HC Deb 20 December 1982 vol 34 cc693-4

5.2 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the European Community budget rebates and the powers of the Assembly. It is well known that last Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended a Council of Minister's meeting in Brussels relating to the proposed £480 million refund to Britain and to the budget arrangements. This was necessary as last Thursday that sum was not approved by the Assembly of the European Community.

A reading of the treaties concerned with this issue, and of a decision taken in Brussels on 30 June 1982, show that the Assembly has the final word in these matters. Further, it is clear that the Assembly wishes to exercise its powers over these financial matters, not only in relation to the sum involved this year but in requiring a permanent and lasting solution to Britain's budget problem; a determination of subsequent demands; and the power to determine those items of domestic United Kingdom expenditure that should be approved annually.

These advertised desires raise three constitutional issues. First, can the Assembly ask for these powers? The Community Treaty suggests that it can. Secondly, can it require a permanent arrangement? The treaty suggests that it can if the money is to be paid this year. Thirdly, can it ask for future control of United Kingdom refunds and, in particular, individual projects? The treaty suggests and shows that, as these moneys are non-obligatory, the final word lies with the European Community. Subject to confirmation of those submissions, that gives rise to several important matters with regard to the structure and constitution of the European Community and the powers of this House.

The first is the balance of power of the Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Commission within the constitution of the European Community. Matters relating to the United Kingdom are thus being used as a lever to give greater powers to the Assembly. Secondly, it is clear that the Assembly wishes to determine the nature and amount of expenditure of public funds for domestic purposes within the United Kingdom. However, past debates have shown that the United Kingdom Government have made it clear that they regard refunds of moneys collected from import levies, customs duties and VAT taxes in the United Kingdom as sums to be expended on projects selected by them as being comparable with other domestic items outlined in the White Paper on public expenditure.

Subject to any firm statement by the Government, together with evidence that they could produce, that would clearly negate the propositions that I have outlined. However, it is clear that between now and 17 January, when the House returns from the Christmas Recess, extensive negotiations will have to take place between the Government, the Council of Ministers and, conceivably, the Assembly.

These matters are also the business of the House, and we should debate them before the House rises this week. The debate on the Christmas Adjournment, particularly in its modified form, is not suited to these matters of urgent public importance, and they therefore merit debate under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure.

One of the features that you, Mr. Speaker, must take into account is the likelihood of a clarificatory statement by the Government that could confirm or qualify the submissions that I have made. You will also appreciate that I can make no assumptions about such a statement being made and, therefore, seek to raise this important matter at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely the European Community budget rebates and the powers of the Assembly. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has just raised an important matter, although you have been unable to agree that there should be an emergency debate. Even though it was important, I noticed that no Minister was present. That shows grave discourtesy to the House and, indeed, to——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I were the only two people aware of what would be raised.

Later—

Mr. Spearing

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your explanation of the matter, but the Leader of the House is present. If the Government intend to make an announcement on the issue, I wonder whether he could say something about it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have given my ruling on the application under Standing Order No. 9, and I know that the House is anxious to get to the Adjournment debate.