§ 2.38 p.m.
§ Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether the European Community's preliminary draft budget for 1994 (Vols. 0 and 1 to 6 inclusive), or such of its contents as were communicated to them by the United Kingdom permanent representative of the Community prior to its publication, was reviewed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European Questions (OPD(E)) prior to the Economic and Financial Council's establishment of the Community's draft budget on 22nd July 1993, and with what results.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, it is not the practice of this Government, nor of previous governments, to give details of the subjects discussed in Cabinet or in Cabinet committees.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am a little disappointed with that reply? Is he further aware that the government publication Open Government, published on very glossy paper at a price to the general public of some £11, which will of course ensure a very wide circulation, states in paragraph 2.32:
Since the last election, the Government has taken further steps to improve understanding of the operation of government. In May 1992, the Government announced the names and membership of the Ministerial Cabinet Committees, sub-committees and working groups".They followed that up with a further publication giving the complete terms of reference of those committees. The particular one I have mentioned in my Question deals with European Community affairs. Is it beyond the realms of reason that the Government, while not being asked to reveal details of what occurred in the committee, should nevertheless be asked whether the committee did consider a particular question? Would national security benefit all that much by the Government's refusal even to say to the public whether 1352 or not the committee had considered this colossal expenditure out of the Treasury into the European institutions?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in reminding the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister went further than any previous Administration in publishing the names, membership and terms of reference of Cabinet committees. I draw the noble Lord's attention to another document, which he will find in the Library, called Questions of Procedure for Ministers. Paragraph 17 states:
The internal processes through which a decision has been made or the level of committee by which it is taken should not be disclosed".The noble Lord is inviting me, in a nice, modest way, to go a little further.
§ Lord PestonMy Lords, there are two parts to the Question. The noble Earl is saying in regard to the first part that he will not say yes and he will not say no. He simply will not say. But does he not notice that there is a paradox in that the Question has a second part which concerns your Lordships and indeed people in the other place? It asks "and with what results". The Government certainly have an obligation to say what the results are of any of their activities. Does he not note that there is a paradox in that he will not say what they are talking about and yet he has an obligation to inform the House of the consequences of the Government's actions?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, what is well known in this House is the results of the Government's actions. Those have been given on a number of previous occasions on very similar questions to that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. As a result of the decisions taken your Lordships will be pleased to know that the Council supported the United Kingdom's views that the Community budget should be subject to the same rigour as national spending.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, while everyone following these proceedings would recognise that it is understandable and acceptable that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should ask this Question, is it not unrealistic that the Opposition Front Bench—the possible alternative government—should back up a premature disclosure in the way that is suggested by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I hope that I was able to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was aiming at, which was the result that we achieved in Brussels.
§ Lord PestonMy Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for raising the matter. It is the duty of government not to appear to be stupid. I merely asked the noble Earl whether or not he recognised that, in refusing to say that the Government were discussing a specific topic—and I entirely accept that it is within the rules—he was making the Government look foolish because they are willing to 1353 make a statement about the consequences of a subject that they refuse to say they talked about in the first place?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is extremely clever at asking questions, as any good academic should be. However, he wanted to know the results of the Cabinet sub-committee discussion.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he has placed himself in further difficulty by his reply? Is he aware that the terms of reference of the Cabinet sub-committee concerned is to consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community and to report? I did not ask the noble Earl for the details of the discussions; I asked whether the Government had considered them. He can say yes or no to that. We know the results perfectly well. Is the noble Earl aware that the truthful answer is that they have never considered it and took no action?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would not expect me to say yes to that question.