---

Europe in the World (EUC Report)

My Lords, in view of the previous debate on the Eurotunnel, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, as he has made his way up from Ashford in Kent today. In view of the inclement weather, I wish him a speedy return after our speedy contributions to this very important and timely debate. I ask the Minister first of all about the Prime Minister’s comments to the Liaison Committee on Tuesday, where he seemed to say that after he has gone the United Kingdom will need to decide whether it lays greater emphasis on working with the European Union, perhaps at the expense of the work it has done with America. It was always my view that the Prime Minister was right to be as even-handed as possible, but I wondered how my noble friend interpreted what he said. The debate is also timely because the reporton the European Union in the world, which is an excellent contribution to the Commission’s paper, demonstrates that the EU does not reflect its economic power, its military strength or the fact that it is the biggest market in the world. We seem to have been concerned, for understandable reasons, with creating affluence within Europe rather than influence outside it. It is also true that collectively as a union we do not punch our weight; indeed, we punch below it. Nor are we punchy enough in getting across the European Union view to the wider world. I have never quite understood why we have not been more influential, for instance, in the Middle East. After all, the countries there are our neighbours, and we should be having a much more influential dialogue withthem than has hitherto been the case. That is understandable. Europe is not like America. It is sui generis, a combination of 27 countries, but we should make efforts to make a virtue of the vice that we are many countries in a union. If the EU is performing its role less effectively on the world stage than it might do, the United Kingdom, as part of the union, also lessens its own effect—although that is separatefrom the sterling work done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our Ministers in that respect. In their reply to the Commission’s paper, the Government make a point of saying that the Commission’s proposals are distinct from those ofthe constitutional treaty. It is understandable that that is said; however, the proposals may be distinct, but they are not unrelated. In common is the need to make the European Union more effective and efficient. That has to do with how we set about working ourselves and the complications that are arising minute by minute. Let us look at the most recent creation of the trio of countries—the present, future and future perfect—that will take the presidency of the Council of the European Union, added to the current triumvirate of past, present and future countries. That begins to complicate matters, although there may felt to be a need to be able to look more strategically, look into the future at greater length and build up consistency. I am in favour of what is said about strategic planning, the High Representative and meetings with the Commission and Council, but I share the Government’s concern that if these liaisons are to be fulfilled, the High Representative, who is often outside Brussels, will spend more time in meetings. We must never trespass into the area whereby improving co-operation means asking the High Representative to attend more and more meetings. That could create the paradox of less co-operation in the long run. We must be judicious in our selection of what is done in trying to build up co-operation. On co-operation between Council and Commission officials, will my noble friend talk about the practical ways forward that we in the UK will promote? Given that I am asking a number of questions, I will be very pleased for my noble friend to write to me if he is not able to respond during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has already pointed out the irony that one of the suggestions made in the Commission’s proposal was not subject to a joint consultation. Nevertheless, there is scope for development, and I hope that the Government are sympathetic. The noble Lord alluded to information exchanges, the crisis centre and the situation centre. If they cannot be merged, will my noble friend say a little more about the Government’s response, which I think is lukewarm? They say that the sharing of reporting and analytical resources is limited. In what way are they limited? What can be done to put it on a more positive basis? On the Commission’s representatives on the euro-zone, while I wholly acknowledge the inviolability of the European Central Bank to retain its independence, it seems a lukewarm and inadequate response for HMG to say that these are matters for members of the euro-zone alone. That is not the case. The euro is a creation of the European Union which affects members of the European Union standing outside the euro-zone. A change in interest rates may well have a knock-on effect on the economy of the United Kingdom. On ECOFIN, there are other areas where we may be represented in the foreign fora of the world, where we may want the Commission to speak up on behalf of those countries which fall outside the euro-zone. Double-hatting has been commended. Macedonia seems to have been a shining example. I was very pleased to meet its Deputy Prime Minister recently and to have that confirmed. There is scope for further development on co-operation between Council and Commission representatives with regard to the west Balkans and Addis Ababa. However, I note that again HMG’s reply is that they will take this into account. Can we be more positive? What are we going to do to activate the opportunities that arise and be more coherent in the wider world? The Government support consular assistance in crisis situations, but why only in crisis situations? After all, if we co-operate when we do not have a crisis, there are immediate benefits, but co-operating in non-crisis situations means that we are more effective in a crisis because we are used to the idea of co-operation. I told my noble friend before the debate started that I would say a few words about sharing consular premises. I have long believed that we could make more of an advance in this area, most notably for the security of our people and the staff of other embassies, who work in foreign parts and may benefit from having secure premises if we co-locate. But other savings that can be made mean that we can bring to the fore resources of which we might otherwise be starved. In that case, we will then give a better service to UK citizens and other EU citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, reminded me that we have that kind of co-operation with some of our Commonwealth colleagues, so why should we not here? In addition, can my noble friend report on what we are doing in the United Kingdom to aid and abet staff exchanges between Council and Commission officials? I have two more points. We talk much here about the Commission and the Council but I should like to see much greater exchange, especially with the staff of the European Parliament. Again, there are opportunities here that are almost wholly omitted from the paper, and I wonder whether my noble friend would respond to that. Finally, the summary refers to the need to encourage greater knowledge of the European Union and what we do actively in the world to promotethe ambitions and policies of not only the United Kingdom but the European Union. Can my noble friend say a little more about how we can be positive in saying that the European Union does much good work on behalf of the United Kingdom and we should jolly well say so?