| 1998 Preliminary Draft Budget
|
|
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is 32 per cent. Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend says that it is 32 per cent., and I am more than happy to accept what he says. This matter must be considered properly, but that cannot be done under present circumstances. It is impossible for us to reach a measured conclusion. For the reasons that I have given, it is the Government's fault that the Select Committee was not set up in time. Therefore, I lay the responsibility for any pressure that might be exerted on the Economic Secretary in the run-up to tomorrow's Council meeting entirely at the door of the Government. They are at fault; they should bear the consequences. In my view, there is no question but that this Committee should be adjourned. The Chairman: Order. Before the Economic Secretary speaks, I must correct my previous ruling. The guardians at my elbow have advised me that, although the time taken to deal with this point of order comes out of the total two and a half hours allowed for the sitting, there will still be an hour for questions, so the point of order is taking up the time available for the debate. Mrs. Liddell: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I realise that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) might feel some disappointment at not having been selected to chair a Committee in which he has taken a considerable interest during the course of his parliamentary career. However, from speaking to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I know that the usual channels and the Committees that meet to agree on such matters have gone to great lengths to try to accommodate the Opposition. Indeed, they sometimes went beyond the call of duty. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman is bringing his own pique to this Committee and, thereby, delaying an important debate. Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I happen to have the honour and privilege to share the space of the Opposition parties on the Select Committee on European Legislation. I was one of the members of that Committee who, last Wednesday, identified this particular matter as being not only contentious but highly complex and tremendously important to this country's future and its relationship with the European Community--so much so that a Division took place, inspired by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stone, to determine whether to consider this matter on the Floor of the House. I was advised by the Chairman of the Committee, ably helped by an official who could be seen, that there was no space in the parliamentary timetable for such a debate--forgetting precedent, which I entirely accept is for such matters to be referred to European Standing Committee B. However, this matter is of such significance and importance, as it represents the third increase in Britain's contributions to the European Community, which is an equivalent to 4p on income tax, that I and my hon. Friends insisted that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. I was told that there was no time for such a debate. You may like to know, Mr. O'Hara, that on Monday night the House rose at 7 pm. Three and a half hours were available for debate. It is not right for the Economic Secretary to tell the Committee that she must go to Brussels tomorrow so the matter must be dealt with now; the debate could and should have taken place on Monday night. Mrs. Liddell: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I find that argument quite bizarre. To take the last point about the House rising early on Monday night, is it the fault of the Government that the Opposition cannot get their act together sufficiently to scrutinise in the House the important piece of legislation that was being considered on Monday night? Presumably the weather was too good to keep Opposition Members in the Chamber. As for the point about having a debate on the Floor of the House, I have read the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Indeed, throughout the period when the Scrutiny Committee was not sitting, I corresponded with its anonymous Chairman to ensure that memoranda would be available to the Committee when it was able to sit. What is more, I was insistent that we find an opportunity to debate in this Committee the complex issues to which hon. Gentlemen have referred. I accept that these issues are complex. That is why it took time to draft the explanatory memorandum. I am sure that the Opposition would not want to be furnished with slipshod information. We have already had problems with errors that have slipped into documents because those documents have had to be produced at great speed. I deplore the suggestion that I and the Government have not done everything in our power to try to assist scrutiny of this preliminary draft budget. The Chairman: Order. There are two ways in which this issue could have been pursued. It could have been pursued by a dilatory motion moved by the Opposition, but it has been pursued through points of order-- Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) rose--
The Chairman: Order. The Chairman is on his feet. The issue has been adequately pursued through points of order, and I now intend to take no more of them. I would have been prepared to accept a dilatory motion if it had been moved earlier; it was not. I now call the Minister. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Without in any way challenging your ruling, I feel that we have not yet reached the bottom of this matter. A dilatory motion would have enabled a debate to take place, but many points have not yet been made. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) also wanted to intervene, and some of my hon. Friends--members and non-members of the Committee--also wanted to raise points of order, but they have not been able to do so. They too have a right to full and proper information, which has been denied them. Given that I have had only an hour's notice of the documentation, which is central to the debate and which was required and requested by the Select Committee, on which Labour has a majority, and with respect to your suggestion, Mr. O'Hara, a fuller debate would be appropriate so that the Committee could be made fully aware of all Opposition points of view. We are genuinely outraged at the way in which we have been treated by the Government concerning what is an essential matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone referred to an increase of 27 per cent. That figure indeed appears in the Select Committee documentation, but the actual figure is 31·7 per cent. That represents an enormous, colossal increase in the United Kingdom's contribution to the European budget which is not recorded in the Red Book--another point which we have not yet been able to make. The importance of the matter has not been fully appreciated, and the contempt with which the Government have treated the Committee and other hon. Members would become clear if you permitted a dilatory motion and subsequent debate. Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The Chairman: I shall take no more points of order. I thought it appropriate to allow one more point of order from the right hon. Gentleman who is leading for the Opposition. However, the Opposition have had the opportunity to get themselves into some sort of procedural order, and they could have moved a motion to adjourn sooner than they did. They chose instead to make an extended series of points of order. It is my ruling that the matter has been adequately heard through those points of order, especially as the Committee can sit for only two and a half hours. I shall therefore take no more points of order, nor will I take a motion to adjourn. I now call the Minister to make her opening statement.
4.50 pmMrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I am glad to have the opportunity to return to the substance of our debate, because scrutiny by this Standing Committee is important. As a new Minister in a new Government--indeed, this is the first time that I have attended such a Committee as a Member of Parliament--I should like the opportunity to work with all right hon. and hon. Members to try to find ways to improve scrutiny procedures. The complexity of the issues before us, and the fact that the public must be made aware of them, make it important that the fullest scrutiny takes place. Indeed, we have already heard of the Opposition's error of understanding on that matter, but we shall come to that later. It is important for hon. Members to realise that the Budget Council does not make Community policy, nor does it take the big decisions about resource allocation. Policies are made by the relevant specialist Councils, and the overall financial framework is set by the European Council every few years. Members of the Committee have probably noticed that the Community is just beginning the long haul to the next group of such decisions. That means that the Commission, in setting the preliminary draft budget, and the Budget Council, in adopting its draft budget tomorrow, must work within a relatively tight framework. That was acknowledged by some members of the Committee in previous incarnations. The Budget Council must also remember that its budget decisions can be overturned by the European Parliament. It is nevertheless vital to set the annual budget at the right level, and that it reflects the right priorities. With that in mind, I welcome the fact that the Commission, mindful of the strictures that each state places on its own individual finances, has this year decided to set its preliminary draft budget well below the limit permitted under the financial perspectives that were agreed in Ediburgh by the previous Government. Indeed, the level that has been accepted is unprecedented. It is encouraging that the Commission has singled out agriculture in the budget. I am sure that we shall come back to that subject later, because I and my hon. Friends have repeatedly made clear our deep concern about the operation of the common agricultural policy. Indeed, we made a specific election manifesto commitment in that regard. I believe that an increase in commitments of 2.43 per cent. over the level set in the 1997 budget, and the corresponding increase in payments of 2.86 per cent., is still too high and that it asks too much of the national taxpayers who have to foot the bill. At tomorrow's budget meeting, I shall seek to ensure that we contain Community expenditure. It is with regret that I have to draw the Committee's attention to some of the problems in the documentation provided to the Committee. We had an interesting exchange about documentation immediately before I began my statement. Yesterday, I circulated the final piece of documentation, which was a consequence of last week's discussions. It was supplementary to documentation already made available through explanatory memoranda, a pile of which lie before me. I am conscious that the scrutiny process generates a huge amount of paper. That has been the subject of discussion in the past--the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised the issue last year. As I said, I am anxious to find a way of controlling the volume of paper so as to make matters comprehensible and to ensure that hon. Members feel comfortable that they are getting the information that they require. I must draw the Committee's attention to some errors in the documentation and apologise profusely for any inconvenience that may have occurred. There is a typing error in the explanatory memorandum that I issued. The figure 4,384 was transposed to 4,834--
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1997 | Prepared 23 July 1997 |
