The
Chairman: Order. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to
the discussion on the budget? It is important that we talk about the
budget.
Mr.
Browne: Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. The Minister
talked about many other things to do with the European Union’s
budget, what we ought to finance as a country and how that would
benefit the citizens of the United Kingdom. He was right to touch on
the budgetary value of funding activity and co-operation in tackling
the problem of climate change. It seems to me a self-evident truth that
countries across the world will have to co-operate to deal with the
problems of climate change and how we minimise them. Each nation state
acting independently is less likely to be effective than many acting
collectively. We should act with the United States, China, India,
Brazil and others, but there is a role for the European Union to act
collectively, not least because we bring greater muscle to bear on the
global stage if we perform in that
way. The
Minister was right about the budgetary value of the European Union
acting together to some extent on trade and employment. There is value
in funding initiatives to reduce cross-border crime and to ensure
secure borders. After all, we have freedom of movement within the EU.
Some parties, such as the UK Independence party, have a principled
objection to Britain being in the EU, and I would understand their wish
to make a case against that measure. However, other parties, such as
every one
represented in the Committee, want Britain to be a member of the EU,
which has implications for the free movement of people, goods and
services around the
EU. It
is right that we ensure that the EU’s borders are strengthened
and secured. Extra monetary contributions may need to be made in order
to satisfy ourselves that that is done better, but it certainly needs
to be done better. It would seem strange for any responsible political
party to seek to weaken the attempts across Europe to fight crime and
illegal immigration. I cannot see why any grown-up or responsible party
would wish to do
that. There
is also a role for the EU in co-ordinated activity on foreign policy,
so funding that may be beneficial. For example, we have had
difficulties with the British embassy in Tehran, which is principally a
matter for the British Government. Other EU countries can act in
concert with us as individual nation states, but where there is scope
for reaching an agreement when the other 26 members of the EU make
their disapproval of what is being done clear to the Iranian regime,
that would be helpful and would bring wider diplomatic muscle to bear
on our behalf. There would be some funding implications in
co-ordinating such an
activity. There
are benefits to Britain of being a member of the EU, which some people
listening to the debate may not have realised. In some cases, those
benefits have to be funded. Britain, as one of the largest economies in
the EU, is likely to have to make a contribution to those funding
arrangements, which seems to me to be a self-evident truth. If one
travels in parts of eastern Europe, one sees that the standard of
living—the GDP per capita of residents in those
countries—is significantly lower than in the UK. It is therefore
likely, as the UK has a much bigger economy and as its people are, on
average, wealthier, that we will have to make a contribution to
realising the objectives that are beneficial not only to the EU, but
also to the people of the
UK. However,
I have said that there are two sides to the story, and I agree that the
EU wastes money on agricultural subsidies. I share the concerns that
have been expressed about the unwillingness of auditors to sign off the
EU accounts, because they are not satisfied that the level of effort to
reduce fraud is sufficient, and they do not think that the numbers
stand up to close scrutiny. There is waste in the EU. A perfect example
that has not been mentioned is EU Parliament meetings taking place in
Strasbourg as well as in Brussels. I know of no other legislative
entity with an in-built expenditure of that type, although some people
wish to take the UK party on a roadshow around the country, which would
have cost
implications. We
should tell the French that, if they are so keen to host the Strasbourg
Parliament as part of an assertion of their national identity, they can
fund it themselves. I do not see why taxpayers in Britain or in any of
the other 26 members of the EU except France should pay for a
once-a-month trip to Strasbourg, which seems to be more about French
status and the Strasbourg economy than about benefiting the people of
the
EU. The
negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of a very serious
Government funding deficit in this and other countries across the EU.
We must remind ourselves that the UK is borrowing £480 million
every
day. That obviously has implications for what the nation can afford.
Different parties have approached that task differently. The
Conservative party, for example, is committed to guaranteeing the
higher levels of expenditure on the NHS, overseas aid and the EU, as I
understand it from today’s discussion. Other parties are going
to have to make different choices. However, I do not accept the
Government’s position, which I tried to flesh out in questions
earlier, that no Departments are going to have their expenditure cut at
all. There will be difficult decisions to make and the EU needs to
realise that if we are cutting our cloth according to our means in
domestic policy areas—as the other member states of the EU
are—then the central administration, for example, of the EU
cannot be immune from those tough choices either. I regret that
the Committee has only been given the opportunity to debate these
matters a very short time—only a number of days—before
the Government discuss them on our behalf with our European
counterparts. The Minister flattered us by saying how helpful our views
would be when the Government represent us in those meetings. I never
doubt the honesty of any of the Minister’s comments, but I
wonder whether perhaps he has overstretched himself with that flattery.
I am not sure that I believe that any consideration will be given to a
single word said in Committee. I would be interested to know whether
the officials who are working on this process have hitherto had just a
blank piece of paper in front of them and are waiting for the Committee
Hansard to be winged to them in the post so that they can get on
with their preparations for the meeting, which would otherwise not be
able to start. My suspicion is that many British diplomats and civil
servants, in Brussels and elsewhere, have already done all the
preliminary work for those meetings and that it is a constitutional
nicety that the Minister has to spend an hour and a half in the
Committee.
We talk a lot
about trying to improve the status and role of Parliament, but one of
the things the Government could do as a starting point is have the
elected representatives in this country—I know it is
unfashionable to speak up for people who are
elected—
The
Chairman: Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman is drifting
away from the issue. He must constrain his comments to the budget and
the budget
alone.
Mr.
Browne: I was about to conclude, Mr. Sheridan.
My point is about the budget-setting process, the EU and the role of
the Government. The role of Parliament should not be an afterthought.
It should be at the beginning and at the centre of those
considerations, so that elected Members can contribute their views and
the views of their constituents on what is, after all, a very important
part of Government
policy. 5.58
pm
Kelvin
Hopkins: I agree strongly with the last remarks made by
the hon. Member for Taunton about listening to citizens and voting
accordingly. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee—and,
if I may say, as an enthusiastic member of European Committees—I
agree with him entirely about strong parliamentary scrutiny of the EU.
However, most of my constituents do not
agree very strongly with the general views of the hon. Member for
Taunton; they agree much more with my view. It was a shame that he
chose, at the beginning of his speech, to attack people who disagreed
with him, rather than to address the arguments about the
budget.
It is
astonishing that the European Court of Auditors is apparently unable to
be sure that it knows where as much as 80 per cent. of EU funds end up.
That is an amazing admission, but, of course, as my hon. Friend the
Minister said, the situation is largely because the member states
administer most of the funds. The auditors
say: “Regardless
of the method of implementation applied, the Commission bears the
ultimate responsibility for the legality and regularity of the
transactions underlying the accounts of the European
Communities.” Even
though member states administer the funds, the Commission therefore has
prime responsibility. I think that that is absolutely right, and a
relaxed attitude about what happens to all the money is
inappropriate.
I would also
say to the hon. Member for Taunton that it is complete nonsense to talk
about the alternative to this European Union being almost the end of
civilisation as we know it and a descent into war. If there was serious
reform of the EU along the lines that I would suggest, it would have
much more support. A looser association of democratic member states,
with a lot more decision making at democratic member state level, would
go down very well with most electors in Europe. We would be much
happier in a European Union that had less central control and more
control for democratic member states. I discover that that is certainly
the view of my constituents when I discuss such matters with them. A
mini-referendum on the Lisbon treaty in my constituency found that
there was strong support for the kind of view that I take.
One way
forward—I have said this before and I shall say it
again—would be to have a much smaller budget, which would be
achieved if we abolished the CAP and if agricultural policy were
determined by member states. Our agricultural industries are
different—some are small and some are large, and some are more
modern than others—so it would be more appropriate for member
states to decide what they want to subsidise and how much they should
subsidise.
Mr.
David S. Borrow (South Ribble) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend
explain how member states individually determining how they were going
to subsidise their agricultural industries would actually work in the
context of a single market? Would that not undermine the concept of a
single market?
Kelvin
Hopkins: It certainly would in agriculture, but every
member state, for all sorts of reasons, including national security,
would like to decide how much it devotes to agriculture and how much to
other industries. I do not think that a blanket single market in
agriculture is appropriate. Some countries might want to subsidise food
and different forms of production more than
others.
Mr.
Browne: It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman
engaged more fully with the question asked by the hon. Member for South
Ribble. The hon. Member for Luton, North seems to be saying that he
would be happy for British farmers to go bust because they were
competing
against farmers elsewhere in the EU who enjoyed very large national
subsidies that made it impossible for those British farmers to sell
their produce. If he would be happy about such a state of
affairs—the total abandonment of the single market and the rules
that support it—he should just say so, rather than skirting
around the issue.
Kelvin
Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention,
but I believe that agriculture should be strongly supported in Britain
and that a significant proportion of our food should be produced at
home. If we had a world market in agriculture, almost all farmers in
Britain would immediately go out of businesses, because they could not
compete with farmers elsewhere in the world who are much less
well-paid. If we had a completely free market in agriculture throughout
the world, all British farmers would go bankrupt very quickly, but that
would not be a sensible way
forward. Every
country should decide for itself how much of its own food it wants to
produce, and we ought to retain a substantial agricultural sector. That
sector should be efficient and perhaps should not employ so many
people, but we should at least have home produce. Arguments can also be
made about the transport costs of agricultural produce. I would want
significant support for our agriculture to ensure that we produce a
significant proportion of our own food. The CAP is not the way forward,
as I have argued many
times. I
have suggested an approach on the European budget. If we want to
redistribute income and to have fiscal transfers between member states,
let us have something based on the relative wealth or poverty of the
different member states so that the wealthy contribute most and the
poorest receive most. That is not what happens now, because the
redistributive aspect of the budget is arbitrary and haphazard.
Luxembourg, which is one of the richest member states, is the biggest
recipient under the EU budget, according to my table from 2007, and we
are one of the larger contributors, although not the largest. In 1997,
before the economic collapse and the recent problems, Ireland, whose
living standards were similar to ours, was a substantial net recipient,
while we were a substantial net contributor to the budget. That was not
rational. If
we had a rational budget, the richer countries’ contribution
would be proportionate to their wealth, as would the poorer
countries’ receipts. Such an approach would be sensible and
acceptable, and one that we could argue for and defend. Everyone would
feel fairly treated. Some might argue that we do not want any
redistribution at all, but if we are a group of European nations that
want to be helpful, net fiscal transfers that are proportionate to
living standards in member states would be a much more sensible way
forward.
I have made
that point many times in these Committees and in the Chamber, and it
has now obliquely been answered, as one European document has
specifically rejected such a position. I do not know of anyone else who
has been putting it forward, but I might be flattering myself if I
suggest that the EU has taken notice of what I was saying. On the other
hand, it has specifically said that it rejects the position, although
it has not given a good argument why. I suspect that one of the reasons
is that my proposal would loosen arrangements—those things that
keep European nations together inside this tight budgetary
arrangement.
Everyone—certainly
my constituents—would accept a smaller budget with no CAP, with
countries spending their own regional funds according to their own
national needs, with redistribution according to the relative wealth of
the different member states, and with much more being decided by member
state Governments. I believe that many of us would find that
reasonable, and I hope that one day we will move in that direction. I
could say much more, but I have probably said
enough. 6.7
pm
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: The background to this debate is a severe
budgetary crisis in this country and in other member states. It is
indeed a scandal that the Government are proposing to hand over more
money to an organisation that is completely incapable of spending
correctly the money that it already has. I agree with the hon. Member
for Luton, North that we are simply reinforcing failure. The worse the
EU performs, the more money we give it, and it is a double scandal that
there is almost nothing that we can do about
it. It
was almost comical to hear the hon. Member for Taunton complaining that
this House has so little leverage, because of course his party colludes
with the Government in handing over more and more powers to the EU,
putting the whole thing firmly beyond the control of this
House. There
is an annual ritual of supposing that everything will get better. We
heard from the Minister again today how the budgetary system will be
tightened up, and it will all be all right in the future, but nothing
ever happens, and nothing is supposed to
happen. When
I represented the House on the Convention on the Future of Europe, I
proposed an amendment whereby the European Court of Auditors would be
able to veto any further expenditure on structural or other funds
unless the member state concerned could show that the audit guidelines
had been followed. Of course, it was rejected by the Labour and Liberal
Democrat representatives on the convention, so they are in no position
to tell us how the money should be
spent. Mr.
Browne: The right hon. Gentleman said that my party
colluded with the Government, but, if I remember correctly, did not he
resign as a Minister from the last Conservative Government because he
was so unhappy with the degree to which they were, as he saw it, giving
extra powers to the
EU?
| 
