Scottish Parliament, 28 February 2002

308 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Introduction

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill: Stage 1

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2702, in the name of Mr Mike Rumbles, on the general principles of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Mike Rumbles to speak to and move the motion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am pleased to be able to introduce this committee bill, which seeks to establish a Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. Not only is this a milestone in that it is only the second committee bill to be introduced into Parliament, but it is an important step in ensuring that the Parliament maintains the highest possible standards of conduct.

The bill represents the culmination of a nine-month inquiry. I pay particular tribute to past and present Standards Committee members, including the Minister for Parliamentary Business—who will respond for the Executive today—and to the clerking team for their commitment and hard work, which helped to make the bill reality.

The ability of Scottish parliamentary committees to initiate legislation sets us apart from the Westminster parliament; it also differentiates us from many other legislative institutions. The bill has the unanimous support of Standards Committee members and is an excellent example of the effectiveness of the committee system in delivering legislation.

Recent debate at Westminster has underlined the bill's importance. The bill will enable a standards commissioner to investigate complaints against MSPs in a thorough, fair and impartial fashion. Unlike Westminster's, our commissioner will have statutory powers to summon witnesses and to compel production of evidence. We view that as being essential to guaranteeing the independence and authority of the post.

Before I discuss in detail the provisions of the bill, it might be helpful to take members through the reasons for the Standards Committee's decision to introduce the bill. During the committee's inquiry, we considered four possible models for investigating complaints against members: first, retaining the then status quo of the Standards Committee's carrying out investigations, as we did in the so-called lobbygate affair; secondly, investigation by the standards commission, which was then being proposed under the Ethical Standards in Public Life (Scotland) Bill; thirdly, investigation by a standards adviser or officer; and finally, investigation by a standards commissioner.

We took evidence from a wide range of witnesses including academics, lawyers, and the parliamentary commissioner for standards at Westminster. The committee concluded that the injection of an independent element into the investigative process was vital if the public were to have confidence in the handling of misconduct complaints against members. It was clear that the Standards Committee's retention of responsibility for carrying out initial investigations would not provide that confidence. We also rejected any role for the standards commission, because we were convinced that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for individuals who were appointed by the Executive to have responsibility for the conduct of MSPs.

There would have been advantages in pursuing the standards officer route, not least because there would have been no need for enabling legislation; the appointment could therefore have been made speedily. However, the committee felt that the lack of statutory powers for a standards officer, who would have to rely on the committee's powers under the Scotland Act 1998 to summon witnesses, would impact adversely on the independence of the post.

The key proposal in the bill, therefore, is to provide the standards commissioner with adequate powers to carry out rigorous investigations into misconduct allegations against members, in relation to their parliamentary duties. Members might find it helpful if I clear up an area of confusion that has crept into media reports about the ministerial code and the parliamentary code of conduct. All MSPs, including ministers, are covered by the Parliament's code of conduct when acting in their parliamentary capacity. Ministers, when acting in their ministerial capacity, are subject to the ministerial code, which is the responsibility of the First Minister.

In relation to the Standards Committee's work on lobbying, for example, the Executive indicated that it would consider changes to the ministerial code in the light of the committee inquiry's recommendations. I will express briefly a personal view, which is that the First Minister might want to consider the bill's approach as a possible blueprint for similar future arrangements for the ministerial code. However, I stress that that is a matter for the First Minister.

The Standards Committee is convinced that a standards commissioner who is appointed under an act of the Scottish Parliament and given specific statutory powers to compel the production of evidence is crucial to securing the independence and credibility of the parliamentary commissioner for standards. We hope that the commissioner will not need to draw on those powers, but they will exist and will help cement public confidence in the Parliament's ability to deal with complaints against members.

Adequate powers are only part of the story, where public confidence is concerned. The bill's procedures for appointing and removing the commissioner will be a bulwark that will ensure the post's independence. The bill proposes clear appointment procedures that are consistent with the core values of openness and transparency that underpin the Parliament. The commissioner may be appointed for up to five years, with the possibility of re-appointment for a similar period. The appointment will be made as a result of an open recruitment process. The best candidate will be recommended to the chamber on a Standards Committee motion and the appointment will be agreed by Parliament.

The Standards Committee is determined that the successful candidate will be appointed on merit, in accordance with the principles that are laid down by the committee on standards in public life and the current guidance that has been issued by the commissioner for public appointments.

The proposed removal procedures will also provide security of tenure, thus augmenting the commissioner's independence. The bill requires that the commissioner can be dismissed only if a motion to dismiss is put to the Parliament and receives a two-thirds majority of those voting.

The bill sets out a clear procedure for the submission of complaints against members and it lays down the process by which complaints will be investigated by the commissioner. The bill provides that investigations will be carried out in private and independently of the Standards Committee; it also proposes that the committee cannot direct how an investigation is carried out. The committee can direct the commissioner to consider complaints that do not meet the bill's procedural requirements; for example, if the complaints are not in writing. However, it is for the commissioner to consider whether a complaint warrants full investigation.

The bill provides only a snapshot of part of the complaints process, so colleagues might find it helpful if I briefly revisit the four-stage investigative procedure that was endorsed by the Parliament in November 2000.

The first two stages of investigation are contained within the bill and will be the commissioner's responsibility. Stage 1 is an initial sift to determine whether a complaint is admissible. The commissioner will make an initial consideration of a complaint, usually by seeking clarification of the complaint from the complainer and a response from the MSP.

Stage 2 is a full investigation, which is carried out in private and independently of the Standards Committee. The bill gives the committee powers to make directions to the commissioner; for example, the committee will be able to issue guidance on investigative fundamentals that should apply to all stage 1 and 2 investigations that the commissioner undertakes. Those fundamentals could include, for example, a requirement on the commissioner to inform witnesses that they have the right to have a third party present at interview.

Stages 3 and 4 of the investigative process are outwith the remit of the bill. Stage 3 is the Standards Committee's consideration of the commissioner's report, which will be made at the conclusion of his or her investigation. I expect that the Standards Committee will decide in each case to undertake initial consideration of such reports in private. That will be necessary because the committee might decide to refer the report back to the commissioner for additional inquiries. Publicity could prejudice that. However, I emphasise that all subsequent elements of stage 3 will normally take place in public. For example, oral evidence and—most important—the committee's decision on whether a member has breached the code, will be in public. The committee's report, the commissioner's report and any relevant evidence will also be published.

The final stage of the process is stage 4, which is Parliament's consideration of the Standards Committee's recommendations for sanctions. That debate would be on a motion on behalf of the committee.

When the Standards Committee's proposals to introduce the bill were debated last May, they received full cross-party support. By supporting the introduction of a standards commissioner through the bill, we send a message that the Parliament is committed to ensuring the highest standards of probity. I commend the bill to members and call on them to support its general principles.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

On behalf of the Executive, I congratulate the Standards Committee on the thoughtful and careful work that has gone into the preparation of the bill. I say that having been party to some of that work. I was not present for the latter deliberations, but I have watched keenly as they have moved on. We welcome the committee's proposals and will give the bill our full support.

The present arrangements for the investigation of complaints against members of the Parliament are set out in the code of conduct, which is non-statutory. Following a detailed inquiry and an extensive consultation process, the Standards Committee concluded that those arrangements should be replaced by legislation. That is the purpose of the bill.

The key ingredients of the bill can be summarised briefly. The bill provides for the appointment of an independent standards commissioner who will have statutory security of tenure. The appointment process will be open and transparent and the commissioner may be re-appointed for another term of up to five years. The commissioner will investigate complaints independently and will have the same statutory powers to summon witnesses and compel production of evidence as the Parliament enjoys under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998. The commissioner will, having carried out an investigation, report his or her findings to the Standards Committee in the first instance. It will then be for the committee and the Parliament to decide whether there has been a breach of the code and, if so, what action to take. Both the committee's report and the commissioner's findings will be published in full.

The proposals have been carefully formulated to establish an independent and credible commissioner who will have wide powers of investigation, while properly leaving the final decision on what action to take in the hands of the Parliament. Although there is scope for debate about the precise detail of the proposals—I look forward to engaging in that debate at stage 2—it seems to me that the committee's approach strikes the right balance.

I hope and believe that the bill will command support across the political spectrum. The establishment of an independent commissioner who will have clear and transparent powers of investigation will enhance the Parliament's reputation and public standing. The Standards Committee has in my view—although some might say that I am a little biased—carried out an exemplary inquiry that has resulted in a well thought through and workable bill. Once again, I offer the Executive's warm support for the proposals in the bill and I wish it safe and speedy passage.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Members will agree that, in terms of public opinion, we politicians rank somewhere below even lawyers and journalists.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Steady on.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Yes, there are two strikes against you, Gordon.

Although most people rate us somewhere below lawyers and journalists, some people probably rate us as being on a par with Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler. That might seem like an exaggeration but, as has been said, facts are chiels that winna ding and the fact is that politicians are no longer trusted or respected by the people whom we are elected to serve. However, there can be no doubt that the Scottish Parliament has been unfairly tarnished by events in another place.

Of course, we are a new Parliament, set up to provide a new way to govern our nation. We do not want to be forever comparing ourselves with Westminster—as far as Scotland is concerned, Westminster is the past and the Scottish Parliament is the future. However, under the current situation, I am afraid that we must make the comparison. If we are to be the open, accountable and transparent Parliament that we aspire to be, we must ensure that we do not inherit the bad practice that has become such a feature of that other place.

Where will the bill make a difference? As Mike Rumbles said, the standards commissioner will be appointed by an open recruitment process. It is essential that the successful candidate is seen to have been appointed on merit and that he or she is not seen as a product of either cronyism or patronage. It is also essential that the standards commissioner have powers that are independent of both the Standards Committee and the Parliament.

Perhaps the most important feature of the bill is the fact that it will give the commissioner statutory powers to summon witnesses and compel evidence. Those are crucial powers that are not available at Westminster. The lack of those powers allowed MPs and ministers virtually to thumb their noses at the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards's request for their co-operation in giving evidence. The bill will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has no truck with such behaviour.

We cannot repeat those words openness and accountability too often, so I applaud the decision that stages 3 and 4 of the complaints process will be held mainly in public. That will allow initial investigations to be held in private, which will protect the complainer and the member from what could be prejudicial publicity. At stage 3, when the commissioner's report is published, oral evidence and the committee's deliberations will be in public. In that way, the bill strikes the right balance between preventing trial by tabloid and ensuring that members of the Parliament are accountable to the electorate and that their integrity is seen to be above reproach.

I want to talk about something that could be perceived to be a weakness in the bill. The bill has been developed within the framework of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scottish Parliament's standing orders. Therefore, the onus remains on the Standards Committee to recommend to Parliament whether sanctions should be imposed. If that recommendation is made, it is up to the Parliament to decide whether to accept the committee's recommendation. Given current public opinion, we must admit that that could be perceived to be a very big weakness. After all, the Standards Committee and the members of the Parliament could be seen to be politically weighted. This is where we elected members face our biggest challenge. As my party's chief whip, I say here and now that there will be no whipping of Scottish National Party members on any report from the commissioner or on any recommendation that the Standards Committee might put before the Parliament. Our challenge is simple: we must put the integrity of Parliament before any party-political interest. We cannot allow the Parliament to be put in the obscene position of having a member who, having been found guilty, escapes because of party politics without even a slapped wrist. Saving our pals cannot be an option.

Make no mistake—this is our opportunity to put clear blue water between this Parliament and that other place. This is our opportunity to say, "Vive la différence." We must be ruthless in our dedication to achievement of the highest possible standards for this new Parliament. When yet more sleaze is reported from that other place, I want the people of Scotland to be able to say, "The Scottish Parliament just isn't like that".

I urge members to support the bill.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am glad to support what has been said. The bill is the end product of a nine-month inquiry that the Standards Committee carried out. The committee reviewed four possible approaches to investigating complaints against members and took evidence from a considerable range of witnesses. I am convinced that the right policy decision was made. It is important that the bill will inject an independent element into the complaints process. During our inquiry, many witnesses emphasised the need for an independent commission. That became a central feature of our decision to propose a commissioner and we believe that it will increase public confidence in the Parliament and parliamentarians.

The statutory process and powers to compel the production of evidence are also key features that will enhance the commissioner's independence by ensuring that he or she need not rely on the Standards Committee's powers. They will also ensure that the commissioner is able to get to the heart of a complaint and provide a comprehensive report at the conclusion of his or her investigation.

In addition to the need for thoroughness, it is essential that investigations be carried out with all possible speed. It is important to complainers, members and the wider public that complaints are dealt with efficiently. It is envisaged that, in most cases, initial consideration of a complaint will take no more than two months and that any investigation that is required following that consideration will take no more than six months.

However, the Standards Committee acknowledged that some investigations might be complex. The time limits are therefore not absolute requirements under the bill. Instead, the bill requires the commissioner to report on the progress of an investigation if the initial investigation is not completed within two months and if the full investigation is not completed within six months. The Parliament can then be alerted to the reasons for the delay. The commissioner has the power to report at any time on the progress of an investigation and the Parliament can at any time require the commissioner to provide a progress report.

Transparency and openness characterise much of what we seek to achieve in the Parliament. Those principles underpin the approach not only of the bill but of the complaints process that has been developed. The bill proposes transparent appointment procedures and sets out clear rules on the submission of complaints.

Although the commissioner's investigations will be carried out in private and independently of the committee, much of stage 3 and all of stage 4 of the complaints process would, as Mike Rumbles rightly said, take place in public. The commissioner's and the committee's reports will become public documents. Justice must therefore not only be done, but be seen to be done.

As has been said, the bill has the unanimous backing of the Standards Committee's members. When the committee's proposals for a commissioner came before the Parliament previously, they received all-party support. I hope that members will support the bill.

In view of Kay Ullrich's comments about the standing of politicians, perhaps I might say a brief word about politicians and the nature of their work. Churchill summed up their role:

"Politicians rise by toils and struggles; they expect to fall: they hope to rise again. Nearly always in or out of office, they are surrounded and sustained by great parties. They have many companions in misfortune. Their work with all its interest and variety continues. Politicians know they are but the creatures of the day. They hold no golden casket enshrining the treasure of centuries to be shattered irretrievably in their hands. They are ready to take the rough with the smooth along the path of life they have chosen for themselves. Yet even politicians suffer some pangs."

It is my contention that, if there are high standards, there will be many fewer pangs.

The historian F S Oliver said of the profession of politics:

"With all the temptations, dangers and degradations that beset it, politics is still, I think, the noblest career that any man"—

or woman—"can choose." I believe that we are taking one small step towards making that a reality.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I fear that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's philosophy and insights are a hard act to follow. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and to open for the Labour party.

I am the newest arrival on the Standards Committee, but I have been pleased to be involved in the latter stages of development of the bill. I pay tribute to my Labour colleagues who have been involved for considerably longer and have played a central role in developing the bill. The Labour party is fully committed to the principles of the bill and to the maintenance of high standards in public life. We give our absolute and unqualified support to the principles of the bill.

It is important that, as well as considering the detail, we remind ourselves of the context of the bill. A great deal of debate and history has led us to the point at which we find ourselves. The bill is a significant milestone in the development of the Parliament, but is also part of a much bigger tapestry. That tapestry runs back to the debate before devolution, in which we heard people's high aspirations for the Parliament and what its politicians would do for them, and to the work of the cross-party consultative steering group, which shaped and developed many of the principles that we have translated into practice in the Parliament. Since the Parliament was established, much more has been done to ensure that the aspirations of openness, accessibility, transparency and high standards of conduct have been translated into practice. It is important that we regard the bill as part of that bigger tapestry.

It is important—particularly in the context of the cynicism about politics and about politicians that we hear—to remind ourselves that a great deal has been done to ensure that, in our fledgling Scottish Parliament, the highest possible standards of conduct are maintained. The bill sets out a robust package that is right for Scotland. It is designed to meet the needs of the Scottish Parliament—a modern Parliament, a Parliament for a 21st century Scotland. As other members have said, it is important to acknowledge how much consideration and work have gone into developing the detailed provisions of the bill.

As the bill has been developed, examples from many other places have been considered, including a place a little south of here. It is right and proper that, where appropriate, practices from there and elsewhere have been replicated. Equally, the decision has been taken to differ where that has been felt to be right and appropriate. That is as it should be; the Scottish Parliament should draw on the very best practice.

Mike Rumbles eloquently and fully set out the details of the bill. However, like others, I will emphasise some of the key elements of which we can be particularly proud. We can be proud that the bill will give statutory powers to summon witnesses and to compel them to give evidence. We can also be proud that the bill will ensure the commissioner's independence. Not least among the provisions are those that will provide security of tenure. The commissioner can be removed only by the agreement of two thirds of members voting on a motion to dismiss the commissioner that comes before Parliament. Those are not small matters; they will make a difference.

I was struck at the press conference at which we launched the bill by a question that several journalists asked, which was whether the standards commissioner will be a full-time job. We chorused quickly that we hoped that it would not be. I do not say that flippantly. Although it is important that we put in place the most robust provisions possible for a standards commissioner and for high standards of conduct in the Parliament, it is for all of us to ensure that those high standards are maintained. We all hope that the commissioner will not be inundated with complaints. Equally, it is vital that the public knows that when complaints come forth, an independent person will uphold their interests and, where necessary, hold us responsible for our actions.

I hope that in the months to come members will become absorbed in the detailed technicalities of the bill; as with any bill, they are many. It is right and proper that we concentrate on that detail. However, I hope that in doing so we will not lose sight of the big picture. I am pleased that other members have touched on that big picture. The picture is the need to maintain—indeed, to rebuild—trust in politicians, parties and institutions and the need for us to ensure that the public can hold us to account and that independent mechanisms exist whereby they can do so.

High standards of probity and general good conduct will not of themselves restore politics to the standing that it once had and that we all aspire to its having again. However, such standards are an important step toward ensuring that that standing is restored. I hope that, just as we worked together to develop the bill and get it to this stage, we will continue to work within and across parties to make progress with the bill and get it on the statute book. More important, I hope that we will continue to work together to maintain, develop and enhance the Parliament's standards in order to demonstrate that we politicians have at heart the interests of the people whom we represent. I hope that, at all times and in all the ways that are within our powers, we will maintain the highest possible standards.

I am pleased to support the bill. I know that we on the Labour benches will give it our full support throughout its passage through the Parliament.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the committee bill as the first step in the establishment of the post of an independent standards commissioner, who will have comprehensive powers to investigate complaints made against members of the Parliament. The independence of the commissioner is a necessary guarantee of impartiality and objectivity.

The upholding of proper standards in public life is important to all those who have the privilege of serving at any level of government. The vast majority of people in elected office, of all parties and none, do meet the standards demanded by the public, and their probity is not in question. It has to be admitted, however, that a tiny proportion of members have, over the years, let down their parties and, more important, their constituents. That has had an adverse effect on the important business of politics. The behaviour of that minority has led to an increase in the level of scrutiny over the past decade or more, and to a growing, legitimate demand that standards in public life not only be high, but be seen to be high.

The consultative steering group built on the Nolan committee's recommendations, and the Parliament and its Standards Committee have taken an appropriately robust approach. That is all to the good. The establishment of the post of Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner will lend itself to the attempts that are being made to restore public confidence in the serious business of politics. I hope that the cynicism with which a number of our fellow citizens regard politicians and the political process can be addressed successfully if we all—every one of us—pledge ourselves to a greater transparency and show our willingness to open up the process to disinterested scrutiny.

I welcome the open appointment process as detailed in the bill. It is indicative of the Parliament's desire to ensure that the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner has security of tenure and that their independence is assured. Unlike his or her Westminster counterpart, the commissioner will have statutory powers both to summon witnesses and to compile evidence. That is positive; it is all to the good. I would contend that the bill represents a more robust package than that available to our colleagues down south. We can show the way.

I register my appreciation for the work undertaken by the Standards Committee in its nine-month inquiry into the handling of complaints against MSPs. The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill is the product of the committee's labour. I believe that the bill is a clear sign of the Parliament's willingness to invite independent, transparent scrutiny. The people of Scotland demand and deserve no less. I commend the general principles of the bill to the Parliament.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We now move to closing speeches, and I make the observation in passing that we are 35 minutes ahead of schedule.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Like Patricia Ferguson, I was a member of the Standards Committee during the first year of the Parliament and I was involved in the discussions that gave rise to the four-stage process that Mike Rumbles described, and which we have now adopted as our proposal for dealing with complaints.

We were concerned to formulate a clear process that could be understood by the complainer, by the person complained about and by the wider public, and that could be applied in all circumstances. We were also particularly concerned to establish that, at each stage, the principles of natural justice should be properly observed in the interests of MSPs, of the Parliament more generally and of the wider public. That is an important dimension, which has already been touched on in the debate.

It is not sufficient that justice is done; it is important in our context that the processes by which justice is done are clear and transparent and are open to appropriate scrutiny. After a long process of deliberation, we decided that we wanted to have an independent standards commissioner. I warmly endorse that decision and the fact that it has been carried forward into the bill. There is a broad measure of cross-party support for that role and for its being filled by an independent person.

As we all know, there has been much debate about the process of handling complaints down at Westminster. We should take some credit for the fact that we have not had a similar debate about the process of dealing with complaints here at Holyrood. That is partly because we have established clearer principles and a better procedure for dealing with complaints, whereby the person investigating the complaints will be clearly independent and the Parliament itself will transfer its statutory powers to allow that person to carry out their function. Those are good principles.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton gave us a long quote from Churchill, which I must say was read out in a very Churchillian way. It was an appropriate point about the significance of standards in relation to the whole stature and credence of politics. The job of politician is often a difficult one, and one is always subjected to measures of critical scrutiny, whatever one does and whichever party one belongs to.

To do our job properly, we need a set of clear procedures and a clearly understood framework within which to operate, which provides us with protection and the public and the Parliament with safeguards. It is so important to get the balance right, and I think that we have, overall, achieved that in the bill.

I want to highlight some issues that I am not clear about, having not been involved in the discussions on the subject over the past 18 months. One issue that was extensively discussed when I served on the Standards Committee was that of how anonymous complaints should be tackled. My firm view is that we should not really tolerate anonymous complaints. If people have a complaint against a politician or political process, it is important that they be required to make it themselves. I am not sure that the mechanisms covered by sections 4 and 5—

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Yes.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Perhaps I can set Des McNulty's mind at ease. Anonymous complaints fail the second admissibility test, which deals with procedural defects, at stage 1 of the investigative process. The bill requires that complaints be made by an individual person, be signed by that person and that they provide their name and address. The commissioner must refer any procedurally defective complaints to the Standards Committee, and the committee can then direct the commissioner either to dismiss the complaint or to disregard that defect.

The committee will also have the power to make a class direction for anonymous complaints, which will require the commissioner to refer those immediately to the committee without considering the first or third tests at stage 1. In other words, it will determine whether the complaint is relevant and warrants a full investigation.

It is therefore not anticipated that anonymous complaints will be dealt with by the commissioner or by the committee.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful for that clarification, although I am not entirely sure that the way in which the bill is framed necessarily makes that as clear as it ought to be.

Section 11 covers the withdrawal of complaints, and I draw members' attention to subsection (2) in particular. We need to be clear that, if a complaint is made and is then withdrawn, that carries the onus that the complaint is without foundation. I do not think that people should be in a position to submit complaints and then withdraw them part of the way through the process without the member concerned being explicitly exonerated as a result.

That protection is important for members, but it does not take anything away from the fact that we have achieved clarity and certainty through the way in which we have established the investigatory procedure. It is very positive that major problems have not arisen from the operation of the standards process. That means that we have got the process substantially right. I hope that, through the bill, we will put into legislation procedures that will consolidate the system completely. For that reason, I welcome the bill.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As someone who is not a member of the Standards Committee, I congratulate the committee on the excellent work that it has done on the bill. No doubt it has many more hours of work to do.

Kay Ullrich was right to say that lawyers and journalists have an even worse reputation than politicians have. I exempt my trade of economist from that kind of reputation. All of us recognise that there is an opinion abroad among the electorate that all politicians are the same. Many people automatically regard politicians as sleazebags who cannot be trusted. The onus is on politicians from all parties to prove that that is not the case.

I welcome the fact that the bill is a committee bill, which indicates that there is broad consensus on this matter in the committee. I also welcome the fact that in this debate there has been broad cross-party consensus. It is absolutely essential that every member of the Parliament signs up not only to the letter but to the spirit of what is intended under the bill.

Susan Deacon made a very valid point when she said that we should not automatically reject what Westminster or other Parliaments do, simply because they are other Parliaments. Similarly, we should learn from where they have made mistakes, so that we do not repeat those. The bill contains provisions that indicate that we have learned the lessons of what has happened at Westminster.

I welcome in particular the strenuous efforts that the bill makes to ensure that the commissioner is as independent as possible. However, I ask the Standards Committee at stage 2 to consider a couple of ways in which that independence could be reinforced.

First, it should be clear and unambiguous that the public appointments code that will be updated in the forthcoming public bodies bill should govern the appointment procedure for the new standards commissioner, from the interview process through to the appointment itself. That would reassure people that in relation to parliamentary appointments there was no cronyism of the sort that we have witnessed in relation to Executive or governmental appointments. Such a provision would be a useful addition to the bill.

My second point relates to the Standards Committee. I welcome the fact that statutory powers will be given to the commissioner, who will report to the Standards Committee. It will be up to the Standards Committee to decide whether to recommend to the full Parliament sanctions against a member or members. One problem that arose at Westminster was that the committee that decided whether to recommend sanctions was politically loaded one way. Allegedly, it took a political decision about whether to recommend sanctions.

My point may relate not so much to the bill as to the standing orders and procedures of the Parliament, but as a matter of principle we should ensure that the Standards Committee always has an independently minded convener. There is no doubt that we have one at present—sometimes much to the chagrin of the party to which he belongs. Ideally, the convener of the Standards Committee should be a member of a non-Executive party—certainly, they should belong to a non-majority party.

It is also important that we consider the composition of the Standards Committee, to ensure that no one party can dominate the committee. In that way, I hope that we will be able to avoid a repetition of what has happened at Westminster.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I want to take a moment to reassure Alex Neil about the operations of the Standards Committee. I hope that he is aware that there has never been a vote in the committee. We do not operate on party-political lines. On the occasions when we have dealt with complaints against members, members have never shown any party-political bias—at least, no such bias has been detectable.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I recognise that as a fact and I welcome it as such. However, today we are discussing rules and procedures that will govern the issue of standards not just during this session of Parliament, but for a much longer period. I accept that the current Standards Committee has met the high standards to which members have referred. However, we want as far as possible to ensure that the rules make it very difficult—if not impossible—for us to repeat the mistakes of Westminster, where politicised decisions were taken by the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Another issue that I would like to raise is the issue of directions, in relation to which the Standards Committee has major powers. That fact underlines the need to reinforce the independence of the Standards Committee.

The main purpose of the bill is to catch those who have breached the code of conduct or who have brought Parliament into disrepute in some other way. However, we should not use the provisions of the bill to witch-hunt any member of the Parliament or to pursue petty complaints by one member against another. As the bill makes clear, its provisions should be restricted to serious allegations of misconduct. The bill should not be used to settle personal political scores, either within the Parliament or between individual citizens and members of the Parliament.

I hope that at stage 2 the Standards Committee will consider in detail some of the issues that I have raised. I reiterate my congratulations to the committee and repeat what Kay Ullrich has made clear—the SNP's whole-hearted support for the bill. I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me eight extra minutes.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I would hate Alex Neil to draw the wrong conclusion. In fact, he has spoken for six minutes and 39 seconds. There is an error on the clock, which has added the previous speaker's time to his.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When we entered the Parliament in May 1999, we were determined that it would not be sullied by sleaze or by a repeat of the scandals that took place at Westminster in the 1990s, which did great damage to the reputation of politics and politicians.

However, we were not driven just by the need to be different from Westminster. From the outset, members of this Parliament believed that it should be a model of probity. That belief has driven the members of the Standards Committee, past and present, not only to produce a bill that makes provision for the appointment of an independent standards commissioner, but in the other work that they have done, which is the cornerstone of the Parliament. I refer to the rigid code of conduct that has been drawn up, the possible registration of commercial lobby companies and the members' interests order. All those measures will be in place by 2003. By the end of the first session of the Scottish Parliament, structures will be in place that will enable the Scottish people to have confidence both in the procedures of the Parliament and in the politicians who are members of it.

In February 2000, the Standards Committee introduced a rigorous code of conduct, which was endorsed by the Parliament. Members will recall that at that time the Standards Committee made a commitment to put in place robust arrangements for enforcing the code. The Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill is the result of the committee's endeavours in that regard. We believe that the proposals contained in the bill, together with the exacting requirements of the code of conduct, will ensure the highest possible standards in the Parliament. They may also go some way towards dispelling public cynicism about politicians.

Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Standards Committee has the power to carry out investigations. It is to the credit of members of the Standards Committee that they wanted to ensure that there was some independence in that process. That is why we have come forward with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill today. The appointment of a commissioner would bring that independent element into the complaints procedure. He or she will consider complaints and carry out investigations in private and independently of the Standards Committee. Secondly, the bill will give the commissioner statutory powers, which will enable him or her to carry out those investigations effectively. That is an important distinction from the arrangements at Westminster.

Refusal to co-operate with the Scottish Parliament's standards commissioner will not be tolerated, although we hope that the commissioner will not have to use their powers in that respect. The power to summon witnesses to give evidence will also enhance the independence of the post. The commissioner will not have to rely on the committee's powers under the Scotland Act 1998. When Elizabeth Filkin gave evidence to our inquiry, she was satisfied at that time that she had no powers independent of the Standards and Privileges Committee at Westminster. She felt that there was no need for her to have such powers, because she worked well with the committee at Westminster. I suspect that she does not think that now.

The next aspect of the bill that I highlight relates to the procedure for appointing and removing the commissioner. Those are transparent and will ensure that the appointment is made strictly on merit. We envisage an open recruitment process with the post being advertised. The commissioner can be removed only by a two-thirds majority of those voting, thus providing security of tenure. The appointment and removal provisions will also serve to underpin the independence of the post.

The committee has also indicated that there will be an open and transparent recruitment process. The commissioner will be appointed by the Parliament on the recommendation of the Standards Committee. It is envisaged that that recommendation could be the subject of a debate in the chamber if need be.

Any evidence taken by the committee at stage 3 of the complaints process will be in public session, as will the committee's decision on the complaint. I emphasise that the commissioner and the committee's report into investigations will be published with relevant evidence.

Alex Neil's point about the make-up of the Standards Committee struck me. Mike Rumbles and the members of the Standards Committee have operated thus far in a strictly non-partisan manner. I pay tribute to all my colleagues on the committee, past and present, who have worked in that way. The Standards Committee is probably the one committee of the Parliament that has worked in such a way. I am struck by what Alex Neil said and I think that we could consider it in terms of the standing orders and procedures to ensure that an underpinning is there.

The Standards Committee is currently undertaking a review of the members' interests order, which has had a fair amount of publicity recently. The bill also covers breaches of the order, but makes it clear that the commissioner's power will apply to any legislation that replaces the order.

We will shortly publish our interim conclusions for consultation with a proposal for a further committee bill this year. I urge every member to get involved in that consultation process to ensure that we have legislation on members' interests that is transparent and proportionate.

I am happy to take interventions but, failing that, I will continue.

The reputation of the Parliament stands or falls on the integrity of its members. That is inextricably linked to confidence in the arrangements for handling complaints of misconduct. I believe that the bill will provide a strong foundation for such confidence in the probity of Parliament and its members.

I turn briefly to another point that Alex Neil made about petty complaints and the role of the commissioner. Some people have said that the bill is very complicated and perhaps it looks extremely complicated. The bill essentially defines relationships between the independent commissioner, the Standards Committee and the Parliament. It is inevitable that it has to be a fairly complicated-looking bill. I am sure that members of my party and other parties, who will consider the bill at stage 2, will find themselves working through that.

Alex Neil is right that the standards commissioner should not be used for petty fights between members.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sure that my intervention is a relief to everybody—I am talking about the timing.

I refer to the specific point that Des McNulty raised about not having anonymous complainants. The quid pro quo for not having anonymous complainants—and I agree with that—is that where someone puts their name to a complaint, their rights are protected as well. They cannot be scapegoated by the member whom they have named.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Alex Neil makes a good point. That is precisely why, at stages 1 and 2, the investigative process will be in private. That is to protect both the complainant and the person about whom a complaint has been made.

We are certainly not looking to appoint a witch-finder general as part of the bill. That would be entirely the wrong message for members. We do not anticipate having a Ken Starr who will consider one complaint, go on to another and another and try to unravel some sort of spaghetti. It is absolutely essential that the commissioner investigate specific complaints and not general complaints that would allow investigations to keep going and going. There has to be a beginning and end to that process. I believe that the bill will provide a strong foundation for confidence.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

One of the issues that it is important to understand, both at this stage and at stage 2 of the bill, is that the courts in Scotland can review the processes adopted by the Parliament. Therefore we are subject to the procedures of administrative law in the way in which we conduct the process. That has informed the discussions of the Standards Committee and has informed the way in which matters are handled. We have to operate in line with legal best practice, not just what we think is best practice, but the operating procedures of Scottish law. That is an important underpinning for the bill.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with Des McNulty's point. Any legislation that we pass can be subject to review by the courts. Indeed the Scottish Countryside Alliance took to judicial review a decision of the Standards Committee that cleared Mike Watson early on in our lifetime. That found that the Standards Committee's decisions had been entirely appropriate. We have already been subject to judicial review and I expect that any decisions of the Parliament would naturally be judicially reviewed.

In the absence of more interventions, I conclude that I believe that the bill will provide a strong foundation for confidence in the probity of the Parliament and its members. I call upon colleagues of all parties to endorse the general principles of the bill and to ensure that it has a safe passage. More important, we must give the independent commissioner our full support for the work that he may do, but I hope will not have to do.

European Union Governance and the Future of Europe

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Our next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2752, in the name of Irene Oldfather, on the European Committee's ninth report 2001—"Report on the Governance of the European Union and the Future of Europe: What Role for Scotland?"

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

It is appropriate and fitting that today, as the convention to review the future of Europe begins, we in the Scottish Parliament should begin to debate our contribution to that future. I say "begin", because I hope that over the next two years the European Committee and the Parliament will continue to contribute to and develop that debate.

The European Committee began its deliberations on the issue almost a year ago and took seven months to conclude its inquiry. The resulting report has been well received throughout Europe. It is important that I place on record the fact that we appreciate the responses to our work from legislatures, academics and interested bodies across Europe. We look forward to promoting the report further in Brussels next week, when the committee will meet the European Commission.

Before I talk about the body of the report, I take this opportunity to thank committee members for the time that they spent on the inquiry. There were volumes of written evidence and hours of oral evidence—sometimes the oral evidence sessions lasted a day. Members deserve to have their work acknowledged.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that we took evidence from regional representatives from throughout Europe. We made history in the chamber when we made use of simultaneous interpretation into and from several Community languages to take evidence from representatives of regions and authorities from throughout Europe. On behalf of the committee, I record our thanks to the clerks. I am sure that members agree that the clerks did a tremendous job in assimilating the substantial written and oral evidence to produce the final report.

The present structure of Europe was designed to accommodate the original six member states, but the new Europe will involve some 27 member states. The Europe of the 21st century will be radically different from the Europe of the 20th century. That is why we must take time to examine the question of reform. Member states and the European Commission have recognised the need to connect with ordinary citizens as a necessary part of that reform. The European Committee believes that the process of engaging with our citizens is a priority.

It is astonishing and disturbing that almost the same number of people voted in ITV's recent "Pop Idol" competition as voted in the most recent European Parliament elections. In recent polls, the UK population is consistently the least well informed about the activities of the European Union in comparison with other nations. It is against that background that we seek to extend the debate on Europe from intellectual elites to ordinary people. The fact that that will not be easy is not a good enough reason for standing back. I acknowledge the role that was played last year by the Jean Monnet European centre of excellence when it organised, with the European Committee, a well-attended conference, the purpose of which was to extend the debate to ordinary people. However, I note that, last year, there were 13 such regional conferences in France.

Let me be clear. Contrary to popular belief—for which the media must take some responsibility—Europe is not over there and it is not about foreign affairs. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. Europe is about the things that matter to ordinary people: sustainable jobs; economic development; improving our environment; high quality in our food safety; and enhancing our quality of life. The challenge of raising awareness of the issues should not be exclusive to politicians. We are all stakeholders when it comes to explaining how the European Union affects our lives. It is worth noting that the Scottish Parliament commands unprecedented attention from the fourth estate, yet there are no longer any Brussels-based correspondents who report directly to Scotland on EU matters. That is a matter of regret.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Irene Oldfather made a relevant point when she referred to the effect of Europe on people's jobs. Does she agree that it is reasonable for different countries in Europe to have different workplace conditions, given the range of activities in, and cultures and habits of, the countries that make up Europe? Those differences will become clearer if we end up with 27 member states.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I agree with Phil Gallie about the principle of cultural diversity. However, it is important that we set standards for employment conditions throughout Europe.

Better governance means opening up the debate on Europe to a wider audience. It also means greater participation, transparency and accountability. In order to improve participation and accountability, people must understand the system. The principle of simplifying treaties was one of the committee's key recommendations, on which there was considerable consensus from those who gave evidence. In the run-up to previous intergovernmental conferences, I have often found agreement on that principle, but achieving change is not easy. The committee's view was that the next IGC must tackle the treaties. We will hamper the establishment of new ways of working in Europe and greater understanding by citizens if we do not deal with that principle this time. In order to illustrate the point, I have with me an old, outdated and abridged version of the treaties. We do not want to change the meaning of the treaties, but citizens should be able to read and understand information about who does what on Europe without growing old in the process.

I will say a few words about transparency, which the European Committee believes can play a part in redressing the democratic deficit. I begin by talking about transparency at the European Union level. When we took evidence, the committee returned time and again to the lack of transparency in meetings of the Council of Ministers. When the Minister of State for Europe, Peter Hain, gave evidence to the committee, he acknowledged the need for greater transparency when decisions were taken during Council meetings. Nowhere else within the democracies of the world do legislatures take decisions that affect citizens in that way. How on earth can we expect politicians, interest groups and citizens to have an interest in the machinations of EU decision making if decisions are made behind closed doors? If we had a clearer picture of what happens in Council meetings, there could be better scrutiny of the EU by national and regional Parliaments. That would help the process of transparency and scrutiny in the United Kingdom and would assist in placing matters in the public domain.

Allied to those steps is the need for greater scrutiny of the comitology process, in which officials often flesh out the important detail of measures. The European Committee, in common with MEPs who gave evidence, would like to open up that process and to make it accountable. In the committee's view, the way in which to do so is not to create a new institution over there, but to have much better scrutiny of the EU over here.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the member's comments on transparency, particularly in relation to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. Does she agree that the joint ministerial committees that meet within the UK must be much more transparent? The Scottish Parliament is kept in the dark about what is discussed at those meetings.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

The committee's view was that there should be greater transparency. In a minute, I will speak about how we could achieve that within the United Kingdom and within the Scottish Parliament.

The European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons and the European Union Committee in the House of Lords share the view of transparency that I expressed. I welcome the comment in the Executive's response to our report that it commits itself

"to developing better arrangements for reporting to Committee around meetings of the EU Council of Ministers."

The committee welcomes that step forward and we are developing procedures to ensure that that work is carried out efficiently.

I come now to an important point about liaison in the run-up to the IGC. The European Committee and the Scottish Parliament must continue to ensure that our voices are heard in the run-up to the IGC. The committee has written to the Executive and the UK Government about the issue and we will ensure that, in the coming months, we play an integral part in leading the debate in the UK on better decision making in Europe. The Scottish Parliament is well placed to do that because it is Europe's newest and youngest Parliament and it is committed to transparency, openness and accountability.

I note that, in its response to our report, the Executive suggested that a way forward on the IGC was to

"continue to champion an open and wideranging debate on the subject and to co-ordinate our efforts in Scotland with those of the UK Government".

Let me put down a marker that is consistent with the committee's principles, which I outlined earlier: the internal UK debate must not be between Executives only and it must not be held in private. The joint ministerial committees are a useful tool for discussions between Administrations, but to parliamentarians and the public at large they are a closed shop. There must be wider involvement and wider debates.

On the role of constitutional regions in the legislative process, we believe that such regions should have a strong role in early access to the Commission, which recognises the importance of Parliaments such as ours across Europe. I believe that that could improve law making in Europe, because it would influence how laws are made in the same way as we in the Parliament take evidence at stage 1 in committees. That would be a positive development. I hope that the Executive will support the committee by recognising the need for a new relationship with the Commission on the development of EC legislation. That could begin to produce better legislation, which would better connect our citizens to the process.

The committee has begun to develop links with similar regions across Europe. There is a great deal of interest in our Parliament throughout Europe and beyond. It would not be possible to engage actively with every region that wants to enter into partnership with us. I recommend that we set ourselves guidelines for partnerships with other regions. The guiding principle should always be practical and demonstrable benefit to the people of Scotland. Next week in Brussels, the committee will meet representatives from the regions of Catalonia, Flanders and Saxony-Anhalt. I look forward to discussing areas of future co-operation that will offer real benefit to our peoples.

I have a couple of closing points to make. In the Executive's response to our report, the minister agreed with many of our recommendations, although he did not agree with those on the scrutiny reserve and access to the courts. I hope that the minister will keep an open mind on those matters in the months ahead, when decisions and debate will occur in the Parliament and across Europe.

Europe continues to enlarge and expand eastwards, incorporating new friends and offering new markets. In economic terms, an enlarged European Union could mean an extra £175 million for the Scottish economy. More important, it will help to create greater peace and stability for the people of Europe. Its relevance to the legislative work load of the Parliament will continue to be immense. Between now and 2004, the Parliament must continue to contribute to the debate at every possible level.

Only three years ago, a debate such as today's would not have been possible—there was no Scottish Parliament. Although there is a long way to go, let us never underestimate just how far we have come. I look forward to hearing the contribution of colleagues.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 9th Report, 2001 of the European Committee, Report on the Governance of the European Union and the Future of Europe: What Role for Scotland? (SP Paper 466) and commends the recommendations to the Scottish Executive.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On behalf of the Parliament, I congratulate Irene Oldfather and the European Committee on the production of the committee's ninth report of 2001. I commend the committee on the remarkable volume of evidence-taking work that it undertook in preparing the report. For a considerable part of that time, Hugh Henry was the committee's convener. I am sure that he deserves the thanks of the Parliament for the contribution that he made.

The debate is timely, as the convention on the future of Europe meets for the first time today. We have the opportunity to discuss the relevant issues in the Parliament. We should reflect on Irene Oldfather's closing sentiments. Three years ago, we did not have a Parliament in which a particularly Scottish viewpoint could be expressed. We should value the fact that we have the opportunity to express such a viewpoint.

Although we await the contribution of the Conservative party, a debate on Europe in the Parliament proceeds on the basis of a reasonable degree of consensus about the importance of Scotland's relationship with the European Union, if not on the basis of unanimous agreement. I hope that we can have a healthy debate that allows proper discussion, rather than one in which people get totally bogged down in trenches and make no progress.

I have the opportunity to set out the Executive's position on the governance and the future of Europe, which are two of the most important issues that face the European Union. They are vital not only because they affect Governments and are the preserve of Parliaments, but because, as Irene Oldfather said, they have considerable significance for the Scottish people and their counterparts across Europe.

One of our key concerns should be the perceived failure of the European institutions to connect with the ordinary citizen. Irene Oldfather made the point that more people voted in the "Pop Idol" final than in the European elections. I think that I voted for Will. No, I voted for Gareth. I used that point until someone pointed out that, as far as we know, in the European elections people vote only once.

The debate is about devising a modified framework of governance that will enable the European Union to work more openly and effectively to achieve what individual citizens want—tangible things, such as greater prosperity through full employment, better electronic communication, cleaner water, cleaner air, the preservation of our natural heritage and safer streets and communities through a collective attack on organised crime. That is why the Executive takes the debate seriously and has offered its views on how the framework should be modified.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the minister's comments. I am glad that he is taking the debate seriously. Given that the convention on the future of Europe has a key role in reforming Europe, what steps has the Executive taken to secure a place for the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive on the convention?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Later in my speech, I will say something substantive on how we ensure that a Scottish voice and Scottish viewpoints are expressed and channelled into the convention.

In many areas of policy, joint action across Europe will have a far greater impact than action that is taken in isolation by any individual country. For that reason, we attach considerable importance to the work of the European Union and are clear that we should and will make a meaningful contribution to it. We intend to play an active role in Europe and will continue to consolidate and extend that role, not least through our participation in the future of Europe debate. Therefore, we are delighted that the committee has devoted its time and energy to reporting on that subject. The report itself marks an important Scottish contribution to the debate.

The Executive's approach to the future of Europe debate is based on five key elements. We are pro-Europe, because of the significance of the EU to Scotland's prosperity and to improving the quality of people's lives. We are pro-United Kingdom, because our agreements with the UK Government give us more power than a small nation would otherwise have. Furthermore, the Executive and the UK benefit from access to an influential layer of European government, which was denied pre-devolution. We are pro-reform, because change is needed to give a greater democratic legitimacy to European decision making. We are pro-sub-member state Government involvement. If any member could come up with a better phrase than "pro-sub-member state Government", I would welcome their contribution. Such Administrations can play a vital role in restoring the democratic equilibrium and in linking the citizen with the European institutions. We are pro-debate, because we are convinced that openness is the best route for generating effective solutions and for bringing citizens on board.

In putting forward its views, the Executive has concentrated on a series of practical measures that it believes will realise a more open, effective and relevant European Union. There should be a statement of subsidiarity principles to ensure that the EU acts only when its action would be more effective than action at the member state or Scottish level. To ensure that subsidiarity is properly applied, we have proposed the introduction of an independent subsidiarity watchdog. Although we have an open mind on the form that that body will take, our preference is for a political body, as subsidiarity is a political concept. That body should have the power to act before legislation is finalised and should have the benefit of a direct link with democratic structures. A system that is based on legal action would inevitably be retrospective and would almost certainly be much slower.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Have the Scottish Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had a response from the UK Government to their joint position, just as the Executive responded to the committee on the ideas that it put forward?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There has been no specific response yet, but I indicated that the Commission has taken on board many of the points that the Scottish Executive and COSLA made to it. That is very much part of the debate.

The debate on subsidiarity is important because, when the European Union acts, it should do so proportionately and in a way that respects national and regional identities. There should be an assessment of how the potential financial impact of legislation compares to the benefits, so that we can be sure that the outcome justifies the effort.

We make the general point that the sub-member state Administration, which is closer to the people and is often responsible for implementing Commission proposals, should have a greater involvement in the EU decision-making process. Our suggestion does not seek to press member states to give up powers, but the European Union should recognise situations in which a member state has already devolved power.

When the Commission is developing policies, it should consult implementing authorities at the pre-legislative stage. That consultation should be based on a code of practice, which would ensure that the Commission is made aware of any fundamental problems at the formative stage. That would also enable those who are charged with achieving targets to be involved in setting them. To facilitate more comprehensive consultation, we believe that greater use can be made of information technology.

On implementation, we have proposed that the EU should look at a range of measures to achieve objectives instead of always resorting to detailed legislation. We suggest that there should be more framework proposals, which would provide implementing authorities such as the Scottish Executive with the scope for a flexible, decentralised approach. We also suggest that there should be more short, strategic laws. Such an approach would enable an Administration that is closer to the people to achieve the objectives in a way that is more sympathetic to local circumstances.

Finally, we believe that the whole legislative process—from the Commission to the European Parliament to the Council of Ministers—should be more transparent. Indeed, transparency was one of the themes of the European Committee report. As Irene Oldfather pointed out, the Executive's response to the report indicated that we are in favour of a more transparent legislative process within the European Union so that interested bodies can know how draft legislation is modified.

Inevitably, some of the proposals in the European Committee's report go beyond our thinking at this stage and there are a few proposals with which we disagree. Irene Oldfather mentioned the scrutiny reserve. As she acknowledged, we have committed ourselves to working with the European Committee by reporting on meetings of the Council of Ministers. We will seek to ensure that arrangements are put in place so that, as far as possible, the committee is given the opportunity to feed its views to the Executive at a point at which those views can realistically be reflected in our discussions with the UK Government. At this stage, we favour that option rather than the formal scrutiny reserve. However, I give Irene Oldfather the reassurance that she sought that we are willing to revisit the issue once we have had some experience of the new arrangements in operation.

In passing, I think that it is worth mentioning that the work that went into the report is of some note. For the first time ever, during the committee's inquiry, a UK minister gave evidence to a committee of the Scottish Parliament. The fact that Peter Hain gave evidence to the committee is indicative of his commitment to encouraging the debate and of the ready willingness of Her Majesty's Government to listen to the Scottish viewpoint.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

rose—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Before responding to Richard Lochhead's point, I will give way to David McLetchie

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The minister mentioned that Mr Hain's participation in the inquiry was welcome. Is not it somewhat ironic that Mr Hain will give evidence to the Parliament but the Secretary of State for Scotland will not?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have many responsibilities, but they do not include answering on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was delighted that Peter Hain came to the Parliament and I think that the committee responded well to him. I believe that Peter Hain has offered to return at some stage to engage once more with the committee in its debate on the European Union.

Today, the first meeting of the convention takes place in Brussels. If the convention is to be manageable, it must be of a reasonable size. Although several significant sub-member state Administrations—including Catalonia, Bavaria, Wallonia and ourselves—will not be directly represented, they will be represented through their respective member states. In anticipation of views that may be expressed, let me be clear that it would be unrealistic for all sub-member state Administrations to be present. However, I am confident that all sub-member states will exert influence and get their views across. It is inconceivable that the Catalans and the Bavarians will not try to make their views known; the same principle applies for Scotland. It is essential that Scottish views are understood and that Scottish thinking contributes to the debate and feeds into EU deliberations.

The Executive has an active role in the debates on the governance and future of Europe. We have already participated in four future of Europe debates. The Executive and COSLA have submitted to the European Commission a joint paper on governance, from which several proposals have been taken up. The proposals that have been accepted include the recommendation that enhanced consultation should be based on a code of practice and that there should be greater flexibility of implementation. We also worked with our European partners to produce the Flanders declaration and the Liège resolution.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I may be tight for time, but I will give way to Richard Lochhead.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for giving way once again.

When there is a matter that is particularly relevant to Scotland, one of the best ways of defending Scottish interests in Europe is to seek to take the lead role for the UK representation in the Council of Ministers. Since devolution, the Scottish Executive has led the UK delegation at three meetings of the Council of Ministers. Will the minister explain the criteria that are used to determine which meetings of the Council of Ministers the Scottish Executive seeks to lead?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The criterion is common sense. Perhaps that is as good an answer as any. A dialogue goes on between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. Even when a Scottish minister may not be nominally in the lead, that does not mean that the Scottish minister cannot participate in the meetings of the Council of Ministers.

Last November, I attended the meeting for justice and home affairs, for which David Blunkett was in the lead. David Blunkett positively encouraged me to contribute at a point at which it was relevant for me to remind other member states that Scots law is different. I had an opportunity to make our view known. Likewise, it is widely recognised that Ross Finnie's contribution at December's fisheries council was greatly to the benefit of the Scottish fishing industry. That pragmatic approach ensures that the Scottish viewpoint is fed in as part of the UK approach.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Will the minister give way?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will give way to John McAllion, but I dare not give way after that.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

The Financial Times reported that Scottish ministers have attended about 12 per cent of all ministerial meetings in Brussels, whereas representatives of the German Länder were present at about a third of all such meetings. Do the Germans attend too often or do Scottish ministers not attend often enough?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is fair to say that there are more German Länder than the one Scottish Administration. It might be interesting to see the breakdown to discover how often individual German Länder are represented. It would not be appropriate for me to attend justice and home affairs council meetings that deal with reserved matters such as asylum. Our decision on whether we attend is based on the specific agenda of the meeting.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have been generous in giving way and should move on, but I give way to Winnie Ewing.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister mentioned that he attended the November meeting of the Council of Ministers, at which he spoke about Scots law protection, which concerns me deeply. In the European Parliament, Neil MacCormick attempted to keep the protection of the 110-day rule, but all the Labour and Tory members abstained or voted against his amendment. That was not a good example of representation from our MEPs. Did the minister raise the issue of the 110-day rule at the November meeting?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I cannot remember the specific issue with the 110-day rule, but nothing has emerged that will compromise the 110-day rule.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister is wrong.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Dr Ewing says that I am wrong, but I believe that there are no plans to change the existing 110-day rule.

I assure the Parliament that our work continues. We will continue to work with COSLA to produce a Scottish Executive response to the Commission's white paper on governance. We will contribute to the formulation of the UK response on governance and we will continue to contribute to the formulation of UK policy positions that will be adopted at the convention. Next week, I shall attend a meeting of the joint ministerial committee on Europe that is being held to discuss the work of the convention. We will continue to work with our European partners to feed the views of sub-member state Administrations to the convention. We shall use our membership of the constitutional affairs commission of the Committee of the Regions to air Scottish views.

Once the details of the forum and structured network are known, we shall encourage civil society in Scotland to participate. That is important. It is right to point out that the debate should not take place simply between Governments or between parliamentarians. Indeed, paragraph 67 of the committee's report states:

"we agree with Alex Orr who in his evidence to the Committee said:

'It is also important that the debate does not simply engage with the "intellectual elite", but embraces the whole of civil society. For this purpose, the holding of a limited number of public meetings, as well as a link from the Scottish Executive site to the "Future of Europe" site on the FCO website, will assist in engaging with the public'".

The fact that Alex Orr is a private citizen who gave evidence to the committee makes his comments even more pertinent. We are looking into the possibility of the Scottish Executive website being helpful in that debate.

Given the extensive range of avenues available, I am confident that Scottish views will be known and reflected and that we will maintain our position as a serious player. The Executive will continue to be active in matters of governance and the future of Europe as debates unfold. We advocate an open and wide-ranging debate and therefore welcome and take note of the European Committee's report. We hope that the efforts to date of central Government and local government will, in the year ahead, be matched by participation and input from businesses, academics, the trade unions and, indeed, the citizens of Scotland and other member states, so that the Europe of the future—as we look forward to an enlarged Europe—better meets the needs of all its citizens.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I congratulate the European Committee on what is certainly one of the most important and impressive reports to have come before the Parliament.

The SNP agrees with the committee's view on the need to reconnect our citizens to Europe and to address a glaring democratic deficit. As the report says, radical changes are necessary. Our democracy, our culture, our economic and social well-being will be influenced by the outcome of the convention's debate on the future of Europe. Scotland cannot allow herself to be excluded from decisions on arrangements that may last for decades. There is perhaps no better illustration of the Executive's negligence than its failure to secure places for Scotland on the convention. We are debating this crucial issue here in Edinburgh, but our European neighbours are meeting elsewhere and this Parliament and Government will be posted missing.

It was left to the SNP to secure Scotland's only two representatives at the convention: Professor Sir Neil MacCormick MEP and Councillor Keith Brown will be present, ensuring that Scotland is represented. The European Committee will welcome that, because it supported full and active Scottish participation.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I know that Richard Lochhead would not willingly mislead the Parliament, but he might acknowledge that Lord Maclennan was a Scottish Liberal Democrat MP—and, before that, a Labour MP—for a long time and that he, a Scot, is there at the convention. He is there as a substitute for a full member and not simply as an observer. Mr Lochhead might also acknowledge that Sir John Kerr, a Scot, is a key figure in the whole convention set-up. Therefore, to suggest that Scotland is dependent only on the SNP to have anyone anywhere near the scene is totally misleading.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I assure the minister that he cannot pull the wool over the people of Scotland's eyes. The people he mentions are representing the Westminster Government but no one is representing the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. That is a fact. I urge the minister to give a commitment today that he will work with Scotland's sole representatives on the convention to ensure that our views are taken on board.

Impending enlargement may be the catalyst for the current debate, but change is long overdue. We should never lose sight of the fact that the European Union has been successful in ensuring peace through economic co-operation. Europe has also brought people of different cultures together and has allowed neighbouring states to act together on issues of common interest. Much economic and social progress has been inspired by European co-operation. Indeed, in the dark days of Westminster rule, Europe was often the source of the few progressive social and environmental policies that made their way to Scotland.

Too many Scots now view European institutions as remote, power hungry and stuffed with highly paid and overly bureaucratic officials who dream up new regulations to keep themselves busy. If any MSP asks any farmer, fisherman or businessperson what Europe means to them, the answer will be that it means inflexible and often damaging regulations, and endless paperwork. That situation has arisen for several reasons. One is the lack of influence that Scotland wields over European policy and the failure to use what limited influence is available to us to ensure that Scotland's views are taken into account. We are reminded of that every time ministers get to their feet at question time and explain that it is Europe that takes the decisions on genetically modified crops, export bans on Scottish meat, state subsidies and fishing and farming regulations. What little influence is available, the Scottish Executive fails to use. We need look no further than the coalition's atrocious record of attendance at the Council of Ministers.

In a parliamentary answer to a question of mine, the minister said that between March 2000 and December 2001, the Scottish Executive was represented at only 12.8 per cent of meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is an atrocious rate of attendance, which has already been referred to by Labour members. It is no wonder that the European Committee is calling for more involvement in such meetings and, indeed, for an automatic right to attend the Council of Ministers.

The Executive has led at only three meetings of the Council of Ministers since devolution—twice on education and once on health. Mr Wallace says that the criterion for leading is common sense; if common sense is the criterion, why on earth are we not leading the United Kingdom delegations on matters to do with agriculture and fisheries?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Is Mr Lochhead seriously suggesting that all the useful work that is done at meetings of the Council of Ministers or elsewhere is actually agreed on the day during some kind of cosy chat among those who attend? Is it not the case—as Angus Robertson MP pointed out when giving evidence to the European Committee—that the SNP's ambition is for individual parliamentarians to do a lot of travelling to European institutions to find out what is going on?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member is displaying his ignorance. However, he is right to suggest that much of the work is done before meetings. If the member investigates the Scottish Executive's attendance at the thousands of working groups that take place every year prior to meetings of the Council of Ministers, he will find that its rate of attendance is 10 times worse than its rate of attendance at the Council of Ministers.

As the European Committee's report points out, the treaties enable member states to delegate their votes on the Council to sub-member state Governments, yet we have the ludicrous situation in Scotland that, even for a subject as predominantly Scottish as fisheries, Scottish ministers are so weak that they will not stand up to London and demand the lead role in negotiations. Contrast that with the situation in Belgium, where the Flemish have taken the lead role for that member state as of right since the beginning of this year. Why can the same thing not happen in Scotland?

We know that we cannot rely on London ministers—even the National Farmers Union of Scotland now says so. Jim Walker of the NFUS appeared before the Rural Development Committee in September. He said:

"There is a fundamental weakness in the political set-up in this country, as we seem unable to influence—we cannot influence—at the highest level the negotiations that take place in Europe".—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 18 September 2001; c 2147.]

Even Scottish industries are coming round to the SNP's viewpoint that the current arrangements simply do not work for Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member surely ignores the fact that, at the very highest level, a number of representatives of Scotland operate on behalf of Scotland and the United Kingdom within Europe—for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Foreign Secretary. The member must take such facts on board.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I inform the member that what is required is for this Government and this Parliament to be represented in the decision-making processes, so that votes are cast on behalf of Scotland.

Scottish ministers prefer to rely on secretive and cosy little joint ministerial councils in a vain bid to influence London's European policies. There have been only two JMCs on Europe since devolution, and Labour's internal problems prevented it from attending one of those. Labour has actually attended only one JMC on Europe since devolution. The closer London gets to the negotiating table, the further Scotland is from its mind. Despite the opportunities offered by Scotland's new constitutional status, Scotland continues to be sidelined and silenced in Europe. Ministers are caught in the headlights. They are too timorous to stand up to London, but the people of Scotland rightly expect them to deliver.

Another reason for reform is that Europe does too much at the centre. If the Scottish public is to continue to support Europe, we should never take that support for granted. If this Parliament is to retain legitimacy, only decisions that have to be taken at European level should be taken there. Subsidiarity should be Europe's guiding principle rather than some airy-fairy academic concept. We need only look at the common fisheries policy to see what happens when subsidiarity is not put into practice.

The SNP believes that we should support a Europe that allows all its nations, regions and communities to have a say in the decision-making process. The EU exists for its citizens and not for political elites. We need a people's Europe where all communities are listened to and involved. It is therefore essential that the people of Scotland are at the heart of the forthcoming debate on the reform of Europe.

Scottish ministers should aim to maximise our influence in Europe. Under devolution, that means securing mechanisms that allow Administrations with considerable legislative powers, such as the Scottish Parliament, a direct role in decision making and, as the committee argued, access to institutions such as the European Court of Justice. If we do not ensure that Scotland's voice is heard, the report that we are debating today will be left to gather dust on the shelf. The SNP's objective is to place Scotland at the heart of decision making through independence in Europe. Real influence will be acquired only by securing a seat at the top table alongside other small independent European nations. Is it any wonder that Scotland is Europe's invisible nation, given the Scottish Executive's current policy?

The SNP wants Scots to grow up in a confident and vibrant Scotland that stands alongside our neighbours at the heart of EU decision making. We want to grow up in a Europe that recognises the need not only for co-operation but for diversity and democratic legitimacy at international, national, regional and local levels. Scotland is lumbered with a Government that does not know whether it is coming or going in Europe. Ministers are unclear about their role and unwilling to stand up to London. It is time for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to seek maximum influence in Brussels to ensure that we help to shape the future of Europe.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome the publication of the report and the beginning of the debate on future European governance and how that will plug into an enlarged European Union. I would like to bring the debate back to the report and the discussions about the future of Europe, rather than talk about who did not turn up to what ministerial meeting—the usual fantasy politics of the SNP. That is obviously part of the SNP's repositioning to the bottom of the polls. The SNP is not going to get anywhere if it carries on like that.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I will get into my speech, which deals with the report. Given that Mr Lochhead was not on the committee and so did not turn up to many of its debates, it would be quite good for him to listen.

I spent last week's recess in Savoie in France. Savoie, much like parts of Scotland—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Mr Wallace was sliding downhill as usual.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I was not minister for tourism at the time, so it was all right.

Savoie is sandwiched between Italy and Switzerland. Like many regions in the EU, it feels alienated. As a result, there has been a surge in nationalism in that part of Europe. Savoie feels alienated from how decisions are made within France and within the European Union. That issue is at the heart of why we are beginning the debate on European governance.

Today, we have round one of the convention in Brussels. Unlike the SNP, I do not believe that every sub-nation state should have a place in that, as a convention of some 750 people would be pushed to come to a conclusion. I have faith that my colleagues in Westminster will put forward our views. I talk to them a lot, trying to ensure that we get a position and fight for the best that we can get. That is the best way to reach a practical framework.

The Scottish Executive and COSLA have produced a clear position—I do not agree with it, but at least they did it in advance. In contrast, Peter Hain is going to Europe with no clear position; he will discuss most things in secret and, as usual, the decisions will probably be made in secret. That is not the way to deal with the problem of people feeling alienated from Europe. It will be another step away. People will ask how the convention came up with the framework. France has held regional meetings. Ministers have gone out to discuss with people what they think the future European structure and institutions should be. It is a shame that we start day one by aggravating the problem that we are trying to solve.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Would the member accept that the Minister of State for Europe has agreed to come to the committee and work with us to formulate a position on the convention?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister came to the committee and did not give any position. That is the point: we need to have a position from which to start the debate. The European Union produced the green paper in July 2001. That was the framework and we all discussed it. Nearly every member state has discussed that green paper and used it as its starting point. Mr Blair chose to go to Warsaw, where he stated that he wanted a second chamber, but was not very clear about the future of Europe. Mr Hain wrote a very good book on the future of Europe, called "Ayes to the Left". According to his book, Mr Hain is an enemy of Europe—the book was very anti-EU and anti-euro. Clearly things have moved on since he got a ministerial position.

The questions were put out by the EU for us to discuss. The UK position is important because it is through that position that we in Scotland engage in the debate. Did Mr Hain answer the question as to whether he wanted a second chamber? He moved from Tony Blair's position to that of "Perhaps, maybe". Mr Hain said that he wanted greater transparency in Europe, but he was not prepared to open up the Council of Ministers. He did not discuss the number of commissioners or MEPs. He did not discuss many of the things into which we are trying to have an inquiry. That is not the way to go about things. If we do not have a position, we cannot have a debate and we cannot engage people in Scotland in deciding how the future should be shaped.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Does the member accept that this is the beginning of the debate? The minister came to the committee and we invited him back—he is coming in a month or so. That visit will be an opportunity to engage in the debate further. The European Commission has not even closed its consultation yet. Today, we are engaging in the debate.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Irene Oldfather is slightly wrong. If the European Commission can produce a framework and if the Scottish Executive, COSLA, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats can produce a position, why on earth can the UK Government not produce a basic position on which we can have a discussion? The positions that it has indicated have moved over the past 18 months—from second chamber to no second chamber and from no subsidiarity panel to a subsidiarity panel. That is the problem. We cannot engage with Peter Hain's views, because we are not allowed to be involved in the process.

Should we be so grateful that the minister might come to the European Committee after the agenda of the convention has been set? Why can we not be there in advance? I am not asking for a right of access to the convention, as the SNP is. I am asking to be treated with decency—the decency that my constituents deserve—and to be consulted on the position and to have a discussion. Every other member state in Europe talks to its citizens about the future of Europe. I do not think that the current position is good enough if we are to solve the problems of future governance.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Ben Wallace says that he does not expect Scotland to be given a right to sit on the convention. Does he not think it strange that small European nations that are not in the EU have a right to be in the convention, when Scotland, which is part of the EU, does not?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As the member knows, Scotland is part of the UK, which has a right to be in the convention. If Richard Lochhead is saying that every sub-nation state should have a position on the convention, there would be hundreds of positions. Let us ensure that whatever we engage in through the UK is subject to proper consultation and open discussion.

I said that the Scottish Executive and COSLA were up front in that. There is a remarkable similarity between the positions of COSLA and the Scottish Executive, and Richard Spring, the MP who came up to give the Conservative position. I welcome that. It is good news that we are working in sync on some issues.

Europe has to put its money where its mouth is—it must match words with actions. What does further integration mean? What does bringing Europe closer to the people mean? We cannot say that we are bringing people closer to decision making if we are taking powers away from member states or extending the qualified voting majority. That does not add up. If one believes in bringing decisions closer to the people of Europe, one should devolve more decisions downwards and have greater belief in a subsidiarity panel, to ensure that decisions are made at the right level for the right people.

Europe must decide where it wants to go. People have a genuine fear that more powers will go to the centre, leading to a state of Europe. Some will say that it is a federal state of Europe. If we decide to have a directly elected president—one of the options in the governance inquiry—and a constitution, we must recognise that those are elements of a federal system. There is a debate to be had. It is possible to bring people closer to decision making in Europe in a federal system. Conservatives do not think that that is the right way to go. Nevertheless, if we had a federal system like that of America, it would bring more decisions closer to the people. However, that would be at the expense of the powers of member states and even devolved institutions.

Europe has to decide—that is the challenge. It cannot say one thing, then do another. That is why we think that the best way forward is through many of the report's recommendations. I do not agree with the European charter of fundamental rights and dissented on that matter in the report. I had serious questions on direct access to the Court of Justice, as did the Scottish Executive. However, we must make clear what we want in respect of making decisions in Scotland and influencing Europe. We cannot have it both ways. If there is no open system of consultation with the UK Government in which we can engage with the Minister of State for Europe and make our position clear on the Government's position, we will simply extend the alienation of people in this country from Europe and the European institutions. Whatever one's view of Europe is, that will not be good for the future and it will end up only compounding the problem.

Many recommendations in the report should be adopted and I hope that the UK Government listens to our concerns and engages with us fully.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be open debate until noon, so members' speeches should be around five minutes.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Not many members are in the chamber, although the debate is one of the most important that the Parliament will have. This is the start of a process. The debate is important to get into nitty-gritty issues that Irene Oldfather and Ben Wallace mentioned.

Changes in European governance affect every person in Scotland. We face a major challenge in communicating those changes and engaging the citizens of Scotland in dialogue about them. If we are to be successful in that debate, we must get back to first principles and think about why we are in Europe and what Europe should deliver.

After the second world war, the aim was to bring economic stability and peace to Europe. We should think about such fundamental issues and the development of a social Europe, which the Labour party has strongly supported. Latterly, Europe's aim has been to take collective action on global environmental problems. We are in Europe because of such reasons.

Enlargement will bring more nations into the European structures. It will require different ways of working and a model of interdependence between different states, with different powers at different levels. The real challenge is not to create a superstate, as Ben Wallace suggested, but to create a set of institutions with democratic and transparent decision-making processes that people feel have legitimacy.

The European Committee report is excellent. It gives marker points that we need to argue for with the Executive, within the UK and with many other voices throughout Europe that are arguing for exactly the same things.

Scotland has the best of both worlds. We are part of the UK, which is a key and powerful member state. With a Labour Government, the UK has built up more respect in Europe. The Government does not simply go along with everything that is suggested, but engages constructively in dialogue and debate. It has real clout. Scotland also has input into Europe and can engage directly on issues that are of major significance to it.

There is also a challenge for MSPs, if we are to do our jobs properly. We should work and engage effectively with our MEP colleagues in all parties and with the UK Government to represent our interests in Brussels.

Members should think back over the past couple of years. We have had major successes in working together constructively on the CalMac tendering process, on getting the go-ahead for the Rosyth ferry with the freight facilities grant and on many fishing industry issues that have arisen in the past couple of years. Where we work together constructively and argue our case, we are successful. There should be co-operation.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No. I want to talk about the report. I might take an intervention later, but I want to proceed.

A key issue that the committee raised is the need to improve the Parliament's scrutiny of the Executive's work. I welcome Jim Wallace's constructive response on that. We cannot easily tackle the issue. If we are to get the right result in the UK and in Scotland, the Government must have some ability to engage in negotiations and dialogue without everything being open to discussion.

There are challenges running up to each Council meeting. Council meetings do not just drop from the sky—they are the result of years of discussion between member states and at the sub-member level. There are real opportunities for us, but we require to prioritise if we want to be effective. That also means making demands on the Commission. I agree strongly with Jim Wallace's and Irene Oldfather's comments on the importance of Europe engaging in pre-legislative discussion, as we have done in the Parliament. That can gear up Europe's citizens, businesses and stakeholder organisations to play a constructive part in the process.

We need to monitor what is happening in Europe and engage in dialogue at an early stage, so that we can prepare for opportunities that arise. For example, the proposed directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment is not the most exciting directive, but cleaning up Europe by dealing with electronic waste effectively is a major challenge. The challenge is to prepare and act now rather than wait until the directive reaches us. The Executive should take a lead and Scottish businesses should see opportunities. There is the unfortunate experience of the fridge mountain, which is getting larger in Scotland. We must learn from that experience and engage effectively. The job of MSPs is to work with the Executive.

I welcome the proposal to make each presidency an opportunity for a debate in the Scottish Parliament or the European Committee so that, every six months, we take stock and prioritise the work of the Parliament to enable our constituents and key stakeholders in Scotland to take part in debates, as we take part in debates in Europe.

Devolution reflects a huge step forward from the old nation states of the 19th century. It reflects the interdependence of states in Europe. There is a complex mix of traditional nation states, constitutional regions and sub-national and regional alliances that are developing throughout Europe. There is also the elected European Parliament, which we have not reflected on much this morning.

The challenge for Scotland is to build alliances with like-minded nations and regions and to add our voice to the process in Europe for democratic, transparent and more accessible institutions. The European Committee's report gives us a good starting point for that debate.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the report and thank the European Committee clerk and his team for the prodigious effort that they put into it.

I want to consider blockages in the information flow between people and institutions of the European Union. I shall address blockages that impinge on MSPs because, if we cannot get things right, there is little chance of informing the population properly.

In the joint submission to the EU by the Scottish Executive and COSLA, the Executive said:

"We propose that the legislative process (from Commission to European Parliament and Council) should be more transparent to enable interested bodies to know how the draft legislation is being modified."

That recognises the obstacles that are faced by every agency that is trying to penetrate the inner workings of the Commission or the Council of Ministers. As long as there is unjustifiable secrecy, there will always be a suspicion in the public mind that politicians may be selling out the best interests of their domestic electorates. If such secrecy is widespread in Europe, it severely damages the EU and erodes the principles for which it stands.

I welcome the Scottish Executive's stated commitment to transparency in Europe, but it has not always applied the same principle in respect of links between Scotland and the UK. This month, Malcolm Chisholm was asked which elected representatives had briefed the UK delegation on health prior to the EU health council in Brussels in November 2001. His reply was that the discussions are confidential. Last year, Jack McConnell gave the same response to a question about who had been involved in preparatory talks for the November 2000 IGC.

I do not know why there is such reluctance to part with even the bare bones of information about talks between Scotland and the UK, such as topics or names of the elected representatives. Is there an administrative blockage, a psychological blockage, or is it just that some people are stuck with the status quo? If devolution is a process and not a destination, the blockage must be cleared. To give no information at all can give the impression that no discussions took place. I know that that is not the case, but giving no information leaves the feeling that perhaps we were not as well represented as we might have been.

There are some healthy signs of change. When asked recently who had led UK delegations at the Council of Ministers, the Deputy First Minister provided three names. A question asking which Scottish Executive people had been present at Council of Ministers meetings produced the names and a list of 26 meetings at which they spoke when appropriate. I do not like the subordinate feel to that phrase, but they spoke when appropriate. Those responses hint at a more transparent way ahead. I welcome that.

The Scottish Executive response to the European Committee's report states:

"we believe arrangements can be developed which, while respecting the provisions of confidentiality, will provide the Committee with a greater opportunity to contribute to the Executive's discussions with the UK Government on EU matters."

The SNP welcomes that concurrence with the European Committee's report, and will do all that it can to promote transparency and positive dialogue. Given that the Deputy First Minister is prepared to announce publicly in the chamber the date and outline of meetings of joint ministerial committees, as part of that move to transparency, perhaps he will instruct his officials to provide the same information in advance of JMC meetings directly to the European Committee.

I am sure that unionist colleagues can logically understand—if they apply their logic to it, although their emotional attachment to the United Kingdom will prevent them from admitting it—that the removal of the United Kingdom tier, and the provision of direct Scottish representation in the European Community as a normal nation, would improve Scotland's negotiating position, and access to and information from the European Union.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I, too, welcome the European Committee's report on EU governance, which is a substantial and worthwhile contribution to the debate from a Scottish perspective.

Enlargement of the European Union is something for which we have long argued, as part of our Conservative vision of a wider and more flexible union of nation states. However, there is no doubt that enlargement has implications for the European Union's decision-making structures. The Scottish Conservatives want to make a positive and constructive contribution to the debate. That is one reason why we are hosting the conference of the European People's Party-European Democrats group in the European Parliament in Edinburgh in June.

Our constructive approach does not mean a blind or uncritical acceptance of policies that are not in this country's interest; that is why we oppose membership of the single currency. It is worth remembering that Sweden has remained outside the euro zone, and that the Danes rejected the euro in a referendum. Does anyone suggest that they are anti-Europe? It is, of course, a perfectly sane and rational position to be pro-Europe but anti-euro. Only crazy Secretaries of State for Scotland who need lessons in logic more than they need lessons in French fail to understand that or wilfully choose to misrepresent it.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

On the subject of being perfectly rational, is it rational to be opposed to the euro in principle, even if joining the euro is in this country's interests?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

It is inconceivable that joining the euro could be in this country's interests, because it has enormous constitutional significance—which relates to the debate about governance—as well as economic significance. One can converge economic and monetary policies without abandoning one's currency, as is the case with many other adjoining nation states in the world. One does not need to surrender all of one's sovereignty or power to a central bank to correlate economic policies between one member state and another. For example, the United States, Canada and Mexico, where such policies are closely co-ordinated, represent a far larger market than the European Union.

Equally, we do not believe that the present drift towards a more integrated and centralised European Union is in this country's interests. That is why we voted against the Treaty of Nice, along with our footballing friends in the Republic of Ireland. Such a drift is not sensible in an enlarged European Union, because decision making in a union of 28 states cannot be the same as that in a union of 15. The differences between member states will be far more pronounced, which must be recognised in the structure of the European Union of the future.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

If the member is so opposed to centralisation, why did he oppose the establishment of the Scottish Parliament?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

That is a good question, but the situations are not comparable. I am in favour of Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. The arguments against the Scottish Parliament were well known and well rehearsed. The miserable performance of the Scottish Executive in the Scottish Parliament during the past three years has diminished confidence in this institution rather than improved it. The miserable performance of the SNP has not encouraged anybody either.

At the heart of this debate about the future of the European Union is the question of democracy and accountability, which is encapsulated in the arguments over the extension of qualified majority voting. Our position is that there should be no further extension of QMV on European legislation, as it transfers too much power from the electorates in member countries and their national Parliaments to European Union institutions. QMV will undermine, not enhance, democratic accountability. Unanimity means that no decision can be taken that is, in effect, against the wishes of a national parliament.

When the power to make laws is moved to Brussels, it is not only centralised but moved from open discussion and debate in Parliaments to debate behind closed doors, where no one can follow the deliberations and the votes. In that respect, I welcome the recommendation in paragraph 223 of the European Committee's report that meetings of the Council of Ministers, when they are performing a legislative function, should take place in public. That would be a substantial improvement on the present position. I endorse that recommendation.

The threat that the integrationist mentality poses to democracy has been illustrated vividly by the treatment of the Republic of Ireland since it had the temerity to reject the Treaty of Nice in a referendum. The European Union seems intent on treating that vote as if it never took place and pressing on regardless, ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Irish people do not think that the treaty is in their national interest, and that legally the treaty must be ratified by all 15 member states. That does not bode well for democracy in Europe and should serve as a warning to all those who naively believe that an independent Scotland in the European Union would be in a stronger position than Scotland currently enjoys as part of the United Kingdom.

The Conservative approach is based on extending the democratic control of peoples in the member states over legislation coming out of Brussels. In short, that means putting into practice the principle of subsidiarity. Decisions should be taken at the most appropriate level. In many cases, that will mean devolving decisions to national Governments, which can then decide whether they need to be decentralised further to institutions within member states.

Our political opponents largely want to see Scotland submerged in a more closely integrated and centralised political and economic union, either within the United Kingdom or on our own, but they know that that is unpopular so they are engaged in a campaign of federalism by stealth. Our opponents talk repeatedly about incrementals and the next step; we talk about fundamental issues. It is time for all parties in this debate to put their cards on the table and talk about the endgame to which they aspire, not just the next trick.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the European Committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the advisers to the committee for producing the report, which is a useful first step in our debate about developing democracy. I welcome the debate on the basis that today sees the first meeting of the convention that will discuss the future constitution of the European Union; it is a timely piece of history.

Unfortunately, we are a number of years behind the real debate in Europe that informs the IGC. The real debate in Europe is about whether we want a Europe that is an economic market or a Europe of political structures that suit the peoples of Europe and not the states. In Scotland, with the existence of this Parliament, we are living in a radically new political world. Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies. The nature of the United Kingdom has changed, and the United Kingdom, unionist parties and unionist voters must think seriously about their input to democracy through the sieve or censorship of Westminster and the UK Government.

A new world order is developing in Europe, but we are trapped in old order ideas of nation states, grasping at and holding desperately on to their power, competing and arguing with one another in the Council of Ministers. That is not the natural way to deal with democratic development.

After several years' debate about access to democracy in the European Union, Catalunya has established its own convention. Many of what unionist politicians call sub-nation states, and what I call states-in-waiting or stateless nations, desire to put pressure on Brussels, not their own central Governments, to make Brussels recognise that subsidiarity must be applied. If powers have been granted to regions or nations, Brussels must recognise them. I firmly believe that that is how we should progress the debate. Our argument is not with a United Kingdom Government of any colour, but with the Commission and the European Parliament, which have failed to recognise their principle of subsidiarity.

The debate is merely a beginning. We must get away from the idea that giving away anything in the debate on the convention and on the future of democracy in Europe limits and demeans the nation state. The extension of democracy demeans no state and diminishes no power. It empowers the people—that is the basic principle of democracy.

In the 21st century and through the IGC, we have an opportunity to build the Europe that we want. The SNP supports the concept of a Europe of the peoples. Everyone in the unionist parties supports the concept of a Europe of the nation states. I say that that is an abdication of responsibility, but I believe that unionism is an abdication of responsibility for any Scot, Welshman or Irishman. We must take responsibility for ourselves, and, more important, for future generations.

Between now and 2004, the creation of a constitution will be discussed. That could affect our children and our children's children. I do not understand the desperate worry about giving up power. This country has entered into economic, military and political alliances throughout the past 1,000 years, and some of them have endured considerably longer than the union. We hope that the European Union will endure considerably longer than the UK union will.

We must take that long-term vision. What do we want Europe to be? Do we want it to be purely an open and free market, as many neo-liberalists in the Liberal party and the Labour party and the firm neo-liberalists in—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way?

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am more than happy to.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

This morning's debate has reflected the fact that we have moved on in the past couple of decades. Lloyd Quinan seems to be talking about people from the Labour party of 20 years ago. We recognise that the classic nation state of the 19 th century has moved on. Europe is more complex. It has a mixture of nation states and cross-regional alliances. It would help if Lloyd Quinan debated the present position, rather than the past.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I do not accept that, and I am unsure what point Sarah Boyack was trying to make. I do not accept that the nation state is purely a 19th century concept. That is a concept of British political historians and political scientists—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It is what you guys want.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That is not the debate that political scientists in mainland Europe hold.

The importance of the debate is exemplified by what is happening in Spain between the Basque autonomous community and the Spanish Government. Because it lacks involvement in the convention, the Basque Government is retaining the taxation that it collects on behalf of the Spanish Government. It will refuse to hand that over until it has assurances about the democratic structures for which Spain will argue. We should be in the same position. We must recognise the importance of the debate in every country, and, most important, for every citizen.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I congratulate the European Committee on compiling the report, which took six months' hard work. The report has much content and is worth reading, but I suspect that few people will read it with the attention that it deserves.

As Irene Oldfather said, the report is intended to stimulate further discussion. I take that on board, so I will find it slightly difficult to support Irene Oldfather's motion, which asks us to support all the report's recommendations. Many of the recommendations are good, but I disagree with many conclusions, which gives me difficulty. However, I suspect that I will support the motion later, as I recognise Irene Oldfather's good intentions.

I cannot deal in five minutes with six months' work on the report, but I will pick up on one or two recommendations. I am concerned about a recommendation by the committee's adviser, who seems to think that the Executive is undermanned on European affairs. She proposed considerable expansion of Scottish Executive officialdom's involvement in European issues. That would be a mistake and the recommendation is regrettable. As Sarah Boyack suggested, officials here and in Whitehall must work together on the key issues that will benefit the United Kingdom as a whole, Scottish citizens and citizens of the UK's other home countries.

The recommendation in paragraph 208 on simplification and rationalisation of European regulation and rulings should lie at the heart of the run-up to the IGC. We all face that problem. When we examine simplification, we must consider the way in which the United Kingdom treats European regulation. Perhaps too often, I blame Europe for all our ailments, but the UK often faces problems because of the way in which European law has been implemented here. I believe that officials are sometimes over-enthusiastic about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. We must examine that.

The report recommends

"that serious consideration is made to the creation of 'partners of the Union status' for bodies such as the Scottish Parliament".

That goes over the top. Our partnership is with the UK Government. For the United Kingdom and people in Scotland, strength in Europe comes from a united voice in Europe.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Does the member recognise that in some of the recommendations, including that which he quoted, the committee is talking about access to the European Commission? Having that access at a pre-legislative stage would give us the influence that Phil Gallie said that he wanted, to provide better legislation that connects with people.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I accept that. Irene Oldfather emphasised my initial point that the report is intended to stimulate debate and get minds moving. Such clarification is helpful. It is needed not only on paragraph 209, but on a raft of issues that the report raises.

The report has been produced in the run-up to the IGC. I am concerned about the reason for the establishment of the IGC. Other nations have other ideas. Just last night, the French Europe minister said that, with the introduction of a single currency and plans for a European arrest warrant, a common army and a unified legal system,

"we are building something which is profoundly federal or a true union of states".

If the IGC goes down that line, it will be distanced from the devolved ideas that all in the Parliament are supposed to embrace.

We believe that people in the United Kingdom should be able to establish their own opinions and that we should be able to deal with the issues for our citizens in the way that we feel is most appropriate, but others in the IGC may have another agenda. That was underlined by Ben Wallace's comment that it is all-important for the UK Government to publish a white paper that states clearly the UK approach to the IGC. To do so would mean that no one in this country would have any doubts about the objectives that we seek.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am a passionate European. That stems from my early days, when I was fortunate to study in The Hague and met a generation of lawyers of my age who were passionately in favour of creating the European institutions.

In 24 years in Europe, my stance has not changed. I remember well that I met Irene Oldfather on many occasions in Europe. I am aware that the passion that I feel for Europe is shared throughout the chamber and that it crosses the party divide. I say that quite genuinely.

In my time, I found it odd that the Labour party was split on Europe before it became very pro-Europe, unlike the Tory party, which was very pro-Europe before it changed its stance. It is odd to have been in Europe for so long and to have seen so much change. I saw Parliaments gaining powers, but Parliaments always want more powers. That is also true of Europe—indeed, the European Parliament does not have enough powers.

I have questions for the minister who is to sum up for the Executive. In the run-up to the IGC, will the Executive press for better access to political units within member states? Will it press for the point that Irene Oldfather made in her opening speech about simplification of the treaties, which is vital? Will it press for the Council of Ministers meetings to be held in public when the council meets in a legislative capacity? Many people become disenchanted with Europe because such meetings are not held in public. Will the Executive press for the Scottish Parliament to have direct access to the European Court of Justice? We are not far from that position, but if local authorities have access to the court and the Scottish Parliament does not, surely that deficit should be corrected.

The European umbrella affects 80 per cent of our devolved powers, so it is vital that we have more access to Europe. I am pleased that the report admits that there is a lack of access and seeks ways to improve it. To that extent, I am happy to support the report.

As everyone knows, I want Scotland to be a normal country—one that sits at the top table. It is ironic that all the unionist parties in the chamber accept the right of Malta to be at the top table and the right of Luxembourg, which has not a single bit of coastline, to make decisions about fishing. The unionist parties believe sincerely that we are better off with the UK Government negotiating on our behalf.

I have so many examples of the UK not doing a good job for Scotland that I could take up all the time that is left in the debate with them. Fishing is a case in point. The UK Government supported Spain and not Scotland. Projects often fail because Britain is the worst in the EU at securing matching funds for projects. That often means the failure of good projects that affect people in all parts of Scotland. When the Chunnel was built, the UK Government did not ask for any money for Scotland—or for the north of England. That shows how good a job the UK Government did in representing Scotland.

Not long before the Scottish Parliament was established, the legal affairs committee of the EU visited Edinburgh. Henry McLeish, the former First Minister, gave an assurance to the committee, which was composed of some of the most distinguished professors of law from across Europe. He said that, when Scottish interests dominated—fishing comes to mind—a Scottish minister would automatically undertake the negotiations. Sadly, that assurance has not been honoured. It seemed a good idea and, at the time, I believed him.

Irene Oldfather mentioned the need for early scrutiny. If we consider the absurdity of applying the working time directive to fishermen in fairly small crews, we can see that Scotland should have been in on those negotiations at an earlier stage. Instead, we are presented with the opportunity to scrutinise only when such directives are almost written in tablets of stone. That is a pity, but with the attitude that is expressed in the report, we could change that situation.

I find it sad that the unionist parties are happy that Scotland has eight MEPs when Denmark has 16 and Ireland has 15. Scotland has four members on the Committee of the Regions whereas Denmark has nine. The Committee of the Regions is an underestimated body. I did not believe that it would come so quickly into force. If members look at Scotland's representation on the committee, one could say that we need nine members to represent all the regions of Scotland including Shetland, the Borders, the Western Isles and the kingdom of Fife. It is sad that, when we could use nine seats, we are told that we have to be happy with four.

It is even sadder to see that the unionist parties are content with that sub-status. That is the saddest thing about the Scottish Parliament and many people outwith the Parliament agree about that. I remember well my personal friendship with Jo Grimmond and Johnnie Bannerman, who must be turning in their graves. They wanted the powers of Canada in a federal UK, but the Liberals are presently low in ambition.

It is often said that Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU. The official new view of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart and of Dr Noe, the leader of the European Commission, is that that is not so. Under international law, when a state divides into two bits—Norway and Sweden are an example—the treaties that covered the original state automatically cover the bits. That has been proved under international law in the case of Norway and Sweden and in the case of the Czechs and the Slovaks. It may come as a surprise, but that very independent state of Ireland remained in the Commonwealth for decades after it became independent.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, I will not give way, as I am about to finish.

Any improvement is welcome. I support the hard work that has been done to create the report—it is an amazing volume. However, as everyone knows, I want Scotland to be as normal and as independent a country as other members of the European Union are.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, support the report that is before us today. I will concentrate on the Scottish Executive's written and oral response to the report and, in particular, on the issues of direct access and transparency and one or two of the report's recommendations.

Before I do that, I want to reflect on the fact that even the Scottish Executive's introduction to its written response gives the game away on its position. Five key driving principles are given for the Scottish Executive strategy. Members will be delighted to hear that the Executive is pro-European—that is probably a reasonable start—and that it is pro-debate, which, given that we are having a European Committee debate on Europe, is good.

The language in the section of the driving key principles that explains why the Executive is pro-UK is interesting. Apparently, it is pro-UK not least because

"that allows decisions to be made in the right place."

There is no explanation, simply an assertion that that is the case. That shows that the Executive takes more interest in—indeed, is obsessed with—where a decision is made than in whether the decision is right for Scotland. That would seem to be more of a justification for Westminster than a justification of a rationale on European thinking.

Comments have been made about whether the SNP is griping about lack of direct access—

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Yup.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Fitzpatrick may say that from a sedentary position, but lack of access is not an SNP gripe. I assume that Jim Wallace will speak again in the debate—if not, I am happy to let him intervene. I refer him to a comment that one of his colleagues made at the beginning of January. The famous George Lyon was quoted in an interview as having accused Ms Beckett of

"ignoring Scotland's needs in the EU council of farm ministers."

Mr Lyon also said that, if Scotland followed Ms Beckett's policy, we were heading for "disaster". That interesting article, which was published in The Herald, also noted:

"Mr Lyon's outspoken comments are understood to have been cleared with the party leadership."

That is an interesting point for Mr Wallace to clarify. Did Mr Lyon clear that statement and, if he was criticising Ms Beckett and her attitude on behalf of Scotland's farmers, where does that leave Mr Wallace's attitude to the SNP? How can he say that we are griping?

Mr Lyon also said:

"I know from my contacts in Brussels that Ms Beckett was posted missing from the Scottish interest in this. She simply did not support the Scottish position."

As I said, those comments, condemning Margaret Beckett and the absence of her support for Scotland, were cleared by the Liberal Democrat party leadership. The SNP did not make them.

I make no apologies for quoting again from Jim Walker of the NFUS, who believes that the lack of direct access is a systemic problem and who said that it was

"a fundamental weakness in the political set-up of this country".

He did not think that it was a question of the failure of Ross Finnie—another Liberal Democrat—but instead said:

"I do not believe that any rural development minister will be able to fulfil the functions that we believed they were to take on when agriculture was devolved to the Scottish Parliament"—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 18 September 2001; c 2147.]

In other words, the lack of direct access is impinging on the ability of a devolved Administration even to do its job properly, never mind to move on to debate the next stage in the process. Two Liberal Democrat members have been undermined by the minister's comments this morning. The absence of representation and the derisory turnouts at Council of Ministers meetings—Scottish ministers have attended one in eight—are not SNP gripes. We are simply identifying a systemic Scottish problem, which must be addressed.

It is argued that we do not need to attend Council of Ministers meetings because we are part of the process. I even heard former minister Sarah Boyack sort of sneer that we do not even need to be part of the working party groups for the same reason. However, the problem is that we do not know that we are part of the process. Ben Wallace was right to highlight the secrecy that surrounds much of this issue. We do not know what policies will be discussed at the Council of Ministers meetings. We do not know the information that comes from the UK to Scotland—that is secret. We do not even know the details of the discussions about who will be allowed to attend. It is ludicrous that we do not know who can go or—more to the point—why people cannot go. If we want to examine transparency, we should start by examining our own attitude within the current set-up before we look at the future.

I will end with one specific point about the recommendation in paragraph 243, which concerns the automatic right to attend meetings. The committee recommended that the concordats be revisited. However, the Executive rejected that and said that it is

"entirely satisfied with how the Concordats have operated".

The Executive does not want to attend EU meetings, even though we have the right to do so under article 203 of the EC treaty. The rationale behind that decision is interesting, because it is ridiculous. Apparently, we cannot attend Council meetings or change the concordats, because the concordats are, by their nature, "non-binding". That argument is ludicrous. If the concordats are "non-binding", that holds true for everything in them, not just the bits that we do not fancy.

The Executive's second reason for rejecting the recommendation in paragraph 243 is that such a right could not be granted to all devolved Administrations because of "practical considerations". Are we to assume that there are not enough chairs or that the table is not big enough? What on earth does "practical considerations" mean? If it matters that Scotland is represented in Europe, surely we can do better than that. Frankly, that is not a sustainable answer to the question of why we cannot redraw the concordats.

The Executive should trust itself. It is in the unique position of having an Opposition that wants to give it more power and more of a say, but it seems far too timid, or too modest, to accept that responsibility on Scotland's behalf.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We now move to wind-up speeches. As we are now exactly on schedule, speeches should be of the notified duration. I call David Mundell to wind up for the Conservatives. You have four minutes.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Although I was a member of the European Committee when it decided to embark on this report, I regret that I was not able to play a part in much of the report's compilation. As members have said, the report is to be commended. I also commend former committee convener, Hugh Henry, the new convener, Irene Oldfather, and the committee members and staff for putting so much work into the report.

The report offers a valid and serious contribution to the key issues surrounding the debate. Many points have been raised this morning; however, despite Duncan Hamilton's energetic speech, I was disappointed to hear nothing new or different from the SNP. Furthermore, apart from Sarah Boyack's thoughtful speech, I find it worthy of note that many Labour members have kept their light under a bushel instead of—as Ben Wallace pointed out—shedding some light on the Labour and UK Government position on many of the issues. Perhaps they do not want to have a fixed position because their position will need to change according to public opinion. No one can criticise the Conservatives for not clearly setting out our views on the matter.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will Mr Mundell set out the Conservative position on the euro?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I did not agree to take that intervention, but I will respond to it. If Mr Fitzpatrick had been listening, he would have heard Mr Ben Wallace, Mr McLetchie and Mr Gallie clearly express our views on a number of issues.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

rose—

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I must press on.

As Irene Oldfather said in her opening speech, we have not gripped the imagination of people in Scotland and the UK on European issues or secured the public debate that is needed. We must all address that situation. One of the most interesting recent statistics shows that 14 per cent of people in the UK thought that America was a member of the EU. Moreover, when people who claimed to have a clear understanding of the EU were pressed on their knowledge, it was discovered that they did not understand how the various mechanisms worked.

We can agree with the SNP on one point, however. In his evidence to the European Committee, Professor Neil MacCormick called for simplification of the treaties. That call is valid and we support the report's emphasis on transparency and accessibility. Indeed, we support the report's recommendations, because they underpin the Conservative view of a flexible and dynamic EU.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

As members have said, today is an auspicious day on which to hold a debate on the European Committee's "Report on the Governance of the European Union and the Future of Europe: What Role for Scotland?". The convention that was set up after Laeken to prepare for treaty reforms at the IGC in 2004 meets today for the first time at the start of a process that will be fundamental to the future of Europe.

The institution that we refer vaguely to as "Europe" has been changing and evolving since the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which established the European Coal and Steel Community. Does not that seem very distant? In 1957, the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community, which had six members. The first enlargement happened in 1973—when the UK, Denmark and Ireland joined—and membership has gradually built up to the current 15 members.

There was a rationalisation and extension of policy areas at Maastricht in 1993, when the EEC became the EC. Another major shift came in 1997 with the Treaty of Amsterdam, which saw the strengthening of the European Parliament's role. With ten central and eastern European countries preparing for membership and with pressure from sub-member state legislatures for more influence in policy making and the decision-making process, 2004 will see another major change in Europe's shape and modus operandi.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

With respect to 1957 and historical events thereafter, does the member agree that the common agricultural policy has been a millstone around Europe's neck? Given the imminent entry of many eastern European countries to the EU, would not the IGC be far better to direct its attention to that issue?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The answer is yes and no. Although we must tackle that issue, the right mechanisms must be in place to enable us to do so. Both aspects are equally important.

If we want the Europe that emerges from the IGC to be to our liking, now is the time to think hard about what we want and to ensure that our voice is heard. That voice will be immeasurably stronger if we can show that it is genuinely the voice of the people and that we have managed to engage our people in the debate about the future shape of Europe and how it works. The report is a good start in that process—many people have put much work and thought into it. However, unless it is but a strand in a much wider and more extensive debate we—as the Scottish Parliament—will have failed the Scottish people.

Sadly, UK Governments have in many ways in the past failed the people they represent in matters European. That has happened not only because they did not do enough to involve themselves in the decision-making process in Europe, but because of the way in which they have failed in Britain. They have failed to inform the British people about what was happening in Europe, they have failed to implement European legislation effectively—the recent fridge debacle is a case in point—and they have used Europe, often quite unfairly, as a convenient scapegoat and whipping-boy.

The blame should not rest solely on Governments, however. The media have not exactly been positive about Europe and have colluded in the scapegoating that I mentioned. Even in these more pro-European times, it is extremely disappointing that not one of our national papers has a correspondent in Brussels, when what happens there has such an impact on our lives. It is notable that today there is no mention in The Herald of the first meeting of such an important convention—its European pages were all about Euro 2008. That is fine in its place, but other more important things are happening.

If we are talking about blame, we must all, with a few honourable exceptions, admit to a share. How many of us have, as citizens of Europe, taken a close interest in what the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Council of Europe, the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament are doing? It is a waste of time and energy to dwell on or to apportion blame. It is more productive to accept that perhaps all our efforts to engage in Europe in the past have not been as effective as they could and should have been, and to bend our minds to how we engage ourselves and encourage others in shaping the Europe of the future.

The European institutions acknowledge that they have allowed themselves to become too remote from citizens. There is an honest desire among them to reconnect and to communicate better. The Scottish Parliament might be the youngest in the Union, but we can take pride in offering as a model the way in which we came into being and the way in which we try to operate in a real and inclusive partnership with our people.

The European Union allows us to work co-operatively with our nearest neighbours to our benefit, and to foster peace, prosperity, equity and environmental responsibility within and outwith our boundaries. I commend to the chamber the report and, more important, the wider campaign to involve the Scottish people in the development and success of the European Union of the future.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am a relative newcomer to participation in the European forum and I am not a member of the European Committee. However, I am pleased to close on behalf of the Scottish National Party.

We commend the European Committee for the thoroughness of its report, for the relevance of its recommendations and for providing the opportunity for the debate. The committee must be heartened by the widespread support here and in Europe for its findings. One of the most important issues now and in future is representation of Scotland in Europe. Members know that the SNP's view is that we suffer the worst of both worlds, because Scotland neither has independent representation, nor does it enjoy the benefits of sub-national government.

In respect of the EU Council of Ministers, for example, it is totally unacceptable that Scotland has no automatic right to be represented in UK delegations, even when devolved matters are being discussed and decided upon. I welcome the European Committee's acknowledgement of that deficit but, like others, I am disappointed by the Executive's response, which confirms its satisfaction with current concordats.

Governance—the topic of the report—is about the way in which the EU makes and implements decisions. It is increasingly recognised that good governance is about bringing decision making closer to citizens. A recurring theme in the debate—rightly so—has been the need to close the gap between European institutions and European citizens and to make the work of the EU more relevant, more comprehensible and more accessible to people.

The Committee of the Regions is the official voice of local and sub-national government in Europe. It was set up in 1994 and began its third mandate in February this year, which is when I became a member. It has a vital role as the protector of the principle of subsidiarity—another recurring theme in the report and the debate. I want to restate our position: it is entirely appropriate for Councillor Ken Bodfish, the leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, and others like him to be on that committee, but that is entirely inappropriate for MSPs. The removal of local government members runs counter to the legitimacy of the Committee of the Regions as the defender of local democracy. Despite our objections to that, I intend to advocate the cause of Scotland. Indeed, I was led to believe that putting Scotland's interests first was an aim that is shared by all members of the Scottish delegation. It would be very satisfying to have a "team Scotland" approach, but from my limited experience, we seem just to be fighting the same battles along the same party lines but in a European context.

My first introduction to the Committee of the Regions was a welcome letter from the leader of the UK delegation. It contained the phrase:

"I know that the contribution of Labour colleagues was of particular importance in ensuring that UK interests were well represented on the Committee of the Regions."

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In a moment.

That was followed three days later by a second letter, drawing attention to the "deliberate" mistake:

"I mentioned the contribution of Labour colleagues, but of course this was a typo and should have read all colleagues."

Indeed it should.

I have a word of advice for Nicol Stephen, a fellow member of the Committee of the Regions, who was unable to attend the first meeting of the UK delegation. Richard Lochhead might want to note that that is another meeting that Scottish ministers did not attend. Nicol Stephen gave his proxy vote to a Labour councillor. The first issue under discussion was a motion—proposed by a prominent English Liberal Democrat—that we cease to elect our office bearers under the old first-past-the-post system and bring ourselves into the 21st century by utilising a form of proportional representation. Although he had the support of the SNP, he lost the vote. The deputy minister might like to know that his proxy vote was cast against his own colleague and in opposition to one of the main principles of his party.

The convention on the future of Europe, which holds its inaugural meeting today, provides an historic opportunity to review the role and image of EU institutions that impact on the lives of our people. It offers an opportunity to debate proposals that will effectively modernise and democratise European Union institutions. It is important that the people of Scotland are fully involved in that process. We must promote such engagement. That was wholly recognised by the committee, but only to a degree by the Executive, which is a bit disappointing.

It is important that the views of Scotland are heard.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I think I am closing.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes, you must close.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We have two Scottish representatives on the convention and, as Neil MacCormick said yesterday,

"The stateless nations in Europe—such as Scotland—will not be voiceless nations at the Convention. The SNP will be there to represent the needs of Scotland."

I hope that the minister and the Executive will co-operate with all our representatives in Europe for the benefit of Scotland, and not allow Scotland to be sidelined and silenced in Europe.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

When we discussed the structural funds at a recent debate, I made it clear that I am an unashamed Euro-enthusiast. I share the passion for Europe that Winnie Ewing, Irene Oldfather and others have described.

The development of the European Union over the past 40 to 50 years is one of the achievements not only of the previous century but of any century. Nation states across the globe have formed alliances over time and have seen those alliances shift, but the EU is one of the strongest alliances ever to have been created. Irene Oldfather was right to talk not only about how far the Scottish Parliament has come, but about how far Europe has come in the past 40 years.

I was always impressed in a previous job when I spoke to Winnie Ewing and others on my visits to the European Parliament and, when I was a member of the European Committee of the Regions for a number of years, to enter that hemicycle in Brussels and see up to 700 people discussing with each other matters that were common throughout Europe. As a council leader at that time, I dealt with matters with others who were doing similar jobs throughout Europe. Only 40 or 50 years earlier those nations were lobbing shells at each other and destroying Europe, but Europe now is strong.

As Sarah Boyack said, the European Union is fundamentally about a peace and security that is built on prosperity and strong trading links. The Executive strongly supports the process of enlargement. It is right to continue to build a base of prosperity and unity that will promote greater peace throughout Europe. However, the EU faces a major set of challenges from the enlargement process. It is clear that new or modified governance arrangements will be required. As many speakers in today's debate made clear, those new arrangements will need to be open, transparent and relevant—and seen to be relevant—to people throughout the EU and will need their consent.

The new arrangements will need to respect the value and the place of national Parliaments and recognise the diverse regions and the sub-member states that exist throughout the EU. In that context, Lloyd Quinan's analysis of the situation is fatally flawed. The debate is not only about nation states and the people. That reflects an overly simplistic view of where we are. Europe is a highly complex place and a directly elected European Parliament—

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Let me finish the point. A directly elected European Parliament in addition to member states, which included member states and sub-member states, is not desirable. New institutions have been developed to reflect the regional diversity that exists throughout Europe. We have institutions such as the Economic and Social Committee—ECOSOC—which is part of that process, and a range of social partners and civic societies around that. The debate is about how one ensures that those intricate parts of Europe operate in future for the better governance of Europe and about recognising existing diversity.

We also need, in that process, to ensure that subsidiarity is recognised. Members have talked about that issue today. We must protect subsidiarity. As well as the European Committee's views on doing that, we have suggested a mechanism. We also recognise the need for the long period of debate that we are now entering. As Ben Wallace indicated, the Executive made its position clear on that in its initial joint submission with COSLA and in its response to the European Committee's good report on the range of issues that emerged.

We are pro-European, as I indicated, and we are pro-UK for the reasons that other members indicated in today's debate. The Scottish position is stronger by being part of the UK delegation—and having the strength of that nation state in all discussions—than it would be if it were apart from that. We are also pro-reform. We think that there is a need for reform to make Europe more relevant to people over time so that they respect the institutions and make progress. We also support sub-member states' involvement and want to see that expanded.

We are also pro-debate. It is sad that, despite the fact that many good points were made in today's debate, virtually none of them came from the SNP. Its display really was sad and pathetic. The SNP always focuses on whether there are seats at the table of the current convention, but does not focus on what it would say if it ever got to the top table. It was clear from today's debate that the SNP has nothing to say. Its position is simply about symbolism, not about substance. I am afraid that that reflected a small-minded and petty approach.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No.

It is a strange logic that seeks to extract one from union with one's nearest neighbour and divide one from them so that one is unable to work with them, but somehow seeks also to unite one with other more distant neighbours. That does not make for strong logic.

Members of other parties made most of today's strong points. They expressed the need to look seriously at the European debate, to find ways forward in a complex situation and to address particularly the points that Winnie Ewing made. She was the only SNP member who made serious points about the European debate. She asked what the Executive would do about better access to Europe for political units within a state, about treaty simplification and about the openness of council procedures while they were in their legislative mode. I can confirm that we will press on all those matters, because the Executive wants to see change in them. However, we have a different view about access to the court system.

As I indicated, the Executive wants this debate on Europe to take place. We are anxious for people in Scotland to be allowed to participate fully in the debate and we will help to facilitate that over time. The European Committee's report is a first-rate means of helping to stimulate that debate in Scotland and to take these serious matters forward. I look forward to all parties in the chamber taking a much more serious approach to the substance of the debate in future.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

This report has been a major undertaking for the European Committee and, like other members, I would like to thank the two conveners who have been involved in the process: Hugh Henry, who started the work, and Irene Oldfather, who completed the operation. I also thank Stephen Imrie, the clerk, and his colleagues in the committee office.

The dictionary definition of governance is the exercise of authority. However, the debate that is being conducted throughout the European Union goes much further and is to do with clarifying the relationship between citizens and those who make decisions on their behalf at every level of government. Goodness knows, that is difficult. Most people are overwhelmingly indifferent about the process of government until something goes wrong. It is a sad commentary on all our democracies that there has to be a crisis before people take an interest in the process of government. However, we are all working to improve that situation.

It is worth remembering that the Scottish Parliament is the main feature of a seismic change in the governance of the UK that started in 1997. We have begun the process of making the governance of Scotland accountable to the people of Scotland but it will take a long time for our ministers to prevail over the ingrained habits of manipulation and secrecy among people who started their careers in Whitehall's Scottish Office. I see that that fact is being acknowledged by various people in the chamber.

It is difficult enough to achieve good governance in Scotland and the UK. Obviously, it is far more complicated in a multinational union of 15 member states that will soon take in 10 more countries. However, it is extremely important that we succeed in building up public confidence in the new European order.

You will recall that, yesterday, Presiding Officer, you and I were present at a ceremony in one of our committee rooms at which the Bosnian ambassador made a presentation to the family of a Scottish volunteer who was killed by a sniper in Sarajevo in 1993. The failure of governance in Yugoslavia, when citizens lost their respect for the institutions of their federal Government, when the economy and the social fabric of their state collapsed and when educated people who had lived together in a successful multinational state suddenly descended into the savagery of ethnic cleansing, demonstrates the sort of thing that can go wrong. If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have believed that such horrors were possible.

I happen to be a member of the first generation of Scots in recorded history that has not been involved in some kind of European or colonial conflict. We do not know how lucky we are. We have an overriding duty to develop public support for the European Union, not only to protect Scotland's economic interests but, most important, to reduce the risk of conflict for future generations of Scots. We must be actively engaged in the development and enlargement of the EU. Many of us were encouraged by Peter Hain's comments last week about progress towards British participation in the euro currency, but I would not expect the Tories to agree with me on that subject. For the purposes of this debate, I hope that the Parliament will endorse the agreed conclusions of the report of the European Committee on the subject of governance.

The Scottish Parliament is already leading a constructive debate about the role of regions and nations within member states in the constitutional development of the EU. Subsidiarity might be an awful word, but it is an excellent principle and we must ensure that that principle is practised. To that end, the European Committee is actively promoting contacts with other regions with legislative competence in Germany, Spain and Belgium.

We must achieve far greater openness and accountability in the work of the EU to ensure that citizens can influence decisions. We have already started that task by developing better representation of Scottish interests in our dealings with the European Council of Ministers and the Commission and by co-ordinating our activities with Scottish members of the European Parliament. As I was a minister representing Scottish interests, I have some experience of how the system works and can say that the line that was taken by the nationalists in this debate, that there is no input from the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament on European issues, is plain nonsense. We have powerful influence in the UK, the European Council of Ministers and the Commission.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I do not have time.

This debate about governance, following the Treaty of Nice, should pave the way for greater accountability at every level of Government throughout the EU. It is extremely important that Scotland should be fully engaged at every stage of that process. The European Committee has made a positive contribution to that debate and I hope that our report will be taken on board by the convention that started work today under the leadership of Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

Business Motion

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2802, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 6 March 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection - the Reverend Jack Holt, Minister of Birse and Feughside Church and Moderator of the Presbytery of Kincardine and Deeside followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) (Bill)

followed by Committee of the Whole Parliament: Stage 2 Debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2784 Johann Lamont: International Women's Day - 8 March 2002 Thursday 7 March 2002

9.30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Debate on the Scotch Whisky Industry followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Debate on Community Care

12.30 pm Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on the Homelessness Task Force followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Wednesday 13 March 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Ministerial Statement followed by Justice 1 Committee Debate on the Legal Aid Inquiry followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 14 March 2002

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business

12.30 pm Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 5 March 2002 on the Damages (Personal Injury) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/46).—[Euan Robson.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have an objection from Stewart Stevenson, so there will be speeches.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I bring to the attention of Parliament a matter that has arisen since the Parliamentary Bureau considered the business motion. It has arisen in relation to the plan for the stage 3 debate on the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday next week. I think that the majority of members are strong supporters of that bill. I and my SNP colleagues certainly are.

At yesterday's meeting of the Justice 2 Committee, we took evidence on the Executive's stage 2 amendment 16. That amendment was substantial in size, complexity and possible implications for Scots law. The principles of the amendment will receive broad support from many members, as they do from me. However, the committee took evidence from the Law Society of Scotland and from Professor Gane of the University of Aberdeen on the amendment. The upshot of that was that they sounded a substantial note of caution about whether one part of the amendment would be operable.

I will not cover the substantive issue just now—the stage 3 debate is the proper forum for that. I will make a point about processes and the risks that may be associated with rushing legislation. We have not rushed the bill—we first voted on it at stage 1 many months ago—but the committee has found itself in a position in which there are only 48 hours to consider whether we wish to amend section 8B, which was introduced by the Executive's stage 2 amendment 16. Furthermore, we do not have the Official Report of the evidence taken yesterday. That creates difficulties.

I would have preferred that the debate be postponed for a week, but I do not think that that will be possible. I therefore take the opportunity to urge the Executive to look carefully at section 8B, to consider the evidence that was given to the committee yesterday and to determine whether, with the resources that are available to it, the Executive will be able to fine-tune the amendment to address the points that were raised in yesterday's evidence, preserve the integrity of the bill and support women throughout Scotland in their fight against the heinous crime of rape.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The amendment to which Stewart Stevenson refers is the Executive's amendment on previous convictions, which was passed at stage 2. Ministers regretted having to lodge the amendment at stage 2, but the issue is complex and more time was needed to get it right. Ministers did not want to delay the introduction of the bill, which would have been a disappointment and a worry to victims groups.

The amendment was lodged on 5 December and considered during the second day of stage 2 on 18 December. It was passed with the committee reserving the right to take evidence on it prior to the stage 3 debate. The committee took evidence yesterday. Although that left only two days to lodge non-Executive amendments, committee members would have been aware of that when they scheduled the meeting. There have been 10 weeks in which the committee could have taken oral evidence or obtained written submissions. It is not appropriate to request postponement of stage 3 for the first time at what is a late hour.

Women's and victims' groups are anxious that the bill, which is important for the protection of complainers, be enacted as soon as possible. I assure Stewart Stevenson that the Executive will examine the detail of section 8B closely to ensure that it is proper.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what guidance it has given to local authorities on the closure of secondary schools. (S1O-4726)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

None.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for that somewhat short reply. Is he aware of Renfrewshire Council's plan to close St Brendan's High School in Linwood and St Cuthbert's High School in Johnstone and of the fact that 95 per cent of the members of the school boards have rejected the idea of the closure of the schools? Does not he agree that it would be appropriate for him to issue guidance on the closure of schools instead of taking the rather offhand attitude that he has taken so far in replying to the question?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The member asked what guidance there is and I gave an accurate answer, but perhaps I could explain more fully what the statutory procedures are.

When an education authority wants to change the provision of education, including the amalgamation or closure of a school, there is a statutory requirement for it to engage in a formal consultation process. Under the statutory procedures, which Lloyd Quinan might care to know are set out in the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, the authority would have to consult parents and the school boards. The authority must allow a minimum of 28 days for representations to be made to it before reaching a decision. There are also statutory requirements for a school closure proposal to be referred to Scottish ministers, but I will not go into detail about that at present.

David (None, Lothians)

Thank you.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will carry out a safety audit on junctions on the A9 trunk road in Perth and Kinross. (S1O-4733)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The Executive reviews annually injuries and accidents on all trunk roads, including the A9. In addition, a detailed accident analysis has been carried out on the A9 and its recommendations will be considered.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of my previous interest in the Ballinluig junction on the A9. I have in my hand a copy of the closed-circuit television surveillance report from BEAR Scotland, which was published today. It recommends that consideration be given to re-siting the camera to provide an improved view of through traffic and vehicle manoeuvres, which seems to vindicate local people's opinion that the CCTV camera was sited in the wrong place. Given that there seems to be an admission of inadequacy in the report and that the view of local representatives is that we need a grade-separated junction, will the minister now instruct a further report that is based on a re-sited camera?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We will use the evidence from the camera. We will also use the evidence from other studies that we have carried out at the junction. I am sure that Murdo Fraser is aware that we have announced our intention to hold an exhibition at Ballinluig in April this year to bring to the community's attention the favoured options and to elicit its comments on those.

We recognise the need for action at that spot. That is clear from the report that was published today. Before making final decisions, we will consider carefully the evidence and the responses of the Ballinluig community and the public to the exhibition in April.

David (None, Lothians)

As the question is geographically specific, I will call Keith Raffan.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that although the Ballinluig junction is one of the worst examples on the A9, many other parts of the road are extremely dangerous? Does he also agree that one way in which we can improve safety on the A9 is by increasing the dualling of that road? Will the minister tell us when he expects the Executive to be able to propose plans for dualling other stretches of the A9?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Keith Raffan knows well the state of the roads programme on the A9. As for other trunk roads, we do not anticipate further major projects emerging now, as was explained in the chamber recently in reference to the strategic roads programme.

We are looking at a number of areas on the A9 where improvements can be made. We expect that, in addition to Ballinluig, there will be improvements to the junctions at Auchterarder and at Blackford in connection with developments in those areas. We expect the developers to bear a significant part of the cost of those improvements.

Road safety on the A9 remains one of our priorities. We will continue to examine the accident record and to consider the lessons to be learned from that in our attempts to target investments that will improve safety on the road.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will next meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and what issues will be discussed. (S1O-4735)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Scottish Executive representatives meet COSLA on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At his next meeting, will the minister take the opportunity to question why, in view of the "substantial increase"—in the minister's own words—in funding to local government, most councils have increased council tax well above the rate of inflation while cutting services? Is this the Executive's new stealth tax?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As Mr Harding rightly pointed out, the Executive has been extremely generous in its grant settlement this year, as it has in the past two years, giving more than 10 per cent more additional resources. Most councils have brought in council taxes exactly on the targets that they predicted last year. In many cases, councils have brought in council taxes below that target. That is because of the generous grant that the Scottish Executive gives.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Instead of listening to the prophets of doom and gloom, will the Executive ask COSLA to encourage all Scottish local authorities to support the joint bid for Euro 2008, which would be of immense benefit to the whole of Scotland and to Scottish sport, tourism and the economy?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That matter would not normally be on the agenda for meetings with COSLA, but I am more than happy to raise it at my next meeting. I am sure that, as always, COSLA will act in the interests of Scotland.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to implement the recommendations in the homelessness task force report. (S1O-4755)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Yes. As I made clear in launching the report yesterday, the Executive fully endorses the recommendations contained in the task force's report. I also announced that the Executive has allocated an extra £11 million over the next two financial years to support the task force's recommendations, which are a blueprint for preventing and alleviating homelessness. I was further pleased to announce that the Cabinet has agreed a legislative slot later this year to deliver the task force's recommendations in statute.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am sure that the minister will join me in congratulating the housing and homelessness organisations and the individuals who have contributed successfully to the work of the task force.

When implementing the recommendations, will the minister undertake to confront directly perceptions about people who become homeless? In particular, will he undertake to promote recognition of some of the causes of homelessness, including unemployment, relationship breakdown, domestic abuse, illness and addiction, so that people who become homeless are recognised as being not different or failed but human beings of the same worth as anyone else in Scotland?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Angus MacKay is right. That is not surprising, given his professional background as a campaigner for a homelessness charity. The involvement of such a wide range of experts in the task force gives it its strength.

The report includes firm recommendations to improve the provision of health care, employment opportunities and social support for the homeless. All too often, the problems that lead to homelessness are problems that could strike any of us or our families at any time. The monitoring group, which is the successor to the task force, will expect us to do work to ensure that there is wider understanding of that among the public. Addressing homelessness involves addressing a housing problem, but there is often an attitude problem that must be addressed as well.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To what extent does the minister believe that the withdrawal of housing benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds by the Tories in the 1980s impacted on homelessness among young people? What representations—if any—has the Scottish Executive made to Her Majesty's Government over the past three years to seek the restoration of those benefits?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

If Kenny Gibson reads the report, he will find that it makes recommendations on issues that it believes to be major contributors to homelessness. If it does not comment on the issue that he raises, that is perhaps because the experts feel that it is not the issue that has the greatest impact on homelessness. What he will find in the report are recommendations about areas of the benefits system in which the task force believed changes could and should be made.

On the representations that have been made, a representative of the Department for Work and Pensions was a member of the task force, so the answer is that representations are made regularly. I have also discussed the issue directly with the UK ministers responsible. The monitoring group will certainly expect such representations to continue and I will ensure that they do.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 5 is from Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is nice to see you.

David (None, Lothians)

That will not get you an extra question.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I did not mean it then.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will meet any costs incurred by Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust's reappraisal of the managed equipment services public-private partnership for the new Edinburgh royal infirmary. (S1O-4729)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No. The trust is resourced for management costs and the appraisal of procurement options is a normal activity that falls within those costs.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the minister for that reply, but I inform him that the reappraisal was brought about because of the Executive's decision to reconfigure the hospital trusts. The expenditure anticipated by the original trust, which negotiated the new equipment, has been thrown out of kilter because of the Executive's decision. I think that the Executive has a moral duty and I hope that the minister agrees.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No. The hospital trust and Siemens were unable to reach an agreement that would provide the trust with the best value for money. The decision to pursue a review requires the approval of the trust's management board. That was given when the board met on 8 February. It is a local decision, which was taken in the best interests of the health service. I think that the Executive has acted properly at all stages.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the increases in council tax bills next year are fairly distributed across local authorities. (S1O-4764)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Decisions about council tax levels are a matter for each council.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I would have liked to thank the minister for his answer, but as it was not much of an answer, I will not bother.

Does the minister agree that the council tax is unfair, that the burden of council tax falls more on the low-paid and pensioners in Scotland and that council tax is higher in the poorest local authorities than it is in any other part of Scotland? Will the minister join me in supporting an income-based, progressive and fair tax instead of the ridiculously unfair council tax?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Tommy Sheridan knows very well that I will not support him in that move, as I set out in a recent debate. The council tax is a progressive tax. The value-of-property aspect is one indication of that. Secondly, when the benefit system is applied to the tax system there is a progressive element. Much council tax benefit is targeted at exactly the kind of communities that Tommy Sheridan mentioned.

Unlike the Scottish service tax that Tommy Sheridan advocates, the council tax is a local tax. His tax is a central tax, which would remove discretion from local authorities. Another effect of Tommy Sheridan's proposal would be to lose Scotland £300 million of council tax benefit, which directly helps the people whom he professes to be concerned about in Scotland. His tax proposals would increase the burden on below-average earners in Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister recall that at the previous question time, the First Minister reported that Scottish Borders Council had the second-lowest council tax in Scotland? Does the allocation of the block grant take account of the fact that wage levels in the Borders are among the lowest in Scotland and that on a wage:council tax ratio, the level of council tax charge in the Borders is equivalent to that in Edinburgh?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The correct figure is that Scottish Borders Council has the lowest mainland council tax levels in Scotland for this year.

The allocation of resources to local authorities is based on a complex set of formulae, but fundamentally it is based on need. Of councils in Scotland, Scottish Borders Council receives the eighth-highest level of grant. In that sense, it is among the greater beneficiaries of the grant system.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Does the minister agree that when services are under threat, councils must consider all sources of funds, including raising council tax if necessary and deploying existing reserves to protect services that affect peoples' lives?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Such matters are essentially for Scottish Borders Council; it would be wrong for the Executive to be involved in the detailed management of them. Councils must decide whether to use the reserves at their disposal to protect services.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Given that Scottish Borders Council has increased council tax bills substantially to prevent cuts over and above the £5.9 million that is already on the books, will the minister reciprocate and encourage Councillor Tulley, who is the leader of the council, to apply for special borrowing?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, I will not. Such matters are for the local council to resolve with its population. Even if there were an application for a loan of the sort that Christine Grahame mentioned, we would have to think carefully about giving such a loan to a council that has the eighth-highest level of grant, but the lowest level of council tax on the mainland. Other councils in Scotland have higher council tax levels and provide the same level of services. Scottish Borders Council also has balances at its disposal. In the circumstances, why should the Executive give special privileges to a council that has not managed its affairs as well as others?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing to ensure that the national health service makes full use of information technology systems. (S1O-4761)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Plans and targets are set out in our information management and technology strategy. The £2 million boost announced this week will build on the substantial investment that is already committed and will enhance the basic infrastructure of personal computers and networks that NHS trusts and general practitioners need to underpin the strategy.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the minister agree that patients' greatest anxieties about the NHS are about waiting, not only for surgery but for appointments, test results and treatment? Many patients will welcome this week's announcement, because it is about reducing bureaucracy and speeding up access to appointments and test results. Will the minister consider the plea that GPs should be the first to benefit, so that they can make hospital appointments for patients in surgeries? Such use of technology would ensure that the investment gives a more radical improvement for patients.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Pauline McNeill is right that IT will improve the delivery of patient care in many ways and will free up staff time by reducing bureaucracy. I saw some of the advantages on Monday, when I visited the Belford hospital in Fort William and local GPs. I saw GPs and their patients who benefit from the big advances in IT that have been spearheaded in the Highlands and elsewhere.

One advance is the quick transmission of test results; another factor, which Pauline McNeill mentioned, is the electronic booking of appointments. That system means that before people leave their GP's surgery, they can see when their appointment will be. That is bound to reduce the proportion of people who do not show for out-patient appointments, which at present is 11 per cent of all out-patient appointments.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that most of the IT money to which he referred was for a rescue package for the instant appointments system? Will he confirm that, according to Labour's programme for government, the new appointments system was supposed to be in place by 2002? Will he acknowledge that the new system is likely to be at least one year late and will be significantly over budget?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The money was by no means for a rescue package. Highland NHS Board was in the first tranche of health boards that were involved in the system. All the other boards have come on stream and the system has now started everywhere in Scotland. Highland NHS Board and four other health boards are in the vanguard. Shona Robison should welcome the many advantages for patient care in the measures that I have mentioned. When I had a recent meeting with nurses, they praised the initiative, because it means less time spent on bureaucracy and more time spent on direct front-line patient care.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that the Highlands is one of the lead sites for electronic clinical communications implementation—otherwise known as ECCI—is the minister concerned that only 30 per cent of GP practices are linked to the system for the electronic booking of appointments and transmission of patient test results? Is he concerned that immediate discharge letters are e-mailed to GP practices from only 18 wards in Raigmore hospital and two in Belford hospital?

Does the minister agree that, for the NHS to work efficiently and effectively, greater emphasis needs to be placed on linking acute and primary care GP practices and social services departments in councils, so that we can progress towards seamless patient care?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We attach a great deal of importance to that, which is why we have invested in ECCI and in Scottish care information, known as SCI—everything is an acronym in the world of IT. We were keen to give the strategy a boost, which is why we announced an extra £2 million this week to accelerate the development of the system. Mary Scanlon should praise the fact that the system is being pioneered in the Highlands. It should not be too long before it is rolled out across the Highland area and the rest of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does the minister accept that IT developments help to reduce the professional isolation of GPs and community nurses in isolated rural and island areas? Does he further accept that that benefit could be enhanced appreciably if the Government tackled the cost of data communication networks? What work is the Executive undertaking to tackle that crucial issue?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

There are many advantages in such networks, some of which I have highlighted. One advantage is the access to information that they provide. When I visited Fort William, the point was made that patient records are available as well as all the advice, for example about referral protocols—which are another issue when it comes to out-patient appointments. Every question this afternoon has highlighted a different aspect of this most important initiative.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it will take to reverse the decline in degree acceptances of 11 per cent for chemistry courses and 19 per cent for physics courses from Scottish-domiciled students as detailed in the recent Universities and Colleges Admissions Service for the UK report. (S1O-4751)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

One of the five key objectives identified in the science strategy is to ensure that enough people study science. We are taking a range of actions, including participating in the science year, which starts in September, and giving local authorities additional resources to support the teaching of science.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the announcement earlier this week of additional cash for research. Does the minister agree that, unless we have a steady stream of well-qualified scientists, it will be difficult to maintain Scotland's growing reputation for high-quality science? What progress has careers Scotland made in developing good quality information and advice as part of the science strategy for Scotland, and good quality information and advice on education and career opportunities in science?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The member is right. We are hopeful that careers Scotland will encourage pupils to take up science subjects. I offer the member some encouraging news. There has been an increase of 17 per cent in applications to chemistry courses for the forthcoming year. Acceptances in other science courses show an increase of 14 per cent in computer science in the past year and an increase of 11 per cent in the biological sciences over the past two years.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the minister consider it important, in the allocation of resources to our higher education institutions, to try to match the existing deficiency of skills in the economic sector? Would she consider using funding to address the need to provide those courses at university level and improve co-ordination between universities and schools to answer the point that was rightly made by Mr Adam, that there is a lack of awareness among school pupils and a need for universities to be proactive in addressing that?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

There is agreement throughout the Parliament that we must get better at informing our young people about the sorts of course choices that will give them opportunities in later life. We hope that careers Scotland will do that. As we distribute money for teaching in our higher education institutions, science courses should receive their share of the teaching resources as that increasing cake is distributed.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The minister will be aware that there is also a desperate shortage of engineering students being recruited from schools by universities and from universities by the engineering industries. Will the Executive take any steps to address that?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will cite a couple of actions that we are taking. We are increasing the allocation of resources to local authorities for the teaching of science and we are pioneering "made in Scotland" roadshows.

The roadshows give young people the opportunity, during their secondary school career, of meeting those who work in manufacturing and engineering occupations. In particular parts of Scotland—I am thinking of the north-east—the Scottish Science and Technology Network, which is jointly funded by BP and the enterprise network, is encouraging 5 to 14-year-olds to think about taking advanced higher chemistry and physics.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What is the Executive doing to encourage young women to take up science as a career, to encourage girls to take science at school and to encourage those women who go to university to study science? Will the minister assure me that she will consider how science departments in universities treat women scientists and ensure that women feel comfortable in a career in science at that level?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

It is appropriate in the week before international women's day to consider what more we can do on the equality agenda. It is the case that within Scottish higher education we have taken a number of initiatives in the past year to promote equal opportunities not simply in pay, but in career and promotion prospects for women working in that sector.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to Transco and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets regarding the recent announcement of job losses by Transco, and how many of those jobs will be lost in Scotland. (S1O-4727)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

My officials have been in touch with Transco, the energy regulator Ofgem and the Department of Trade and Industry, which has responsibility for policy in this reserved area. We have received assurances that no job losses will affect public safety.

Transco has not indicated how many jobs will be lost in Scotland.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In the light of that answer, will the minister assure us that he will urge the UK Government to ensure that all regulators, in making a decision about price, must take into account the effect that that will have on public safety, customer service and staff and that companies are not able to make savings purely by sacking people?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Paterson will be aware that public safety, customer service and staff are among the considerations that must be taken into account. Of course we have been particularly keen to ensure that there is no question of the changes being made in Transco compromising or jeopardising public safety. We have had assurances that that is the case. We have also had assurances that the reduction in staff that the company makes will include only a small element of operational staff and no repair or pipeline replacement staff and will therefore not affect the services bearing most directly on safety.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to curb the trade in bootleg alcohol and tobacco. (S1O-4752)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The lead responsibility for dealing with excise fraud lies with HM Customs and Excise, which in Scotland works closely with the police forces and the criminal justice agencies in tackling this serious problem.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I acknowledge that some aspects of the matter are reserved, but bootleg alcohol and tobacco is a serious issue. It has a marked effect on health, public disorder, underage drinking and the local economy by robbing legitimate outlets of the trade that they should have. We should perhaps persuade shopkeepers—

David (None, Lothians)

That is all very interesting, but we must have a question.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I was going to ask the minister what he is going to do about it.

David (None, Lothians)

What are you going to do about it, minister?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I agree with Donald Gorrie's analysis of the problem. The fact that such fraud robs substantial revenue means that there is less to be shared and less to the block grant that we would get.

It is fair to give credit to the United Kingdom Government. Estimates show that its efforts to tackle cross-channel smuggling reduced the revenue lost in 2000-2001 by 76 per cent compared to the revenue lost in 1999-2000. The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are able to resource our police forces and, not least, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, because the problems of drug smuggling tie in with the kind of activities with cigarettes and alcohol to which Mr Gorrie referred.

Last night the House of Commons passed the Proceeds of Crime Bill, on which there has already been a Sewel motion in this Parliament. When that bill is passed through Westminster it will give us additional measures with which to tackle this serious problem.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Has the minister made any representations to the UK Treasury about its proposal to introduce strip stamps as a counter-bootlegging measure? From the look on his face, perhaps I should ask him whether he knows what strip stamps are. If he does not, will he find out and do something about the situation? According to the Scotch Whisky Association, the introduction of strip stamps in their present format will devastate the whisky industry in Scotland.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Actually, I know what stick stamps are about because I have made representations—[MEMBERS: "Strip stamps."] Most stamps stick. [ Laughter. ] I made an individual representation to the Treasury in support of my local MP and in support of the whisky industry in my constituency.