Plenary, 30 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, November 30, 2000

Official Report 690KB pdf

---

Europe

The second debate of the morning is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-1406, in the name of David McLetchie, on Europe.

As we look ahead to next week's intergovernmental conference in Nice, it is important that we debate the issues that are likely to arise, as decisions taken at that conference will have a profound impact on the development of the European Union and on many areas of policy that are devolved to this Parliament. If that were not the case, why would the First Minister have allowed Mr McConnell to retain the grandiose title of Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, unless it is because he is eager for him to be out of the country on as many occasions as possible?

It is vital that we promote a greater understanding of the effect on Scotland of the decisions to be taken at Nice. That is why our motion calls on the Executive to commission and publish a study of the impact of the Nice proposals on devolved functions and the Scottish economy. I hope that the Executive will respond positively to at least that aspect of our motion, which will help to inform the debate about the development of our relationship with the European Union.

The Nice intergovernmental meeting is largely concerned with the enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 28 member states. An enlarged union would cover the new democracies of central and eastern Europe—which have waited a decade since the fall of the Berlin wall to join the EU—Cyprus, Malta and, possibly, Turkey.

We whole-heartedly support enlargement, as it offers the European Union an historic opportunity to bring within our community of nations that are committed to the principles of a free and open society those countries whose peoples were subjugated and impoverished by the failed and discredited doctrines of tyrannical socialism. Given that the European Union now has a waiting list longer than Susan Deacon's, it is frankly outrageous that there are no plans to set a firm timetable at the Nice conference for the admission of any new member state.

Enlargement presents clear choices about the future direction of the union, as the European Commission has recognised. In its submission to this year's intergovernmental conference, the Commission stated:

"Decision-making in a Union of 28 members is clearly not the same thing as decision-making in a Union of 15. The Union will inevitably become less homogenous; the economic, cultural and political differences between the Member States will be more pronounced than ever before in the history of European integration."

I agree with that statement—most of us would, as it is self-evident. That is why, having reached this important crossroads in European history, we must ask ourselves what sort of European Union we want to develop and what sort of European Union will happily and best accommodate our expanded family of nations.

The European Union can follow one of two paths: the path to an open, flexible, free-enterprise Europe, which celebrates diversity; or the path to uniform integration. Essentially, the choice is between a European superstate—or superpower, as the Prime Minister would have it, with typical dialectic sleight of tongue—or a Europe of nation states, acting together in pursuit of common interests towards common goals.

Does the member recognise that Scotland might join such a body as an independent nation state? Would he welcome that?

No. It is a self-evident proposition that I would not welcome independence for Scotland, but I will have something to say about the nationalist perspective on Europe later, which might spark further discussion between us.

A European superstate would mean a Europe with its own taxes, foreign policy, criminal justice system and constitution, as well as its own currency. That is not the route down which most people in Scotland want to go. That route is also out of date in a world of increasing globalisation. A European superstate may have been practicable, if not desirable, when there were only six nations in the European Economic Community, but it is simply not an option for a community of more than 30 nations.

I am a bit confused by Mr McLetchie's speech. He talks about a superstate as if there are people who advocate such an entity. I am not aware of anybody in the chamber, in the United Kingdom or in Europe who argues for the type of European superstate that he talks about. Except for the Conservatives, we are all talking about the other type of Europe.

It is obvious that Iain Smith has not listened to the comments made by the foreign minister of the Federal Republic of Germany or followed the debate on the issue. Nor has he paid much attention to the comments of the President of the European Commission about how he wants things to develop. It is clear that there is a powerful lobby that believes that an integrated, federal Europe with the features that I have described is a desirable outcome. That is part of the debate. Part of the purpose of this debate is to discuss the choices and different visions of what Europe and the European Union are all about.

Instead of submerging our differences within an integrationist Europe, we should celebrate our diversity, because it is a source of strength. The decisions taken at Nice will influence the route that we go down. Far too many of Europe's leaders are stuck in the past, clinging to the vision of an integrationist and interventionist future for the European Union. Sadly, instead of offering an alternative, Labour tries to deny that such an agenda exists. Mr Cook says that the concept of a European superstate is deeply unfashionable, yet that is not the view of the rest of Europe. The items on the agenda at Nice disprove Mr Cook's assertion conclusively.

The Government has tried to play down the agenda of the intergovernmental conference, which is clearly intended to produce an integrationist treaty. Labour's policy is one of integration by stealth, which is not only wrong, but cowardly. The Nice conference will extend qualified majority voting, ending the legislative veto in yet more policy areas. Labour has already conceded the principle by saying that it will consider each case on its merits, but the case-by-case approach is the inexorable road to further integration. By contrast, we have said categorically that there should be no further extension of QMV on European legislation.

Does Mr McLetchie accept that the Single European Act, in which Mrs Thatcher was involved, derogated more decision making to qualified majority voting than is being suggested in the Nice treaty?

I am well aware that QMV played a part in creating the single European market, but we must distinguish between functions that go to the heart of what the European Union and the Common Market is and was all about—of which the single market was an integral part—and the add-ons and bolt-ons that are being developed now, taking Europe down the road to the creation of a federal state, which was never the original intention of people in this country when they voted to remain members of the Common Market.

We know that Labour and Liberal Democrat members and others are happy to see the weakening of our national sovereignty, particularly the Liberal Democrats, who regard national sovereignty with about as much enthusiasm as Geoffrey Robinson can muster for Peter Mandelson. We know that the SNP leadership is happy to abolish our currency and to adopt the euro, even though its former deputy leader, Mr Sillars, has described joining the euro as a major stepping stone to a federal superstate, as it removes one of the core aspects of national sovereignty. I would be interested to know the SNP's view on the extension of qualified majority voting in an enlarged Europe. In particular, how would an independent Scotland—with three votes out of a total of more than 130—be able to exercise any significant influence? The fact is that independence in Europe is not so much a policy as a contradiction in terms. I find it astonishing that the party that proclaims independence for Scotland wants to turn us into an insignificant region of a country called Europe.

Does the member recall the independence displayed by the brave people of Denmark when they said "Nej" to the euro?

I am not sure that the member pronounced that correctly, but never mind.

I am delighted to pay tribute to the independent-minded people of Denmark, who stood up against the iniquitous consensus that tried to drive them down the integrationist road and submerge their culture, history and traditions in a European federal state. I only wish that our Government would have more courage and would stand up for our country in the way that the Danes stood up for theirs.

Will the member give way?

I should move on, as I have only three minutes left. However, as it is Dr Ewing, I will give way briefly.

The reason why I am not speaking in this debate will be obvious from my voice, which I am losing. Does the Conservative party agree that, when Scotland's interests are at stake, ministers from the Scottish Parliament should attend meetings of the European Council of Ministers?

That is a trick question.

I agree that it is a trick question. It would be desirable for ministers from the Scottish Parliament to attend in certain circumstances. When the Conservative party was in government, ministers from the Scottish Office led delegations to Europe on occasion. I hope that, in areas in which significant devolved issues are at stake, ministers in our Executive will be invited to take part in delegations. That is a sensible example of working together. I am happy to give the member that assurance.

Other moves towards a federal superstate are planned for Nice, such as the charter of fundamental rights, which Labour seems happy to support at the conference. It is intended to be the basis for a European constitution, although the Labour Government has been desperate to play down its significance. Keith Vaz memorably claimed that the charter would have no greater legal significance before EU judges than a copy of the Beano. Of course, we in Scotland are experts on the Beano and the Dandy and can tell the difference between a cow pie and a porky pie. The fact of the matter is that the foreword of the official EU document on the charter, which was recently circulated to all MSPs, refers to a provision in the Maastricht treaty relating to fundamental rights. It claims that

"this provision is insufficient in that it does not provide a clear and comprehensive list of those rights and does not refer to economic and social rights. There is therefore very limited scope for individual citizens to invoke the provisions and, where necessary, to use them as a basis for court action."

It is precisely the desire to establish such a basis for court action that explains why there is such strong pressure to incorporate the charter into the treaty, as the foreword to the official document goes on to say. When the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, was asked on BBC radio whether the charter should be made legally binding, he said that he thought that it would be.

The adoption of the charter by the Nice council will be another major step along the road to integration. It also poses a threat to jobs in Scotland. Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors believe that the extension of so-called social rights will damage employment prospects, particularly in small firms.

In which direction should the Nice treaty take the European Union? The Conservative vision for the European Union is based on a desire for it to be a successful union. The council meeting should send out a clear signal about the shape of the EU as a flexible network of nation states. It would be greatly to Scotland's advantage as a nation with a strong exporting tradition if the EU concentrated on its core functions.

The Nice conference should start to reverse the process of European integration. For example, the common agricultural policy is the biggest impediment to European Union enlargement. As we know, the CAP started out as a worthy attempt to prevent the threat of food shortages. However, the world has moved on and the original aims of the CAP can be much better achieved today by giving greater flexibility and responsibility to the member states of the European Union. There is a consensus on the need for reform, although how it is to be achieved is a problem. The imperative for reform is greater than ever as we contemplate expansion from 15 to 28 members. A centralised CAP, which is under constant strain in a union of 15 members, will be unsustainable in a union of almost 30 members.

The same can be said—although more so—of the common fisheries policy. That is why the Conservatives want to re-establish control of our waters through zonal management, coastal management or some other way. Those are the sort of reforms that should be on the negotiating table at Nice if enlargement is to be taken seriously and the way in which the European Union should develop is to be mapped out properly.

I can put the case for flexibility no better than does the admirable article by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt in a recent edition of the International Herald Tribune. It said:

"It is obvious that full integration is not a realistic goal for 30 countries that are very different in their political traditions, culture and economic development. To attempt integration with that many countries can only lead to complete failure."

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt—who are no Euro-sceptics—are right when they say that. That is why the Conservative approach to European Union development is the sensible and practicable basis on which to move forward.

Flexibility should be the centrepiece of any Nice treaty. It will not be, of course, because Nice is all about taking us further down the integrationist road. The other three main parties in Scotland want Scotland to be ever more deeply submerged in a European Union, either within the UK or on our own. However, they know that that view is unpopular and are engaged in a conspiracy of silence. Where is the much-vaunted Scotland in Europe (part of the Britain in Europe campaign), which was launched in October last year in a blaze of publicity but which has now sunk and disappeared without trace? Perhaps Mr McConnell, Mr Andrew Wilson or Mr Stone will tell us whether that grand alliance is to be relaunched this year, so that we can have an open and honest debate about the way in which decisions that are made about the European Union will affect the lives of people in Scotland in the years to come. The Conservative party is ready for that debate but the other parties shrink from it. We believe that Scotland's future is as part of a new European Union, which is founded on far greater flexibility and freedom and in which our national sovereignty is preserved and our distinctiveness is enhanced. That is what our motion is about and I commend it to the chamber.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the forthcoming Nice intergovernmental conference meeting which is intended to pave the way for enlargement of the European Union and, which will have significant consequences for Scotland and, whilst welcoming enlargement, opposes moves towards a European superstate which will undermine our national sovereignty; calls upon the Scottish Executive to urge Her Majesty's Government to support the development of a European Union which is based on flexibility, consensus and co-operation, believing that this is in the best interests of Scotland and Europe as a whole and further calls upon the Scottish Executive to commission and publish a study into the impact of the Nice proposals on devolved functions and the Scottish economy.

I agree with Mr McLetchie that this is an important debate for the Scottish Parliament and for Scotland. It is more than a year since we debated European issues in general and the questions that he outlines today are the questions that we should address in the run-up to the Nice summit and as the debate about the future of Europe progresses. However, we find ourselves in the usual mire of innuendo, scare stories and ludicrous misinterpretation of what is going on, when we should be thinking about the big picture for Scotland and the UK. If anyone is stuck in the past, it is Mr McLetchie and his colleagues in a party that, although it is called the Scottish Conservative party, sounds today more like a Conservative party from somewhere else.

The Scottish Executive, like the vast majority of members of the Scottish Parliament and the vast majority of Scots, is committed to the European Union. We believe that the European Union is a force for progress and good. It is a force for economic stability and prosperity for Scotland.

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should represent the way in which Scotland, by our nature and as a result of economic necessity, has always been an outward-looking nation. Over the past 18 months, we have been developing the economic and political links that have always existed between Scotland and other parts of Europe. We are working to develop the already strong links with the Nordic countries. We are working closely with the Belgian regional Governments of Flanders and Wallonia, with Catalonia, and with Bavaria, Nord Rhein-Westphalia and other German Länder. We are working with the Czech Republic. We are even starting to develop links with the emerging Polish regions. All those links are important for Scotland. They are important for our political position, but they are also important for our economic success, as links at Government level pave the way for trade links and for Scottish businesses to maximise their trade opportunities. That makes them important for Scottish jobs.

We have been working hard to raise Scotland's profile. We have established Scotland House, which is based on the best practice of other European regions and is now being used as a model by others. We are involved in at least one European body and will be considering joining others in the months to come. We have been attending the Council of Ministers meetings that it has been appropriate for Scotland to attend.

Will the minister give way?

Certainly. I thought that those words might tempt Mr Wilson.

As the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, how many Council of Ministers meetings has Jack McConnell attended?

As Mr Wilson knows, those meetings are to discuss specific subject areas. The ministers who attend are the ministers with the appropriate portfolio. For Dr Ewing to suggest that Scotland is not represented at the Council of Ministers is factually wrong. Scotland is represented at every meeting of the Council of Ministers—Scotland is represented by the UK, and it so happens that devolution has given us the added benefit of also having direct representation from this Parliament and this Executive. That can only be a good thing for Scotland and for the UK as a whole.

Will the minister give way?

No.

That positive engagement and the development of links to better Scotland's profile in the European Union compares well with the position of the English nationalists and the Scottish nationalists, who are both represented in this chamber. I believe that, in order to do the best for Scotland in Europe, we have to embrace Europe and exploit the opportunities that arise, not just those offered by the European Union, but those offered by the United Kingdom.

I believe that the EU continues to have the appetite that it has always had for Scotland's products and services. Almost two thirds of our manufacturing exports go to countries inside the European Union, as do more than 40 per cent of our service exports. I am not sure whether Mr Andy Kerr is in the chamber, but I believe that it is a firm from his constituency of East Kilbride—Stewart Wales, Somerville—that is providing the paint for the Eiffel tower. Scottish firms are doing well throughout Europe, even on that scale.

A third of foreign-owned companies based in Scotland are from the EU. They bring investment into our country. The investment projects that emanated from continental Europe between 1994 and 1999 were worth about £740 million to the Scottish economy. Recent surveys have shown that more than 250,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union.

Will the minister give way?

Let me finish this point. Those jobs would be directly affected by the anti-Europeanism demonstrated by the Conservative party at a British level, and now, unfortunately, at a Scottish level. If Britain, and Scotland, were to disengage from the European Union, those jobs would be at risk. The Tory party should be more honest about that.

We are being perfectly honest. The debate is not about being pro-Europe or anti-Europe; it is about the development of the European Union. I remind the minister that people in the Conservative party were in favour of membership of the European Community when his party and the Scottish National Party were campaigning against it. He is in no position to lecture us.

I am afraid that that is not where the debate has gone in recent years. We have moved away from the debate about the future of Europe that was taking place in the late 1980s and early 1990s—that debate involved all the parties that are represented in this chamber. The current debate in Britain is about being for Europe or against Europe. It is quite clear that the way in which the Conservative party is now trying to whip up hysteria at the British level about a European superstate is designed to encourage people to be against the European Union. The long-term impact of that—and of leaving the EU—would be that Scottish jobs would go or that we would become more antagonistic, thereby losing influence across the EU.

We can see that both parts of the Opposition—we saw it in the debate last year and I am sure that we will see it again this morning—hold positions that are not about securing Scotland's best interests. Scotland's best interests are secured by this Parliament and Scotland acting within the UK and by Scotland and the UK acting with strength inside the European Union.

Will the minister take my intervention now, please?

No.

Conservative policy would threaten Scottish jobs. The Tories try to portray the countries of the European Union as aggressive foreigners. In the debate last week on the establishment of small co-ordinated European defence effort, which is supported by NATO and endorsed by the United States, the Tories tried to claim that some sort of crazy European army was being created. Such a portrayal is dishonest and threatens the co-ordination and stability of a Europe that has now had peace for 50 years.

We have already heard from Dr Ewing this morning. She somehow sees our engagement with Europe in terms of counting the number of committee meetings that we attend.

It is important.

Dr Ewing's suggestion is complete nonsense. The nationalists' position on membership of the euro and on European interest rates jumped over the past 18 months. At one point, they wanted immediate entry; at another point, they wanted to peg to sterling; more recently, Mr Swinney said that he would think again and might apply the same tests that Gordon Brown has been talking about for five years. Their position has changed month after month, swaying with public opinion. For the European Union, for Scotland and for the rest of the UK, we need now to rise above that debate and look to the future. We should consider what the benefits of enlargement will be for Scotland and how we should engage in the European Union in years to come.

Is the minister aware that the Labour party has changed its mind more than seven times since the mid-1960s on membership of the European Community?

We could all go back to the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and see what people were saying then, but let us look at what people are saying today. The British Conservative party is apparently supported by the Scottish Conservatives in this, but I do not believe that every Conservative MSP supports the position adopted by Francis Maude. He used to believe strongly in European co-operation. He volunteered to sign the Maastricht treaty, which gave away more power to Europe than any other UK treaty or act had ever done. Francis Maude is now trying to whip up the racism and xenophobia that the Conservative party is encouraging at a UK level. Conservative members of this Parliament might toe the party line, but I do not believe that they take that position seriously. We in Scotland have a duty to try to raise the level of this debate in the years to come.

Enlargement is a high priority for Scotland. It will create Europe as a superpower, not a superstate; it will reinforce peace, democracy and freedom throughout Europe; it will help to continue to heal the unnatural division that was created by the cold war; it will increase prosperity by increasing the UK's gross domestic product; it will give businesses in Scotland a series of new customers to trade with; and it will enhance security by helping to tackle crime and the drugs trade. Enlargement will also extend qualified majority voting in those areas where it is in Scotland's and Britain's interest to extend it. To say that that should never happen is to say that there should never be any reform of the European institutions. The way to get meaningful reform is to extend qualified majority voting in the appropriate areas.

We need to act for positive change in Europe. We need to support the trend towards a positive social and economic Europe that works through e-commerce, promotes small businesses, tackles crime and drugs, and extends the European markets into those countries of eastern and central Europe whose applications are on the agenda of next month's conference and that will be entering the European Union in the years to come.

I believe strongly that Scotland gets the best of both worlds from devolution and from the UK's membership of the European Union. This is a vital debate about the kind of country in which we want to live. I do not want to live in a Scotland that is a small country on the periphery of Europe, sulking off from the rest of the United Kingdom. I also do not want to live in a Britain that sulks off from Europe. I want to ensure that we are a part of a modern, dynamic country with a positive identity and a role in Europe; I want to ensure that we are part of a strong member state that exerts its increasing influence. After the Nice conference, there will be studies about the impact on Scotland of any decisions that are taken—that is not in question.

Today's debate is about the future of Scotland in Europe, and I am happy to move amendment S1M-1406.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises the vital importance of the European Union to the current prosperity of Scotland; welcomes Scotland's positive engagement in the European Union directly and through the UK; believes appropriate decisions in different areas of policy can be taken at Scottish, UK and European levels to ensure democracy and effective government; and supports the work of the Executive and the Parliament to raise the profile of a newly devolved Scotland as a modern, dynamic country with a clear sense of identity within a strong member state."

I support the principles of the Conservatives' motion as well as the amendment in my name. It is always a great pleasure to debate Scotland's position in the world and in the developing European Union. The Nice intergovernmental conference is critically important to that.

In the SNP, we take the view that it is a great shame that we are unable to represent our position in the EU in the same way as normal countries such as Ireland, Denmark and Finland do. If that is an unfair or ridiculous ambition for Mr McConnell, I do not apologise for that. It is already the case that, as a regional appendage of a reluctant partner state, we are out of the proverbial loop and are very much disengaged from the central debate in the European Union. As I said, we cannot disagree with the words of the Tory motion itself. Few of us, except perhaps the Liberals—when they are awake—would want a European superstate. As Mr McConnell said, that is not what is currently on offer from the European Union, nor is it the current position of any EU member state.

Where we part company from the Tories is on their use of this debate to appeal to the worst angels in the souls of people in the other debate that is going on in the south of England, in order to stoke up, as Jack McConnell said, an emotionally driven narrow nationalism founded in the 19th century, rather than considering how we can best punch our weight as a country in the 21st century. Anchored in an unworldly sense of Britain's place, this narrow nationalism of the old state would have us debating the symbols of national virility rather than the substance of what government can and should do to improve the lives of the citizen.

While the rest of the world adjusts to the realities of globalisation, the Conservatives are looking backwards. We in Scotland need to get a firm sense of where and how government can best look after the interests of the people. Often that means sharing sovereignty in Europe, which is what the SNP is in favour of. The Conservatives' approach does not do their party any favours. Many Conservatives agree with that view. John Major thought that the Conservative policy was dangerous, absurd and crazy, and Malcolm Rifkind said that it was

"little more than a euphemism for us to quit Europe".

That is their attitude to William Hague's approach to Europe. I wonder what has changed Malcolm Rifkind's views.

We know where the Tories stand in this debate. The great pity for Mr McConnell's side is that Mr Blair, who is worried about the marginal constituencies in the south of England, is chasing after Mr Hague's coat tails rather than pushing the case for Europe more positively.

Does Mr Wilson agree that, in effect, by supporting the wording of the motion of the English nationalists in the chamber, the Scottish nationalists are adopting the Conservatives' political position? He cannot say that he supports the wording but objects to the context in which that wording is used. The attempt to portray the Nice negotiations as a step towards creating a European superstate, as the wording of the motion implies that they are, is wrong, and Mr Wilson should dissociate himself from it.

We could call it basic honesty, but I take the view that, if one agrees with the wording of a motion, one should say that, and then combat the wrong-headed politics that is being articulated. I cannot disagree with the statement that we oppose the development of a European superstate or that Europe and European expansion are a good thing. We say that we do not disagree with it, and then we argue about the contents of the Conservative approach. That is honest politics. It is a shame to dismiss one side or another with narrow titles rather than accepting that Jack McConnell shares with the Conservatives an outdated idea of British nationalism.

Jack McConnell mentioned the attendance at the Council of Ministers as if it were a committee meeting of no importance. The council is the key decision-making body of the European Union. As Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs—minister to get out of my face, as Mr McLeish probably intended—Mr McConnell has not attended a single Council of Ministers meeting, yet Keith Vaz, his equivalent in the UK Government, has been at every meeting of that council. What does Mr McConnell do to deserve his title? Why is he not at any meetings?

Why is it the case that on justice matters, which are much more important following the Treaty of Amsterdam, there has not been a single attendance by the Minister for Justice?

On a point of information, the Minister for Justice is attending the Council of Ministers in Brussels today.

I am delighted that he is breaking his duck—that is terrific. On health matters, the Minister for Health and Community Care has not attended once, unless she is on a flight as we speak. On social affairs, there has not been one attendance. We are delighted if, under our pressure, the Executive has decided to start attending the occasional meeting.

Let us focus on what the enlargement process will mean for the decision-making bodies and on how Scotland's position can best be served by having normal status within Europe. Mr McConnell and his Labour colleagues, and the Conservatives, have to provide an example of an occasion on which the Scottish interest, when it has not converged with that of the rest of the UK, has been pushed by a UK delegation. To the extent that that has never been the case, their argument falls down.

Following enlargement, if we were normal and independent, we would have one vote in the Council of Ministers for every 1.3 million citizens, compared with one vote for every 5 million as is the case for the UK at present. The rest of the UK would gain if Scotland became a normal member. If that were the case, where our interests converged with those of the rest of the UK, we would increase the joint voting of the peoples of these islands from 10 to 13 at present or, after the intergovernmental conference, to 17 or 18. Where our interests converge, the collective power of Scotland and England as independent states would be enhanced by Scottish independence. Where those interests do not converge, how can it be held that Scotland is best served by a country that does not argue for Scotland's interests?

If England and Scotland had more votes as separate countries, would Andrew Wilson think that it was fair that Britain, with a population of 58 million, should have more votes than had Germany, with a population of 65 million? Is that a balanced position to take?

In any confederal position, which I believe is what Ben Wallace still argues for, there has to be recognition of the distinctiveness of states as well as of the proportionality of population. Arguing for direct proportionality is hotfooting it towards federalism. From my reading of the Conservative manifesto, that is not something with which the Conservatives agree. We have to analyse how we best recognise within the council the confederal nature of Europe as well as some form of fair voting. Some of the proposals that will be discussed at Nice at least attempt to do that.

We have no representation on the European Commission. We argue—and would do so at Nice, if we were allowed to—that there should be at least one commissioner for each member state. If we were independent, that would mean that there would be one commissioner for 5 million people, compared with one for 60 million. If we remain within the UK, our number of members of the European Parliament will drop from eight to six or seven. With normalisation, we would be guaranteed 10 or 11—one MEP for every 500,000 citizens, compared with one for nearly 750,000 people if we remain in the UK. There is no substitute for normal status in the European Union.

We want Scotland to be part of the main stream. We understand that old-fashioned, 19th century nationalism is not relevant in the 21st century world. Ireland, Austria, Belgium and other members of the European Union share that understanding. It is about arguing what Government can do in practice for its citizens in the 21st century, rather than anchoring ourselves in an old vision of what Britain used to be—that is an old nationalism that does not fit the modern world.

We support the process of enlargement, which will enhance the ability of the European Union to deliver for its citizens. We see no substitute for a Scotland that argues its case, punches its weight and does its best to represent the views of its citizens. Nothing that we have heard from Mr McConnell does anything to answer the points that we have raised, and nothing that we hear from the Conservatives would drag us out of the 19th century and into the 21st. Let us leave behind the emotionally driven arguments of Mr Hague and look forward to a modern role for Scotland in a new century, in which we can punch our weight in Europe and look on ourselves as partners with normal countries such as Ireland and Austria.

I move amendment S1M-1406.1, to insert at end:

"and encourages any moves towards the normalisation of Scotland's status as a nation within a confederal European Union with full rights and obligations as a member state."

I think that some members were surprised by Mr McLetchie's choice of subject for debate today as it seems to be the wrong battleground. All those in the real world know that it is nothing but a vote loser for the Conservative ladies and gentlemen in the chamber. They think that it is a good issue for them, but it is not.

At first, the motion appears very tempting, and we think that we can all sign up to it, as Andrew Wilson just did, until we see the weasel words "flexibility" and "European superstate". Those words are code for Europhobia—straightforward, undiluted, tabloid-headline Europhobia. Mr McConnell hinted at this and I wonder about Mr McLetchie's independence from Mr William Hague and his cohorts down in England. They think Europe is a vote winner for them, but we know that it is not, as we proved in Romsey and will do so again in the next general election. Mr McLetchie is flogging a dead horse. However, it is a dangerous argument as there is too much at stake. We have to demolish the Tory argument once and for all.

On occasion, I am given to quoting my younger brother. I do not do so today on the usual subject. My younger brother is an unreconstructed Tory of the old style. He is also a fruit merchant. He is the first person to say that the Tories are wrong on the single currency. As a businessman who buys in fruit and vegetables from abroad, he says that a fluctuating currency is a disgrace which does him no favours.

If members go to the Highlands, they will find that the old farmers, who used to vote Conservative, are shouting for a single currency. I can quote them chapter and verse on that.

I have had considerable correspondence with the leadership of the National Farmers Union of Scotland on the question whether it supports early entry to the single currency, and have received several guarantees from Jim Walker that he takes no position on the matter.

The Liberal Democrat position—that we should enter the single currency as soon as we can at the right exchange rate—is correct. When my good friend Mr Johnstone is next in the Highlands I will invite him to lunch with some of my farmer neighbours, who can put him right.

It is worth remembering that the UK exports more today to Belgium and the Netherlands than to the whole of Latin America, Africa, India, Australia, China and Russia combined. That shows us just how important that trade is to us.

The debate refers primarily to Scotland. What percentage of Scottish exports is hidden in that UK total? That is the sort of question that I would have put to the minister if he had just looked kindly on me during his speech, as I am trying to establish the Scottish dimension in this debate on Europe.

Whenever Margo MacDonald rises to her feet I feel like breaking into Danish. I say to her, jeg elsker dig. That is Danish for I love you. I love her because her single-handed destruction of the SNP position on Europe cheers up all of us on the other benches.

Perhaps we should remind Ms MacDonald that Scotland's biggest market is England and that her obsession with separating Scotland from England politically and economically would affect that market, so that even more Scottish jobs would be at risk than would be through leaving the European Union.

Will Mr Stone take an intervention?

No. I will take an intervention in a moment.

I thank the minister for his intervention. By going into a unified currency we will achieve lower interest rates for this country, which industry is crying out for. I see that Mr Ben Wallace has the lectern in front of him—I bet he will talk about the military, so I will touch on the European rapid reaction force. There has been utter tosh—forgive me, Murray—in the press on that subject. It is worth remembering that the battle of Waterloo was a cross-country operation. All our families lost forebears in the great war and the second world war. Europe was engulfed in war twice in the 20th century because of European division. Peace and stability in Europe is one of the key and most sacred aims of European union. As the Conservative party postures and goes for tabloid headlines on the RRF, we must not forget that.

Before I give way to Mary Scanlon, I congratulate her on her superb demolition of Mr John Swinney last Thursday night on television, in the round-up after the Anniesland by-election.

It was a great pleasure. I thank Jamie Stone. Now I have almost forgotten what I was going to say.

That was deliberate.

If the lower interest rates throughout euroland are appropriate for the UK at this time, do the Liberal Democrats think that the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England is setting an inappropriately high interest rate in order to control the rate of inflation?

Yes, the interest rate is too high. We all know that and we should try to get it lowered.

In winding up, I want to say to the Conservative party that it should be careful in what it is doing. Like Dr Faustus, it is summoning up the devil—the devil of xenophobia, which is a great evil. If the Conservatives embrace that devil, he will take them with him, as they will discover at the next general election.

There was some predictability about the subject of today's debate. We could expect the other parties, especially the Labour party, to try to tar us with an anti-Europe brush. To give the Liberal Democrats credit, their party's position is clear: to enter the single currency immediately, no matter the implications for inflation. Next stop, probably, is a federal Europe.

Not yet. The real confusion is over the other two parties. The Labour party is in principle in favour of the euro, but only when the economic criteria have been satisfied. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the criteria have been satisfied. It forgot the secret sixth criterion—Tony Blair's popularity. He will not shift. The SNP seems to be cooling on the idea. At the launch of Scotland in Europe the SNP was fierce in its attempts to drag the First Minister straight on to the euro bandwagon, but now SNP members are not so vocal about it, except perhaps for Andrew Wilson. Perhaps Jim Sillars has more of an effect than we think.

Before members of the other parties start pointing fingers, they should reflect on the current ICM poll that shows that six out of 10 Liberal Democrat voters—I know that is not very many people—and 58 per cent of Labour voters oppose the single currency.

Nice was to be hailed as the great enlargement conference, with the French presidency leading the way. As Conservatives we embrace enlargement. It will be good for Scotland. The expansion east will mean that the axis of Europe will move from Paris to Berlin. I know that some people in my own party, such as Bill Walker, may inhale at the very thought of that, but it will mean that Scotland will be able to look east to the hub of the Baltic to access EU markets, not just south.

The process of enlargement is a soul-searching exercise. To enlighten some members, the EU acts as a referee between member states and applicant countries to ensure that the mass weight of EU legislation is implemented by new countries before they accede. That means that we must look at ourselves before we force rules on others. In Scotland, we have one of the highest rates of implementation, which can only be good news. For France, with over 200 cases outstanding in the EU court, it is not good news.

That is perhaps why the Nice agenda has changed and the French presidency is seeking more of a twin-track Europe. That is not what Scotland needs. The motive for some countries is that if two Europes develop, the few who are now members can hold on to their privileges while new members can find their own way. That would mean, for example, that the French could keep the unreformed common agricultural policy, and Poland's 8 million farmers can do without it. Conservatives want a fairer Europe, not a divided one. We want a larger, looser and freer EU and not an over-integrated and centralised federation.

Why does Mr Ben Wallace not want a larger, looser and freer United Kingdom with more devolution within Europe and within the UK?

I am just coming on to that. How will Scotland be involved? As a result of devolution our concerns are disappearing into a grey area. How many Scottish Executive ministers or officials will be in Nice next week? I bet that representatives of the German Länder will be there. I doubt that we will be. I do not seek that because of some nationalist wish to drive a wedge between Scotland and Westminster but because, as a unionist, I recognise that liaison between the different power bases is vital to ensuring the bounds of the union.

I am having some difficulty in differentiating the party positions. Could Mr Wallace clarify Conservative policy? Is he saying that Conservative policy is that if the Conservatives were to form the UK Government after the general election, which may well take place next year, there would be a Scottish representative on the delegations to all intergovernmental conferences and Councils of Ministers?

Please begin to wind up, Mr Wallace.

The Scottish Conservative position is that we want to ensure the union. The best way to do that is to work well with the different power bases—in Europe, at Westminster and in Scotland—to ensure that we have a good representation of all regions of Europe.

What is the answer?

We will make approaches to our colleagues at Westminster to try to ensure that Scotland has a good voice—certainly a better voice than it has when a minister does not turn up for a meeting.

The Executive would no doubt say that UK ministers and the Foreign Office protect our interests. Some members may know that, as a reporter to the European Committee, I am doing a report on EU enlargement. I will not wander on to that, as we have not yet discussed it in the committee. Applicant countries provide negotiation positions, which have important knock-on effects on markets and have implications for legislation in Scotland.

Will the Foreign Office let us know what those positions are? It will not even show us the documents. The other countries will give them to us. The Länder have free access to that information. Poland sent me the Foreign Office document after I rang up. We are not allowed to know in this country what is going on behind the scenes.

Mr Wallace, please wind up.

If you will give me a bit of leeway—I have taken interventions.

I am not going to go on to defence, as Jamie Stone suggested.

Aw.

Mr Stone obviously has no idea who is going to provide the lift capacity for the Europe defence force. America does it under the NATO umbrella. By being outside that umbrella we will not have access to that. If he could understand that, we might perhaps have a serious conversation.

I noticed that the SNP's defence adviser, Lieutenant-Colonel Crawford, was spouting off on defence in Scotland on Sunday. We should remember that he suggested biological and chemical weapons as an alternative to Trident. I think that that adviser should be dropped.

Mr Wallace, you must come to a close.

The Treaty of Nice may or may not be signed next week. The UK must resist closer integration. We should be concentrating on enlargement. In Scotland we should remember that in a federation size does matter. The big dominate the small; the economic policy will fit the large economies and not the small—just ask Ireland.

I will finish with a quotation.

"Above all the EEC takes away Britain's freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need. These are two reasons for coming out. Only a Labour Government will do it."

That was our friend Tony Blair, spouting off when he stood in Beaconsfield.

In its present form, the EU gives us choice and the ability to change our mind. Under the euro form, there would be no changing our mind. We would be stuck in it for ever.

If time allows, I am quite prepared to make allowances for members who take interventions, but I cannot allow speeches to go on for quite as long as that one did.

Yes—that must have been a record for a four-minute speech.

The Conservative motion deals with the type of relationship that we, as part of the UK, should have with Europe. I would argue that the type of relationship that can develop depends on the vision of a member state of the role of the European Union. Of course, that will vary depending on political perspectives. That has been clearly shown this morning. Labour sees the EU as having an important role in delivering a social agenda to improve the life chances of citizens. The Conservatives see such developments as unnecessary interference. They argued that changes to the minimum wage would adversely affect jobs. That claim has not come true.

There is no doubt that much needs to be done to regain confidence in the machinery of governance at the EU level. When the European Committee visited Brussels, personnel were at great pains to point out how internal reform would take place in financial management and, more important, in creating more transparency, dialogue and openness. The latter reform seems to me to be at the heart of a more productive interchange of views between the EU and its member states. That dialogue must connect all sectors: citizens and the business communities. That is essential to deal with the policy priorities for 2000 and beyond, which include, as already mentioned, enlargement, the continuing social agenda, and environmental and sustainable development issues.

If Europe is to continue to develop its ideas for a sustainable future around the sixth environmental action plan, it cannot do so in isolation from economic policies. A central plank of that environmental action plan will be to ensure that every Council of Ministers area—be it agriculture, transport, energy or industry—takes the environmental issue on board. That process has begun, but it is widely recognised that there is a long way to go in raising public awareness and in changing attitudes in industry so that people see the positive side of the environmental agenda.

However, Europe is taking a lead on this issue—as with many other important issues—and is providing a benchmark for member states. Then, of course, we hit the troublesome question of how much flexibility should be allowed for member states, for instance, in applying EU directives. An example of that is the issue that Maureen Macmillan and I raised at Brussels during the European Committee's visit. We asked about the implications of the water directive for the whisky industry. We have spoken to various interest groups on that issue, and it is clear that much more discussion is needed before the issue is resolved. I am sure that the European Committee, and possibly others, will be actively involved in that important debate.

I return to my initial point: how effective we are in providing real flexibility within a framework of agreed principles will depend very much on the quality of the dialogue between the various institutions. Although many observers argue that the powers of the European Parliament are too little, its influence is growing. I firmly believe that MEPs have a valuable part to play in enhancing the quality of dialogue within and between member states.

Although the Conservative motion uses many of the right words, they do not ring true. I suspect that the Conservatives do not want to take on board many of the points about effective dialogue and the importance of Europe in decision making that I have made.

It is disappointing that members of the Scottish National Party feel somewhat distanced from this debate, which seems to be taking place in the context of the continuing debate in British nationalism about our integration further into the European Union. That debate is typified by many of the headlines that we have seen and by the continuing battle between the British unionist parties, Labour and Conservative.

Europe is changing fast. Both Labour and the Conservatives talk about the euro, tax harmonisation, expansion and the spectre of federalism. The hopes and fears that they express are the hopes and fears of the multinational unitary states. The fears are the fears of Spain, France, the UK and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Germany and Italy, the so-called big players in the EU. The message from the big five is that sovereignty as we know it is a thing of the past.

That is not exactly news to members of the Scottish National Party, to the people of Galicia, the Basque country or Catalunya. Those people lost their sovereignty many years ago. I may have to remind some members that independence, the restoration of sovereignty and the right to self-determination are the common goals of nationalist movements across Europe. Nationalist mobilisation has forced the Spanish state and the British state to concede autonomy and devolution respectively. Even France, a bastion of centralist dogma, has made concessions to the Corsicans, giving them legislative powers.

Will Mr Quinan comment on the fact that the Catalan nationalists no longer support independence for Catalonia and are quite happy to be part of a Spanish state that gives them influence as a powerful region or nation inside the state, and gives them the opportunity to have the influence that Spain has? Would Mr Quinan prefer—and he may want to comment on this because his colleague Mr Wilson does so regularly—Scotland to be more "normal", like Austria, where the fascists participate in the Government?

That was a cheap, dirty shot.

That is what was said.

It is deeply disturbing that the minister with responsibility for external affairs should suggest that the Government of Austria, which was freely elected by the people of Austria, is a fascist Government.

I said that the fascists participated.

That may well be the case, but what Mr McConnell said was an insult to the electors of Austria who chose, in a democratic fashion, a particular party. I certainly do not agree with that party's programme, but I respect the right of the Austrian people to choose the political leadership that they want.

Will the member give way?

No I will not, Mr Wallace. I will return to the point that I was making.

A good deal is going on in Europe, but we seldom get the real story in the British press. What we get has just been typified by Mr McConnell's statement that Catalan nationalists no longer support independence. If he is referring to the Convergència i Unió, which is the Government in the Generalitat, what he said is true. However, if he looked at the broad spectrum of the other nine nationalist parties in Catalunya, he would find—and this may be deeply disturbing for him—that the parties on the left, especially the Catalan Socialist Party, fully support independence for Catalunya. Esquerra Republicana supports it too. Across the devolved and autonomous communities of Spain, the nationalist parties in the centre that do not support independence are losing heavily to the nationalist parties on the left that support independence. That is the reality, but—and this is typical of the Europe debate in the UK—we seldom hear about the reality of day-to-day politics.

This country and this Parliament should develop proper links with the autonomous Parliaments across Europe. In that way, we could develop a proper policy of co-operation. Euskadi—the Basque country—has a dynamic economy, much as Scotland does. It has suffered from industrial decline for many years; its principal industries were based on steel, manufacturing and large-scale engineering, as were ours. Were we to engage directly with parliaments such as the Basque Parliament, we might well be able to influence UK ministers from the correct level—the level of the devolved parliaments. It is vital that Scotland engage with the emerging nations—not the nations that are joining the EU from outside, but the nations that will rise from within, principally Catalunya, Wales and the Basque country.

As my friends in all parties will acknowledge, I am not quick to anger. However, today I felt my temperature rise during certain speeches, in particular those of Jack McConnell and Jamie Stone. I see that Mr Stone has returned to the chamber.

Just for you, Mr Johnstone.

The suggestion that the Conservative party is somehow in favour of withdrawal from the European Union is at best naive and in some cases deliberately misleading.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not. Mr Stone has had his four minutes and I am damned sure that I will have mine. [Members: "Ooh."] Excuse me, Presiding Officer.

The fact is that for the vast majority of our membership of the European Union, the United Kingdom has been under a Conservative Government. Conservatives have a proud record: they took us into the European Union and have been involved in every stage of the renegotiation of treaties and our progress to today's position. Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister for the vast majority of that time and many of those achievements were hers. It is completely misleading to suggest that the Conservative party has no European record to defend. We have a proud record.

Will the member give way?

No. I must move on quickly.

I would like to address the issue of the common agricultural policy. It is a measure of Labour's desperation about the ruins of its short-term agriculture policy that it would rather discuss the long-term agriculture policy. However, the CAP is as much a fact of present-day farming life as it will be in future farming life. The Government wants to talk about strategies for long-term survival, but that is just so much hot air if we cannot ensure the short-term survival of British agriculture. That applies to the CAP as much as to any other aspect of agriculture policy. Our farmers need a Government that is capable of standing up for their interests in Brussels. However, Labour at Westminster and Labour with its Liberal Democrat allies in Scotland are more interested in standing up for the interests of our competitors.

I will be brief. Will the member confirm that it was the actions of the Conservative Government that led to the beef ban and that it was the Labour Government that got it lifted?

It is a fact that the beef ban was introduced during a Conservative Government. However, that was because of legitimate concerns about health issues that were related to several other policies. Labour's claim to have succeeded in lifting the beef ban is not borne out by the evidence of Scotland's beef production and processing industry. If Jack McConnell wants to claim that Labour has lifted the beef ban, he should go and organise some exports for us—if he possibly can.

My final point relates to an issue raised by Sylvia Jackson on the implementation of European directives, specifically the waste water directive. There is a current issue in Dundee, where the Christian Salvesen vegetable processing plant looks likely to close, with the loss of many jobs in the area. That is due entirely to the way in which the waste water directive has been implemented. That will have massive knock-on effects, particularly on pea and bean production, which is a common activity in Angus and south Kincardine. It is likely that businesses producing up to £3 million for the local economy will be lost. That is due to the fact that, at a time when investment is required to conform to European standards, the industry has no spare capacity for investment.

If there is to be any progress on that issue, we must have a policy that would allow companies such as Christian Salvesen to have adequate opportunity to make changes to their waste water processing. Their competitors in other countries have had that opportunity. Those countries include Holland, Belgium and—surprisingly—England. In Grimsby, the main competitors in the production of vegetables are able to access the necessary equipment and processing capacity for their waste at a much more competitive rate than can be offered by the North of Scotland Water Authority in Scotland.

In considering the requirement to implement European policy, we should bear in mind the way in which we implement it in Scotland and the serious problems that that may cause our companies.

I am finding this morning's debate rather sad, because it ought to be an opportunity for the Parliament to debate positively what we would like Scotland's role in Europe to be, but instead we are having a debate based on the Europhobia that comes from William Hague and his Conservatives south of the border—sadly, Andrew Wilson appears to be supporting that in principle. It appears that the little Scotlanders are joining the little Englanders.

Andrew Wilson said that he supported the principle of the Conservative motion. The Conservative motion is about Europhobia. As Jamie Stone pointed out, the words

"opposes moves towards a European superstate"

are intended to build up fears about something that is not happening. There are no moves at Nice to build a European superstate. Therefore, the title of the debate is a misnomer—it is about promoting the anti-Europe credentials of the Conservatives, which they believe will win them votes in the election. It has to be said that in last year's European elections, the Conservatives got their lowest ever share of the Scottish electorate's vote—4.92 per cent.

In Scotland, we are not against Europe; we are in favour of Europe. Like many other countries in the European Union, we see Europe as a means to promote and enhance our culture, rather than to absorb it, as the Conservatives suggest.

David McLetchie talked about the nonsense of integration.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment. I want to make some progress.

Mr McLetchie's watchwords are flexibility and freedom. What sort of flexibility and freedom does he mean? Is it the flexibility of France to flout European regulations and not be taken to the European Court to have them enforced? The flexibility and freedom proposed by the Conservatives in their pre-manifesto suggestion that Britain should opt out of the European Union would unravel the single market.

Lord Howe has said that it would be a

"deeply disturbing proposal. Europe's single market—one of the major achievements of the Thatcher government"—

believe it or not—

"could not survive if every member state claimed the right to interpret or limit its EU obligations to suit its own wishes."

We cannot have a single market as well as the type of flexibility and freedom that David McLetchie seeks.

The history of the Conservatives on Europe can be summed up in the phrase, "It's oor ba and we're no playin." Historically, UK involvement in Europe was about sitting on the sidelines and sitting on our ba while the other countries found another one, made up the rules and got on with playing the game. By the time we came in, the rules had already been made. In many ways, that is why Britain has suffered in Europe. We were not in there at the start, shaping Europe; we came in at the end when Europe had already been shaped. It is sad that we are doing the same thing with regard to the euro.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I have no time for interventions.

The Conservatives want Britain to be in Europe, but apart from Europe. The Liberal Democrats what a Britain that is a part of Europe and in the heart of Europe. That is where we differ greatly from the Conservatives.

I would like to say a few words about the European rapid reaction force. The Conservatives have talked a lot of nonsense about that force. The European rapid reaction force is not about setting up a European army for a European superstate, but is about responding to problems on our doorstep—as we failed to respond in relation to Bosnia. It is an intergovernmental body, rather than a European body. It is for individual Governments in Europe to decide whether they participate in a particular action of the European rapid reaction force. The decision will not rest with the European institutions.

I have two quotations on European policy for members to consider. John Major has called the Conservative policy "absurd and crazy". Douglas Hurd has said that

"Conservative policy on Europe is increasingly based on caricature and not on reality."

Today's debate has been based on the Conservatives' belief in a caricature of Europe, rather than its reality. I urge members to support the Executive amendment.

I must begin by saying that there is much in the Conservative motion with which we can agree. However, I regret that those elements have been devalued, as Jamie Stone said, by the inclusion of Euro-sceptic phrases about superstates undermining national sovereignty.

Having worked in Europe in 1996 during the last days of the Conservative Administration as a journalist covering European affairs—which Dr Winnie Ewing will remember, because I interviewed her in the European Parliament on many occasions—I could spend a lot of time reflecting on the past, but it is better to look forward constructively at how we can embrace Europe. In particular, I will speak about European enlargement and what it means for Scotland.

I have been privileged to visit east Germany, and my local authority, North Ayrshire Council, is involved in partnership projects with Sachsen-Anhalt. There are real opportunities for Scotland in public sector partnerships. In considering enlargement, it is worth noting that the German economy stands to increase its gross domestic product by up to 0.5 per cent as a result of proximity to markets, good networks to the east and freight transportation corridors. What does Scotland have to do to compete?

One of the challenges that enlargement poses for Scotland concerns structural funds. The next round of structural fund negotiations will almost certainly be the last for Scotland, at least in their current form. Money is moving east, in the direction of the candidate countries. We have to ensure that in Scotland we are geared up to rise to the challenges and opportunities that enlargement presents. Our markets will expand by 100 million consumers. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs said in his speech that we will undertake an economic and social impact assessment of the challenges and opportunities that face the Scottish economy. That is excellent progress.

If Irene Oldfather recognises that there are a potential 100 million new consumers in an expanded market, will she distance herself from the comment made by the minister, who suggested that if Scotland became independent, we would somehow lose access to the market south of the border?

As the member knows, independence is a complicated matter. The SNP has not adequately answered this morning how it would renegotiate entry into Europe. There is much that the SNP has to tell us.

Will the member give way?

I will continue. The economic and social impact assessment should be done on a sector-by-sector basis, and encompass the service sector, e-commerce and manufacturing. Scotland's advantage could lie in the new economy industries, such as biotechnology, creative media software and other areas. Developing positive relations with the candidate countries could assist in opening up trade and other opportunities.

Our primary focus must be jobs. We need to encourage strict adherence to the principle that jobs should not be displaced from one part of the European Union to another on the basis of low skills and low wages. That has affected many of us.

While there are clear market opportunities, enlargement should not simply be about that, which is where I disagree with the Conservatives. Enlargement should also be about social progress and the social agenda. Too often, we neglect them. They were certainly neglected during the 18 years of Conservative rule, given the Conservatives' preoccupation with the single market.

The changes in Scotland's political structures and our commitment to a modern and dynamic Scotland within a stronger Britain and a wider Europe are to be welcomed. I am pleased to support Jack McConnell's amendment.

I will begin by paying tribute to the European Union, given that no one has mentioned that one of the founding motives for setting up the European Economic Community, as it was at the time, was to avoid war in Europe. Here we are, many generations later, and no generations since 1945 have had to participate in the carnage of war. That is a tribute to the success of the European Union.

Today, we have to make the most of Scotland's new devolved status in the interests of our people. Devolution offers an opportunity not only to raise our profile in Europe, but to try our utmost to influence European events and policy, which have a huge impact in so many areas of this country. We must not remain cocooned in our offices in the Parliament in Edinburgh, simply responding to decisions that are taken elsewhere in Europe in our absence, with no one to speak up for Scotland's interests. The fate of many communities in this country depends upon the outcome of deliberations in the European Union.

Consider rural affairs. Of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department's budget, three quarters comes from Europe. Our Minister for Rural Development is nothing more than a postman for the European Union, so it is imperative that we have the utmost say over decisions that are taken and the rules that are laid down on the spending of rural affairs budgets.

Time and again, Opposition members in the chamber have asked the Minister for Rural Development at question time about a scheme to help the pig industry. We have said to the minister, "Why can't you do something about this? The decision is taken in Europe. Why can't you go to Europe and speak to the agriculture and fisheries commissioner or whoever?"

The fishing industry is a prime example of how no one is speaking up for our interests in the European Union. Surely, when 70 per cent of the UK's fishing industry and 90 per cent of its aquaculture industry are based in Scotland, as of right the UK's representative at European negotiations on fisheries matters should be a Scottish minister. That makes absolute sense. In that way, this Parliament would have real clout in Europe.

I have a feeling that the minister wants to intervene.

It would be more honest if Mr Lochhead admitted that time and again the Scottish Minister for Rural Development leads the delegation to the fisheries council, that time and again the Scottish input to the fisheries council is clear, and that the UK's weight and power in that council give us the clout to influence the decisions that are made. It is time that he admitted those points, rather than make up the same kind of scare stories that we get from the Conservatives.

The minister simply refuses to accept the fact that the official representative of the UK at fisheries negotiations is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is responsible for the English and Welsh fishing industry. That is unacceptable post-devolution.

Members should consider the example of how we are trying to get tier-testing for the scallop industry. We are told by Europe that it will be well into next year before we get a new scheme to help our scallop industry to get its markets back, and we are told, "Sorry. That's the way things are. We can't do anything about it." If Scotland had its own representatives in Europe and the clout of an independent member state, Europe would sit up and listen to us. We should not just sit here in Edinburgh and say, "That's the way things are. We can't change them." We should not be saying that to our fishermen.

There is a tendency for the Government to blame all the unpopular regulations on Europe, and take all the credit for the good regulations that come out of Europe. That is unacceptable. I could list such regulations endlessly, but I see that I am running out of time.

We need our own representation in the formal and informal structures of the European Union. We know that many decisions are taken behind the scenes, and that the fine details are worked out before we get to the Council of Ministers, yet Scotland has no formal representation in any of the structures behind the Council of Ministers. We have to stop playing catch-up.

Let us consider the situation when crops in Scotland were contaminated with genetically modified seeds. The UK minister in London did not tell the Scottish minister that that had happened. GM technology is a very important issue. Had we had our own representation in Europe, we would have found out immediately about the contamination. We should not have to rely on UK ministers remembering to tell the Scottish Government. Indeed, decisions on GM crop trials are taken in Europe. Despite the fact that there are protests in Scotland about proceeding with GM crop trials, the Minister for Rural Development can turn round and say, "Sorry. That is a regulation decided in Europe." Of course, that was a regulation into which Scotland had no input, although it is a massive issue.

Finally, there is a poster all over Parliament today announcing that there will be a presentation by the Swedish ambassador to the UK, called "Sweden's Presidency of the European Union: Proposals and Priorities". Surely whatever is good enough for Sweden is good enough for Scotland. Would not it make sense for the Swedish Parliament to have a poster saying that the Scottish ambassador to Sweden will discuss the Scottish presidency of the European Union? Surely we have as much status in Europe as other small countries such as Sweden, and we should have equal rights.

In supporting the motion, I would like to refer to enlargement. Put simply, size matters. Size matters because we do not want a superstate. We do not want what Jamie Stone and the other Liberal Democrats argue for—a federal Europe. We do not want a one-size-fits-all currency, which the Liberal Democrats support. I will explain why.

As long as the politicians of the left dominate Europe, we will have high tax, high unemployment and a weak currency—the euro. The right-wing model—the American model, if you like—delivers low tax, low unemployment and a strong currency. Britain's, and therefore Scotland's, position lies between the two models at the moment, enjoying the best of both worlds.

However, the recent announcements by Gordon Brown will start to move us much further towards the European model of tax and spend. That is not only my observation. That is the conclusion of the worldwide stock markets and currency markets. That is why the pound is at a 15-year low against the dollar, and why it is now tracking the euro.

Little by little—by stealth, if you like—we are being moved towards an increasing burden of taxation and nearer to the European style of economy. However, we ain't seen nothing yet. I refer to enlargement.

Mr Scott's colleague, Mr Johnstone, constantly complains in the chamber that the pound is too highly valued. Mr Scott now complains that the pound is too low. Which statement represents Conservative policy?

I am making an observation that we do not want to be part of the euro. My colleague Alex Johnstone agrees.

Not just now.

We welcome the potential trading benefits that enlargement may bring and the increased security that we all agree that it will bring, but that is as far as it should go. We must be realistic. In the short and medium term, enlargement will have several effects of which we need to be aware.

First, enlargement will affect countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland, which have been the net recipients of huge amounts of objective 1 funding up to now—Irene Oldfather referred to that.

Does the member agree that the Basque autonomous community and the autonomous Foral community of Navarra gained their applications for European funding by dint of the fact that they raise their own taxes? That allows them to choose which of the structural funds or which of any of the LEADER or INTERREG programmes for Europe they wish to be involved in. The decisions are made directly at the autonomous community level. That right should be extended to us.

The point that I am about to make is that there will no longer be any choice in the matter. Members will hear why.

Will Mr Scott take an intervention further to that point?

No, thank you.

The objective 1 countries that have been the net recipients of huge amounts of funding will, as we are discovering in Scotland, start to receive less structural aid. Enlargement will mean that those precious resources, raised from our taxes, will move east—rightly, perhaps—to the poorer countries.

That will not happen quickly, because the countries that have been the net beneficiaries and will now become the donors will not give up easily the privileges that they have enjoyed. Feet dragging will occur on a massive scale but, ultimately, enlargement will take place. Put simply, western Europe's taxes will fund the redevelopment of eastern Europe.

I think that most members agree that that task is worth while and a price that is worth paying for the security of Europe. However, we do not want to be sucked any further into an integrated Europe than we have been. Let us be under no illusion—the cost of enlargement will be the export of British jobs, Scottish jobs and Ayrshire jobs—as Cathy Jamieson knows—to eastern Europe. That is already happening, as brave business people are starting to relocate there.

Enlargement is a double-edged sword. It may lead to more export markets for business, 20 or 30 years hence, but until then, in purely financial terms, the cost-benefit analysis will not favour Scotland or Britain. That is why we should not move hastily towards a superstate. That is why we should not give the EU more control of our economy.

No, thank you.

That is why qualified majority voting is such a bad idea. Any further loss of our sovereign power is to be resisted.

I meant to start by asking Mr Mundell whether he would make clear what his leader, Mr McLetchie, did not—the Conservative party's attitude to the euro. However, Mr Scott has done that for him, so Mr Mundell need not bother too much about the euro. I will repeat what Mr Scott said, as I was so glad to hear it. He said that we do not want to be part of the euro. I am not a Europhobe, but I think that a healthy touch of scepticism on the euro is well placed.

As we are all putting records straight about where we were in the 1970s and 1980s, I will add that I did not inhale, so I remember the 1970s and campaigning strongly under the slogan, "No voice, no entry". That is where I stand today. If Scotland has a voice in Europe, I do not see why it should be submerged by Europe. David McLetchie suggested that that was what the SNP wanted. He is so wrong. The SNP wants Scotland to be up-front, visible and equal in Europe, not submerged. That is why we cannot support any of the rubbish in the Labour party's amendment.

I want to take Mr McConnell to task. I understood that he could not give way during his speech because of the time limit, but he gave the impression that he wanted the chamber to do the job of the Confederation of British Industry and pave the way for business in Poland and similar places. I have no doubt that, with his background, Mr McConnell would be a great addition to the general effort in building up economic and trade links throughout Europe. However, I do not think that that is the Parliament's main function. Our main function is to contribute to the growth of Europe and the context in which the continent will develop in the 21st century.

It is not enough for Labour to suggest, as it does in its amendment, that there are different levels of participation, and that it is suitable for the Scottish ministers to take part at some levels. I attended a conference in Maastricht recently—unfortunately it was not an intergovernmental conference—that the eminent Professor Guenther Schaefer addressed. I see Ben Wallace smiling at the memory of that. The professor said that we were headed for a federal Europe and that we—including members in the chamber—should not kid ourselves that the European Committee of the Regions had any power. He said that it was the least effective of all the European institutions. I wonder whether that is why that committee is not mentioned in Labour's amendment. It was the fig leaf that Labour used in the European Committee, when the Parliament started, to suggest that Scotland was represented in Europe. We will have no such thing without proper independence.

Jamie Stone discussed peace and stability.

Will the member give way?

I am terribly sorry. I will see whether I have time at the end of my speech.

The one way of creating havoc in Europe is by trying to make everyone fit the same shoe, which is what is happening now. That has been responsible for the rise of the far-right parties in Austria and Germany. Even the applicant countries are experiencing a rise in the sort of politics that we do not want to exist in Europe. I maintain that if we try to impose cosmopolitanism, we undermine not nationalist fascists but internationalism.

Will the member give way?

I am terribly sorry.

Sylvia Jackson and Irene Oldfather contributed most to the debate from Labour because they observed the practicalities. Sylvia talked about how the environment would be pan-European—all of us would say that that was an admirable objective. However, we cannot have that without a cohesive economic strategy, and we cannot have that in this world without a cohesive energy strategy. How many members are willing to allow a British Government to do in the context of renewable energy what was done to Scottish oil? Whether Labour or Tory Governments, they squandered that resource.

I am unwilling to give up sovereignty over those natural resources. I want the Parliament to represent Scotland and Scots, and the resources of Scotland, which should contribute to the resources of Europe. Those resources should not be taken over by Europeans, or by British Governments, which have such a poor track record, not only on energy but on fishing.

I am sorry that I have been unable to allow the minister to intervene, but he has more of a chance to speak than me.

I was sorry that Alex Johnstone was unable to take my intervention. It is fascinating to hear the new Tory soundbite—size matters. It is obvious that all the male Tory MSPs have been given that as this morning's line. It is not size, but what you do with it, that matters. I want to talk about what we do in Europe. I apologise to Jamie Stone for that line—I know that he would die to come up with it.

On a serious note, we heard from Tory members what Margaret Thatcher was able to get from the European Union. I want to remind the chamber what the Tories did not do. They did not sign up to the social chapter; they did not want to implement the working time directive; they did not want the minimum wage; they did not want to improve maternity rights for women; they did not want—

Does Cathy Jamieson recognise that the Scottish or Westminster Parliaments could, if they so desired, legislate on all those matters without having legislation imposed by Europe?

I remind Ben Wallace that although the Westminster Parliament had the opportunity to legislate on those matters during the Tory Government, a decision had to come from the European Court of Justice to ensure that the Equal Pay Act 1970 was amended to ensure that women were paid the same rate for the job as men. Occasionally, Europe has given us the opportunity to create a fairer and more just society.

Sylvia Jackson, Irene Oldfather, Iain Smith and Margo MacDonald touched on the fact that the debate is not just about what we can get out of Europe for Scotland or Britain, but about taking our place in the wider European and global contexts. I, and my party, want a fairer society across Europe, which sometimes means that countries that are entering the European Union and do not have our resources, human rights record or principles will have the opportunity to use some of our resources. I say to John Scott that redistribution of wealth is a fundamental principle and, if we are to seek a fairer and more just society, I for one have no problem with it.

I apologise for not taking Cathy Jamieson's intervention—I did not see her. If she had listened to my speech, she would have heard me say that using western European taxes to redevelop eastern Europe would be a price worth paying. I would like her to note that as a point of information.

I thank John Scott for his intervention. I am delighted to learn of his conversion to the socialist cause and I look forward to working with him on job creation in Ayrshire, given that he did me the courtesy of mentioning such schemes.

I want to remind members what the IGC in Nice is about. It is clear from the items on the agenda that the conference is not about creating a European superstate. Rather, it is about making practical arrangements to deal with the process of enlargement.

The conference will consider

"Changing the voting arrangements in the Council of Ministers, so that a country's voting weight more accurately reflects its size"

and

"Extending the qualified majority voting in the Council, so that decisions can be taken effectively in an enlarged Union".

The conference will also continue the reforms of the Commission, which have been started, to prevent it "becoming top heavy".

At some points during the debate, one could have been forgiven for thinking that there is no such institution as the European Parliament, as so few members mentioned it or the moves that have been made towards both co-decision making and ensuring that the European Union operates more democratically. That is the position on which my party wants to move forward.

On whether we should join the euro, I want to put on record the fact that while the SNP wants to jump in right now and the Conservative party wants nothing to do with it, my party makes it clear that we will join the euro only if it is in our interests to do so. The people will have the final say in a referendum. That is real democracy and I have no difficulty defending that position.

I am delighted to speak on the topic of Europe, which is dear and close to all our hearts.

Historically, we have always been closely associated with Europe. As Jamie Stone said, we have fought for and with different European peoples many times over the past couple of hundred years. Our association with Europe has never been broken, apart from when we were very closely—perhaps too closely—linked to British imperialism.

It is a little naive of Jack McConnell to suggest that there is no agenda for a united states of Europe. That does not mean that I want a united states of Europe—I do not think that anyone in the chamber wants that—but some of the people who suffered so much in the two or three wars fought by the French and Germans believe that a united states of Europe is the only solution. We must guard against that solution and, if he has not done so already, Jack McConnell should take that on board.

All members know that the SNP wants independence in Europe—that is, normality. We accept that some formalisation of international relations is necessary. We have common interests in trade and in international issues such as the environment, which cannot be kept within national frontiers. That, along with keeping the peace, is the justification for Europe as it exists today.

We all share a suspicion about why the Tories lodged this motion. With all due respect to the Scottish Tories, Mr Hague has a Euro-sceptic view and we wonder to what extent that view drives the Conservative party. When Tories talk about a superstate, they are using Tory propaganda. When Mary Scanlon talked about euroland, she was using Tory propaganda. We wonder whether there is an underlying and total scepticism about—

Will the member give way?

Certainly.

I want to confirm that the economic terms for the countries that have entered the single currency are euro zone or euroland. Those terms are used in all the economic journals.

I am prepared to accept that explanation, although I find the term euroland a little offensive.

David McLetchie wanted Scotland to celebrate diversity as a region of the United Kingdom. What better way to celebrate diversity than for Scotland to become an independent nation within Europe? I say to those who are a little sceptical about qualified majority voting that at least Scotland would be able to exercise three votes of its own, rather than a small share of British influence.

Will the member give way?

No, not just now.

It is interesting to note that the Tories have lifted the Scottish National Party's policy on zonal control of fishing. I am delighted that they are beginning to pick up some of our policies, much as the Labour party does constantly.

Jack McConnell talked about the underlying innuendo in the Tory motion, but then said that after independence we would be cut off from our markets in England. What absurd, total nonsense. Scotland is in the European Union, as is the rest of the United Kingdom, and the law of the successor state—and anything else one could think of—would guarantee that Scotland would remain in the European Union. The talk of an independent Scotland having no markets in England is low, cheap propaganda. In addition, as the largest oil and energy producer in the European Union, Scotland could probably negotiate a marginally better deal than the deal that we have as part of the UK.

Jack McConnell also made a comment that was a slur on Austria. Austria has a bad inter-war past and a bad history of fascism. However, the people of Austria held a democratic election and voted for what they wanted. Some of what they wanted was repellent to all of us, but casting aspersions on the entire population of Austria on the strength of that election, particularly when many took to the streets and demonstrated against the result, is impolitic to say the least. It is interesting to note that the first party to rush to form a coalition with the fascists was the Austrian social democratic party.

Much is made of the representation that we get through the UK, but in Scotland we get what we need from the United Kingdom only when what we need happens to converge with English interests. I am a politician and a realist, and I believe that we all understand that when they are abroad and there is no such convergence, British Government ministers look to the 50 million people in the rest of the United Kingdom more than they do to the 5 million people in Scotland.

I have here an interesting note that shows the number of ministerial visits to the EU: there have been nine out of a possible 103 since devolution. I see that Jack McConnell is shaking his head, but I have the figures here and I will give him the note after the debate.

The areas from which we are excluded are the reserved areas that are vital to Scotland. Much has been said about Scotland House and what it can do for us. I am sure that Scotland House does a good job and that the people who work there are highly motivated and are doing their best, but nobody can convince me that having a real Prime Minister of a real independent Scotland at an intergovernmental conference and ministers of an independent Scotland at ministerial conferences would not have a lot more clout than an office in Brussels.

Why would a Prime Minister of Scotland, with three votes, be listened to by the Prime Minister of Spain, with more than 10 votes, when it comes to fishing policy?

I am quite sure that there is common interest among the small states in Europe which, when put together, could probably take care of some of the larger states in Europe. Negotiating on our own behalf is always going to be a better thing than having our negotiations carried out by a majority whose interests are not always necessarily ours.

Have I come to the end of my time, Presiding Officer?

Some time ago, Mr Campbell.

Well, as long as you enjoyed my speech, and while you are still smiling at me, I will sit down.

I am pleased to sum up the debate on behalf of a positive, pro-European Scottish Executive in response to a motion from an increasingly anti-European, Europhobic and Euro-bashing Tory party.

We recognise the importance of Europe to Scottish interests and we want Scotland and the UK to be positive and constructive in dealings with Europe. We want Scotland to be more international and more outward looking, to engage with the nations and regions of Europe, to get involved with EU councils and to support the enlargement process that is being discussed at Nice. Not only is that important to our economy, it will help us to protect the Scottish environment, to assist the development of less fortunate regions and to promote increasing peace in Europe. After the events of the past few years, surely that must still be a high priority.

We have heard the rhetoric of the past few weeks on defence issues. Margaret Thatcher has slammed the proposed European defence force, saying that those matters should be left to the English-speaking nations. That is why the attacks from the Tory party fill me with horror. It is the language of prejudice and parochialism. Chris Patten himself said that, on this issue, William Hague has made a considerable mistake.

I believe that many Conservatives, in their heart of hearts, are deeply uncomfortable with the real intention that underlies this debate. They are being asked to toe the William Hague line—anti-European, anti-asylum seeker, little Englander, nationalistic. Hague's style is to promote the rabble-rousing rant against Europe. David McLetchie, thankfully and appropriately, was more muted today, but let us be in no doubt that the little Englander attitude is still alive and well and kicking in the Conservative party of 2000.

One of the most pathetic sights that I have witnessed in politics—and I mean pathetic in the true sense of pathos—was John Major in the Maastricht debate, trying to parade his pro-European credentials for the benefit of Heseltine, Clarke, Heath and Howe, while also posturing to the Euro-sceptics, who would eventually destroy him, with an ostentatious parade of UK opt-outs. The Tories face two ways on Europe.

David McLetchie suggested that all that is in the past. Well, let us bring him up to date. On 5 October 2000, Michael Heseltine said:

"Every Conservative Prime Minister since Harold Macmillan has recognised Britain's self-interest could be pursued only if our political leaders took their place in the councils of Europe and fought there for that self-interest . . . Increasingly, the language of today implies the psychology of the empty chair. There is a growing band of party members who would like to remove the chair from the table altogether."

On 3 October 2000, Ken Clarke, after listening to a Michael Portillo speech, said:

"When he got to the obligatory euro bit . . . It was what I sadly regard as blithering economic nonsense."

Again in early October 2000, Geoffrey Howe said of the proposed Tory draft manifesto:

"Legislation along the lines proposed would be quite incompatible with any aspiration for Britain to remain an influential and effective member of the European Union."

Last, and perhaps most alarming of all, The Independent reported on 21 November 2000:

"Baroness Thatcher believes that a future Tory government might have to pull Britain out of the European Union, her close ally Lord Tebbit said yesterday. In an interview to mark Lady Thatcher's resignation as Prime Minister 10 years ago tomorrow, Lord Tebbit suggested that William Hague's policy of being ‘in Europe, not run by Europe' could lead to Britain's withdrawal."

In the midst of all that Tory infighting, let us remind ourselves of an important set of facts. Who signed up to the Single European Act of 1986? Who introduced the most extensive expansion of qualified majority voting since the creation of the EU? The Conservative party. No wonder the word flexibility appears in the Conservatives' motion; it is needed to understand their wide range of views and cope with their wide range of policies on this issue.

On wide-ranging views, will the minister comment on Lord Owen, himself a prominent past member of the Social Democratic Party, who is very much against Europe and the euro?

I disagree strongly with Lord Owen.

How can "consensus and co-operation" appear in the Conservative motion? Mr McLetchie is still in a party that is split from the very top to the very bottom on Europe. However, my real incredulity today is reserved for the SNP's support for the Conservative motion. The SNP is supporting a Tory motion on Europe that seeks to whip up fear of a European superstate. What we are talking about and what the Nice summit is all about is sensible enlargement of the EU, which every major party in this Parliament supports.

Let us get away from the dark xenophobic rhetoric and focus on the facts. Being pro-European means being pro-Scotland. Europe gives Scotland its largest trading partner. It gives Scotland the opportunity for a stronger economy and the opportunity to create new investment and new jobs. It also gives Scotland the prospect of a better, cleaner environment, increased security, an extension to democracy, a fairer society and a safer Europe free of war. Those are the prizes that are too often ignored, and they are the prizes that enlargement will help us to secure.

We have to be single-minded in achieving those aims. We must stand up for Scottish interests and be constructive in our support for and criticisms of Europe. We must never be half-hearted, grudging or destructive, which is the Conservative position. The Conservatives must learn again what they learned before—that they are playing with fire on Europe. The flames will not only burn their party; they will leave Scottish and British interests in ashes if Conservative policies are pursued.

If Britain or Scotland are marginalised in Europe—and that is what the Conservatives want—we will be able neither to share in its successes nor to tackle its failings. That is why we must not only embrace enlargement, but continue to develop, not downgrade or destroy, our links with and our commitment to Europe. That is what the Scottish Executive supports.

Well, that was an end, was it not? I do not think that I will be able to take any direct quotations from the minister's speech because it was just one cliché after another borrowed from somewhere else.

I had intended to start by congratulating Mr McConnell on the focus that his department is putting on Europe and external affairs. I had also intended to mention the work of Scotland House, which I think is most valuable. Had Mr McConnell's amendment begun with the word "and", I do not think that many members, apart from SNP members, could not have supported it.

For me, this has been a disappointing debate because, rather than discuss the Conservative motion, members from other parties have merely attempted to characterise the Scottish Conservative position as extreme and out of touch. There can be no doubt that our overriding principle of being in Europe but not run by Europe strikes a chord with people in Scotland.

I want to make it quite clear to Nicol Stephen that I do not believe that any person who has the economic, social and cultural interests of Scotland or the United Kingdom at heart could reach the conclusion that Scotland or the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European Union. There is no support in Scotland for such views, as was evidenced by last year's European parliamentary elections, in which the UK Independence Party polled even fewer votes than the so-called Pro Euro Conservatives. The Pro Euro Conservatives polled so few votes in Scotland because people understood that the Scottish Conservatives are a mainstream party with a view on Europe that accords with that of the people of Scotland.

There are, however, many legitimate concerns about the future of Europe, particularly at this time of enlargement. There are real arguments to be had on the euro, on governance and on the common agricultural policy, all of which have been debated this morning. Expressing those concerns is not anti-European. Unlike other parties, we are not afraid to raise them.

Jamie Stone's speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats was truly in the mode of the buffoon's buffoon. He said precisely nothing about his party's policies on Europe and how it should move forward. Although Iain Smith may have been sad about the tone of the debate, he did nothing to raise it and fell into the stereotypical position of "let's slag off the Conservatives". Andrew Wilson, who has left the chamber, today left the flag-waving for which he is famous to Margo MacDonald. Other than Margo's speech, which some would describe as brave, we have heard the same old record from the SNP.

As was evidenced by the speeches of Sylvia Jackson and Irene Oldfather—whom I encounter regularly on the European Committee—there are members of this Parliament who want to debate and discuss Europe in a constructive way. All members of the European Committee would recognise that Ben Wallace and I have also attempted to do that. We have not used the European Committee for a political purpose or as a wrecking mechanism on EU issues. We have sought to have the concerns of Scotland discussed in an appropriate way.

On this occasion, I would prefer to take an intervention from Jack McConnell rather than from Mr Stone.

From my limited experience of the European Committee, I am happy to endorse what David Mundell has said about the approach that he and Mr Wallace take. I would like to ask him two questions. First, does he endorse the wholehearted opposition to the euro that his front-bench colleague expressed earlier, or does he believe that at some stage in the future Britain might become part of the euro zone? Secondly, Mr McLetchie said that he opposes any extension of qualified majority voting in an enlarged Europe. Would David Mundell oppose the extension of qualified majority voting if it were in the interests of Britain and Scotland and would reform the EU?

I bet he wishes he had taken an intervention from me.

Yes—I know something about cheese.

I agree with Mr McConnell, because our interests are the interests of Britain and Scotland. Those must be the overriding factor. We have never said anything to contradict that. We have made our policy clear and we are happy to discuss it. If the Conservatives form a Government at UK level, Britain will not join the euro during the next Parliament. However, we have never said that under a Conservative Government Britain would never join the euro.

Mr Mundell is the reasonable face of Scottish Conservatism. On 19 October The Guardian published a survey that showed that 46 per cent of Tory candidates in target seats are opposed in principle to the euro and would defy the leadership if asked to support Britain's joining the single currency. What does the member have to say about that?

I say that 60 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters are against Britain joining the euro.

David Mundell says that, in the event of there being another Tory Government—which is unlikely—it would not enter the euro.

Unlikely?

I am sorry, but there are realities in this world.

Like independence.

That is the ultimate reality. It is closer than it was five years ago. I have had enough of Ben Wallace's cheek.

In the event of all the convergence criteria for entry to the euro being met perfectly, in the minds of the experts, in the middle of the next—unlikely—Tory Government's term, would not the Tories look a bit foolish if they did not take the opportunity to join the euro?

I do not think that it is useful to speculate on hypotheticals of hypotheticals. We have made our position clear, and it is principled. As is becoming increasing clear, the position of the Labour party is based on the way some focus group in Milton Keynes is swaying.

Will the member give way?

I will accept an intervention from the member if he has something positive to say that is not clichéed.

I would like some clarification of the Conservative party's position on the euro. On the one hand David Mundell is saying that a Conservative Government would enter the euro if that was in Britain's interests, but on the other he is saying that a Conservative Government would rule that out for all of the next Parliament—although he is not prepared to speculate on the future. The Conservative party's position on the euro is unclear to me. Would a Conservative Government enter the euro if that was in Britain's and Scotland's interests—yes or no?

I have made our position clear.

Will the member clarify it further? Is the Conservative party's position the same as that of the Labour party, to the extent that if, during the Parliament after next, the Conservative party is the Government at Westminster and Westminster is still governing Scotland, it will ask the audience?

After Margo MacDonald's speech today, she will not have many friends in her party to phone.

Will the member give way?

I will not, but not because I am prejudiced against Cathy Jamieson. In her speech she made some useful points about the changing role of the European Parliament, which up to that point had not been mentioned in the debate.

At one stage, although with a misguided focus, Mr McConnell hit on everyone's main concern about the EU: jobs and employment. There have been positive developments in the EU's approach to that issue. The Lisbon summit was quite different from previous summits, as it focused on making Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world. We have no difficulty in signing up to that proposition. We believe that the European Union should concentrate on facilitation, rather than on bureaucratic intervention and over-regulation. We want to encourage it to take as its primary purpose innovation and enterprise among businesses.

Although enlargement brings with it many threats—the entry of Poland into the EU, in particular, raises issues relating to agriculture—our continued membership of the EU offers our businesses the opportunity to be part of a market that not even the United States can replicate.

I will make a final observation in relation to mobile technology and e-business. In the US it is unregulated, so someone who travels about 60 miles has to take three or four phones. In Europe, we have been able to co-ordinate it and in some areas we are ahead in the e-revolution, which will have an enormous impact on globalisation.

Europe can offer positive features such as that, but there are legitimate concerns, including those about Scotland, which can be raised in this Parliament. The Conservatives want an enlarged Europe that is flexible enough to deal with the host of economic, social and governmental issues that arise from the huge differences in its member states. We are ready to do that.

It is important that we have that debate in Scotland. It is a pity that, on the evidence of today, other parties are not prepared to engage in it.