Youth Employment

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

They have improved dramatically, which is thanks largely to the Welsh Assembly Government and very little to the Government in Westminster—if we are going to get partisan.

There have been some important contributions to the debate. It is an enormous shame that we have lost the Minister who was here at the beginning. I gather he has gone off to Downing street, and we will discover later whether he has been promoted as much as he would like, but I wish him well. I say gently to the Government that it is naughty not only to shift responsibility for answering the debate, which was originally intended for the DWP, to another Department, but then, when we are three quarters of the way through, to hoik the Minister off to get some new employment—taking him out of a debate on those affected by youth unemployment when he does not look old enough to be out of that category. I have not even mentioned the Minister who is about to reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).

[Chloe Smith]

On that point, I will spare the Minister’s blushes by saying that we all think young people should be in Government positions. However, I should also note that Backbench Business Committee officials asked me which Ministry I would prefer to respond to the debate, and I said it would be helpful for a Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply, because the debate is about employment, not unemployment.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the Minister for Employment is in the Department for Work and Pensions. Be that as it may, let us get on to the matter in hand.

The truth is that the economy is improving and Opposition Members are as delighted about that as Government Members. I say that because many Opposition Members represent seats where what this country has suffered economically over the past few years is felt even more aggressively and painfully than it is in seats represented by Government Members. I know there are pockets of deprivation in every constituency in the land, but the honest truth is that many Opposition Members deal weekly and daily with multiple levels of deprivation, some historical and some new, so we know the pain. We are therefore delighted that the economy is improving, although I sometimes feel quite angry, and I think my constituents do too, when the Government seem complacent about the situation we are in.

The truth of the matter is that we still have the highest ever number of people in part-time employment who would like to be in full-time employment, many of them women. That is a significant challenge, because the issue then is how people in work pay the bills. Under this Government, for the first time ever the problem is that the majority of those living in poverty are people in work. That must be a cause of shame for all of us. Youth unemployment is still stubbornly high. I fully accept that the numbers have fallen, and they have fallen in my constituency. However, they reached an absolute peak last September, and there is still a considerable way to go. I will talk about that a little more later.

I am glad that we have a flexible labour market, but I often worry that the flexibility is all on the part of those who are employed, and that the employer can sometimes exploit that to such a degree that there is unfairness in the market. That means that whether someone is on a zero-hours contract without wanting to be, or is on an exclusive zero-hours contract, or does not have enough hours because the number they are given depends entirely on whether they get on with the boss rather than on a contract, their working conditions will be kept pretty miserable—let alone the problems of low pay.

At the moment some 853,000 young people aged 24 or under are unemployed. Although the figures have fallen, the ratio of young unemployed people to adult unemployed people is considerably higher in this country than for all our competitors. In the UK there are 3.6 young unemployed people for every unemployed adult; in the EU as a whole there are 2.4 and in Germany just 1.6 unemployed young people to every unemployed adult. Many hon. Members cite Spain and Greece, where youth unemployment is high, but we should not underestimate the problem in this country.

As several of my hon. Friends have mentioned—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) who chairs the all-party group on youth unemployment—the recession in the UK has hit the young hardest. All the economic statistics show that they have had a harder time of it than anyone else, and today, although I do not suppose that anyone will notice because the great reshuffle will obscure it all, prices are still rising 2.5 times faster than wages. That has a dramatic effect on people who are on low wages, because they spend a far higher percentage of their wages on the basics of life such as eating and heating. In the past five years, the employment rate has fallen faster among 20-year-olds than any other age group. Real pay has also fallen fastest for the young. We must factor in housing costs and the state of the housing market. They were part of the problem in Spain and Greece: the housing market fell apart, contributing to high youth unemployment. Because of the cost of housing, young people have problems with personal social mobility and moving from parts of the country with no employment to places where there is employment.

We should never forget how those things affect people, including their long-term health. A young person who has been out of work for more than six months is twice as likely as anyone else to be taking antidepressants, and anyone who is out of work for six months or longer is six times more likely to have a mental health problem of some kind, which might make it difficult for them to get back into the labour market. People move further and further from the labour market. One of the most depressing statistics that I saw this year was from the Prince’s Trust Macquarie youth index, which suggested that 750,000 young people in this country said they had nothing to live for.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I made it clear at the outset that the Government are seeking to address a slightly different and very well-defined problem. I do not have the years of experience of working as a lobbyist that the hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating I should have, but it is clear to me that a robust definition of “lobbying” is essential to the integrity of any register. The amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers suggest that they have struggled and ultimately failed to meet the prerequisite for successful lobbying regulation even on their own terms.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister clarify who is included and who is excluded? Can she confirm that in the case of News Corp trying to lobby on the full ownership of BSkyB, none of the senior executives from the company would be included in the register, none of the public affairs people employed full time by the company would be included, the legal company that it used to do much of its lobbying would not be included, and nor, for that matter, would the public affairs company be included, because most of the work that it does is general communications? According to this Bill, nobody would have been included in the register in that instance, which many thought was profoundly corrupt.

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman fails to take into account what this Government have done to ensure that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries are transparent and the reforms made since then to ensure that meetings and contacts with news editors are also reported. Labour did nothing about that in its 13 years. It is time that we did do something, and that is what we are bringing before the Committee. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to withdraw their lead amendment and the others that sit with it.

Amendments 9 and 48 on advice and meeting facilitation would alter the definition of lobbying provided by clause 2 so that it included the facilitation of meetings and provision of advice in relation to lobbying. Let me repeat that the Government have been clear that the register is intended to address a specific problem—that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and permanent secretaries. We want to ensure that that that level of information can be looked at by citizens, not by the Ministers and permanent secretaries themselves, whom I credit with enough wiles and wit to know who they are meeting.

The register is intended further to enhance transparency within the context of this far more open approach to government than has previously existed. The inclusion of the provision of advice in the definition of lobbying will not necessarily assist in the specific task that we are doing in this regard. I acknowledge that the work of many so-called lobbyists includes the provision of advice and the setting up of meetings, but once those meetings take place it is already clear to the public whose interests are being represented. I am therefore not persuaded of the value of extending the definition to the provision of advice, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw these amendments.

Amendments 8 and 27, which deal with in-house lobbying, would amend clause 2 to remove the term

“on behalf of another person”

from the definition of lobbying. I think that that is intended to bring with it the effect that the register be extended to apply to in-house lobbyists in addition to consultant lobbyists. As I have repeatedly reminded the Opposition and the Committee, the steps we have taken to enhance transparency at these previously opaque levels have already revealed the interaction between Ministers and external organisations. We proactively publish details of all Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings. It is therefore difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. It could merely duplicate the information that we already publish. Of course, we do publish that information. Will Opposition Front Benchers confirm in this debate what they have failed to confirm before—whether they would publish their own meetings and diaries? They have consistently failed to meet that challenge, and that is weak.

We have been clear, instead, that the register is intended further to extend the transparency we have introduced by addressing the specific problem in hand. The Opposition have failed to articulate what problem would be addressed by introducing a register of in-house lobbyists. Such a register may have been of use in relation to previous Administrations whose engagement with external organisations was less open, but it is not necessary now. The Canadian system, which does cover in-house lobbyists, costs about £3 million a year to operate. That system was deemed necessary because the Canadians do not publish details of Ministers’ meetings—but, quite simply, we do. As such, we have designed a register and made proposals accordingly. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 52 would amend schedule 1 to remove the de minimis exemption that we included in paragraph 3 to exclude those who undertake only occasional lobbying from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. This is covered in Government amendments that I will deal with later. I acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on this. I assure hon. Members that the Government are keen to listen to the concerns expressed by his Committee and others that the exemption in paragraph 3 would perhaps exclude large multidisciplinary firms. That was never our intention, and our amendment to the paragraph will clarify that. As amended, the exemption would exclude only those who happen to communicate with the Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activities. Multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and lobby in a manner that is not incidental to their other activities will be required to register. I can therefore reassure hon. Members that the amended exemption provides a necessary and appropriate exclusion for those who undertake only incidental lobbying, but it would not be enjoyed by multidisciplinary firms with active and substantive consultant lobbying wings.

Let me turn to a pair of Opposition amendments that are in this group but, intriguingly, were not spoken about—amendments 25 and 26. They would entirely remove the exemption that we have included in paragraph 7 to ensure that the normal activity of altruistic organisations such as charities is excluded from the scope of the Bill. We all know, of course, that the Charities Commission already imposes strict rules governing how charities lobby, and there is also a specific and onerous regime governing charitable status. Despite that, the Opposition want to remove the exemption for bodies such as charities and require them to register. Interestingly, though, they are not seeking to remove the exemption for the normal activity of trade. The Opposition are thus proposing that charities register as professional lobbyists in relation to their normal activity, but that trade unions do not. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.

New clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), closely resembles the proposals made by the various industry representative bodies. I have had some time to look into the detail of such proposals, and I would like to put on record a couple of the issues raised by such an approach. The new clause would redefine “consultant lobbying” such that the activity must take place in the course of business for the purpose of “influencing government” or

“advising others how to influence government”.

Under this definition, a huge number of individuals and organisations would be subject to the provisions relating to the register. Furthermore, the definition expands what is meant by consultant lobbying to include the provision of advice to others seeking to influence Government. I do not understand how the problem under discussion would be solved by requiring the registration of those who advise others—I have already addressed that point. If people are made more effective in communicating their messages, that is a matter for them. Of course, it must be made transparent to everybody who receives those communications who they represent, which is what the Bill seeks to address.

The new clause goes on to provide an exceptionally wide definition of those who would have to register. Anyone who attempts to influence, or provide advice on influencing, every level of government—local, central and devolved, parliamentarians and their staff, and public authorities—would be required to register. This includes those working in a charitable, not-for-profit capacity and those in a voluntary position. The new clause includes a number of exemptions and it would be worthwhile exploring them.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for rising to make that point, which is valuable and is addressed by some of the amendments.

The Bill is straightforward about those who should be covered by our register. I repeat that we are being very specific about the transparency we are seeking to achieve. We regard Ministers and permanent secretaries as the key decision makers. I cannot state that much more simply.

New clause 5 brings to mind some unusual examples that we should consider in terms of public interest. A volunteer playgroup manager would have to register under the new clause if they wrote to their local authority about dog fouling near a church and requesting that it cleans it up. A charity that wants to inspire underprivileged children through sport would have to register in order to ask the mayor for permission to use a playing field. Furthermore, the founder of a small business who wants to write to their MP to complain that their waste collection is substandard would have to register as a lobbyist in order to do so. I do not think that those are good examples.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I must conclude, because there is plenty of work before the Committee tonight.

I have reservations about new clause 5, although I respect the serious work that Members have done with lobbying representatives. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans not to press new clause 5.

Amendment 161, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), would make all lobbying businesses, not just those that lobby on behalf of third parties, liable for registration. As I have said, it is difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Let me turn to the Government amendments in this group. It is clear that they have been spectacularly misunderstood by Labour Front Benchers. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who laughs loudest, claims to care for small businesses but appears not to have read the papers in preparation for this debate.

Amendments 76, 77, 81 to 85, 92 and 96 to 98 are designed to exclude the smallest organisations from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. They do so by amending the definition of consultant lobbying such that it includes only those who are registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has read in great detail.

The Government are committed to ensuring that small businesses are not subject to disproportionate burdens. An exclusion for those small businesses that are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists will ensure that whatever burden may be associated with registration will not be placed on them. The VAT registration represents a clear threshold.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

The purpose of the Bill has been well explained in the debate on the allocation of time motion and on Second Reading. Clause 1 simply removes male bias primogeniture in the succession to the throne.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not present to move the amendment that he tabled to clause 1. I think that is because when the Speaker announced the amendments that had been selected, he referred only to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to the allocation of time motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to be able to spend a little more time on this stand part debate than on the first; it is clear that the majority of this afternoon’s debate has focused on clause 2.

Clause 2 provides for a major change to the laws of succession to the Crown agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Perth in 2011. It removes the bar on anyone who marries a Roman Catholic from becoming monarch; that is the purpose of subsection (1). Subsection (2) applies the change retrospectively to anyone who is currently in the line of succession. That means that people who have lost their place in the line of succession because of their marriage to a Roman Catholic will regain their place. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), I should say that that will not affect anybody who is particularly high up in the line of succession.

Some have suggested that the change could bring into question the position of the established Church of England. We have discussed that issue extensively on Second Reading and in Committee. I give again my full reassurance that the change has no implications for the position of the established Church or for the monarch as the head of the Church of England, because there are no changes to the part of the Act of Settlement that requires the monarch to be a Protestant. I note the interest of some in the Chamber in that point and I re-emphasise it here in Committee. All the clause will do is remove a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic. As I said, it is worth remembering that there is no bar on the heir to the throne marrying anybody else.

[Chris Bryant]

I want to clarify the point that I have asked about twice and that no Minister has replied to. Clause 2 says that someone who marries a Roman Catholic can succeed to the Crown, but clause 3 allows the monarch to remove somebody from the succession by refusing to consent to their marriage. As no reason has to be given why consent is not provided, it could be because the person is Roman Catholic, could it not?

[Miss Smith]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question again because there was unfortunately little time to answer it in detail when winding up the Second Reading debate. It might be worth looking back at some precedents. The point about whether, under clause 3, the monarch would be advised by Ministers was also raised on Second Reading. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Bone, if I deal a little with clause 3 in this debate. In 1967, when there was a question about the marriage—in that case, marriage following a divorce—of a member of the royal family, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, devised a formula that ran along these lines: “The Cabinet has advised the Queen to give her consent and Her Majesty has signified her intention to do so.” That provides an insight into how such advice to the monarch might operate. We have had many debates, connected to this topic and more widely in the media, about advice to and from the monarch and the publication of such correspondence, and I will not stray on to that territory now. However, it should be perfectly reasonable and practical to imagine that there would be such advice to the monarch.

The hon. Gentleman asks specifically whether that would include withholding consent to marriage because the person is a Catholic. I will not answer that today because, for a range of reasons, there should be space within such advice with regard to consent. As I explained at the end of Second Reading, it is not unreasonable to have the notion of consent to marriage. After all, we are dealing with those who may become Head of State in due course, so there is a matter of public interest. I hope that that begins to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

Again, I am grateful for the chance to be extremely clear. There are no changes to the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.

[Chris Bryant]

But in addition, the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England. That is very clear in section 3 of the Act of Settlement.

[Miss Smith]

There are many, many sections of the Act of Settlement that we are not dealing with today, and I suspect that that is one of them.

Clause 2 removes a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the throne or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am eternally grateful in so many ways to my hon. Friend. I suppose that an alternative way of expressing the point would be to say that the throne had changed hands five times. I hope that the combination of comments has made things clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).

Let me turn to the common question, asked by several hon. Members, of whether clause 2 knocks out clause 3, as it were. I want to answer it with reference to what I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda. The monarch will act having taken advice from Ministers, who will wish to take account of the public interest. That is a clear expression of my earlier point.

If, as I hope, the Bill passes, clause 2 will stand and Ministers will need to have regard to it if they consider a situation under clause 3.

[Chris Bryant]

What happens if, for instance, the monarch disagrees with Ministers and Parliament disagrees with Ministers or the monarch—if it takes one side or the other? There is no means of determining a proper reason for coming to the decision, and now the Minister has added yet another category, which is that No. 7 and No. 8 in the line of succession have to be careful. This is just a mess.

[Miss Smith]

The legislation is clear. The sovereign’s consent is required. The 1772 Act, as the hon. Gentleman identified, had a role for Parliament. Clause 3 repeals that Act and replaces it with provisions under which the sovereign’s consent is required. Clause 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) explains how that occurs.

I will be happy to come back to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) with further details about how data are handled under those three categories; as he well knows, there is a greater debate to be had.

I want to reiterate and clarify my points about Nos. 7 and 8 in the line of succession. I simply note that the line of succession is such that, without being blunt about it, people pass away. Nos. 7 and 8 ought to be able to expect that such situations change; that is the only comment I make. It is therefore clear that a certain amount of pragmatism should go into that situation.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure what “being careful” means. Nowhere in the Bill is a valid reason given for not giving consent. For instance, would marrying a drug baron be a reason for not giving consent? I raise that because that was the case in the Netherlands, and it was one reason why consent was denied. But it was denied by Parliament, because that is the Dutch system, which is much more sensible. Would it be legitimate to refuse consent on the basis of there being a same-sex marriage?

[Miss Smith]

I shall be happy to come in a second to the provisions on civil partnership and same-sex marriage.

On the use of caution, I simply reiterate the point that I have made several times in the course of the debate—that we are talking about human beings and, on the whole, a limited family. It is not beyond the bounds of reason for members of that family to act with regard to the legislation that we are passing. I will leave it at that, as Mr Bone would of course stop me if I went further into matters that are outwith the scope of this Bill. There is a need for Parliament to select a number, and I have explained why six is appropriate. I have also attempted to deal with what happens to members in the line of succession who might be close to becoming No. 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

As I said, I think it is best to acknowledge the challenges in that co-ordination process, and my hon. Friend makes clear some of the complexity involved. As I said, we are working with those realms to ensure smooth application of the legislation, and I look forward to keeping the House updated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I want to ask the Minister about the provisions relating to the Treason Act 1351. I presume that one reason why different legislatures around the world might come to slightly different legislative answers, yet still give the same assent, is that they have different provisions on the law of treason, whereas we still have the 1351 Act on the statute book. Why has the Minister insisted on including paragraph 1(b) in the schedule?

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me into matters that have been the subject of public controversy in relatively recent years. The important point, as he suggested, is that the realms to which the Bill will apply have other relevant legislation and customs. For example, one of the many reasons why we are not discussing hereditary peerages today is that they are not a uniform matter across all the realms. There are other reasons, but you will be pleased to know that I shall not reopen the debate, Mr Evans. I confirm that we are working with all the other realms to ensure that the relevant legislation is amended appropriately.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I wish my hon. Friend luck in that last endeavour. I thank him for his comments, which demonstrate the breadth of views that have been expressed this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex asked whether the legislation would make it more likely that we will have a Catholic monarch. No, it does not. It makes it more likely that the heir to the throne may marry a Catholic—that is what the legislation does—but the bar remains on the sovereign being a Roman Catholic. There is no more need for a constitutional crisis now than there was before, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.

I should like to deal with the point that has been raised a couple of times about, shall we say, the human misery of having to choose between one’s faith and the throne. Let us not forget that there is a particular piece of misery already available under the existing constitutional arrangements, which is not being able to marry the person you love. It is important to note that that is already available to anyone who wishes that particular form of difficulty. It is evident to everyone in the country that the huge public popularity of the wedding of certain members of the family in recent years shows that members of a modern monarchy do and can marry for love, and we ought to consider that as we discuss the tensions that that family may feel.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

I am terribly sorry. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of chances to speak, and doubtless there will be more in Committee.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) wondered whether a female heir would be styled “the Princess of Wales”. The granting of royal titles is a matter for the sovereign, and it is not within the scope of the Bill. He made various points about the Duchy of Cornwall not passing to a female heir. Again, as a matter of title, that is a matter for the sovereign. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) to discuss the points that they made.

I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He began by raising something that is touched on in amendments which have not been selected for debate: the issue of two daughters and the clarity of succession. We are confident that it is clear, having regard to the succession to the Crown in 1952, that when a monarch dies the eldest daughter, if there are two, would succeed. We believe that there is no need to make statutory provision to address that. I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend made about the Counsellors of State, who are the spouse of the monarch and the next four individuals in the line of succession, except where they are disqualified by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I thank my hon. Friend for the breadth of ground covered by his other points; we may have a chance to return to that.

Turning to retrospective measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested that clause 2 ought not to apply retrospectively. We are dealing with the need to respect realistic changes to the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, so there are differences in what clauses 1 and 2 do. We may come on to that in Committee. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) argued that in this day and age there was no need for anyone to seek the sovereign’s consent to marry. I remind him that it may well be in the public interest that consent should be given for the marriage of someone who may become our Head of State. Other European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, require such consent.

Other points raised included whether the requirement of consent to the first six in line to the throne ought to apply to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. One factual answer is that the line of succession in recent history has rarely gone beyond six. A more amusing answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, if he will allow me, is that his ambition is not high enough if he does not aim to become Father of the House in 200 or 300 years’ time to be here to see that problem repeat itself should all the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II be allowed—

Remuneration of EU Staff

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for an interesting and consensual exchange of views. The British Parliament has clearly said today that it believes that the Commission’s proposals to increase EU staff pay are unacceptable, and that they serve only to demonstrate how out of touch the institution is with the domestic challenges that we face. This shows how important it is to act in our national interest, financially and politically.

I shall do my best to respond to the questions that have been raised in the debate. If I leave out any details, I shall attempt to furnish colleagues with that information in other ways if they so wish. I shall respond first to some of the political points that have been made. It was suggested that the Prime Minister’s actions in looking after our national financial interests could have left the UK isolated in Europe, but it is clear to most Members that he has stood up for the UK’s national interests. Indeed, even President Sarkozy said last week at the Anglo-French summit that he might have acted in the same way. In contrast, the former Prime Minister gave up a large slice of our rebate, leaving us £2 billion a year worse off, as has been ably pointed out.

Several hon. Members have asked what action the Government will take to deliver on our tough stance. In the ongoing review of the staff regulations, we are seeking to deliver savings in a number of ways: first, by cutting the package of allowances for EU staff, especially the 16% expatriation allowance; secondly, by improving the affordability of EU pensions, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) will be pleased to hear; and thirdly, by adjusting the system for EU staff pay so that we can avoid higher pay in future. That adjustment involves a complicated method with which some colleagues will be familiar.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister has just nodded towards the hon. Member with the wonderful tie, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley)—

[Chris Bryant]

I think that his tie and mine are from the same shop. In fact, I know they are. The hon. Gentleman read out a long list of places where he thought there should be either no representation or minimal representation, including Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea has a high level of representation because it has the second largest rain forest in the world, and it is essential to climate change work. If the EU is to perform its work effectively, it needs representation there, and I hope that the Minister will not succumb to easy attacks.

[Miss Smith]

Nor will I succumb to interventions that could take us far beyond the scope of today’s debate. I know, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be particularly pleased to hear that the lobby that we have put in place to give effect to our tough stance has already had an effect. For example, the Commission, having been put under pressure, is preparing to reduce European Union staff levels by 5% between 2014 and 2020.

Returning to the actions taken in the past year to deliver the agenda for EU administrative spending, and to what we are doing on staff regulations reform, I can tell the House that the UK has been a signatory to two joint letters calling on the Commission to deliver “significant” savings in EU administrative spending over the next multi-annual financial framework. One was signed by 17 member states, and it represents a strong blocking minority, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—who has moved from his place—will be happy to note. He will be pleased to know that we intend to hold that strong blocking minority together as we press for more specific changes to the way in which the EU institutions work.

I refer hon. Members to two more letters, one of which is dated 20 February 2012 and deals with a plan for growth in Europe. It has been signed by 12 European Union leaders, and it talks about the effort that we must all make to put our national and international finances on a sustainable footing. In the second, dated 18 December 2010, our Prime Minister and those of four other countries state that the challenge to the European Union is not to spend more but to spend better.

A number of questions were asked about the cost of court cases. The costs of the 2009 court case were met from existing Council budgets, as per normal standards. However, it is clearly not ideal to deal with these matters through court cases. Clearly we need to seek deeper reform, and that is what we are endeavouring to do. I was asked whether we should distinguish between high and low-earning EU staff. Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about this today, notably in respect of the judiciary. EU officials fall into the category of highly paid officials, and we therefore think that they are a legitimate target for key financial savings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked whether the Government were taking a blocking minority on the 2010 EU budget discharge. I am afraid he is still not in his place to hear my answer, but I shall be happy to discuss it with him later. At ECOFIN today, the UK voted against that; it was not, in technical terms, a blocking minority.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) asked how the Commission could possibly not invoke this course of action, and said that the economic situation was patently a crisis. I know that he will welcome my agreeing with him on that. There is patently an economic crisis, and highly paid officials cannot be immune from that. I know that he will appreciate being reminded that the Delphic oracle talked about “nothing in excess”. I believe that that applies to EU salaries, and the House has eloquently agreed with me today.

Our debate today sends a clear signal that the Commission must take the challenge of modernising its institutions far more seriously and, most important, it must work harder to deliver efficiency savings in administration. Stopping an unjustified hike in EU staff pay is an obvious and good place to start, and our debate today sends a clear signal that we stand behind the principle outlined in the court case brought against the Commission for refusing to take action on the 2011 salary adjustment. Disputing higher staff pay in 2011 was not only the right thing to do; it also highlighted the fact that the current process is defunct and cannot adapt properly to difficult economic circumstances.