| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 July 2009 : Column 164WH—continued
The Minister mentioned the Copenhagen negotiations in December, and I agree that they are vital in tackling climate change. It is essential that the EU takes a leading role, and it has tried to do so. Working through
the EU and explicit diplomacy on climate change is one of the four objectives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it is welcome that that is written into the FCO’s objectives and not hived off to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. World diplomacy is vital, because in many countries there is not the same acceptance or understanding of, or belief in the scientific evidence for climate change, and it is not such a priority because developing countries must deal with a whole host of other issues. We know that if climate change continues on the current trajectory in the long term, its perils will be felt most strongly in developing countries, so it is vital to do all we can as a world community to mitigate it.
Adaptation should not be forgotten. We have already had a temperature rise of 0.6°, and scientists predict that it will rise by at least 2° even if we manage to curb emissions rigorously now. That will not be 2° across the planet; it will be higher in some areas, and lower in others. Adaptation measures will be necessary, and we have seen the disruptive effect of just a few days of hot weather in the UK. We see similar disruption when there is flooding, and the effects in other countries will be so much worse.
Turning to Europe as a world partner and the point that was raised in an intervention, I was intrigued to read on page 7:
“The Commission will also pay particular attention to preventing and addressing unfair trade-distorting actions and protectionism in third countries.”
That is hugely ironic, because, as was mentioned, the CAP continues to epitomise those unfair trade-distorting actions and protectionism which the Commission is now saying it is against. I hope that those words can be used to encourage our European partners to move further along the route of getting rid of protectionism, because that is vital.
My first Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall was on trade with developing countries in the months after the Make Poverty History march and campaign. A huge number of my constituents were motivated to write to me about it, and I would have thought that all hon. Members would agree that urgent action is needed. Some of that is about money, but some is just about dropping barriers. There has been stagnation in the Doha round, and that beggars belief, because we are not talking just about money, companies, trade and so on; we are talking about people’s lives and livelihoods, and whether they have the basics of life that we take for granted. It is vital that our words are made to have real meaning, and that they are not glossed over in statements and policy papers that do not have any teeth.
I welcome the statement on page 6 of the strategy document that accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey will continue. That is important. Despite recent setbacks in the border dispute with Slovenia, Croatia is well on its way to membership, and I hope that the issues can be resolved.
Turkey’s accession may be further off, but it would be a positive move to include Turkey in Europe. Some human rights issues are outstanding, but it is important to recognise the incentive that EU membership and the accession process can provide. Many countries have been and are keen to join the EU, and that carrot is a great motivator for them to improve their record on
human rights and corruption. We perhaps were not firm enough with some eastern European countries about securing action on corruption and so on before they acceded to the EU. That means that some opportunities are lost, because the pre-accession period is the time when the EU’s influence is probably greatest in encouraging reform. We do not want to repeat those mistakes, but we do want to continue with those proceedings.
I noted the very diplomatic wording on Kosovo:
“The Commission will also prepare measures to support Kosovo’s political and socio-economic development and to help it progress, as part of the region, towards the EU.”
In fact, there is a host of diplomatic difficulties stemming from the fact that some EU states have recognised Kosovo as an independent state and others still have not done so. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Pristina and Mitrovica and meet various Kosovan and Serb politicians. It was clear to me that huge difficulties remained in that region, even though there is peace. EU membership is perhaps one way out of the problems. The different Balkan states being EU members and then having relationships under the larger EU umbrella is potentially hugely beneficial. Although there are diplomatic difficulties at the moment, I hope that that objective will be pursued.
The Commission wants bilateral relations to be deepened with Israel, Moldova, Morocco and Ukraine. That is certainly interesting, but there are areas of concern. Greater co-operation with the EU could be used as an incentive for Israel to fulfil its responsibilities to uphold human rights. I argue that we should not upgrade relations with Israel until it agrees to suspend settlement expansion and shows real commitment to the peace process. We have seen some moves in that direction, albeit small ones, recently. Obviously the situation is very sensitive, but although in terms of overall diplomacy and influence the US has a far greater role to play than the EU, the EU should use the tools that it has at its disposal to pursue that agenda. That is my representation to the Minister on Israel.
The issue of Morocco is not touched on often. There is a strong trading relationship between Morocco and the EU, but Morocco is not co-operating with UN negotiations on the future of Western Sahara. It has not agreed to a referendum on independence for the Western Sahrawis. The Amnesty International report in 2009 entitled “The State of the World’s Human Rights” said on Morocco:
“The rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly continued to be restricted. Criticism of the monarchy or views contradicting the official position on other politically sensitive issues were penalized...Allegations of torture were not investigated, and victims of past human rights violations were not granted effective access to justice.”
Slightly worryingly, it also said that
“the issue of impunity for torturers was not raised”
when the EU and Morocco agreed in October 2008 the road map to closer co-operation. I urge the Minister to use what influence he might have in his discussions with EU counterparts on further relations with Morocco to ensure that those issues are not left on the sidelines but are highlighted.
It is vital that Britain continues to engage in Europe, and this policy strategy lays out a set of priorities that are well thought out, although there are the issues that I have raised. I hope that whoever wins the next general
election, the Government will continue to engage in Europe, so that we have a full role in reviewing the strategy, because it is important for many of the global challenges that we are working hand in hand with our EU partners.
My other plea is for us to focus on making things happen. The case for Europe is made best when Europe delivers for people, rather than when we get lost in institutional minutiae. Europe should focus on job creation, investing in a lower-carbon world, trade liberalisation and human rights, and prove just how relevant it is to the people of Europe.
4.4 pm
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley.
In summing up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench, I note in passing that five Conservative Members have participated in one way or another, one Liberal Democrat Member and, aside from you, Mr. Illsley, as the neutral Chairman, one Labour Member—the Minister himself. I am somewhat surprised, given his popularity among Labour Back Benchers, that none of them has turned up to support him. I thought that at least one Labour Back Bencher could have been dragged here on a Thursday afternoon to talk about this important document. The Minister may have to reflect on that privately.
I shall come to the Minister’s contribution, but first I shall talk about some of the other contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) raised a number of good points. He pressed the Minister on the position regarding Turkish accession. The policy statement relates to accession in a number of areas. As there has been a lot of media comment about that in the past few weeks, will the Minister give the latest view from the Foreign Office on progress on Turkish accession? I hope he understands that it is a serious question. It would be helpful to hon. Members if he provided us with an update.
My hon. Friend also referred to our new grouping in the European Parliament. Since I have been doing this job, for the past two years, I have heard many people, including Labour Ministers, say that we would never do it—that it could not be achieved. Well, we have done it, and I just say to the Minister that in the European Parliament, there are a number of people in the socialist grouping, with whom Labour MEPs sit, who served in previous communist regimes in eastern Europe that seemed perfectly content to oppress the peoples of those countries. If he wants to talk about democracy, he should be more careful about the company that Labour MEPs keep, because they sit with people who were perfectly willing to suppress it for many years in eastern Europe. I am pleased that some of the people we are allied with resisted that, even under communism. I therefore believe that our grouping will provide an important addition to democratic debate in the Parliament. The President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, will address our new grouping on 7 July. That is an example of how seriously it is being taken. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) asked a number of specific budgetary questions, and the Minister has had time to seek inspiration on those points, so I hope that we will receive specific answers. My hon. Friend raised in particular Galileo, which, as I think the Minister would concede, has been a controversial programme. When my hon. Friend referred to birds, he was not referring in any kind of slang or colloquial language to pretty young ladies; he was merely using a term widely used in the industry for satellites. Given that only one satellite is in orbit, and a test one at that, will the Minister update us on the Government’s view on Galileo—exactly where the programme now sits, when the next satellite will be launched, what our current budgetary contribution is, and where he believes the programme will go in the next several years? It has come in for a lot of criticism and it is referred to in the documentation.
We also heard a speech from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It is fair to say that she ranged over quite a considerable number of topics. She mentioned en passant the common agricultural policy and the health check, although she neglected to mention that a few years ago the present Government gave up £7 billion of the British rebate in return for what was supposed to be significant reform of the CAP. That was then downgraded to a health check and, in effect, very little further reform has taken place. We oppose that giving up of British taxpayers’ money. It is a discredit to the Government that they negotiated so weakly and did not achieve a creditable outcome.
I repeat to the hon. Lady the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness made: the Conservative vote increased in the European elections. Regardless of how the Liberal Democrats may have done in the east midlands, which she cited, to have come fourth in the country as a whole, even behind the Government, who had their worst result ever, was not necessarily a terribly creditable performance for the Liberal Democrats overall, and they might want to reflect on whether their European policy has something to do with that.
When the 2009 annual policy strategy was debated on 12 June last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), speaking from the Front Bench for the Conservatives, said about the document:
“I could not make up my mind whether it was a strategy document or a work programme. It is something of a cross between a White Paper and a Queen’s Speech, but it lacked the precision of the latter and associated documents because it does not tell us in detail exactly which measures of European legislation the Commission intends to introduce in 2009. The strategic analysis and presentation lacks coherence—it is a bag of all-sorts.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 164WH.]
That was a perceptive description, and in many respects it holds for the 2010 document.
I turn to the document, and I begin with Copenhagen. We welcome a number of the Commission’s objectives, particularly the fact that it wants to prioritise the fight against climate change. That is an important priority, and a topical one given that we all hope that international agreement can be reached at the UN summit in Copenhagen in December. Indeed, the House has seen cross-party support for that this afternoon.
We all appreciate the importance of the matter, and would like to see a deal done at Copenhagen, if it is
possible. Given the importance of such a deal, we welcome the fact that the Commission recognises that the adoption of a climate and energy package and a revised emissions trading scheme should be a priority for 2010. For all its faults, the emissions trading scheme is an important example of how to create an international mechanism to deal with carbon emissions.
I move on to the Lisbon agenda, which forms an important part of the document that we are debating this afternoon. The aim, as stated in 2000, was that by 2010 the European Union should be
“the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”.
Given that that period is nearly at an end, it is worth evaluating the outcome of the last nine years.
Frederick Reinfeldt, the Prime Minister of Sweden—the country assumed the presidency of the EU only yesterday—and his Finance Minister, Anders Borg, did just that in a joint article on 2 June in the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. Their unfortunate conclusion was this:
“Even if progress has been made it must be said that the Lisbon agenda, with only a year remaining before it is to be evaluated, has been a failure”.
They then set out their remedies, which they see as based on sustainable public finances, lower taxes and greater participation in the jobs market. They argued that
“we have in Sweden held stable and sustainable public finances as an integral part in crisis control. A quick glance around Europe strengthens us in the conviction that it is right. The crisis in the United Kingdom doubled the national debt in just a few years.”
When it comes to the Lisbon agenda, the new European Union presidency singled out the UK, under the Labour Government, as a prime example of how unsustainable public finances can hamper sustainable economic growth. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.
Another important matter covered in the Commission’s document is the proposed change to the regulation of the financial services industry. A number of my hon. Friends touched upon the fact that the change is vital to this country because of the large number of jobs created and tax revenue generated by the City of London, and other financial centres such as Edinburgh. The Opposition are concerned that the proposals mentioned in the strategy document will have a significant impact on the City’s ability to compete globally. For instance, the European system of financial supervisors should supplement and strengthen rather than replace the role of national regulators, such as the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England.
Other proposals include giving the three authorities proposed in stage 2 of the de la Rosière programme legally binding powers over national supervisors, but that would potentially represent a significant transfer of power from member states to the EU in an area where Britain has a great deal at stake. The dangers are more apparent than the advantages. Moreover, the Institute of Directors points out that the distinction the Government seem to draw between financial supervision and regulation in respect of the proposed system is “dubious”. Why are the Government rolling over when they should be doing more to defend Britain’s interests? They have been weak, and they deserve to be criticised.
Since the last debate on the annual policy strategy, we have witnessed the Russian invasion of Georgia. Today’s document devotes a paragraph to support for Georgia and its political system. However, it does not mention any detailed measures on Russia, and specifically whether talks aimed at creating a new EU partnership agreement with Russia should be concluded while Russia remains in breach of the EU-brokered ceasefire, which was successfully negotiated by President Sarkozy when France held the EU presidency. It is important to put that on record.
I have asked the Minister this question before, most recently in a European affairs debate, but there was no time then for him to answer. I should be grateful if he would state whether it is the Government’s policy not to sign up to a new agreement with Russia while it remains in breach of its ceasefire obligations. There is plenty of time this afternoon. Perhaps the Minister will give us a clear answer to that straightforward question.
The documents also say that a special emphasis will be placed on the European neighbourhood policy—the ENP—and the new Eastern Partnership. The Eastern Partnership was one of the lasting achievements of the Czech presidency. We welcomed it as an example of how Europe could look outwards and continue with the enlargement process. However, when European Standing Committee B debated the matter some weeks ago—the previous Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was there—I asked how the Eastern Partnership would be financed, and I am sorry to say that I did not receive a satisfactory answer. I therefore have some questions for the Under-Secretary about the budget for the Eastern Partnership, based on the documents before us.
At page 11, the strategy document states:
“EUR 250 million has been earmarked by reprogramming ENPI funds.”
“The remaining EUR 350 million will come from the unallocated margin under Heading 4”.
Will the hon. Gentleman say more about precisely what is covered by heading 4—I understand that it acts in part as a reserve—and whether the redeployment funds will have any effect on future funding for programmes in the Balkans, or as implied in the next paragraph, for areas such as Gaza or other parts of the middle east? It is some weeks since the European Committee debate, and I wonder whether the Minister can provide greater clarify on exactly where the other €350 million will come from, and specifically which other budgets might suffer.
One of the greatest challenges for European enlargement is the Balkans, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina. The European Commission’s work in Bosnia is ongoing, and the commitment to accelerate the stabilisation and association agreements in the western Balkans, referred to on page 6, is welcome. However, those agreements will not be able to progress without more European political resolve and initiative. Unfortunately, at least in some countries, that seems to be lacking.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |