European Parliament (Number of Seats)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-553, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the European Parliament seat numbers.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the reduction of UK seats in the European Parliament from 87 to 78 to accommodate enlargement of the EU; welcomes the accession of 10 new countries in 2004; believes, however, that Scotland, with no seat on the Council of Europe, no Commissioners and fewer MEPs than comparably-sized independent member states, has little enough influence in the EU, and therefore believes that the Scottish Executive should resist the reduction in Scotland's MEPs from eight to seven.
I hope that the debate will avoid party-political disagreement and focus instead on how Scotland's Parliament, notwithstanding the different views that members have on Scotland's proper place in the European Union, can ensure that the nation's interests are well represented in Europe.
It will come as no surprise to members that I am a nationalist and that I believe that Scotland should be independent in Europe and represented in our own right in all the European Union's decision-making bodies. If that is good enough for Malta, which has a smaller population than the city of Edinburgh has, how can it be wrong for Scotland? I know that other members do not agree and want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but surely even they must agree that it is in Scotland's best interests to have as loud a voice and as big a say as possible in the EU's decision-making forums. That is what the motion is all about.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of EU enlargement. The accession of 10 new countries next year, many of which were still part of the Soviet bloc little more than a decade ago, is without doubt the most important development since the European Economic Community was founded in the 1950s. It is an enormous, significant step towards the post cold-war reunification of Europe, and I hope that enlargement does not stop with the accession of those 10 countries, but that it continues in 2007 and far beyond.
Enlargement has many consequences for countries that are already in the European Union. It is right and inevitable that existing member states will be required to make compromises and concessions to accommodate the new countries that are about to join the EU, and the cut in the number of UK seats in the European Parliament must be seen in the context of existing member states' making room for the new countries that are set to join us.
That said, Scotland should not share the burden of that reduction and agree to a reduction in its MEPs from eight to seven. The reason for that is simple: Scotland is not the same as every other electoral region in the United Kingdom—in fact, Scotland is not a region at all—but, in deciding where the axe will fall, the Electoral Commission has treated Scotland as if it were a region that is the same in character as every other electoral region in the United Kingdom, which is manifestly not the case. The Scottish Parliament, as we know, has extensive legislative powers, and, in many of the devolved areas in which this Parliament has competence and over which it has responsibility—health, education, justice, fishing and agriculture, the environment and a host of other matters—the European Union also has the power to legislate. As we also know, laws that the European Union enacts on those issues are binding in Scotland and must be given effect by the Scottish Executive. That is why we must ensure that Scotland's voice is heard loudly in the decision-making processes. That is the only way in which we can ensure that our national interests are protected when the EU legislates on matters that affect all of us and that, in devolved Scotland, are this Parliament's responsibility.
In the European Union, generally speaking, laws are initiated by the European Commission and enacted by the Council of Ministers and, in some cases, by the European Parliament. At the moment, Scotland has little direct influence in the European Union. We have no commissioner, but if we were independent we would at least until 2009, have one commissioner. We have no direct representation on the Council of Ministers and, as we have seen on the important issue of fishing, we have no guarantee that the United Kingdom's votes will be cast in Scotland's national interest. If we were independent, we would have seven votes in the Council of Ministers—the same as other small, independent countries such as Denmark, Ireland and Finland.
However, even now, we have a direct say in the European Union through the European Parliament. At present, Scotland is represented by eight members of the European Parliament. Obviously, I think that two of them in particular do a splendid job, but I concede that all eight of them speak up for Scotland's interests in the European Parliament. However, it is worth noting in passing that even eight MEPs is five fewer than we would have if Scotland were an independent country.
We should protect the eight seats that we have at present, because to cut the number of members that we have in the European Parliament would reduce the already limited influence that we have in Europe's decision-making bodies. The decisions that the EU takes affect our areas of responsibility directly, therefore it would be irresponsible—as well as politically wrong, although I accept that others do not agree on that—for the Scottish Parliament to agree to such a move.
I began by stating that this should not become a party-political issue and I want to end by repeating that view. For that reason, I am absolutely delighted that the European Committee, which has members from many parties, has agreed—unanimously, I believe—that Scotland should oppose the reduction in the number of our MEPs from eight to seven and demand that we retain our seats in the European Parliament. I commend the committee for taking that view.
There will be no vote tonight. However, if those who contribute to the debate express strongly the view that the volume of Scotland's voice in Europe should not be turned down, the minister will be in a position to argue Scotland's case strongly, passionately and robustly in London—because, unfortunately, it is in London that this decision will be taken. I ask members to consider the motion and speak in favour of it and to ensure that we can come together across the party-political divide and say, quite clearly, that the Scottish Parliament wants Scotland's voice to be heard as loudly in the European Parliament after the next election as it is just now.
I hear Nicola Sturgeon's appeal, but the sentiments that she expresses are not reflected in her motion. That disappoints me. Normally, I would not speak in a members' business debate if I had not signed the motion or did not agree with it, but today I felt compelled to do so. I am more than a little surprised that a members' business debate is being used to debate this motion and I think that it should have been the subject of an Opposition debate that we could vote on. As it is not, Nicola Sturgeon should have proposed the motion in different terms if she wanted the co-operation that she has spoken about.
I have some sympathy with the European Committee's suggestion that we should retain eight MEPs from Scotland. Bill Miller MEP gave evidence to the committee and has firmly supported the principle on geographic grounds, talking about the peripheral and rural nature of parts of Scotland. I can understand that reasoning and think that it makes sense. That said, I doubt that any of the 15 member states is entirely happy with the reduction in the number of MEPs but, in accepting the treaty of Nice, they have all agreed to it. That is the world of mature politics. With enlargement must come reform, because the benefits of enlargement will far outweigh the costs. When push comes to shove, we have to ask ourselves whether a drop in the number of UK MEPs from 87 to 78 is a price worth paying for enlargement. Would we say no to that?
Enlarging the European Union is a good thing. It will bring more prosperity, more trade and more jobs. Research suggests that it will create more than 300,000 new jobs in current member states and around 2 million jobs in the candidate countries.
I agree with Irene Oldfather that there is a price to be paid for enlargement and I do not oppose the reduction in the number of the UK's seats in the European Parliament. I am asking members to recognise that Scotland has a distinctive position in the UK and that, unlike the other regions that will have their numbers of seats cut, Scotland has a Parliament with legislative powers in the same areas in which the European Parliament has legislative powers. That means that we have more of a case to have our voice heard loudly and clearly where those decisions are taken.
Scotland is not unique in that position and other areas in Europe are also accepting reductions in their MEP numbers. Europe is about negotiation and accepting that compromises have to be made. The SNP is in danger of becoming an isolationist party if it constantly advances arguments for why Scotland should not accept compromises that other regions and member states have to accept.
There is a basic contradiction in Nicola Sturgeon's motion. On the one hand, it says that enlargement is welcome but, on the other hand, it says that the UK should not be affected by it and that it should not have to pay a price. That position is not tenable. Scotland has the best of both worlds, as it is represented in the European Council through the UK Government, plays an active role in the Committee of the Regions and the group of regions with legislative powers—Regleg—and enters into networks directly with key players on the European stage such as Catalonia, Tuscany, Flanders and other such regions with a lot of power in Europe. We work with such regions directly and play a full part in the United Kingdom delegation. Scotland's interests are represented in every ruling body of the European Union.
Even with the number of MEPs reduced to 78, we will still form one of the largest member states in the EU and will be behind only Germany. If Nicola Sturgeon does not yet recognise the influence that that brings, perhaps she will do so when she is a member of the Committee of the Regions—I understand that she is going to that committee as an alternate—and perhaps she will then have a better understanding of the weight that the big countries carry in negotiations and discussions.
During the past 300 years, many people south of the border complained that Scotland was over-represented in the Westminster Parliament. The whole of Scotland united in opposing that view and said that we are distinctive, that we have to protect our cultural identity, and that Scotland is not simply a region but an ancient nation. Likewise, that is why we should argue to retain 8 MEPs and why the UK Government should not adopt an across-the-board policy in determining the number of European Parliament seats that parts of the UK should have.
As convener of the European and External Relations Committee, I have paid close attention to the issue, as indeed has the committee, which has considered the issue in detail and expressed its views. Nicola Sturgeon is right to point out that Scotland should retain eight MEPs, to take into account the distinctions that we have in this country. I wrote to the Electoral Commission on 7 October,
"to reaffirm the view of the Scottish Parliament's European and External Relations Committee that the number of MEPs from Scotland selected for the next mandate of the European Parliament should remain at 8".
The committee also wrote to the UK Government; as convener, I wrote to Lord Falconer, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, on 5 November. I said that the committee considers that the situation
"is neither balanced nor fair and does not take into account any contributing factors, such as peripherality or the rural nature of most of Scotland, which may have led to a different outcome"
We received a response from the Electoral Commission. The committee was interested to know what formula had been used by the Electoral Commission to determine how many MEPs Scotland should have and one of the main difficulties that the committee identified is that the consultation process was, in effect, a sham. The Electoral Commission appears to have been in a situation in which none of the formulae that it considered could have arrived at any number other than seven. We challenged the commission about that, but it was clear that it could not do much about the situation because its criteria had, in turn, been set by the UK Government.
The committee also noted the fact that the vast majority of submissions to the Electoral Commission, including our own, argued for the retention of eight MEPs from Scotland.
The UK Government has now responded to the committee. On 18 November, we received a response from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Christopher Leslie MP, who says that arguments have taken place in the past, but adds:
"However, Scotland is a constituent part of the UK in Europe and constitutes just one of twelve UK European electoral regions."
I hope that the whole Parliament is united in agreeing that Scotland is not simply one of the UK's regions. It is a nation, which has been recognised in the past and should continue to be recognised in the future. That means retention of 8 MEPs. The letter goes on to say:
"It would not be right to single out one electoral region of the UK for special treatment, beyond the minimum requirement of 3 MEPs each, particularly since a disproportionate increase for one region would necessarily be made at the expense of another region."
The letter goes on to refer to the terms of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, which was, of course, passed by the UK Government before the Electoral Commission embarked on its consultation.
The bottom line is that the consultation exercise that was run by the Electoral Commission was a complete sham and was meaningless. The submissions to that consultation were not taken into account and were not worth the paper that they were written on, which is very disappointing. The only option that is left to us is for Parliament to come together to express a view to the UK Government and to hope that when the appropriate order is before Westminster, the UK Government will change its mind and amend the order, as it is perfectly entitled to do. I hope that the minister will take on board the views of the European and External Relations Committee and of members who have spoken in this debate, and that he will decide to fight for Scotland on the issue.
I think that everybody accepts as a starting point that there should be a ceiling on the number of MEPs and that, to accommodate the new member states, existing member states will have to cut the numbers of members that they send to the European Parliament. Everyone is happy with that, but then we have to get down to the business of who will bell the cat and who will bear the pain of reduced numbers of MEPs.
I am prepared to accept that sending one fewer Scottish MEP is perhaps a reasonable and fair contribution for us to make. The impact of seven Scots in a Parliament of over 700 members will not be significantly less than was the impact of eight.
The proposals that are to be presented to the forthcoming inter-governmental conference—on matters such as privileged status for regions that have legislative powers, more direct access to Brussels and enhanced consultation rights at the important pre-legislative stage—are far more important for presenting Scotland's case and for Scotland's influence in Europe. Such potential changes in arrangements would be far more powerful, useful and effective than having eight MEPs rather than seven.
I will pass on Nicola Sturgeon's good wishes to her two favourite MEPs, who I presume to be Struan Stevenson and John Purvis. I back Nicola Sturgeon on the idea that the Scottish Executive should argue that Scotland should retain its current number of MEPs. That is logical, and I do not believe that it cuts across any great principles in the wider European argument.
Perhaps the number of Scottish MEPs should reflect the situation that existed at Westminster prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, when Scotland had more than its fair share of MPs, in the main because of its geographical spread. I would have liked similar factors to have been taken into account by the Electoral Commission. Sadly, however, the commission was given a formula that did not allow it to do so.
There is hope, however. My party has pursued the goal of enlargement for many years now, and we welcome the fact that 10 new countries are to join the European Union. We also welcome the fact that the enlargement process will continue. I look forward to a day in the not-too-distant future when Bulgaria and Romania, and perhaps Turkey, will also join. I am sure that all our thoughts are with those who live in Turkey—people from Scotland and local residents—following the terrible happenings of recent times.
I return to the opportunities that exist with respect to the number of MEPs. The arrangements are not all done and dusted. In the letter to which Richard Lochhead referred, the Government said that it would put the matter to the Westminster Parliament. Before the matter is considered by that Parliament, however, Europe has to approve its new constitution, which I believe is far from being achieved at present. There are many arguments that may well prevent agreement.
I do not, however, see a problem there; enlargement will go ahead irrespective of whether we adopt the new constitution. I am pleased that the Government south of the border seems to recognise the implications of signing up to the constitution. There are differences between Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and the Prime Minister on the issue, but I am delighted, if ministers have now read the fine print of the constitution and have seen the dangers, that they will sign up to if they adopt it.
One of the main reasons for drawing up the new constitution was to allow the 10 new nations to enter. The constitution is not a necessity, however. All that we needed was a bit of tinkering with the rules—perhaps a change in electoral representation. Instead, however, there is to be a major change in the responsibilities of a Government of Europe, which I deplore. I certainly do not go along with that change.
I return to the issue of the number of Scottish MEPs. As Nora Radcliffe suggested, it is perhaps not all that important if we drop from eight to seven MEPs, recognising the total number of members of the European Parliament and the fact that the length of time for which they are allowed to speak is less than the length of time that we are allowed here in the Scottish Parliament, about which there was plenty of complaint during the previous debate today. I do not think that the reduction in the number of MEPs would have a major impact from the point of view of speaking or involvement in the European Parliament, but there could be an impact on the representation of constituencies. It is in that area that I feel that we should give some support to Nicola Sturgeon's main recommendation, which is that we hold on to eight MEPs rather than drop to seven.
The Electoral Commission's findings are interesting. A key part of the formula is that the minimum number of representatives of a region must be three. One implication of that is that Northern Ireland, which currently has three members, will continue to have three members. I entirely support that, based on the special and distinctive needs of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I wish all the people of that part of these islands all the best in today's elections.
The Electoral Commission's findings are fair enough, given the rules. However, they ignore the basic fact that Scotland has a Parliament that has considerable powers. Scotland has a legal system and it adopts European law. Without representation at the top table, we are stymied. However, and even more important, we are unable even with today's eight members to cover all the committees of the European Parliament. If we had 14 members—as we would if we were an independent country—we would have leverage in the practical workings of the European Parliament, which we need to represent Scotland's interests and its separate legal and legislative environment.
To follow that comment to its logical conclusion, is Mr Stevenson suggesting that we expand our membership? If we do that for Scotland, for how many other legislative Parliaments across Europe would we do it? We would end up exactly where we were—which we have all agreed is unworkable.
I am very happy that other countries that are incorporated in unions, as we are, should fight their corner. I am sure that they will do so very effectively.
The United Kingdom Government says that it represents our interests and it says that we are stronger in a delegation of 78—as the delegation will be—than we would be in a delegation of 14. There is something interesting about that particular argument; the assumption behind it appears to be that the 14 Scottish MEPs would on each and every occasion perversely take a different line from the MEPs from the other countries of the United Kingdom. In reality—with much shared heritage, and some shared geography—we would very often be fighting together for the same things. The UK would benefit, just as Scotland would benefit, from an independent Scotland. That said, very often Scotland's interests do, in fact, diverge from those of the UK. Our priorities are often different.
I represent Banff and Buchan, so I turn inevitably to fishing. The Irish have one member of the European Parliament for every 260,000 of their population. We would have one for every 625,000. It is no wonder that the Irish do relatively well in negotiations in the European Parliament and that they have people from their civil service and their political classes embedded at the highest level in the councils of Europe.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I do not have time.
We have a choice. Can we benefit Scotland by going independent and having 14 members? Because of the greater strength, those 14 members would often collaborate with the members from the rest of the United Kingdom, to the benefit of all. However, when our policies and requirements diverged from those of the UK members, we would build our own alliances with the small successful nations across Europe. I am happy to support my colleague's motion.
I support the motion. Scotland has a geographic and political case for retaining eight members of the European Parliament, and that case has been made.
The previous election to the European Parliament was the first election in this country to be fought under a system of proportional representation. The PR system was forced on the UK by the European Union. Because the previous system was so grossly unfair, we had to have a PR system. That is why there are now members of the European Parliament from Nora Radcliffe's party and from Phil Gallie's party who represent Scotland. It was really important that we took that step towards a fairer electoral system.
Stewart Stevenson mentioned Northern Ireland, from where I have just come back. Today, people are voting in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections; a single transferable vote proportional representation system of election is being used. In a year's time, people in Northern Ireland will use that same system of election in their European elections.
Given the anorak nature of the debate on the Parliament's founding principles, I will not go too far into the advantages and disadvantages of the STV system, but I draw members' attention to one aspect of it. If we shift from having eight members of the European Parliament who represent Scotland to having seven members, we will increase dramatically the threshold for party representation from Scotland in the European Parliament. We will create a situation in which, unlike that in the Scottish Parliament, where we have greater diversity, we might have less diversity of voices. Having an election in which only seven members can be elected will mean that an increased number of votes will not lead to the successful election of a candidate.
However, under the STV system, no vote is a wasted vote. If the candidate to whom a person gives their first vote does not get elected, the vote transfers to another candidate until it is used to elect someone. In a situation in which we are increasing the threshold, there will be great advantages to changing the electoral system that we use in Scotland for the European elections to the same system that is used in another part of the UK—Northern Ireland.
I agree that we need to continue to have eight members who represent Scotland to maintain diversity, but I also think that we ought to consider changing the electoral system that we use in Scotland for the European elections. A system that is good enough for Northern Ireland is good enough for us. Rather than face the prospect of using four different methods of proportional representation in the four elections in the next four years, we should use the STV PR system, which we are glad has been proposed for local government in Scotland in the partnership agreement. We should use that system for Europe, but we should use it to elect eight members rather than seven.
In supporting the motion, I want to make two basic points, the first of which is the importance of the expansion of the European Union. Like Nicola Sturgeon, I welcome the expansion of the EU and I hope that it will continue to expand over the years. However, let us not kid ourselves—the expansion has a downside for Scotland.
In our manufacturing industry, for example, we have already seen companies move their manufacturing capacity abroad. Volvo has moved capacity from Ayrshire to Poland simply because of the incentives that it can get there, as well as the cheaper labour rates.
Will the member give way?
Unfortunately, I do not have time.
There have been other cases in which manufacturing capacity has already been moved to parts of eastern Europe. We are also going to find it very difficult to compete with parts of eastern Europe on direct investment. Once they are inside the EU, they will be allowed to offer far greater incentives than we will be able to offer. The downside to expansion could be important for Scotland. That is why it is important to have every possible Scottish voice at every level inside the EU—to protect Scotland's interests, if nothing else.
My second point is more substantial; it concerns constitutional issues in Europe. Essentially, the EU recognises three tiers of government: state, nation and region. As far as representation in the European Parliament is concerned, a combination of population and constitutional status determines how many MEPs represent each member country and the parts within each member country. The UK Government should make a distinction between a nation within a state, such as Scotland, and an electoral region. We have regions in Scotland; we call ourselves a nation, not a region. Obviously, I look forward to the day when we can call ourselves a nation state, but at the moment we are only a nation within a state. It is a fact of life that, if we were a member state, we would have 13 or 14 members of the European Parliament. However, as we are not a member state but a nation within a member state, we have a special status that is above and beyond that of a mere electoral region within the member state of one of the other nations.
What Nicola Sturgeon is asking for is not just about a numbers game but a matter of principle. The principle is that nations within member states should be recognised as such. They should not be regarded as merely another electoral region. Therefore, they should not get just proportional representation in relation to population. As happens at the European level itself, representation should be a combination of population and constitutional status. That is why, in addition to the numbers game, it is important that we ensure that we maintain eight representatives, rather than have only seven.
That will be a step on the way to the day when we can be fully represented with 13 MEPs as a member state within the European Union. I am sure that, given his position on the common fisheries policy, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services might one day agree with us on that as well.
Nobody likes to give up any element of their influence. I agree with what others have said. I would like us to keep our eight MEPs if we possibly can.
However, let me look at the arguments that have been advanced for keeping eight MEPs to see whether they stack up. It has been argued that Scotland is not a region. We may be a proud nation but, nonetheless, in European electoral terms we are a region, as are Bavaria and other areas. That brings me to the second argument, which is that, as Scotland has a Parliament with significant legislative powers, it is therefore not the same as other regions. Again, I do not think that that argument stands up. Among the regions with legislative powers with which we are associated in the organisation that is now chaired by Jack McConnell, there are regions that have similar and sometimes greater legislative powers. Neither of those arguments stacks up.
Will the member give way?
Let me get going.
I passionately want to see Scotland's European interests promoted at all levels. I do not like the expressions "tiers of Government" or "levels of Government", which seem to imply that there is a greater legitimacy at a higher level than there is at a lower level. I prefer the term "spheres of Government".
The essence of working in Europe is co-operation. That is my European experience alongside Irene Oldfather and others. I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her forthcoming appointment to the Committee of the Regions. I hope that she enjoys the work there, but I think that, like us, she will find that it is necessary to forge alliances to achieve anything on the Committee of the Regions. Sometimes those alliances are across party-political lines and sometimes they are across national lines, when alliances are made with other nations. That co-operation is the key.
Can the member tell us of any other legislature in an incorporating state that has an entirely different legal system with a different tradition and origins?
If Stewart Stevenson could, I am sure that he would have done. I would perhaps bow to his much superior experience of those matters. I cannot think of one off the top of my head, but I will get back to him.
We need to consider the spheres of influence that we currently have. I have already referred to the regions with legislative power and Jack McConnell's position on that body. We also have members on the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and other European bodies. Although those bodies may not be what some might call the top table, nonetheless they have important roles to play in the development of policy. They influence Commission proposals and can adapt those proposals once they are on the table for debate and discussion.
With those representatives and our MEPs—I will return in a moment to the question whether our number of MEPs should be reduced to seven—we have the opportunity to forge new alliances with the accession states, perhaps with those whose industrial base and culture is similar to ours.
If the number of MEPs is reduced to seven, I think that we will nonetheless have significant influence in that delegation of 78, across cultural and other interests. I support Bill Miller in sustaining the argument on the grounds of rurality, peripherality and geography and those are the arguments that the European and External Relations Committee and the Parliament should be making. I hope that we are successful but, if not, let us co-operate and get the best deal for Scotland.
It is good to see that most of the parties in the Parliament are taking part in the debate. Five of the parties are represented—they are the ones that are interested in European matters, whereas one party does not seem to be interested.
Britain is governed in various ways. Northern Ireland has been mentioned, but the point is that the electoral system in Northern Ireland was changed a long time ago to take account of the particular circumstances there. That decision was taken in London before we all went over to proportional voting for European elections.
It is ironic that today, again in London, the proposal for a bill to maintain the 129 members of the Scottish Parliament went before the Westminster Parliament. A variety of approaches is being adopted to recognise the status of Scotland as a nation and the amount of work that is required to be done by MSPs. That leads me on to suggest that, if we have fewer MEPs, it will be less easy for them to argue that issues of sparsity, problems about fishing and other issues that affect my area, such as the loss of objective 1 funding, should be taken into account.
The United Kingdom Office for National Statistics has admitted that it got its sums wrong when it produced an objective 1 funding bid for the Highlands and Islands. That has meant a cut of many millions of pounds for our local economy. If Scotland were an independent state, we would have our own national statistics office and someone would probably have been sacked by now for making such a stupid mistake. We are an under-represented region and we have less power than we would if there was some recognition of the fact that Scotland should be better represented than it is.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I would like to finish.
In this debate, we must find every possible means to argue with the Government in London that Scotland has special status and that we should maintain our numbers and position within the British delegation. Although the European Union is becoming more diverse and more people will be standing up to speak in the European Parliament, it is ironic that Scotland—an ancient nation that has always been in Europe—will have fewer people who are able to take part in those debates.
I support Nicola Sturgeon's motion. I, too, wish that Scotland were independent so that we could have decent representation. If we have more members, our interests will be better served; our experience is that, when we have too few representatives, our interests are badly looked after. Every attempt must be made to maintain the existing number.
Before I begin, I welcome to the public gallery Ian Jenkins, a former colleague of ours. It is nice to see him here. I understand that he is giving Jeremy Purvis his three-monthly road check to see how he is performing.
The debate has been interesting and informative. However, I share Irene Oldfather's view. The SNP has a considerable amount of Opposition time next week and, given the tenor of the SNP's line in the debate, including in Nicola Sturgeon's opening remarks, the subject would have lent itself better to that kind of occasion than to a members' business debate. As an MSP, I believe that members' business debates should reflect constituency and area concerns. I hope that all members will reflect on that matter.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am just going to finish this point.
I am not in any way decrying Nicola Sturgeon's desire to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliament—that is entirely her and her party's prerogative. However, it is important to reflect on the ways in which we do such things. As for her general contention that these are non-politicised events, well, we will take that with a pinch of salt.
Can I take it from the minister's remarks that if, for argument's sake, the SNP were to lodge a simple motion in its debating time next week calling for the Parliament to oppose the reduction in the number of Scottish MEPs, the Scottish Executive would support that motion?
No, it would not and I shall explain why. Nicola Sturgeon's general approach—and that of her SNP colleagues—has been to urge independence. Stewart Stevenson is nodding his head. I respect their right to articulate that viewpoint, although I do not agree with it. Similarly, the people of Scotland do not agree with it, which is something on which SNP members may wish to reflect.
The debate is about a reserved matter. The issue of elections to the European Parliament is reserved, under the Scotland Act 1998, and it is for the UK Government to formulate policy and make decisions on the matter. That is why we have members of Parliament representing Scotland in London. I presume that some of the Scottish nationalist MPs will take the opportunity to raise these matters there, as will other members.
Every week, we hear the First Minister say that he has had contact with the Prime Minister and other ministers south of the border. Surely it would not be too much to ask him to make a simple representation. That is all that is being asked for.
It is curious that Mr Gallie is now supporting a nationalist line.
The issue is not about nationalism.
Oh, it is. That is what it is about.
It is important to remember that, as some members have rightly said, Scotland's MEPs do a good job on behalf of Scotland. I believe that that is true of MEPs right across the political spectrum. The Executive works closely with all Scotland's MEPs and when ministers are in Brussels, as they have been this week, they meet MEPs. Ministers will continue to do that to ensure that issues ranging from the quality of bathing water in the European Union to the future of the European convention are properly raised in the European Parliament. There is close co-operation in that sense.
The fact that the number of MEPs who represent Scotland will be reduced is disappointing. However, I believe that the decision is right, given the reasons behind it and the fact that all member states face reductions in the number of their MEPs. Under the terms of the Treaty of Nice, the total number of MEPs who are elected by each existing state of the European Union is to be reduced to accommodate the new member states. As some members have argued, that appears to be right in principle and, at this time, it is the right approach.
SNP members seem to be arguing that the Treaty of Nice should be ignored. If all EU states retained their current levels of MEPs, MEPs from the enlargement countries would add to the total and the European Parliament would grow from the current 626 MEPs to in excess of 800 MEPs. That would mean that new parliamentary buildings would have to be built—a subject on which, I suspect, we should not lecture.
What are the minister's views on the consultation exercise that was undertaken by the Electoral Commission? Does he think that there was any point to that exercise, given that all the submissions were ignored? Did the Scottish Executive make a submission to the Electoral Commission?
The Electoral Commission has conducted its work. The matter is reserved and the commission fulfilled its role in that context. These are matters that we will always want to reflect on and look at again—there is no doubt of that.
The contribution of SNP members to the debate has focused on independence. If one believes in independence, perhaps it is appropriate to argue for higher numerical representation. I accept but do not agree with that point. However, if one believes—as I do—that we should be part of the UK, one should accept that it is necessary to have a fair and equitable distribution of MEPs. Some would argue that—as Nicola Sturgeon and Richard Lochhead implied—England and Wales should lose some MEPs, because overall the UK would be no smaller. However, inevitably, some areas of England and Wales would argue on economic and other grounds that they should be special cases as well. We must be aware that all those arguments can always be presented.
The fact is that the 15 existing member states have agreed to reduce their quota of MEPs to enable the new accession states to be represented on a similar and equitable footing in the new European Parliament. That is surely a small price to pay for the enormous benefits that EU enlargement will bring. I share the view of members who supported the concept of enlargement and who now support its reality next year.
Enlargement will produce benefits such as peace, prosperity and stability. Those benefits cannot be overestimated. We in Scotland take them for granted, but many in the world cannot do that. It is important to reflect on the advantages that an enlarged EU will offer new member states.
New states will benefit from their membership as they adopt European standards and as a higher standard of living spreads to the east of the existing EU. Enlargement will also have benefits for business. The new member states' economies are growing faster than those elsewhere in the EU and will continue to grow after enlargement, which will make those countries exciting and attractive investment destinations. Investment will be easier and safer when the new members join the EU.
The new member states will bring a well-educated and skilled work force into the EU's labour pool. Levels of English are good, which is especially beneficial for the UK and Scotland.
I contend strongly that the number of MEPs is not all that important. What they do and achieve is the important aspect—that is the old quantity-versus-quality issue. The calibre and quality of MEPs are more important than their number. I echo the point that several members made about that.
Scotland will lose one MEP at the next European Parliament election and the UK will lose nine MEPs, but the reality is that, under the new EU constitutional arrangements following the Treaty of Nice, the votes of smaller member states such as Denmark and Finland in the Council of Ministers will go from being a third of the UK's equivalent vote to being a quarter of the UK's equivalent vote. As Scotland is part of the UK and can call on the UK's vote, we have a huge advantage. I hope that those points will be considered in the overall context of the debate.
The European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 aims at equality of representation as far as possible among each of the 12 UK electoral regions, of which Scotland is one. We must bear that in mind.
Meeting closed at 17:57.