| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): On the last part of the Prime Minister's statement, may we echo the sentiments expressed in congratulating and wishing President Putin well? As the Prime Minister took the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to visit him, perhaps he might be able to flesh out whether there is some early possibility of the new president visiting this country. While we all wish him well in all parties, equally, in all parties there will be those of us who will want to express direct concern to him--appreciating the difficulties that he faces domestically--over some of the military engagements that he was, apparently, willing to sanction in Chechnya, which must be a great humanitarian concern.
In regard to the Balkans in general and to Kosovo in particular, the Prime Minister speaks about the need for "enhanced economic assistance". Will he clarify whether there has been further more detailed discussion about that? On television yesterday, Chris Patten said, for example, that the issue is either greater contributions from member states, or a rearrangement of existing budgets within the European Union. Can the Prime Minister give us some further flesh on those bones?
There is much to welcome in the Lisbon summit conclusions, but, at the end of the day, the communiques must be judged in terms of not just their words, but actions. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that liberalisation and greater deregulation are welcome, but that the truth is that, over the past five years, the burden of bureaucracy emanating from Whitehall has been significantly in excess of that emanating from Brussels? Therefore, if we wish to see more liberalisation and deregulation within the single market, we must tackle some of the problems at home, as well as some of those at a European level.
Can the Prime Minister clarify the French position in respect of liberalisation? What is their position in respect of energy and utilities in particular? A date has been specified on the liberalisation of telecoms, but not on those two other sectors. Can he clarify what the position is and whether the French are proving a particular obstacle?
The Prime Minister is right to say that, where Britain takes a lead, we can benefit in Britain and Europe benefits with that. Where the Government are still not taking a sufficient lead is on the issue of the euro. Given the generally positive response that he had at the weekend, will he and his colleagues redouble their efforts so that we make continuing constructive progress in Europe, and do not disappear up the cul de sac that the Conservative party is offering?
The Prime Minister: I think that I can promise at least not to do the latter, I hope.
President Putin has a standing invitation to visit this country. Of course we continually express our concerns about the action in Chechnya. Nevertheless, I believe that the European Union was right to emphasise the importance of engaging with Russia.
On the Balkans, at least currently, it is more a case of ensuring that the economic aid that we have already agreed gets through and is used properly in Kosovo and in the wider Balkan strategy. I think that, if that were happening, people would look far more favourably on any fresh applications. In my view, it is essential that we co-ordinate the different aspects of that policy. I and other European leaders have been concerned at the recent lack of co-ordination. Our efforts will therefore be directed at improving that.
On liberalisation, the important thing is the combination of liberalisation in the internal market plus measures that improve social justice. Traditionally, there has been at least as much regulation coming out of Whitehall as out of Brussels. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore support us in the measure that we wish to introduce to make it easier to get rid of unnecessary regulation. It is important that Governments are doing that themselves nationally, as well as at a European level.
The most important aspect of this economic summit is that the focal point was on measures to reduce unemployment and to improve educational qualifications and skills--whereas, if this type of economic summit had been held a few years ago and discussed social policy, the focal point would have been on regulation. I think that that is a big difference.
We have agreed to open up the energy and utilities market in each individual country as quickly as possible. Some countries have a different position on the matter--France has been mentioned. On the other hand, as we all know, French utilities have quite a significant part of the British utilities market. Obviously, we point that out to our French colleagues as well. It is important to realise that that process of liberalisation will go on, and that it is the right process for the future of Europe.
Our position on the euro remains as it is.
Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, South): I welcome the Lisbon summit's progress on market liberalisation and the prominence that it has given to electronic commerce. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must aim at providing internet access for all, and that particularly the elderly stand to benefit enormously from being able to buy goods on-line? Will he therefore consider providing free internet training courses for pensioners and letting our grannies go Windows shopping?
The Prime Minister: That bit came a little late for the Budget. Certainly one of the principal purposes of the summit was to improve access to the internet, and we agreed a series of measures to do that, including measures on access to learning centres as well as access to the internet in schools. We are in the process of setting up 1,000 learning centres across the United Kingdom, so that people should be able to get access to decent information technology literally wherever they live. We are also giving help--both tax breaks and a subsidy--for information technology courses. That action will help our
elderly as much as people in the work force, who will need increasing access to internet skills to be able to do their job.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): After what has happened to Rover and the west midlands, did the Prime Minister, at Lisbon, repeat his wish at the earliest practicable moment to place the British pound under German management by joining the euro?
The Prime Minister: I did not. Our position on the euro remains unchanged. That was a fairly bizarre intervention, in the light of the comments that have been made about the matter. Our concern is to ensure that we do everything that we possibly can for the workers who have been displaced by the news. It is important that we do so. The difference between this Government and the Government whom we replaced is that we recognise that we have a responsibility and an obligation to develop job opportunities and, particularly where restructuring occurs, to help people to find new employment.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is my right hon. Friend aware that--both before the elections, and in their immediate aftermath--a number of Russians have expressed fears about the possibility of an authoritarian regime being restored to Russia? Is not the position of the European Union and of the British Government that we do not want any type of repression--military or otherwise--in Russia, but we want a fully law-based state with justice and protection for ordinary people in Russia?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. That has to be the purpose of the European Union's engagement with Russia.
Sir Raymond Whitney (Wycombe): Is it not surprising, but none the less welcome, that the Prime Minister's statement made no reference to the third way? Was the third way discussed at Lisbon, or does the Prime Minister now accept that the concept is dead and that, as a collection of empty cliches, it deserved to die?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not. Perhaps I shall send the hon. Gentleman cuttings from the various foreign media that have paid tribute to the influence of the third way on the summit.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, when the European Union talks of pursuing structural reform to increase competitiveness and modernising the European social model, it shows that Europe is working to this country's agenda? Does that not show that we can and do win the debate in Europe, as was reflected throughout the quality press in Europe at the weekend? Should that not be contrasted with the view of the Conservatives, who increasingly want to renegotiate the past and join the North American Free Trade Agreement at the expense of our position in Europe, in the process putting 3.2 million British jobs at risk?
The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the initiative on NAFTA has the blessing of those on the Conservative Front Bench but, if we joined NAFTA, we would have to leave the European Union. That is probably
why it has been proposed by those who have proposed it. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are modernising the European social model and combining policies for enterprise with policies that tackle social exclusion. That answers the question from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney).
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): I warmly welcome the full employment targets, particularly the gender balance targets, that have been accepted. Does the Prime Minister accept that, to take those targets forward in the UK, we need action plans for employment on a UK level and within the nations and regions? Do we not need to look at the guidelines for the Bank of England to make the maintenance of full employment one of its targets, alongside inflation?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |