---

European Commission

I dread the thought of a pan-European FSA, not least because the City of London has been of huge benefit to the British economy, in terms of investment and employment, over the past couple of decades. It is vital that we do nothing that prejudices the success of the City as a generator of income and jobs for British people. I would question, too, whether some of the initiatives listed by the Commission are worth it at all. I really question why we need a European institute of technology. We can agree that technology is a good thing, that innovation is to be welcomed, and that we should support contact and the dissemination of ideas between different enterprises and academic institutions. However, Europe is richly endowed with universities and institutes with track records of technological innovation and a history of publishing and sharing their ideas. Will anything be gained by having an additional institution funded by Europe's taxpayers that cannot be gained, to the same extent or greater, by leaving universities and other institutes to act on their own? Will a central European institute of technology be more dynamic and innovative than Europe's existing diverse institutions? I welcome the Commission's continuing commitment to action on climate change, but although I have no problem with supporting its objectives, we must acknowledge that the main instrument of policy—the EU emissions trading scheme—is itself flawed. I have always supported emissions trading as a way of introducing a market mechanism to reinforce desirable, environmentally friendly behaviour on the part of companies, but the record of the European ETS is surely that too many credits were issued at the start and that, as a result, we do not yet have a real price for carbon in Europe with which to make that scheme effective and to introduce a dynamic that drives companies to reduce their use of carbon over the years. If the Government share that assessment of what is wrong with the ETS, what are they planning to do about it? Will they campaign in the Council of Ministers and try to assemble allies in the EU to secure improvements to the scheme? Will the revisions to the ETS mentioned in the document actually remedy the flaws to which I have referred, or do we need further work before we have an instrument fit for purpose? The common immigration policy makes up a fair bit of the Commission's strategy document, and I would be intrigued to know whether the Government have made up their minds on whether they plan to use their opt-ins, if the Lisbon treaty comes into effect. I would also be grateful for clarification of what some of the Commission's proposed measures would entail. For example, page 16 of the document makes reference to directives for specific sectors of industry in relation to the entry and stay of legal migrants. I presume that that would apply to people who, in the British context, are admitted to the UK under work permit or seasonal worker schemes of one sort or another. What concerns me is that we could end up with a European directive designed for a sector, when the significance and labour needs of that sector might significantly differ from one member state to another. How can we design a directive on economic migrants that will work in Greece, Estonia, the UK, Portugal and Malta, and which will make sense in the particular business circumstances in each of those very different economies? The Commission is clearly very concerned in the document about the need to connect the institutions of the European Union more closely to the lives and everyday priorities of the citizens of European countries. That theme comes through quite powerfully in the sections of the policy strategy entitled, ““Putting the Citizen First”” and ““Communicating Europe””. I agree with the objective, but I am not at all sure whether it is working in practice. I noted, when the European Parliament had its initial debate on President Barroso's policy strategy, that several Members made reference, in the context of the section on putting the citizen first, to the need to sort out cross-border entitlements on health treatment. MEPs were calling for the Commission to make that a high priority for its programme of work for the year. What is the Government analysis of the likelihood of such a measure coming forward? What would be the impact on the NHS of much greater freedom for people to seek medical treatment across national borders within the EU? Do the Government endorse that principle? On page 6 of the document, in the section entitled, ““Putting the Citizen First””, the Commission states:"““Food safety, animal health and animal welfare will be the subject of new proposals and monitoring activities will be stepped up””." That could be okay, and something that people could welcome, but it raises the question: what does it mean when we get down to the detailed practice? Will we open up our newspapers and find that they are full of indignant owners of bed-and-breakfast establishments complaining that, owing to European legislation, people want to stop them letting the family dog into the kitchen if they are to continue to have guests, and are telling them to choose between barring Rover from part of the family home and giving up their small, family bed-and-breakfast business? All of us in this place know that sometimes, that sort of over-regulation stems from Brussels, but sometimes it is down to Whitehall gold-plating or to the way in which the local enforcement authority interprets the words sent down to them. Without looking into the issue in greater detail than I have had time to do today, I do not know which it is in this case. In this country, however, when we debate regulations that impinge upon everyday life, we should take every opportunity to argue that: first, we must base our proposals on a common-sense evaluation of an actual, rather than a theoretical, risk; secondly, we must be sensible to the distinction between large enterprises employing large numbers of people, and small businesses run by families, almost as an adjunct to the family way of life; thirdly, we must understand how people in very different countries actually live their lives day by day. Regulations must seem sensible to people when going about their daily routines. The section on ““Communicating Europe”” states that 2009 will be a very important year for Europe. I supported what Mr. Barroso said before the European Parliament, which was that it will give us the chance to celebrate 20 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, and the reunification of a continent that had been so horribly divided since 1914. That really is something for everyone to take pride in in 2009, whichever side we take over the Lisbon treaty. If we want to communicate about Europe and if we are to engage the public seriously in debates about Europe, then European leaders must stop treating the peoples of Europe as tiresome extras. Page 8 of the document talks about the Commission seeking"““to maximise its work in partnership with the other European institutions and Member States to help spark a lively debate on European policies in the run-up to the European elections and beyond.””" We have had a wonderful opportunity for lively debate this year, but the leaders of the Commission and, apart from the Irish, the leaders of the Council of Europe have funked it. The people could have been consulted about the treaty that those leaders have argued would bring enormous benefits to every member state and their citizens. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton shimmied elegantly around the topic without mentioning that, yesterday evening, the votes of 65 Liberal Democrat peers ensured the defeat of the referendum proposal in the House of Lords. It is ironic that he has sought and attained martyrdom on the Floor of the House on the cause of having referendums on the Lisbon treaty and on Britain's membership of the EU, but that when exactly the same proposal was made in the other place, all his colleagues in the House of Lords lined up with the Government to vote it down. I still have not worked out whether that is simply because he and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) have lost all authority over their colleagues in the House of Lords, or because the Liberal Democrats wanted all along to make sure that the public did not get the say that they were promised in 2005.