Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mr Shrinivas Honap be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 27 January 2017 to 26 January 2022.
The motion, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, seeks the appointment of a new lay member to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. SCIPSA is not a conventional committee of this House: it is a statutory committee and its establishment, role and membership are determined by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Committee has two key responsibilities: to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following fair and open competition, for the posts of chair and members of IPSA, and to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources. The legislation sets out the membership of the Committee, which comprises the Speaker, the Leader of the House and the Chair of the Standards Committee by virtue of their offices, five Back-Bench Members and three lay members.
The appointment of lay members to the Speaker’s Committee was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its report on Members’ expenses and allowances in November 2009. It recommended that three lay members, with full voting rights, should be added to the Speaker’s Committee to bring an external view and to provide greater transparency and independence in the exercise of its statutory functions. The recommendation was implemented by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.
The motion seeks to appoint Mr Shrinivas Honap as a lay member to succeed Professor Monojit Chatterji. Professor Chatterji has served the Committee and the House diligently and I know that Mr Speaker and the other members of the SCIPSA would wish me to place on the record their gratitude for his advice and dedication to the work of the Speaker’s Committee. Professor Chatterji’s period of appointment ends on 26 January and the motion therefore seeks the House’s approval for the appointment of Mr Honap to the Committee from that date for a period of five years. The periods of lay members’ appointment to the Committee are staggered to ensure a degree of continuity in the lay membership. Under the legislation the lay members may not be reappointed.
The candidate named in the motion, Mr Shrinivas Honap, resulted from a fair and open recruitment competition as required by statute. At the Speaker’s request, the recruitment panel was chaired by the Clerk Assistant, Dr John Benger. The other panel members were the right hon. Baroness Primarolo; Richard McKenna, chief executive of Inclusive Employers; and Jenny Winter, head of human resources at the House of Commons service. The board was assisted by a specialist recruitment agency to ensure a wide and diverse range of candidates applied for the role. The recruitment process involved stages of advertisement, longlisting, shortlisting and interview.
Mr Honap has had a successful career in the private sector, including holding a number of senior positions at Vodafone. Since leaving the private sector, he has taken on a number of non-executive roles including with South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and the British Transport police.
The statute requires that the motion is tabled with the agreement of the Speaker, and I can formally confirm that Mr Speaker has signified his consent. I am happy also to assure hon. Members that the competition met the requirements of the statute. I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support Mr Honap’s appointment.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Crausby. I apologise for being late, first, because it is my birthday and there were too many candles, and secondly, because there was a huge amount of traffic in Parliament Square—a matter that I will take up with the Mayor of London. I got here as soon as I could.
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his comments about the outgoing member of SCIPSA, Professor Monojit Chatterji, and the work that he has done. Having taken the opportunity to look at the background of the nominee, we have no issue with his appointment. Mr Honap has extensive experience in the public sector, although I note that he was at the South Staffordshire trust only for a short time. I hope that he has not been put off the public sector. Parliament has different kinds of problems—as indeed does the private sector. We do things differently, and we hope that all Mr Honap’s experience will be brought to bear on understanding how special this place and the people who work here are. On that basis, the Opposition support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Compulsory Purchase) (Corresponding amendments) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Compulsory Purchase) (Corresponding Amendments) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, for the first time, I think. The regulations may look rather complex—indeed, they are—but the principle behind them is straightforward. Before I launch into the detail, it may help if I briefly describe the scenario that has led to their being brought before the Committee.
Most compulsory purchase orders are made under the procedures set out in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Amendments were made to that Act by the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and corresponding amendments need to be made to those Acts that contain compulsory purchase powers but do not rely on the Acquisition of Land Act.
That is the principle; now for the detail. Schedule 15 to the 2016 Act amends the Acquisition of Land Act to require an acquiring authority to include additional information with the notice of confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. The notice is issued under the Acquisition of Land Act to those who have an interest in the relevant land. The acquiring authority must provide information about the effects of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981; it must also invite any person who would be entitled to claim compensation if a general vesting declaration were executed to give the authority information on their name, address and interest in the land. The amendments are required because the preliminary notice to a general vesting declaration, which previously contained that information, will be abolished by the repeal of section 3 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act by paragraph 5 of schedule 15 to the 2016 Act.
To step aside from all the legal terminology for a second, the Government are doing this because the preliminary notice did not commit an acquiring authority to executing a general vesting declaration, so it served little use as a clear warning to a landowner of what was going to happen. We are getting rid of those preliminary notices and have instead increased the notice period for the general vesting declaration. That is the rationale for the change.
The changes introduced by schedule 15 will apply to the vast majority of compulsory purchase orders—as I have said, they are made using the procedure set out in the Acquisition of Land Act. There are, however, a number of other Acts—those listed in the schedule to these regulations—under which the procedure for obtaining compulsory purchase powers is not governed by the Acquisition of Land Act. We therefore need to amend those Acts accordingly; otherwise, owners and occupiers of land in orders made under those Acts will be denied the information about the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act that others would receive. In simple terms, that is what the regulations do.
If any right hon. or hon. Members are concerned that corresponding amendment regulations are an unusual way of proceeding, I hope that they will be reassured to hear that the procedure has a precedent. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which was passed under the Labour Government, also amended the Acquisition of Land Act and corresponding amendments were made in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order 2007, SI No. 1519.
Finally, it would be legitimate to ask why the amendments to other legislation were not included in the original primary legislation and why we are making them via subsequent secondary legislation. Such amendments take time to research and prepare, and they could not be finalised until the main changes in schedule 15 had been settled definitely, so instead of rushing technical drafting through in the late stages of the Housing and Planning Bill, we decided that it would be better to take our time and draft them separately, with a view to bringing regulations into force at the same time as the substantive provisions.
I hope that is all clear and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Paisley?
The Minister will know from our discussions in Committee on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill that we are supportive of changes to CPOs. There is a clear need to update legislation for them and to streamline and clarify existing legal guidance. We welcome the consolidation of the notice periods for general vesting declarations. We know that is a hugely complicated area, and anything that can simplify it is, as a generality, to be welcomed.
I thank the Minister for outlining what the regulations are about. That was reassuring on two fronts. The first is that I got the gist of what the regulations are doing right. I am not sure that I am quite as reassured by the second point, but it was probably useful for the Minister to say that the Government had not simply forgotten about all of the other Acts that contain CPO powers when they changed the legislation through the 2016 Act and that it was just that they needed more time to work it through.
If I have got this right, the regulations are concerned with the general vesting declaration procedure, and perhaps more specifically, the preliminary notice period before making a general vesting declaration. They seek to ensure that Acts of Parliament that contain compulsory purchase powers and are not subject to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act, but are still used, are made subject to that Act. The regulations make provision for the amendments made by schedule 15 to the 2016 Act as well, so that they also apply to the earlier Act. The Minister will please correct me if that is not right.
We do not wish to oppose the regulations. We recognise that part 7 of the 2016 Act makes a number of changes to compulsory purchase procedures, including the notice period that an acquiring authority must give a claimant before entering and taking possession of land that it is authorised to acquire by compulsion. Authorisation usually takes place through CPOs, but can be through the Acts of Parliament—I will say something more about those in a minute or two—meaning that there are, I think, two ways of gaining entry and taking possession: first, by notice to treat, followed by notice of entry under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; and, secondly, by a general vesting declaration under the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act.
My understanding—again, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—is that the 2016 Act standardises the minimum notice period for entry to three months, rather than the confusing 14 or 28 days that existed before, and states that clear information must be set out in the confirmation notice for a CPO issued under section 15 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act, so it did two things. I think it is worth noting as we go along that that information is quite important because, first, it gives a prescribed statement about the effects of parts 2 and 3 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act, and secondly, it provides the invitation to any person who is entitled to claim compensation under that Act.
The regulations seek to make corresponding provision in those Acts that enable compulsory purchase to take place but that have different authorisation procedures. Without the regulations, it would be difficult for the two provisions I have just outlined to apply. I think it is worth us putting that on the record, because when I saw the regulations I thought that there was quite a wide range of Acts that had something to do with CPO that probably passed most people by: the Harbours Act 1964; the Forestry Act 1967; the New Towns Act 1981, which is very important; the Transport and Works Act 1992; and so on. It is quite helpful to the Minister to have those outlined in the regulations, because we can now refer back to them.
This is a fairly technical set of amendments. We note that in the technical consultation on improvements to the compulsory purchase process, the Government confirmed that the reason they are making changes to general vesting declarations is that the process is uncertain, with conflicting case law, and they believe the law should be changed to provide greater clarity.
However, vesting conditions are far from the only area in which there is some sort of contradiction in CPO legislation. More than 100 years of law and case law have thrown up many contradictions. The plea I make to the Minister is that rather than continuing to change the CPO system bit by bit, will he introduce legislation that allows us to have a complete review of the CPO system in the country? We could then have a much more fit-for-purpose system that will allow us more easily to bring forward infrastructure projects and the big settlements that we so need to tackle our housing crisis.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I was impressed by the manful way in which the Minister dealt with this issue. Given my own experience in the past week or so, I definitely subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory about any problems that occur in political life.
It was worth having a short debate on this issue. Compulsory purchase is critical, and it is important that the Government get it right. We understandably have a culture in this country that respects the idea of an Englishman or Englishwoman’s home being his or her castle. As a result, we do not have the rather roughshod approach that applies in much of the rest of the continent, and indeed across the world, to issues of compulsory purchase.
As has been mentioned, if we are to make infrastructure changes and to turbocharge our infrastructure development in this country, whether in housing or across a range of other areas, it might well be necessary to exercise compulsory purchase on others’ behalf—particularly utility companies. It is therefore critical that we get the law entirely on all fours.
It is right that the Minister has looked at a vast array of different bits of legislation, which seems to be slightly in conflict, but it is better to have a belt-and-braces approach than to let it be. This will be a controversial issue in the years to come if we are to have the infrastructure development that is of great national importance, particularly where it interrupts individuals’ rights.
Gavin Barwell
Let me start by confirming that the hon. Member for City of Durham is quite right to say that these are technical regulations. Indeed, without any offence to my officials, who serve me so well, when I start reading my briefing note and it says, “These regulations may look rather technical”—or complex—my heart sinks a little. The hon. Lady understood exactly what the regulations seek to achieve. When confronted with these things it is always good when one grasps them correctly.
The hon. Lady asked for clarification about why we are introducing this measure in secondary legislation, rather than in the original primary legislation. Both Government and Opposition Members—and, indeed, my officials—would probably agree that the process for the Housing and Planning Act 2016 was not ideal. A lot of amendments were introduced at quite a late stage, including by the Government. It is right that we took our time to get the complex regulations that we are considering right.
The hon. Lady mentioned the need for a wider look at CPO legislation and, with the exception of my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Taunton Deane, no other member of the Committee had the pleasure of experiencing the Neighbourhood Planning Bill Committee, during which we discussed these issues in more detail. The Government have already made some changes to the CPO process through the Housing and Planning Act. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill, which is currently on its way through the House and to which we will shortly return on Report, will make some further changes.
The hon. Lady is quite right that there is, if not consensus, at least a growing body of opinion suggesting that we might want to look at a more radical review of CPO legislation. I repeat what I said in the Bill Committee: the Government and I are not necessarily averse to that, but before we do anything we would need a greater degree of consensus about exactly what such radical reform might or might not look like.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is right that CPO powers are critical. They are sometimes essential to drive major regeneration schemes that are clearly in the public interest. I see that in my constituency, where the third London Westfield scheme—the redevelopment of the Whitgift centre in the centre of Croydon—could have been enabled only by a CPO, which has been made. It is right that the state has such powers, and from time to time it is going to be necessary to use them if we are to make the kind of changes to our infrastructure and to get the homes built that we desperately need in this country. We are, though, a society that values property rights and that wants to ensure that when the state is using its power to force somebody to sell their property, the proper tests are applied to determine whether there is a clear public interest in the powers being used and that there is no other reasonable alternative way to secure the development.
On that basis, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. It has been good to have the Committee’s unanimous support for the regulations. We will clearly need to return to this issue, not least on Report of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Multiannual Financial Framework
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
It may be helpful to remind Members of the procedure in a European Standing Committee. Proceedings must conclude no later than two and a half hours after we commence. I will start the proceedings by calling a member of the European Scrutiny Committee to make a brief statement—I understand that that will be Mr Wood. I will then call the Minister to make a statement, followed by questions for up to one hour, though I can extend that if we have a lot of questions. Then the Minister will move the motion for debate and we will commence a normal debate, where any other Member who wishes to speak may do so accordingly.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. It might be helpful to the Committee if I take a few minutes to briefly explain the background to the documents and the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended them for debate.
The multiannual financial framework sets out annual ceilings for the six headings of EU budgetary expenditure. The Commission has presented a mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework for 2014-20, and that is the first document in the motion. The Commission’s communication covers three matters: the multiannual financial framework at mid-term and its state of implementation and challenges; strengthening the EU budget’s focus and flexibility to deliver on priorities and new challenges; and issues for preparation of the next multiannual financial framework.
Consequent to the mid-term review, the Commission sets out a financial package of €13 billion or £11 billion of additional EU funding in 2017-20 for jobs, growth, migration and security. The inter-institutional agreement between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on budgetary matters provides for the contingency margin, among other matters, which is a mechanism to react to unforeseen circumstances as a last resort instrument and allows for a maximum of 0.03% of EU GNI to be redeployed between budget headings.
The Commission’s financial revision package is underpinned by the next four documents in the motion, which are: a proposed Council regulation to amend the 2013 regulation establishing the multiannual financial framework for 2014-20; a proposed amendment to the 2013 inter-institutional agreement on budgetary matters and financial management; a proposed decision concerning the contingency margin; and a proposed regulation on the financial rules applicable to the EU budget, which amends 14 regulations and one decision concerning the financial management of a range of multiannual EU programmes.
The remaining two documents in the motion are a letter of amendment to update the Commission’s draft budget for 2017 and a revised proposal for use of the contingency margin in 2017, in support of the migration and security section of the amending letter. The amending letter has taken into account technical adjustments on expenditure that had occurred within the course of the year and the proposals accompanying the Commission’s mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework. The amending letter increased the draft budget’s commitment appropriations from €157.7 billion— £136 billion—to €159 billion—£136.8 billion—and payment appropriations from €134.9 billion to €135.4 billion, an increase from £116.2 billion to £116.6 billion.
The changes fall into four areas: agriculture and fisheries, technical adjustments, growth and jobs, and migration and security. The first two are annual features of amending letters; the second two were particular to the budget proposals for 2017. In recommending the first five documents for debate, the European Scrutiny Committee noted that they represent an important stage in the adoption and management of annual EU budgets. The Committee suggested that among the matters Members might wish to explore today are the Government’s view of the individual budgetary upratings suggested by the Commission; whether they see any difficulties in the implementing proposals that the Commission presents; what the financial implications for the UK are likely to be prior to Brexit; and what post-Brexit financial liabilities there might be for the UK as a result of these proposals.
The Committee recognised that the remaining two documents were relevant primarily to the negotiation of the 2017 EU general budget. Given that the Commission had also linked them to the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework, we recommended that they be included in this debate.
The Chair
I now call the Minister to make an opening statement. I remind the Committee that, as in the House, no interventions are allowed during the Minister’s statement, but there will be opportunities for questions following the statement.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Obviously the debate takes place within the context of the decision made by the British people to leave the European Union. The Government are clear that until the UK leaves the EU, it remains a full member and is subject to the same rights and responsibilities as other member states. This includes paying into the budget, participating in budgetary discussions and ensuring the best possible deal for UK and European taxpayers.
The Commission’s original proposals for the mid-term review were published in mid-September. The initial proposals involved some top-ups of more commitments for certain priorities and; some proposals for increasing the capacity of special instruments, and it recommended a new special instrument to be funded by so-called decommitments. It also recommended removing the cap on underspends that can be rolled over the future years.
The global ceilings for commitments and payments were maintained at the levels previously agreed in 2013 in the face of calls by the European Parliament to revise them. On the basis of no proposed changes to the MFF deal agreed in 2013, we, as part of the Council, began discussions on the substance. Since the Commission’s initial documents, the presidency has been progressing compromise proposals very quickly to expedite a deal. It has done an impressive job of addressing concerns, and we have worked hard with other member states to ensure the proposals are fully consistent with our central principle of budgetary restraint.
The proposals that went to the General Affairs Council on 15 November were even more limited in scope than the original proposals. For example, top-ups or spending increases to lower priority budget headings have now been financed largely through reallocations instead of using unallocated margins. The proposals for increasing special instruments capacity have been reduced from around €4 billion to €150 million per annum, with increases in just two special instruments. The new special instrument has been dropped. Caps on underspends that can be carried forward have been raised only marginally. Some ability to reshuffle funds between special instruments has been retained.
The proposals continue to maintain the global ceilings at their previously agreed levels, again meeting our clear priority, but they also now deliver the type of sensible flexibility that the Government have long argued for. Allowing underspends to be recycled and money to be moved more easily between years and headings will ensure that the Commission can be responsive to unforeseen events without consistently having to request further funds from member states. That is to be welcomed. We have ensured that the degree of financial exposure we signed up to for the MFF period of 2014-20 is unchanged from the original 2013 deal. On that basis the Government are content to allow the mid-term review to pass.
