| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): Does the right hon. Gentleman not have a responsibility to his constituents to know something about how European institutions work, and to go to places such as Brussels and find out what is available for the benefit of constituents? Of course I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of Brussels, as he was an MEP for five years. Presumably he travelled a great deal at that time and knows his way around, but many of us who have not been MEPs need to get there so that we can make the case for our constituencies, our regions and our country.
Mr. Forth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not agree that the taxpayer should pay for him to go with a begging bowl to get more taxpayers' money out of Brussels in order to recycle it back to this country. That has never appealed to me, and we should not encourage it.
The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to point out that I have a passing knowledge of such matters. I was an MEP for five years, and I was also a member of the Council of Ministers for nearly nine years. My knowledge leads me to say that I am in no great hurry to returnto those institutions, which I found profoundly unattractive--but that is a debate for another day.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden):
The interesting part of the debate is the degree of misunderstanding of my purpose and that of my right
The Leader of the House expressed another misunderstanding, which I have corrected in a letter to her. It was based on my comment to her Parliamentary Private Secretary when I was asked why I objected. I said that I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It was not a matter of amour propre or of being consulted. I was concerned for the reputation of the House. The Public Accounts Committee was created in the first instance because of the poor reputation of public service in this country. My concern was to protect the reputation of the House.
There has been a decline in the reputation of this institution in the past few years, for a variety of reasons--alleged misconduct on the part of various Members, and harsher party politics. The criticism of democratic parliamentarians has been reinforced by recent allegations made against Members of the European Parliament. That has undoubtedly led to a loss of public trust in Members of Parliament.
It is vital to the authority of this institution that we maintain the public perception of the integrity of Members of Parliament. It is from that perspective that I address the issue. That integrity and that authority would not be helped by tabloid headlines about freebies over the next few years if, as my right hon. Friend argues, the scheme is misused.
In my view, the comments of the Leader of the House were a touch disingenuous when she spoke about the way in which the motion was first presented to the House. It was presented initially for resolution at the end of business on a Friday. Fortunately, I saw it and objected to it. I thought that the matter ought to be debated so that it would be clear and above board. It was then presented in a mixture of other motions, and was promptly withdrawn when it was seen that my right hon. Friend and I were in the House and were ready to object to it.
The supposedly non-controversial measure, to which my right hon. Friend and I clearly objected, was put up again on Thursday 6 May--the day of the local government elections, when it might have been expected that someone might not be present to object to it. Although I was in east Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend was here and did object to it.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
The right hon. Gentleman lost three Tory seats as a result.
Mr. Davis:
That is an interesting deduction, but not one to which I would subscribe.
The purpose of the measure seems to hinge on the argument that the £250,000 or thereabouts set aside for the scheme as it currently exists has not been used, so we had better find a way of using it. Like my right hon. Friend, I think that if public money is not spent, the proper course is for it to be returned to the taxpayer, not for some other, possibly spurious use to be found for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) asked about the take-up of the scheme. Over the course of seven years, the amount of money spent out of the putative £250,000 has been as low as £29,000 in one year and £33,000 in another. The average take-up has been £44,500 out of budget of £250,000. It has clearly not attracted the interest of the vast majority of hon. Members. That is fine--I have no objection to it--and it is for Members to make their own decision. I am in favour of less spending, but I am perfectly happy for them to visit those institutions to inform themselves of how they work. Before Labour Members intervene, I should say that, unfortunately, I made 100 visits in three years.
Mr. Forth:
But not using the fund.
Mr. Davis:
No; because of my previous duties as a Minister.
There are legitimate purposes for foreign travel. I sit on the Liaison Committee and regularly make judgments on Select Committee travel, and I apply to every one the test of whether it is worth while, and of value to the taxpayer, for a Select Committee to travel to Australia to consider the issue of missing children or whatever issue it may be. No doubt there may be a number of purposes for which it is legitimate for Members to travel, but finding something for Government Back Benchers to do on difficult days is not one of them, and they do not necessarily include visiting capitals that are in the sunshine and near beaches.
My amendment is aimed at making sure that the fund is used for its proper purpose and I have asked the House to amend the motion by adding the words:
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
If the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were passed, would not it achieve the additional purpose of fulfilling the intention of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? It would make the backdating inoperative because, by definition, no one could have made a submission before claiming the appropriate moneys.
Mr. Davis:
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That would be an unintended, but extremely virtuous, outcome of the amendment. Anyone who had not submitted in advance his purpose for making a visit could not claim on the scheme, which is entirely sensible.
The House would be in an odd position if it did not refuse to give out taxpayers' money to a Member of Parliament to subsidise a trip to a foreign country
somewhere in Europe without his saying in advance where he was going, why he was making the visit and what the benefit to the taxpayer was.
Mrs. Beckett:
I have no particular objection to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. If he is suggesting that he thinks that it would make the motion acceptable, I have no quarrel with it.
Mr. Maclean:
That will not make the motion acceptable.
Mr. Davis:
I say to my right hon. Friend that I have to answer for myself; I say to the right hon. Lady that I am not sure what the convention is.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping):
What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?
Mr. Davis:
I shall answer in a second. The Minister is not in opposition; he must get used to sitting on the Treasury Bench, and perhaps I will answer him in my own time. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will earn his salary in due course and will not have to fill my post.
Mr. Forth:
The Minister is worth every penny.
The amendment would make the scheme acceptable. If the Government can accept it, I should be happy to support the case that has been made on the basis that it written into the motion.
Mrs. Beckett:
Perhaps I can provide further clarification for the right hon. Gentleman. The only reason why such a provision was not introduced initially by me is because there was a time, as he may know, when the Fees Office was reluctant to become involved--in any way, shape or form--in undertaking such a role. I understand that that reluctance no longer exists and I am perfectly happy to accept his amendment.
"a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met".
Making a statement of the purpose in advance is a straightforward and reasonable condition to be put on any use of public money.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |