European Parliament: Accommodation (Hansard, 3 March 1994)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)
My Lords, no. A decision was taken at the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992 on the question of the seat of the European Parliament and other Community institutions. It is for the European Parliament itself to decide policy on buildings in the light of that decision.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, this is a matter of the utmost urgency. Is the noble Viscount aware that discussions are taking place, both unofficially in COREPER and in the circles of the European Parliament, concerning this matter? Is he also aware that the French, with their usual felicity in such matters, have already indicated that there will be a withdrawal of co-operation with some members of the European Council in the event of a new Parliament not being established in Strasbourg? Is the Minister further aware that there are three Towers of Babel which at present accommodate the European Parliament: one in Luxembourg which was never used for the purpose after it was built, a further building in Brussels which is used for only about 10 days a year for ordinary parliamentary purposes, and another one in Strasbourg which was built only about 25 years ago and is far from written off? Can the Government not take some action in order to avoid this lush expenditure which at present, in terms of rental, is costing the Community £ 1 million a week? Will the noble Viscount see that something is done about it?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord describes as lush expenditure. Certainly, in 1993 the expenditure net of receipts for the European Parliament was over £ 456 million. I cannot differ altogether from the noble Lord over his estimate of the total cost of renting the nine buildings in Brussels, the five buildings in Luxembourg and the five buildings 1132 in Strasbourg, to which he referred rather elliptically. The Edinburgh agreement to which I referred in my original Answer confirms the status quo, and so far as I am aware the French have signed up to that agreement. I remind the noble Lord that that status quo was confirmed in exchange for what was seen by all members of the Community as a greater good, namely the enlargement of the Community, which I believe noble Lords feel is in British interests.

§ Lord Boardman
My Lords, does my noble friend gain the same impression as I do on every visit to Brussels of an ever-increasing number of Community buildings, all having in common the fact that they look very expensive and are rarely used? Can my noble friend tell the House what contribution we are making towards the building programme in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, my noble friend has the advantage of me in that he has visited these buildings and I have not, so I must accept his description of them. It is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to say precisely how much they contribute towards the cost of building, running and renting these buildings, but they form an integral part of the overall Community budget to which Her Majesty's Government make a contribution, as my noble friend knows.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is it true that the estimated cost of the new building is some £ 230 million? Is it also true that the French Government have threatened that if the building is not built and occupied by the European Parliament they will block the European elections which take place in June? If that is so, is it not disgraceful and downright blackmail?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I cannot confirm the estimate which the noble Lord gives of the cost of the new building that is proposed for Strasbourg. That is a matter which must lie between the European Parliament and the Government of France, which is the sovereign state in which Strasbourg is situated. As I emphasised a few moments ago, the Edinburgh agreement was an agreement among all members of the European Community and as far as I am aware France is fully signed up to that agreement.

§ Lord Clark of Kempston
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this is a sheer waste of public money? Taxpayers not only in this country but throughout the Community are contributing to this extravagance. Does my noble friend also agree that it is not only the cost of the building that we should be worried about but also the cost of shuttling the various bureaucrats and so on between the three centres, which is costing the European taxpayer millions and millions of pounds quite unnecessarily?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would be the last to deny that the present arrangements are anything but ideal. My noble friend will be aware that under the arrangement which at present obtains in this matter the secretariat of the European Parliament is separated from both seats of the 1133 European Parliament. It may well be that our friends and allies in other parts of the Community know better how to deal with these matters than we do, but I observe that in this country the learned clerks of both Houses of Parliament are collocated in a way which is clearly not considered desirable in the European Parliament.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, bearing in mind the recent decision to enlarge the Community by inclusion of the Scandinavian countries and the wish in future to see further enlargement of the Community by inclusion of countries located in Eastern Europe, would it not be logical to think of the future and recommend that the European Parliament is located in Berlin?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, that is not a suggestion that I have heard before this afternoon. I can confirm that the plans for the new building in Strasbourg encompass enough space to accommodate new members from EFTA who are at present negotiating to join the Community as well as new Members of the European Parliament from former East Germany.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, bearing in mind that it has just been estimated that each active Member of your Lordships' House costs the British taxpayer some £ 38.000 per annum, that each Member of the other place costs the taxpayer about £ 250,000 per annum and that each Member of the European Parliament costs just under £ 1 million per annum, does my noble friend think it would be a good idea to hold up the construction of this new white elephant until the latter figure— £ 900,000 per annum per European Member of Parliament— was divided by about, say, six?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I must point out to my noble friend that if he wishes to discuss these matters he must take them up with the European Parliament itself and perhaps with the Government of France, who are responsible for the construction of the building and for relations directly with the Strasbourg project.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, am I right in assuming that there are two issues? The first relates to the site of the European Parliament; the second to whether the European Parliament in Strasbourg needs a new building. Am I also right in assuming that on the question of whether the site should be in Strasbourg, the Government have already agreed with the French and others that that is where the building should be sited? So far as I can understand today, the Government take no position on the second issue. If they take no position on whether there should be a new Parliament building in Strasbourg, does the Minister agree that if anything is not needed it is a new European Parliament building in Strasbourg? Those of us who have seen the to-ings and fro-ings and the size of that building, and have worked in a parliamentary House in this building, have envied the facilities in that building. Does the Minister accept from me that the last thing the European Parliament needs is a new building? Would it not be a good idea if the Government said so?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I am well aware of the great experience of the noble Lord in matters 1134 European. I certainly defer to what he described as the to-ings and fro-ings associated with having different sites for the European Parliament.
But I can only repeat what I said at the beginning of these exchanges. All members of the European Community in this matter are bound by the status quo which was the decision of the Edinburgh agreement would be the last to deny that in principle it would be desirable to have a single venue for the European Parliament. And I cannot comment on the building. The noble Lord has been there; I have not.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, will the noble Viscount convey to his right honourable friend the general sentiments on the matter and ensure that a veto is imposed on this quite unnecessary expenditure? Is he aware that if he considers Chapter 20, Title 2, of the European Parliament's budget for the current year he will find under item 2000 a rental of £ 49 million, of which the British bear approximately £ 6 million? That is without rates or any other expenditure. When will the Government take some active, positive steps to bring this travelling circus to an end?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I shall convey to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed.