Iain Smith For North East Fife

My Work in The Scottish Parliament

• Jan 19, 2011:
  • Defence | Scottish Parliament written answers

    To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the Moray Task Force to discuss the campaign to retain the RAF bases at Lossiemouth and Kinloss.

  • Defence | Scottish Parliament written answers

    To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the UK Government regarding the retention of the RAF bases at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in light of the impact of the possible closures on the local communities.

• Jan 17, 2011:
  • Defence | Scottish Parliament written answers

    To ask the Scottish Executive what (a) financial and (b) other support it has given or offered to Fife Council to assist the campaign to retain RAF Leuchars.

  • Defence | Scottish Parliament written answers

    To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the UK Government regarding the retention of RAF Leuchars in light of the impact of the proposed closure on the local community.

• Jan 13, 2011:
  • Electricity Market Reform | Scottish Parliament debates

    I, too, welcome the constructive tone there has been throughout the debate. It is an important debate and there is consensus across the parties on the importance of decarbonising our electricity supply and on the role that Scotland can play in doing that in the UK and, indeed, Europe.

    Before I highlight a number of issues from my experience as convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I point out that on the key issues that we would have discussed if we had been having this debate 12 months ago-before the general election-there has been a significant change through the way that the new Government in the United Kingdom operates.

    For example, Ofgem's project transmit, about which I will talk more later, is examining transmission charging, which the Parliament has called for for many years. Within a few months of the new coalition Government's coming to power, Ofgem began to review the transmission regime. That is a significant change. We called for that review from the previous Government, which did not deliver it.

    We have also seen a commitment to investment of £1 billion in carbon capture and storage, for which Longannet is now the only candidate. That will bring significant benefits to Scotland.

    Another great change is that we have also had movement at last on the fossil fuel levy. Some members in other parties do not think that there has been movement, but a deal is now on the table for debate and discussion if the Scottish Government will get down to London, discuss it and try to find constructive and positive ways to bring that money into play.

    For those who talk about the green investment bank not being available until 2013, Chris Huhne again emphasised yesterday that it could be up and running much earlier, because there is not just the £1 billion that the Government will put into it from the 2013-14 financial year; there is also money from the sale of assets that might be available much sooner. The bank could be up and running and able to invest in Scotland's renewables infrastructure from next year. We should be positive about these things and engage with the UK Government to see how we can take advantage of them, rather than try to find obstacles to doing so. We have seen some very important changes.

    Another point that is worth emphasising from yesterday is that Chris Huhne gave a positive message when he said that there is a strong case for Scotland to be the home of the green investment bank. Again, that has support throughout the chamber. We should welcome Chris Huhne's support and make a strong case that the green investment bank should be based here.

    The energy market reform document tries to do a number of things, but the key issue is around trying to take a coherent approach to a number of actions that have to be taken to ensure that we meet our climate change objectives. The carbon price support will help to ensure that fossil fuel generation is less cost effective, and will make lower carbon power more attractive. The feed-in tariff proposals are about ensuring that there will be a long-term increase in investment in those areas. Capacity payments seek to ensure that if the wind does not blow, electricity will still be available. Emissions performance standards will ensure that those who use fossil fuel will be required to produce lower emissions.

    Those are all important changes, and if what is being proposed in the consultation is implemented, it will result in more investment in those areas, the acceleration of the decarbonisation of our electricity supply and, by 2030, lower bills for domestic and industrial consumers of electricity. If those three aims can be achieved through the proposed reforms, that will be significant. I hope that members agree that we should be looking to achieve those aims.

    I will use the time that I have remaining to talk a bit more about the Ofgem transmission charging review. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has been pressing on that issue for a considerable time. It was part of our 2009 energy inquiry, which was endorsed by the Parliament. It is important to ensure that the transmission charging regime is fit for purpose, and that it encourages rather than discourages investment in renewables. We all know about the lunacy of the current locational charging scheme, which was based on the idea that power stations should be great big things that are built close to the bulk of the demand. That has changed. The wind, waves and tides are where they are. We have to build power stations where the fuel is and not where the population is, and we need to be sure that the transmission charging regime does not discourage that.

    By the way, I think that there are some illogicalities in the locational transmission charging scheme. I cannot quite work out why there is a subsidy for connecting to the grid for someone who happens to be based in Cornwall, which is not one of the most populous areas of the United Kingdom, while someone who is based in the central belt of Scotland has to pay a premium to feed into the national grid, even though the central belt is somewhat more populous than Cornwall. That does not make any sense. It is not a logical system and it is based on an outdated idea of the energy market. I am delighted that it is being looked at.

    The regime needs to encourage people to invest and to give security of price, because people will not invest if they do not have that security. As a result of the existing regime, we have seen the cancellation of an important grid network to the Western Isles. It is not going ahead at present because the transmission regime means that it is not economically viable. That regime must be changed so that it does not prevent investment where it is needed, and so that we can take full advantage of Scotland's renewables potential. That is agreed across the board-no one in the chamber will disagree that that needs to be done. The opportunities that we have been given by the transmission charges review have to be welcomed.

    I am pleased to say that Ofgem has agreed to come and give oral evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. We will take that evidence in February and we will put the transmission charging regime case to Ofgem very strongly.

    I hope that the plenary session to which the minister referred in his opening remarks will be seen as something that the Parliament can be involved in. I am sure that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee would particularly welcome the opportunity to send representatives to that meeting.

  • Defence | Scottish Parliament written answers

    To ask the Scottish Executive what (a) financial and (b) other support it has given or offered to the Moray Task Force to assist the campaign to retain the RAF bases at Lossiemouth and Kinloss.

• Jan 12, 2011:
  • "Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies" | Autism (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 | Scottish Parliament debates

    Will the minister take an intervention?

  • "Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies" | Autism (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 | Scottish Parliament debates

    The point of the committee's recommendation was to ensure that we get better at that in the future. We accept that there are difficulties but think that, in future, we need to improve the process.

    We were also concerned about the lack of financial information in the RPP and felt that there was a need to include information on medium and longer-term trends and to develop more of the proposals into policies so that we are clear about where we are going.

    The committee considered whether the proposals and policies that are outlined in the report, as well as the allocated draft budgets, would enable the relevant targets, as well as others under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, to be met.

    A significant area of interest to the committee was investment in renewable energy. The committee welcomed the targets that the Scottish Government has set, the most notable of which is a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, but there seemed to be a disparity in the statements that the Scottish Government and the enterprise agencies have made about energy and renewable energy, in particular, being a top priority, given that the energy budget faces a proposed cut of 22 per cent in real terms.

    The committee heard that investment in renewable energy is needed now so that we can take advantage of the opportunities that are available in Scotland, so we would like the funds from the fossil fuel levy to be made available to the Scottish Government to help with that. I am pleased to say that in evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee this morning, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, again stressed that that money was available and urged the Scottish Government to engage constructively with the UK Government on how we can start to release those funds as part of the green investment bank proposals. It is incumbent on all of us to look for innovative ways of taking advantage of that offer, rather than simply to block it by saying that it does not do exactly what we want it to do. We must take the opportunity that exists.

    The committee welcomed the employment opportunities that are available in the low-carbon sector and heard evidence on the challenges in training and retraining that are faced in providing the skills that are required for those opportunities to be taken. It therefore recommended that the Scottish Government should provide the education and training sector with the necessary funds to enable the Scottish population to take full advantage of the employment opportunities in the renewable energy sector by providing the right skills at the right time.

    In our 2009 energy report, we called for a rise of between £100 million and £170 million per year to fund energy efficiency schemes such as the home insulation scheme and energy efficiency packages, so I am disappointed by the budget of £48 million that has been allocated to the home insulation scheme and the energy efficiency package for 20011-12 and the proposed reduction of £20.7 million to £83.9 million for the supporting sustainability budget line. The committee is of the view that the proposed budget for 2011-12 would not be enough to meet the energy efficiency targets that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 set.

    We heard that consumers would find it difficult to fund energy efficiency measures in their homes, as they would have less disposable income. One of the reasons for that is the increase in the number of households in fuel poverty in Scotland, which has increased year on year since 2002 and which now stands at 32.7 per cent of households. The committee found it regrettable that we appear to be in severe danger of failing to meet the target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2016.

    The Energy Bill that has been introduced in the UK Parliament contains details on the UK-wide green deal funding, which was raised with Chris Huhne at the committee's meeting this morning, and I welcome his comments on the issue. However, the committee considered that there was a gap in funding for energy efficiency measures prior to the green deal's implementation, and I ask the minister whether she can provide any information on what finance options will be in place for Scottish consumers while we wait for the green deal to be implemented.

    I am running out of time, so I will have to draw my remarks to a close. One final comment is that I welcome the comments that Chris Huhne made this morning, in which he indicated that he thought that there was a very strong case for the green investment bank to be based in Scotland. All members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee would endorse that.

