| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 July 2009 : Column 152WH—continued
I am pleased to speak in a debate on the European Commission’s annual policy strategy, which was published on 18 February. As the Minister said, it is rather a lean document. That raises the question whether the European
Commission and, indeed, the European Union will sit on their hands until the new Commission is in place and they see what happens with the Lisbon treaty.
I begged to catch your eye, Mr. Illsley, because I was curious as to whether the Minister would comment on what Germany decided to do yesterday about the Lisbon treaty. Although Germany has approved it from a court perspective, there has been a delay, which may be indefinite, in the treaty’s ratification. Conveniently, the Minister did not touch on that.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) did not ask me about that directly at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, although he did ask me about it by means of a rather deft body swerve. I deftly body-swerved back to suggest that it is for German law to decide precisely how the issue is taken forward. Angela Merkel has already said that the Bundestag will meet in the summer to do whatever is necessary to change the law so that everything can be ratified.
Mr. Ellwood: I think that I am right in saying that Germany is another country whose people have been denied the opportunity to vote on the treaty directly.
Chris Bryant: It is a bit odd for British people to accuse Germany of not holding a referendum. After the second world war, it was Britain that insisted that Germany should not be allowed to hold plebiscites or referendums because of the experience of the 1930s, and that is written into Germany’s constitution.
Mr. Ellwood: I am glad that the Minister has corrected me, but he will also be aware that it was written into the Japanese and German constitutions that those countries could not send armed forces abroad. Those aspects of their constitutions have now been changed because they are out of date. Is it not now wrong that the Germans do not have an opportunity to vote on something so important? Surely, we as Europeans have now been so merged and amalgamated that we should not be leaning on rules that we imposed more than half a century ago. We should have faith in the Germans’ system, and they should be allowed to have referendums.
Mr. Graham Stuart: Is my hon. Friend as appalled as I am not only that a Minister of the Crown should oppose giving people in this country a say but that he wants to extend that even to Germany, which he obviously does not consider to be a mature enough democracy to handle a referendum?
Mr. Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I almost want to invite the Minister to say how many other countries he would prefer to see denied a referendum. I suspect that the list would include Ireland, although given that people there have already had one pop at it, and he did not like the result, he may encourage them to have another one.
Chris Bryant:
I am actually the person in the debate who is in favour of each member state deciding for itself how to progress these issues. It is a statutory requirement in Germany that the country cannot have a referendum unless it changes its constitution, which would have to be done, as I understand it, through two separately
elected mandates. In Ireland, it is a requirement that they should have a referendum—[Hon. Members: “They did.”] Indeed, but it is not for me to tell each individual country in Europe how to proceed. [Hon. Members: “You are.”] Hon. Gentlemen should keep calm. They do not have to shout at me after every sentence—they can reserve it just for occasional paragraphs.
Mr. Ellwood: Such is the passion that the issue raises. The Minister underlines the gulf between the two sides of the House. It is not just the state that is important—the people need to be allowed to have a referendum. I reiterate that Ireland has had its referendum and made a decision. What does it say for democracy when Brussels decides, “We don’t particularly like that answer. Let’s invite them to have another referendum”?
The document focuses on how we progress with the Lisbon treaty intact and under the new Commission. Even though it is a lean document of only 11 pages, I was hoping that the Minister might take this opportunity to provide a written reply saying what Britain’s part would be. However, no written document has been put forward, and we have only the Minister’s words today. I would therefore like—I am sure that time will permit me—to put some questions to him.
The document is broken down into various headings, the first of which is “Economic and Social Recovery”. In the light of the financial crisis and the ongoing recession, it is of course right that much of the focus is on the economic outlook. However, I would like the Minister to update us on what is happening as regards the European economic recovery plan and meeting the commitments under the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs and the stability and growth pact, which are the central strands in this regard. A 9 per cent. increase in appropriations is earmarked for competitiveness for growth and employment compared with 2009. Will the Minister spell out where that 9 per cent. increase will actually go?
There are also changes in the regulation of the financial services industry. How do the changes that we are trying to push forward in the UK match those that are being introduced in individual states in Europe and in the EU as a whole?
Page 9 of the report outlines some of the spending programmes. The seventh framework programme for research and technological development will see an €803 million increase, and the lifelong learning programme will see an increase of €39 million. Again, it would have been beneficial if the Minister could have spelled out a little more how that money will be spent.
Also tucked away in the document is a reference to another €66 million, which will be spent on the Galileo satellite project. I invite the Minister, who is smiling already, to intervene to let us know how many birds—how many satellites—are actually in the sky as we speak.
Chris Bryant: How many birds are in the sky?
