engaged with a range of subjects, including the treaty, but they have a very difficult task because, in Europe, it is Governments that lobby Governments and European institutions and that horse-trade with one another. We, in turn, lobby the lobbyists. Because we have nothing with which to trade, we have had little or no influence on the treaty. The tugging of coat tails in which we indulge should stop, and soon. Any rational person who visited Brussels and understood how the system works would support Scottish independence.
I want to discuss two aspects of the treaty: the measures it contains and how it should be ratified. I have no doubt that cross-border measures in general—not just those in the treaty—need to be tidied up. Throughout Europe, we should co-operate on crime, terrorism, people trafficking, drugs and rendition flights—the list could go on all day—because we have much in common on which we should join hands and support one another. However, Scottish red lines are not the same as UK red lines: our needs, priorities and interests are different.
Talking quietly to people during the visit made clear to me that no one in Brussels at any level is under the illusion that the treaty is not the same as the constitution; I could not find one person who did not think that. Angela Merkel has been telling the Germans that everything is the same, so people should not worry. Gordon Brown, by contrast, has been telling everyone in the UK that everything has changed, so they should not worry. That is to forget that he and the Labour Party promised that there would be a referendum.
The public see through what Gordon Brown is saying. Unfortunately for all members, no matter what party they belong to, it is the body politic that suffers. If we wish to retain the trust of the people, we should not make promises that we do not intend to keep. We talk aggressively about how we can engage the public and get people out to vote. We have creative ideas, but public trust is lost in one fell swoop when such a promise is broken. When we, collectively, do that, we leave the public behind, as they feel cheated. Regardless of whether members are for or against the new treaty, they should trust the people and give them their say. Mr Brown should keep his promises and hold a referendum.
I look forward to working with the minister, Linda Fabiani, and her colleagues in all the areas on which we agree. In those areas on which we differ, I trust that she will accept that we must be at crossed swords. I am happy to stand up for Scotland in partnership with Linda Fabiani when she is constructive on behalf of the people of Scotland.
I have trawled through the countless pages of information that are available to us and, in answer to some of the points that have been made about the difference between the reform treaty and the constitutional treaty, I can say that it is clear that a lot has been left out. Out has come automatic qualified majority voting for policing and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, out has come any suggestion of a binding charter of fundamental rights, out has come the weak emergency brake on social security measures and out has come possible communal decision making for foreign and defence policy. Those are important areas. However, in addition, all the symbols that suggest a supra-national power have come out of the old, proposed constitution.
For the sake of clarity, I want to say that my Westminster colleague, Gordon Brown, whose constituency I and Marilyn Livingstone have the honour and privilege to share, has said all along that he believes in a hard-headed pro-Europeanism because he recognises that we become stronger by co-operating with our partners in the European Union to meet the shared challenges of globalisation and climate change but that we must have the confidence to put our national interest first and sometimes say no and argue our case when we believe that Europe risks taking the wrong course.
Gordon Brown has also said that, to win the argument for reform in Europe and effective British engagement in Europe, Britain must break out of the outdated debate over Europe that has dogged British policy for decades.
It is important to highlight another thing that Gordon Brown has said. A biography of Gordon Brown talked about
"Brown's previously expressed dislike of excessive EU ‘federalism' and supranational integration"
and said that
"he has argued that the federal ambitions of the EU's founders are no longer adequate in the current globalized world—‘the old assumptions about federalism do not match the realities of our time'—and that the EU should develop along intergovernmental lines, according to what he refers to as ‘pro-European realism', emphasizing cooperation between national states."
Gordon Brown is driving at the point that it is important to move away from the sterile arguments about structures and how we function within the EU and that we must tackle the issues of Africa and all the other places. I therefore hope that, if members take anything from this chamber today, it is that everyone in and outwith this chamber—I am making the same plea to the churches, trade unions and everyone else—should join me in saying that we do not want to see Robert Mugabe at the IGC in Portugal on 18 October. We must light a candle on behalf of everyone in Scotland to say that we want the people of Zimbabwe to be looked after, that we want their democratic rights to be restored and that we do not want the dreadful situation that exists in Zimbabwe to continue.
I hope that I do not go off at too much of a tangent.
Much has been said about the need for reform of the European treaty. It is fair to say that reform is long overdue. From my perspective as the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the environment and as an ordinary MSP, I want to address the issues of climate change and fisheries.
The reform treaty has agreements on climate change and the fight against global warming, which have been added as targets for the European Union, and several provisions of the treaties have been amended to include solidarity in matters of energy supply and changes to energy policy in the European Union. Membership of the EU is therefore vital to the protection of our environment.
Most people will agree that the biggest issue facing us is climate change—the debate on which the Liberal Democrats have long led. Although it is not perfect, the carbon emissions trading scheme is a model for other parts of the world—and one of the first things we need to do is strengthen it. If we expect Europe to take a leading role in climate change, we must get on with reforming its policies and institutions.
I should thank Mr Lochhead, who is absent from the chamber, for his response to me this morning on the EU fisheries fund. However—I realise that I am going off at a slight tangent—I am still concerned that Eyemouth and the Berwickshire coast in my region should be designated fisheries dependent areas. The Government's manifesto states:
"The failure of successive UK Conservative and Labour governments … to adequately represent or protect the interests of our fishing industry is one of the biggest failings of the current constitutional settlement."
I do not stand alone in saying that giving Eyemouth and the Berwickshire coast fisheries dependent area status would represent a very large step towards affirming the Government's real commitment to the fishing industry in my part of the world.
Many people would appreciate answers to a number of questions. First, is this Government actively campaigning to scrap what it has referred to as the "disastrous" common fisheries policy at the European Council table? With that in mind, I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is—as his MEP colleague called for—attending every European Council meeting.
On the question of ministers attending important meetings outwith Scotland, will the member give a commitment that the Liberal Democrats will allow some form of absence management to be arranged so that that can happen?
If the minister had done the same, maybe we, too, would have done so.
I also wonder whether the Government will implement the 10-point plan on fisheries that it advocated only nine months ago. [Interruption.] Behave yourself, Bruce.
The draft EU constitution did not propose any changes to competence over fisheries or to the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Does the Government still hold the same position on exclusive and shared competence on fishing?
Marine conservation has always been an exclusive competence of the EU. If the treaty notes the continuing state of the competence on fishing, will the Government still refuse to support the treaty's ratification in the UK?
At my party's conference in Brighton, the president of the European Commission stated quite clearly that no one questions either the need for reform or the idea that EU institutions must become more efficient, more effective and more accountable. As Malcolm Chisholm and George Foulkes have already pointed out, the commissioner with responsibility for fisheries, Joe Borg, has made clear his view that an independent Scotland would have to reapply to become an EU member. Moreover, the French have decided that a nationwide referendum must be held before any new members are allowed into the EU. Do we really want to put an independent Scotland's membership into the hands of the French people? I doubt it.
By modernising the Commission, we are allowing more effective decision making in the Council and ensuring the transformation of democracy. It is not about giving the European Parliament a more substantial role but about giving all Parliaments a greater say.
I was shocked by the remark, which was made earlier this week at the Liberal Democrat conference, that people who want a referendum on any forthcoming EU treaty are "headbangers". I hope that the Liberal Democrats in the chamber will distance themselves from such a comment and reaffirm that people who want to vote for their preferred option in a referendum are simply democrats. I would hate to think that any of my colleagues would seek to deny Scots the opportunity to vote in a referendum—indeed, that would be most unfortunate, would it not?
I hope that the Liberal Democrats agree that referendums are, in general, good things and should be supported, and that if we brought a bill to the chamber that called for a referendum, it would have their support. Of course, that referendum would have to be on an issue that covered substantial constitutional matters.
I was interested in Menzies Campbell's suggestion that the reform treaty does not need a referendum as it now represents a minor treaty rather than a major one. In this as in many other matters, I am not sure that his reasoning is sound, but I find it interesting that he has called for a referendum on our membership of the EU as a whole because he wants an honest debate. Leaving aside his obvious addiction to referendums, I agree with Sir Menzies Campbell that, on issues of national importance, we should have an honest debate, followed by a referendum.
Although I am delighted to hear that our party conference in Brighton has such an avid viewer—and that the viewing figures have obviously gone up—will the SNP member state whether, in her view, the treaty is good or bad for Scotland? Would she support having a referendum on the treaty that we are debating? Although the treaty has yet to be ratified, it has been agreed by Governments and cannot be amended.
I would not vote on anything that I had not seen. I cannot answer the member's question until I have seen the text.
Perhaps we should have a national conversation as an honest debate, to be followed by a referendum on Scotland's constitutional position. I hear that that conversation has started and that everyone is welcome to join in. It is important, though, that no one prejudges the European treaty and that the debate takes place in an informed manner. We need to have an informed conversation before we vote. I hope that Ming Campbell will follow the fine example of the Scottish Government, which is waiting to see the treaty before it takes any decisions on it. We have seen the draft, but there is still a long way to go.
Belgium has failed to form a Government within 100 days. It should look at Scotland to see what can be done in 100 days. It looks as though Flanders and Wallonia might be preparing to go their separate ways in the near future. Both will become members of the EU, of course, and will have to be signatories to any new treaty. That news should delight those who worry, fret and lose sleep over Scotland's entry to the EU when we become independent.
The treaty tidies up some of the EU's internal operations. My Conservative colleagues in the blue corner will be delighted to know that the treaty will introduce an exit clause. Personally, I want Scotland to be at the heart of Europe, operating in the international arena with all the va-va-voom that we have seen from Scotland's Government and, indeed, Scotland's football team in the past few months.
I invite all colleagues, especially the Lib Dems, to join in the conversation on Scotland's future in Europe, which is being so ably conducted by the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture. It is only when we engage properly in the debate that we begin to see the possibilities opening up. Not only would the Lib Dems' engagement in the debate contribute to the conversation, they might actually enjoy it and derive some benefit from it. I am sure that it will be no surprise to hear that I support the Government on the issue.
Quelle surprise!
I pay tribute to Gil Paterson's speech, which was on the money. It was also full of humanity and understanding of the place of people in the great European Union. I agree with Keith Brown that we must work as team Scotland in Europe because, as Gil Paterson rightly said, an awful lot of Europeans do not have a clue about who or where we are.
At yesterday's meeting of the European and External Relations Committee, a couple of members said what a terrific reputation Scotland has in Europe. Well, it is better now after James McFadden's goal. He probably did a great deal more than many of the lobbyists have done over the years.
That indicates part of the answer to George Foulkes's question about whether we can imagine Spain saying yes to Scottish independence. I seem to remember Canon Wright asking a similar sort of question about what would happen if England said no. We decided that it did not really matter a hoot if England said no if we said yes. If the intention is clear, we will make it, but we will have to get deep down and dirty, and get into realpolitik, with other European nations—I would welcome that.
A word has come up in this debate that we did not hear at all at yesterday's European and External Relations Committee meeting—subsidiarity. That was supposed to be the essence of the European Union. All decisions were to be taken at national or local level, and only those that could not be taken there would be taken at European level. That position is somewhat at odds with the comment of Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian Prime Minister, that the European Union has acquired all the instruments of a federal state and that the capstone is the constitutional treaty. Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French President, said that the project of the founding fathers is complete and that the economic union is becoming a political union. Romano Prodi himself said that the constitution represents a big change from the basic concept of nation states and that it has changed centuries of history.
While we sit here talking to ourselves about what we think about Europe, they are in Europe and running it. I would like to put their ideas and ours to the test, which is why Ming Campbell is right: why not have a contemporary referendum? When the Berlin wall came down, it changed the European Union's potential and its parameters, but we have never properly talked about that. I would be willing to do that. Indeed, I would welcome that discussion. We would then see whether the reform treaty offers Scotland a distinctive place or whether we should oppose the treaty.
Does Ms MacDonald agree that rather than spend our time and energy debating whether we are in or out of Europe—an issue that was settled in a referendum in 1975—we should spend our time and energy ensuring that the standards that have been set by the EU on matters like—
Quickly, please.
Last week, a BBC programme on children's homes addressed—
Margo MacDonald, you have 30 seconds in which to finish.
I will answer Helen Eadie, because her question went right to the heart of the matter. We do not need to go to Europe to decide what to do about children's homes—
We do if we are concerned about children's homes in Bulgaria—
Order.
Communities in Europe differ hugely in their social and cultural history and contemporary life. They should determine such issues for themselves. That takes us right to the heart of the matter, and it is why I am uncomfortable about the step towards political union that the leaders of Europe have proposed, and why I would welcome a referendum. I do not know why the Scottish National Party is running scared on the issue.
For the past 27 years, until May this year, I lived and worked in the heart of Europe. Rather like Molière's Monsieur Jourdain, I was speaking Europrose—which is really very boring—without understanding that I was doing so.
My return to these islands was something of a revelation. We are supposed to be the people who have the conventions and the eloquence that make political institutions work. In Scotland, in particular, we invented the European Union. The first proposals for a union came from an Edinburgh professor, Professor Lorimer, in 1884. David Edward and Judge Mackenzie-Stuart in the European Court of Justice added considerably to the flesh of European institutions, and in the 1980s Scotland convinced the father of Europe, Emile Noël, secretary general of the EU, that it could join the EU without having to open negotiations on its own, as that minor figure, Commissioner Borg, has suggested it would have to do.
The European Union is surely in an awkward phase. We must realise that we are witnessing a two-speed Europe and the re-emergence of a European core. That core includes the non-EU state of Switzerland as much as it includes the non-EU state of Norway. We are in a position of manoeuvre in Europe and we must make that a major priority.
Core Europe gets together quickly and rapidly. In a weekend when it took me three and a half hours to travel from Cologne to the English frontier, it subsequently took me seven and a half hours—the speed of a steam train—to get from London to Edinburgh, because of the deterioration of the British transportation system. In core Europe, frontiers are vanishing, and when the alpine tunnels open, northern Italy will be part of that core.
British opinion about Europe is directed by Europe's worst press, owned by Richard Desmond, Conrad Black—he might already be in prison—Rupert Murdoch and the mysterious Barclay brothers.
Of course, Gordon Brown must make up certain credibility gaps. In an article on him in The Guardian in 2003, Andy Beckett wrote:
"Anyone suggesting European or German precedents or organisations would be regarded as mad."
Such a view from London does not give cause for optimism for the future.
If we are talking about contradictions, my recollection is that in 1975 the SNP opposed Britain's membership of the EU, but Chris Harvie supported it, because he was a member of the Labour Party at the time.
The bulk of the Labour Party was opposed to entry into Europe in the 1975 referendum.
European state building is going on, as Ted Brocklebank points out. It is predominantly a Franco-German business—it is impossible to perceive the frontier between France and Germany. However, there is room for small states that have particular resources to sell and particular manoeuvrability, which is where Scotland's future lies.
I return to Lorimer, who said more than a century ago:
"When rational men cross the frontiers of their separate states, must they of necessity leave their wits behind them and, in all their more important relations, revert to the condition of savages or sink to that of fools?"
That is a fair description of a number of leaders and opinion-formers south of the border.
We know what we have to avoid. A two-speed Europe is inevitable, but we must have a Government that takes the initiative.
We move to wind-up speeches.
The debate has been timely, welcome and, as George Foulkes said, competent. There is little dispute in the chamber that Scotland benefits enormously—economically, socially, culturally and environmentally—from our membership of and full participation in the European Union. On the whole, members' contributions have been constructive, although I shuddered at the spectre of a young, thrusting David McLetchie rampaging through the streets of Edinburgh.
As my colleague Robert Brown pointed out, it is not good enough for the SNP Government to say that it has simply facilitated the debate. At this stage, the Government needs to give us a clearer steer on its priorities for and attitude towards the treaty. As Malcolm Chisholm made clear, sources close to the First Minister have intimated that the Government has yet to take a view on whether to press for a referendum and, if so, whether it will campaign for a no vote. That is not good enough.
