---

European Commission

May I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who would normally speak in a European debate from the Conservative Front Bench? As the Minister knows, he is attending the wedding this afternoon of a member of his staff, and I am sure that the whole House wishes the happy couple every success in their marriage. I share some of the analysis of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) of the document. I could not make up my mind whether it was a strategy document or a work programme. It is something of a cross between a White Paper and a Queen's Speech, but it lacked the precision of the latter and associated documents because it does not tell us in detail exactly which measures of European legislation the Commission intends to introduce in 2009. The strategic analysis and presentation lacks coherence—it is a bag of all-sorts. Having said that, I am able to welcome a fair amount of the document, including the continuing commitment of the Commission to enlargement, and I strongly endorse its determination to press ahead with the negotiations with Turkey. The Conservatives have always supported Turkey's accession to the European Union. For the broader reasons alluded to by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, it will be in Europe's greater geopolitical interests for Turkey's membership to become reality. It is good that the Commission mentioned in its document the need to enhance relationships with the countries of north Africa. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has returned to the Chamber, because he made some important points on the way in which the interests of European and north African countries are interconnected. It is important for us to foster those relationships. He also gave a friendly but appropriate warning to the British Government and to Britain as a country that British business is sometimes slow off the mark in getting to grips with the opportunities available in north Africa. When I have talked to representatives of those countries, they have been keen to encourage investment, trade and cultural and educational relationships with the United Kingdom. I welcome the Commission's words about Doha, but like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, I think that its completion should be a priority; it should not be conditional on circumstances. The EU should be pressing for it urgently. I also welcome the Commission's words about strengthening the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council. At a time when economic difficulties around the world are strengthening the voices of protectionism, it is vital that the European Commission and the major players in the European Union maintain their commitment to free markets and free trade. Bringing down the barriers that divide us from the members of the North American Free Trade Agreement is an important initiative that can be taken in the right direction. In general, it is my belief that the Barroso Commission has been more sympathetic to the needs of business and enterprise than its predecessors. It has adopted a friendlier overall attitude to small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, which is to be welcomed. I liked what the document said about the need for emphasis on the quality rather than the quantity of European legislation, and it was refreshing to read a Commission document that talked about needing a year to see to the proper implementation of previously announced initiatives, rather than wishing to press ahead with a whole new raft of directives and regulations, as though that were some test of the effectiveness of the Commission or the EU more generally. However, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in other Departments will keep a close eye on what those initiatives actually mean in practice. Do the simplification rolling programme and the action programme to reduce administrative burdens deliver the reductions in business costs that the manufacturing and service industries in the United Kingdom so desperately need as they fight the ever fiercer challenge of global economic competition? We must bear it in mind that there are pressures in the opposite direction. I mentioned how language about trade around the world seems to be becoming more protectionist. I certainly hope, if the Democratic candidate wins the US presidential election, that some of the protectionist language that we heard on the campaign trail will not translate into US policy, because that would be harmful to this country's interests and the interests of those seeking growth and prosperity throughout the world. We must consider what is happening in Europe. If the Lisbon treaty comes into force, it will contain that significant shift in language that has relegated free markets and free trade, one of the defining features of the European Union, to a lesser role. We debated that in the Chamber in connection with the treaty. The French hailed it as a great victory for their approach to economic matters and a defeat for the forces of the Anglo-Saxon world. We should be a bit concerned about some of the positions adopted by our own Government. Only yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the British Government had entered a ““non aggression pact”” under which this country"““agreed to drop Britain's long-standing demands for sweeping pan-European electricity and gas liberalisation.””" When the Minister responds, I hope that he might be prepared to spell out the terms of that reported deal. To what extent has the United Kingdom resiled from the oft-expressed ambition of liberalising the European energy markets to at least the same extent as in our own country? What does he believe will be the impact on British business and British consumers of such a change in our negotiating position? We know, for example, that so far it has not proved possible to get some continental gas suppliers to sell gas to United Kingdom distributors for the same lower price that they are prepared to offer distributors on the continent. Are our Government satisfied with that state of affairs? If not, what initiatives do they plan within the EU to end that anomaly in what is supposed to be a single market? I hope, too, that the Minister might say a word about the concessions that the Government recently agreed on the agency workers directive. He will know that the role of agency and temporary staff is of greater significance in the British economy, especially to small and medium-sized businesses, than in the other major economies of western Europe. Have the Government assessed, in particular, the impact on SMEs of the measure that they are now prepared to endorse? Have they thought through the possible impact of such a directive at a time when the British economy is going through a severe downturn? I was troubled by the words on page 4 of the strategy document about financial services:"““The Commission will actively engage in the response to the global financial turbulence, which will require long-term adjustments in the regulatory and supervisory environment for financial services.””" What does that mean? There is certainly a case—