Mr. Ellwood:
That shows how distant the Minister is from the language. Birds and satellites are interrelated words in the satellite industry. If the Minister gets on top of his brief, he will realise that just one test satellite out of 24 has been put up. The programme is costing an absolute fortune and is draining resources, yet there is already a workable system up there—the global positioning
system. As a result of the involvement of some our partners in the Galileo system, the Americans have made it clear that the first thing they will do in a global catastrophe is shoot the Galileo system—if it is actually operable—out of the sky. Why are we investing so much in a system that is draining resources and replicating something that works so efficiently? I invite the Minister to get to his feet to reply, although I doubt that he will, because he realises in his heart of hearts that Galileo, too, is a fundamental waste of money. I am sure that he will wait for the army of civil servants behind him to give him the line to take—[Interruption.] He has it already. How pleasant. We look forward to hearing it.
The document also mentions the European economic recovery plan. The Minister mentioned the importance of gas and electricity interconnection projects, offshore energy projects and so forth, but he did not mention carbon capture. That term is bandied around a lot in Westminster, but I have yet to see one carbon capture project work successfully. I am not saying that carbon capture does not work—I am asking where there is a project that will work, which we could copy or use to show that the technology is successful. Another €1,250 million is being invested in carbon capture, but we have been talking about it for an awfully long time, and we have seen no benefits from it.
Mr. Graham Stuart: In 2003, the Government said that there was an urgent need to bring forward carbon capture and storage projects. No map that I have seen of the transition to 2050 suggests that we could meet our carbon commitments without carbon capture and storage, even if it does prove simply to be an interim technology. None the less, we have seen nothing from the Government since 2003 except promises of projects that are not of a commercial scale, and even those projects are running behind schedule.
Mr. Ellwood: Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am very much for the advancement of green energy, but this is one issue on which I remain slightly sceptical. I would like to see more evidence that carbon capture works, given the sums that are being put into it.
Of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about climate change and a sustainable Europe, and this is one issue on which the EU really can do well by co-ordinating activity and making sure that resources are properly used. The key focus will be the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. Will the Minister outline what Britain’s initiatives are? What will he be taking to the table?
We are aware that there will be a revised EU emissions trading scheme, and that is much needed, considering that the first system clearly did not work efficiently. The Minister also touched on the importance of gas and electricity. One thing that could save a lot of money and provide some energy security is a common gas market. That would allow Britain and, indeed, other countries that are affected when Russia turns the taps on and off, to obtain a more stable supply. It is taking years to achieve that. Can the Minister update us on the creation of a common gas market?
The year 2010 will be an important one for the common fisheries policy, with the expected submission by the Commission of reform proposals, following the
public consultation. I invite the Minister to clarify the changes that he will propose to ensure that Britain’s fish stocks will be protected as we expect, and as they are not now.
One of the final chapters in the short report concerns Europe as a world partner. The Minister touched on our role as a European member and the way in which that integrates with some of our international obligations. I intervened on him to explain the differences of opinion, and how poorly the two huge organisations, the EU and NATO, integrate in their work. I think that the Minister would acknowledge that that is a problem. Red tape prevents us from working effectively.
The report pushes for individual countries to put forward 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product for aid programmes by 2015. I should like the Minister to consider that some of that money, although it is dealt with from a humanitarian perspective, need not necessarily be spent by the likes of the Department for International Development or other countries’ USAID equivalents. It could be spent by our armed forces. A problem in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the fact that people at the front line who need and could spend the funds, and who understand the situation at hand, are prevented from instigating humanitarian efforts because they must wait for another Department to turn up, although its representatives are not necessarily briefed on what is happening, and often fail to work in an insecure environment, and therefore cannot ensure that projects reach fruition.
We need a fundamental overhaul of the relationship between our ability to war-fight and our ability to peace-keep. I have said that in the Chamber in other debates. The European Union has a major role to play, should it wish to, in ensuring that there is better co-ordination in our stabilisation efforts. Any hon. Member who has visited Afghanistan and seen the EU effort there will have been appalled by the amount of money that is wasted because it goes through the organisations in question, with a top-down approach, and is not managed correctly. I will put my hand up to declare an interest as someone who has been in the armed forces, and I believe that they are best positioned to carry out the actions that allow us to provide stabilisation and introduce humanitarian aid, and, more importantly, get our troops and everyone home, having won hearts and minds and empowered the locals to get on with their lives.
We touched on the limitations of what the EU can do in foreign policy. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) will expand a bit on the important question of why we think it would be wrong to introduce, under the Lisbon Treaty, a type of Foreign Minister. My view is that there is a threshold to collective agreements when it comes to such difficult decisions. The Minister mentioned Iran, and, yes, we have come out with a stern statement. What happens when things get a bit tougher than that? What would have happened if there had been a requirement to provide Georgia with more support than words? Would we have had agreement across the EU? I do not know; I certainly do not think so. More important, an EU Foreign Minister or President would be asked to make judgments on those issues. That is what I think is wrong, particularly when we already have NATO to make the judgments through the nation states.
I firmly support the Conservative view that we want an open and flexible Europe, the priorities of which should be to focus on the people of Europe and not the heads of state. We should focus on competitiveness, global poverty and global warming. The biggest example of why the EU fails to gain the respect that it should is the fact that for the 14th year it has failed to have its accounts signed off by the Court of Auditors. That is appalling. Any other organisation or agency would be put out of business.
Chris Bryant: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman brought the matter up, because, although the issue is of course one of concern, one reason why it has been impossible to deal with it in the past is that a significant amount of the money spent by the European Union is spent in and by the member states. Because they refuse to agree—and the hon. Gentleman’s party signs up to this—on a European system for auditing, it is impossible for the accounts to be signed off fully. That is one of our problems.
Mr. Ellwood: Taxpayers need to see that the money is well spent, and if the Minister can identify flaws in the system it must be improved, to give better accountability and so that we can see where the money is spent. More important is how it is spent: where it is pushed in. The costs of EU membership are heavier than they should be, and the way the money is spent could be improved. Improvements have been made; proposed new EU laws are now assessed for their impact on jobs and businesses, which did not happen before, but there is still too much red tape coming from Brussels, and too much interference in matters that should be decided by European nation states and not the EU. The working time directive was mentioned earlier, and its effect on our business and public services is potentially serious and damaging. That is why, if the Conservatives win the next election, we shall make it a priority to restore national control of social and employment legislation.
We need a Europe that works for the people, not the rulers. There are 27 nations, with a wonderful mix of culture, languages, peoples and heritage. Therefore, there will be a natural threshold for what such a large club can achieve without threatening people’s way of life by imposing a bland blueprint or one-size-fits-all stamp that gives no significance or respect to individual nation states’ way of life. Also very important is the distancing effect on the decision makers from those who elect them. I defy hon. Members to go back to their constituencies and find an average voter who can name every single MEP who got elected in the European elections. There is no proper relationship, no matter how hard MEPs work, because of the number of doorsteps that they need to cover.
The EU is growing into a bureaucratic nightmare, and we want to take back control of social and employment law, so that EU red tape no longer threatens our competitive labour market. I encourage the Minister to answer my questions if he can, and if he cannot, I invite him to write to me with the answers as soon as possible.
3.28 pm
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr. Illsley, with a small but select group of MPs.
The document that we are discussing is, like many—perhaps most—European strategy documents, more of a statement of priorities than a fully worked out strategy. Some mention has been made of its length. I welcome the fact that, at just 11 pages, it is admirably brief. Considering the size of some documents that we receive from Brussels, it is a step in the right direction. I am a great believer in the idea that documents, whether from the EU or this place, are often far too long, and that brevity and clarity of purpose are not valued enough. It is right that we should have the opportunity to debate the priorities, although it is also important to know the mechanism by which the UK position is communicated back, which presumably happens through the Council of Ministers. The mechanism for such responses is not always clear.
I welcomed your earlier ruling, Mr. Illsley, that the debate should not turn into one solely about ratification of the Lisbon treaty, because I have sat through various Europe debates that have felt a bit like groundhog day. I imagined that it would come up—quite rightly, as it is mentioned in the document and is obviously an important, unresolved issue for Europe. Whether it is resolved one way or the other will probably depend on the outcome of the second Irish referendum, which is due this autumn, as the other countries that have not yet ratified it have indicated that they are waiting on the second decision of the Irish people. The Irish may well say no. That would be a shame, but ultimately, although the Lisbon treaty is a good treaty, it is not earth-shattering. In such circumstances, we would have to use the structures as they are currently formed and try to make them work better.
Mr. Graham Stuart: I wonder what the hon. Lady’s analysis is of the treaty. Does she think that it is fundamentally the same as the European constitution, as the author of the constitution seemed to suggest?
Jo Swinson: There are certainly huge similarities between the two, but, in its very nature, the Lisbon treaty is not a constitution. It is an amending treaty. It does not delete and rip up all the previous treaties, which a constitution would have done, so it is different from that point of view. Also, some concessions were negotiated by the UK Government. As such, the treaty does not represent a step change, which would require a referendum.
However, I do think that it is time for the people of Britain to have their say on Europe. People discuss it, but the last time we had a referendum on Europe was decades ago. It was before I was even born, let alone able to vote in it. Most people in the country have not had that opportunity, and I would welcome such a debate. A better question to ask, given what people are actually discussing when they talk about Britain’s future in Europe, is whether we should be in Europe.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |