Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 May 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
European Union (Amendment) Bill
The noble Lord knows what I am going to say; he is experienced enough to know that will be a matter for the usual channels to decide. I am sure he will be a powerful voice in that discussion. For all the reasons that I have set out—on which, in their attitude to CAP reform, I hope to gain consensus or fellow-feeling around the Committee—I do not believe that a statement as asked for in Amendment No. 41A would add anything new. I want to sit down because we have other important business to attend to. However, these are important matters, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has been waiting a long time for what I am about to say. I am going to tell him who is on our side, or closer to our view, rather than those who are not, so he will have to work it out for himself. As well as us, at least eight other countries in the EU are what we now describe as reform-minded. They are: Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Malta. It is important to have allies in this important enterprise. Even among those who are not so enthusiastic for CAP reform we believe there is some recognition now that further reform is inevitable and that the budget will be cut substantially after 2013. There is also much common ground on much of the detail of the CAP health check, particularly the measures which reduce burdens on farmers, such as abolition of set-aside and simplification of direct payments. Finally, in a Financial Times article today my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quoted calling for an end to direct support for European farmers and the abolition of all measures that keep farm prices above world market levels. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was kind enough to commend the comments that were quoted at any rate. I think that that shows quite clearly that the Government mean business. But as far as the Lisbon treaty is concerned—and I have to keep reminding myself that that is what we are debating in this House—I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 701 c889-90
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal proceedings Accountability Criminal investigation Administration of justice Asylum Common fisheries policy Civil proceedings Immigration EU law European Union European Parliament International cooperation Legal opinion EU budget Family law Police Organised crime Prosecutions Terrorism Treaty on European Union Common agricultural policy European Court of Justice Legal systems Qualified majority voting Treaty of Lisbon Eurojust Interpreters Small claims
- Legislation
- European Union (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:27:06 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_471406
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_471406
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_471406