I am not saying that no decisions have been made. On reading the Official Report of yesterday's meeting of the European and External Relations Committee, I noted that Ian Hudghton and Alex Neil agreed that they welcome the proposed revisions to the treaty, because the revisions steer clear of what Alex Neil called the "froth and cosmetics" of national anthems and flags. I could not agree more, although I thought the sentiment an odd one for nationalist politicians to express. I assume that such froth and cosmetics are distinct from the froth and cosmetics of changing the Government's official letterhead.
The unclogging of the works of the EU is not an academic exercise that is of interest solely to constitutional lawyers. It offers us the opportunity to make the European Union a more effective and representative entity. I subscribe to the view that we must continue to build the team Scotland approach. All the major policy challenges that we face—climate change, energy security, crime and terrorism—require concerted and collective action on a European basis, which will happen only if the European Union undergoes necessary reform. However, allowing the directly elected European Parliament to take a more substantive role and, importantly, giving national Parliaments a greater say in the decision-making process are necessary and welcome consequences of such reform.
Of course, as we have heard again in the chamber today, there are those who insist that legitimacy of reform can be secured only through a referendum, but I disagree—Irene Oldfather set out well the precedents for that view.
A range of issues was covered in the debate, but fisheries figured more than most. I remain slightly confused about the SNP's position on the CFP. When it was in opposition, we were told that a full-scale withdrawal would take place, albeit not during the already packed 100 days. Indeed, at one point, the SNP and the Tories were engaged in an unseemly rush to see who could get to the exit door first. Ted Brocklebank, or at least his UK leader, and Richard Lochhead now appear to acknowledge that full-scale withdrawal from the CFP would be illegal—unless, of course, the plan is to withdraw entirely from the EU.
I echo the call that Robert Brown and others made for the minister, in responding to the debate, to clarify why the Government's position on the vital issue of EU treaty reform is still fairly patchy. It is all very well for the First Minister to try to take credit for Scotland's excellent football results—as Christina McKelvie also did today—but it would be helpful if Mr Salmond and his colleagues took a little more responsibility for setting out the Government's approach to EU treaty reform.
Although I would have liked to hear more from Christopher Harvie and to wallow in nostalgia a little longer with George Foulkes, it was inevitable that the main focus of the debate was the similarities between the treaty and the EU constitution and whether there should be a UK-wide referendum on the treaty's adoption.
In that context, I take as my guide the American writer and poet James Whitcomb Riley, who coined the expression, "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck." In short, an object is classified not by its label but by its characteristics. In the context of the European Union treaty, that means that if it works like a constitution, looks like a constitution and talks like a constitution, it is a constitution.
As we have heard, the duck test has been applied to the treaty by several European leaders, who have come to exactly the same conclusion. Bertie Ahern says that 90 per cent of the proposed constitution is still present. The Spanish Prime Minister has said:
"We have not let a … substantial point of the constitutional treaty go."
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has proclaimed:
"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and others who have been referred to during the debate have made similar points.
There we have it. Accordingly, there should be no room for argument, but that, of course, is not the case, because our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is now ducking the duck test. With a total lack of conviction, and despite being undermined by the comments of other European leaders, he maintains that Labour's pledge to hold a referendum miraculously does not apply to the treaty, thanks to the sleight of hand of the army of European lawyers who have been enlisted to ensure that form triumphs over substance.
Although there are some honourable exceptions among Labour members of Parliament, it appears that Labour at Westminster is running away from a referendum on the treaty and that Labour members of the Scottish Parliament are running with it.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I have finished with Labour and I am going on to the Liberal Democrats now.
Trust the Liberal Democrats to confuse the issue. I suppose that there is no more confused person than Sir Menzies Campbell. He says that we should have a referendum on whether to remain a member of the European Union. However, Ted Brocklebank and my old boss George Foulkes pointed out that we had a referendum on that question in 1975 and people voted decisively to stay in the European Union. That is desperate stuff from the Liberal Democrats but, thankfully, the Scots tongue has an excellent word to describe such a policy—mingin. I hear Alex Salmond suggesting shoogly, which is pretty good as well.
At the most recent general election, the three main UK parties promised a referendum on the proposed constitution. At that time, there was an overwhelming parliamentary majority for such a referendum. Had the French and the Dutch not rejected the constitution, we would have had a referendum by now. However, the Labour Government and the Liberal Democrats apparently want to renege on those promises. That is not acceptable, and we should say so. I believe firmly that the proposed European Union treaty will lead to a further accretion of powers to the European Union at the expense of this Parliament and Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster. That is not acceptable, and we in the Parliament should say so loud and clear.
As predicted, most of the Tory speeches were about a referendum, although the standard of the arguments left a bit to be desired. The talk of the duck test sums up the matter. In form and substance, the proposed treaty will be a traditional amending treaty and will involve far less transfer of powers than any of the four previous European treaties, particularly the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act, which were passed under the previous Conservative Government. However, Ted Brocklebank helpfully reminded us that the Prime Minister is against building a European superstate. The Labour Party is totally against such a state, which is why we support the proposed modest and evolutionary reforming treaty.
Ted Brocklebank repeated the scare stories about the proposed high representative for foreign affairs, but he omitted to say that he or she will express a view only when it has been agreed unanimously by the European Union foreign ministers. He also talked a lot about the proposed president of the European Council, but omitted to say that he or she will have no executive powers. Indeed, the Commission opposed the idea, because it will increase the powers of the Council of Ministers.
As anticipated, we have heard a lot about the 90 per cent test. As someone said, humans and mice are 90 per cent identical genetically, but the other 10 per cent is rather significant. That apart, we should remember that the proposed treaty is different. Some people may not be happy about the specific arrangements that the UK Government has negotiated, but the President of the European Parliament has said:
"Since making the Charter legally binding and extending Community competence to"
justice and home affairs
"were two of the most important features of the original constitution, the deal struck by Tony Blair in June means that—for better or worse—much of its substance will simply not apply in Britain."
The truth is that, to quote Kenneth Clarke, the Eurosceptics in the Tory party would have
"demanded a referendum just about the date on the top of the piece of paper".
It is sad that David McLetchie, after his yes campaigning in 1975, has descended to that.
The member voted no.
I say for Christopher Harvie's and David McLetchie's benefit that I voted yes in 1975.
Margo MacDonald was concerned about qualified majority voting, as were the Tories. The extensions that apply to the UK are modest but sensible. For example, future decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries will be taken in that way. The extensions are limited in comparison with Baroness Thatcher's Single European Act, which was the biggest move to qualified majority voting in the history of Europe. I reassure Margo MacDonald that there is a triple lock on any extensions of qualified majority voting, comprising the Council of Ministers, national Parliaments and the European Parliament. Any of those can object to an extension. Linda Fabiani omitted to mention the third part of the lock.
On the subsidiarity point that Margo MacDonald raised, there will be new procedures for national Parliaments to object to proposed laws on grounds of subsidiarity, and enhanced opportunities for national Parliaments to feed into legislation at an early stage. That is an opportunity for us as well.
Does the shadow minister accept that there are a great number of activists and lawyers in Europe who believe that every one of those triple locks can be challenged under European legislation?
The European treaty will be European legislation.
One minute.
I have one minute left for the SNP, which should not be difficult. Christina McKelvie said that she supports the Scottish Government's position, but we still do not know what that is. The only thing that is clear is that having exclusive competence in marine conservation is a red-line issue, but, as Irene Oldfather said, and as I said in my opening speech, that is the position at the moment, so what is the point in demanding a referendum? If it is rejected, we will still have exclusive competence over marine conservation.
We must have some answers from the Government in the summing-up speech. What is its position on withdrawal from the common fisheries policy? What is its position on the treaty? We have a draft of the treaty, which presumably the Government has read. Does it like the draft, apart from the one line about the extension of exclusive competence in marine conservation? Does it support a referendum? If so, how would it vote? Linda Fabiani said even less in the chamber today than she did at the European and External Relations Committee yesterday, so I hope that whoever is summing up will fill in the gaps.
The difference of views expressed about the European Union this afternoon and the wide range of issues with which Europe is involved perhaps explain why so many of the communications from Brussels do not make for easy decision making. Many members have focused on fisheries, which is an issue that the Government takes extremely seriously. I therefore make no apology for reiterating our position so that it is absolutely clear.
We have consistently expressed our opposition to any treaty—whether constitutional or reform—that entrenches exclusive competence for the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Instead, we believe that competence over the conservation of marine resources should be returned to coastal states, repealing that part of the EU's fisheries policy. We have made the Government's position clear to the UK Government. The First Minister has written to the Foreign Secretary setting out those aspects of the prospective treaty that are of particular concern to us and he has today written to Geoff Hoon, the UK Government's chief whip. Also, Linda Fabiani will be taking up the matter again at the next meeting of the joint ministerial committee on Europe, which will meet in advance of the October intergovernmental conference to consider the UK's lines for the conference.
Those members who have called on the Government to express a view now about whether a referendum should be held on the treaty are getting way ahead of themselves. The timescale for the IGC is a demanding one, but the mandate that was given to it is fairly clear. The intention is for a text to be agreed by mid-October. That text will be formally signed off by the European Council in December. After that, the ratification process will commence in the member states. The Parliament should—and, in due course, will—express its opinion on the content of the treaty and the process for ratifying it.
Given that, as the minister has explained, the timescale for agreeing the reform treaty is so tight, why did the SNP not raise exclusive competence over marine conservation at the last JMC on Europe if it is a red-line issue?
As usual, Irene Oldfather is off the ball. I have already explained on three occasions when we have raised that issue and taken the argument straight to the heart of government. As usual, she is also premature, because we should not look at the content of the treaty before it is finally determined. To do otherwise is to give up on Scotland and to say that we cannot secure any more changes and have thrown in the towel, just as the Liberals have done in this regard.
Keith Brown put forward a considered opinion and put Irene Oldfather and Robert Brown in their place. It is only when the final treaty is available that we will be able to say what it contains. Whatever the outcome of the IGC and the ratification process, the Government will continue to protect Scotland's interests by engaging positively with the EU institutions. However, to take no account of what is going on would be foolish. Who knows how other countries' Governments might act or behave in last-minute attempts to make amendments? With an EU of 27 members, it is much more difficult to make firm predictions. The Government wants to inform Parliament and the Scottish people about the process and about our input into it, but it is also appropriate to listen to others' opinions about the issues that are at stake and the principles that are relevant. It would be surprising indeed if any party in the Parliament were to ask for less or expect more. The text is not dry on the treaty, and we will fight Scotland's corner all the way until it is.
It is in our interest to work with other EU countries to tackle the big problems, such as international crime and terrorism. Such co-operation has brought benefits in recent years. For example, it was thanks to the European arrest warrant that the UK obtained the rapid extradition of one of the 21 July bombing suspects.
Jim Hume, Malcolm Chisholm and George Foulkes questioned whether an independent Scotland would be in the EU. George Foulkes tried to quote inaccurately from what Robin Cook said. He actually said on the BBC in July 2000:
"It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all-comers and Scotland would be a member."
Other eminent people in the European Union—such as Emile Noël, the first and longest-serving secretary general of the European Commission, and Eamonn Gallagher, the former director general of the European Commission and European Community ambassador to the United Nations in New York—have made those points. Indeed, Gallagher said on 18 February:
"Scotland and the remainder of the UK would be equally entitled … to continue the existing full membership of the EU."
That puts that argument neatly to rest.
We believe that fishing is a vital national interest for Scotland and Scottish people. Sustainable fishing communities are a vital part of a successful future for rural communities in Scotland. That is why we are profoundly opposed to the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP as an exclusive competence of the Union.
We want to wait and see what comes out of the IGC, but we are clear that entrenching the common fisheries policy is a red line for us. That is what standing up for Scotland is all about, and that is why we are the Government of Scotland.