---

European Affairs

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore). In some ways, listening to, and taking part in, this debate is a bit like being at a meeting of the European Council: many issues are placed on the agenda, and rightly so, and everybody wants to have their say about all the various issues that are on the agenda, but only a limited number of issues ever come off the agenda with any decision having been made. It is another axiom of Council meetings that if someone wants something to be on the agenda in 24 months, they must raise it now or there will be no chance of it ever becoming an issue that is treated as a priority. It is therefore right that Members of this House are raising many issues that affect our future in Europe. In debates such as ours, it is often said that the usual suspects take part—often by making the usual suspects’ speeches. Our debate today is not particularly different from those of other occasions, although I notice and welcome that a number of newer Conservative Members are quickly learning the tricks of usual suspicion. We look forward to their contributions. Inevitably, and as the Foreign Secretary said in her introductory speech, the main issue on the agenda, which will be taken off it following the decisions that will hopefully be taken next week, will be how we proceed with enlargement. Matters relating to Bulgaria and Romania, and to some of the other countries that have been mentioned today, will be discussed. It is very important to ensure that we get the Turkey situation right, and that we continue to argue a positive case. The very complicated position in the Balkans also needs to be sorted out over time. I would normally dwell on enlargement, as I have before in such debates, but today I want to be different. I want to put on the agenda an issue that, although it will not be top of the bill next week, will probably rise up the order of priorities come the June Council meeting and will become increasingly important in subsequent meetings: climate change. The European Union is often criticised on all sorts of grounds. Some of that criticism is friendly, and some of it not so. Whatever one thinks of the EU, I cannot imagine that any other body will hold together international talks on climate change. The United Nations will try and, in a sense, it will set the tone of what might be achievable, but to judge by history, it will not achieve it. Such aims will be achieved through negotiations between different interest blocs, who will sit down in a multilateral decision-making forum, whatever form that forum might take. That is exactly what happened at the Kyoto talks some years ago. The UN was unable to resolve the situation on its own, so there were talks among the different blocs and different commitments were made. It is not just a question of outlining a particular position; it is about being able to deliver on it. If the EU was not taking a very active role in climate change, how on earth would we deliver what we want to deliver in a European context? It would be extremely difficult, and I doubt whether we could. As the emissions trading scheme shows, even with the EU’s involvement, it is not all plain sailing; there are many difficulties that we have to face up to. Without the EU’s involvement, the situation would be almost impossible. Emissions trading is playing a key role in tackling the carbon reduction aims that are increasingly being pursued throughout the world. This is not an original EU idea—it evolved following inter-state agreements within the United States—but the EU has driven it forward in a positive way. Some 18 months into the scheme, we are already seeing the progress that is being made. It is not perfect, however. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—he is no longer in his place—pointed out in an intervention, there have been many somewhat dubious definitions of permits under the existing permit scheme. Such aspects of the scheme have to be tightened up, but essentially, it is sound. It sets carbon emission levels for different European nations and within different industries, and it provides a forum for examining what is happening and what needs to be done not only by nation states, but by the industrial and commercial sector. I cannot envisage a better forum for achieving that aim, which is why we must focus on it and build on what has already been achieved. A measure of marketisation is also the right approach. It is better if people have an incentive to do something sensible, rather than their being forced to do something that others believe to be sensible. That is why the incentive scheme is a good one. It encourages those who can make bigger gains than they are required to make to do so, and to trade them on. It also encourages those who find it extremely difficult in the shorter term to make such gains to buy the permit cover that they need to meet the European guidelines, if the other parts of their business allow them to do so. I think that the scheme is a good one, but the rules need to be examined and there must be a monitoring system, with the EU looking closely at what is happening in member states. If we start to wander from our commitment and targets, so will everyone else, and the scheme will fall to bits. However, the main challenge has to do with the future. The current emissions deals take us through to 2012. There is a European commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 8 per cent in that period, but whether we achieve those targets remains to be seen. How do we take things forward? How does the EU play its post-Kyoto role, looking forward to 2020 and beyond? Those key questions cover much of the territory covered by the recent Stern report. I know that the December Council meeting will not resolve them, but the Germans in particular are interested and there will be a lot of pressure to make real progress next May and in the Council meetings that follow. Another matter that needs to be reviewed on a regular basis is the scope of the emissions trading scheme. Which greenhouse gases should it cover? That question needs to be discussed in depth. Any EU agreement must be consistent with Kyoto, but nitrous oxide, for instance, is not included at the moment, even though it accounts for a significant amount of emissions. In addition, should gases emitted from coal, such as methane, be covered by a new emissions trading scheme? Other greenhouse gases are emitted from aluminium production plants. Their names are so complicated that I will not try to pronounce them, but should they be included in future? Those are big questions, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister winding up the debate has to say in response. I also have various other questions that I want to ask. The UK has adopted a very radical approach to aviation. Our population accrues more air miles per person than just about any other in Europe, so any agreement is likely to hurt us a little. However, there would be a big gap in the new emissions trading scheme if it did not include aviation. I had thought that total emissions from aviation amounted to 2 or 3 per cent. of the European total, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his statement earlier that the proportion is now calculated at 6 per cent. A sector that accounts for so much in the way of emissions cannot be ignored, and that raises serious questions about how the EU will introduce controls on aviation. The matter could be dealt with relatively easily at a European level through fiscal measures, although I know that some Opposition Members might find that difficult. However, what is the positive alternative to air travel? How do we invest in a Europe-wide rail system whose emissions levels per passenger mile would be about one seventh of what is produced by aviation? I asked that question in my contribution to the Queen’s Speech debate, but other questions are also important. For instance: how do we link up rail systems so that people can travel cheaply from any part of the EU to any other on fast trains? That would contribute to improving the environment but it would be a big, costly and challenging decision. Do Ministers accept that tackling the problems of aviation or vehicle travel in general raises questions to do with how we transfer the emphasis onto public transport in the European context? That is a difficult problem that cannot be resolved by single states acting alone.