| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Having listened to optimistic and positive statements from European Council meetings for 23 years, one tends to look at the small print, where proper guidance is given. What exactly does the Prime Minister mean by saying that the Government, along with the others, are committed to long-standing proposals on energy taxation and the taxing of savings, with a view to reaching agreement by December of next year? Will he say clearly and precisely what ideas he and the others have for taxing energy, to be agreed by next December? What proposals does he have in mind for taxing savings by next December--and is that the basis for the reported flight of a great deal of money from Britain, and, indeed, from Jersey and Guernsey, to Switzerland over the past few days?
The Prime Minister: In relation to energy, that work has been going on for a long time, through the Deputy Prime Minister and others. Domestic energy is specifically excluded from that, but we are all trying to make sure that we meet our obligations under the agreement concluded, for example, at the Kyoto climate conference which has just taken place.
As I have already said, as a country, we have great difficulties with doing anything in respect of the savings tax. The question is, what do we do when we are faced with proposals--
Sir Teddy Taylor:
You agreed to it.
The Prime Minister:
We are not saying that we agree with the proposals on savings taxes. The document and the communique actually say that there is an attempt to conclude an agreement by Helsinki next year. That does not mean that we will agree to it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, if we disengage from that debate, all it would mean is that the debate would happen without a British voice. There is nothing that is being proposed there that we need fear in the least, which is why we will carry on arguing the British case constructively. If we do that, we are more likely to win.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne):
My right hon. Friend voiced his criticism of the Euro-sceptic press, quite justifiably. Will he explain more fully to our country the advantages of joining the euro and--even more important--the disadvantages of not joining?
The Prime Minister:
I have nothing to add to the statements that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have already made on that issue, but people are perfectly entitled to their views, for or against. It is important that the debate takes place on the basis of facts. The truth is that the debate about tax harmonisation for the past two or three weeks has had, in certain quarters, precious little at all to do with facts.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal):
Does the Prime Minister accept that those of us who are in favour of as much engagement in Europe as is suitable for the United Kingdom are also concerned about his statement about Agenda 2000? After all, he managed to speak about the reform of the common agricultural policy without mentioning the environment once.
The one area where the environment is most important is making sure that we reform the CAP in a way that pays farmers for looking after the land, instead of producing too much and dumping it on third-world countries. The Prime Minister need not look at his notes, because he did not mention the environment then, but later, in respect of other things. None of those other things matter anything like as much as putting over our point of view on the environment in the agricultural debate.
The Prime Minister:
I certainly agree that it is extremely important to take the environment into account in common agricultural policy reform. We are ahead of the other countries in arguing for reform--the more fundamental it is, the better. As I think I pointed out in my statement, our arguments on the environment have been strengthened by the work of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has insisted that the environment be taken into account across a range of issues where currently it is not.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough):
The House may have overlooked the earlier comments of my right hon.
The Prime Minister:
If we do not try to persuade people, we are not listened to at all. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning that he wanted to build alliances with other centre-right parties in Europe, but I do not know who would build an alliance with him. I do not think that the Belgian Prime Minister or the Spanish Prime Minister would; to be honest, I do not think that any of them would.
May I correct something that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said? I said in my statement--I apologise for not finding this when I replied to his question--that, under the United Kingdom presidency, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister led work in the European Union on integrating environmental policy into other community policies and that the Austrian presidency carried forward that work in transport, energy and agriculture.
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire):
The German Government are paying a huge bill towards the modernisation of east Germany and they are now insisting on paying less towards the European Union budget. If Germany, as the biggest contributor, pays less, there will be consequences for the time scale of enlargement. What is the Government's attitude to Chancellor Schroder's insistence that Germany should pay less?
The Prime Minister:
I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that. The answer is stabilisation of the finances and then reform of expenditure. The best thing that we can do to put our national case forward most sensibly is to argue for limits on expenditure, about which the Germans and others are naturally concerned. That is the way forward; it is, in fact, the central argument in European Union financing. If we agreed stabilisation and fundamental reform of the CAP, that would go a long way towards meeting German concerns.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow):
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that the decisions made on taxation at the summit were totally at odds with what, in the run-up to the summit, the Euro-sceptic press led us to believe would happen? Is it not a cause for concern that our people are so ill informed by our national newspapers on this issue? Is it not time for the Government to go on the offensive to rebut the distortions, half-truths and downright untruths of the Euro-sceptics? During 18 years in
The Prime Minister:
I think that many members of the public understand exactly what is going on. They want us to present the facts calmly, which is what we try to do--it is the best antidote to scare stories of any kind.
Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire):
Did not the Prime Minister miss the real point on tax in his statement? The single currency is bound to lead to a massive increase in the tax burden, as resources have to be shifted from the north of Europe to the otherwise impoverished south.
The Prime Minister:
I do not agree. There is no reason why the single currency should mean a higher tax burden in Europe. The northern countries in particular want their tax burdens reduced, which is one reason why it was so false to say that the rest of Europe wanted tax harmonisation to bump up taxes all over Europe. Many countries are trying to reduce their tax burdens and we should be working with them to achieve that.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the talks on the admission of Cyprus to the European Union are proceeding and are on track. What progress has been achieved between the Commission and Turkey on making it clearer to the Turkish authorities what they have to do, and over what time scale, to enhance their prospects of entry?
The Prime Minister:
In respect of Cyprus, we made it clear that the accession negotiations should continue. Obviously, it would help the negotiations to proceed faster and better if we got a resolution of the essential problem of Cyprus. On Turkey, we specifically and in terms endorsed the European strategy vis-a-vis Turkey which was agreed at the Cardiff summit, and we will continue to pursue that. As I have made clear on many occasions, we want relations between the EU and Turkey to be developed and strengthened. I believe that they can be strengthened.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
Does the Prime Minister accept that in a single market with a single currency, there will be a trend to strengthen advantaged regions and to weaken disadvantaged regions unless there are strong mechanisms for financial transfers--which, in Europe, means structural funds? Does the Prime Minister understand that, as we move into a single currency, his opposition to the strengthening of structural funds is diametrically opposed to the interests of the economies of Wales, Scotland and some of the English regions--especially when that is compounded by the Government's support for the Fontainebleau agreement, which provides a disincentive to using European structural funds? If he cares about Wales and Scotland, will he reconsider his position on that matter?
"To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war"?
Is not persuasive diplomacy better than the clanging cymbals of the Conservative party?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |