Hansard

I am pleased to say that I do not have much recall of 1973, but the member makes a fair point. It is not just down to politicians. It is also down to our society and our media to represent fairly Europe working for us.

I suggest that high on the agenda of reasons why people do not engage with elections is a lack of understanding of what Europe delivers for us in a modern world combined with a lack of confidence that Europe is working for the ordinary person.

We are seeing huge economic challenges across Europe. Our fellow Europeans in many economies are suffering levels of poverty and economic downturn that have not been experienced for many years. Many countries are seeing a crisis in youth unemployment, which leads to significant social problems and often depopulation, as those who can do so are leaving those countries for opportunities elsewhere.

To too many people, it looks as if Europe—the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers—is not responding. It is still often bureaucratic, slow to respond, driven from the centre and inflexible. Here is my first reference to my previous area of knowledge: the common agricultural policy takes up 38 per cent of the EU budget. That is a reduction on previous years, but it is still a significant share of Europe’s support. During the recent reform process, attempts were made to increase the environmental delivery of the policy, to support rural economies, to deliver fairness across the member states and to have an increased focus on jobs and the economy.

However, progress in those areas has been slow, and I question whether the process is working in the public interest. The role that the European Parliament played in those negotiations was important, as it was the first example of co-decision making, but change is slow and challenging. We need greater reform of the European Commission and its bureaucracy; of the European Parliament and its accountability; and of the economic model of the eurozone, which is, for too many economies, now imbalanced.

How do we ensure that we have a Europe that works more transparently in the interests of all its people? As many members will say this afternoon, Europe is hugely important for our economy—it seems to be one area in our proposals that we agree on.

Across the UK, approximately 3 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU, as are 200,000 companies and £200 billion-worth of annual exports, and £450 billion of inward investment that is tied to trade with those partners. In Scotland, we benefit from access to a single market with more than 500 million consumers, and Scottish exports to the EU account for almost 50 per cent of our international exports.

We must also recognise the benefits that we get from EU members who choose to live and work here. We in Scotland have a long tradition of welcoming and working with people from other countries. As a Fife MSP, I represent an area that has a long history of working with the Polish community in particular. We should recognise the contribution to our economy that people make when they come here, especially as we have an ageing population and need people to help to drive our economy.

That is not to ignore the challenges that can be presented. However, the BBC ran a report last week on immigration that presented a number of findings that politicians cannot ignore. Yes, we need welfare, housing and education systems that balance the needs of everyone, but the report showed that migrants contribute more to the economy than they use in resources. Many businesses I speak to, in the food, agricultural and textile sectors, could not operate without employees from EU member states. Migration brings huge benefits to our country: that is a fact of our economy, and of who we are.

I am sure that members in the chamber will disagree on various points during the debate, but those of us who believe that the European Union is a good thing and is beneficial to Scotland and the UK, and who support its founding principles and recognise that if it did not already exist, we would—in an expanding and globalised world—have to create it, need to support membership in a positive way.

Of course we need to work to improve the benefits of the EU and not deny the difficult times that it is currently facing, but we must argue strongly that, ultimately, it is a positive union that contributes to our modern world and our economy. We should not underestimate the global challenges that are facing Europe. Other economies and continents with greater populations that are increasing their investment in education and enterprise and have growing markets and industries will all present economic challenges.

Labour’s amendment recognises that future trade deals are important, but it reflects our position on the protection of public services in trade deals. By facing the increasing challenge of global competitiveness through working collectively, EU members will be in a stronger position than if they were working alone. We will be in a better position to get the best deals on trade, to tackle pollution and to take action on money laundering and corruption as well as in a number of other areas.

European co-operation is important in so many areas. So many of our modern challenges—for example, internet fraud, copyright crime and human trafficking—do not recognise borders. If we look back at the horsemeat scandal a few years ago and consider the complex food systems that we now have to deal with, we see that it was a prime example of addressing a problem through European co-operation.

Scotland, as part of the UK, can demonstrate how the European Parliament and the European Commission can be used for good. So many of our progressive social policies originated in the EU: for example, driving common standards for workers across the EU in maternity leave, paternity leave and working hours. Many of our environmental targets come from the EU—on biodiversity, air quality and water quality—and we must do more to deliver on those.

Scotland has ambitious targets in those areas, but in recent years we have not been meeting them. At present, the Commission is prepared to take legal action over air quality, given the lack of progress in that area across the UK. In those areas we have a responsibility to do more to deliver, and our actions will support the EU’s credibility.

The European Parliament has championed new initiatives to reduce youth unemployment and is the focus for much debate on progressive working practices. Labour’s amendment calls for that to be a central focus of on-going European activity. It was therefore disappointing last week to see Scottish National Party members of the European Parliament abstain on a vote to phase out precarious employment and tackle the exploitative nature of too many zero-hour contracts. That is the kind of thing that Europe should lead on, and it was disappointing not to have the SNP’s support.

Our amendment also states our opposition to the proposed cuts to horizon 2020 that the minister referred to. I raised my concerns with the minister last week and I am glad that he recognised that point. Scottish universities benefit considerably from that fund; it meets the objectives of economic growth and investment in research and we must do more to resist the cuts to it.

There are still concerns that, as things stand, the proposed changes that the minister referred to are not an appropriate funding mechanism for research and development and may hinder innovation across Europe. That is why Labour members in the European Parliament are looking to amend the proposals on horizon 2020.

This afternoon, we will not be supporting other parties’ proposals. Encouragingly, all of them recognise the importance of EU membership. However, we do not support an in/out referendum as presented by the Conservatives. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the people of the UK.

The SNP has attempted to put its case for a veto. I do not believe that that is a credible position. In September last year, Scotland voted to stay in the UK, with the full knowledge that there was the possibility of an EU referendum. We voted to be part of the UK and any vote on a national basis would have to be treated as such. It would have to be a collective decision by people living in the UK. Nicola Sturgeon claims that a referendum is inevitable, almost regardless of who wins the general election. That is not true; Labour does not support a referendum.