John Penrose

Conservative Party | Weston-super-Mare

Draft Budget of the European Communities for 2006 (European Standing Committee)

John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con): I was pleased to hear the Minister’s response to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh about the rebate. I am sure that we are all grateful that he is defending it strongly for us in Europe. The hon. Gentleman said that the only time that that might be up for grabs is if he achieves substantial and radical reform on issues such as the common agricultural policy. It being a budget debate, can he put a number on that? What size of reduction in the European common agricultural policy budget or other elements of the budget would he be willing to consider large enough before he would give up the rebate?

Mr. Lewis: That is a good try by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not give individual figures in isolation, out of context, at this stage in the process. Why we have the rebate is clear: there are a number of inequalities in how the budget is structured that are unfair to the United Kingdom. That is why we had the rebate in the first place and why we continue to have it. If all those inequalities were removed in a serious way and a new budget was created, that would change the situation, but it is impossible for me to give one isolated out-of-context figure. That would also be undesirable in the context of the negotiations that have to take place.

[...]

John Penrose: I noted the Minister’s answer about his endeavours to ensure a degree of better financial control and accountability in relation to the Court of Auditors. I listened to the comments that he made on the importance of ensuring that any money spent by the European Union achieves value for money, and he was quite eloquent on how that might be achieved, for example, with regard to skills. What measures does the Minister intend to put in place to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the money that is being spent in this way? He mentioned that it was being spent through different national mechanisms. How do we measure whether that is genuinely achieving results on the ground?

Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have been very clear on this matter. We led the charge on the Lisbon agenda, and we told the European Union of the priorities that face us if we are to tackle the challenges of the modern world. The Prime Minister, in his speech to the European Parliament, was assertive and clear about the challenges of globalisation from India, China and elsewhere.

We shall measure outcomes with regard to productivity, competitiveness and growth. One of the EU-wide difficulties that we face—it is a challenge for our economy—is that in the rest of the European Union, the level of growth is nowhere near good enough. While the hon. Gentleman is right that individual programmes should have clear objectives, outcome expectations, and clear ways of measuring those, the cumulative objectives that we are trying to achieve are improved productivity, competitiveness and growth. If we can do that, we can also create a much greater sense of social justice and a fairer Europe where everyone is given the opportunity to fulfil their potential, and where we eliminate poverty. Those are the challenges facing us, and that is how we shall know that we have been successful. However, much of that is essentially achieved by the policies and the spend of individual nation states. In that context, the EU adds value; it cannot in itself make all of the difference.

Click here for Hansard