![]() |
Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats Covering the constituencies of Twickenham and Richmond Park |
| <enquiries@twickenhamlibdems.co.uk> | 8th October 2008 |
Clegg quizzes Brown on Europe5.04.00pm GMT Tue 18th Mar 2008 [Mar 17} Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat): I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. As European summits go, the conclusions were workmanlike, largely welcome, but fairly unremarkable. I wonder whether that is in part because of the issues that were omitted. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's words about Tibet today, will he explain why there was no discussion among EU Heads of State last week on Tibet? Does he not think that it is precisely the actions of the Chinese authorities in Tibet that should be the subject of discussion between European leaders? I know that the Prime Minister is extraordinarily reluctant to do anything, it seems, to annoy the authorities in Beijing, but will he none the less confirm today that he will follow the lead of President George Bush and of Chancellor Angela Merkel and meet the Dalai Lama on his forthcoming visit to London to express solidarity with the Tibetan people? [Interruption.] As the Prime Minister knows, I have written to him about that on two occasions and still not had a clear answer- [Interruption.] Michael Martin (Speaker): Order. Allow the right hon. Gentleman to address the House. Not to do so is unfair. Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat): I congratulate the Prime Minister on inserting, at the last minute, a reference in the conclusions to his laudable aim of reducing VAT rates on environmentally friendly goods, but why did he apparently go about that in such a bizarre fashion? Why did he spring it on his colleagues-if reports are to be believed-at the last minute through a letter with President Sarkozy? Is that really the best way to show leadership and do business in the EU? My worry is that the manner in which the proposal was spun in the press had as much to do with obscuring the Government's woeful record on the environment, compared with that of other EU countries. We are now 25th-25th-out of the 27 EU member states on the use of renewables, and more than 25 per cent. of our carbon emissions come from our housing stock, compared with 5 per cent. in Sweden, which is a much colder country. We have a recycling rate well behind that of France, Germany, Spain and other countries. The go-ahead is being given to Kingsnorth power station-the first in a new generation of coal-fired power stations-without any effort being made to use carbon capture technology, and the go-ahead is being given to a third runway at Heathrow. The list goes on. Does the Prime Minister not accept that he can make all the noise he wants about his VAT proposal, but our green credentials in the EU will never be strong unless real action is taken across a much broader range of issues? For instance, will he commit today to giving support to a new draft directive on the geological storage of carbon, which is being drafted in the European Parliament and which would oblige all member states to accelerate the use of carbon capture technology at all the coal-burning power stations? I strongly agree with the Prime Minister that there is a pressing need to move towards a fully integrated and competitive energy market in the single market. In particular, the EU needs the powers to take action against monopoly energy providers in markets such as France and Germany. Does he agree that the new Lisbon treaty would give the EU precisely those powers further to liberalise the EU energy market, and that that is just another example of the benefits that the treaty would bring the British economy, which the Conservative party is so keen to deny the British people? I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's remarks about co-ordinated action at European level to ensure stability and greater transparency in the financial markets. The reverberations around the global markets today, caused by the news that the US investment bank Bear Stearns is to be taken over at just 2 per cent. of its share value compared with 12 months ago, show how timely the EU's Council statements are. It is critical, at a time when liquidity remains so tight for the world's banks, that steps are now taken to ensure that this does not create an environment where credit is being withdrawn for millions of ordinary people. That is why we must also now pioneer reforms to the system of lending to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a similar position in years to come. Does the Prime Minister agree that while it is critical that the capital requirements directive be reviewed if we are to prevent a further boom-and-bust cycle in the credit markets, we must be prepared to use levers to control supply as well as demand for credit? Gordon Brown (Prime Minister): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. First, may I correct him on VAT? I first raised the issue months ago with our European colleagues; I have been following it up ever since. I am grateful that we now have an agreement to look in detail at whether VAT reductions on matters such as household materials and electrical goods can be beneficial both in encouraging people to use energy-efficient products and in stimulating a market where Europe can benefit in the future. So, he is wrong to say that this was raised only on the day of the Council. We have been pressing our European colleagues on the matter for some time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance that we attach to environmental issues. Again, I have to correct him. Carbon capture and storage is something that we have been pushing right across the EU. There will be 12 demonstration plants, and one of them, we believe, will be in the UK, but we want the European Commission to make it possible for there to be greater incentives so that people will develop carbon capture and storage at a quicker rate. The right hon. Gentleman is right about energy liberalisation and the importance that we attach to it in the EU. That is one of the reasons why qualified majority voting in energy matters will benefit the opening up of markets and the creation of jobs, although it was opposed by the Conservative party. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about Britain's record in relation to other countries. I repeat that we are one of the few countries in the world that is meeting its Kyoto targets, and we will continue to do so. On the economy, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that Europe is leading the way on calling for a proper international response. We had a meeting with Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy, Mr. Prodi and the President of the European Commission a few weeks ago. We have now put forward proposals in detail. The Chancellor is writing to all members of the IMF, the G7 and the Financial Stability Forum to push these forward. Our proposals are in harmony with those that have just been put forward by the US Treasury Secretary. To ensure confidence in financial markets, we believe that it is important that those proposals are adopted. Finally, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that action to express our views on Tibet is important. People around the world are expressing concern. We have made our views known, and there will be an EU statement later today. There is a demand for restraint on the part of the Chinese authorities. These are the most important matters now. We will make other announcements and decisions in due course.
Bookmark this story at:
Related News Stories:Thu 24th Jul 2008: Tue 22nd Jul 2008: Fri 11th Jul 2008: Tue 24th Jun 2008: Clegg and Cable quiz Brown on Europe, Zimbabwe, fuel prices and oil supply Clegg quizzes Brown on fuel poverty Thu 27th Mar 2008: Clegg Quizzes Brown on interest rates and repossessions Thu 7th Feb 2008: Clegg quizzes Brown on Chilcot Report Tue 18th Dec 2007: Cable quizzes Brown re Mugabe, Europe, Kosovo and banking . . Fri 14th Dec 2007: Published and promoted by Chris Squire on behalf of the Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats, 2a Lion Road, Twickenham, TW1 4JQ The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider. |