Tories a bundle of contradictions on climate change

I have followed some of the debates in the House of Commons on the Lisbon Treaty and I continue to be amazed at the disarray of the Tories.

I am told that over half the Conservative speaking time on this has been accounted for by just two MPs - Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory. That the Conservatives allow these two extremely anti-Europe members dominate their contribution to this extent shows how far they have shifted in a Europhobic direction. These two denounce every aspect of the EU as the devil incarnate.

William Hague, by contrast, is now pursuing a different line. He says we don't need a new treaty reforming the EU because, in his words, "the EU is working perfectly well". Not a position Bill Cash would agree with!

The debate on the effect of the treaty on tackling climate change was a further illustration of Conservative incoherence. Two contrasting amendments were tabled by the Conservatives: one which stated that "the Treaty of Lisbon is effectively irrelevant to the vital issue of climate change" - (implying that the EU should be given more powers in tackling climate change), and another, which my regional colleague Hugh Bayley drew attention to, tabled by a number of senior Conservatives, including former leader Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood, stating that the EU should have no role at all on climate change! Although this amendment was disowned by the Conservative front-bench team it offers another illustration of the Tories' divisions on Europe.

The reality is that we cannot effectively tackle climate change and raise environmental standards without being engaged with the EU - a point emphasised by John Gummer, one of the few moderate Conservatives on Europe, who said that "it is not possible to have an anti-European position and have any kind of environmental policy".

Climate change policy is one of the policy areas where collective rather than individual action is most effective. The unlikely deal reached at the Bali summit on climate change was an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice. Unwittingly, the Tory amendment, in describing the provisions on climate change as "institutional tinkering" revealed the shallow opportunism of their demands for a referendum. The point is that the Lisbon Treaty is about institutional tinkering rather than giving the EU new powers. Therefore, if the Tories accept that the treaty is about "institutional tinkering" then why do they want a referendum?

This is not to say that the Conservatives are all climate change deniers. Indeed, Nick Hurd, Greg Barker, Peter Ainsworth and John Gummer all made speeches emphasising the importance of the EU in tackling climate change. However, their approach in the European Parliament is summed up by their choice of Roger Helmer (who believes that climate change is "a journalistic fiction") as the Conservative member of the temporary committee on climate change.

David Cameron talks a good game on the environment, but Wednesday's debate offered ample demonstration of how the Tories are all over the place. In the words of Caroline Jackson, the only Conservative woman MEP: "from the point of view of the Conservative Party, pursuing the green line is all talk and no action".

Reducing carbon emissions requires legislation and an end to the Strasbourg sessions

Last week's European Parliament vote to ban patio heaters has caught the attention of the press, with Eurosceptics jumping on the opportunity to attack the EU. While a ban of patio heaters would be a small step in tackling climate change, it would nevertheless be a significant one. A Green Barometer survey predicts that the number of patio heaters in the UK alone will rise to 2.3 million in the near future, with the amount of CO2 they emit the equivalent to that emitted by driving from Lands End to John O'Groats 200,000 times! The patio heater is a particularly wasteful appliance
as it uses most of its energy heating the open air, while the Energy Savings Trust research indicates that most are used largely in July and August - the warmest months of the year. Surely it is legitimate to debate whether they are worth the emissions?

Of course, this is not to say that patio heaters are the only, or worst, culprits. In fact the widely publicised attempt to ban carbon heaters is part of a larger set of suggestions put forward to the European Commission that includes restricting or phasing out the standby mode on electrical appliances. The Commission already has a timetable for increasing the energy efficiency for a wide range of appliances, including light bulbs and TV set-top boxes. In the long run, the EU's stated aim - agreed to by all member countries - is to reduce overall emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

In a recent Guardian /ICM poll, 78% of respondents stated that the environment was an important issue in their voting decision, while a Sunday Mirror/ICM survey ranked climate change behind only health and crime as an issue respondents were most worried about. Why then the negative responses? If people are serious about tackling climate change then legislation against the most wasteful carbon emitting products is a necessary step.

Of course calls for the EU to get its own house in order are completely justified. The European Parliament is forced against its will to travel to Strasbourg 12 times a year. The trip may not contribute much in the great scheme of the things but the point is that everyone must make changes to battle climate change. Banning patio heaters requires personal sacrifices, while ending this monthly migration would not even be a sacrifice as far as most MEPs are concerned.

Britain's not being "forced" into anything

We all know combatting climate change means switching to clean, renewable energy. We know that Britain doing this alone would be futile. Our country gets other EU countries to agree with us to work together to reduce C02 emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2020 - hailed at the time as a great example of British leadership in Europe.

How is this now rendered in ouur Eurosceptic media? Yesterday the Mail screamed that,"Brussels demands thousands more turbines across the UK", while the journalist, David Derbyshire, followed that article up with one today which stated, "Britain will be forced to generate 40 per cent of its electricity". Similarly the Telegraph went with "EU to set Britain 'ambitious' 40 per cent renewable energy target".

All of these imply that these targets are an unwelcome imposition by the EU instead of an agreed (and British-led) common endeavour.

A clutch of good-news stories

A flurry of EU activity just before the Christmas break will probably not get the publicity it deserves.

First, on 20 December, EU environment ministers agreed to include airlines in the Emmission Trading Scheme as of 2012. Airlines will have to meet pollution-reduction quotas either by reducing their own emissions or buying credits from other industries.

All airlines coming to and leaving the EU's 27 member states - not just intra-EU flights - will be included, which will guarantee another clash with the USA.

The decision comes just after the international climate change meeting in Bali last week in which the EU took a strong position in persuading other countries to commit to long-term environmental targets. Hilary Benn, Britiain's Environment Secretary, said "This is a bold step by Europe - in the week after the Bali agreement - which shows the EU leading in the fight against dangerous climate change."



The same week, the European Commission finalised its proposals (which must now come before Environment ministers and the European Parliament for approval) to force car makers to make greener cars from 2012 or face fines. Under the plans, cars should emit an average of 130 grammes of carbon dioxide in four years time or be subject to fines rising to €95 per gramme over the limit. Practically it is expected to mean that big gas-guzzling cars will become more expensive while smaller more efficient cars will be relatively cheaper, and have thus been strongly resisted by the manufacturers of large cars.



On another front, that of consumer protection, Neelie Kroes, the EU’s Competition Commissioner, has threatened to fine MasterCard for breaching EU competition law. This follows an extensive investigation by the Commission into competition in the financial services sector.

The Commission criticised MasterCard because of the fees it charges consumers who make cross-border transactions on credit and debit cards in other countries. The fees - known as multilateral interchange fees - apply to both MasterCard credit cards and Maestro debit cards and range from 0.4% to 1.2% of a transaction.

"Consumers foot the bill, as they risk paying twice for payment cards - once through annual fees to their bank and a second time through inflated retail prices paid not only by cards users but also by customers paying cash" said Neelie Kroes. She pointed out that the fees also make it more expensive for retailers to accept cards and that these costs are inevitably passed on to customers

The Commission has informed MasterCard that they have six months in which to get rid of the fees, otherwise they will be fined daily fees worth up to 3.5% of global turnover, which translates into fines of £4.5million per day.



Finally, the EU's borderless ("Schengen") zone expanded to nine mostly eastern European countries at midnight on Friday (21 December) in its biggest enlargement so far. Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic - which all joined the EU in 2004 - are involved. Land and sea border checks between them and the other Schengen countries are now abolished, while air borders are set to follow on 30 March 2008.

Practically it means that as of today, people can travel hassle-free between 24 countries of the Schengen area without systematic border controls - from Portugal to Poland and from Greece to Finland. Celebrations were held throughout Friday on several border points to mark the occasion. Britain's and Ireland's position outside this area remains unchanged.

EU shows its influence in Bali

The unlikely deal agreed at the UN summit in Bali at the weekend was a welcome surprise after two days of bitter wrangling, not least a bitter stand-off between the European Union and the US, with the US delegation refused to sign any text until the eleventh hour.

The "Bali roadmap" will initiate a two-year negotiation process to finalise a set of emissions targets to replace the Kyoto protocol by the time of the 2009 UN climate change conference to be held in Denmark.

The process is an example of the clout of the EU when we have a united position. Already committed to unilateral emissions cuts of 20% by 2020, European countries were able to speak with authority and a common voice - making a deal more likely.

We did not achieve the holy grail of binding targets for cutting emissions but getting the US, who never ratified Kyoto and have, until recently, even denied the need to cut emissions to tackle climate change, to agree to a text stating that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required" is a damn good start.

I spoke in Monday's parliamentary debate on the natural disasters that blighted parts of Europe this summer.

Inevitably, the debate tended to focus on the more recent fires in Greece which have left scores dead and large swathes of the country torched - their worst since 1857, apparently - but I was able to ensure that the floods in Yorkshire and other parts of Britain were not neglected.

They are mentioned in the Parliament's resolution too, endorsing the case for EU solidarity aid. Britain has now formally requested such aid, and the general consensus in debate was that the Commission must release the money rapidly.

Labour is not given much credit for its environmental policies. Yet, in its 10 years in power, it has introduced, to name just the main measures,:

* The climate change levy
* The renewable energy obligation
* The energy efficiency commitment, subsidising energy efficiency projects and home insulation
* Differential car tax
* Company car tax based on emissions, not mileage
* Zero stamp-duty on carbon-neutral homes
* Measures to green government procurement

As a result, the 28 percent increase in Britain’s GDP since Labour came to power has been accompanied by a fall in greenhouse gas emissions of eight percent and in CO2 of one percent, breaking the link – for the first time since the industrial revolution – between economic growth and pollution. An important turn-around, even if much more remains to be done.

Labour, indeed, has taken the lead in getting the whole of Europe to sign up to the target of reducing CO2 emissions by 20 percent over the next 12 years. The plans also include the ambitious target of generating 20 percent of the EU's fuel from renewable sources while increasing the use of bio-fuels up to 10 percent.

This week saw a flurry of coverage on the environmental cost of obliging the European Parliament to sit one week per month in Strasbourg instead of staying put in Brussels, thereby generating (according to a report by Professor John Whitelegg of the University of York) more than 20,000 tons of extra carbon dioxide (CO²) emissions due to the additional travel between the sites by MEPs, their assistants, journalists and lobbyists, not to mention the truckloads of documents transported each month.

Most MEPs, who also face considerable travel hassle in getting to Strasbourg, would love to change this situation. Unfortunately, it is not the Parliament itself that decides on the location of EU institutions, but the national governments, and it was the Edinburgh summit, chaired by John Major, that made it legally binding on the European Parliament to go 12 times a year to Strasbourg. So thanks John!

To sign the petition to have the Parliament located only in Brussels (saving the European taxpayer €200m per year as well as the environmental benefits) please visit www.OneSeat.eu.

The first European summit of the year concluded today with national governments agreeing bold targets to combat climate change.
Member States have ambitious plans to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

EU countries will also aim to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, increase the use of bio-fuels to 10% of transport fuel and will also consider banning filament light bulbs in private homes and offices by 2010.

The deal allows for flexibility so the less developed countries will not have to contribute as much as those in the western half of the continent.

This is, by any standards, an important breakthrough on an issue in which Britain has been at the forefront. Securing EU-wide agreement on such a programme will not only make it more effective but will also help gain leverage to persuade the rest of the world to do like wise.

For more on the summit you can read the BBC’s report while the Guardian and the Times also have coverage on ther websites.

I see there is the usual shock horror reaction to the suggestion by the European Commission (the Commission can only propose and not decide) that minimum penalties should be set across all EU countries for certain types of offence against agreed EU rules. In particular, they are suggesting that for environmental crimes of a trans-boundary nature, such as dumping of dangerous waste, minimum agreed punishments should be set. This will stop, for instance, companies facing the same standards across Europe, but different penalties, dumping waste material in countries that merely impose a small fine.

There is indeed little purpose in agreeing Europe-wide standards if member states do not treat the law seriously across Europe. If EU countries agree, for instance, to outlaw the dumping of radioactive materials or dangerous, highly toxic chemicals on waste sites, but one or another country, whilst making it illegal, merely says that the company will have a 100 euro fine, whereas in Britain they would be sent to jail, then a highly unsatisfactory situation emerges.

It is therefore perfectly sensible for the Commission to propose to do something about this - though the decision on whether or not to follow their suggestion remains with the Council of Ministers. That is why it is totally ludicrous for Tim Kirkhope, Leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, to claim that "it is a significant transfer of power to the Commission" and that "the decision on whether or not to criminalise offences in Britain should be a matter for Britain, not for the EU".

If he really believes that, then he should never again complain about laxity in other EU member states in living up to the agreements we have reached with them.

So, Labour Conference over, and I hope you enjoyed looking at Jonathon Roberts's blog.

Another Parliament week over too, so I only saw Tony Blair's speech on TV from Strasbourg - but what a performance!

Yesterday, I was interviewed by the "p.m." programme on BBC Radio 4, on what I thought of the absence of much debate on Europe at the Conference, something Commissioner Wallstrom had commented on in her blog. Questions soon centered on Gordon Brown's speech - a very good speech, but with no mention of Europe.

Even when he said he was proud to be Scottish and British, he didn't add "and European", which would have been particularly appropriate the day after Europe's Ryder Cup triumph in a sport that was invented, after all, in Scotland!

Does he want to keep quiet on his European policy? Or does he think it not important? Or is he still pondering on it? Who knows. It certainly contrasted with the view of one of his closest confidents, Ed Balls, who in a fringe meeting said Britain's constructive engagement with the rest of Europe was the most important issue facing us over the next decade.

David Milliband too was a powerful advocate of acting at European level - not surprising as he is minister for an issue on which national action alone is less useful, namely the environment. He said that, in peoples minds, the letters "EU" should stand for "Environmental Union".

There were in all a dozen fringe meetings on Europe at party conference, with just one Eurosceptical one from the "common market safeguards campaign", a throwback to the 1970s. Whatever the detailed views of Gordon Brown turn out to be, the party as a whole remains pretty committed to Europe - an improved and enlarged EU, of course, but not an unravelled one.

Interesting to see that Eurosceptics are focusing on a recent European Court of Justice judgement that confirmed that the EU is entitled to require member states to treat certain violations of European legislation as criminal offences. Needless to say, Eurosceptics have gone way over the top and referred to the European Commission being able to determine sentences, claiming that "Brussels" will determine criminal penalties.

If they thought a little bit further than the next tabloid headline, they might get involved in a sensible discussion about what this ruling actually means - and, who knows, they might even welcome it! Do they really think that, for instance, Spain should merely give token fines to fishermen who catch more than their quota in British waters? Or that people who put toxic substances into waterways, in violation of EU law, should not be subject to any criminal court proceedings in their country?

Essentially, the ruling confirms that member states can be required to get tough with those who violate the law. This is a good thing for everyone. When we agree common European laws with our neighbouring countries in the EU, surely it is our right to expect our partners to implement it properly, and to sanction those who violate the law in their country just as we would sanction those who violate it in our country? What would be the point in agreeing those common laws if our neighbours were free to leave violations unpunished?

Rather than welcome this positive feature of the EU - or even debate it - Eurosceptics would rather stir up unfounded fears that the European Commission, and not the national courts, will determine sentences or, at the very least, that we are going to have a "harmonised criminal law across the union" (to quote UKIP's press officer, Gawain Towler).

Mr Towler even berates a law firm for its supposed ignorance when they rightly say that "the European Court's ruling does not give the Commission powers to jail people…. Any laws involving criminal sanctions will have to be adopted and passed by the national Parliament's of each member state. All the Commission can do is to propose new laws for member states to adopt". Yet, the lawyers are exactly right and UKIP is completely wrong.

The UK Presidency ended as the clocks chimed in the New Year, and it's worth evaluating what was achieved. The balance sheet is surprisingly positive; surprising, that is, compared to the assessments of many of the armchair commentators whose agenda precludes them from saying anything positive about the government or the EU.

The Presidency of the European Council is not an executive office, but the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions for a very short period. It has no decision-taking powers of its own, merely the opportunity to chair skillfully, to broker compromises, and to place items higher up the (largely inherited) agenda.

Within these constraints, the UK's achievements are not insignificant:

• Managed to get a deal on the budget. (Enough has been said about this elsewhere on this blog.)


• Secured agreement on the "European Consensus on Development" that will double EU countries development aid to $80billion per year by 2010, commits Member States to reach the UN target of 0.7% GDP by 2015, and re-orientates the EU's own programmes towards poverty elimination and meeting the Millenium Development Goals.


• Begun a further round of CAP reform, with agreement to end all export subsidies over the next 7 years, to fit all the 10 new Member States and the next two (Bulgaria and Romania) within the current CAP spending ceiling, which will itself be reduced by 7%, to radically reform the sugar régime now and to have a new overall review of spending in 2008.


• Got all 25 countries to agree to start accession negotiations with Turkey.


• Persuaded Council to agree that its meetings on EU codecision legislation should be held in public, with immediate effect.


• Made huge progress towards adoption of the REACH directive on protecting consumers and workers from dangerous chemicals.


• Secured agreement with the European Parliament (rather than an intergovernmental shortcut) on the data retention directive, vital for combatting terrorism and serious criminality.


• Persuaded Council to resume consideration of proposals to reform the "comitology" system of scrutinising the implementing powers of the Commission, in view of giving Council and the European Parliament equal rights to call back Commission decisions.


• Set an example of how Council presidencies should interact withn the European Parliament, with a record number of ministerial appearences in Parliament and no fewer than four visits of the Prime Minister.


• Hosted a highly successful meeting of the 104-country ACP Assembly in Edinburgh.


• Launched EU Security & Defence missions to Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt and to Aceh in Indonesia.


• Made progress on climate change, leading the EU delegation to contribute to the agreement at the Montreal conference and putting together a package of assistance to China to clean up its coal-fired power stations.


• Secured agreement in Council on the Capital Requirements Directive, an important part of the Financial services Action Plan.