Plenary, 04 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, December 4, 2003

Official Report 710KB pdf

---

European Parliament (Number of Seats)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-694, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on European Parliament seat numbers. There is one amendment to the motion.

This debate is short because there was a full discussion on the issue during a members' business debate last week, when a clear view was expressed that Parliament should have the opportunity to vote on the matter. I hope that the Parliament can take this opportunity to unite to protect Scotland's already limited influence in the European Union.

It is no secret that we in the SNP are nationalists. We want Scotland to be independent in Europe; we want to be represented in our own right on all the decision-making bodies of the EU. If that is good enough for tiny Malta, how on earth can it be wrong for Scotland? Surely we do not have to be nationalists to want Scotland to have as loud a voice and as big a say as possible in the EU. That is what the motion is all about.

On Tavish Scott's amendment, the SNP supports EU enlargement enthusiastically and unequivocally. The accession of the 10 new countries, most of which are former communist states, is the most significant development since the European Economic Community was founded in the 1950s. Of course, there will be consequences for those already in the EU. It is right that existing member states should be required to compromise and to make concessions to accommodate the accession countries. The cut in the number of United Kingdom seats in the European Parliament must be seen in that context.

However, I do not believe that Scotland should share the burden of that reduction and agree to lose one of our members of the European Parliament. The debate is not just about numbers; it is about a matter of principle. My objection should be the objection of every member of the Parliament. In arriving at the recommendation to reduce the number of Scotland's MEPs from eight to seven, the Electoral Commission has treated Scotland as though it were just the same as every other electoral region in the UK. That approach is fundamentally flawed. Scotland is not the same as every other electoral region in the UK. Scotland is not a region at all, electoral or otherwise. Scotland is a nation with a Parliament that has extensive legislative powers in areas such as health, education, justice and fishing.

Does the member accept that many other regions and nations in Europe, such as the German Länder, have far greater powers than the Scottish Parliament? Is she recommending that we should increase the number of seats for those? Would that not take us back to where we started?

Some of those regions have far more power than we do. For example, the Belgian regions have the opportunity to lead debates and discussions in the Council of Ministers. A similar ability would be in the interests of our fishing communities right now—

Answer the question.

Rather than shouting at me from a sedentary position, the member should perhaps reflect on what I have said.

We have legislative powers in those areas on which the EU also has powers to legislate. European laws in those areas are binding in Scotland. The Scottish Executive has to implement those laws, so it is vital that Scotland's voice is heard in the decision-making process. We must be able to protect our national interests when the EU is legislating on matters that affect our people and that are already the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

We all know how laws are made in the EU. They are initiated in the Commission, by and large, and enacted by the Council and the European Parliament. We have no commissioner. If Scotland were independent, we would have one, at least until 2009. We have no direct representation on the Council and we have no guarantee that the UK—

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I am in my last minute.

We have no guarantee that the UK vote will be cast in Scotland's interests. If we were independent, we would have seven votes in the Council, like Denmark, Ireland and Finland. Where we do have a direct say in the European Union is in the European Parliament. We have eight MEPs at present; to cut that representation will reduce the already limited influence that we have in the decision-making bodies of Europe. When the decisions that Europe takes affect so directly our areas of responsibility, it is not just irresponsible but politically wrong for the Parliament to agree to such a move.

I am delighted that the European and External Relations Committee has agreed unanimously that Scotland should retain eight MEPs. The Parliament's duty is to unite behind that call and I ask members to do so today.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the European and External Relations Committee's unanimous call for Scotland to retain eight Members of the European Parliament.

It is important to reflect on Nicola Sturgeon's opening point about principle. The principle that she is engaged with concerns not the number of MEPs, but the matter that she went on about in three of the four minutes of her speech, which was an argument about independence. That is fair enough—I do not agree with what she said about that, but at least her position is clear. However, she should not use a large chunk of her speech suggesting that we are discussing a great matter of principle and then relate that to the number of MEPs.

The Scottish Executive is disappointed that the number of MEPs in Scotland will be reduced. All member states—

Will the member give way?

I have only three minutes.

All member states have agreed to reduce their quota of MEPs to enable the accession states to be represented in the European Parliament on a similar and equitable footing. I accept the points made by Irene Oldfather, Christine May and others in the debate last Wednesday, particularly those that relate to rurality, peripherality and geography. Those arguments are entirely legitimate. I have read Bill Miller MEP's contribution to the European and External Relations Committee. The minutes of the meeting that he attended state:

"Members agreed also to write to the UK Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to reiterate the Committee's views in respect of the number of MEPs".

As I said, the views on rurality and geography are important. However, we must start from the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. The UK is the member state and it has agreed to reduce its quota of MEPs for the 2004 European elections from 87 to 78 because of European Union enlargement. That point is agreed—at least I think that it is agreed—by all the parties in the chamber.

We hear the concerns that Scotland is different from other electoral regions. It is true that Scotland is different. We have the Parliament and we have a unique and separate legal system, but we also have specific advantages over other regions of the UK in relation to representation in the EU, through our direct links to the EU Government, to the UK Government, to Brussels and to the Executive's EU office. Those are advantages that other European Parliament UK electoral regions do not have. As a result, rather than having less influence, we have enhanced influence.

Although Scotland's representation in the European Parliament will be reduced, our effective representation and influence in the other main EU decision-making body, the Council, is increasing in relation to the Nice provisions. Those points are important if we are to consider the matter in the round.

We have a strong group of MEPs, of all parties, who have worked persuasively and helpfully together on a range of important Scottish issues. However, in the context of a Parliament of 700 and of European enlargement, members of the Executive accept, in relation to the UK position, that the reduction will happen. The point is that Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds. We have the direct influence that we seek—and seek to enlarge on in relation to the intergovernmental conference—and we have an excellent and effective group of influential MEPs. I am sure that that will continue.

I move amendment S2M-694.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:

"welcomes the accession of the 10 new member states of the European Union on 1 May 2004; notes that the elections to the European Parliament are a reserved matter; recognises that all 15 existing member states have agreed to reduce their quota of MEPs to enable the new member states to be represented on an equitable basis; notes the consequent reduction of United Kingdom seats in the European Parliament from 87 to 78, and considers that this is appropriate given the enlargement of the European Union."

I have some difficulty in deciding how to vote, as I do not take exception to Nicola Sturgeon's motion; similarly, Tavish Scott's amendment meets the approval of Conservative members. Perhaps we are facing a relapse to my trade union past, when the solution might have been to have a composite motion.

My support for Nicola Sturgeon arises from Scotland's geographic and demographic make-up, which has been recognised in the UK Parliament over the past 300 years. Scotland's representation has been greater than that of other parts of the UK; the 72 members from Scotland represent constituencies of about 57,000 people, whereas members down south represent constituencies of about 70,000 people. That will be dealt with shortly, with the implementation of the relevant provision of the Scotland Act 1998. I support the reduction of the number of Scottish MPs, given the fact that the Scottish Parliament now exists. However, reducing the number at Westminster is a different matter from reducing the number in the European Parliament.

I have a bit of difficulty with Tavish Scott's position, because the other day he disagreed with our arguing for the retention of eight MEPs from Scotland. The Scotland Act 1998 recognises geography and location. Tavish Scott is here because we have separate MSPs for Shetland and Orkney. I do not think that any of us would dispute the separate representation of Shetland and Orkney but, when Tavish Scott opposes Nicola Sturgeon's arguments, he is opposing the argument that has enabled him to be here.

Irrespective of the deliberations here or at Westminster, to some degree the final decision is out of our hands, because it depends on the European constitution—to which the matter is an addendum or attachment—being accepted. If the constitution is not accepted, I presume that the numbers of MEPs will stay at the existing levels; if the constitution fails, there will be no argument and we will retain our eight members.

I am rather disappointed in the make-up of the constitution, which relates to the issues that we are discussing now—the membership of the European Parliament and the number of votes that the country has on the European Council. However, enlargement means that changes are needed. The constitution is spoiled by the extent to which it enables Europe to absorb new powers, but that is an argument for another day.

I apologise, but I cannot give way.

What about the business motion yesterday?

Bruce Crawford should check the Official Report.

Tavish Scott and the Scottish Executive should pay due regard to Nicola Sturgeon's motion. Every member of the European and External Relations Committee backed the view that the number of MEPs should continue to be eight, as did the Scottish MEPs who made representations. The Scottish Executive would be wise to support that position by making representations to the UK Government. The Conservatives welcome the enlargement of Europe, but I believe that, on this issue, a Scottish voice should be maintained.

My mother used to say about things that came round with monotonous regularity, "If that had an air, you could sing it." That is where we are on this issue.

As members will know by now, I am a committed Europhile and, as they can see, I have my Euro-anorak on today—it is black and white, unlike the position that I propose to adopt. I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate a European issue. I just regret that the scope and the nature of the debate engendered by the SNP is once again narrow and inward looking and takes no account of the many shades of opinion, potential solutions and co-operative working that are the reality of serious government.

Will the member support the SNP's position that the Executive should stage a full-scale debate on the European constitution before the UK Government moves to ratify it?

No, I will not.

Of course, the wider the sphere of influence and geographical extent of a Government or a Parliament, the more complex and difficult are the solutions that it needs to arrive at in order to resolve the issues. So it is in this debate: the Executive amendment reflects the breadth and complexity of the issue with which we are faced.

As I said last week, I regret that the eventual outcome is the loss of one of our MEPs. I seek an assurance from the minister that the Executive will continue to put forward the arguments of geographical challenge, rurality and peripherality until the very last UK decision is taken. Although those are valid arguments, the SNP does not mention them. I can only assume that, in its desperate rush to flag up independence at every stage of every debate, it ignores the sensible, pragmatic and grown-up arguments that can be put forward.

Nicola Sturgeon welcomed enlargement but then expressed concern about Scotland's limited influence. She did not talk about the difficult decisions that enlargement will bring. She said that Scotland was not the same as other electoral regions. However, in the current debate, we have to reflect the fact that we are a European Parliament electoral region; we should debate the issues on that basis.

The debate is complicated. We need a solution with which we can all live. I hope that, when the minister sums up at the end of this short debate, he will assure us that he will take forward the arguments until they are finally won or lost. We will be looking at what he says in his next meetings with his UK colleagues, to ensure that he does.

Because of shortness of time, I can call only one back bencher. In terms of proportionality, that will be a Labour member. I call Irene Oldfather.

Apart from Christine May's anorak, there is a sense of déjà vu about the debate. I am still waiting for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP to answer the question that I asked last week about the SNP's proposal for regions with legislative powers, such as Scotland, to have more seats in the European Parliament. The SNP has not said whether its proposal should apply across Europe. If it did apply across Europe, we would be back to where we started, with the European Parliament having many more than 700 seats.

In the debate last week, Nicola Sturgeon said:

"I am a nationalist … I believe that Scotland should be independent in Europe and represented in our own right in all the European Union's decision-making bodies … That is what the motion is about."—[Official Report, 26 November 2003; c 3659.]

My worry is that that is what today's motion is about, too.

The motion refers to the European and External Relations Committee. However, the committee has never discussed the principle of holding a debate in the chamber and committee members were not shown the courtesy of being asked whether we wanted the matter to be debated in the chamber. I know that Phil Gallie is considering his position on the matter. The grave danger, which should be resisted, is that the SNP is politicising the committees of the Parliament—that is completely wrong.

The European and External Relations Committee wrote to the Electoral Commission to make a plea on the basis of geography for eight MSPs to be retained. I note what the minister said about geography. Like Christine May, I seek an assurance that the minister will ensure that the issue is considered in the discussions with Westminster colleagues until the very last minute.

I would rather be represented by the UK's 29 votes on the Council of Ministers than by Slovenia's four. I would also rather be represented by the UK's 78 votes in the European Parliament than by Slovenia's seven. From the election results in May, it seems that so would the Scottish people.

Right at the outset, I say to Christine May, Irene Oldfather and others that the Executive—across the ministerial benches—will work closely with colleagues to ensure that representations continue to be made on the matter. I will not take sniping from Ms Sturgeon or anyone else on the sidelines about what we do or do not do.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I will not. [Interruption.]

Order.

I have two minutes in which to try to deal with the points and SNP members just scream and shout like a bunch of wee bairns.

My ministerial colleagues and I will continue to work hard on the issue. As Mr Gallie requested, we will continue to make the appropriate representations in our discussions. I take on board the serious points that Christine May and Irene Oldfather made on rurality, geography and peripherality.

All the parties are agreed on the desirability of enlargement. The only debate that we have had this morning—including the one that started at
9.30 am—has been about independence. Stewart Stevenson said last week that the issue for the SNP is not about seven or eight members but about 14 members. I respect that position, although I disagree fundamentally with it.

It is important to separate the debate on the serious arguments in favour of Scotland making appropriate representations about the number of MEPs from the debate on independence. That is what our amendment seeks to do.

Although the debate has been short, it has been interesting. I will try to reply to the various points that members have raised.

I am sure that Phil Gallie has the draft European constitution off by heart—he must go to bed with it every night. I have heard many of his speeches on the subject. I appreciate the fact that he looked at the rationale of the argument that was so effectively propounded by my colleague Nicola Sturgeon. As a member of the European and External Relations Committee, Phil Gallie agreed that Scotland should retain eight MEPs and that we should not accept the proposed reduction.

Christine May said that she is a Europhile. However, she is not prepared to support the concept that Scotland should be as fully and as well represented in the European Union as possible. It is vital that we should have such representation.

Irene Oldfather, a colleague on the European and External Relations Committee, supported the committee's decision to continue to argue the case for eight MEPs. She seems to have difficulty with the basic language that is needed to define the difference between a region and a nation. As Nicola Sturgeon said clearly today and last week, even if someone is not a nationalist, they should support the case and the arguments for Scotland's retention of eight MEPs.

Tavish Scott came in as number 73 in the elections under the Scotland Act 1998. I say to him that the UK Government does not have to accept the Electoral Commission's recommendations, as Lord Falconer confirmed in his letter to the European and External Relations Committee.

The Executive did not make a submission, although I accept that the Liberal Democrats made one. I wonder whether, in this case, the Executive decided to say nothing but allowed its members to make submissions through their political parties. Tavish Scott's arguments show that he has no real determination to argue the case from a Scottish Parliament point of view that the eight Scottish seats should be retained. I believe that it is fundamentally important that the Scottish Executive as a whole should argue the case that Nicola Sturgeon propounded. I also believe that the vast majority of members of the Scottish Parliament, irrespective of party or allegiance, want to ensure that the Scottish voice is heard effectively in Europe.

I have great respect for the eight members who serve in the European Parliament and for the work that they do on the many issues on which the Scottish Parliament is asked to implement European law. We should show our appreciation of and our support for them by voting not to reduce the number of members who are elected from Scotland. We should continue to argue the case for eight. When the SNP wins independence for Scotland, we will argue for more members.