| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 July 2009 : Column 176WH—continued
Mr. Ellwood:
We are talking about astonishing sums of money—€3.4 billion—so it is worth just a couple more seconds of the Minister’s and the Chamber’s time. We should have updates and more detail on exactly how the money is being spent. The matter was being debated when I first became an MP, and as the Minister said, I have spoken about it before, but there is still only one satellite up there. The project is way behind time. He should not lean on the argument that GPS is for military purposes. The web was for military purposes, but it has now wandered off into civilian use, so we are able to adapt. The BlackBerry in his pocket works off GPS,
and that will continue. The accuracy of Galileo will be no better than GPS, so the question remains: why are we paying for a duplicate system when we can use one free of charge? Everyone who uses the Galileo system will be charged—it will not be free at the point of use—for the additional accuracy that is needed.
Chris Bryant: I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s views on the matter before. As it happens, I do not have a BlackBerry in my pocket; I have an iPhone, but the point remains.
As it stands, GPS will need significant levels of investment in the years to come if it is to maintain its operability. Of course, we expect and hope for that investment, but that does not negate the necessity for Galileo. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have concerns about how the programme has been developing and the finances, but that does not mean that we should write it off. I am perfectly happy to provide in much greater detail our precise views on Galileo in writing if he wishes.
Chris Bryant: My honest views are the same as those I espouse—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to suggest otherwise.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about carbon capture and storage. Again, he was sceptical about whether it would succeed. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made an important point on CCS—that it is not just about what we in Britain and Europe do; it is also about what happens in China and India. Given the number of coal-fired power stations that are being opened every week around the world, it is important that we ensure that CCS technology happens. It may prove to be an interim technology or it could last some considerable time, but I hope that the Government will be able to provide in the near future considerably more detail.
Mr. Ellwood: More information on Galileo by letter would be much appreciated. I appreciate that I am testing the Minister’s generosity and I am grateful that he has given way once again. I am happy to be proved wrong, but we have yet to see any form of CCS actually work. I am very much in favour of other forms of green energy. The one thing that could be successful, but which we are always told is 20 years away, is nuclear fusion. It is 20 years away because we do not put enough money into the research. That is the utopia. It is the form of nuclear energy that is absolutely safe. It would not require any form of radioactive material such as uranium or plutonium because it uses water. It would be very simple, very safe and very cheap, if we could harness the technology. Why do we not invest in it?
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman said “very simple,” but if it were very simple, doubtless we would already have it. There would be an enormous advantage if we gained first-mover status and were able to develop CCS first. The potential value of that to European economies in relation to China and India would be very significant.
I generally take on board the hon. Gentleman’s points on energy policy—several questions were asked about it. We cannot put all our eggs in one basket. One of the
difficulties that the country faces is that having relied on particular forms of energy, we could become more and more dependent on energy from abroad if we do not take the serious decisions that need to be taken on nuclear energy. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire and her party are wholly opposed to that, but in the end it will be difficult to establish the future energy security of the UK, let alone ensure that people are able to keep the lights on and the economy running, if we are unable to include it in our package of measures.
Jo Swinson: If that is the case—as the Minister suggests, it will be difficult to cut our carbon emissions without nuclear technology—is it not an admission of the Government’s failure in the past 12 years to invest sufficiently and to push alternatives, energy efficiency and renewable technologies? We are still not a world leader. Does that suggest that the Government have not had the success that they should have had?
Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady will be surprised to hear that I do not agree with her, but she has made her point.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East was entirely right about a common gas market. We would like a liberalised common gas market across Europe. It is important, and we have been arguing for it for some considerable time. Getting the French and the Spanish to agree with us has been a difficult process, but we are getting much closer. All European countries, not just those that are closest to Russia and that have been most anxious and nervous about the possible closing off of their gas supplies, have begun to realise that energy security is vital. It cannot depend only on state-provided solutions; we have to ensure that we have a liberalised energy market. It is also important in terms of competitiveness.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Copenhagen, as did all hon. Members. There is unanimity on Copenhagen. I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, because the more Ministers can say that they speak unambiguously for Parliament in the lead up to Copenhagen, the better. We want an ambitious programme, because we recognise that climate change is not a myth, as some suggest, but potentially the biggest single danger and risk to economic prosperity and individuals’ ability to live contented lives. The more we are able to say that as a united Parliament, the greater the chance that we will get a successful outcome in Copenhagen. In my day job as Minister with responsibility for Latin America, I am keen to ensure that we get a strong message to our allies. Many in Latin America want the same things, because they know that climate change is likely to affect the poorest countries, and the poorest people in those countries, most dramatically.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East asked about the CFP. We are keen for it to be reformed, and we are thoroughly aware that in many parts of the world, humanity has overfished and stocks are so depleted that it may be impossible for them to regenerate. I have always been rather sceptical of those who want an entirely national fisheries policy, because I do not know of any fish that know how to stick within their national borders. This country has responsibilities not only within the EU. Because of our overseas territories, we have some of the most important territories of fish stocks in the world. Our presence in the British Indian ocean off
the east coast of Africa is vital. If we were able to create a sustainable marine park—because of how the currents work towards east Africa—it could make a dramatic difference to the fishing stocks in the region and to some of the poorest parts of the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked about world policy. I pay tribute to him, because he knows a great deal about the armed forces, not only from his service, but from his continuing work as an MP. His information is not old and he has kept it refreshed. He makes an important point on the need for better co-operation between the EU and NATO. We as a Government have never thought that the developments in the EU for which we have argued should contradict NATO. They should always harmonise with and supplement them. There are key places where that has been self-evident, not least in the Balkans.
The hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between war fighting and peacekeeping. There is not only peacekeeping, but peace building. Those three processes are distinct, but sometimes the moment of transition from one to another is difficult to spot. A classic example is Bosnia. The British had started to feel that our job had been done and that we were no longer doing a military job, but there was a danger none the less that if we withdrew too soon, the situation with Republic Srpska, which was trying to dismantle federal solutions to criminal justice problems, would relapse back to its old position. I think that we have got our timing more or less right, but I note in response to the hon. Member for Rayleigh that Republic Srpska has declared that some institutions are illegal. I think that it is right that we should push back and that the EU should make it clear that we intend to move forward and not back towards a segregated, divided—dare I say balkanised—Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East also asked whether it is the armed forces or the international development people who should be engaged in the process of what he referred to as peacekeeping, but which I guess is also peace building. Sometimes he is right in these matters, and sometimes he is wrong. I think that there must be a creative engagement between the two. The Foreign Secretary has admitted readily that one thing that the coalition did not get right in Iraq was the process of ensuring that a proper reconstruction plan was in place and ready to start swiftly. Often, of course, that would have to be introduced by the armed forces rather than others. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Rayleigh is twitching in an interventionary way.
Mr. Francois: The Minister mentioned Bosnia, and I thank him for what he said about it, but will he confirm that it is still the Government’s policy—perhaps he is coming to this—that the Office of the High Representative should not be wound up? That has certainly been the Government’s policy to date, and I would like some confirmation that it has not changed. A simple “No it hasn’t” will suffice.
Chris Bryant: It might be a simple question, but my inspiration is not functioning. Maybe the dove of inspiration will descend on me in the near future.
Looking at my papers, I can see that I have done that and done that—Hansard need not put in the “done thats.”
Mr. Francois: You just read it into the record.
Chris Bryant: I am fully aware of that, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. I have now written him into the record as well.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East asked about the lifelong learning programme and how the extra £39 million will be spent. A series of new initiatives will be introduced: adult learning workshops, new schools and local authority partnerships, a new programme of pupil mobility and training for learning assistance.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said that what was important was advancing the argument for what Europe has achieved. I was brought up partly in Spain, which was a fascist dictatorship at the time, and travelled when I was young with my father to Greece, which was then a dictatorship of the left. I also travelled to Poland when it was a communist dictatorship. I know that one thing that we forget all too easily is the new human rights that many people across the whole of Europe enjoy and that I hope will never be reversed. That is in large measure due to the political willpower expressed by the countries of Europe to create the European Union.
There are other things, such as clean beaches in Europe. I remember as a child that one always ended up being covered in tar, and had to take olive oil to the beach to get tar off one’s feet. That does not happen on EU beaches, because the European Commission and the member states working together fought hard to institute a programme of clean beaches around the whole of Europe. The EU has also ended the death penalty. The right to work in any country in the EU is enjoyed by many of my constituents, who work in the aviation industry all over Europe. That is a significant benefit that they would not have been able to enjoy in the past, as is the fact that if they go on holiday, they have the same consumer rights as they would have in their home town. Those are important benefits that have accrued.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to energy. I hope that I have answered her questions. She also referred to financial services and the dangers of repeating problems. I have argued for a long time that we should be examining how the financial services industry sometimes pushes debt on people in the poorest constituencies in our land and the poorest areas in Europe. In this country, it is for our Financial Services Authority to regulate, but I am glad that we as a Government can now move forward on credit card checks and the other issues that we discussed in a White Paper this week.
The hon. Lady referred to the packaging waste directive. I agree wholly. I remember taking part in a media event with Help the Aged that tried to point out that some packaging is impossible for elderly people to open. We tried with boxing gloves on, but I could not open it even after I had taken them off. Clearly, that is a significant issue, and if she will permit me, I will write to her about it.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about protectionism. I do not think that protectionism, whether of the political variety or the economic, tariff-creating kind, is the answer to any of the world’s current problems, which is partly why we need fair trade, free trade agreements around the world. That is a message that we push not only in Europe but in all our other agreements.
The hon. Lady asked about Croatia. We want to move forward with Croatia, but we also want to move forward with an interim agreement only when we have obtained 100 per cent. co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. That is important. We hope that in the near future, it might be possible for Croatia to bring forth the remaining indicted war criminals, but we need 100 per cent. co-operation if Croatia is to move any further forward. If she does not mind, I will write to her about the Maghreb, as the issue is wider than the one country to which she referred.
The hon. Member for Rayleigh began by referring to birds as pretty young women. I will have to refer him to the Leader of the House. As she is also Minister for Equality, she will doubtless put him on the naughty step and send him off for training in political correctness. However, I have a horrible fear that it might not work.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Copenhagen and the common agricultural policy, which I have already mentioned. On the Lisbon agenda, he seemed to suggest that the Swedish Government were arguing for radical cuts in public spending and that one of the problems in Britain was the level of public spending. In Sweden, the level of public spending is significantly higher than in the UK and historically its level of taxation has been considerably higher. I am therefore not sure that the Swedish Prime Minister would agree entirely with the way in which the hon. Gentleman cast his views.
I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate at this point in the economic cycle, while there is a worldwide recession, for Britain to cut its public spending. It is right to allow borrowing to grow at the moment. I realise that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with us. I realise that he will beg, borrow and steal friends who might even half agree with him on the matter. However,
I do not think that many people in Europe have argued that the whole of Europe should be cutting back. In fact, the European economic recovery plan, which stretches to nearly 5 per cent. of gross domestic product, has made a significant contribution.
I am inspired: of course we support the EU High Representative in Bosnia.
Mr. Francois: What about Russia?
Chris Bryant: I was just about to move on to Georgia and Russia, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. He knows perfectly well that we are concerned about the position that Russia has adopted. The Council of Europe grouping in which his party sits includes members of the Russian Government. He might wish to raise some of the issues he has mentioned with them in Council of Europe meetings. He is right that we would have preferred all three monitoring groups to have continued in Georgia. We believe that Russia is acting inappropriately. We are only grateful that because Russia is not a member of the European Union, it cannot decide whether the EU will continue its monitoring presence in Georgia, to which we are committed.
I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions about Bosnia and Herzegovina. He raised several issues about the Lisbon treaty, in particular on the external action service. He knows perfectly well what my views are about that because we have debated those matters in Committee. Nobody is progressing the external action service. He can check the record from the last time I was asked about the matter. I assure him that we are not proceeding on the assumption that the Lisbon treaty will be implemented, but are looking at all possibilities.
I hope I have answered all the questions that hon. Members have asked.
5.1 pm
| Index | Home Page |