---

European Council: 13-14 March 2008

My Lords, it was a good joke. On the Statement, there were some welcome initiatives at the summit conclusions, or at least some warm words, if ““warm”” is a word that can ever be applied to the turgid prose of these communiqués. It was good, for example, to see further commitments on climate change, which scarcely figures in the EU treaty. But can the noble Baroness explain why specific targets to reduce energy usage in government car fleets by 10 per cent in five years, which were in the draft conclusions, were removed from the final communiqué? I know that the noble Baroness will think that I am making another joke, but I am not. Was it perhaps the news that we heard at the weekend that the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, is going to keep his 2-litre Jaguar car, as opposed to having one of the energy-efficient vehicles which other Ministers are obliged to maintain? Perhaps that is why the Government could not agree to the targets. There must be a reason and the noble Baroness can tell us. Was there discussion of the programmes on carbon capture? Did the Prime Minister win support at the summit for renewed investment in clean coal? What progress was made on the desperately important issue of energy security, on which we have dithered for far too long? The communiqué speaks of agreement on security in a new energy action plan in spring 2010; but does this not simply serve to show the hopeless lack of grasp in Brussels of the urgency of this issue? I hope that the noble Baroness could press the Prime Minister for far more urgency on that subject when he next goes to a European summit. There was much talk in the communiqué—and I am sure there was much talk at the summit—of the stability of financial markets. Stability is of course the Government’s new buzz word. I think that it was used 28 times in the Chancellor’s Budget speech last week. However, given what is happening now in the markets, stability has about as much connection with today’s realities as a communiqué from the Flat Earth Society. Was there any discussion of Northern Rock during those meetings? Did any other leaders compliment the Prime Minister on his handling of the crisis as a blueprint for their own finance Ministers—or not? Very importantly, did the Prime Minister bring home a single assurance that the UK would not be pursued for illegal state aid following the nationalisation of this bank? Have there been any approaches from another state about pursuing the UK for illegal state aid in the case of Northern Rock? The Prime Minister said four years ago that it was unacceptable that at least 50 per cent of regulations came from Europe. What, practically, has he done about it? When we heard the Statement on the previous summit, I asked the noble Baroness to give an example of an EU regulation on business that had been scrapped since the previous summit. I do not suppose that she has managed to find out yet, because her officials will no doubt take a great deal of time to find that out; but if she has the information, I hope that she will share it with us. Why are new regulations still being added? Can she confirm that, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, 70 per cent of the cost of regulation in the past decade is down to the EU? The communiqué is frank in admitting that the already feeble efforts to reduce EU regulation need to be stepped up. So why does the communiqué envisage removing regulations on small business only if that is line with the acquis communautaire? Is not the root problem that too much regulation is already in the acquis communautaire and it will require far more radical resolve if the red tape strangling European competitiveness is to be dealt with? Let us take one example. In November 2006, the Prime Minister said that he was ““pleased for all holidaymakers”” that he had succeeded in raising the £145 limit on the value of goods that can be imported into the UK without duty. He said that he wanted a £1,000 limit, so can the noble Baroness tell us why the limit is still £145? When will a £1,000 limit come in? Is it not true that the Prime Minister has failed to get this agreement within the European Council of Ministers? The conclusions also warn Governments about the danger of high deficits. I expect the noble Baroness can confirm that Spain’s budget is in balance, that Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all have budget surpluses but that Britain has the largest deficit in western Europe. Is that not a telling comment on the wasteful handling of national finances over the past 10 years? In the communiqué there is nothing about continuing atrocities in Zimbabwe and Darfur. Why not? The Prime Minister took the right stand in relation to Mr Mugabe, but did he take the opportunity to rebuke certain other leaders for their deplorable weakness in meeting this tyrant? The Prime Minister said last year that he would seek EU sanctions on Iranian oil and gas investment and its financial sector. Why have no new sanctions been agreed? While Ministers were in Brussels, the situation in Tibet was becoming a cause of major international concern. Senor Solana was swift to say that events in Tibet would not stop him being in the front row for the Beijing Olympics. I will forbear to comment, but what discussions took place on this issue and what action do EU Ministers now propose? We hear of calls for restraint but in the UK Government’s view, what comprises restraint? China is a great nation with an immense potential influence for good in the world. Is it not essential that it rises to the challenges of pluralism in the 21st century? Finally, does the noble Baroness know whether the Prime Minister was congratulated on the vote in the other place to block a referendum on the EU treaty? Did any other leaders perhaps seek his good offices in arranging meetings with Mr Clegg to learn from that leader how to avoid a referendum commitment? There may well have been sighs of relief from other EU leaders about the junking of the commitments given to the British people by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, praise abroad is one thing; anger and disillusion here is another. Therefore, will the Government, even now, honour their crystal-clear pledge to the people of Britain to hold a referendum, entered into to help them to secure a return to office in the general election in 2005? This is something that many on all sides of the House would surely expect and something to which we shall return many times in the coming weeks.