European Affairs

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the British people knew more about how the European Commission works and how much some of those people get paid, and about the extent of their unaccountability, that could only be healthy. The more information that gets published, the better, so some kind of freedom of information process for the Commission would be welcome. Another aspect I wish to raise is the European Commission's involvement in policy making in our country. There are many areas in which it has a formal decision-making process. One issue that recently came to light, and which I am not very happy about, is that the European Commission has started giving opinions on, and interfering in debates in this House about, the passage of legislation, when frankly it ought to mind its own business. On 20 November, the Commission issued a press release referring to the reasoned opinion it had sent to the United Kingdom for, in its opinion,""incorrectly implementing EU rules prohibiting discrimination"." The press release said:""We call on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules"," despite the fact that that was just an opinion, not a ruling of the European Court of Justice. It continued:""In this context, we welcome the proposed Equality Bill and hope that it will come into force quickly."" Frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think it appropriate for the European Commission to pick out particular pieces of legislation before this House, which are subject to our parliamentary scrutiny, to express any opinions on them or to interfere in the democratic process. That is quite inappropriate. The lack of transparency concerning relations with the EU was also picked up on. In the debate on the Equality Bill, the Solicitor-General told Parliament that the Bill would not change the law relating to the exemption for religious organisations in respect of particular types of job. That is very interesting, because we have now obtained a reasoned opinion from the European Commission, which was not originally made available by the Government Equalities Office to organisations that requested it on the ground that it was confidential. Paragraph 19 of reasoned opinion No. 226 states:""The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law and bring UK law into line with the Directive."" It seems clear to me from the European Commission's interpretation that the Government are indeed changing the law in this respect—I shall not go into it in great detail because we did that when we debated the Equality Bill—but that is not what British Ministers are telling hon. Members. It worries me that Ministers are providing answers to the House that are not compatible with what they are telling the European Commission. I have written to the Solicitor-General, who, having had that incompatibility drawn to her attention, will I hope either correct the record in the House or make sure that a letter quickly wings its way to the European Commission to put it straight. We cannot have the European Commission being misled about the British Government's views, or this House being given information that is not strictly accurate. My next point is about exportable benefits. The Minister for Europe will know that certain benefits are payable to citizens who move and live elsewhere in the EU or in the European economic area. He will also know that in December 2007, the European Court of Justice ruled that for the purposes of European Law, three benefits—the care component of the disability living allowance, attendance allowance and carer's allowance—were incorrectly classified as special non-contributory benefits. The judgment said that they were exportable in certain circumstances within the European economic area and Switzerland. That may sound an awfully long time ago—nearly two years—but unfortunately it took the Government until 24 February this year to notify Parliament that they had finally considered the full terms of the judgment and were going to put it into effect. I mention that because according to the last count, there are some 1,000 British citizens living in other EEA states and Switzerland who, because they are claiming attendance allowance or disability living allowance, are by definition either elderly, disabled or both, yet they are still waiting to receive the money to which they are entitled. The Government have dragged their feet on this issue for a considerable time. Given that many of these people are elderly, by the time the Government get round to meeting their legal obligations, some of them may well have died and missed out on what is theirs by right. Many of them have paid tax in this country for many years and are entitled to these benefits. It would be helpful if the Minister told us how far advanced the Government are in paying out to those 1,000 or so outstanding cases, and whether they are going to fulfil their obligations under European treaties more swiftly. Let me finally reiterate an important point. I always get worried in European debates—I sat through all the debates on the Lisbon treaty—because of how introspective we sometimes become, focusing on the European Union to the exclusion of the rest of the world. I believe passionately that Britain's history is global. We have 5 million British citizens living and working in countries around the world. We probably have more of a global economic interest than any other country. We need an outward-looking, engaged foreign policy involving a range of forums. We must not make the mistake of focusing solely on the European Union. I believe we have learnt the lesson that, if we are fortunate enough to become the Government, we can play our part in the European Union; but we should not do so to the exclusion of our proper role in all the other forums in the world, such as the Commonwealth and the United Nations Security Council, where we have a permanent seat. That is a lesson the Government would do well to learn.