To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Article 122.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union can be used to require them to provide financial assistance to another member state which is “threatened with severe difficulties caused by exceptional circumstances beyond its control”.

Any request for financial support in accordance with Article 122.2 would need to satisfy the specific criteria set out in the treaty and would be considered on its individual merits by the ECOFIN Council, where it would be voted on by qualified majority.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that illegality under the treaties has never bothered the Eurocrats. Will he give a clear guarantee that the United Kingdom will not, willingly or unwillingly, contribute to any bail-out of the member states, including the proposed European monetary fund? Will he also confirm whether any such initiative would require a treaty change or whether it could be done by majority voting?

I do not propose to comment on market speculation about the possibility of a European monetary fund. This is being discussed by the eurozone nations, but the UK is not part of those discussions. However, Article 125 of the treaty is very clear in stating:

“The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of … governments … A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of governments … of another Member State”.

Does the Minister agree that it would be grossly unjust if Britain finished up having to pay for the follies not only of those who joined the monetary union but of those who urged Greece’s membership by bending the rules? Will he give a guarantee that we will not finish up paying for these follies?

I think that the House would join me in encouraging Greece in the actions that it is taking to make the necessary fiscal adjustments to ensure that it is in a position to sustain the credibility of its borrowing and, importantly, to comply with the European growth and stability pact.

Did the Minister notice the defection on Friday of Edward McMillan-Scott, who joined the Liberal Democrats, emphasising over the weekend that there is no difference between the Conservative Benches and UKIP on European matters? Does he agree that the treaty and the ECOFIN mechanism provide a number of interesting options to help countries—Greece has a tiny GNP—for the whole Union? Above all, is he not perturbed and disturbed that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has not dealt with the priority in his party, which is to make sure—

Too long!

The Conservatives should listen just occasionally to these points. Should the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, not make sure that Nigel Farage apologises for his unseemly outburst recently and—

Too long!

Was he not described by another MEP as a lout?

It really is not necessary for me to comment on the statements made by Mr Farage or another member of UKIP in the European Parliament. I do not think that it made any of us feel very proud to be British to hear that sort of language being used in the European Chamber. We know that there are differences between UKIP and the Conservative Party on matters of Europe, but they are no wider than the differences within the Conservative Party. There will be plenty of opportunities in the remaining four and a half minutes for Members on the Conservative Benches to evidence their support for the European Union.

My Lords, given that the Government are borrowing £1 in every £4 that they spend, would it not be better to take a leaf out of Greece’s book rather than to give it advice?

Rather than giving advice, I said that we were pleased to see the steps that Greece is taking. We have already set out clearly in the Fiscal Responsibility Bill the actions necessary to reduce government spending and the deficit as a percentage of PBR to a sustainable level by halving it in less than four years once economic recovery is established. We are committed to waiting until recovery is firmly established, rather than snuffing it out as the Tories would do by premature cutting of public expenditure at a time when the economy cannot bear that cost.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that we should hear from the noble Lord in the corner.

I am sorry to cross the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—we are great friends normally. Does the Minister recall that, when he answered a Written Question from me on this subject, the Answer was an unequivocal no? However, this afternoon he appears to be equivocating about whether we would be required to bail out Greece in any way. Does he agree that, if Greece had not joined the eurozone, it would have been able to tackle the financial problems in the same way as Britain has?

My Lords, I do not think that I equivocated at all. I do not think that I in any way deviated from the Answer that I gave to my noble friend in reply to his Written Question. I am sure that a careful reading of Hansard would prove that to be the case. As far as a hypothetical question is concerned, I do not propose to answer it.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that we have had two from the Benches opposite and I do not think that we have had one from this side.

My noble friend gave a challenge to the Conservative Party a few moments ago. A substantial part of the four and a half minutes has elapsed and no one from the Conservative Benches has risen to say anything positive about the European Union. Does my noble friend draw any conclusions from that?

I would like to allow the full seven and a half minutes. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I acquit him of equivocation? Can he confirm that in his earlier answers he made a statement that would cause us to believe that, should any costs fall on the British taxpayer in respect of the bail-out of Greece, he would forthwith resign?

We are talking about European Union support and I have been very clear in my response about that; I have been very clear in my response about what the treaty says.