European Communities (Finance) Bill

We have had an interesting debate in which several Members, not least the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), have shown their true prejudices for all to see. I feel that we have been here before and that no doubt we will be here again. The highlight for me was the contribution of our new friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who gave an excellent speech. Opposition Members said they would not take him back; we are not letting him go as he is able, in a way that no one else is, to speak with inside knowledge about the Conservative party's sheer hypocrisy on European Union matters. He said that the Opposition parties' purpose was to defeat this Bill in order specifically to cause a constitutional crisis in Europe, which is what they want. We have heard a lot of facts and figures this evening, so let me start by explaining the true ones. This is a good package for Britain. The abatement is preserved—[Interruption.] Of course it is; it is in writing in the own-resources decision, which states:"““The European Council of 15 and 16 December 2005 concluded that the correction mechanism in favour of the United Kingdom shall remain””." I have it here in black and white. It continues:"““However, after a phasing-in period between 2009 and 2011, the United Kingdom shall participate fully in the financing of the costs of enlargement, except for agricultural direct payments and market-related expenditure””." The rebate as a whole will remain. It has not been signed away and will remain in full on the common agricultural policy across old and new EU member states and on all spending in the EU 15. It is right that we pay our share towards reconstruction in eastern Europe and it is in our national interest to do so. Not only that, our abatement is worth more in this budget round than in the previous one. We will get back €40 billion, which is an increase on the €34.5 billion in the previous round. Over the period, Britain and France will contribute roughly the same, which Conservative negotiators never achieved. The net contributions of France and Italy will rise twice as fast as ours. Under this deal, the EU budget as a whole has fallen below 1 per cent. of European Union gross national income, which is a saving of €160 billion compared with the Commission's original proposal. The deal that we agreed is 20 per cent. less than the last budget agreed when Conservatives were attempting to negotiate for the Government. In 1988, the then Government signed up to a deal that saw the budget grow by 17 per cent. over five years, and in 1994 they signed up to a budget that was shown to grow by 22 per cent. We have signed up to a budget for an enlarged EU that will grow by a mere 7 per cent., working in the national interest. We have secured a commitment to a fundamental review of the budget. The CAP, which was two thirds of the budget in the mid-1980s, will no longer be the largest part of the EU budget. The value of the CAP will start to fall in real terms from this year, from €55 billion to €51 billion by 2013. That has been negotiated by this Government. The budget now gives help to the new member states of eastern Europe, which need it most. It is in the national interest to pay our fair share of the cost of enlargement. I want to refer to some of the questions and contributions in this evening's debate. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said that she wanted a debate on EU membership. She accepted that CAP reform was going the right way, but then she confirmed that she will vote against the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are, as always, trying to face two ways at the same time. She said that it would have been better to have had no agreement than to have the agreement reached in 2005, and other Opposition Members tried to make the same point. It was essential to have a December 2005 deal to allow the new member states to start preparing to use EU funds and to avoid the European Parliament, in the absence of such a deal, setting annual budgets under existing funding arrangements that, just to give one example, would have cost Poland about two thirds of its EU funds. Reaching no deal would have betrayed our support for enlargement. Perhaps the Opposition parties' support for no deal betrays their lack of support for enlargement. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that Cornwall is still a very poor area. We are happy that it will continue to be supported. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will receive €430 million in convergence expenditure in the current financial perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made a number of points. I do not agree with all of them, but I was grateful for his contribution. He said that the CAP and structural and cohesion funds should be nationalised. On the CAP, the Government's policy is the abolition of market support and direct payments. On structural and cohesion funds, as set out in 2003, it is our policy that wealthier countries should be responsible for their own regional policies. SCFs should be targeted on the poorest and, as a result of the deal that we secured in December 2005, 250 per cent. of structural and cohesion funding expenditure will go to new member states. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) succeeded in emptying the Public Gallery, and I lost the will to live at some points in his speech. He said that the House was having the chance to debate the Bill only as the deal comes into force. That is not the case: the own-resources decision will not come into force until it is ratified by all member states, and I hope we will do so very shortly.