| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 July 2009 : Column 146WH—continued
The other half of the argument is that although change has been achieved, the changes in mobile telephony were achieved when there was a much smaller European Union with fewer members. Such changes would be more difficult to achieve today were it not for the institutional changes. The liberalisation of energy policy will be difficult to achieve without moving towards full ratification and implementation of the Lisbon treaty. If there are problems in the two remaining states and it is not fully ratified, we will have to make do with the Nice treaty and find ways to make it work.
Mr. Graham Stuart: The Minister has slightly anticipated my question. People who support the Lisbon treaty say that it is necessary for the enlarged European Union to be able to work together, but is it not true that it has been working effectively without the Lisbon changes? The scare stories put out by those in favour of the Lisbon treaty have been proved incorrect by events.
Chris Bryant: That may be the best confession I have ever heard from a Conservative about European policy. The hon. Gentleman has just confessed that the European Union is working effectively. I thought that his party’s argument was that Europe does not work effectively and that we should be rolling back the tide by undoing some of the institutional changes of the last 15 or 20 years and somehow repatriating powers to the member states. One difficulty with that route is that it would lead to a less competitive European Union with a wider divergence of regulation in key industries that are vital to the UK, including financial services, energy and other industries. On top of that, he must face the fact that if he wants another bout of institutional reform, he will have to get 26 member states to agree with him. That will be difficult to achieve.
Mr. Stuart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has been most generous.
When I said that the European Union was working effectively, I meant that it was able to do so on its own terms without the Lisbon changes. That completely demonstrates that we do not need the Lisbon treaty. We should now have a mature debate about the powers that have been assumed by the European Union that could better be exercised by nation states. Conservative Members are committed to this country’s engagement with and continued membership of the European Union, but we want to see it work, and we want it to work as close to the people as possible.
Chris Bryant: It is all very well to say that one wants a mature debate about which powers should be returned to member states, but in order to return them and say that the European Union should no longer have any powers in particular areas, there would have to be treaty renegotiation. I understand that treaty renegotiation is the declared aim of the Conservative party, but for that to be achieved one would have to engage with all 26 other member states and gain their agreement about going down that route. I do not know of a single other Government in Europe, or for that matter, a single other party in Europe with the prospect of gaining power, who advocate that.
There is always a mature debate to be had about which powers should be where. A classic example is the debate about whether television licence fees should be considered to be state aid, as Sky once argued. It said that fee money should not be invested in BBC News online or BBC News 24, because they were in competition with Sky News. Should public service broadcasting be considered purely on a member state level? I think I know the answer to that, and the settled answer is that it should be for member states to take such decisions. That is why there has been a special provision on state aid for a long time, which makes an allowance for services of general economic interest. That is also why we had to have a special protocol on broadcasting at Amsterdam.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness is right that there will be constant debate about which issues should be resolved where, but I think we would function better if the treaty of Lisbon were ratified. If it is not ratified by everyone, we will have to live with the treaties as they are. We would then have to consider various aspects and how we could make them work to the best advantage of all member states.
I was looking at the clock earlier only because I am aware that a 50-minute speech by Chris Bryant is not necessarily better than a five-minute speech by Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant: Having united the Chamber, I shall move on to the other key issues that we are keen that the Commission should take forward, although others might disagree.
The first issue is about having a strong, global EU voice. We have seen from what has happened in the past few days in relation to Iran how important it is, when an individual member state has an issue with a country such as Iran, for the whole European Union to act in concert and in union. Of course, it is right that anything that approximates foreign policy should be based on unanimity, but as the world moves forward, it will become increasingly more important to do that. As the European Union has grown, it has become more significant when the whole EU speaks as one, because there is such diversity of political opinion and political outlook.
Mr. Ellwood: The Minister is new to his portfolio, but he will be well versed on the debates that took place about what to do about Bosnia and the Balkans and about the potential invasion of Iraq in the lead-up to March 2003. Those issues divided Europe hugely. A more fundamental worry is that there is discord between what NATO does and what the EU does, simply because there is Cyprus inside the EU on one side and Turkey in NATO on the other side, refusing to engage. There is no formal relationship between those two massive organisations.
The Minister talks about seeking a more unified approach to Iran, but does he see the limitation in trying to get people around the table to agree on very difficult issues? There is a danger that we will never get an agreement that matches up for all 27 nation states.
Chris Bryant:
At the weekend, we came to a very united position on the situation in Iran. In fact, in the past few years, the European Union has played a very
important part in making sure that Iran does not think the issue is just about what Britain thinks or what the United States of America thinks.
We must also consider matters that might not seem so significant to us. In Honduras, at the weekend, when there was a coup, it was perhaps more immediately important to countries such as Spain that the EU took a single view. The fact that we do so means that we are able to play a much more important card.
There will be times when we do not agree.
Chris Bryant: Indeed. There are times when we do not agree, and when there are tensions in trying to achieve a joint position, but that would be true if the EU did not exist at all and we were still trying to build alliances without it. When we share a common position, it has added strength. A classic example relates to Russia and energy security, which is a vital issue for many EU countries. We get only 2 per cent. of our gas from Russia, but 47 per cent. of Europe’s gas comes from Russia, so having a strong, reliable and integrated relationship across the European Union with Russia can only be to our benefit.
We would like the EU to play a slightly different and enhanced role in relation to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq in particular. We have seen that to some degree in the past year, but because Governments across Europe change their complexion on a fairly regular basis, sometimes there is not perfect continuity of political view.
Climate change is another matter in which it is vital that the EU takes a significant role, and we hope that there will be a good outcome from the talks in December. I do not think anyone in the House disagrees about that. Just as we know that the acid rain created by the industries of one country does not necessarily land neatly on the mountain-tops of that country but can spread across the whole EU, we know too that we must do all we can to come up with a positive outcome in Copenhagen. Europe has taken a significant lead on such issues, and we hope that the European Commission will also take a lead.
It is vital that the Commission should lead not only in the delivery of programmes of skills for the future, but also in trying to ensure that the Europe we build for the future is not simply trying to compete in the bargain basement. Instead, we should try to build on Europe’s strengths that add value around the world.
Finally, it is a priority and a necessity for the Government to enhance security. There are many threats to people’s security, such as international terrorism, antisocial behaviour and everything in between. Obviously, some key elements of those issues can be solved only at local level, let alone at national level. However, greater co-operation has been in our interests in other areas, such as terrorism. As we approach the anniversary of the 7 July bombings, we are painfully aware that the European arrest warrant was significant in helping us to bring to justice the perpetrators of those events. I say to those who tend to adopt a rather ideological position about such issues that that sometimes gets in the way of pragmatic common sense.
Mr. Graham Stuart:
I apologise for taking the Minister back to an earlier point, but I have been scrabbling around to get the exact name of the directive I had in
mind—it is the energy performance of buildings directive. Will the Minister explain the Government’s stance on that directive? In case he is entirely blank, I shall give him a steer: I believe that it is opposed by some countries because they believe it would be too costly, although one hopes they would see it as in their long-term interest to reduce energy usage in buildings, whereas the UK Government oppose it on the ground of subsidiarity. Will he explain the Government’s view on that directive, which appears to be a plank in tackling climate change?
Chris Bryant: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am only just developing my understanding of that particular directive. I very much hope that my understanding will develop at a swift enough pace for me to respond to him, if not by the end of this page, at least by the end of the debate.
I was just about to conclude on the question of enhancing security around Europe. We are aware that there are, of course, fragile states around the world where the European Union—the European Commission—has begun to take an enhanced role. We welcome that and believe it is something we need to do more of in the future. If climate change kicks in as many scientists predict, illegal migration is likely to be a more significant problem in the future. Again, we can work on a shared co-operative basis across the European Union on that.
Finally, on organised crime, there are significant areas where we should be able to co-operate to give greater protection to the peoples of Europe. I very much look forward to listening to the many contributions of all hon. Members and to responding to them at the end of the debate.
3 pm
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow the Minister. I do not plan to say a great deal, but I shall start by picking up on one point he mentioned. He talked about mobile phones and the fact that the nation states sought to have their own rules and did not wish to have shared rules across the European Union, which was therefore able to use its powers to enforce its will. He may be new to his post, but I would have hoped that the Minister had a better understanding of how the European Union worked. It takes the involvement and support of member states and the Council of Ministers before any such policy can be implemented. So, it is a falsehood to suggest that the European Union brought in common rules in the face, or the teeth, of the states’ opposition.
The truth is that the nation states came together in a common-sense way for common purposes in exactly the manner that I talked about in my intervention, so that they could agree to pool sovereignty and agree common standards. By doing so, they have, indeed, allowed the benefits to flow, which the Minister rightly highlighted. I hope that those benefits will continue to flow, with a reduction in roaming costs. When you go abroad, Mr. Illsley—as I know you do when following assiduously your work for your constituency and Parliament—I am sure that you have found that the costs of keeping up with your constituency casework are outrageous and excessive.
The Minister suggested, as Government spokesmen like to, that the Conservative party was somehow out of step with the general views of people across Europe. I was surprised that he did not mention the democratic deficit and the lack of legitimacy with which the new European Parliament will start its work, which has been caused by the very low turnout of 43 per cent. I believe that Labour Members of the European Parliament received—I do not want to get the numbers wrong—just 16 per cent. of the vote, which was the lowest score in a national election by any governing party at any level at any election ever. In fact, I believe that it is the lowest figure for the Labour party since 1918.
Mr. Ellwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that although Labour Members of the European Parliament received only 15 or 16 per cent. of the vote, which is extremely low, that is about 15 or 16 per cent. higher than the percentage of Labour Back Benchers who are participating in the debate?
Mr. Stuart: Perhaps it is not just that the British people have fallen out of love with Europe and the Labour party, but that the Labour party itself has fallen out of love with the whole issue. That would explain why the only Labour Member here today is the one who is forced to be by the rules of the House. Perhaps if the Minister were not forced to be here, he would be absent, too.
Mr. Ellwood: He would be in Norwich, North.
Mr. Stuart: He would be in Norwich, North desperately trying to hold on to a seat there. My hon. Friend, of course, makes a good point.
Another issue that I had hoped the Minister would pick up on from the European Commission strategy is how the Lisbon treaty has been treated, particularly the way in which the Irish people have been treated. In what way can it be right to ask the Irish people, who have given a clear and definitive no to the Lisbon treaty, to vote again on precisely the same wording that they voted on last time? Why are the Euro-elite, of whom the Minister makes such a natural member, always able to ignore the views of ordinary people and impose their views of what is right at a European level on the people concerned? It is a pity that the Minister did not touch on that in his remarks, but I assume that he will be speaking again—no one else is here to sum up because there is so little interest from Labour Members. I assume that the Minister will have the opportunity to come back, and perhaps he will speak on that subject—[Interruption.]The Minister said something from a sedentary position.
Chris Bryant: Only with the leave of the House.
Mr. Stuart: With the leave of the House, I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to respond.
Lisbon and the treatment of the Irish is something that we need to hear about. It would also have been interesting to hear the Minister’s view on the prospects for Turkish entry to the EU, which is, of course, mentioned in the strategies. In so far as this Administration have
changed from the previous Prime Minister’s Administration, I would like to know whether they have a different view from the one led by Tony Blair. Do the Government remain committed to Turkish membership in due course and is the Minister doing everything possible to make that happen? Will he report back to us on what progress he is making on winning support in other countries and among other parties on that?
I said that I would keep my musings short so, finally, I ask the Minister to respect the democratic right of parties within the European Parliament to group together as they see fit. I would like to put it on the record that I am absolutely delighted that the Conservative party has ceased to be a member of the Euro-federalist European People’s party grouping and that it has set up a new grouping in the European Parliament. That has happened thanks to the excellent work of many, in particular the leading work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). That grouping is one of moderate centre right parties, which will work to create a European Union that is more responsive to the people.
Notwithstanding the anger at that Conservative initiative felt by those who are either left behind in the EPP or have always been in the socialist or liberal blocs in the European Parliament, the new group will, in fact, give a lead to listening to and working more closely with the people. It will also aim to reduce the democratic deficit under which the European Union currently labours. The new grouping is more likely to ensure the long-term success and, indeed, unity of the European Union going forward. We need to listen to people’s voices—whether they are the voices of those who voted for the UK Independence party or, indeed, of those who voted for the more extreme parties at the recent European elections. Such people feel disaffected with how politics works and responds to their needs. The new grouping in the European Parliament, of which Conservatives are proud members, will help produce greater legitimacy for the European Union going forward.
As a parting shot, I shall just mention that I am proud that my party is part of a grouping that includes those who were involved in Solidarity and that we are fighting totalitarianism. If the Minister is happy to be a member of a grouping that contains the ex-communists—the oppressors—and he is happy to be associated with them and their fellow travellers, he is entirely wrong to take such a view. Our grouping is the one that offers hope and a positive future—not only for the people of Britain but for the European Union.
3.9 pm
Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): It is a pleasure to work under your tutelage, Mr. Illsley—I think it is the first time that I have had that honour—and it is a delight to participate in this important debate. However, I am sad to observe that so few hon. Members have made it into the Chamber. In fact, there is such a small number of hon. Members here that, if we had wanted to save the taxpayer some money, we could have conducted the debate inside the back of a taxi.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |