| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to confirm those two statements. I will amplify any further answer when I have the pleasure of delighting your Lordships in about half an hour's time on this self-same issue.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when I raised this issue a year ago, she said that there was no problem? Will she also confirm that, on behalf of the Home Office, an agency has been placing advertisements in Slovak newspapers telling people that benefits here are not so wonderful and that life is not paved with gold?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is all true.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister also recall that, in 1990, scare stories appeared in the British press and other newspapers predicting that somewhere between 5 million and 25 million people would flood from eastern Europe into western Europe? That did not happen either. We are conscious that some aspects of the British press have been running scare stories about this issue. Can we be assured that her Majesty's Government will stand up to inaccuracies reported in the tabloid press with the same vigour with which they stand up to the BBC?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I make no comment about the noble Lord's last point, but there has been no influx as was predicted. I will be happy to amplify these answers more fully at the proper time later this afternoon.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, since the Government say that they do not know how many migrants there are in this country—which appears to be the case—how can the Minister be so sure about the economic contribution that they make and the economic costs that are incurred?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have data, and information has been extracted from that data. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, accurately reflected the situation. I am looking forward with great anticipation to giving the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, further clarity in due course.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Government have been saying in the press that they intend to rely on the habitual residence test. Does the Minister appreciate that a key principle of European law is that one cannot discriminate between the nationals of one European country and another? Between now and half-past three, will she investigate how the Government can use the habitual residence test in this inherently discriminatory way? In particular, will she consult the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on the implications of the Swaddling case in the European Court of Justice and tell us at half-past three what she will do about it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's confidence that I could do all that in half an hour.
EU Funding
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their view of the European Commission's plans to increase European Union spending by 25 per cent.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government do not support the Commission's proposals for large increases in EU budget expenditure over the period 2007–13, which the Commission presented on 10 February. The Prime Minister has made clear, in a joint letter sent to Commission President, Mr Prodi, on 15 December 2003, along with the heads of government of Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, that average expenditure during the next financial perspective should be stabilised at around current expenditure levels and should not exceed 1 per cent of EU gross national income.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which was encouraging. I have one specific question for him. Will he confirm that the Government will not allow the UK's rebate, which was so heroically negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher some 20 years ago, to be reduced or limited, in the next EU budget round?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can confirm that position. As the noble Baroness knows, the UK gets the rebate because of its disproportionately low share in the receipts—about half the EU average—and above average contributions. We intend to defend that position.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the common agricultural policy was reformed—which so many of us have asked for, including noble Lords opposite—the rebate itself would disappear? It is as a consequence of that that we have a rebate.
In relation to the Question, does my noble friend also agree that in the Convention on the Future of Europe, the working group on future financing of the European Union specifically rejected the proposal to increase the budget, having noted that the present budget is substantially below the present budget ceiling?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for both his helpful contributions. He is of course right that a principle area for reform is certainly the common agricultural policy, and he is also right in saying that it helps to create the situation in which we disproportionately contribute more and receive less. He is also right in saying that there is widespread anxiety throughout Europe, as reflected by the letter from the heads of government, that the Commission is proposing too large an increase in its future budget.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, when can we expect for debate the Government's response to the Commission paper, which is after all the first shot in negotiations on the next budgetary package from 2007–13? Does the Minister accept that some of the proposals in the Commission's paper—for example, that a larger share of the budget must go on external relations and that a great deal more should be spent on innovation and less on agriculture—are precisely the sort of thing that British governments should be in favour of?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that this is very much the opening skirmish in a protracted debate. The decisions do not have to be taken until the middle of next year. He is right that there are some sensible proposals from the Commission, but what stands out is a very substantial demand for an increase in budget, which we do not support while other crucial features of the EU budget remain unreformed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the assurance has been given that the Government would not agree to an increase in the 1 per cent ceiling and that they will resist—to the last, I hope—any suggestion that we should lose our rebate, which amounts to £3,600 million a year. Those assurances are welcome. However, can I have the further assurance that the Government will not yield to the blandishments or coercion of other member states, as they apparently have done over the European constitution?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, true to form, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, adds a further demand to his approval of the position that the Government have already taken up in two instances. However, he will recognise that when a letter is sent on behalf of the Prime Minister and other heads of state of significant countries in Europe, one can scarcely look on such a body of people, who represent such a substantial interest in Europe, as being subject to coercion by anyone.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, given the facts of the matter—that at the end of the day the balance of spending and the strategic direction of the budget will largely be determined by the Council of Ministers—why do Her Majesty's Government continue to be agnostic, or perhaps just undecided, on the future of voting inside the EU?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are never agnostic, as they always think deeply about their position, on the basis of known facts. However, it is clearly important that crucial issues with regard to constitutional change are clarified. When they are, the Government will announce their position.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, my brief business statement has been heavily trailed, but I shall make it none the less. With permission, later this afternoon—probably after the first group of amendments on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill—my noble friend Lady Scotland will repeat a Statement on EU Enlargement: Free Movement of Workers.
Business of the House: Standing Order 41
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 4 March to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Scotland of Asthal to be taken as first business.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consolidation Bills
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that, pursuant to Standing Order 52, the following Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills: L. Acton, L. Brightman, L. Campbell of Alloway, L. Christopher, V. Colville of Culross, E. Dundee, B. Fookes, L. Janner of Braunstone, B. Mallalieu, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Razzall, L. Rodger of Earlsferry;
That the committee have the power to agree with the committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed; and
That a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Monday 1 March at half-past four o'clock.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page