Treaty of Lisbon (No. 6)

I will certainly not withdraw them. It is therefore particularly embarrassing for the Government that many of the substantial points of the Lisbon treaty which we are discussing today were opposed by the British Government while they were being negotiated. I turn to five of those points. The first involves the new articles that set up qualified majority voting on urgent macro-financial and humanitarian aid. Although that ostensibly seems a benign change and is cited by the Government as an uncontroversial example of a move to QMV, it could raise important questions. To take a real example from the recent past, it might have been used to decide whether the European Union should continue to fund the Palestinian Authority after the 2006 elections, which returned Hamas to power. The UK and some other member states disagreed about that; the UK was keen to fund only non-governmental organisations, not the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. Far from being uncontroversial, the point was rightly opposed by the Government in negotiations. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) argued that"““Macro-financial assistance has been agreed urgently when required””," and that moving to QMV was therefore unnecessary. The Government are now fighting for a treaty that they themselves believe to contain elements that are damaging to the interests of some of the poorest people in the world. I hope that they will support the amendments that we have tabled to address the issue. The second point is the treaty's provision for the creation of a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. That is a deeply questionable idea. The Secretary of State will know that, in general, my party is enthusiastic about the role that volunteers from developed and developing countries can play in international development; they help make a valuable contribution in poor countries, and—equally importantly—learn about the issues and become advocates for change. Many Members will be aware of the work done by Voluntary Service Overseas, an outstanding British charity with which my party worked closely last year in Rwanda. Volunteering can be a positive experience. However, when it comes to urgent humanitarian assistance, we must recognise that there is a limit to what volunteers, however enthusiastic and well intentioned, can do. The Government agree with me; in negotiations on the constitution on that point, the right hon. Member for Neath said:"““The idea of establishing a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps should have no place within the EU's humanitarian action””." His wise judgment has been backed up by NGOs and BOND, which say:"““We oppose the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps””." They go on to argue that"““Humanitarian response is for experienced, trained professionals, not for volunteers, especially in dangerous crises.””" They warn that a voluntary aid corps might not be guided by the highly important principles and commitments of professional aid workers. A few years ago, that sentiment was echoed by Poul Nielson, then European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. On 7 November 2003, he said:"““Humanitarian aid should be the 'business' of experienced, trained professionals such as NGOs and international organisations. It should not be delegated to a voluntary humanitarian aid corps, no matter how enthusiastic.””" He added that"““humanitarian aid is carried out in emergency contexts, wars, natural disasters, huge displacements of people, and in these contexts, know-how, experience and fool-proof reactions are essential as dangerous and traumatising situations are too often the rule.””" The Secretary of State will note that we have tabled an amendment on that point. I hope that he will feel able to support it; we are merely reflecting the views of the Government during the negotiations.