EU Budget (Hansard, 28 October 1997)

§ 15. Mr. Evans
What discussions about the increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the EU budget took place at the Amsterdam summit. [12127]

§ Mr. Doug Henderson
None.

§ Mr. Evans
Does the Minister think that we are getting value for money for the contribution that we make to the EU budget, which then finds its way into the salaries of Labour Members of the European Parliament? I say that because so many of them have shown themselves to be spineless and have turned themselves into political eunuchs by agreeing to be gagged and not to talk about any issue relating to the way in which they are elected to the European Parliament. Does the Minister agree that we should hold back some of the contribution to their salaries because they have agreed to be gagged?

§ Mr. Henderson
The House deserves a better question than that on an important issue. What I shall do for the hon. Gentleman is to answer the question that he should have asked, which was—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. That is rather too easy. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question asked.

§ Mr. Henderson
It would have been easy if the hon. Gentleman had addressed the issue that one of his hon. Friends addressed earlier on the budgetary issue, as he would have been given a sensible answer.

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
The Minister will know that the second largest component of the EU budget is that of structural funds. He will recognise that there are areas of the United Kingdom, particularly in Wales and Scotland, where that is an important issue. We are moving towards the reform of structural funds and we are setting up a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister bear it in mind that those bodies will be directly involved in the way in which regional funds are distributed in the next century?

§ Mr. Henderson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Major structural reforms are necessary in 706 the Union and will be tackled at the summit in Luxembourg; one such issue is that of the structural funds themselves. The rules that currently govern the dispersal of structural funds were drawn up seven or eight years ago when the shape of the European economy and the priorities for development were different from those that pertain today. An important issue that the summit must address is how we should consider what is happening in the European economy today and what change is necessary to the structural funds to ensure that those areas that need essential help receive it, regardless of the country in which they are located.

§ Mr. Nicholls
Does the Minister think that our ability to negotiate a fair contribution to the EU will be increased or decreased by our presence in the single currency?

§ Mr. Henderson
The United Kingdom's contribution has been decided in previous negotiations. I have already said in reply to a Conservative Member that such issues will be discussed at the summit in December, when a way forward will have to be decided on all such matters, including the future budget. One of the factors that I made clear at the weekend and which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear in countless negotiations with our European partners is that our abatement is not negotiable in the negotiations.