Alongside the mid-term review, the Commission also proposed a review of the financial regulations, which is a set of proposals to simplify financial rules governing EU expenditure. The proposals for the financial regulation review will be progressed to a slower timeframe than the main mid-term review discussions, and the Government support the high-level aims, which are: first, to simplify the rules governing EU expenditure; secondly, to increase its focus on delivering value for money; and thirdly, to allow it to respond flexibly to new priorities. As negotiations progress, the UK will continue to work with others to ensure that the focus remains on sound financial management of the EU budget.
I hope the Committee will pass today’s motion, which gives the Government a mandate to continue to work with like-minded member states in maintaining an overall mid-term review deal that delivers the Government’s priorities of allowing flexibility to respond to new priorities while continuing the overall MFF ceilings.
Documents linking the mid-term review and the 2017 annual budget are also referenced in the motion. The annual budget has already been scrutinised by the Committees of both Houses and I recently welcomed the opportunity to discuss those proposals with hon. Members in Committee. I can confirm that in mid-November we worked hard with like-minded member states in the European Council to advocate a sensible deal for taxpayers on the 2017 annual budget. Our hard work resulted in a budget for next year that is in line with the seven-year deal signed in 2013 and 6% lower than the annual budget deal for 2016.
Again, I hope the Committee will continue to support our overall approach to these matters of working with other like-minded member states to ensure budgetary restraint while we remain members of the European Union.
The Chair
We now move to questions, which we have until 10 am to consider. I remind Members that questions should be brief and that this time is for questions; there is an opportunity for debate when we have finished questions.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson, and indeed to serve opposite the Minister, in my first European Committee. I have a few brief questions. I will put the first three together, because they are all on a similar theme, and it will give the Minister adequate time to respond.
First, as the Minister has said, revised proposals were put forward at the European Council meeting of 15 November. However, as far as I am aware, full details of the revised proposals are not publicly available. Can he outline exactly what has been removed from or revised in the documents, other than that which he has referred to already? Indeed, does he have a date by which the revised proposals will be available?
Secondly, as far as I am aware, the proposals include a doubling of funds for the flexibility instrument and emergency aid reserve, and a new EU crisis reserve. However, the Minister has stated that there will be no new special instruments. Will the crisis reserve fund therefore not go ahead, and, if not, how does the Commission plan to deal with any unforeseen needs in the next four years?
Lastly in this suite of questions, the Minister’s letter to the European Scrutiny Committee said that the commitments proposals for special instruments have been reduced from €3.4 billion to €129 million per annum. Clearly, that is a colossal change of direction, not a minor tweak, so can he confirm exactly what funding will be allocated to which special instruments?
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, and I welcome her to her first debate in a European Committee; I confess that this is not my first. It is good to see her in her place.
First, the hon. Lady asked how the proposals have changed since the initial Commission documents. I refer her back to the points I outlined in my opening remarks, but let me be clear: to begin with, top-ups or spending increases to lower priority budget headings have now been financed largely with reallocations, instead of using unallocated margins. We obviously welcome that. Secondly, the proposals for increasing special instruments capacity have been reduced from around €4 billion to €150 million per annum, with increases in just two special instruments. The new special instrument has been dropped, and I will come back to that in a moment. Caps on underspends that can be carried forward have only been raised marginally. Some ability to reshuffle funds between special instruments has been retained.
I will make two observations in respect of where we have got to following the work undertaken by the presidency on these proposals. First, from the perspective of a member state advocating budgetary restraint, this is clearly a move in the right direction. I have attended the negotiations on annual budgets for the past three years, and the dynamic is striking: the Parliament generally calls for a relaxation of controls; the Council of Ministers, although it contains a range of views, generally takes a more budgetary disciplinarian approach; and the Commission tries to broker a position. It is clear that the presidency proposals supported our view pretty strongly.
Secondly, as I said earlier, we believe that there should be greater scope for flexibility to respond to particular needs. In that context, it is better that that is funded by reallocations as much as possible; it should not come back to member states for more money. Again, we welcome the approach that has been set out. The crisis fund has been dropped because of a consensus that it is not required.
The hon. Lady’s third question was about special instruments. No changes have been made to the MFF ceilings. Proposals for placing special instrument repayments above ceilings were dropped early on. The emergency aid reserve increase was reduced from €220 million to €20 million per annum. The flex instrument increase was reduced from €530 million to €130 million per annum, and, as I say, the crisis reserve was dropped.
The hon. Lady asked when the full details would be released. I have outlined the main important areas, and it is now a question of reaching a conclusion on the mid-term review. I am not sure that I can update her about the date at this point.
Rebecca Long Bailey
In the written statement on 18 November, the Government confirmed that the UK had in fact abstained on the revised MFF proposals. Given that the documents before us would increase spending on great projects such as the youth employment initiative and Horizon 2020, can the Minister explain the rationale for abstaining and the reasons for the Council’s expediting this matter?
Finally, the documents state that the negotiations for the next MFF will begin next year. The remainder of the current MFF takes us up to 2020, by which time we may have been out of the EU for up to a year, according to the Government’s current timetable. Will the Minister confirm what role the UK will play in negotiating the next MFF? What will happen to our allocation of funding for the remainder of this framework if we have severed ties before 2020?
Mr Gauke
On the mid-term review, as I have explained, the current proposal ensures that the payment ceilings that we signed up to over this seven-year deal are preserved. Therefore, we would not be looking to oppose the proposed mid-term review. The proposals are essentially neutral, with respect to what we would expect to pay over the MFF period, but we recognise that some commitments and functioning are likely to outlast our membership. On that basis, we took the view that the most appropriate approach for us to take is to abstain. We think that is the most constructive approach in the circumstances.
The hon. Lady asked what our approach to the future MFF will be. She may be familiar with the answer. This will play into our negotiations for Brexit. In those circumstances, the point at which the negotiations will start for the next MFF will be in 2018. We can assume that we will be in the middle of Brexit negotiations at that point, and our role in the next MFF will also be discussed in those negotiations; I think that the two are linked.
On the hon. Lady’s point about why the mid-term review was expedited, the presidency was keen to make progress and show that the budget proposals could be delivered quickly. That is something we welcome. Sometimes these matters can drag on for some time, but where it is possible to make quicker progress, we should do so. I hope that that is helpful.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I am pleased to serve under your direction, Mr Hanson. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) has covered a lot of ground that I would have reservations on, but I agree with the specific issues relating to the 2017 budget.
First, can the Minister confirm that the UK abstained on the reconciliation discussions between the Council and Parliament, and can he justify that? It seems that has a direct relationship to spending next year. Secondly, in the reallocation of funds that led to the increase in spending for next year on immigration and immigration security, how did that impact on previous plans to spend on development and development aid within the budget? Thirdly, given the significant funds that are allocated and the increase in funds that will be allocated for pensions and remunerations to former commissioners, is the Minister satisfied with the rules of conduct governing former commissioners in taking paid remuneration after they leave the Commission?
Mr Gauke
First, on why we abstained on the annual budget, it is fair to say that the budget deal has a healthy payments margin of €9.8 billion—over €7 billion more than last year—and we welcomed that. We still believe that the EU could go further to cut lower priority spending from the budget. However, progress has been made, and the UK recognises that by not voting against the budget. We very often voted against the budget in the past because we felt that not enough had been done to deal with wasteful spending and that better value for money could be obtained for the European taxpayer. However, given that the payment margins were healthy this year, we decided not to vote against. More could have been done, but, in the circumstances, we decided to abstain.
On the reallocation of immigration expenditure, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the spending on aid was not impacted by increases in internal security. In fact, both have been enhanced.
Pensions remuneration is not a matter for budget discussions; it is a matter for the rules that the Commission applies to itself, so there were no particular discussions on that point. The UK and other member states have pointed out that the European Commission’s administration costs are higher than we would like. Indeed, there has been an increase in recent years, particularly in administration costs, although that has largely been put down to increased security costs, given recent events. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised was not part of our discussions.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The EU vanity project, Galileo, has massively overspent, not because of need but because of technical and budgeting incompetence. Will the Minister tell us how much extra that has cost the British Exchequer and what that extra expenditure has done to the original cost-benefit analysis of Galileo? Will he also tell us what action the Government took to try to keep that project within budget? If he is unable to answer now—I would not be totally surprised—will he write to Committee members with his response?
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has anticipated what I will say, which is that I will write to him with details. I will check, but as far as I understand it, the delays on Galileo have led to fewer commitments in this multiannual financial framework, rather than an increase. Of course, what has happened to the overall project costs is another matter, but my understanding is that it has led to fewer commitments over this period—I caveat that by saying that I will confirm it.
Graham Stringer
Finally, it is all very well looking at these budgets with under-expenditures, over-expenditures and changes in the budget, but will the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking, while we are still a member of the EU, to ensure that the EU has signed, audited accounts for all this money?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman takes me into the territory of another of the regular annual debates that we have in this room, or sometimes in the Chamber, on signing off EU accounts. Fraud and error levels fell again this year but are still too high and the issue that he raises continues to apply. We take the financial management of the EU budget very seriously. Taxpayers need to have confidence that their funds are being effectively managed and implemented at EU level. The Government have been robust in holding the Commission to account, including by regularly taking a strong public stand in voting against signing off the accounts. We continue to place pressure on the Commission to improve. We debate the issue regularly, and I look forward to the next time we do—I cannot remember exactly when that will be, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be there and will be able to make his points again on that.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I thank Members for being very disciplined in asking questions and not straying into debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 12183/16 and Addendum 1, a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Mid-Term Review/Revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020: An EU budget focused on results (and Commission Staff Working Document); No. 12184/16, a Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014-2020; No. 12185/16, a Proposal for an amendment of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management; No. 12186/16, a Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision (EU) 2015/435 on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin; No. 12187/16 and Addenda 1 to 2, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2012/2002, Regulations (EU) No. 1296/2013, (EU) No.1301/2013, (EU) No. 1303/2013, EU No. 1304/2013, (EU) No. 1305/2013, (EU) No.1306/2013, (EU) No. 1307/2013, (EU) No. 1308/2013, (EU) No. 1309/2013, (EU) No.1316/2013, (EU) No. 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, (EU) No. 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No. 541/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council; No. 13147/16, Amending Letter No. 1 to the Draft General Budget 2017; No. 13377/16, a Proposed Decision on the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin in 2017; supports the Government’s efforts to work with other Member States to ensure budget discipline on proposals; welcomes the fact that the Mid-Term Review proposals respect the core commitments and payments ceilings agreed in 2013; further welcomes the additional flexibility proposed within the budget to increase the agility of the budget to respond to unforeseen events.—(Mr Gauke.)
Rebecca Long Bailey
As we have already discussed, we are here to debate the proposed changes to the current multiannual financial framework. As I am sure we all know, the framework was adopted in December 2014 and allows the European Union to spend up to €960 billion or 1% of EU GNI in commitments and €908 billion or 0.95% of EU GNI in payments between 2014 and 2020.
The framework divides EU spending into five broad categories: smart and inclusive growth, representing 47% of commitments; sustainable growth and natural resources, representing 39%; security and citizenship, which represents 2%; and global Europe and administration, both 6% of the total budget. As we know, it was agreed that the Commission would review the framework by the end of 2016. The documents before us lay out the Commission’s conclusions and proposals for revision as a result of that review. The Commission’s assessment was that the MFF has proven flexible in its ability to respond to unforeseen challenges, such as the refugee crisis, but it acknowledged that greater tools may be needed to ensure flexibility for the remainder of this framework and to redirect funds into priority areas. The Commission therefore suggested in the documents a package of financial proposals, which would total £11 billion of additional funding in 2017 to 2020, while still staying within the agreed 2014 spending ceilings. The additional funding would be found by reallocation from other areas. In addition to that financial package, the Commission proposed substantial changes to the financial regulation of EU funds.
The proposals would provide greater funding for really important initiatives, such as the youth employment initiative, and €400 million for Horizon 2020, which the Opposition wholeheartedly support. They would also increase the EU’s ability to respond to unforeseen crises by doubling funding for the flexibility instrument and emergency aid reserve, and by creating a new European Union crisis reserve.
The proposals are all well and good, but as we know they have since been superseded by an agreement made at the Council on 15 November. This agreement appears to contain significant changes to the proposals. As we have heard, however, the new proposals are unavailable for public scrutiny, and the Minister is unable to provide a date. I am concerned—as I am sure other hon. Members are—that there seems to be little merit in scrutinising the documents when we do not know which parts of them are still relevant and which elements have been discarded. We have only the points that the Minister made. His letter suggests that the current proposal is considerably more limited in scope than what is presented in these documents.
As the 19th report of the European Scrutiny Committee outlines, the commitment proposals for special instruments have been reduced from around €4 billion to €150 million a year, and there are no new special instruments. That is a substantial change. I appreciate that it is not entirely the Minister’s fault, and I note that he said the process moved faster than expected.
Turning to a wider issue with the multiannual financial framework, as I briefly mentioned earlier, we are discussing EU funding until 2020, by which time we will have left the European Union. The Government have so far given no guidance on whether we will still receive our allocation of the funding once we have severed ties or whether they will make up the shortfall if we do not. Regions across the country need confirmation now about whether the funding on which they rely will be available as planned until 2020, and about what plans will be in place to support them when EU funding ceases.
It is also important to know whether we will have any influence or place in the agreement of the next framework, which is due to begin next year. What happens, for example, if our eventual deal includes paying into the EU, as was alluded to in the media over the weekend, without having a say in how EU funds are allocated? I am concerned that the Government have not indicated a long-term strategy for the Brexit negotiations, or for mitigating the negative effects when we leave. Therefore, they have a lot of work to do to convince me and my constituents that that is not the case. However, I am glad that they will make a start today by accepting Labour’s Opposition motion, which will be debated on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
In conclusion, the Opposition will not oppose the motion before the Committee, but I want to put on the record our concern that the Government have agreed to revised proposals for the MFF before due scrutiny by the House was possible.
George Kerevan
I will be reasonably brief. I want to put on the record my growing concern about the abstentionism that the Government are pursuing at an EU level when it comes to making decisions. I understand the logic that if we are proposing to leave an institution, it is slightly invidious to remain part of the decision-making process. On the other hand, it is highly unclear at what point we will exit the European Union, if indeed we do exit. It is more than likely that there will be significant legacy payments and that they will be influenced heavily over the next two of three years, particularly if the global economic situation worsens. If there is a rise in interest rates, that will trigger all sorts of shifts in budget allocations. It just seems premature, even from the Government’s point of view, to abstain on a lot of the budgetary negotiations.
I feel slightly conflicted in saying that, because the UK Government’s abstention from the reconciliation process between the Council and the European Parliament over the last few weeks has actually led to the Parliament being able to increase commitments quite significantly and in a positive direction, particularly when it comes to investment in growth and jobs. Given that the EU budget is 2% of European GDP, it is a significant lever when it comes to improving economic growth, and I think the 2017 budget will actually be quite beneficial in improving the economic picture in the EU. As the Government and the Brexiteers always remind us, the EU remains our most significant market. We therefore have a role to play in boosting economic growth across the entire Union. Again, I ask the Government to think carefully about which budget discussions it decides to abstain from, because abstention from such discussions does not mean that the UK will not at some point have to pick up the tab.
I remain slightly worried about some aspects of the 2017 budget, as I intimated in my question. It seems to me—I say this as a convinced European—that there is a sad track record of well-paid senior Commissioners leaving the institution and quickly taking up jobs in the banking sector, pocketing large pensions to boot. Questions need to be asked about some of the budget lines. The Minister is perfectly correct to point out that we should scrutinise the budget carefully for value for money, but there are still some aspects of the way money is spent that we could worry about.
In conclusion, I will not oppose the motion, but I suggest that the Government should think carefully. There is a long way to go before the Brexit negotiations are finished. We remain a member of the European Union, and we should play our part in discussions about budgets.
Mr Gauke
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for selecting these documents for debate, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions to our discussion. EU budget negotiations are a challenging process. That said, I am pleased to say that the proposals we have discussed are fully consistent with the multiannual financial framework and provide flexibility, which the Government welcome, to ensure that the Commission can deal with unforeseen needs and does not have to call on member states for additional contributions.
Let me briefly pick up some of the points that have been raised. I will not go into a full discussion of Brexit, which the House will have an opportunity to debate this afternoon, but let me make a point in response to the hon. Member for East Lothian. Given the referendum result, the context in which the UK is operating in the EU is clearly different. However, we continue to play an active part in EU business and have made that clear to other member states.
The Chancellor said in August that the UK
“will continue to have all of the rights, obligations and benefits that membership brings…up until the point we leave the EU.”
That includes seeking to secure maximum budgetary restraint and working alongside like-minded member states in the European Council to avoid higher than necessary cost to the UK and ensure maximum value for money in EU spending. Abstaining from budget votes is not unusual for the UK—we did so before the referendum as well. Were our interests threatened, we would be prepared to vote against and indeed block an agreement, but in this case our interests were not threatened. I attended the discussions on this issue last month, and that underlined the fact that the UK continues to participate fully in such debates.
As I have said, while the UK remains in the EU, we will continue to champion the need for an efficient EU budget that provides good value for the UK and European taxpayer, and press firmly to ensure fiscal discipline by restraining the budget to deliver the MFF deal. In so doing, we will work with like-minded allies to deliver the best possible EU budget deals within the parameters of the negotiations. We will of course keep members of the European Scrutiny Committee updated as appropriate, and I welcome their continued interest in this important issue. I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.