| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 July 2009 : Column 170WH—continued
As I have said on previous occasions, Bosnia remains in a delicate position. Nationalist rhetoric blows over the fragile central Bosnian institutions, and separatist calls are never far from the surface, yet it is now that the EU needs to show greater resolve in Bosnia than it
appears to be showing. Rather than allowing discussion of its closure, the Office of the High Representative needs our full backing; likewise, EUFOR is in need of greater European political support. Will the Government support the continued operation of the High Representative and EUFOR? Those are specific policy questions, and I should be grateful if the Minister were to answer them.
I want to ask the Minister about a related matter to do with Kosovo. As the UK has reduced its commitment to EULEX in Kosovo partly, it would seem, as a result of the Government’s public finance crisis, will he guarantee that British missions to Bosnia are not and will not suffer the same fate?
On page 6, the document describes the European Commission’s proposals for the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. Those plans not only take the Irish people for granted, but also to some degree the German constitutional court and Parliament. I am sure the Minister is aware that the German constitutional court’s ruling of 30 June, in effect, suspended ratification of the treaty in Germany. The court’s ruling is remarkable for its honesty. For instance, it states:
“The extent of the Union’s freedom of action has steadily and considerably increased, not least by the Treaty of Lisbon, so that meanwhile in some fields of policy, the European Union has a shape that corresponds to that of a federal state, i.e. is analogous to that of a state”.
That is to be found near the beginning of the judgment, which continued:
“The transfer of competences...has been increased once again by the Treaty of Lisbon”.
Importantly, the court also noted—this is of great significance to the UK Parliament, where all the Opposition’s attempts to insert legal safeguards were defeated by the Government on a three-line Whip—that the so-called ratchet clause needs a further legal safeguard. Given that the Minister assures us that he has read the treaty, he will understand exactly what that clause is. The court was specific about that, in the German context, but the need for safeguards has also been taken up in Holland, where the Dutch magazine, Elsevier, noted:
“What does this judgement mean for the sovereignty of other member states? Should they not also build a guarantee into their own legislation in order to secure their right to self-determination?”
As the German constitutional court has effectively compelled the German Parliament to insert legal safeguards, should the UK Parliament not also receive at least comparable safeguards to those that will apparently be provided to the German Parliament? That judgment came not from those on what the Minister might call the Eurosceptic fringe of politics, but from the constitutional court of Germany. As he was so keen earlier to refer to the German constitution, will he now be mindful of the decisions of the court that exists to police that constitution? In simple terms, if additional safeguards are good enough for the people of Germany, why should they not be good enough for the people of the United Kingdom? I hope he will address that point when he sums up.
Another part of the document that causes concern is the development of the European external action service. Page 6 of the document notes:
“One of the early and visible outcomes of such an institutional change would be the setting-up of the European External Action Service”.
There have been suspicions that the reason why there would be such an early and visible outcome is that the creation of the EAAS is already under way, notwithstanding the result of the referendum yet to be held—most likely—in Ireland. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Under-Secretary could reassure us that no work has been undertaken on setting up the external access service, as envisaged by the Lisbon treaty, given that its ratification has been halted in a number of member states. On that point, I should like to correct him: he said that it had not been ratified in two member states, but actually it has not been ratified in four—Germany, Ireland, the Czech Republic and Poland. That being the case, will he assure us that no work has been done in the UK to set up the external action service? As he well knows, the treaty is not live. I would like a clear answer to that.
In conclusion, the annual policy strategy provides a welcome insight into the work that the Commission will undertake in the year ahead. We support some of the proposals, such as those on climate change, biodiversity and—largely—enlargement. However, the EU must be based on the consent of its peoples. Missing from the document is a recognition that political developments cannot be divorced from the people whom they are supposed to represent. If European political leaders and institutions continue to deny the people their say, they should not be surprised if the institutions they build foster, in some instances, a mixture of cynicism and apathy. Instead of talking about implementing the Lisbon treaty and the furtherance of moves towards a federal European superstate, against the wishes of the people of Europe, the document should have concentrated on real outcomes, and only on areas where by working together, Europe can achieve more productively and for the benefit of its peoples. It should not be trying to create a “United States of Europe”, which those peoples do not want.
4.24 pm
Chris Bryant: With leave, Mr. Illsley, I shall speak for a second time in order that I might reply to the comments made in the debate. We might be few, but we are perfectly formed—small, but perfectly formed! I am sure that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) identifies with that phrase.
I shall go through the speeches made and try to respond to any points that I can. If I cannot answer any questions, I undertake to write to hon. Members.
