EU Financial Management

I begin by paying tribute to the Minister’s generosity in giving way so often during his opening remarks. It is worth my saying openly that we all welcome the opportunity that that provided to have a dialogue with him, and that many of his colleagues would do well to take lessons from him in that regard. He spoke for some time, and I must say in all honesty that he was not always wrong. I strongly agree with a number of points that he made, particularly his call for the European Union to do less and to do it better. I want to return to a point that I made during an intervention about the road map. We have been promised for some time that the EU will behave better at some future point, but it never actually happens. We are now being promised that by the end of 2009—the end of the Barroso Commission—such problems will be resolved, but it is not clear what will happen if they are not. I am not aware of what the British Government believe should happen in those circumstances. I very much suspect that whoever the next Commissioner is—be it Peter Mandelson or someone else—we will simply carry on, saying, ““We will try to resolve the situation by the end of this presidency.”” My worry is that this is a process without end, and it is for exactly that reason—because we see so little progress—that so few Members bother to attend these debates. What tangible gains were made during the British presidency in terms of introducing a greater degree of financial probity? What did Britain achieve in that area that we can look back on with pride, saying, ““That resolved some issues and resulted in a considerable improvement””? I am not aware of the British presidency’s having resulted in many real achievements, although I entirely accept that the Government’s heart was in the right place and that they made the right noises, said the right things and tried to move in the right direction. However, the achievements that they have to show for it are somewhat limited. It would also be helpful if the Minister were to clarify the steps being taken in conjunction with Austria and Finland to ensure that any minor gains achieved are being carried forward, so that demonstrable progress can be made. The Public Accounts Committee regularly produces reports on EU financial management. One significant element of the most recent report was the attempt to simplify the rules governing the EU and all its operations. The complexity of the present regulations exacerbates the problems encountered in their operation. It has increased administrative difficulties and the opportunities for fraud, and it is not entirely clear that Britain has achieved as much in that regard as it might have wanted. The Minister did not mention the question of the culture within which the EU operates, which I see as one of the main problems that we face. Britain is not perfect in that regard, but at least our attitude to waste, fraud, corruption and mismanagement is different. For instance, the National Audit Office and the PAC supervise the accounts, and we also pursue value-for-money studies and try to root out mis-spending or wasteful spending. However, that approach is not replicated in the rest of the EU, and in an intervention on the Minister I asked about the fact that the European Court of Auditors did not produce value-for-money studies. It is notable that all the emphasis in the EU is on making sure that the money is not being stolen, rather than on making sure that it is being spent effectively. I hope that the Government are willing to pursue such matters more vigorously in future. The ““do less better”” approach is the one that we should adopt, but it is hard to believe that the Court of Auditors is doing so sufficiently vigorously. For example, on page 234 of the papers issued to hon. Members for this debate it is stated that the Court of Auditors budget remained at €84 million in 2003–04. It seemed to me that there was an opportunity in that period to ““spend to save””—that is, to spend additional money in the Court of Auditors to make sure that money was spent more effectively elsewhere. In contrast, in the same period the budget for the European Parliament rose by 18 per cent., from €986 million to €1,166. How can we take seriously the suggestion that the European Parliament is determined to curb wasteful expenditure when its own spending has risen by 18 per cent., and when MEPs maintain the farce of commuting every month between Strasbourg and Brussels? How can the British public believe that the EU is seriously interested in safeguarding taxpayer’s money, when no one in this country supports such wastefulness—apart from the Liberal Democrats, of course. [Interruption.] I note that that remark has been met with universal acclamation, and no denial even from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), the only Liberal present. Will we be given an opportunity to vote against this motion? It states only that the House ““takes note”” of these documents, but it seems a terrible waste of time to do the same thing year after year. It would be worth while for some hon. Members to vote against the motion, just to demonstrate that we are unhappy with the process. Presumably, the time will come when Parliament has an opportunity to vote against the EU budget and its extravagances, although I see that that possibility is well along the way to being rejected by the European Parliament. It has been reported that members of the Budgets Committee unanimously adopted a draft resolution yesterday that"““formally terminates the current Inter-Institutional Agreement, allowing Parliament to keep more advantageous Treaty provisions as the sole basis””" if talks on the next financial perspective fail. After agreement has been reached between national Governments, the European Parliament has decided that the amount of money being spent is insufficient. Again, the only support for that in this country will come from the Liberal Democrats. We will have to proceed with a budget that already contains substantial amounts of pork, overspending and waste, and the European Parliament and the Liberal Democrats want to spend even more. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us when we will have the opportunity to vote against that?