13 Jul 2005 : Column 1093
House of Lords
Wednesday, 13 July 2005.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
Baroness Clark of Calton
Lynda Margaret Clark, QC, having been created Baroness Clark of Calton, of Calton in the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Irvine of Lairg and the Baroness Scotland of Asthal, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Soley
Clive Stafford Soley, Esquire, having been created Baron Soley, of Hammersmith in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dubs and the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Carr of Hadley—took the Oath.
EU Budget
2.49 pm
Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes in administrative expenditure have been agreed in the proposed new European Union budget.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, no changes to administrative expenditure have yet been agreed as part of the negotiations on the next financial perspective.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is at least one specific and significant saving in administrative expenditure that could be made; namely, stopping the nonsense of the European Parliament meeting in three different cities?
Was my noble friend as surprised as I was at the Answer given by my noble friend Lord Triesman to my Written Question on 8 June? He said:
"There has been no study of which we are aware of the financial costs and benefits of having multiple sites for the EP rather than a single site".—[Official Report, 8/6/05; col. WA 76.]
Has the Minister had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, about a single benefit? Can he assure us that the Government will seek to have such a study and, more importantly, stop this nonsense?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I would certainly undertake to discuss the matter further with my colleague, my noble friend Lord Triesman. There is a
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1094
balance in all of those things between making sure that there is access to those processes and the costs that are involved. But in the final analysis, although there are efficiencies that, we believe, can be reached in a number of areas of the budget, they are of relatively small cost in the total European Union budget.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there are also a number on these Benches who entirely agree with the very common-sense point put by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? When the Minister says that there are balances, it is clear what the advantage is of cutting the cost and having only one site in Brussels. What are the arguments on the other side of the balance?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, as I understand it, to start with, a treaty change would be involved to change the current arrangements; we would need to weigh the impact of that. Perhaps I might further discuss with my noble friend Lord Triesman to give a more definitive answer on the benefits that balance the other side.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, is that not yet another example of where, if the United Kingdom and other countries agree to more majority voting as opposed to unanimity on most aspects, Strasbourg could have been removed years ago? On the broader aspects of the budget, will the Minister confirm the latest position with the 1 per cent ceiling objective? Is that still the Government's aim?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, my Lords. It is still the Government's aim that there should be the 1 per cent ceiling. Obviously, further consultations need to take place from where we are. However, specifically in relation to administrative expenditure, which was the import of this Question, the Government's position is that Commission administrative expenditure should be held capped in real terms over the life of the next financial perspective, but that the administrative expenditure of the remaining institutions should remain capped at the current nominal value of the 2006 level.
In relation to the earlier point that was pressed, I am rightly advised that it was the government of John Major who signed up to the current arrangements in Europe.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind that I am a person who has always said that he is sorry we did not join the European Community at the beginning, I realise now that there is one major benefit of the fact that we did not join all those years ago; namely, that we would have a European parliamentary building in London as well and the costs to which my noble friend referred would have been dramatically higher still. Does he at least think that there was one advantage for our not starting out in the Community?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it would be a splendid idea to have another site in London, but we
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1095
are where we are. I am not sure that it would imply that costs would be comparatively higher in London. I thought that the costs of operating the Parliament were relatively modest in the scheme of things.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I think that the Minister said that the administrative expenses were a relatively small proportion of the budget. When the figures are available, will the Government at the same time publish what has happened to administrative expenditure here over the past 10 years? No. 12 has been taken over by No. 10. There has been great growth in the Cabinet Office. Surely, that would give us a yardstick by which we could judge the growth in EU administrative expenditure. If those figures are not immediately available, perhaps the Minister will circulate them to your Lordships.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we are straying somewhat from the original Question. The public expenditure plans of this Government are fully costed and affordable as a result of the economic success that the Government have engendered. The sound fiscal and monetary policies of this Labour Government have enabled us to fulfil our spending commitments in terms of social policy and all that goes with it.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, further to his penultimate response, will my noble friend acknowledge that at the December Edinburgh European Council Summit in 1992 the then British presidency, which was held under the premiership of John Major, a concession was made to the French that Strasbourg would be the enduring location of the European Parliament? Does he agree that we need to look to the Benches opposite for the crass spending and excessive bureaucracy of the European Parliament?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I bow to my noble friend's superior knowledge of history in this matter, but I made the point earlier that "where we are" is something that was negotiated and put in place by the previous Conservative government.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, no doubt the Minister will be aware that the administrative budget of the EU is around €7 billion euros which Members on these Benches do not think is a relatively small amount. Last year, the Treasury stated that the EU budget would have to be set with,
Since then we have had another year and another set of qualified accounts. Does the Minister agree that we should not put a single additional euro into the Commission budget until that is sorted out?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we have debated a Question on the issue of the certificate of assurance in relation to the accounts. What is clear is that the steps taken recently to ensure that we have in place a better accounting system in Europe and that we move forward on a system of integrated financial
13 Jul 2005 : Column 1096
control should lead us towards the path of achieving a budget on which the European Court of Auditors can sign off. But one of the areas that the court has been able to sign off to date is that of administrative expenses. The court did not find irregularities in this area, and that is included in its report.
Casinos
2.56 pm
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to propose the establishment of more than one regional casino in the first wave of casino approvals.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Gambling Act makes provision, initially, for just one regional casino, and we are proceeding with implementation of the Act on this basis. We do not, however, rule out the possibility of asking Parliament to approve an increase in this number at some future point.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |