To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the justification for the projected increase in the United Kingdom’s net contribution to the European Community Budget to £6.5 billion in 2010-11.

My Lords, the level of UK net contributions to the European Community budget is affected by a range of factors, including the size of the in-year EC annual budgets, the rate of UK economic growth and the level of budget receipts. It is right that the wealthier member states are net contributors to the budget. Our net contribution across the current budget period is predicted to be in line with countries of similar wealth.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. As he will know, the Government strove in vain to rectify the unacceptable regime of the EC, where the contributions to which the noble Lord referred are projected from accounts that cannot be justified, for reasons that were spoken to on 31 March. What are we to do about it—if we are not to walk away—other than apply to the federal court to seek to establish a reformed regime, acceptable to the Court of Auditors, which will give us a statement of assurance on the accounts so that the increases can then be justified?

My Lords, as the noble Lord did last time, when he asked a similar Question, he analyses the problem without producing a particularly constructive or helpful solution to it.

Oh!

My Lords, the House will appreciate that, if such a solution were available, all—or the majority of—European states would follow the strategy. However, the issues are more complex because the problems with accounting in the European budget are largely the fault of expenditure that is partly controlled by the member states; so it will not do to say that the issue relates directly to the European Commission or any other institution. Member states, too, must improve their standards of accountancy and effectiveness, which is exactly what the United Kingdom has been doing.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no great merit in voting for the enlargement of the European Union to take in all those poorer countries of what was central and eastern Europe unless we are prepared to pay some of the costs to help their economies meet the standards of the market economy that they committed to join. On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about the statement of assurance, has my noble friend made any progress on the suggestion that I put to him when this issue was raised a few weeks ago that we might approach the European Commission to see whether we can get a group of statisticians to look at the basis of the statistical sampling on which the statement of assurance is based?

My Lords, as my noble friend would expect, I moved with alacrity after he made that constructive suggestion when we discussed this issue previously. I am pleased to report that officials are meeting next week to take further the issue of the statistical analysis. My noble friend will be generous enough to recognise that this is a small dimension of the larger issue of the European accounts.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is one obvious reason for the increase in our contribution: the surrender by Tony Blair of part of our rebate, which he solemnly promised only two years earlier that he would never give away? Is it not also obvious that that surrender was for nothing? The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, mentioned enlargement, but that had been agreed, had it not, before the surrender by Tony Blair? Is it not an absolute scandal that the extra money raised, in part by the abandonment of our rebate, did not in the main go to the new entrants? Ireland got more per head than Lithuania, Slovakia and Poland.

Yes, my Lords, but is the noble Lord not guilty of straining at a gnat? Is it not the case that in terms of overall public expenditure in Britain by the Government, the rebate is a fractional point of 1 per cent of that? It is a useful stick for those who are root and branch opposed to Europe and its expansion, to which my noble friend alluded a moment ago. It brings us to the largest single market in the world but it is a useful stick for those who are opposed to that expansion to beat the Government with. Nevertheless, it is not real economics.

My Lords, is it not the case that the thesis, “We want our money back”, is demeaning for a country in our position in the world after the G20 and all the commitments that we have entered into? The Conservative Party policy, “We want our money back”, would mean that there would be no EU, which is what the Conservatives are driving at.

My Lords, taken to a logical conclusion, that would undoubtedly be the case, but did the party opposite ever take any of its policies to a logical conclusion? The issue is surely that of course we anticipated that there would be some increase in the size of the European budget to take account of enlargement, but those costs are properly borne not just by us but by the French, by the Germans and by other significant economies in Europe with whom on the whole in other respects we are proud to be aligned.

My Lords, will the Minister accept from these Benches that we support the European project but that we have not viewed with approval the way in which the Government have failed to get a more fundamental reform of the CAP? Can we have an assurance that the Government will continue pressing to reform the CAP on its merits and to demonstrate to members on the Conservative Benches that on balance the EU is very beneficial to the UK?

My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that there have been some improvements with regard to the CAP, but he is right that the reforms that have taken place in Europe fall far short of the ambitions of this country for a significant reform of the CAP which carries all the hallmarks of economies several decades past. The Government stay committed to the position that they intend to strive for reform of the CAP as soon as we can obtain it.

My Lords—

My Lords, we are in the ninth minute. It is time to move on to the Question on chronic pain.