House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Nov 1991

Mr. Maude : Since 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. Maude : Because 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

Column 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. Maude : My 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 twothirds for us due to the Fontainebleau abatement. There is substantial pressure to restrain spending.

Mr. Cash : Does 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

Column 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. Maude : I 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. Smith : I 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 Taylor : May 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. Smith : I 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.

Column 1033

Mr. Maude : How would a Labour Government change procedures?

Mr. Smith : The 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) and"-- here 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 over-production, 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. Maude : We have been pressing for it.

Mr. Smith : Judging by the budget before us, they do not appear to have been particularly successful.

Mr. Maude : The 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

Column 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. Smith : I 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

Column 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. Smith : My 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 Millan 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

Column 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. Maude : The 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 Millan. He alone has the ability to release this money.

Mr. Smith : The Financial Secretary is talking a load of nonsense. I had expected better of him--but never mind.

Mr. Dalyell : We have talked at length to Commissioner Millan, 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. Smith : My 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 Millan 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 Millan, not the European Commission--are depriving the most needy areas of this country of money that is rightfully due to them.

Dr. Godman : It is not Commissioner Millan 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 Millan. It is Scottish Office Ministers who, in their obduracy, are being bloody-minded.

Mr. Smith : My 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. McMaster : Before 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 Millan is not saying that those areas should not receive the

Column 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. Smith : As 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 Millan 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.

11.31 pm

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

Column 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.

11.38 pm

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

Column 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. Godman : On 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.

11.44 pm

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

Column 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

Column 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.

11.48 pm

Next Section

Home Page