Mr. Francois: As a courtesy, I want to say that it was very kind of the Minister to refer to me as “perfectly formed”. I am grateful.
Chris Bryant: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman finally recognised the compliment—I was not meaning to be disrespectful. My respect for him is abundant.
The hon. Member—indeed, my hon. Friend—for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) misunderstands how the European rules on mobile telephony have changed and how enforced standards were imposed on television across Europe. As a result, we have ended up with a much better television system in Europe than the one in the United States of America. There was a shared pressure between the Commission and some member states that was not shared by others. This is a constant process. The architecture of the EU presents
some difficulties. Different bodies play different roles, which is mostly misunderstood by members of the public.
Why should the public have to spend their time understanding the difference between the Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe, or the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and their different responsibilities? The result is a curious democratic deficit in Europe. There is not one European demos holding a single view at any one time and so able to grant a mandate to the whole of Europe. I have long held that view. It is an important principle, but it makes it difficult to get an agreement across Europe, including on matters on which Britain has led the way. The common agricultural policy is a classic example.
The Government would much prefer a radically reformed CAP, but if we had no CAP, which was a position advocated at the beginning of the Union, the danger would be that each member state would simply dole out moneys to their own agricultural bodies and farmers, without any regard to what is happening in other countries. That would have had as detrimental an effect on farming in the UK as state aid policies in some of the eastern bloc countries would have had had they continued into the modern era. So we have an important balancing act to perform.
Mr. Graham Stuart: If the CAP had not been implemented, like in many other areas of industry subsidised in the past by nation states, competition law and the development of the EU single market might have been more effective. Instead we have this large EU project that seems to have been relatively immune to reform, although I accept that some—but far too limited—progress has been made.
Chris Bryant: I hate to say it, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we want much greater progress in this area. However, Greek or Spanish colleagues’, let alone French colleagues’, understanding of the significance of agricultural subsidies to their economies and of tackling issues relating to poverty, migration and so on, is very different from our experience. I am hesitant to say that there should never have been a CAP, but I agree entirely that we need far more substantial movement.
Mr. Francois: I appreciate that the impact of the CAP in different EU countries is perceived in different ways. Nevertheless, as I intimated earlier, when the former Prime Minister came back from the negotiations in 2005, having given up £7 billion of British taxpayers’ money, he told Parliament that he had done so in return for further reform of the CAP. Where is the reform that we were promised?
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been reform. Moreover, even at a time when a large number of agriculture-dependent countries have joined the EU, the proportion of the EU budget that has been spent on the common agricultural policy has fallen dramatically. We want to see another significant fall, which will be one of the challenges facing the new Commission when it takes on its responsibilities.
Mr. Francois:
The Under-Secretary talks about further reform, but there has been very little reform of the CAP since 2005. Is he seriously saying that the CAP health check represents real significant reform and that it is
worth £7 billion of British taxpayers’ money? If that is the argument he is making, I just want to be clear about it because there are many people who would not agree with him.
Chris Bryant: My argument is pretty straightforward. It is that we need further reform of the common agricultural policy. To achieve that, we must carry other people from the European Union with us. This is a difficult business for us to achieve. I am glad that the percentage of the EU budget that is spent on the common agricultural policy has fallen, and we would like to see it fall still further. We will make a very strong case for that when we come to discuss the health check to which he has referred.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness also raised the issue of the Irish people, and several other hon. Members mentioned what happened in Germany this week. The only thing I would say is that there is an irony when people suggest that we should be telling every other country in Europe how they should go about the process of ratification because they do not want a federal state. I do not want a federal state or a federal Europe. That is one of the reasons why I am not in the business of telling each and every member state around Europe how they should go about their process of ratification. It is for the people of Germany to decide how they go about that. I know that there was a ruling in the German constitutional court this week, but that is a matter for Germany to resolve. If Germany feels that it is unable to resolve it, then that is how it is. In the end, it is a matter for Germany. It is not for us to tell it what to do. It was extraordinary to hear the hon. Member for Rayleigh effectively saying that the German constitutional court should be telling us in this Parliament how to conduct our business. I thought that we fought against that.
Mr. Ellwood: That was not my interpretation of my hon. Friend’s comments. The reason why there is such an interest in what goes on in other countries is that it relates to the mechanics of what we are voting for. We do not have the system if one country votes against it, so, of course, we look over our shoulders to see what is happening in other countries. We want to be aware of what is happening. That is why it is pertinent to debate such matters and have an understanding in this House as well. We cannot ignore what happens in Germany; we do not want to interfere. If Germany decides not to ratify the constitution, it will have huge ramifications for Europe and for us.
Chris Bryant: I will reply to the hon. Gentleman once I have heard from the hon. Member for Rayleigh.
Mr. Francois:
If you are happy to allow a double intervention, Mr. Illsley, then it is down to the Minister. Forgive me, but I do not want the Minister in any way, perhaps inadvertently, to misrepresent me. The point that I was making was that if additional safeguards are to be allowed for the people of Germany and the German Parliament, I believe that similar safeguards should at least be on offer to the people of Britain and the British Parliament. That is not a case of being told what to do by anybody, but it is saying that we would
like the same additional safeguards that a court in Germany appears to believe that its Parliament might well merit. The question was why can we not have them here if we want them?
Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, that is slightly different from the way in which he expressed himself earlier. He seemed to be saying that because the German constitutional court has said X, we must do Y, and that would be wrong. We have gone through the parliamentary process. The hon. Gentleman is not happy with it. He believes that the Lisbon treaty is inappropriate and that we should not be going forward with it. I happen to disagree with him, as does Parliament. It is about the majorities that were secured in not just the House of Commons but the House of Lords. So, I disagree with all those hon. Members who think that because one country has gone down one course, we should follow.
The hon. Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Rayleigh raised the question of Turkey. I will make it absolutely clear that the Government are as fully committed to Turkish membership of the European Union as they ever have been. There are countries that adopt a somewhat different position. There are those who believe that such membership should take a long time and those who think that it should take a short time. We believe that having a secular Muslim state as a member of the European Union and playing a key role at the edge of Europe is a matter of significant strategic importance. Turkey has addressed a number of issues, including its human rights, and many more still need to be resolved. None the less, our support has not diminished.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness referred to the issue of party groupings. We could talk about that all afternoon, but I am not sure that there is enormous value to our doing so. I still have a large number of issues to address by 5 o’clock so, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will leave that matter.
At the beginning of the afternoon, the hon. Member for Rayleigh asked me which MEP said:
“I do not want to see the strong Tory group of MEPs in Europe...forced to give up all the positions of influence we have used to the benefit of our constituents, our country and our party, in exchange for a position on the back benches alongside a bunch of fascists, outcasts and ne’er-do-wells.”
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was Struan Stephenson, who is still a Scottish MEP representing the Conservative party.
Mr. Francois: Will the Under-Secretary tell me the date of the quote?
Chris Bryant: I cannot do that, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I used that quote on a previous occasion in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman felt that the quote was inappropriate, he should have written to Mr. Stephenson to get him to withdraw it. I am not aware that he has done so, and he certainly has not done so in writing to me.
Mr. Francois:
I just want to make it plain that I have spoken to Mr. Stephenson on a number of occasions, the most recent being three weeks ago, and he was fully
in favour of this new group. As the Under-Secretary has been doing a bit of research, I should like to know how old the quote is. I think that it probably goes back a little way.
Chris Bryant: I note that the hon. Gentleman has not said that Mr. Stephenson has withdrawn that view. Should he be able to get Mr. Stephenson to write to me saying that he wholly disowns that quote and that he never intended to express such views, then I am perfectly happy to make that clear in any subsequent debate in the House. If necessary, I will apologise. However, Mr. Stephenson must provide a full retraction of that and say that he never held those views and does not hold those views now.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness asked about the working time directive.
Mr. Graham Stuart indicated dissent.
Chris Bryant: No, the hon. Gentleman did not, he asked about the European energy performance of buildings directive. As he will be aware, the Government support the direction in which the directive is going. It is at an early stage of negotiation. We want to ensure that the details are ones that work for the United Kingdom. As the negotiations go forward, I am perfectly happy to provide further information, but it is early stages yet. The hon. Gentleman should not be running away with the view that we are opposed to this directive.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East referred to a large number of issues. If he does not mind, I will rattle through them. He was very dismissive of Galileo, as was the hon. Member for Rayleigh. I think that I have heard him dismissing Galileo before. It is important to bear it in mind that there is a keen distinction between Galileo and the Global Positioning System. GPS has a military foundation, whereas Galileo was always intended to be under civil control. We believe that it has contributed to the Lisbon agenda by providing high-skilled jobs in Europe and ensuring that we have a knowledge-based economy. We are concerned about ensuring that it is delivered at the agreed cost, which I think is €3.4 billion. We do not want the cost to increase, but I am not as dismissive as him: I believe that it will provide improved accuracy when it works in collaboration with GPS.
Chris Bryant: My worry is that if I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I may end up being unable to respond on other matters, but he has asked.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |