Hansard

I tend to agree with The Guardian editorial this morning that suggested that the referendum was

“another chapter in the destructive Conservative psychodrama over Europe.”

However, other parties cannot afford to be too high and mighty on this issue. Famously, the Labour Party held a referendum 40 years ago because of divisions in the Labour Party; I was pleased to vote yes in that referendum, as I shall again in the upcoming one. Even more bizarrely—most people forget this—the SNP supported a referendum in 2007. I say that that was bizarre because it wanted a referendum because of one line in the Lisbon treaty about the conservation of marine biological resources—a line that had always been part of the original European treaty.

Let us forget about those issues from the past. Today, I am substantially in agreement with the SNP, apart from the issue of a double majority, not least because that is not going to happen. I recommend to the SNP a paper by Sionaidh Douglas-Scott of the University of Oxford that argues that, if there is a no vote, it will be necessary to amend relevant parts of devolution legislation via a legislative consent motion, which we all know is going to be enshrined in the forthcoming Scotland act as something that is mandatory. The relevant part of the Scotland Act 1998 is section 29(2)(d), which states that laws in this Parliament must not be incompatible with any of the convention rights or Community laws. It might be more worth while for the SNP to pursue that route, rather than a double majority.

I agree with the SNP and my own party about voting for 16 and 17-year-olds. That issue was well rehearsed in a debate a couple of weeks ago. I agree with much of what the First Minister said in her speech about Europe last week, including what she said about more freedom in relation to public health measures. I agree with what Kezia Dugdale said a few days ago: EU citizens should have the right to vote in this referendum. We need to say over and over again how much we value the contribution that EU citizens have made to this country during the course of this century—and before, of course, although it is in this century that they have come in larger numbers. Some 170,000 people in this country—some of the best people I know—are from the European Union. I will not name them personally to spare them embarrassment.

We should remember what Fiona Hyslop said about the paper from University College London. I would like to read extracts from it, but because speeches have had to be shortened, I cannot. The title is “Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence” and it was published on 5 November 2014. Everybody should read that, given the myths that we hear.

Of course if there is undercutting of the minimum wage or other employment conditions, and European citizens are used to do that, we must make sure that the law is enforced; there must be no undercutting—although that of course is the fault of employers, not European citizens themselves.

As the cabinet secretary said, we need to focus in the next few weeks and months on the big picture and the current benefits of being a member of the European Union and not become obsessed with the changes, which will possibly not be all that major, which will cause problems in the Conservative Party.

The economic arguments are clear. Half of UK exports are to the European Union. It is the largest single market in the world and if we leave there will be implications for jobs and foreign direct investment.

We do not always agree with the direction of economic policy in Europe. In the recent election, Labour said that we would work to focus the EU on jobs and growth, and I am sure that we would all agree with that. Contrary to the line taken by Jamie McGrigor, Labour was proud to sign the social chapter in 1997. We could list many things that have sprung from that: the 48-hour maximum working week; minimum annual leave; extended maternity leave; new rights to request flexible working; holiday pay; and the same rights for part-time and full-time workers.

Environmental progress has resulted from Europe, with massive reductions in SO2 emissions, basic rules on the cleanliness of beaches and now concerted action on climate change—I could go on.

On consumer rights, EU laws provide for a refund or other remedies for consumers in cases involving defective products. The cabinet secretary mentioned structural funds amounting to €985 million, and university funding won by Scottish universities amounting to €572 million—other figures could be given.

The whole issue of research collaboration featured in a recent debate. I talked about collaboration on renewable energy—it could have been on many subjects.

The EU arrest warrant makes it easier to return fugitives for trial and of course there is our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights.

There are many positive arguments for Europe, but at the end of the day let us also put some emotion into the debate. There is an emotional case for Europe. Let us remember that the origins of the European Community after the war were to prevent any future wars in Europe, and many Conservatives were fully signed up for that at the time. Let us put forward a positive and emotional case for Europe and enjoy doing so over the next few months.