House of Lords
Thursday, 11th April 2002.
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
Lord Gavron—Took the Oath.
Europe: Maintenance of Peace
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they believe that the European Union has maintained peace in Europe, and whether it is likely to do so in future.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that the cornerstone of maintaining peace in Europe has been and will continue to be NATO. Her Majesty's Government also believe that the European Union has played a significant part in providing the framework for promoting peace, stability and prosperity among its member states and in its external relations, and that with enlargement the Union will be even better placed to do so in the coming years.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad to note that even this Europhile Government do not pretend that any EU country would have gone to war with another since the Treaty of Rome was signed in the absence of the EU. As to the past, would the noble Baroness not go further and agree that NATO must take all the credit for keeping the peace in Europe since 1945? As to the future, does she not agree that the EU is a top-down creation, a conglomeration of different nations, put together without adequate democratic support? Does not history teach us that such conglomerations nearly always end in disaster?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government since 1997, and, I believe, well before that, has been that NATO does, indeed, take the credit for keeping and maintaining peace in Europe. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has serious problems with what he describes as a conglomeration of states. He told us so in no uncertain terms on 28th January last on Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill when he said that the European Union is dangerous for peace. That is not a view taken by Her Majesty's Government; nor is it a view taken by any of the countries currently negotiating to join the European Union. The noble Lord may cast his eyes heavenward, but there are a great number of countries who want to join us and whose democratically-elected governments wish to do
so. I believe that the structure of the Union means that partners have a natural forum in which to raise their disputes without having to resort to aggression. That is what I meant by helping to reinforce the framework for peace.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given the dreadful occurrences over the past 10 years in the west Balkans—countries right in our backyard where the EU spends collectively about 1 billion euros a year on aid and 5 billion euros on security—does my noble friend not agree that it is very much in our interests to treat this matter as part of the EU roadmap and that crocodile tears are being shed by those who say that the EU has no competence to act on security but at the same time oppose it doing so?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree strongly with the comments of my noble friend. The countries of the west Balkans are eligible for a stabilisation and association agreement once they meet certain basic political conditions, which are exactly what one would expect: democracy, respect for human rights and international obligations, including action against war criminals. Those criteria strike me as exactly the kind we would want in order to pursue a peaceful Europe. As my noble friend rightly says, they are also eligible for technical assistance in building institutions and establishing the rule of law. They also have considerable trade liberalisation arrangements with the European Union.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the European Union has succeeded in taming nationalism without suppressing patriotism and in sharing sovereignty without destroying the nation and is, therefore, a uniquely valuable organisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord put it far more eloquently than I could. People of my generation have grown up without war in Europe. I fully acknowledge what has been achieved by NATO. However, I believe that the European Union has played its role in seeing the disappearance of the fascist dictatorships of Spain, Portugal and Greece, and the communist dictatorships of central Europe. The EU is very much to be congratulated on the constructive role it has played.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as a former ambassador to Luxembourg, perhaps I may remind the House that although a loyal member of NATO, Luxembourg nevertheless attached enormous importance to the European Union as a guarantee against any further hostilities between her two neighbours, France and Germany, from which Luxembourg suffered grievously in the past.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, again that is a timely intervention. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that there may be many criticisms that could be levelled at
Europe. Indeed, the noble Lord is eloquent in doing so. I refer to criticisms about the common agricultural policy; bureaucracy; the complex language of treaties, on which he is a great expert; and some of the more obvious demonstrable democratic controls, about which he is concerned. However, to say that the European Union is dangerous for peace is a thoroughly implausible argument.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House more about the development in the European Union of foreign and security policy? I was surprised at her robust response to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has ever been to Rannoch Moor; I can assure her that it is a bleak place and may well account for how the noble Lord acquired his views. Surely the Minister accepts that while NATO will be the umbrella, the United States needs a reliable, strong, and effective partner in the whole business of making contributions to peace world-wide, to help her, advise her and sometimes to hold her back.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know anything about Rannoch Moor. I take the noble Lord's word that it is a bleak place, but I would say that in my experience that is quite unlike the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whom I have always found to be rather a jolly companion.
I remind your Lordships that the European security and defence policy does not conduct European territorial defence; only NATO does that. Of course the ESDP is for crisis management where NATO as a whole is not engaged. But the noble Lord is quite right. The United States has indeed welcomed the ESDP. President Bush said in February 2001 that the United States welcomed the EU's European security and defence policy which was of course intended to make Europe stronger. That was a worthy endorsement.
UK Steel Industry
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their reaction to the £462 million loss recorded by Corus and what action they intend to take to safeguard jobs in the United Kingdom steel industry against subsidised foreign competition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government are fully aware that the UK steel industry continues to experience difficult trading conditions which are reflected in the losses recorded by Corus. The company is seeking to address this situation in part through the sale of its aluminium interests. Market conditions are forecast to improve this year. It is hoped that Corus will return to profitability in the near future.
As for subsidies to steel companies, within the EU there are strict rules limiting aid. Agreements with applicant countries also recognise that it is important to move away from high levels of state aid as soon as possible to help ensure a level playing field is created in the enlarged EU.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, as a result of the illegal tariffs put on our steel exports by the United States of America, the losses could be even greater? That is despite the fact that our steel industry is one of the three most efficient and productive ones in the world. Given that situation, can the Minister tell us what discussions his right honourable friend the Prime Minister had with President Bush last weekend about relieving us from this illegal tariff, particularly as we understand that Mr Mittal, whom the Prime Minister aided in his letter, was actually responsible for the lobbying? We should like to know what proposals his right honourable friend brought up and what the results of those proposals were.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are determined to stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustified and deeply regrettable action. Britain has one of the most efficient and productive steel-making industries and workforces in the world because we have been through restructuring. It has not been a pain-free process. Since 1980 some 86,000 jobs have been lost in the UK.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the issue of the tariffs with President Bush during his meeting in Crawford, Texas, last weekend. He reiterated the UK's disappointment with the US action; he confirmed our support for the robust response by the European Commission; and he expressed support for the efforts by UK companies to secure product exclusions from the US measures. So we have made our views very clear to the American President on this issue. We shall have to wait to see what the impact of that statement is. That would not have taken place immediately with the American President giving his response, but obviously he took that on board.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page