    It is essential that the RPP provides costed proposals and policies that parliamentary committees can monitor year on year if we are to have any chance of achieving the medium and long-term targets that have been set. I hope that we can build on this year's report to improve on that process as time goes on.

  • "Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies" | Autism (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 | Scottish Parliament debates

    I thank the Presiding Officers for giving me, as the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the opportunity to open on its behalf.

    The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee was designated as a secondary committee to consider specifically the energy aspects of the draft report on proposals and policies. We reported to the lead committee with a list of recommendations. I thank the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee for carefully considering our report, and particularly for endorsing our recommendations, which are contained in annex A of its report. I also thank those who gave evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, its members and, of course, the clerks, who turned round the report in a very short timescale. We had a short timescale for completion, so we decided to combine consideration of the report with scrutiny of the energy expenditure levels proposed in the draft budget as well as consideration of the carbon assessment of the 2011-12 draft budget and the draft electricity generation policy statement for 2010.

    One of the committee's first recommendations was that future annual reports on proposals and policies should not be published simultaneously with draft budgets and that the Scottish Government should consider publishing all the energy and climate change information at least six months prior to the draft budget. I say to the minister that it is important that policies and proposals inform the budget-making process rather than the budget-making process informing the policies and proposals. We need to get that right in the future. The committee heard evidence from a number of people who were concerned about the publication of proposals and policies not being at the right time in the cycle. In particular, it was suggested that, in a spending review period, publishing policies in advance so that they could be part of the spending review process is extremely important.

• Jan 10, 2011:
  • Defence | Scottish Parliament written answers

    To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met Fife Council to discuss the campaign to retain RAF Leuchars.

• Dec 16, 2010:
  • Large Retail Properties Levy | First Minister's Question Time | Scottish Parliament debates

    The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made it clear to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee last week that there was no advance discussion on the specific proposals. The announcement came out of the blue for retailers and has caused damaging uncertainty. The First Minister knows as well as anyone that jobs are needed to grow the economy, and that these jobs will come from the private sector. Uncertainty and increased costs will impact on future investment in Scotland.

    Does the First Minister think that it is good practice to impose unexpected taxes on businesses? Will the First Minister agree to hold an urgent summit with the retail sector, together with members from Opposition parties, so that we can all hear what the industry's concerns are?

  • Large Retail Properties Levy | First Minister's Question Time | Scottish Parliament debates

    To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government had with the retail community prior to deciding to introduce a new levy on large retail properties. (S3F-2793)

  • Winter Resilience | Scottish Parliament debates

    I am sorry. I am in my last minute.

    It is disgraceful that people have been stuck at stations, not knowing whether they will get to work or get home. That is not good enough.

    There is also the issue of whether the rolling stock is capable of doing the job. ScotRail says that the brakes freeze and that snow accumulates under the carriages, which causes damage to the equipment. We are told that there are infrastructure problems, such as points freezing. Those issues are all of serious concern and need to be addressed. A once-in-a-lifetime event has happened twice within 12 months, and we need to upgrade our railway network so that it can cope. I have written to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and to ScotRail. I have also written to Patrick Harvie to ask whether the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee will look into the matter. I hope that the committee asks ScotRail to account for its poor service to Scottish customers throughout the past two weeks.

  • Winter Resilience | Scottish Parliament debates

    The issue is that the heating oil companies are being told that they are unlikely to get supplies at present, and the customers are unlikely to get deliveries until January. That is the situation on the ground, and it needs to be addressed. I accept the point about the derogation of the drivers' hours regulations, but that does not help if there is no heating oil to supply, which seems to be the problem. Someone has that heating oil, but they are trying to make a huge profit from it, and that is unacceptable.

    The issue of the railways has been addressed by other members, particularly Karen Whitefield. Many members have experienced the chaos that ScotRail has inflicted on the people of Scotland over the past two weeks. Part of that is simply down to ScotRail's inadequate information systems: its website has failed to provide accurate information. If we want to find out whether a train is running, it is guaranteed that if it says on the live rail departure board that a train is on time, it has been cancelled. If the board says that a train is delayed, it has been cancelled. The only way of knowing whether a train is running is if it can be seen moving down the line. If we are at the station where the train we want to catch originates, such as Edinburgh Waverley or Aberdeen, if the train is not moving we cannot tell whether it will ever go. ScotRail must do something about improving its information to passengers.

  • Winter Resilience | Scottish Parliament debates

    The debate has been very useful so far in highlighting a number of concerns from members on all sides of the chamber about the problems that we have experienced during the severe winter weather. It is about learning lessons for the future; everyone accepts that we have had an extremely unusual situation in which such severe weather has lasted for so long, and things have gone wrong, but we must learn from that and see what we can do to improve things in the future.

    I say to Ian McKee, whose speech I thought was totally inappropriate, that Stewart Stevenson had to resign not because he got the weather forecast wrong, but because he went on "Newsnight" when people were still stuck in their cars-and had been for more than 13 hours-and said that the Scottish Government was doing "a first-class job". That level of complacency was just unacceptable when a very serious issue was affecting hundreds of people in central Scotland who were stuck in their cars overnight.

    Jeremy Purvis's amendment quite rightly highlights the potential economic consequences of the severe weather, and it is important that we recognise that those exist. It was slightly ironic that one of the first events that was cancelled because of the severe winter weather was the launch in the Parliament of VisitScotland's winter white campaign. At the same time as VisitScotland was trying to encourage people to come to Scotland to take advantage of the country's winter, our airports, our railways and even some of our major roads were closed. That was not the message that we wanted to get across, and the economic consequences are potentially very damaging unless we get it right in the future.

    Many of our retail businesses have been suffering because they cannot get supplies of goods and people cannot get to the shops. Businesses are suffering because the workers cannot get to work, and individual workers-as Labour members in particular have highlighted-are suffering because they either cannot get to work themselves and are losing salary, or have to stay at home to look after children whose schools are closed and so they are not able to get paid. All those things impact on local economies.

    For many people, Christmas will be cancelled because the presents that they have ordered from online retailers are not being delivered, and those retailers are no longer taking orders from Scotland. That is not good news for the Scottish economy, either.

    Jeremy Purvis highlighted the issue of heating oil supplies, which I hope the minister will address when he sums up, because it is very worrying. I, too, have had information about serious problems with heating oil supplies not being available until January. Many people who have ordered, or have tried to order, heating oil have been told that they will not get a delivery for several weeks, and heating oil suppliers are refusing to tell them what the price will be-there is evidence that the price of heating oil has doubled, in some cases. That is a major concern that was brought to my attention by a student in my constituency.

    However, of more concern to me are the elderly people who may be stuck in their homes over the Christmas period with no heating oil supplies, or with their supplies so low that they have to run their heating at a very low level to avoid damaging the equipment.

• Dec 15, 2010:
  • RAF Leuchars | Scottish Parliament debates

    I thank Ted Brocklebank for securing this important debate. I welcome the cross-party support that there is for the campaign to save RAF Leuchars.

    For nearly 100 years, RAF Leuchars has played an important role not just in the defence of Scotland but in the community of my North East Fife constituency. At present, the station is home to 6 squadron, 111 fighter squadron, 6 force protection wing headquarters, the 58 RAF regiment squadron, 612 county of Aberdeen squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force-or the air transportable surgical squadron, as it is better known-the 71 Engineer Regiment (Volunteers), the east of Scotland universities air squadron and 12 air experience flight. RAF Leuchars employs around 1,560 service personnel, and 220 civilian staff are directly employed.

    The RAF Leuchars mountain rescue team's role is to provide search and rescue for those who find themselves in trouble in the mountains and remote areas of Scotland. RAF Leuchars also supports military operations abroad: between 5 and 10 per cent of its personnel are engaged in operations and deployments in the middle east, Afghanistan and the Falkland Islands at any one time.

    Of course, RAF Leuchars is the home of the only remaining battle of Britain air show-the second-largest non-sporting event in Scotland, attracting tens of thousands of visitors every year and raising funds for the RAF Benevolent Fund, the Royal Air Forces Association and local charities. Personnel from the base are involved in many community activities, supporting charities in and around Leuchars.

    There is no doubt but that the underlying strategic defence case for retaining RAF Leuchars is overwhelming. It is in the right place to deliver the quick reaction alert-it is the top priority for RAF Leuchars-which requires fighter aircraft to hold high alert for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in order to scramble and to intercept unidentified aircraft approaching UK airspace.

    Since 2005, RAF Leuchars has engaged around 50 times with foreign aircraft attempting to enter our airspace. If ultimately necessary, fighter aircraft from RAF Leuchars can be above Edinburgh or Glasgow-or even Newcastle or Aberdeen-in a matter of minutes. Leuchars can provide a rapid response to air threats to tier 1 targets such as Torness nuclear power station, petrochemical plants and major cities. Some 80 per cent of Scotland's population is within 80 miles of Leuchars and can be reached in minutes. The key training area for the Typhoon is over the North Sea due east of Leuchars. As Ted Brocklebank said, the reasons that led to RAF Leuchars being chosen as the right location for the new Typhoon fighter remain the same reasons that it is the right location today.

    I am not saying that to undermine the role of RAF Lossiemouth. It too has a vital strategic role, but it is a different role from that of RAF Leuchars. That is why I am heartened by the response to questions in the House of Commons from my colleague Sir Menzies Campbell MP by the defence secretary Liam Fox, who said:

    "the basing review will be based purely on what gives Britain the best defence network ... it is the Ministry of Defence's job to consider what makes Britain safest." -[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 December 2010; Vol 520, c 662.]

    That must mean the retention of RAF Leuchars.

    Will the minister say in responding whether he agrees with that point? Does he also agree with the First Minister's reply to my question on 25 November that

    "it is not acceptable to close RAF Lossiemouth and ... it is not acceptable to close RAF Leuchars"?-[Official Report, 25 November 2010; c 30911.]

    Will the minister give an assurance that the Government will campaign to save RAF Leuchars with every bit as much commitment and vigour as it is campaigning to save RAF Lossiemouth?

    On the front page of today's Courier, the First Minister's spokesperson insists that the Scottish Government is "working extremely hard" to save RAF Leuchars from closure. That is welcome news, and I hope that the minister can advise the chamber in exactly what way the Scottish Government is working extremely hard. Will he let us know what it has done to date to support the campaign to save RAF Leuchars and what further action it plans to take in the coming weeks? In that respect, I welcome the intended meeting of Fife representatives, Fife Council and the Fife Chamber of Commerce, although I think that the date may need to be revised.

    We all owe a debt of gratitude to the personnel from RAF Leuchars, both past and present, who have put their lives at risks in conflicts from world war two to Afghanistan. RAF Leuchars is more than an air base: it is the heart of the community and deserves our full support.

• Dec 9, 2010:
  • "Inquiry into the Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland" | Rural Affairs and the Environment | Scottish Parliament debates

    It has been a short but interesting debate on this important topic. A number of important points have been raised by members. Pauline McNeill mentioned the issue of mobile chargers. Having a basket full of old mobile chargers in my garage that go back more years than I care to remember, I certainly look forward to the day when I do not need to get a new charger when I change my phone. However, there are other areas in which Europe provides direct benefits to British and Scottish citizens. For example, in air travel, even Ryanair has to listen to the European Union and give compensation when it fails to deliver services to air passengers. We would not have been able to do something about that in Scotland alone, but as part of the European Union, we have been able to ensure that, when disruption is caused to air passengers, it can be dealt with.

    Ian McKee mentioned the fact that the Lisbon treaty came out of the European constitutional convention. I am pleased to note that that was a constitutional convention that the SNP actually got involved in. It is a valuable lesson that the treaty came out of that convention. It was about democratising the European Union, and the European Parliament has been significantly strengthened as a result. One reason why some people are so opposed to the Lisbon treaty is that it is taking some of the power away from the Council of Ministers and the Commission and giving it to a democratically elected European Parliament.

    Helen Eadie mentioned the opt-in provisions on justice and home affairs, and said that sometimes it will be good for us to opt in, and sometimes to opt out, which is very important. There are Eurosceptics who have opposed all European involvement in justice and home affairs, even to the extent of opposing things such as the European arrest warrant, which allows us to give our citizens greater protection. We have that option, and we need to work with the UK Government on the procedures with regard to when it would be appropriate for Scotland to opt in even if the rest of the UK does not want to do so, and vice versa.

    It is always interesting to listen to my committee colleague Christopher Harvie. He manages to get into every debate such key issues as our friends in the banking sector and the things that they got up to, as well as the north-east passage. He makes an important point: the European dimension is necessary with regard to the financial sector, because we need to work across boundaries to ensure that we avoid the type of behaviour from the bankers that resulted in the situation that we are now in.

    It is difficult to comment on a speech by Frank McAveety, because he always takes an interesting angle on the issue in question. I am just about old enough to remember 1967 and Lisbon. He pointed out that a number of speeches from SNP members seemed to be more appropriate to this morning's debate, as they addressed the question of independence rather than how we deal with the Lisbon treaty; that is a bit of a red herring in my view.

    I am the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which the European and External Relations Committee highlighted as one of the committees that has a particular interest in Europe, certainly with regard to energy issues. Europe has shared interests, so it is appropriate that the European Union has a shared competence in energy matters on things such as security of supply; we know what happened with the gas market a couple of years ago.

    We know that on climate change, emissions have to be reduced throughout Europe. The Scottish Government has indicated that without action in Europe to increase its targets, it will be difficult for Scotland to reach the 42 per cent target. The document "Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies", which was published last week, suggests that we would be able to reach only 32 per cent.

    Renewable energy is an area in which Europe is pressing forward, through the development of carbon capture and storage, and-very importantly-the European supergrid, which will allow us to ensure that renewable energy sources from all over Europe can spread throughout Europe.

    Those things are all important, and the Lisbon treaty helps us to deliver them.

  • "Inquiry into the Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on Scotland" | Rural Affairs and the Environment | Scottish Parliament debates

    I am speaking in this debate as replacement for my colleague, Jim Hume, who is a member of the European and External Relations Committee. Unfortunately he cannot be with us today because of a family bereavement. I am sure that Parliament will join me in passing our condolences on to Jim and his family on such a sad day.

    I congratulate the committee on the work that it has done in this area. I might be one of the 20 people to whom Ted Brocklebank referred, because I was a member of the European and External Relations Committee during the first year of this parliamentary session before I moved on to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. The gestation period of this important inquiry started when I was on the committee.

    Much has been said about the Lisbon treaty by many people. Some of it is true, and some less so. However, people tend to forget that the Lisbon treaty was largely about reforming the institutions of Europe rather than about extending Europe's power and scope. The European institutions were established for a Europe that had 12 or 15 members, but Europe now has 27 members. The European Union was no longer fit for purpose and it required major reform and change. That is largely what the Lisbon treaty is about.

    Many of the treaty's other aspects that have been criticised were about bringing together in one document the competences of Europe, and the areas in which Europe does not have competence, which is equally important. That was an important piece of work that was done during the bringing together of the Lisbon treaty. I do not necessarily agree with everything in the treaty, and I do not necessarily think that it has gone far enough in democratising Europe, but it certainly has gone some way towards dealing with what was a clear democratic deficit within the European institutions. In particular, it extends the powers of the European Parliament for co-decision in a much wider area of European policies. In fact, the majority of European legislation requires co-decision with the European Parliament, and it now goes through the ordinary legislative procedure, to which Ted Brocklebank referred. That is an important change to how Europe works, and we will see significant changes in the nature of the European Union in the coming years as the European Parliament flexes its muscles in those new areas of power.

    Another important aspect of the treaty is largely what today's debate is about: the protocol around the applications of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. That is an important protocol that sets more limits around what the European Union can do, and it makes clear what national Parliaments and, for the first time ever in a European document, sub-national Parliaments with legislative powers can do. It is extremely important that we now have in a European treaty formal recognition that the Scottish Parliament, as a legislative assembly, has the right to a say when Europe extends its reach beyond what is appropriate in terms of subsidiarity and proportionality.

    The committee's report and the draft procedure that it has developed are sensible and wise, so I look forward to seeing how the experiment works. The suggestion that there should be a reporter from each committee is valuable. My immediate thought was that that could be a role for the committee's deputy convener. It would obviously be a matter for each committee to consider, but I think that it would be useful for each deputy convener to take on the role of European reporter.

    It is also important that the European and External Relations Committee has had discussions with Westminster. One thing that is clear is that, if the new system is going to work and Scotland is to have its say in European matters, we need clear procedures so that we are consulted immediately on any issue in which there are devolution implications. I am glad that the committee was able to bring the issue up; I may be able to say a few more words on it in my summing up.

• Nov 25, 2010:
  • Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings) | First Minister's Question Time | Scottish Parliament debates

    Will the First Minister give me an assurance that he will support the campaign to save RAF Leuchars with the same vigour and commitment that he has shown to the campaign to save RAF Lossiemouth? Will the First Minister-

  • Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings) | First Minister's Question Time | Scottish Parliament debates

    The First Minister will be aware of press reports that the Ministry of Defence is considering closing RAF Leuchars in North East Fife instead of RAF Lossiemouth. Does the First Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for the MOD to play one off against the other? Does he agree that RAF Leuchars and RAF Lossiemouth both play vital but distinct roles in the United Kingdom's defence, to say nothing of the respective economic and social importance of the bases to the communities where they are located?