asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether, in view of the federal Government of Switzerland’s calculation that Swiss membership of the European Union would be nine times more expensive than Switzerland’s current bilateral arrangements with the European Union, a similar position applies to the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

My Lords, the House would not expect me to comment on the Swiss Government’s assessment of their situation, but this Government believe that UK membership of the European Union is central to the pursuit of stability, growth and employment, and provides significant benefits for UK business and employment. It is firmly in our national interest, both economically and in a wider political context.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I suppose shows that it is not always wise to share one’s brief with the Foreign Office. First, given that the Swiss and British economies are broadly similar, does the noble Lord agree that, if we take the Swiss Government’s calculations and apply them to our own economy, we would be at least £10 billion per annum better off? Secondly, does he accept that some 70 per cent of Swiss foreign trade is with the single market compared with only 40 per cent for the United Kingdom? Does not that suggest that being out of the European Union is no disadvantage to trade with the single market?

My Lords, the House is likely to be astonished at the suggestion that the Swiss economy is comparable to the fourth largest economy in the world. I have had sight of the report—it is 164 pages long and written in French, so I asked for a synopsis in English. It is not a cost-benefit analysis; it is an analysis of a narrow range of benefits and costs with regard to certain budgetary aspects, but not of the overall issues of membership of the Community. The Government’s position is based on the wider perspective.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, shows that, while he might know something about the cost of Swiss bilateral agreements, he knows precious little about the value to the United Kingdom of our membership of the European Union? Would it not be an act of monumental folly and a total betrayal of our national self-interest to believe that the Swiss bilateral arrangements would be adequate to enable this country to play a full part in formulating legislation to the benefit of this country?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I emphasise the obvious fact that the Government are able to establish the benefits of Europe on a much wider basis than through the comparison suggested by the noble Lord with this very limited cost-benefit exercise by the Swiss. I imagine that this will probably be one of the few occasions when the British economy is compared with that of Switzerland on such a significant matter.

My Lords, is not the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, really like looking at one side of a balance sheet and blinding oneself to the other? It is not a cost-benefit analysis that he is talking about; it is looking at the costs while not looking at the benefits at all. That is a fundamentally misleading way of approaching this whole issue.

My Lords, I am beginning to develop some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He is being attacked on all sides. I emphasise once again that I agree with those remarks. The Swiss perspective of the position is too limited both in its analysis and given the significance of the Swiss economy to make a comparison with the role of the United Kingdom in Europe.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the rather high Swiss figure cited by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is the astronomical level of agricultural prices in Switzerland, which would have to be abandoned if it joined the European Union? Is the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, suggesting that we would be better off if we had the Swiss level of agricultural prices?

My Lords, I am not sure that that question is addressed to me. I agree with the noble Lord that agricultural prices are a very important part of the European Community. We are continuing to bear down as best we can on what is still an inflated budget spent on agriculture.

My Lords, apart from UKIP MEPs’ expenses claims in Strasbourg, does the Minister agree that this has nothing to do with money? The reality is that most people in the EU do not want Switzerland to become a member and most Swiss people do not want to join the EU. Why should anybody disturb this very genial symmetry?

My Lords, the Swiss Government must take some responsibility, because they carried out this analysis, which has given the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the opportunity to air significant issues today.

My Lords, my erstwhile noble friend’s Question is about the economic costs of EU membership, but we have heard so far only of the unsubstantiated, unquantified benefits. What is the harm in quantifying the cost of EU membership so that we can have a rational debate on the benefits to set against it?

My Lords, the Treasury keeps under the closest review all attempts at drawing up cost-benefit analyses of European membership, which all have flaws and are all too limited. But I agree that we should be open and transparent about our proceedings. One dimension of that is, first, that we produce an annual report on our expenditure with regard to Europe—a report was published this very week in those terms—and, secondly, that we intend to extend that by producing an analysis of how EU money is spent in Britain and accounting for it.

My Lords, can my noble friend indicate the cost of putting down useless Questions in this period?

My Lords, that is a question for the House authorities, not for me.

My Lords, in response to the first Question, the Minister spoke of the great economic and political benefits. Would it be useful for us all to know what the great political benefits are so that we can be great supporters of the European Union as well?

My Lords, let me give one illustration. Last year, we were in very severe difficulty with regard to energy supplies; we had a problem with the bottleneck in Brussels and we needed leverage on the Russian Federation. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that that had to be done by action from the European Commission. Action has been taken that has liberalised the market to a certain extent, although not enough, improving our position as far as supplies from the Soviet Union are concerned.