---

European Commission

The Minister wishes to correct me and I am happy to be corrected. If we are to do that, it is incumbent on the European Commission to send us documents that are rather more meaningful and have much more clarity about both their purpose and their content. It may be that because we are coming towards the end of the Barroso Commission and we face European Parliament elections next year, the Commission does not have much more to complete. Perhaps it has completed most of the work that it set out when it came together after the previous set of elections. That may well excuse the Commission and this strategy, but when we have these debates, we need a bit of context about their purpose. As I think was implied by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), perhaps this is an early warning system; perhaps it is flagging up what may be down the line. However, for a document meant as an early warning system, it does not give much detail, so there is not much that can be flagged up from it. I am unclear about its purpose and although I welcome more debates and more scrutiny—that is an important development—the European Commission will have to help us a little more if we are to perform that task. My reading of the document suggests that if it is anything at the moment in the form in which it has been presented, it is a work programme. I refer hon. Members to pages 14 to 19, the annexe, in which it talks about the key actions envisaged for 2009. That seems to be the meat of the document and I want to ask the Minister questions about that meat later, because if we are to have a purpose today, we should understand what it is in that. I hope that the Minister will take my concerns back to the Council of Ministers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I would not be surprised if they were widely shared. Yes, we want these debates and documents that would set out an annual policy strategy—that would be useful—but we need more in them if that is to serve a useful purpose. One reason why I would welcome this type of debate and document, if they were done properly, is that I think that the European Union needs to move on from the incessant debates about institutional reform and structures. Whatever is happening today in Ireland, whatever the result tomorrow and whether or not the Lisbon treaty ends up being ratified, we need to move on from the incessant debates that we have had about tinkering with the way in which the institutions work. I personally support the Lisbon treaty. It makes valuable improvements, not least because the European Union has grown in size. With so many more member states, it seems sensible that some aspects of the institutional framework are reformed, which is the whole purpose of the Lisbon treaty; it is the main drive behind it. It may not have gone down terribly well with the Irish people, but the idea of having 27 commissioners, 28 if Croatia joins and 29 if Turkey joins makes a nonsense of the Commission. One of the beneficial aspects of the Lisbon treaty is that it would streamline the number of commissioners and the bureaucracy and provide better value for money. It would be a shame if we lost that. However, if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified and we do lose it, that does not mean that the European Commission cannot function. That has never been an argument that we have advanced. The European Commission, the European Union, will have to work out a way forward, but it should not say, ““Okay, the Lisbon treaty has been lost because Ireland didn't ratify it””—if that is what happens—““but let's start another round of discussions about how we reform the institutions.”” We must not do that. We need to move on and talk about policy—what the European Commission and the European Union institutions are doing and how they are benefiting the citizens whom we come to this place to represent and the citizens of the wider European Union. To focus on that is therefore sensible, and documents such as this can help. The document points out a number of important areas, and the European Commission and the European Union should focus on them next year. Development of the Lisbon agenda, with its strategy for jobs and growth, could not be more critical. It has been important for many years, but it will be even more important as the world economy, our economy and the European economy come across tougher times. The fact that oil and food prices are high has been referred to; we clearly are in tougher economic times. Whether or not it has an impact on this country or our trading partners in pushing through things such as deregulation and reducing the administrative burden from Europe, that agenda is clearly sensible and one that we should support. On page 14 and at the top of page 15, the document sets out how the Lisbon strategy for jobs and growth will be developed in the forthcoming year. I have some questions for the Minister on the key actions that are envisaged. The second point in the annex is"““Legislative proposals aimed at reducing administrative burdens, as part of the Commission's Action Programme””." That sounds great. I looked for evidence of what those legislative proposals might be, but I cannot find any. Will the Minister tell us what is envisaged? Is he aware of what those proposals might be? If it is a genuine deregulatory approach, we shall certainly look upon it with some enthusiasm. We then come to the subheading ““Single Market and Competition””, which includes:"““Recommendation on shared partnerships with Member States””." I looked in the main text of the document, and on page 4 it states:"““A key follow-up to the 2007 Single Market Review will be an initiative on shared partnerships between the Commission and Member States to apply and enforce Single Market law, clarifying the respective roles of the Commission and Member States and their shared responsibilities in making the Single Market work.””" I do not understand that, and I hope that the Minister can explain it. I do not know what ““shared partnerships”” are. Neither do I know what is meant by a ““New Approach Directive””, which is mentioned in the following sentence. I have heard of directives, of course, but I have no knowledge of an ““approach directive””. Will the Minister enlighten us? Under the title of jobs and growth, the document talks of the Commission stepping up action in the ““area of competition””. The Minister will have the support of the Liberal Democrats if the Government push this strongly, particularly looking at anti-trust issues and preventing the misuse of state aid. However, the liberalisation agenda of the energy sector is critical. High energy prices are taking their toll on certain industries, so we need to push that programme. I urge the Minister to see whether work can be done by the Government and the European Commission on the refinery sector. There is some concern that it is not only the rise in the commodity prices that feeds through to the pumps and the higher fuel costs faced by our constituents and industry but the pressures in the system resulting from a lack of refinery infrastructure that have created some of the problems that we have seen with supply and demand. I put it to the Minister that that may be an area for competitive inquiry, either by the EU or the Government. The final area in the growth and jobs aspect of the document that I want to touch upon is the fact that the Commission is going to"““work on a renewed VAT Strategy””." It then speaks of the"““preparation of initiatives on VAT grouping and on the VAT treatment of public authorities””." I am not quite sure what that amounts to, and some clarification would be welcome. However, I urge the Minister—I hope that he will discuss the matter with his Treasury colleagues—to focus on the VAT treatment of charities with the Commission. The United Kingdom is not unique, but it has a much more vibrant voluntary and charitable sector than many member states. The way that VAT affects charities in this country can be extremely damaging—not to all charities perhaps, but certainly to those that are not able, through their trading and other activities, to pass on the VAT to the final customer, as is the case in the commercial sector. I do not know whether the renewed VAT strategy will touch upon that problem, but the Government need to consider that question. I move on to the section of the document that talks of a ““sustainable Europe””. It focuses on environmental issues in what I have described as a work programme. I welcome the increased emphasis on policies to tackle climate change. Although it is part of the Lisbon treaty, the European Commission and the European Union are doing a lot of work outside the treaty. That is one of the most important arguments for the European Union, and it is good to see such that a large part of the strategy work programme gives details. There is some substance in it—things that we can get our hands on, things that we can understand—and I support several things in it. For instance, it talks of setting out the EU's position for the November 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. That is critical. In moving on from Kyoto and Bali, the EU has been leading the global debate. It is critical for the member states of the European Union to take a really strong and coherent position—not only for the UK or Europe, but for the whole world. It is an essential piece of work, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will contribute strongly to it. Implementation of the revised emissions trading scheme will be important during the next year or two. The first round of the ETS was not as successful as it might have been, but given that it was innovative and given that we were leading again, it was a valuable exercise. It is worth pointing out that, not least because of increased fuel prices, windfall gains were made by a number of energy companies as a result of the first round of the ETS. I hope that it will not happen in the second round, although I fear that it might. The emissions trading scheme is critical. In the first round, it dealt with about 40 per cent. of carbon emissions in the Union. It now takes account of aviation, which is welcome. I hope that it will take account of emissions from freight transport, including from shipping. Again, that is a welcome development. I hope that the Minister well tell us how he thinks implementation will work. Are we are on track? What are the key milestones? I now turn to the implementation of the energy efficiency action plan. I welcome it, because I am absolutely convinced that we can do an awful lot more than has been managed before. Although most aspects of energy efficiency policy should be considered at the national as well as the local level, it is good that the EU is working on the matter—particularly in relation to the workings of the single market. Inevitably, regulations on things such as lighting and other consumer goods will have to be made, in part, at a European level. The proposal for a new initiative on energy labelling of tyres, and measures on domestic lighting and incandescent bulbs are a good step forward, and we should support them. There will inevitably be problems with implementation, as we move from one system to another, but it has to be the way forward. I understand that if the EU gets rid of incandescent light bulbs, that measure alone will save 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions. That is the equivalent of 25 medium-sized power stations—it is big stuff. It is important that the European Union leads the way: if it is going to happen, we should welcome the document. I could talk about a number of things that are in the action plan, but I wanted finally to focus on the section titled ““Europe as a World Partner””, which is a key part of the Commission's future work. That status is often underplayed and under-presented. We have debates, particularly with Conservative Front Benchers, about the operation of European security, defence and foreign policy, but, clearly, they depend on unanimity. Some of the concerns that are raised about the operation of that policy level are not valid, because we have a veto. Because we are part of the European Union, we speak with a louder voice. We can work with partners that we can listen to more effectively. Also, people want to join us, so we can promote the values and rights that are at the heart of the EU. In the coming year, within the strategy, there is a work programme to make progress with accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey, which is absolutely right. Bringing in states from the western Balkans is important. The Liberal Democrats have always supported the idea of Turkey becoming a full member of the European Union. It would be historic if a secular Muslim state joined and was welcomed into the European Union. It would be fantastic. It would be great for trade and good for getting Turkey up to the human rights standards that the EU seeks to promote, but it would be far more than that. We often forget the historic messages that the EU sends. My party and I are proud to stand up as strong supporters of the EU. I believe that the European Union is one of the greatest steps forward in the history of humankind. That goes against what one would read in the press, and it is an unfashionable view, but I think that all those states gathering around tables to talk to one another, solve problems and co-operate, with the rule of law and a degree of democratic accountability, following due process transparently, is fantastic. Bringing a secular Muslim state such as Turkey into that kind of club would be historic, so it would be fantastic if work was done in 2009 to pursue that goal. The strategy addresses the important foreign policy issue of making progress and working on a new framework agreement with Russia. We are all aware of some of the worrying developments in Russia. The problem for the EU is that we have not been able to agree on our approach because of divergences between some of the big member states—between Germany and France and Germany and the UK. It might be that we are unable to achieve a common approach, but it would help if we could develop an approach that we consider to be in Britain's interest and that we can persuade other people to take up. If Russia is able to pick different member states off, it is powerful; if Russia faces a united EU, strengthened by a common agreement to which states have signed up through a proper process, it becomes much weaker. Together we have a much stronger voice, and we will not allow the bully-boy approach that Putin adopted—we have yet to see whether Medvedev adopts the same approach—to succeed. That is important for Britain and Europe. The final part of the long work programme under the title ““Europe as a World Partner”” is on the implementation of the Doha development agreement. The Foreign Secretary touched on that last night when he gave a speech at Lancaster house—we were celebrating Her Majesty's birthday. The US presidential elections will be out of the way in November, and one of the new President's first tasks, with the new Congress, will be to engage on the matter. There will be problems because, whether or not the Democrats win the White House, they are likely to strengthen their control over Congress. I do not know whether that will mean that there will be a majority in both Houses for the Doha agreement. The last time I talked to American politicians and policy makers about the agreement, they said that Washington is not all that interested because there is not a lot in it for the US. They say, ““You guys in Europe talk about a development round, but it doesn't really do very much for us””. Hopefully, there will be a new atmosphere in American politics, and they might take a more enlightened approach. If so, the European Union should be ready to push it forward and achieve something. The document states:"““If appropriate, implementation of the Doha Development Agreement””." I think I know what the Commission means by that, but I am not sure. In any case, we, as a member state, ought to push for it. No trade agreement contains everything one wishes for, but one can get 75 per cent. of it—that is the way of trade politics. I would welcome progress on that. I repeat that I have concerns about the process, but the fact that I have been able to speak for so long and refer to the document suggests that it has some value. However, that value is compartmentalised. The European Commission is doing this and wants to make progress on that, which is all good. We can discuss it and put our points of view, but it does not amount to a strategy. If that is what the Commission is seeking to do, it needs to think again. Having said that, I am looking forward to the Minister's response to my detailed questions.