European Standing Committee B
Wednesday 8 July 1998
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
EC Preliminary Draft Budget for 1999
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. COM(98)276, the Commission's Ninth Annual Report on the protection of the Community's financial interests and on the fight against fraud; COM(98)278, the Commission's work programme 1998-99 on the protection of the Community's financial interests; and SEC(98)774, the Commission's Report on SEM 2000 Stage III (Improved Co-operation with the Member States).]
10.30 am
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Last week, the Select Committee on European Legislation considered the documents that we are considering in Committee today and determined that they were sufficiently important to be debated on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee. The Government have seen fit blatantly to disregard that recommendation. Can you advise me, Mr. O'Hara, whether it is in order for a Select Committee's recommendation to be ignored in this way? What means are available to us to ensure that the recommendation is implemented and that we have a proper debate on the matter?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a recommendation that was made last Wednesday. However, the Select Committee originally recommended that the debate should take place in Standing Committee. Bearing in mind the fact that the budget is time-sensitive because it has to be discussed before 17 July, arrangements were made for this Standing Committee to debate it. Furthermore, the European Legislation Select Committee published a report earlier this year in which it recommended that a Standing Committee was the most appropriate forum for scrutiny of the budget. Indeed, it described the Standing Committee format as a good one.
I draw attention to the fact that the suggestion that the draft budget should be debated on the Floor of the House was first made last Wednesday. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the parliamentary timetable between now and 17 July. Is it in order for him to make such a suggestion, when he knows that perhaps the only way that space can be found in the parliamentary diary for a scrutiny debate would be to abandon the debate on landmines on Friday? That would disappoint the people of this country, who are anxious that the landmines convention should be ratified in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): As the longest serving member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I can assure the Minister that she has gravely misled the Committee in suggesting that this is the first time that a recommendation has been made that the budget should be debated on the Floor of the House. Indeed, until 18 months to two years ago, such debates were regularly taken on the Floor of the House. That was for a good reason: the matters under debate are fundamental to progress towards European union, and to the difficulties relating to our rebate and to other issues that may arise from that.
Last Wednesday the Select Committee decided, in the light of all considerations, that the European preliminary draft budget should be taken on the Floor of the House, not in Standing Committee. Furthermore, the Modernisation Committee, which has just completed its deliberations and issued a report, has clarified the fact that a matter regarded by the Select Committee on European Legislation as of sufficient political importance to be taken on the Floor of the House, should be debated there.
Against such a background, the Minister is in grave danger of misleading the Committee. It is perfectly clear that a matter of such importance should be taken on the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. This is an important matter. Idly casting aside the views of the Select Committee because it reported only last Wednesday would make a serious dent in parliamentary procedure.
Such behaviour is unbecoming in the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Her reference to the Landmines Bill was rather grubby. It is nonsense to say that if the draft budget is not scrutinised today, that Bill is the only legislation that could be affected.
It is disgraceful for her to call in aid the memory of Her late Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, and to suggest that raising the issue before the Committee today is an attack on her memory.
However, my main point of order, Mr. O'Hara, is this--
The Chairman: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his main point of order.
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady raised the spectre of the Landmines Bill, which is a complete red herring. There is no God-given rule that hon. Members must go home at 10 o'clock every night; we used to discuss such business on the Floor of the House after 10 pm, and that is not a difficulty. The arrangements of the business managers are not the concern of the Committee. There should be ample scope to find time to deal with this matter on the Floor of the House, as the Select Committee recommended. Furthermore--
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has well made his point.
Miss Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale): I am a little confused. If this matter is so important to Opposition Members, why are not more of them here? I understand that any hon. Member can turn up.
The Chairman: That is not a point of order, it is a question--but I am sure that it has been heard.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Is it not a fact that Select Committees can only make recommendations, and that it is for the Government to manage the business of the House, taking other pressures into account?
The Chairman: I will respond to that point when I make my ruling.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Is not the point of order essentially that however we vote on the motion in this European Standing Committee, it will go through on the nod on the Floor of the House? Therefore we shall not be able to vote on that matter in the Chamber. However, if the debate took place on the Floor of the House, all hon. Members could vote on a matter of immense importance to their constituents. The management of our economy is affected by the European Union, and it is fit and proper for a legislature whose primary function is to control the raising of revenue by the Executive to vote on the matter.
Several hon. Members rose--
The Chairman: Order. Before I take any more points of order, I must point out that some of them are observations on the original points of order, and they are taking away the time available for debate on the matter that concerns the hon. Members who first raised points of order.
We have an hour for questions from when the Economic Secretary starts her speech, and the extra time before she begins will be taken away from the time available for the debate, which must conclude by 1 o'clock. If there are any more points of order, I will take them, but I will not take any more speeches on the points of order.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Like the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and it is a fact that we changed the recommendation. The first recommendation was for a debate in this Standing Committee. The second recommendation last Wednesday, was for a debate on the Floor of the House. The lesson to be drawn from that is that if the Select Committee wants its views to be heard, it should be consistent in expressing them.
Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I take the gravest exception--
The Chairman: Mr. Cash, you have already been called. The Chair is standing. If there are any other points of order, I will call someone else first.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Is it not correct that any hon. Member who wishes to participate in these discussions can attend European Standing Committee B? Is it not also correct that attendence at the Committee is normally higher than would be normal after 10 o'clock for a debate on such matters in the Chamber?
The Chairman: That is factually correct.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made a point about the recommendations of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Although it is true that there was a reversal of its decision, the subsequent decision stands in the report. Furthermore, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, we should note that there is a huge majority of Labour members on that Select Committee, and a Labour Chairman--even though, historically, its chairman was always a member of the Opposition. That causes much difficulty, because there was no resistance whatever from the majority of members of the Select Committee. That is a thoroughly bad state of affairs.
Several hon. Members rose--
The Chairman: Order. I will take no more points of order. The matter has been well aired. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I let the points of order run because there was a serious point to be made. It was well made, and it has been recorded. Hon. Members can pursue the matter through other channels. The first recommendation was made on 8 June; it was revised last week. It is for the Government, not the Chair, to decide how the business of the House is ordered. The subject is before the Committee, and it is my business to chair the proceedings. I intend to do that now.
10.40 am
Mrs. Liddell: I am glad, Mr. O'Hara, of the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee. My party put great emphasis on scrutiny of the complicated issue of the European Union's preliminary draft budget.
The Committee is rather unusual because any hon. Member can attend it and question the Minister.
| 
