European Standing Committee B
Wednesday 23 July 1997
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
1998 Preliminary Draft Budget
Relevant Documents: European Community Documents Nos. SEM 2000/3, the report of the Personal Representatives Group on sound financial management; 8277/97, the Commission's work programme 1997-98 on the protection of the Communities' financial interests; and 8278/97, the Commission's eighth annual report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud.
4.30 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. As you know, the Committee has been convened to debate the large apparent increase in the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Union's budget--an increase next year of nearly 32 per cent., as against this year. In its observations about the need for the debate, the Select Committee on European Legislation observed that the Government's explanation for the increase was
``to say the least, Delphic''
and called for the publication of an explanatory note that elucidated the figures.
On Monday, when I picked up the bundle of documents that was to be debated in the Committee, there was no such explanatory note. I checked again yesterday to see if the Vote Office had made a mistake, but was assured that the set of documents was complete. Just over an hour ago, I went to the Vote Office to check the documentation and I was handed an undated and unsigned note, but evidently one that was designed to be the response to the criticisms of the Select Committee.
No effort has been made to contact me about the note. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends, but I am the Opposition spokesman for European finance and it is impossible for me to absorb in such a short time what is, by definition, a complex document which is to meet a criticism that the orginal documents were opaque. There was no chance whatever for me to read and absorb the information in the explanatory note prior to the debate. Not only was that a gross discourtesy to me--we may hear from other members of the Committee if they have been treated similarly--but it makes it impossible for the sitting to proceed. One can see by glimpsing at the pile of documents the complexity of the subject.
I ask that you adjourn the sitting, Mr. O'Hara, to give all members of the Committee an adequate opportunity to read the complete documentation, as requested by the Select Committee. We can then have a proper debate.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I recognise the problems for Opposition Members in getting through the vast pile of documentation that is available for European Standing Committees. I take the business of scrutiny very seriously. That is why, as soon as the Committee was established on 14 July, I sought an opportunity for it to sit.
Last week, the Select Committee on European Legislation raised some extremely technical points, and I insisted that the fullest possible explanations were given. I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about the documentation being Delphic. We have followed the conventions of the previous Government but, hopefully, over time we shall adopt procedures that are less Delphic.
I received the finalised work of Treasury officials at roughly noon yesterday--they had received the request for it on Friday of last week. I have the explanatory note plus the letter. I instructed immediately that it be taken over to the House of Commons where I understood that it had been made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. I accept that it is difficult to absorb some of the many complex issues--obviously so, because the right hon. Member for Wells, who is a former Paymaster General, makes a striking error in insisting that there are increases in the Community budget. He knows full well what the issues are and we shall be debating them later.
There is no implied discourtesy towards the Opposition. Indeed, in the fullness of time, I hope that we can be helpful to all Opposition parties and everyone interested in Community budgetary matters by providing more accessible and clearer information.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not want to mislead the Committee, but she has done so inadvertently. She said that the request for the extra work was not received by the Treasury until Friday of last week. I have checked with the Clerk to the Select Committee who said that immediately after the Committee sat, which I understand was last Tuesday, the request was transmitted to the Treasury. The hon. Lady's explanation in that respect is, therefore, wrong, and I should be grateful if she would correct that part of her explanation, which in any case I regard as wholly inadequate. She is conceding now that the documentation is complete. She accepts that it is ``Delphic'' and that the attempt to correct it has just reached the Committee--and me personally--only an hour ago. That reinforces the need for an immediate adjournment so that the Committee can properly scrutinise these matters.
Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Wells. He and I have previously crossed swords in different capacities in this Committee.
I am sure that he does not want to mislead the Committee either, in the sense that I hope he is not suggesting that when he was the Minister responsible, the Committee did not receive information that was also rather later in coming than the original documents. I remember, as I am sure he does, that that happened. I am a little concerned at the suggestion that we should adjourn an extremely important debate on an extremely important issue because the right hon. Gentleman is worried about not receiving some information until today. I received the information a little earlier today and found it very readable and interesting. It certainly assists in our consideration of the documents. However, the meat of our debate is contained in the documents that we have had in our possession since last Monday. I hope that we shall have no truck with a point of order that seeks to adjourn an extremely important debate.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I shall respond. He alleged that in the previous Parliament, the Government at the time, of which I was a member, also failed to deliver documentation until the day of the debate. That is categorically untrue, which I know from my own experience. As we are fortunate enough to have some officials in the relevant Department present at our proceedings, would it be in order, Mr. O'Hara, for the Economic Secretary to confer and then to reject and contradict the erroneous impression given by the hon. Gentleman?
The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House of Commons long enough to know that he should not refer to officials in the Room.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I accept your ruling on that, Mr. O'Hara. They are, indeed, invisible, but they do exist. It may be possible, by other means, for the Economic Secretary to ascertain that the hon. Gentleman's allegations are factually incorrect.
Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman contradicted what I said about when Treasury officials were able to start work on the document. The Select Committee sat on Wednesday of last week; the official report was published on Thursday; and Treasury officials were instructed to begin preparation of the document on Friday when all the appropriate information could be assembled. I accept that that is a short period of time and I pay tribute to the invisible officials who managed to turn it around in that short space of time.
However, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that one of the reasons the Committee was delayed was because the Government were anxious to give the Opposition the opportunity to organise themselves with their new leadership and new Committee structure. It is not a good idea to suggest that we adjourn the Committee because I have to appear at the Council of Ministers in Brussels tomorrow to agree the preliminary draft budget. That is why I sought this debate today. It is important to the scrutiny process that we have a full debate and that questions are asked of me so that I can take the views of members of the Committee to the Council tomorrow.
The Chairman: Order. I remind members of the Committee, who might be unfamiliar with the procedure of European Standing Committees, that one hour is allowed for questions, which is followed by the debate, and that the sitting must end by 7 o'clock. All the time taken to deal with this point of order on adjourning the Committee comes out of the hour for questions.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I beg to differ with the views expressed by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. In fact, the delay in setting up the Select Committee was not just a matter of convenience for the Opposition; there was a much deeper reason. Under no circumstances whatsoever were the Government prepared to allow the chairmanship of that Committee to be vested, as it has been since the Committee's inauguration 25 years ago, in the hands of the now Opposition. I happen to be the only Opposition Member who served on that Committee in the previous Parliament who still serves on it. I leave it to people's imaginations as to what the Government thought of the idea of my being Chairman of the Select Committee, but that had some bearing on the question. Therefore, I dispute strongly what the Economic Secretary said.
Furthermore, the question of the draft budget is fundamental to the matter of our contributions to the Community. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, has just made clear, the increase in our contribution is an absolutely massive 27 per cent. In fact, it might be even more than that.
| 
