HL Deb 19 November 1991 vol 532 cc817-21

2.50 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Doningtonasked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the estimated net United Kingdom contribution to the EC budget in respect of the financial year 1992–93, after all abatements and receipts; and what is the estimated extra cost to the United Kingdom for the same period of the Community compliance provisions contained in the latest draft treaty for presentation at Maastricht on the assumption that the Government were to agree to such provisions.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, the United Kingdom's net payment to European Community institutions in 1992–93 is forecast to be £2,463 million. The Forecast assumes no effect as a result of the inter-governmental conferences. The Community's finances in the longer term are due to be reviewed in future financing discussions next year.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his figure reveals that during the past eight years the British taxpayer has paid into the European Community the net amount of almost £14 billion? Bearing in mind the Government's addiction to the cost benefit formula, and as a useful adjunct to the public discussions now taking place about Maastricht, will they convey to the British public the benefits that Britain has received in return for the £14 billion net to which I have referred?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the United Kingdom is in the lead in pressing for effective financial management and accountability within the EC. We have succeeded well in the Fontainebleau abatement talks. The benefit is a cumulative one and will be some £12.5 billion by the end of next year.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, is it right that rather than informing the British public, it is more desirable to inform our colleagues in the EC of the benefits that they receive at our hands?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, will the Minister inform the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of the substantial benefits that this country will receive if Mr. MacSharry's proposals for the reform of the CAP are put into practice?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, certainly we would wish the CAP to be one of the main areas in which expenditure could be constrained. Agricultural guarantee expenditure is limited by a legally-binding ceiling. It has fallen down to 57 per cent. of the budget in 1991 as against 65 per cent. in 1987. That forecast reflects our policy.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House which EC country, pro rata to the population, contributes more to the EC coffers than does the United Kingdom?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, surprisingly, the Commission does not give details of the net contributions of member states. However, from the limited data available, it is clear that Germany is the largest net contributor; probably three times larger than the United Kingdom.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, while recognising that we make a large contribution to the EC budget, are we not entitled to some financial return? Is the Minister aware that the European Regional Development Fund has afforded Her Majesty's Government £100 million of RECHAR money? That money is intended to recharge the coal and steel communities in this country which have been described as distressed areas by the EC. What are Her Majesty's Government doing about obtaining that money for our regions?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the figures that I gave related to net contributions to the Community. Therefore, I do not have details of the specific item to which the noble Lord refers.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why we have not received as much from the EC as we might is that we have been extremely slow in finding out what is available and in being there on the spot? Furthermore, we have not listened at keyholes as well as some other people.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I cannot accept that argument from the noble Baroness.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what is meant by the term "Community compliance provisions"? Does it include the cost of preventing Community fraud? What are the terms contained in the latest draft treaty? Some of us find it difficult to understand exactly what the question is about.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the precise meaning of the term "Community compliance provisions" contained in the noble Lord's Question is for him to explain rather than for me. However, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is referring to the cost of compliance of any measures which come from the inter-governmental conferences. We can make no assumption about that at present.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the £2,400 million is only part of the cost to this country of membership of the EC? Does he agree that its membership costs every family in this country an additional £16 per week on its food bill, and that therefore the total cost to this country is about £14 billion per annum? Will the Minister say what our net contribution will be next year when the rebate agreed by his right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher is renegotiated and probably taken away? Will it be £3 billion, £4 billion or what?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the figure that I gave of £2,463 million is the contribution for 1992–93. That is the net payment after rebate and abatement.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, the Minister did not appear to understand my question. The rebate must be renegotiated in 1992 and is likely to be withdrawn. What will be our likely contribution after that renegotiation has taken place?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the only figures that I can give to the House are those that are published in the Autumn Statement. I had assumed that they took into account the noble Lord's anxiety. If I am wrong, I must write to him.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, how much of our contribution is spent on supporting the growing of tobacco in the Community, and how much is spent on supporting the Community's campaign against smoking?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I do not have at hand the figures for those particular items of Community expenditure. I am well aware that my noble friend has asked that question on several occasions—

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Yes, and I have never received an answer.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the most significant figure that he has given in this complicated exchange is that Germany's net contribution to the EC is approximately three times that of the United Kingdom? It might also be agreed that during the past 30 years the greatest overall beneficiary of the Common Market has been Germany. Putting those two facts together, might not the Minister encourage some noble Lords to raise their sights a little from the foothills and take a more overall view?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am not certain that it is for me to do as the noble Lord suggests. However, the figure that I gave for Germany's contribution is significant.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in real terms today's food prices are less than they were between 1930 and 1934? Then we had the famous free market that many noble Lords would like to see again.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, that is another question.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I do not wish to engage in a great debate on the EC. But I may have misunderstood the Minister's reply. Did he imply that the MacSharry proposals were advantageous to this country? I believe the estimates show that the proposals will be enormously costly to this country. Furthermore, did the Minister say that the Government believe that Maastricht will cost us a great deal? Surely there is no evidence as yet that we shall be net losers from Maastricht; we must wait until we know what will happen there. Will the Minister clarify both those answers?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I certainly did not mean to say—in fact, I do not think I did say—that the MacSharry proposals were necessarily beneficial to this country. I said that it is one of our country's aims to reduce the cost of the CAP. The noble Lord also asked about any proposals that may come from the inter-governmental conferences and the cost thereof. I said that we could not forecast those; but we certainly fully recognise that some of the proposed extensions of competence are potentially very costly.

Lord Peston

My Lords, my question was about the net cost to the United Kingdom. Is it not correct that they are not necessarily very costly to the United Kingdom?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, they are potentially very costly to the United Kingdom.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's reply in regard to the compliance section of my original Question that no Treasury representatives are sitting in on the inter-governmental conferences in order to provide the Government with some estimate of what the new provisions are likely to cost the United Kingdom? In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are the Government aware that in the one case of an extension of Commission competence into the realm of fraud, the Commission secured a budget provision of some £21 million for one year? That is more than the total cost of the Court of Auditors, and it is about one hundredth of the cost of a similar investigation carried out by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The committee's report was much more effective and far better informed than the waffling document that has been produced by the Commission since.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is another question. The intergovernmental conferences are discussing treaty issues, and not costs of programmes. There are no direct or immediate effects. We shall have to await the outcome of discussions on, say, extended competence or qualified majority voting before we know what the effects are.

Back to