Asked by Lord Spicer To ask Her Majesty’s Government what
estimates they have made of the impact on the eventual financial
settlement with the European Union of those European Union assets
towards which the United Kingdom made a financial contribution and
which at Brexit will remain part of the European Union. The
Minister of State, Department for International...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimates they have
made of the impact on the eventual financial settlement
with the European Union of those European Union assets
towards which the United Kingdom made a financial
contribution and which at Brexit will remain part of the
European Union.
-
The Minister of State, Department for International
Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the treatment of the European Union’s assets will
need to be agreed as part of the negotiations. The
Government are now performing a line-by-line analysis of
our potential commitments. We recognise that the UK has
obligations towards the EU and the EU has obligations
towards the UK.
-
(Con)
My Lords, have we not got it exactly the wrong way round
with Brussels? How on earth are we meant to decide on the
financial matters before we know the more general direction
of what has been proposed?
-
That fits very much with what the Prime Minister said in
her Florence speech on 22 September, when she said that
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We see this
very much as a single negotiation. We want all of the
elements to it agreed—and an important part of that will be
the financial settlement.
-
(Lab)
How can you negotiate on a legal obligation?
-
Forgive me?
-
The Minister said it was a question of negotiation. Surely
the question of the finance is a legal obligation. How can
you negotiate on a legal obligation?
-
There are parts of that which are related to it. We have
said that we want to be fair in the exit and some elements
cover, for example, pensions and liabilities for ongoing
programmes. Indeed, as the Prime Minister set out in her
Florence speech, no country should have pay in more during
the current budget cycle and no country should receive
less. That is a generous way of recognising that we have
obligations, but as part of a wider negotiation.
-
(Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend ’s question, does the
Minister agree that Monsieur Barnier’s position today seems
entirely contradictory to the position he set out in the
negotiating guidelines published in April, which state:
“In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed
until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be
settled separately”?
-
My noble friend has great experience in this area. He draws
my attention to a significant part of the setting out of the
principles which the Prime Minister’s speech of 22 September
chimed with exactly. Some of the comments coming from the
other side do not necessarily recognise that, so it is good
to be reminded of it.
-
(LD)
My Lords, in light of the fact that sterling has fallen yet
again, does the Minister agree that EU denominated
liabilities will increase the greater government uncertainty
and instabilities? Is anyone in control? Is it not time for
the Prime Minister to get a grip?
-
She has a grip. That grip was demonstrated in her Florence
speech, where she set out our negotiating position, which is
very strong and fair. Any settlement would of course be
denominated in euros as the currency—we recognise that—but
that, too, needs to be taken into account as we agree what
the final settlement should be as part of the wider
negotiations.
-
(Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister may well have a grip. That is
good, but some of us are absolutely fed up to the back teeth
of reading, as we did this morning, of two Cabinet Ministers
publishing their attack on a third. This is appalling, and
something up with which she should not put.
-
I think my noble friend would recognise that there can be
full and frank negotiations in Cabinet between colleagues.
-
Noble Lords
Oh!
-
There is no doubt that the entire Cabinet signed off on the
position of the Florence speech, and that remains the
position is pursuing with vigour and
ability in Brussels at present.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, the temptation to follow the noble Lord, , is almost
overwhelming, but on this occasion I will resist, to return
to the main issue of the Question. We in the accept the referendum
result, but we will seek to remove the concept of “no deal”,
which wrecks confidence as far as British business is
concerned. The Minister refers to the fact that other noble
Lords have had experience at the Dispatch Box on Treasury
matters, but they do not last very long, do they?
-
I had the benefit of seeing the faces of the noble Lord’s
colleagues behind him when he was asking that question, which
reminds us that the negotiation is not necessarily easy for
any of us, in any party. Where do the Opposition stand on
free movement and the single market? The only thing they seem
to agree on is that we ought to sign up to whatever is put in
front of us. We are saying no—this is a negotiation and we
have the right to say no.
-
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these matters are
very complicated, that it is very important for the United
Kingdom to get the best deal it can and that in putting a
date in the Bill, the Government are handing negotiating
cards to the other side and making it much more difficult for
them to secure their own objective?
-
I beg to disagree with my noble friend, although I recognise
his immense experience in this area. All that has been
proposed is to make explicit what has been implicit and what
has been set out in the Florence speech and all the way
through the process, ever since Article 50 was triggered.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, we are back to the question of finance. Can the
Minister confirm that over the past 40 years, we have been
huge net contributors to EU funds? Can he also confirm that
we are currently being asked to pay large sums of money to
depart the EU? I wonder if he could get someone from the
Commission to come along and explain to the British
people—who I think would find it difficult to understand—
that the more we pay into the organisation, the more it costs
to get out.
-
The noble Lord is absolutely right in pointing to the fact
that there are assets of the European Union. Those are
highlighted in the consolidated report and account, the
difficulty with which is that it shows assets of £162
billion, but liabilities of £234 billion. In agreeing what
our share of the assets is, we also have to be fair and
recognise that there may be some concomitant responsibility
for some of the liabilities.
-
(PC)
My Lords, further to the point made a moment ago about the
date being written into the Bill, does that not mean that on
that date in March 2019, if all is not agreed at that point,
nothing is agreed, and we would leave without even any
semblance of a security agreement?
-
That is a fact that should be borne in mind by all parties
for the negotiation.
|
