| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
European Council: June 2006
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with permission, I would like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 15 and 16 June. I would like to thank Chancellor Schuessel and the Austrian Government for their arrangements for the summit and for the way in which they conducted their presidency.
"There were two parts to this Council. On the constitutional treaty, it was agreed that there would have to be a further period of reflection, because at present there is no consensus on how to proceed. A Europe of 25, not 15, soon to become 27, and in time enlarged still further, needs a modern set of rules to function effectively. Around 15 states have ratified this treaty, but of course, there have been the No votes in France and Holland. As a result, others, including the United Kingdom, have not proceeded with ratification. The German presidency, in the first half of 2007, will therefore consult member states and present a report to the European Council. Decisions will then be taken by the end of 2008. But it was made crystal clear that, in line with last year's conclusions, there can be no presumption about the outcome of this discussion.
"The bulk of the conclusions of the Council, however, deal with the specific issues of most immediate concern to Europe's citizens. One of the key outcomes of a positive attitude towards Europe on the part of Britain was the election of President Barroso to the Commission. I welcome thoroughly his commitment to the Council to transmit direct to national Parliaments all new Commission proposals and consultation papers and to take due
19 Jun 2006 : Column 543
consideration of their views. This is an important boost to a long-held British concern over subsidiarity.
"In addition, on better regulation, the Commission has already announced the withdrawal of some 70 pieces of legislation. The European Council invited the Commission to report by early 2007 on further progress—and, in particular, asked the Commission to make proposals by that time on how to reduce administrative burdens on businesses by 25 per cent. This, again, is a central British objective, on which we built alliances with other partners.
"On the single market, the Council welcomed the agreement on the services directive; welcomed agreement on the competitiveness and innovation programme; and looked forward to the Commission's forthcoming review of the single market and proposals for completing it. The services directive, in particular, is expected to deliver some 600,000 jobs across the EU and add around €31 billion to the EU economy. I pay tribute to the work of British MEPs from both the Party of European Socialists and the European People's Party in securing the compromise necessary to allow it to pass.
"The Council agreed a number of specific measures and initiatives to combat illegal immigration, designed to strengthen borders while improving co-operation with some of the main source countries of migrants and refugees. In particular, the Council agreed to implement regional protection pilot projects to protect refugees in their region of origin and therefore avoid the need for mass migration. We also agreed to intensify work on readmission agreements, so that across Europe failed asylum seekers can be more easily returned.
"On energy, another of the Hampton Court initiatives, we welcomed and agreed to take forward proposals for an external energy policy, developed jointly by Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative, and the Commission. One of the priorities will be developing strategic partnerships with the main producer and transit countries, including an agreement with Russia.
"The Council also agreed declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste.
"Finally, on climate change, the European Council committed itself to pursuing, in all the relevant multilateral organisations, an international goal consistent with the objective of a maximum global temperature increase of two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
"This was a European Council which focused on the practical policy-driven agenda which the UK has long advocated. It demonstrated yet again the benefits of positive engagement with Europe. I commend the outcome to the House".
That concludes the Statement.
19 Jun 2006 : Column 544
5.07 pm
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Rarely has an EU summit attracted so little publicity, in glaring contradiction to the title of the first chapter of the presidency conclusions, which is "Europe Listens". Where is the evidence that EU leaders have listened in any way to the concerns of people about the trend towards more regulation and integration? Will the noble Baroness confirm that this summit agreed to more integration on immigration, asylum, criminal procedure, industrial policy, consumer protection and foreign policy? Where is all the rethinking in that?
Was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House as surprised as I was that the conclusions made no reference to the rejection of the constitutional treaty by the people of the Netherlands and France, except in the Newspeak of paragraph 43 of the conclusions that:
"Two Member States have been unable to ratify . . . [but] It is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the conclusions of June 2005".
Is that the UK Government's view? Has nothing changed in the so-called "period of reflection"? The conclusions blandly declare that,
Is not the problem that the Brussels definition of the EU project is miles apart from the wishes of millions of EU and British citizens?
The conclusions call for "concrete results" in achieving what the EU constitution proposed, but European electors rejected, by noodling inside the present system. Where is the listening there? Is that also the UK Government's view? It calls for a further report on a constitutional treaty in spring next year and necessary steps to legislation in 2008. Is that the UK Government's view? Do the Government want a new treaty?
I am fully aware that no Government can bind their successor, but I hope that the noble Baroness will know the answer to this question. Is the commitment to resurrecting a treaty supported, not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Finally, will the Minister accept that there must be a referendum on any EU constitutional treaty and that the manifesto pledge to the electorate before the last election that they would be consulted must be good for the whole Parliament?
Of course, there were things we supported at the summit, such as action on climate change, but what discussion was there of ensuring energy security? Was any concern expressed about a potential 60 per cent dependence on Russian gas?
We very much support the enlargement of the EU, so we strongly welcome the accession talks with Turkey. For too long, this proud and great nation has been toyed with by the EU as if we were still living in 1683 and not a 21st century in which a model of secularist Islam offers a key to a more stable world.
19 Jun 2006 : Column 545
We have long supported greater openness and transparency at EU Ministers' meetings. Supporting that was a rare success for the Prime Minister over one of his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister may not know the answer to this question, but perhaps he could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to open up UK Cabinet meetings in the same way. How fascinating that would be.
Finally, I turn to regulation and criminal justice. On regulation, was it not a bitter disappointment that the best the summit could agree was that it might be possible to ask the Commission to make proposals in 2007 about the possibility of setting targets to reduce regulation? What a sad outcome, when businesses are groaning today about EU red tape. How can we have any confidence in a process that pays lip-service to deregulation but says that the acquis communautaire cannot be touched?
On criminal justice, in 2003 the Europe Minister, Mr Hoon, said that ending the veto could,
So why do the Government now apparently have an open mind? Would it not be rash indeed to abolish the veto now? Will the Minister give a guarantee that Britain will not give up its veto in this vital area?
The Government, over the past few weeks, have said that the system that they have been running for nine years is already in a dysfunctional mess at home, with Ministers making open attacks on civil servants, police and judges. Surely it would be madness to add to the mess by inviting European dictation to those same civil servants, police and courts. The ultimate responsibility to deal with terrorism must lie with the British Government. Abolishing the veto in these areas was a key part of the European constitution. Does the Minister understand that reintroducing changes such as these without a referendum is completely unacceptable? When will the Government take a stand against the integrationist tide and hold firm for the real alternative option, a flexible Europe? The last year has shown how Europe can live without a new constitution.
However sweet the Austrian wine, is it not high time to cut through the dinner-table complacency, state categorically that the constitutional programme is finished, and that the UK will play no part in smuggling it in by the backdoor and will insist on the right of a referendum for the British people?
5.13 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |