§ [Relevant Document: European Community Document No. 5017/91 relating to revision of the financial perspective.]
10.26 pm§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7184/91, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1992, 7368/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 8442/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 20th November 1991, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 3 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 7731/91, relating to the Draft Budget for 1992, 9092/91, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 18th November 1991, relating to Council consideration of the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications and 8719/91, relating to revision of the Financial Perspective for 1992; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline and ensure that the Financial Regulation is applied strictly.I should like to begin this annual debate by expressing my thanks to the Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for its hard work in examining the eight bulky and voluminous documents that we are debating. The pace of the Community budget procedure is such that the Committee frequently has to scrutinise documents swiftly to ensure that the interests of the House are protected. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Newham, South and the Committee for the tolerance that they showed of the requirements and exigencies of the process.The House debated the 1991 budget last December against the background of profound changes across the continent of Europe. Since then, those changes have gathered pace. In addition to the Government's preoccupation with the intergovernmental conferences, looming over the horizon is the review of the Community's finances, which is due next year. The budget is therefore the last under the five-year interinstitutional agreement of 1988.
I should stress, however, that neither any agreement that is reached in the intergovernmental conferences nor next year's review of the Community's finances will have any effect on the 1992 budget. Most of the key reforms that the Community agreed in 1988, setting the framework for future budgets and the budget for 1992, can be changed only by unanimity. They do not expire with the interinstitutional agreement.
Among those key reforms are the budget discipline decision, which includes the agricultural guideline—a legally binding limit that exerts downward pressure on the growth of agricultural support—and the own-resources decision, which sets firm legally binding limits on Community revenues and provides for the United Kingdom abatement.
§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)My hon. Friend the Minister kindly referred to downward pressure on agricultural expenditure. By what percentage will that expenditure be down in 1992?
§ Mr. MaudeI referred to downward pressure on growth in agricultural support. As my hon. Friend knows very well, it is important to read the fine print. The point that my hon. Friend makes is that there is inexorable growth in agricultural spending, but I shall deal with that in a little while.
The developments beyond the Community's boundaries will have a great impact on the 1992 budget. We tend to focus particularly on the changes taking place in central and eastern Europe which have this year rolled on into the Soviet Union and beyond the boundaries of Europe itself. It is right that we focus on those changes in view of the profound and beneficial implications for world order.
However, the 1992 budget also contains substantial provision for the new Asia and Latin America programme which in part aims to foster change in those regions. The budget also reflects the greater need to make provision for emergency humanitarian food aid for the Soviet Union.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)Annex B which is attached to my hon. Friend's helpful memorandum shows that the percentage increase in food aid for helping people in the world is minimal. It is absolutely disgraceful that, at the same time, there are massive increases in a wide range of other matters including not only agriculture but structural alterations, fisheries and so on, with figures ranging to an increase of 28 per cent. It is a disgraceful budget because there is no balance between what is required and what is being provided.
§ Mr. MaudeMy hon. Friend needs no reminding that the budget process is by no means complete. There have been several shots at the budget—the Commission's initial preliminary draft budget, the Council's revision of it, the Parliament's amendments and the Council's rejection of most of the Parliament's amendments. There is still a process to go through in the elaborate minuet. I do not think that my hon. Friend will make the mistake of believing that the document to which he refers reflects the final state of the budget.
§ Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle)Before my hon. Friend moves on from help given to non-member countries, does not he find it disappointing that in the budget as drawn up at this juncture by the European Parliament there is no amount allowed for technical assistance to the USSR? Is not it generally agreed by all the expert advisers who visited the USSR in recent months that technical assistance should receive priority? Would I be unduly cynical in imagining that the European Parliament assumes that the Council of Ministers will attach priority to that issue and might increase the budget to allow for it? Is not that a nonsense? Should not it be making savings elsewhere in the budget to allow for that priority assistance to the USSR?
§ Mr. MaudeI shall deal with that point in more detail in a while, but my hon. Friend is right. Technical assistance to the Soviet Union is of the very greatest importance and, as he says, importance has been attached to it by all who have commented on the issue. I think that the European Parliament also attaches great importance to it and it is our view and that of the Budget Council that there is room within the budget for such assistance to the Soviet Union without breaching the financial criteria in the way in which my hon. Friend mentioned.
1025 As for central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the 1992 budget will see the continuation of a substantial programme to help with economic reconstruction—the Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring programme—which now covers all central and eastern Europe. It aims to support the transformation of command economies into free and open economies. The draft budget makes provision—as my hon. Friend suggests —for the continuation of technical assistance to the Soviet Union as agreed by the European Council last December.
Another big issue is food aid for the Soviet Union. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as chairman of the G7 countries, agreed a 2 billion ecu package which was subsequently endorsed by the Community. A large part of that will be in the form of food credits intended to meet the food shortages expected this winter with dispersal conditional on genuine need being shown. The meeting of that need will not, therefore, add to expenditure in the 1992 budget.
Against that background, the key issue for the 1992 budget is how the Community should meet new external demands. In particular the question which both arms of the budgetary authority—the Council and the Parliament —have considered is the extent to which the demands can be met within the budgetary limits or whether they should be met with an increase in those limits.
As has been foreshadowed, the sharpest issue is how to make provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union. It was clear at an early stage that that would be the key issue, when the Commission, the Council and the Parliament considered proposed revisions for the financial perspective for 1991 and 1992 earlier this year. The revisions were to take account especially of the consequences of the Gulf, technical assistance for the Soviet Union and humanitarian aid.
It may be helpful if I refer briefly to the interinstitutional agreement. It is a political agreement between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission which was reached in 1988. It sets out the institutions' agreement on how to approach their decisions about the Community's budget during 1988 to 1992. It includes what is known as the financial perspective. That is a set of expenditure ceilings for each of the six main categories of Community spending, which the three institutions agree to respect. The agreement has provided welcome stability to the Community budgetary process since 1989.
The agreement permits the financial perspective ceilings to be revised to cover unforeseen circumstances, but subject at all times to the binding legal framework. Above all, the legally binding limits on spending on agriculture and on the overall level of Community revenues cannot be overridden by the ITA and will continue beyond the currency of the present agreement.
§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the increase in VAT that is levied in the United Kingdom since the last budget, there will be a windfall gain to the European Community? Perhaps he would like to tell the House how much that represents. I appreciate that he may not have the figure at his fingertips, but perhaps it could be made available in due course.
§ Mr. MaudeI shall check that. It is my understanding that that is not the case. When the check has been made, I shall come back to my hon. Friend with a firm answer.
When the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget in June, it made it clear that there were provisions that it considered necessary, but which had not been included in the preliminary draft budget, pending consideration of its proposal for revision of the financial perspective ceilings, especially suitable provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union, humanitarian aid and administrative costs. The PDB represented an increase in expenditure over the budget adopted for 1991 of about 11 per cent., totalling some 65.2 billion ecu, about £45.4 billion. Although it was a large increase, it was about 1.3 billion ecu within the overall ceiling of the financial perspective. Total provisions were equivalent to about 1.13 per cent. of Community GNP, compared with the 1.2 per cent. ceiling allowed under the own-resources decision of June 1988. That represented a cash margin of about 4 billion ecu.
There are reasons for this seemingly large increase in expenditure. First, the PDB provided for an increase of over 20 per cent. for the structural funds, reflecting the 1988 agreement that the funds should double in real terms between 1987 and 1993. Secondly, there was strong growth in existing policies as well as a need to provide for the new external policies that arose in the course of 1991. Thirdly, the projections for agriculture support indicate that spending will be at the guideline in 1992, rather than significantly below it as in 1991.
Spending on the common agricultural policy represents, as always, the major item in the budget. In recent years, there has been a substantial underspend against the guidelines, but that is not expected to continue into 1992. Indeed, expenditure in 1992 looked set, earlier on this year, to reach the guideline.
We strongly supported the Commission's proposals in the price-fixing negotiations earlier this year, which aimed to ensure that the 1992 guideline would be respected. The savings that resulted from those negotiations ensured that that will be so, and that the agricultural budget fully respects budget discipline. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not a chance."] My hon. Friends say, "Not a chance," but the financial perspective guidelines were not amended, even though 10 of the 12 member states wanted them amended; and the budget discipline decision taken in 1988, which many cynics and sceptics said would crumble as soon as it came under pressure, resisted the pressure on it and led to a tougher price-fixing settlement than would otherwise have been the case. That settlement may not be all that my hon. Friends would wish, but I can tell them that it is a great deal better than it would have been without the agreement that we reached in 1988.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the work of the Scrutiny Committee. It has indeed been difficult to keep up with the flow of documents—some of them amending documents—the latest of which were placed in the Vote Office this afternoon.
From the point of view of the general public, the Minister is quite right. The table reproduced in our report shows that the guidance fund now stands at about £25,000 million a year. As the Minister said, that is just within the guidelines. Do he and his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expect a similar 1027 arrangement for world prices in future years? At some time —the hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us in which year; it may be 1993—if the rearranged agricultural policy prices do not do what they are designed to do, we shall not only be above the agricultural guidelines. We shall be looking to the third arm of income, own resources, at that date or before. Is that a reasonable summary of the situation?
§ Mr. MaudeObviously, further developments have to be taken into account, but any negotiation on prices has to take account of the requirements of budget discipline. I do not claim to be an expert on the operation of the stabliser regime, but I understand that it has an inbuilt mechanism to reduce prices when production is such that it would otherwise spill the demands on the budget over a certain level. I am not claiming that the regime is perfect or anything like it, but there are disciplines built into the system, which faced and withstood a severe test this year. The regime is by no means yet perfect, but it is very much better, and it has turned out to be more robust than many had expected.
The price-fixing negotiation consequences were taken into account in the Commission's first letter of amendment to its preliminary draft budget, making provision for agricultural spending in line with the guideline.
I should comment on the United Kingdom's abatement and on its net contribution to the budget. Revised forecasts will be included in the annual statement on the Community budget—to be published, as usual, early next year, following adoption of the budget—and financial year forecasts were published in the recent autumn statement.
§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)I note that the motion on the Order Paper is to take note of the European budget and particularly of certain documents that are about three inches thick. If the House does not take note of the documents, what will be the practical effect? Will it mean that the budget falls? No, it will not. Has the matter been discussed by the European Parliament, and can the Minister explain to us where those responsible for the budget are held democratically accountable to the people of Britain? If it is in the European Parliament, surely Members of that Parliament should be discussing it—not hon. Members.
§ Mr. MaudeThe European Parliament certainly does discuss it—exhaustively and painfully. It is one of the two arms of the budgetary authority, which consists of the Budget Council, on which I represent the United Kingdom and from which I return to this House to account for what I have agreed there, which I think is what I am doing now, and the European Parliament, which has a considerable influence on the budget procedure. I believe that the requirements of democracy are therefore being met in that process.
Reverting to the United Kingdom's net contribution, I can tell the House that our expectation is that the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1992 would be about £2.25 billion, compared with around £2.5 billion in 1990 and £1.25 billion in 1991. The reason for the very substantial increase in 1992 over 1991 is essentially technical. The 1991 figure is artificially depressed by two factors. First, we expect a very substantial repayment next month, in respect of overpayments made in previous years, especially in 1990, 1028 reflecting the large figure of £2.5 billion in 1990 to which I have referred. Contributions in any particular year are based upon estimates of, for example, gross national product for the year in question; and any necessary adjustments are picked up in subsequent years.
Secondly, because the adjustment last year was a payment by the United Kingdom, we get the benefit in terms of additional abatement this year, 1991. This also depresses our net contribution. The figure for 1992—around £2.25 billion—is in line with the underlying trend of recent years.
As the House knows, our contribution would be very much higher if it were not for the abatement arrangement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) secured at Fontainebleau in 1984. That mechanism is established in legislation and cannot be changed without our agreement.
The current forecast is that our abatement next year will total some 2.5 billion ecu, or £1.75 billion. By the end of next year, the cumulative total for our abatements since Fontainebleau will be around £12.5 billion. In addition, there is the total of £3.2 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley secured in abatements before the Fontainebleau arrangements—giving a total of £15.7 billion, which is a huge sum of money by any standards, which was saved for the taxpayer by those agreements and improvements on the arrangements that the last Labour Government so skilfully negotiated for this country.
The July Budget Council adopted a draft budget which was 35 million ecu above the Commission's proposals; a total little different, but with the contents significantly changed.
The Council's approach was to consider whether the Community's priorities could be met within existing budgetary ceilings and, in particular, to examine the scope for making proper provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union and for emergency humanitarian aid, within the existing category 4 of the budget—other policies—ceiling of the financial perspective.
First, the apparent growth in category 4 expenditure, was relatively restrained. Because the 1991 base, for measuring growth, was artificially high the underlying growth was very strong indeed, some 15 per cent. between 1991 and 1992, if one were to set those special provisions to one side. On the face of it, therefore, there was scope for significant, but not damaging, reductions in the Commission's proposals.
Secondly, we had particular regard to the requirement which was introduced into the financial regulation last year—at the instigation of the United Kingdom. This requires the budgetary authority and the Commission to ensure the cost-effectiveness of budgetary provisions. The Council adopted a declaration on 25 July that its consideration of reductions in the Commission's proposals was, in large part, guided by value-for-money concerns. The Council concluded that significant reductions in the Commission's proposals were indeed possible and reallocated appropriations in category 4 of the financial perspective to include provision for the Soviet Union, aid to Eastern Europe, and emergency food and humanitarian aid. That reallocation to meet Community priorities was possible without a revision to the financial perspective.
The European Parliament's approach—the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle)—has been different. It believes that the new requirements, such as technical assistance for the Soviet 1029 Union, should be met wholly by new money. It voted amendments and modifications adding more than 500 million ecu in commitments and payments to the draft budget. In addition to those amendments, the Parliament also wanted a global revision to the financial perspective to allow a further 1.66 billion ecu—more than £1 billion—of expenditure. Its intention was that this increase in the financial perspective ceilings would allow provision to be made for spending by the structural funds, over and above the agreed progress to its doubling; expenditure on central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; humanitarian aid; tropical forests; and a reserve for administration.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On humanitarian aid, can we have an assurance that the United Kingdom representatives are not putting the brake on in the light of the reports from the Quakers, Frank Judd of Oxfam and the universities of Illinois and Harvard on humanitarian aid to southern Iraq? On tropical forests, will the United Kingdom Government cast a beady eye on what is happening to our aid to Guyana and its tropical forests?
§ Mr. MaudeI am afraid that I do not have the answers at my fingertips, but I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with a detailed response later.
The European Parliament did not include any provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union. Instead, the Parliament used, for its own priorities, the available headroom of 50 million ecu in non-compulsory expenditure in category 4, plus 421 million ecu allocated by the Council for the Soviet Union and for aid. In effect, the Parliament took the money that was allocated by the council and used it for its own different purposes.
In addition, the European Parliament adopted two significant changes to the expenditure on research. Provisions in the draft budget reflected legislative provisions for this expenditure, and spending in this category was more than 400 million ecu below the financial perspective ceiling as a result. The first of the Parliament's amendments was to breach the amounts deemed necessary, that is the expenditure ceiling contained in the relevant Council decision, for the second framework programme, by 44 million ecu and that of the third framework programme by 220 million ecu. The second was to propose a range of increases to non-framework programmes, including a series of new pilot projects outside the framework programmes, totalling 170 million ecu.
Our Budget Council's meeting on 12 November followed the decision of ECOFIN the previous day not to accept the Commission's proposals for a revision of the financial perspective. The Commission's proposal comprises a revision of 720 million ecu in category 4 to cover technical assistance to the Soviet Union and to create a reserve for humanitarian aid to the extent of 300 million ecu. It also proposed a switch of 80 million ecu between the sub-ceilings in category 5. ECOFIN could not conclude that such revisions were justified.
The Budget Council in July had made it very clear that the requirements should and could be met within existing ceilings. Accordingly, the Budget Council earlier this month adopted a second reading draft budget broadly in line with its first reading.
§ Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on representing the British Government and Parliament at ECOFIN and on seeking to cut expenditure to the original Council proposal?
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that the European Parliament proposes to increase expenditure when it has no responsibility for raising the taxes necessary to meet that budget? How can a Parliament be put in an irresponsible position, and therefore an undemocratic one, by pressing for expenditure to be increased while not having the responsibility to raise taxes to meet that expenditure?
§ Mr. MaudeSince the European Community's inception in 1958, the European Parliament has been one of two parts of the budgetary authority. We have learnt to live with it—not always amicably—and have established a modus vivendi with the Budget Council and the Parliament, each of which has its position, and discussions take place. Democratic accountability exists in both arms of the budgetary authority. The European Parliament, when faced with choices—making a budget with taxpayers' money invariably involves making a choice between difficult and often equally attractive options—tends to avoid making a decision. The only choice that it tends to make is to put its hands into the taxpayer's pocket, which does not seem to be the right approach.
§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)Why did the Government consider that it was in order to increase the financial perspective in relation to assistance to eastern Europe and the Gulf states last year, but that it is not all right to do so this year in relation to the Soviet Union?
§ Mr. MaudeBecause this year we took the view that there is ample room within the existing ceilings to provide that money. The Parliament has used up all the existing headroom in that ceiling for new and separate purposes. Judgments must be made and last year we judged that there was not room within those ceilings, so an adjustment in the financial perspective was justified. We do not believe that it is justified this year.
The Council also rejected all but two of the Parliament's amendments on research. It adopted a statement which I proposed, making clear to the Parliament that its proposals on research were wholly unacceptable, being contrary to treaty provisions, involving significant expenditure without a legal base, and effectively arrogating legislative authority to the Parliament.
The Commission's letters of amendment were also considered at the Council's second reading. A major element of the second letter was a proposal for new Commission posts—a revised budgetary provision which reflected the Commission's proposal for a revision of the relevant category of the financial perspective ceiling. The proposal for new Commission posts was considered in parallel with the Parliament's amendments to administrative expenditure. We accepted a Parliament amendment that covered appropriations to allow a further 327 Commission staff, requiring no revision to the financial perspective. We made clear our preference, shared by other member states, that a significant number of external posts should be created from that extra provision, reflecting the new external demands on the Community. The Council 1031 incorporated the proposals included in the third letter of amendment, including budgetising the 1991 surplus of 938 million ecu.
The Council made it quite clear at both its first and second readings that adequate provision can be made for Community priorities, while maintaining provision for other policies. However, it also recognises that demands on the budget, particularly in the area of aid, have not diminished. Provisions for internal Community policies have, therefore, been restrained.
It will now be necessary for the presidency to examine with the European Parliament how the 1992 Budget can be adopted to ensure a proper balance between the Community's internal and external policies, within the framework of budget discipline.
The negotiations on the budget and on the financial perspective are at a delicate stage and I hope that the House will understand if I make no forecast of their outcome. We shall look for a satisfactory response from the European Parliament on research expenditure, because its proposals on that subject raise important principles of legislative and budgetary principle. We shall also seek to ensure that the Community's priorities are respected. That will definitely include making proper provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union. We have shown that such a provision can be accommodated without damaging the general development of Community expenditure. I hope that the Parliament will reappraise its approach and accept the responsibilities placed on the budgetary authority. That means that we have to make choices as new demands and priorities emerge, not just make the choice that the Parliament tends to make, which is simply to spend more and thus take more from taxpayers' pockets.
§ Mr. Michael Irvine (Ipswich)I find it disturbing that my hon. Friend says that the European Parliament, far from exercising a restraining influence on the budget, actually puts extra pressure on it. Am I right in thinking that the only organisation that acts as a restraint on budgetary expenditure is the Council of Ministers? I do not find that reassuring, particularly as most of the Community members are net recipients of Community expenditure.
§ Mr. MaudeMy hon. Friend is correct in saying that the main constraint on the Community budget is the Council of Ministers. It is certainly right that most of the member states are net recipients. There are thought to be three net contributors to the budget: Germany and Britain, which have always been so, and France, which is now a net contributor, probably a considerable one. Therefore, three of the four largest member states of the Community have a considerable interest in restraining spending. The other two countries have a greater interest in doing so than we have as any increases in spending are abated by about two thirds for us due to the Fontainebleau abatement. There is substantial pressure to restrain spending.
§ Mr. CashDoes my hon. Friend recall that there is a strong possibility that by the end of the century Germany's gross national product could be as much as $2 trillion? Against that background, taking into account the percentage that would be contributed by Germany to the Community budget then, the important discussions that 1032 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is having with Chancellor Kohl today and what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said about maintaining choices, does my hon. Friend agree that that cumulative point would be a good reason for ensuring that we do not allow a central bank to take away those choices from the British people? If we did, there would be too much control in the hands of any one country.
§ Mr. MaudeI am not sure that there is any suggestion of a single bank taking those choices away. Such decisions will always have to be made by the Council of Ministers. We regret that the Commission does not place a greater restraint on spending. At the intergovernmental conference we made some important proposals that sought to introduce much greater financial accountability, including a requirement that, before the Commission makes a proposal, it should certify—preferably through one Commissioner with responsibility for the budget—that the proposal can be accommodated within budget discipline. We are making progress with that proposal and we are seeking to introduce additional disciplines into the system.
The budget procedure is always fairly complex, and this year has been no exception. Our aims are quite clear. We have sought to ensure that financial prudence and expenditure control are the key pillars to the budgetary process. The developments in Germany, the Gulf and Eastern Europe last year, and the events in recent months in the Soviet Union, cannot be used to reduce the Government's commitment, which I stress is shared by others in the Community, not to relax discipline. Once again, the Council has been able to tread the tightrope with some skill, producing a draft budget which is consistent with the principle of budget discipline. I commend that approach to the House.
§ 11.4 pm
§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)The Financial Secretary's most interesting comment was that the budget-making process that we are debating meets the requirements of democracy. I disagree. Every year, I complain about the inadequacy and lack of democracy in the process. We have an hour and a half late at night in which to scrutinise everything that our Ministers have been up to in the Council of Ministers and to consider the proposals in a substantial set of documents dealing with a large sum of money.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I agree with my hon. Friend's criticism. Are things any different in any of the other 11 national legislatures? Are some of them more rigorous in their scrutiny of such measures, or is scrutiny even worse than in this place?
§ Mr. SmithI suspect that some are better and that some are considerably worse. The process by which we are expected to call Ministers to account is not up to a proper democratic standard.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorMay we take it from the hon. Gentleman's quite splendid criticisms in the name of democracy that a Labour Government would give adequate time for such discussions?
§ Mr. SmithI can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that, when Labour takes office in a few months, we shall ensure that Ministers are fully accountable to the House and that adequate time is made available for that.
§ Mr. SmithThe Government made a small change last year when we started our debate on the European Community budget at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. I am surprised that the keenness to have a slightly longer debate at a more reasonable time has apparently not been carried over to this year. There is a small improvement, in that Treasury memoranda are becoming rather more helpful and somewhat easier to understand. Even so, the pile of documents before the House are still very complex, and difficult to co-ordinate. There is scope for further improvement in the Treasury advice to which we are entitled.
I have four basic points about the budget, the first of which, although small, is important. The conversion rate used throughout the documents is £1 to 1.435 ecu. Does that rate assume that the pound is at its central rate against the deutschmark within the exchange rate mechanism? I believe that that is the case. The central rate against the deutschmark is 2.95, and the pound is hovering at around 2.85. Inevitably, that means that the conversion into pounds will be more expensive than it would otherwise be. What is the difference represented by the conversion rate?
Secondly, the Financial Secretary referred to the level of funds proposed for agricultural support. The commitment figure for this year is 32.516 billion ecu, and that for 1992 is 36.008 billion ecu, including the 1 billion ecu of monetary reserve. That represents a substantial increase of 10.7 per cent., and that is the figure sought by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who rightly picked up the Minister's comment on downward growth. There is no evidence of downward pressure either in the agricultural support heading or in growth. In the past couple of years, the share of the Community budget taken by agricultural support was apparently reducing, but it is now rising again.
The explanation offered by the Council for this phenomenon makes interesting reading. In its explanatory memorandum, it says:
the increase in agricultural expenditure … is the result of a number of unfavourable factors, in particular the considerable fall in the US-Dollar/ECU ratio, the worsening of world prices in certain products (especially cereals, sugar, and beef and veal) andhere is the key to the problem—the structural imbalance (over-production) in the Community in the case of certain products".There we have, in a nutshell, the entire problem of the common agricultural policy. It encourages overproduction, and in the process helps neither the farmers nor the consumers of the Community. Rather less than 40 per cent. of the agricultural support fund actually ends up in the pockets of farmers.A radical overhaul of the CAP is needed, and it would have been helpful if the Government had told us rather more about what they are doing, if anything, to ensure that that radical overhaul takes place.
§ Mr. SmithJudging by the budget before us, they do not appear to have been particularly successful.
§ Mr. MaudeThe hon. Gentleman upbraids us for not having succeeded in securing radical reform of the CAP. He knows as well as any other hon. Member that the United Kingdom, alone for much of the time, has been 1034 pressing for that. The resistance to it comes from those fellow member states to whom the hon. Gentleman, in another context, would like to hand very much more British power.
§ Mr. SmithI shall ignore the final part of what the Financial Secretary said, because it is untrue. Not only have the British Government been studying this, but the much-maligned European Parliament has, in its comments on the budget, been rather more vigorous than the Government or the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers insists on a 1.11 per cent. across-the-board cut in the amount that is scheduled for agricultural support. On the other hand, the European Parliament has suggested that, instead of taking an across-the-board cut, the cuts in the agricultural support budget should be better targeted. It has especially argued that they should be targeted to "encourage projects which may play a role in the reform of the CAP".
We must ask why, given the opportunity to ensure that a reduction in the agricultural support figures in order to fit the figure within the financial perspective had to take place, the Government appear to have gone along with an across-the-board cut and have not used that opportunity to propose, as the Parliament has proposed, cuts which could assist the process of reform.
The third point that I want to address is the dispute that has emerged between the Council and Parliament over technical assistance to the Soviet Union. No one on either side of the argument is disputing the need and appropriateness of such assistance. A figure of some 400 million ecu is being proposed. That follows a commitment entered into back in January by the Foreign Ministers of the Community.
But in refusing to agree to an amendent to the financial perspective of some 300 million ecu, the Council of Ministers is not prepared to vote the funds for its decision. Although it was perfectly prepared to revise the financial perspective last year for eastern Europe and the Gulf states, it refuses to consider revising the financial perspective this year, despite the fact that, even if the present mechanism of the financial perspective for category four were to be increased, as proposed by the Commission, the total budget would still be substantially within the own resources ceiling, which is the ceiling which most matters.
The Council is also refusing to agree to such an amendment despite the fact that a carry-over of 938 million ecu from this year is being proposed by the Council —effectively an underspend on this year's budget—and some of that funding could be applied to the aid for the Soviet Union. The net effect of the refusal to amend the financial perspective is that the funds which will be earmarked for the Soviet Union will not be available for other priorities within that category.
Among the proposals from the Commission in category four are the extremely important items of aid to the third world. The Council of Ministers and the British Government are effectively saying that aid for the Soviet Union must be at the expense of aid for the third world. That is not a principle which the Opposition can accept.
Fourthly, there is the continuing issue, to which, sadly, the Financial Secretary did not allude, of additionality, especially the Government's attitude to the RECHAR programme. European Community funds are desperately needed, especially by areas suffering from the effects of pit 1035 closures. The problem was highlighted in the recent Hemsworth by-election, and I know that my hon. Friend the new and excellent Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has been pursuing it ever since his election. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has also followed it up assiduously.
The problem arises because European Community Council regulation 2052/88 requires the additional structural funds to have a
genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned.That regulation was agreed to by the current United Kingdom Government; but, in the view of the European Commission, they are failing the "additional impact" test in practice.My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has pursued the issue with remarkable tenacity, as is his wont. He received a letter from the Foreign Secretary, dated 11 November, which stated very clearly what the Government were up to. At least the Foreign Secretary has the honesty to admit that. He wrote:
We therefore take account of expected aggregate receipts from the EC funds in planning our public expenditure.Effectively, the Foreign Secretary was admitting that the Government reduce Treasury expenditure on the ground that money is coming in from the European Community.
§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)The same applies to areas that qualify under objective 2 of the European social fund. In Strathclyde, courses are organised for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and women who want to return to work. The money that is provided is not a supplement to the funds that could provide the services that are needed; it is a substitute for those funds.
§ Mr. SmithMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. The root cause of the problem is the Government's insistence that they alone should determine what funds are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow pursued the matter further. He received a letter from the Prime Minister, dated 12 November, and another from the Secretary of State for Energy, dated 21 November. The word processors at No. 10 Downing street must be linked to the same computer as those of the Department of Energy, for the wording of the two letters was identical. The Prime Minister's, however, added a little coda. After explaining, in a somewhat specious fashion, the Government's view on the question of additionality, the letter concluded:
The Commission are misrepresenting the position"—we do not agree; it seems to us that the Commission is representing the position very accurately, and that it is the Government who are misrepresenting it—and pursuing radical suggestions for changes in the UK public expenditure control system. We do not accept that they have any basis for this attitude.Here comes the prize sentence:I hope that you"—referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—will use your influence with Bruce Milian to help us unblock this problem and get the grants released.I admire the skills and persuasiveness of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, but it is absolutely ridiculous for the Prime Minister of this country to say that, because the Government have a disagreement with the European 1036 Commission, they want my hon. Friend to help to sort the matter out. The Government ought to recognise that their interpretation is wrong and that Bruce Millan is right.
§ Mr. MaudeThe Government have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain to Commissioner Millan and his staff exactly how the system works. The Commission did not properly understand how our system worked. Now it understands it a bit better.
The effect of our public spending totals, taking into account receipts from Community funds, is that levels of spending are higher than they would otherwise be. Thus, both the letter and the spirit of the additionality requirement are met. The only conclusion that we can draw is that, having had it all explained to him at dictation speed, Commissioner Millan has taken a personal decision, for party political reasons, to frustrate the release of these funds to areas of this country, including my constituency, that need that money, in order to force a confrontation with the Government. Instead of coming here and whining on about it, I think that Labour Members should talk to Commissioner Milian. He alone has the ability to release this money.
§ Mr. SmithThe Financial Secretary is talking a load of nonsense. I had expected better of him—but never mind.
§ Mr. DalyellWe have talked at length to Commissioner Milian, and we are absolutely persuaded that he is right and that the Government are wrong. I say that as a Member of this House.
§ Mr. SmithMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are coming dangerously close to echoing the words of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who is unable to be with us tonight but with whom I have discussed the matter. He said:
I believe that Commissioner Milian is the man who is being thoroughly boody-minded."—[Official Report, 15 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 277.]That was not only discourteous; it was a completely erroneous portrayal of the situation. It is about time the Government realised that they—not Commissioner Milian, not the European Commission—are depriving the most needy areas of this country of money that is rightfully due to them.
§ Dr. GodmanIt is not Commissioner Milian who is being bloody-minded over the distribution of funds under the Renaval programme but Scottish Office Minsters and officials. The fact is that 20 million ecu has been promised to my constituency and the parliamentary constituency of Govan—both declining shipbuilding areas. It is the Scottish Office that is holding up that money, not Commissioner Bruce Milian. It is Scottish Office Ministers who, in their obduracy, are being bloody-minded.
§ Mr. SmithMy hon. Friend makes the point graphically. What is happening on the ground shows that the Government are clearly at fault, and that they are completely wrong about the issue.
We remain unhappy about the budget proposals relating to agriculture, aid to the Soviet Union, additionality and the RECHAR programme.
§ Mr. McMasterBefore my hon. Friend moves too far away from the subject of addionality, does he agree that it is important to place on record that Commissioner Milian is not saying that those areas should not receive the 1037 money? In fact, he said that they should have twice the amount of money. That is the key to additionality. Can my hon. Friend tell me how isolated the Government are on the issue of additionality?
§ Mr. SmithAs far as I am aware, the Government are alone on the issue. It means that British people in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) are losing in a way that people elsewhere in the Community are not. They are losing directly as a result of the bloody-mindedness not of the Commission or Bruce Milian but of the Government.
There are definite areas within the Budget where the Government need to change their approach and their practice. It is not our intention to divide the House, because the broad thrust of the budget is acceptable. However, the Government should not allow that to fool them into thinking that we are happy with what they have been up to or what it appears that they intend to be up to, according to the Financial Secretary's remarks, during the remaining weeks of discussion on the budget.
§ Mr. James Cran (Beverley)I do not intend to take up much of the House's time. I remember taking part in a similar debate on a previous occasion. I called that debate a charade and I see no reason to change my mind about this one. It does not matter whether one is a Euro-sceptic or a Euro-enthusiast. If we are to be called upon to consider a budget for anything, but particularly the European Community, it is utterly disgraceful that we are given an hour and a half late in the evening to do so. Both Front-Bench spokesmen have taken over an hour to deploy their cases and very little time is left for the rest of us. I have noticed that many of my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have made gallant attempts to make interventions—good interventions—but they are not worth a hill of beans when considering a budget the size of this one. This is an utter disgrace.
The Select Committee on European Legislation—to which we should pay a certain tribute—said that the budget raises questions of political importance. My golly, that has not been reflected in the amount of time that we have been given to debate it.
We are discussing a take-note motion. What does that mean? Does it mean that. I as a Back-Bencher, or the House collectively, has any right of veto over the budget? Of course not. Therefore, if one has no meaningful input into a budget or anything else, I fail to understand why we should consider it in the first place.
I associate myself with those who have talked of the indigestibility of the documentation that we are supposed to consider. It is voluminous and incapable of being read properly. It was not available to me on Monday. I am not getting at the Financial Secretary as an individual, because I think that he is one of the best Ministers in the Government—I would not say that if I did not believe it—but I must tell him that, in addition to extra time, the documentation must be simplified. It is incapable of being properly read or evaluated with the resources available to Back Benchers.
My second plea is for documents to highlight value for money. If we make a net contribution to a budget, whatever it is, as an hon. Member I wish to be assured that 1038 we are getting value for money. I do not believe that we are getting value for money and I shall give my hon. Friend the Minister three examples.
I am what would be called a Euro-sceptic. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke of nooks and crannies. Given the number and nature of items in the budget, it covers more than nooks and crannies.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have to convince me about three items of the budget, the first of which is the internal market. I think that the internal market is "a good thing". It will be good for the United Kingdom and for the rest of the European Community. I have no doubt about that, but my hon. Friend and I know perfectly well that it will not be in place on 1 January 1993 or for a long time after. Will he therefore tell me how the budgetary item for the European Community will facilitate the achievement of the internal market? If it will not achieve that within a reasonable period, why are we bothering to spend the money? I should like an answer to that question.
The budget is riddled with references to something called the social dimension. My hon. Friend the Minister knows perfectly well that Conservative Members reject the European Community's concept of a social dimension. He knows that by that I mean the proposed directives on working time, on the protection of pregnant women at work, on part-time work and on temporary work. He and I know perfectly well that, if accepted, they would only create unemployment. Therefore, perhaps he will tell me why we contribute to the evolution of those directives, albeit that in the Council of Ministers we shall no doubt try our best to ameliorate them. If he cannot explain that, I fail to understand why we spend the money.
Thirdly, I know perfectly well why structural funds are being increased—I can read as well anybody else—but that is not the question that we should be answering. We have learnt that regional policy does not work. If one took the map of assisted areas for 1932 and superimposed the current areas, they would be almost precisely the same. That is why the Government, rightly, have been looking for new ideas for regional policy. I remain to be convinced that the European Community is doing so. In fact, I know that it is not. It is spending money on the same old measures that have not worked in the past 50 or 60 years. I must again ask my hon. Friend the Minister why the United Kingdom is contributing to something that essentially does not work and is merely a temporary palliative.
I have much more to say, but in fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak I shall throw away the rest of my notes. I doubt very much whether I shall take part in this again because it is just a damned disgrace.
§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)Only about 16 minutes of the debate are left, so rather than follow the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) or speak for any length, I shall, first, agree 100 per cent. with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. In the two-day debate on Maastricht last week, hon. Members went on about the importance of the House's sovereignty and how it would be taken away if the proposals before the intergovernmental conferences were passed.
Here we are, late at night, discussing what has already been fixed. We can do nothing about it. This is nothing 1039 other than an opportunity for a variety of political insomniacs to fill the night air with wind and generalities. The debate will have no effect, so it is ridiculous.
In the short time available, I shall make three points. I do not agree with the Minister that it was a good thing for the Council to cut back as it has. Unlike the hon. Member for Beverley, I was impressed by the proposals in the European Parliament's amendments. It seems that the Council has effectively cut back on a variety of desirable activities. It has cut the money allocated to research and development, to educational projects—including those linked to the channel tunnel—and to the fisheries research programme which is directly and importantly linked to Scotland. It has not said whether it would be willing to extend, for example, the Perifra programme which, during its year of operation, has proved of great value to the peripheral regions of the Community. The programmes suggested by the Parliament were worthy of support and did not breach the financial perspectives. Indeed, as I understand it, they were considerably beneath them. Since 1988 the European Community has spent or required 35 billion ecu less than the agreed ceiling and the revision requested for the 1992 budget was only 720 million.
I conclude by asking what is the Government's attitude to the Perifra programme? Do they believe that it should be extended?
I also wish to associate myself with all that the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman said about additionality, although I must say, en passant, that the rules that the Government are following are those followed by the previous Labour Government. This is not a new issue, but it is certainly one that we should sort out properly.
§ Dr. GodmanOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A number of hon. Members have complained about the inadequacy of the time given to this debate. I refer you to Standing Order No. 14, which states, inter alia:
Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later:Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting".May I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to give serious consideration to adjourning the debate at 11.56 pm until the next sitting?
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)I am aware of the Standing Order to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am not of a mind to adjourn the debate. While I am on my feet, may I say that it is not for the Chair to determine the length of time allocated to such debates. However, I very much regret the great length of time taken by Members on the Front Bench in such a short debate. It is done only at the expense of Back-Benchers, who have a right to be heard.
§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)I am sure that the whole House agrees with what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an insult to taxpayers and democracy that the proposed expenditure of vast sums and 1040 substantial quantities of facts and figures should be considered in a debate of one-and-a-half hours, in which half an hour is made available to Back-Bench Members.
I want to ask many questions. I want to have details of the European centre for global independence and solidarity, which is spending a vast amount of money. It seems that it has been set up in Lisbon and that it is of importance for the development of solidarity. That is all that we have been told about it. I do not know what the centre is and I should like to know. I should like to know why there are vast entertainment allowances for the Commissioners. I would love to know why £1 million a year is spent on newspapers. I should dearly like to know the details of expenditure on uniforms. Of course, these questions are irrelevant. There seem to be a massive number of secretaries in the European Parliament.
I have hundreds of questions but I shall ask only a few because of the shortage of time. Why does the Minister try to pretend that spending on agriculture will be secured when we know from previous occasions that this is always accompanied by an accountancy fiddle? Surely my hon. Friend of all people knows that there is no possible way in which expenditure on the common agricultural policy can be maintained.
I make two suggestions to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, he will see that there is the possibility of a new attendancy fiddle. I am sure that he is well aware that, despite all the assurances of strict budgetary controls, there was the fiddle of the metric year of 10 months with 12 months' income and 10 months' expenditure. The Council of Finance Ministers refused even to consider the matter, although we knew that there was a fiddle. We knew that it was illegal. If any company director had adopted the policy, he would have been imprisoned.
There is a new proposal before us. I never knew that the Commission could determine what it regarded as the appropriate rate of inflation. However, it is all set out for us. There are three new considerations whereby expenditure has been increased substantially because the Commission feels that that is needed to offset inflation. In fact, the inflation percentage has been determined by the Commission, and there we see possible fiddle No. 1.
We see also that expenditure on agriculture continues to increase and the reasons are set out. The Commission has said that it regards the budget as a transitional measure pending the planned reform of the CAP, which it thinks should begin to bear fruit in 1993. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister also to consider the way in which figures have been changed because it is thought that there are opportunities for expenditure elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister says that things are under control and that expenditure is being contained, but we always discover that the figures prove to be bogus and that the accountancy of the EEC is a disgrace to organised democracy.
Why do Ministers always say that there is control and containment when the figures show the opposite? Why does my hon. Friend the Minister talk about containment when, according to my estimate, the total budget—that, of course, is bogus—is increasing by 10.6 per cent?
I agree fundamentally with what you so clearly said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the message will get through from the House that we regard the present procedure as an insult to democracy. It is a scandal—it is shameful—that the Government should allow only one-and-a-half hours for such a debate, especially when 1041 the Front-Bench spokesmen take an hour for themselves. That makes us feel that it would be infinitely better if we did not debate the budget. If we are to be offered a debate of this sort, let us have no debate at all.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I understand that the Financial Secretary wishes to spend three or four minutes replying to the debate, so only three minutes are available to me. I make no apology for raising the point of order earlier. We have seen a disgraceful abuse of the role of the Back-Bench Member. I agreed with the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) when he queried whether there was any point in having such an inadequate debate. I wanted to talk about the common agricultural policy and the budgeting for the common fisheries policy. I wanted to advocate how sensible budgeting could help us to develop a more efficient management of our fishery resources, a matter that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House.
As there is no time available for Back-Bench Members to raise such issues, we are reduced to asking a couple of questions. We spend more time in European Standing Committee B cross-examining the Minister and in debate than we do on the Floor of the House. That is stupid.
My couple of questions, then: first—
§ Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, a few months ago, we spent more time discussing the European Community's new regulations on hot water boilers than we have spent discussing this budget?
§ Dr. GodmanI can confirm exactly that.
May I ask the Financial Secretary whether, if the Renaval programme—to my constituency, an important regional fund—is to end in 1993, the money will run out before the end of 1992?
I see that the European Court of Justice is to receive an increase of 9.8 per cent. in its budget, which I understand will involve the creation of another 19 posts. Is it the Government's view that the court should be able to raise revenue by way of introducing financial penalties against recalcitrant states and other parties who choose to ignore directives? The European Court of Justice is effectively a supreme court in relation to the Scottish and English legal systems and the legal systems of the other nations. I wanted to ask several more questions about that, but I had better allow someone else to speak.
§ Mr. Michael Irvine (Ipswich)I share the feelings of outrage expressed by Back Benchers on both sides of the House. The European Community budget is of enormous importance to our people and our economy. Year after year, Britain makes massive net contributions to the European Community budget and it appears that it is barely restrained at all. We are told that the European Parliament actually puts pressure on the Community to increase its expenditure. The only restraint seems to be the Council of Ministers and there—as I pointed out in an intervention, with which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary agreed—the problem is that the majority of the Community countries are net recipients of the expenditure.
Who will control the European Community budget, therefore? The answer is that we in the House must do our 1042 very best to do so, and we can do our best only if we have the proper time and the proper documentation. I regard the bundle of documents that we have been given—hastily stapled and put together—as an absolute disgrace. If we are to consider these most important matters, we need to have the issues and the figures set out carefully and professionally, not in this slovenly way.
I realise that the Minister is not personally responsible —[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he is."] Well, ultimately. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] On this occasion, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do not think that any of us will give him the benefit of the doubt on the next occasion. The arrangements really do need to he improved. The way in which the papers have been put together and the standards of presentation are slovenly and the House must demand an improvement.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI call the Financial Secretary.
§ Notice taken, that Strangers were present.
§ Whereupon MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143, put the Question, That Strangers do withdraw.
§ Question negatived.
11.54 pm§ Mr. MaudeI seek to respond briefly to the debate only because I have been asked a great many questions. My opening speech took up some time because a good half of it was my responding to interventions, which I am happy to do because that is one way in which these debates can be useful.
I accept the strictures that have been made about the documentation, although I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the improved quality of the Government's explanatory memorandum. I undertake to look carefully at the way in which the documentation is presented in future years.
On the points that have been made about the timing of the debate, I personally would be happy to spend many long hours discussing such matters, but they are arranged between the usual channels and no doubt these points will be made to and through the usual channels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to VAT. The VAT contributions are based on a notional harmonised level of VAT and, as I suspected, the proportion does not vary with changes in individual national bases.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury dealt at some length with the issue of RECHAR. There has been a good deal of concern about that matter and we have sought to have it explained. It has now been explained and we thought that it had been understood by the Commission, but it still wilfully and wantonly withholds moneys that are properly due to this country.
My hon. Friend for Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) referred to value for money and asked why we should spend money on the single European market when it will not be achieved for a long time. The single market is, of course, being achieved on a continual basis. Barriers are being removed by regulation and legislation all the time, so 1043 1992 is not the magic moment when all the barriers will suddenly disappear. It is a process, but a great deal will come into operation at that time.
As far as structural funds are concerned, that is—
§ It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
§ Question agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7184/91, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1992, 7368/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 8442/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 20th November 1991, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 3 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 7731/91, relating to the Draft Budget for 1992, 9092/91, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 18th November 1991, relating to Council consideration of the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications and 8719/91, relating to revision of the Financial Perspective for 1992; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline and ensure that the Financial Regulation is applied strictly.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise this point of order now rather than during the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it would have taken up some time. We accept your ruling that it was judged by the Chair not to be appropriate to use the power of the Standing Order to extend this debate, but that leaves this question for the House and perhaps for the Select Committee on Procedure: will it be possible to insist on having at least a full day's debate plus an hour and a half for such debates in the future so that various issues can be covered?
One such issue is the procedure of setting the budget itself and the modifications that may or may not be proposed by the European Parliament and the reaction of 1044 the Council of Ministers. A second relates to the Court of Auditors, because Parliament should seek to give support to the Court of Auditors. Although this matter can be raised at other times in the parliamentary year, it also relates to the question of resources that are available to the Court of Auditors, which is a separate issue from the consideration of the report of the Court of Auditors.
The third issue that arises relates to trying to ensure that those hon. Members who serve on European Standing Committees A and B and on the Scrutiny Committee, plus other hon. Members who are interested in European issues, can give as much attention to these vast sums of money and to Britian's contribution to the European budget as they do to the design of central heating boilers and other things.
I realise that the Chair may not be able to answer these points immediately, but they should be on the record so that the House can consider them in one way or another.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI am sure that the House, and certainly the Chair, appreciates the hon. Gentleman's comments, which no doubt have been noticed by the Front-Bench spokesmen and the authorities of the House.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Is not it worth stating that the Government are in charge of business and that they should have decided—indeed, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) should have encouraged them—to provide a full day for debate instead of having the Leader of the House recommend a four-day week for Members of Parliament?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. We are not entering into a debate, but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber earlier he would have heard the remarks made from the Chair.