| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 July 2009 : Column 158WH—continued
Mr. Stuart:
It was mentioned in passing that the Labour party suffered its worst ever electoral result in the European elections. It was surprising, given the collapse of the ruling party’s vote, that, as an Opposition party, the Liberal Democrats saw their vote fall. Does the hon. Lady fear that that was because the British people felt betrayed? A promise was made in the Liberal Democrat manifesto to support a referendum on the European constitution. The Lisbon treaty is practically
the same, but the Liberal Democrats have failed to honour their promise and have come up with this political fix of a debate on whether we should be in or out, for which no one is asking.
Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman will know, of course, that the Liberal Democrats actually gained an MEP—one that we previously would have lost—in the east midlands in the European elections. Obviously, we are pleased about that. Our vote did go down by about 1 per cent., but all the main parties saw their vote go down.
Mr. Stuart: Just a little fact for the record: the Conservative party saw its share of the vote increase.
Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously pleased to make that correction for the record. However, European elections are based on a proportional system.
Chris Bryant: I do not want to let the Conservatives get away with that comment without referring to the fact that in the previous elections—not the last ones but the ones before, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was leader of their party—they got 36 per cent. of the vote but then went on to a crashing defeat at the next general election.
Jo Swinson: The electoral statistics are all very interesting, but two points about European elections should be borne in mind. First, the voters know that they are voting under a proportional system, not first past the post, in which there is less chance of smaller parties getting elected. In fact, smaller parties such as the Greens, the UK Independence party and, sadly, the British National party, won seats. People understand the system, as we found out in Scotland, where there are now four different voting systems. People are savvy; they understand which system they are using and whether they should support the main parties. Secondly, it is clear that all the main parties suffered because of the current scandals at Westminster. Anyone who was out knocking on doors during the European election campaign will be aware of that.
Much as I am sure that a post-mortem of the European elections would be interesting to political anoraks like us, I shall return to the issues at stake. The Lisbon treaty will change the structures in Europe for the better. Of course, by the time the annual policy strategy is in place, if it goes ahead—there may be some changes, given that it is in draft form and would need to be reviewed by the incoming Commission—the treaty will also be in place, if it is ratified.
It is important that we turn away from the institutional navel-gazing that the EU has been obsessed with in past years, whether on the constitution or even on amending treaties to deal with the number of commissioners, qualified majority voting or co-decision. Frankly, such discussions turn people off Europe.
At a time when turnout for European elections is very low—that is a great concern—there is a case to be made for the good things that Europe manages to do. Roaming charges were mentioned. This summer, that will have an impact on the everyday lives of our constituents. It is important that the case for Europe is made, that
discussion is held about policy issues, and that Europe gets away from institutional nonsense and simply thinking about its own structures the whole time, and gets on with delivering for the people of this country.
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I know that the hon. Lady is a big enthusiast of the Lisbon treaty, but will she tell me about one action that the European Union or any of its member states have been prevented from taking in response to the global financial crisis because we have not yet ratified it?
Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman slightly misrepresents my position. I think that the Lisbon treaty is a good treaty. It is good for Britain and good for the EU, in that it actually gives Britain a bigger say within the EU. I would like to think that that would mean that Europe would take better decisions, but it might be too charitable to the Government to assume that more say for the UK would always mean that.
However, I have never said that every aspect of the treaty is earth-shattering. Clearly, the EU has been able to take some action. However, in the case of competition legislation, the EU does not manage to enforce its own rules well enough, even under the current systems. The rules are interpreted differently by different countries in Europe, and that is a problem and a challenge with which Europe must deal.
I hope to focus my contribution on three parts of the strategy: economic and social recovery, climate change and a sustainable Europe, and Europe as a world partner. Clearly, as has been said, EU co-operation is needed to bring an end to the recession and to mitigate its effects on our constituents, who are currently concerned about whether they will lose their job, about indebtedness, and about the general economic outlook for the country. I welcome on page 3 of the document the intention for enhanced co-operation on
“projects to make for more investment in energy efficiency, low-carbon and renewable energy technologies, infrastructure projects and measures to combat climate change.”
That is a key point. We need to tie together the strands of climate change and economic recovery, because a green route out of the recession is crucial. President Obama in the United States is certainly pursuing one. We will need to rebuild our economy, but our new economy will have to look a bit different from the one we have had. We need to rely less on fossil fuels and ensure that we cut our carbon, but, rather than seeing those things as dreadful costs to business, and a threat, we should see them as an opportunity for Britain to lead the way in new technologies and export them to other countries.
For example, Denmark has a huge lead in the use of wind turbines. One wonders why, given the renewable resources at the UK’s disposal. I come from a part of the country that enjoys many weather events, including wind, and it is near the coast for marine energy. Why have we not managed to take more of a lead, and to reap the economic benefits of doing so? That is vital for tackling climate change, which I believe is the biggest threat that the global community faces, and for creating jobs. On the ground, in our constituencies, those are the things that people are concerned about.
Mr. Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Jo Swinson: I will. We are not exactly short of time.
Mr. Stuart: I am extremely grateful. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of tackling climate change. She has not mentioned the lamentable failure of this Government to produce much in the way of renewable energy, which is why I think that only Malta and Luxembourg have a lower percentage of renewable energy than we do.
How does the hon. Lady think that we can tackle the failure to invest in renewable energy and change our energy sources, yet work with people without having what I have in my constituency? The whole of Holderness is up in arms as wind farms are imposed from above despite the opposition of local people, councillors, parishes and businesses—of everybody locally. It feels as if there is no voice for local democracy. How does she think we can best balance those two priorities?
Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In my constituency, there are currently many controversies, not about wind turbines, but about planning on a variety of issues. It is about a lack of democracy. It is frustrating when a whole community is united in a particular objective, and their rights and views seem to be trampled over. There is a balance to be had, because there is sometimes a “not in my backyard” attitude—although I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman’s constituents of that—which could mean that we never have any renewable technologies anywhere.
We need more incentives for communities in the form of benefits that will accrue. The community can see a real benefit when the money and funds for renewable energy projects are put in place. There is, perhaps, even a profit-sharing basis for that. In Shetland, for example, fabulous projects have been put in place by the oil industry. Where there is a community benefit, that can help.
We should also recognise that onshore wind is not the only answer. Offshore wind, for example, is perhaps less likely to attract criticism, and many marine renewables are on the sea bed and do not seem to have the same impact on a landscape. Those things need to be developed, because as an island with huge potential—whether in respect of the Severn barrage proposals, in the Pentland firth or elsewhere offshore—we need to ensure that we are using the resources.
Technology transfer poses a challenge. Page 4 of the document says that
“both the copyright and the trademark systems should be modernised to make them responsive to the needs of business and consumers”.
That is the sort of statement with which everybody agrees, but there is a real challenge in getting the correct balance. For example, we do not want patents on low-carbon technologies to become a barrier to transferring them to developing countries, where that technology is needed because their economies are growing. If we are effectively saying to those countries, “You can’t develop on the same trajectory of carbon emissions that we did”, it is only fair that we give them assistance to enable them to develop low-carbon economies. Equally, with that kind of technology transfer there can be a barrier to investment in new technologies. It is important that such vital measures are not prevented by technology transfer. It is difficult to get it right. The £60 billion fund to assist with technology transfer globally to
developing countries, which was proposed by the Prime Minister in his recent speech, could help. A lot of environmental groups have suggested that that does not go far enough, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) mentioned carbon capture and storage. I agree that the Government have not made nearly enough progress on that vital issue, but I disagree with what he said about the feasibility of CCS. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I can say that we have looked into CCS and come to the conclusion that, although there is currently no commercially viable project on the scale that would be necessary, each element of the technology has been tried and tested. It is about having the right incentives in place. If business gets a clear signal that new coal-fired power stations will not be allowed if it does not include CCS, the investment will come. The Government should have been bolder in that regard.
We can argue about whether we can achieve Britain’s cuts in carbon emissions without CCS. Some would argue that nuclear could help to fill that gap, although I am not a fan of it. However, in respect of other countries, members of the EAC met Government officials in China and heard about the number of coal-fired power stations that they are building and will continue to build. It is clear that there is no way that we, as a planet, will achieve our objectives if we do not have CCS technology. It is important that that technology can be retrofitted to existing power stations, rather than just having technology that is pre rather than post.
We have suffered a financial crisis of confidence in the banking sector, with consumers throughout the country not being sure where to put their money and unsure what was going on as everything seemed to collapse. It is important that we consider the competition issues that have been raised by the nationalisation or recapitalisation of the banks and the merger of Lloyds and HBOS, which the Government have waived competition rules to allow. There is a great danger that we set ourselves up to repeat the mistakes from which we have already suffered. The enforcement of competition rules, which are mentioned on pages 3 and 4, is important in aiding recovery.
Lloyds now boasts on its website that it has more than 50 per cent. of the UK market share of social bank accounts and Goldman Sachs says that it controls 30 per cent. of the UK banking market overall. I do not see how that can be healthy in the long term. It will be necessary to break up the banks, particularly when they are re-privatised back into the private sector. Paraphrasing Mervyn King’s recent statement, if banks are too big to fail, then they are too big. In such circumstances, the Government have to bail out the banks. The lack of competition is a problem, and it is not good for customers, either.
Mr. Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady will have noticed, as I did, that the document specifically mentions “post” in relation to competition enforcement. What does she think the European Commission’s view will be of the Government’s retreat in the face of their funders, the unions, which provide 80 per cent. of the Labour party’s income? Back-Benchers have perhaps been driven by those unions into refusing to allow the modernisation and partial privatisation of the Post Office, which was apparently, until last week, absolutely necessary.
Jo Swinson: There are some questions about whether that decision is politically or commercially motivated. I leave it to the Minister to tell us what the European Commission will say and what the Government will say to it.
Climate change is a real success for Europe and we should not be afraid of praising the success so far. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) will know, because he also sat on the EAC and we produced more than one excellent report on the European Union emissions trading scheme, that although the ETS is not perfect, it has certainly improved in its different phases and is being used as a model by other schemes around the world, notably by the Australians, who have recently, thankfully, woken up to the threat of climate change and want to take action. We have a pioneering scheme and although it has its teething problems, people are learning from it and it will be a crucial part of how we, as a planet, tackle the problem. That pioneering attitude has enabled the EU to have a leadership role, which has been lacking from the United States. Even now it is more difficult for the US to lead on the issue, because of the different circumstances within that country, including the views of its population, for example, which relies on cheap petrol.
The EU has an opportunity. The regulations on lower-carbon vehicles have helped EU cars to be far ahead of their counterparts in the US. The Tata Nano is being launched in India and the company hopes to launch a similar model in Europe, but before doing so it has to make its carbon emissions much better for it to access the European market. Those regulations will encourage manufacturers from elsewhere in the world to improve their carbon standards.
Landfill tax has led to a huge increase in doorstep recycling around the UK. The Government may be tempted to take the credit for improved recycling facilities, but it is important to recognise that the EU deserves some of the credit, because the directive on landfill has played an important role. Too often Governments can take the credit for good things that the EU does and lay the blame on Europe for less popular things, but that does nothing to push the cause for working together with our European counterparts. I shall touch briefly on the common agricultural policy, because its reform is important for sustainability. The strategy notes that 2010 will be the first year of full implementation of the CAP’s health check. That is a good and welcome step forward, because subsidies coupled with what farmers produced led to food mountains, wine lakes, and excesses that were not helpful to the environment, nor ultimately to trade with the rest of the world, and caused huge problems for developing countries. That protectionism must be challenged and is being challenged, although not far enough yet. It is good to see progress on reform, but it is important that pressure is maintained to ensure that it continues.
Cuts in aid will free up money. The DEFRA summary says that around €479 million will be freed up throughout Europe from aid cuts, and that can be used to invest in renewable energy, climate change measures, biodiversity and so on. What is the corresponding figure for the UK, and how do the Government intend to use those funds?
Mr. Goodwill:
Does the hon. Lady agree that there can be no justification whatever for spending more than
€1 billion a year to subsidise tobacco production in the European Union, much of which is of such low quality that it is exported to the third world?
Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, and it seems ridiculous to subsidise such a product, especially as we all know the harm that it causes. We should encourage alternatives, rather than the status quo.
Mr. Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady sounds insufficiently angry about the impact of the common agricultural policy, not only its impact on consumers throughout Europe but, more importantly, that it has been a fundamental blockage to the Doha trade round, which has resulted in the inhibition of trade with the third world and developing countries. I suggest that it has led to the death of many people in developing countries, not just from the obscene subsidy on tobacco, but because of its blockage of access to our markets. She should be more righteously angry and opposed to the current failure to reform it.
Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman asked to intervene, and then criticised me for taking his intervention. He anticipates my comments on Europe as a world partner. He rightly raised the huge problems that the CAP causes, but it is important to note that progress is under way, and that should be welcomed. The CAP is absolutely unacceptable and, sadly, the outlook is not optimistic for getting rid of the worst protectionism. The French are a stumbling block, although the Government have taken a positive line and tried to push it strongly in the EU, but obtaining agreement from other countries is not always easy.
A matter on which I have campaigned, as you will be aware, Mr. Illsley, because you also have a great interest in it, is excessive packaging. I note that the section on climate change and sustainable Europe does not mention packaging, which is a significant omission. The UK’s legislation on reducing packaging waste is based on the snappily titled directive on packaging and packaging waste 94/62/EC. The Minister for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), conceded in April 2008 that the directive’s essential requirements do not work, and said that they must be reformed at EU level.
I have pursued the matter and have discovered that a review of the regulations was announced in September 2007. In December 2008, it had still not started, and the EU Article 21 Committee said that it expected that it would take between nine and 10 months, so it might finally be ready in the autumn, and I hope that it will recommend some strengthening of the essential requirements regulation. That is an example of the EU when it is not at its best. It announced a review, but it took more than two years for any results to be available. Sometimes, European business moves at snail’s pace; a bit more proactivity and dynamism would be welcome. I am keen to see the result of the review, and may seek opportunities to raise it with the Minister or his colleagues in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |