Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
A number of mechanisms could require that, for example, the requirement for a dual majority. A number of possibilities are being discussed at the moment. What I have set out clearly is a very firm principle that we will not find ourselves in a position where we will be dominated by the ECB. That is what we are taking into the negotiations. We take a firmer view even than we are urged to do by the amendment.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not accept that because this is governed by qualified majority voting, even with our best endeavours the reality is that it is not merely likely but it is as certain as we could imagine, given what we hear from the other side of the European Union, that we will be outvoted? To follow on from the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), what guarantee can the Minister give, in the light of the fact that this is so important for the City of London?
Greg Clark
As my hon. Friend knows, the ECB aspect of the regulation requires unanimity, and we regard both aspects of this as reinforcing each other. We have made it plain, as I am doing from the Dispatch Box today, that it is an absolute requirement that we will not be dominated by the ECB. After the Prime Minister goes to the Council he will come back to this House. If he has been able to establish agreement, he will set out what that is, and if not, he will set out why it was not possible.
Let me deal with the second part of my hon. Friend’s amendment, where he draws attention to the need to ensure that the powers of the ECB’s governing council are not delegated to the single supervisory function in a way that is unlawful in terms of the treaties. That is a serious matter. It is vital that the weighty responsibilities that the single supervisory mechanism will discharge are vested in a way that is accepted to be legal. His observation in his amendment that it would ultimately be a matter for the European Court of Justice if there were doubts about the legality of the final arrangements is very constructive and accurate, and I hope that he will accept my assurance that our criteria in evaluating the SSM will be as in his amendment. In other words, they will be: first, that it is lawful—we reserve the right to establish that; secondly, that the integrity of the single market is respected, as I said; and, thirdly, that the UK cannot be discriminated against in the way that is proposed.
Mr Cash
Does my right hon. Friend recall that in relation to the fiscal compact our representative at UKRep, Sir Jon Cunliffe, wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the European Council specifically stating that the UK Government wanted a legal reserve in respect of the illegality of that matter? On this issue, where there is clear evidence from the Council of Ministers’ legal adviser that the matter is regarded as unlawful, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that not only have we received a legal reserve, but, unlike on the previous occasion, we have followed it through with a reference to the European Court? So far, we have got a promise but no completion of it.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am not as familiar as he is with what went on in the previous exchange of correspondence, but I can say that it is essential that the arrangements need to be legal. There is no point marching up a hill of banking union if the whole thing falls apart—I mix my metaphors, but he understands what I mean. There are also other matters on which we will need to be satisfied before any of the proposed measures can be adopted.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is too kind, as uncharacteristic of him as that may be.
I am afraid that this is a tall order for the Government to negotiate. It is a conundrum. I do not in any way shrink from the mountain that needs to be climbed in squaring this circle, if I may mix my metaphors in that way. I am just concerned that the Government’s approach—perhaps an echo of their approach to the EU budget—is not ambitious enough. I urge hon. Members to talk to institutions across the City of London and to financial services practitioners across the country. They are very worried about their position if they are not able to be part of a single market. They know very well that there are forums in which the rules will be made and shaped, and yet of course they want to reserve our rights from a UK position. Somehow, we have to try to forge a negotiating strategy that manages to do better.
Chris Leslie
I will in a moment, but I am conscious of time.
The motion expresses, in only the most general terms, the Government’s policy to
“remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.”
That is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Perhaps it would be better if Ministers found ways to stay outside the scope of the eurozone’s rules—the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin)—but somehow still be in the room on EU-wide supervision matters as they develop, and to secure protections in any future settlement on EBA rule-making and mediation.
Mr Cash
Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing one major point, which is that the transfer of the jurisdiction under the single market arrangements that took the City of London away from the United Kingdom and gave it to the European Union was a decision taken by his Government. That is why the problem he is now having to deal with—the anxieties he referred to—has arisen. That the coalition has acquiesced in that is another story. The fact is, however, that the real responsibility lies with those who transferred the jurisdiction, as I pointed out in the Financial Times three years ago.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a), in line 10, leave out from ‘and’ to end and add
‘whilst welcoming the Government’s desire to seek safeguards for the UK, calls on the Government in respect of Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 to use its best endeavours to ensure that the proposed changes in the voting rights in the European Banking Authority are not adopted, to use its veto in respect of European Union Document No. 13683/12 so as to ensure that the powers of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank are not unlawfully delegated to the Single Supervisory Mechanism without an amendment of the treaties and/or to refer that matter to the European Court of Justice for adjudication of that proposal.’.
I am deeply troubled by the wording of the motion. In my judgment, it simply does not make sense to state that the House should welcome
“the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.”
We acquiesced in to the Lisbon treaty, the Labour party agreed to the transfer of jurisdiction over the City of London to the EU, which was wrong—the Single European Act was never remotely intended to produce such a result—and, furthermore, views I have received from the City clearly demonstrate that it does not believe that the proposals in the motion will protect the UK or a single market in financial services.
There is another massive issue about the rule of law in Europe. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech to the Körber Foundation conference in Berlin a fortnight ago, said that what bound us together in the EU and the reason for the Government wanting to remain part of it was that it
“has helped to spread and entrench democracy and the rule of law across Europe.”
The tragic reality is that the EU does not subscribe to the rule of law. On 17 December 2010, Madame Lagarde said about the first bail-out fund, the European financial stability mechanism:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone.”
Germany and France themselves broke the stability and growth pact. Furthermore, both the Government and the Attorney-General are clearly of the view that the agreement on the fiscal compact was unlawful, but in reality nothing has been done—hence my call for the legal reserve on this matter, although the legal reserve issued before has never been implemented.
The Government know that the proposals referred to in the second part of my amendment are unlawful. The Council of Ministers’ own legal adviser, in a lengthy opinion which I have seen and which the Government cannot dispute, states that there will have to be an amendment to the treaties if the powers of the governing council of the ECB are to be delegated to the single supervisory mechanism.
The legal opinion says on the proposal amending the EBA regulation, in effect, that in terms of the EBA’s dispute resolution powers there is no justification for treating the ECB differently from banking authorities in non-eurozone member states by exempting it from those powers. To do so would be a clear breach of the principle in law of non-discrimination.
As to the proposal giving the ECB prudential oversight of credit institutions in the eurozone, the legal opinion states that in establishing the single supervisory mechanism the council must respect the legal framework for decision making within the ECB set by primary law—that is, the treaties. This framework does not allow the ECB’s governing council to delegate decision-making functions on banking supervision to a subsidiary body such as the SSM. There is nothing in the legal base for the SSM proposal, in article 127(6) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which would permit secondary law—that is, this draft regulation—amending the rules laid down in primary law. There is no question about it and the Government know that.
Non-eurozone member states are not entitled to participate in the ECB’s decision making, so they can have no formal decision-making role in the SSM as conceived. Furthermore, the law on banking supervision in the EU will be made up of directives to a significant extent. This is a requirement of the treaties. That means that the ECB cannot propose one-size-fits-all legislation on banking union. Rather, it can propose legislation which allows for differences in national transposition.
We simply cannot countenance a situation in which there is a wilful breach of the rule of law and where the dysfunctional European Union vaunts the rule of law, yet deliberately breaks its own rules. This is precisely what led to the kind of constitutional crisis that we have seen in our own history when Governments from the Stuarts onwards claimed a divine right to rule but then broke the common law. This is the primrose path to constitutional disaster not only for the United Kingdom, but for Europe as a whole. I hope the House will understand my concern, as I suggested back in the 1990s that this would happen.
I hear what the Minister says but I cannot understand why and how, given comments that I have received from the City of which I am sure he is aware. Those in the City make it clear that the single market would be put at risk by an imperfect single market in financial services in which rules differed by level of membership of the EU. Furthermore, they say:
“It is essential that voting arrangements within the European Banking Authority are clarified so as to avoid members of the Banking Union voting together en bloc and imposing financial regulation on non-Eurozone members through qualified majority.”
For “clarified”—
Mr Jenkin
Does my hon. Friend agree that for us to invoke the single market is doubled-edged, because in the end it will be the Commission that invokes the single market as a pretext for levelling the playing field which has been unlevelled by measures taken by the banking union? We will therefore finish up with measures that we do not want being imposed on us by qualified majority voting.
Mr Cash
That is precisely right. It was never intended when we voted—and I voted at the time, with a reservation about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, which I was not allowed to debate—that we would be in this very position. That was in 1986 when I voted for the measure, but it was with that reservation.
To complete my point, where the comments from the City say “clarified”, I would say changed. We must change the rules, not merely clarify them, but we cannot do so because of QMV. That is the problem and it comes from the Single European Act.
Mr Baron
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s defence that QMV cannot be extended to decisions regarding the City cannot be right, and their defence of the idea that the ECB cannot override non-eurozone members is at least highly questionable when it comes to the legal situation that my hon. Friend is highlighting, and that therefore there is a distinct danger?
Mr Cash
I would go further and say that the Council’s legal adviser knows exactly what the position is, as do the whole European Union and our own Government. The opinion is out there; I have read it and it is crystal clear. The reality is that there is absolutely no question about it.
I have great sympathy for the Minister and pay tribute to him. I will not go into the details, but it was because of him that we got the documents in the first place. He is a man of great integrity, and I think that he is in a very difficult position tonight, stuck between a rock and a hard place. I have to say that I do not believe that what he has told us really gives us the necessary guarantees and satisfaction. This is not about what we think, or about grandstanding or being difficult for its own sake; as he said at the beginning, this is in many respects—I would not say entirely—on a par with the matters on which we rebelled last week. We do not want to have to do this, but it is a matter of fact that we face this situation.
I have another commentary from City analysts stating that the concern is that the UK could
“still lose the ability to prevent a decision from being taken by the EBA to intervene in a UK bank directly under the EBA’s binding mediation powers.”
They make a similar point about the need for amendments to the treaties. The truth is that it would not be right for Members of Parliament not to register their votes against these proposals in the hope—like Mr Micawber—that something would turn up, because I am afraid that what this amounts to is complicity by our own House and our Government in the violation by the EU of its own laws and the avoiding of amending the treaties for reasons of mere expediency. Even if the EU does come up with something, I believe that it will be merely a fix to avoid revealing its real intentions and, of course, the real results, which will cause so much harm to the UK and the City of London. I blame the Labour party for much of this, as I warned of it several years ago.
The so-called remorseless logic of advocating a banking union is more of a remorseless shift away from our own national interests while the banking union moves the eurozone into an ever deeper and blacker hole with money, either invented or printed, pouring into it. That is a recipe for economic disaster.
Multiannual Financial Framework
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Labour party—the Opposition—will of course vote with us this evening, not the other way round. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) correctly pointed out, exactly the same happened with the Maastricht treaty.
The amendment spoken to so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is absolutely right. It deals not just with the mechanics or the technicalities, but with what is really going on under the surface. The real questions are, “Where is the money coming from?” and “What is the object of this multiannual financial framework?”
I have been to many conferences in the past year in my capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—in Cyprus and Denmark, and, before that, elsewhere—and I have attended similar conferences with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). They are living on another planet: that is the real problem. The main feature of that big landscape is where we are today. This is part of a picture that must be dealt with.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conscious of that. He knows that Mr Barroso’s speech calling for a federal Europe, which was made only a short time ago, has put us at a crossroads. We cannot continue to assume that what was being considered before that date still applies. We are now on a different journey. They are on one planet, and we are on another. We have to make a stand, and that is what this is all about.
A letter dated 18 December 2011 from the Prime Minister and from the Prime Ministers of several other member states, included the following passage:
“European public spending cannot be exempt from the considerable efforts made by the Member States to bring their public spending under control.”
We are cutting here; we need growth. They are not cutting, but increasing. That is the point.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend has a great deal of empathy with the private sector. The private sector is the engine of growth in our economy and it becomes more efficient every year, but does my hon. Friend agree that in Brussels the only thing that increases is the appetite for our money?
Mr Cash
Absolutely. It is impossible to make any public expenditure—including our contributions to the whole of the public sector: health, education, local government, the lot—unless the money comes from reasonably taxed small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet the whole of the Commission’s paper—which is at the heart of the 2020 strategy and at the heart of why the Commission is asking for this increased amount of money, which it calls an investment for growth—contains only one reference to small and medium-sized businesses, in one line. That is the problem we are up against. We cannot give money to the public sector unless we get it from private enterprise on a reasonably taxed basis.
The Prime Minister’s letter continues:
“The action taken in 2011 to curb”—
“curb”: that is the word he uses—
“annual growth in European payment appropriations should therefore be stepped up progressively over the remaining years of this financial perspective and payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”
The situation was wrong then, and it has got worse since. That was in December 2011. We are now in October 2012, and we know what the picture is, and it is getting progressively worse. That is why we had to call for a reduction rather than merely what the Prime Minister describes as an
“increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend take some support from the fact that on 20 June our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told this House he thought reductions in the EU budget of 20% were “highly desirable”?
Mr Cash
Absolutely; that is a very good point indeed.
I would like to dig a little deeper into what this money is supposed to be used for. It is all set out in the papers laid before the House for the purposes of this debate. They talk about turning the EU into a “smart”—whatever that means—“sustainable and inclusive economy” delivering
“high levels of employment productivity and social cohesion.”
How on earth are they going to achieve that given the measures they think will produce growth? Almost every single aspect of what they want to deliver is based on increasing grants and subsidies, but not on asking where the money is coming from.
The money comes from our constituents. It comes from the taxpayer. It does not grow on trees. That is what they do not understand. Therefore, the entire strategy on which this multiannual financial framework is based is nonsense. It is an Alice in Wonderland fantasy, as I have repeatedly said when I have had the opportunity to meet the other 27 Chairmen of the national scrutiny committees. I have noticed that there is increasing awareness, too. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was with me only a few weeks ago, and he noticed the degree of response I was getting from the other member states’ national chairmen. They understood that they were in deep trouble.
The money does not grow on trees in Spain; that is why there are demands for independence from Catalonia. The money does not grow on trees in France or Germany either. The fact is that it has to be found.
Wayne David
The hon. Gentleman and I have significant differences about what this country’s approach to the EU should be, but does he agree that the important thing at this moment in time, with every EU member state having to make public expenditure cuts, is that the EU itself should make cuts? That message should go out from both sides of this House.
Mr Cash
The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think this is just a cynical move, even though there is an element of that. As I find when I go to meetings with those in the presidency, there is a recognition: they know they cannot go on spending money that is not there. That is the truth. That is all this argument is really about. It is about the big landscape of whether, like Mr Micawber, we can just hope something will turn up. It will not; it has to be built through real growth policies.
Unfortunately, the report the European Commission produced only a few months ago shows it has not got a clue how to generate that growth. I was also deeply disturbed to see that the amazing report by the European Parliament calling for all these increases was welcomed by the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefcovic. He said the MFF was “an investment budget” for delivering growth in “the entire EU.” He condemns himself outright simply by endorsing the 150 pages of unadulterated rubbish that came out of the European Parliament in its interim report.
Mark Reckless
Even for those in the House who are genuine Keynesians, if our goal is to stimulate the economy is it possible to think of a worse way to spend money than the way the MFF sets out for the EU?
Mr Cash
I absolutely agree. The real problem is that their answer is to give more money to the public sector and to ventures and projects that, as the Court of Auditors report shows, increasingly fail. The trouble is that the European project is a failing project.
They will not recognise that, so what are they doing? They are saying, “We are going to go off and have a federal Europe.” Well, let them have it. They can have their federal Europe if they want, but we, in this country, cannot possibly be part of it—that is unthinkable. The Prime Minister knows it is unthinkable, and my genuine belief is that he will come to discover that it would be better to veto this and to ensure it does not go through, because he has already been presented with the crossroads. The crossroads was presented by Mr Barroso, and the crossroads is being presented by the other member states. There is no turning back. We therefore have to say no. We say no to this, we say no to the illegal banking regulations that we have just been looking at and we will be saying no to the proposals for any new treaty. If we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and actually say that we will not accept this, we will be serving the national interest.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I agree with him entirely that the Prime Minister has a wonderful opportunity, if he wishes to grasp it, to use the united stance of the Commons on EU budget cuts to increase his bargaining power in Brussels, but I fear that the Prime Minister’s negotiating position is more about damage limitation than about getting the EU budget reduced. A unique opportunity exists for EU budgetary reform and all due diligence should be directed towards advocating an overall reduction in the EU budget.
The House of Commons Library has set out clearly what the reductions are for each of the Departments over the current comprehensive spending review period. There are reductions of 23% for the Home Office, 27% for the Ministry of Justice, 19% for the Ministry of Defence and 19% for the Department for Work and Pensions. Across the board there is an 11% real reduction in Government spending. In the Northern Ireland Office the reduction is 12%, in the Wales Office 12% and in the Scotland Office 11%. These are real cuts. There is nothing in these figures which allows for a freeze still less an increase to cover inflation.
It is difficult for people in the community, as has been said by previous speakers, to understand why the Prime Minister tells people that in order to get the economy on the right footing, drastic real-terms cuts in the budgets of Government Departments are necessary, affecting front-line services. That message has been sent out by national Governments in the EU, right across the board, yet when it comes to EU expenditure, we are told that the most that we can aspire to is some kind of inflation increase. To the people in the street, to whom the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred, this is not only bizarre, but incomprehensible. They expect the Members whom they send to the House of Commons to stand up for the United Kingdom and for them, and to say that the same rules should apply to spending on the EU as to everybody else.
Mr Cash
Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the European Parliament describes the Commission’s proposal as representing a freeze of the multiannual financial framework between 2014 and 2020, and says that it would not be sufficient to finance the existing policies which come out of the treaty of Lisbon? Is there not something ironic in that, in relation to the Government’s motion?
Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will know that there are 1.42 million people working part time who wish that they were working full time. As of April, about 200,000 families lost support through working tax credits because they could not find the additional hours that they need to still be eligible for that extra support to help them when they are in work; that support helps them to avoid poverty.
It is no wonder that people are asking whether they can have faith in anything the Government are saying, given that in every area we see dither and delay. In communications, the Government have put back the 2012 broadband target to 2015 and may not meet that new deadline. In house building, recent statistics show that new housing starts are down by 24% on a year ago. In waste management, the plan promised for spring this year will now not be delivered until the end of 2013. In energy, the CBI has warned that policy changes such as the cuts to feed-in tariffs have been
“damaging to business confidence, with implications not just for immediate investment decisions but for longer-term trust in government policy”.
In transport, we still await the long-promised national policy statement on transport networks and aviation, and tough decisions on airport capacity have been kicked into the long grass. Instead of the drive, decisiveness and clarity of vision that businesses are crying out for, what do we get in sector after sector? We get dither and delay; we get initiatives and announcements driven by the desire to hit headlines rather than to deliver results.
The Bill—the Government’s latest scheme—is a strange piece of legislation. It is being fast-tracked through Parliament, with the justification that the situation is immediate and urgent. However, given this need for speed, we are bound to ask whether legislation is necessary, particularly given that, as the House of Commons Library note explains, such commitments
“do not typically require…legislation”.
The UK guarantee scheme at the centre of the Bill was first announced by the Prime Minister in a speech in May. It was re-announced by the Chancellor in a speech in June. The press release came from the Treasury in July. It is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that the Bill is designed more to create the impression of activity and delivery than to get real results in the quickest way possible.
However, the Opposition’s biggest concern with the Bill is that it is simply inadequate to meet the challenge we face. Many in industry are sceptical that it will make any difference. Even where it is taken up, the tight criteria of economic and commercial viability may mean that it amounts to only a deadweight subsidy, aiding projects that would have gone ahead in any case. The best anyone has been able to say for it is that it might help some schemes at the margin, but that is hardly commensurate with the challenge we face.
The schemes that have been most frequently mentioned as strong candidates for assistance are those the Government have announced are going ahead several times already. Let me cite one example, which the Chief Secretary mentioned in his speech. Earlier this month, he said:
“Detailed discussions are already taking place with the Mersey Bridge Gateway project”.
We certainly welcome progress, but many may experience a strange sense of déjà vu, given that a year ago the same project was announced by the then Transport Secretary, who noted that although some transport plans are long term, this one could be
“implemented more quickly…creating jobs when they are needed most.”
What happened in the past year? It is no wonder the Government are gaining a reputation for more talk than action. As the director general of the CBI said today,
“firms fear initiative overload and are becoming impatient with delivery, leaving many companies still sceptical about the overall impact on investment.”
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that this Bill is, in effect, pure Keynesianism? If she had the opportunity to read Nicholas Wapshott’s recently published and excellent book on the arguments between Keynes and Hayek, she might conclude that elements in this hoped-for infrastructure programme carry with them the germs of really serious difficulties if we pursue a policy of pure Keynesianism and do not take into account the arguments of Friedrich Hayek.
Draft European Union Budget
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
That is an important point, and I shall address it shortly.
Our response to the Commission’s inflation-busting proposal has been robust. At a time when Governments across Europe are making difficult decisions on public spending, a 6.8% increase in EU spending in 2013 is completely unacceptable. First, the economic circumstances have changed dramatically, and the Commission cannot ignore the facts. By 2014, the level of public debt across the 27 member states will be over 50% more than it was back in 2007, two years after the last seven-year budget was agreed. Secondly, a larger EU budget will not solve the eurozone crisis. A smaller, leaner and better-targeted budget is the best way to drive growth across the EU.
We have identified many areas of EU spending that are ripe for reform. It is time to cut the quangos, EU staff pay and programmes that offer low added value or are poorly implemented. For example, the Commission set itself the target of reducing its headcount by 1% this year. Although 286 posts have been cut—equivalent to a 0.7% reduction—that has been offset by the creation of 280 posts for Croatia’s accession. There has been no attempt to redeploy staff to meet the needs of Croatia’s accession. As ever, the Commission’s knee-jerk reaction is simply to increase the number of people employed in the EU. As a consequence, this year the Commission has cut just six posts. We estimate that if it had cut the headcount by 1%, it could have saved €45 million.
The total salary bill for the EU institutions’ staff in 2011 was over €3.5 billion, more than 2.8% of the Commission’s budget proposal for the year, and more than double the amount spent on freedom, security, justice and citizenship. Staff at EU institutions, who may have lived in Brussels for more than 30 years, continue to be paid an extra 16% “expat allowance” on top of an already generous salary, and a teacher at the European school is paid twice the average UK teacher pay.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and I take it seriously. I do not in any way suggest cynically that the Government are merely trying and not succeeding, but when I see the words
“seeking significant savings…across all budget headings and in…strenuous efforts to limit the size”,
I feel that there is another answer. In the light of his powerful argument, which has not yet even finished, there is a strong case for our saying that we insist, rather than merely seek, and for saying, “We will not pay any more. We will refuse to do so if you are not prepared to do something about it.” This really is getting out of control, as is the work load of law that we discussed in the previous debate.
Mr Hoban
I will come on to deal with the process of negotiation that we are going through, but my hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the EU budget is determined by qualified majority voting, whereas the framework is determined by unanimity. As he said, he has practised law for some time, so I am sure that he would not be encouraging us to break the law—
Mr Cash
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for walking straight into that one. He knows the formula that I have adopted in the past, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. I have put it to the Prime Minister, and the European Scrutiny Committee report endorsed it as a potential weapon. I simply say to my hon. Friend that there comes a point when we simply have to draw a line and we may have to override European law. The EU breached the law with the stability and growth pact and the fiscal compact. I think it is about time we started showing a bit more mettle.
Mr Hoban
I have to say that I always thought it was appropriate to obey the law, even in circumstances where we would perhaps rather not do so. We need to take our obligations seriously, but that does not in any way weaken our resolve to get the best possible deal for British taxpayers.
Chris Leslie
I see the tempting avenue down which my hon. Friend wants to go. I am not sure that it is necessarily good to budget by referendum. It would be simple for the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Minister to firm up their position and set out things much more clearly than they have in the motion. I urge hon. Members to look at the airy-fairy fudging language of the motion today—and going forwards, which the Minister does not like to talk about.
The Minister was right to draw on the Financial Times analysis, including in pointing out the reduction of just six administrative staff from the 41,000 EU posts. Some increases for pensions, for schooling allowances for EU officials and even for some of those extra accession activities in relation to Croatia, are still pencilled in by the Commission. I do not think that the administrative budget proposals on the table are justified. Instead, we should be reprioritising the resources paid to the EU budget so that they are sweated more effectively for a pro-growth, pro-jobs position—looking at energy markets, high-speed broadband and the infrastructure and structural fund changes that need to be made. I do not think that the Government have appreciated the strength of feeling on this matter.
Mr Cash
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman used the phrase “strength of feeling”. What is his strength of feeling about the fact that every justification for proposing an increase of 6.8%, in all the papers that I have read as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee—everything in the European Parliament and the multi-annual financial framework discussions in which I took part a few months ago—is, “We need to do it because of the Lisbon treaty”? Will the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, now accept that the Lisbon treaty was a great mistake?
Chris Leslie
No. Some commitment appropriations are certainly being pencilled in—“We can’t undo the budget because of previous commitments”—but almost an equal number of appropriations are new programmes that the European Commission could vary and change. I am all for expenditure at European level and doing our part collectively to boost and stimulate economic growth, but there is not sufficient justification for some of the continued administrative back-office areas of expenditure that simply do not help at this time, especially when we have so many economic difficulties in the UK.
My question to the Minister is very simple: what exactly is the Government’s position? Are they in favour of a real-terms reduction in the budget or not? The Minister would not say. I urge his hon. Friends to try to pin down the Government on that, because we are at a crucial juncture. From reading the reports this week in The Guardian about a deal being done whereby we will not touch reform of the common agricultural policy, for example, I get the sense the Prime Minister likes an easy life with business as usual and wants to continue in that vein.
Chris Heaton-Harris
To illustrate exactly that point, I shall quote the reasons Greenpeace gives for not taking money from governmental institutions:
“Greenpeace does not solicit or accept funding from governments, corporations or political parties. Greenpeace neither seeks nor accepts donations that could compromise its independence, aims, objectives or integrity… Greenpeace relies on the voluntary donations of individual supporters, and on grant support from foundations.”
I take EU lobbying by Greenpeace way more seriously, because it comes from the heart and not from an EU budget line.
My next example is the LIFE+ programme budget line, which funds, among other groups, Avalon, which co-ordinates activities and lobbies on behalf of sustainable rural development in central and eastern European regions; BirdLife Europe; CEE Bankwatch; Climate Action Network Europe; Coalition Clean Baltic; Danube Environmental Forum; EUCC Coastal and Marine Union; Eurogroup for Wildlife and Laboratory Animals; EUROPARC; the European Environmental Bureau; European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation; European Federation for Transport and Environment; European Landowners Association; European Water Association; Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU; FERN; Friends of the Earth Europe, which constantly lobbies hon. Members on all sorts of things; Health and Environment Alliance; International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU group; International Friends of Nature; International Network for Sustainable Energy; Justice and Environment; and the Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development. The list goes on. Just one budget line funds all those organisations.
Mr Cash
On a broader question, will my hon. Friend consider that if we were to consider a Swiss-style relationship with Europe and negotiate a proportionate drop in our net contributions, we could reduce the amount we pay to no more than £1.3 billion, saving nearly £7 billion? Does he find that an attractive idea?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Anything that saves UK taxpayers significant sums of money I deem worthy of further investigation.
There are lots of areas in which the Government, working with others on the Council and Members of the European Parliament, who have an opportunity to amend the budget, can do a lot more, but only if there is a tiny threat that we might not want to increase our contribution at all. We have the reason to do it—the accounts not being signed off—but I urge the Minister to consider the opportunities that present themselves in the coming years. I support the Government in trying to reduce our budgetary contribution. I know that it is unbelievably hard work—I have sat in on these trilogue meetings in Brussels—but it is worth the effort, because we could save the UK taxpayer billions of pounds.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The debate is extremely important, particularly in the light of what we heard from the Foreign Secretary this morning, because it is about our relationship with the European Union. As I said in my response to the Foreign Secretary’s statement, it is fundamental that we concentrate not merely on powers, but on democratic power. The debate is about sovereignty and tax and spend, it is about how much we should contribute, and—as I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—it is about the increase in functions that has led to the increase in the budget. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and we know it. The fact is that the Lisbon treaty should never have been allowed to go through. The budget question is at the heart of this, and I say no, no, no.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we want to curb the powers of the European Union we should pay it far less money, which it should spend more efficiently, and, given that Europe is facing austerity, it is entirely wrong to ask for a 6% increase.
Mr Cash
It is indeed. In fact, the Commission is asking for 6.8%.
I agree with the Minister that the Government have fought hard, but they have not fought well enough. Although an amendment that I tabled last year proposing no increase was accepted by Members on both sides of the House, we ended up with a 2.5% increase. I think I am right about that, although the Minister appears to disagree. As for the year that we are discussing now, we need to ensure that, if necessary, we take firmer steps in the light of the changed relationship that has resulted from these times of austerity.
I think that we should say no and ensure that the amount in question is at worst a flat increase. Furthermore, I think that we should say no to the final results. QMV does not impress me: other member states have been breaking the law all over the place, particularly Germany and France over the stability and growth pact. The whole of the fiscal compact was unlawful. It is time that we took a firmer line. We are a major net contributor to the EU budget, of which, last year, 45% was spent on policies for sustainable growth, 41% on the preservation and management of natural resources, and the rest on, for instance, “the EU as a global player” and administration. We are the second largest net contributor after Germany. The current annual budgets under the multi-annual financial framework are going in the wrong direction. We should restrain all further expenditure to the EU. We must take action on the gross payments. The gross payments, less abatement, were £12.915 billion in 2010, up from £8 billion in 2005. There is an ever-growing increase in real terms. That is unacceptable in a time of austerity.
I shall conclude by referring to a point I have already made. We must change our relationship with the EU in the way anticipated by those of us who would make the most of what the Foreign Secretary said earlier today, and we must do so sooner rather than later, and certainly before 2014. If we were to adopt a Swiss-style relationship and negotiate a proportionate drop in our net contributions, we would be able to save at least £7 billion for the British taxpayer. That is the direction we should go in. It is time that we said no, not maybe.
Professional Standards in the Banking Industry
William Cash Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
I am extremely grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way. On the question of the alternatives of a Select Committee and a judicial inquiry, it is perfectly clear that we can make any necessary adjustments through our Standing Orders on such issues as taking evidence on oath, for example. I will seek to explain that in more detail if I get the opportunity to make a speech.
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman has proposed that a QC could advise the Committee; perhaps he will make that proposal later. Those important points take us down the road towards the judicial inquiry. The problem is—and this is my third objection—that experience shows that only a judge-led inquiry can ensure the necessary forensic cross-examination of witnesses, prevent witnesses from avoiding answering key questions that are important for establishing the truth and, in particular, avoid blanket refusals to answer questions on grounds of legal advice. I would be happy to take an intervention from the Attorney-General on this point, because we have seen it happen in parliamentary hearings.
The argument is that a witness before a parliamentary inquiry can say on legal advice that they will not answer a question, but in a judge-led inquiry the judge has the ability to explain to the witness why answering the question in the particular form set by him according to his legal judgment will not cross the line. Unless a judge is properly testing the boundary between self-incrimination and the answers that must be given for a proper inquiry, we cannot make progress. That would be doubly the case with the prospect of criminal investigations, which might take some years down the track. On the question of witnesses not incriminating themselves, it seems to me that the evidence shows—perhaps the Attorney-General will correct me—that it is impossible for a parliamentary inquiry to call any witness who might be implicated in the LIBOR scandal without the witness saying, “On legal advice, I will say nothing.” The inquiry cannot work like that. Only a judge can sort this out.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Many years ago, when I was at business school with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I took a summer job in Wall street. I shall never forget the occasion on which I was interviewed by a certain individual who sat with his feet up on his desk, wearing big red braces, smoking a huge cigar, and chewing gum. The interview was for a job in leveraged buy-outs. Before even introducing himself, that individual said to me, “David, how greedy are you?” I do not remember what my response was, but in my head it was pretty clear: “Not greedy enough to take this job.”
My interest in investment banking evaporated pretty quickly after that experience of outrageous behaviour and outrageous remarks. Behaviour of that kind on the part of a few bankers has led to investment banking in particular, but banking across the board to some extent, being given a very bad review by many of our constituents, and it has failed to build the trust that is so badly needed.
I went on to spend most of my career in retail, much of it at Asda, building its financial services business. There was a stark difference between supermarkets and banks when it came to levels of trust—and that was back in 2002; I hate to think what the difference is nowadays. Every day the supermarkets had to go out and compete for the right to earn the trust and loyalty of their customers, so that they would shop there every week. The lifetime value of those shopping baskets was vital. The supermarkets knew that if they captured that loyalty, it would lead to profits on the bottom line. In banking, by contrast, the focus is so much on short-term profit that the banks lose sight of the customer side of the equation. That was brought home to me starkly when I spent a couple of years working for Barclays before the election, trying to address some of the effects of the credit crunch on its business.
My work in retail financial services highlighted the need for change, and also how difficult it is to bring it about: to break with accepted norms, and to move on from rules of the game that people have previously regarded as being quite acceptable. The LIBOR-fixing scandal has highlighted the desperate need for root-and-branch change in investment banking. That change is needed, and it is needed sooner rather than later.
It is hard to believe that it is five years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and five years since we saw the queues outside Northern Rock. The public expect change, and they expect it quickly. It is for that reason—the need for urgent action—that I support the call for a parliamentary inquiry. We cannot wait until 2015 or 2016 to secure the answers and, more important, the solutions. A properly resourced parliamentary inquiry with full access to papers, officials and Ministers, with evidence given under oath, could make much-needed progress.
Mr Cash
Does my hon. Friend agree that we could also adopt the system applied to hybrid and private Bills, with a cross-examination carried out by a fully forensic Queen’s Counsel, so that we could get to the root of what is really going on? Could we not have specialist advisers on the Committee as well?
David Rutley
I am not familiar with that approach. As a former member of the Treasury Committee, however, I should like to say that I have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), and that I have a huge amount of respect for his knowledge and experience in Treasury-related matters, and also for his independence of mind and personal integrity.
Financial Services (Market Abuse)
William Cash Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16010/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a Draft Regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), No. 16000/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to the Draft Directive on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation, and No. 8253/12, relating to the European Central Bank Opinion on market abuse legislation; recognises that an efficient financial market that aids economic growth requires market integrity and public confidence; welcomes the UK’s leading role in combating market abuse; and supports the Government’s decision not to opt-in to the Criminal Sanctions Directive until it is clear that related provisions within the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive Review and the Market Abuse Regulation are further progressed in order to enable the Government to evaluate the implications for the UK, and ensure high standards in tackling market abuse are maintained.
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate. It is important, before I deal with the details of the motion, for me to reinforce our commitment to ensuring that there are efficient financial markets which assist economic growth. If markets are to be efficient, however, they must command public confidence and demonstrate their integrity. Central to that is the sense that those who are trading in shares, whether they are retail customers or our largest fund managers, are doing so in possession of, or with access to, the same information. We must also ensure that markets are not manipulated against the interests of those who are trading in shares.
It is the recognition of the importance of markets that have integrity and command public confidence that has led to the UK’s leading role in tackling the problems of market abuse. We established our own civil market abuse regime in 2000, ahead of the EU market abuse directive of 2003. The Financial Services Authority has made considerable strides in recent years since launching its “credible deterrence” strategy for market abuse in 2008, particularly as a result of the financial crisis. Our no-nonsense approach to market abuse is now a regular feature of national and international news. The FSA levies increasingly large penalties, and exercises its criminal powers. Abuse of this sort will not be tolerated. In 2003, the FSA handed down fines relating to market abuse totalling just over £1 million; halfway through this year, the figure is £8.9 million. The FSA is bringing the full weight of the law against perpetrators of abuse, and that includes the £7.2 million imposed in the Punch Taverns case.
The hard-line stance that we have taken on market abuse is one of the reasons London flourishes as a global financial centre. Investors and other market participants value the cleanliness of our market, which is why they use London to carry out their business. Market abuse is a blight on financial markets. It destroys confidence. It puts typically sophisticated financial actors at an unfair advantage over ordinary investors and savers. Those who manipulate the markets or abuse their position to trade on inside information undermine the efficiency and safety of the financial marketplace.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am sure my hon. Friend is in no way trying to divert attention away from the fact that jurisdiction is now, effectively, with the European Court of Justice. I am not going to ask him to be precise, but does he not agree that for the purposes of interpreting financial services regulations within the framework of the supervisory authorities that have been created, all these matters are ultimately matters of European law as applied by our Parliament so long as it continues voluntarily to accept them?
Mr Hoban
I am not sure I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not want to be diverted along that path, but I point out to him that, as he will know as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee that put forward this motion for debate on the Floor of the House, the criminal sanctions directive acts as a minimum harmonisation directive, and this House can impose more stringent penalties than the minimum required.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend missed out on the opportunity that I and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) had of serving on the Financial Services Bill Committee. We spent a considerable amount of time developing the details of jurisdiction in the UK, through giving powers to the Financial Services Authority. There are areas where rules are made at a European level, but, equally, there are areas where rules are made in the UK, and it is not appropriate to say, “There’s only European law.” There is a whole raft of UK law on these matters.
To date, the UK has used the flexibility of the minimum harmonisation EU directive to create a stronger standard, applying the regime to more venues and having stronger rules. Now we have the opportunity to have a better framework applied across the whole of the EU, and that is in our interests.
It is clear that market abuse can take place beyond our borders and yet still affect securities traded within our borders. For that reason, the Government support the Commission’s objective to revise the EU market abuse framework. Improving the strength and consistency of the framework is vital to investor confidence.
There are challenges and opportunities in shifting to a regulation. There are challenges if the UK’s own practices are compromised. There are opportunities from having a more consistent and stronger EU regime and potentially reducing the cost and complexity of compliance for market actors.
Clearly, our prime objective is to ensure that the powers currently available to competent authorities are not weakened, which would damage the UK and the creditable work of the FSA. Secondly, we wish to deliver a robust framework for tackling market abuse within Europe.
Interest in changes to the market abuse framework extends beyond this House. In March, the European Central Bank published its opinion of the market abuse proposals. Its commentary focused largely on the new provision in the regulation for competent authorities to be able to delay the publication of inside information with systemic consequences. The Government echo the ECB’s support for seeking the legal framework to be improved in this respect. This is a key provision for the Bank of England and the FSA following the financial crisis and the difficulties experienced surrounding the disclosure of emergency lending assistance.
I want to outline briefly the EU market abuse package proposed by the Commission. In October 2011, the Commission published a regulation and an accompanying directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse. Those proposals together update the framework formerly established by the market abuse directive 2003, including proposing EU harmonisation of criminal law for market abuse for the first time. The legal basis for the criminal directive is article 83(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This is the first use of the relevant provision since the Lisbon treaty was agreed. It means that the directive is subject to a justice and home affairs opt-in. The UK and Ireland have discretion on whether it should apply to them. Denmark is automatically opted out. In light of the fact that this was the first use of the article, it was important that the Government carefully contemplated the issues and came to the appropriate decision.
The European Scrutiny Committee also considered the use of the opt-in. In its 52nd report of the last Session, the Committee noted that the full potential impact for the UK of the draft directive will become certain only once negotiations are concluded. The European Affairs Committee concurred with that opinion, but we are, of course, bound by the regulation.
The Government’s decision not to opt in at this time is a reflection of the sequencing of the directive compared with related legislative proposals. The proposed directive is entirely dependent on the outcome of the market abuse regulation, and the markets in financial instruments directive, which are both in relatively early stages of negotiation. The Government believe that it is very challenging to assess the implications, scope and way in which the criminal directive may develop, given the broader uncertainty of the market abuse framework, which itself is simultaneously subject to a major review.
The key issue here is ensuring that the interaction between the criminal and administrative regimes is clear and workable for all member states. Above all, we need to address the flexibility of when to apply a criminal penalty and when an administrative penalty needs to be retained within member states’ national systems. That must be determined on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the evidence of an individual case. In addition, there was uncertainty about whether the powers of competent authorities would be weakened in respect of accessing telephone records in the regulation and, potentially, the accompanying criminal directive.
It is essential that competent authorities have the flexibility to determine the appropriate type of penalty—whether it is criminal or administrative—and the powers available to them to investigate suspected cases of market abuse. The Council has itself recognised the difficulties involved in trying to complete negotiations on the criminal directive, with linked proposals being negotiated simultaneously. Therefore, the presidency decided to pause progress on the directive, in order to wait for policy progress to be made in the market abuse regulation.
However, I note that although the Government have decided not to opt in at this stage, we have continued to participate fully in negotiations. It is important that we use our expertise in combating market abuse, including the fact that the UK already covers market abuse in its criminal law today. If we are able to do that, and further progress the related proposals in the market abuse regulation and the markets in financial instruments directive in a manner that meets our objectives, we may consider opting in to the criminal directive. We can assess this only when the trio of proposals are properly progressed.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
This is indeed an important debate. Market abuse, insider dealing and market manipulation are issues that do not get the airtime that they deserve. It is important that white collar crime and abuses of what we might call white collar financial services activities are properly attended to. We know that in recent years the regulators, or the relevant authorities, have sometimes struggled properly to prosecute or pursue issues where allegations have been made and there are difficulties in pinning down the right level of evidence. This is an important opportunity to see how, when the European Union proposes new regulations to tighten up some of the rules, the UK Government approaches such questions. I was interested to see in the Financial Services Authority’s recent annual report the quite shocking statistics on potential market manipulation that still takes place and often goes uncaptured.
The statistic that leapt out at me concerned something called APPM monitoring—I know that hon. Members enjoy their acronyms—or abnormal pre-announcement price movement monitoring. Apparently, such movements are still at a level of more than 20% in respect of announcements of mergers or acquisitions. If we look back at share transactions and other dealings, we can see that there are palpably instances when information has leaked out and people have taken advantage of information asymmetry. Such market abuses are notoriously difficult to pin down and prosecute, but they are unfortunately still a feature of many of our markets and financial services and we need to do a great deal to bear down on them.
The original market abuse directive was adopted back in 2003, but the new set of regulations proposes to try to tighten up the arrangements in a number of areas. There are gaps in the new markets that have emerged, for example, particularly in commodities trading and derivatives trading. I shall talk about those in a moment. There are problems with regulatory enforcement, where outdated arrangements are in place. There is a lack of legal certainty, particularly when issues cross nation state boundaries, and a risk of regulatory arbitrage. I was not surprised, therefore, that that was one area in which the Commission made proposals.
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that sanity is sometimes tested in these debates. I should also pay tribute to his work and to that of the European Scrutiny Committee, without which many of these important debates would never materialise on the Floor of the House—even if this debate is in the middle of the football, possibly with less exposure and fewer viewers watching on BBC Parliament than might normally do so. I am sure that there will be a rerun of these proceedings and people will be able to watch them at their leisure.
What is different about the market abuse regulations? We know that a parallel criminal sanctions directive is being discussed, although the Government’s position is far from clear. They are almost saying that they will not opt in at this stage, but might change their mind later depending on a number of rather strange factors. There are important reasons why we need to tighten up the criminal offences regime for market manipulation and for insider dealing, and those important steps must be taken. I agree with some of the proposals in the market abuse regulations that will broaden the definition of insider information to cover information that is not generally available for reasons of transaction opacity.
I am particularly keen to see improvements in the market abuse regulations in areas such as commodities and derivatives trading, which were not as large and significant as they are now. About 15 years ago, some £300 million of commodities trading took place in the UK, whereas that has now increased by almost 1,000%. Billions and billions of pounds are now moving from investment-based activity to speculation-based activity. These issues are serious. One might think about speculation in metals and gold and wonder where the harm is, as that is the nature of the world we are in today. However, speculation in wheat, cocoa and other basic food and commodity substances that can have a bearing on the nutrition of many millions of people in developing countries is an issue that matters in the real world.
If there is market abuse and manipulation, it can have a serious impact on real lives. That is why it is important that when we see so many giant corporations with very deep pockets so often being accused of distorting markets and purchasing whole monthly future contracts, potentially hurting consumers in poorer countries, we should take the opportunity to ask whether we have the right market abuse arrangements in place and whether we could make changes. If companies were cornering the market in equities or listed shares it would trigger regulatory action, but when large corporations corner the market in commodities it does not. That is a bizarre anomaly and we need to modernise the arrangements.
We need to see other important changes in the market abuse regulations. How do we identify insider dealing and market manipulation? What are the rules about information being delayed before public announcements? After the financial crisis, there were serious lessons to be learned about revealing information about abuses that might have a bearing on systemically important transactions and organisations. There are some proposals in the arrangements to deal with these issues. These are very serious questions that need to be addressed.
There is a parallel proposal for a criminal sanctions directive that defines the two offences of insider dealing and market manipulation, which should be regarded by member states as criminal offences if committed intentionally. The intention is to introduce a minimum level of harmonisation for criminal sanctions and, in particular, to provide that the competent authority should have the power to impose administrative pecuniary sanctions of up to twice the amount of profit gained or lost.
There is virtue in the criminal sanctions directive and the market abuse regulations, but we are now in this rather byzantine legislative Committee treacle trying to move these issues forward. The Minister may well be personally involved in these areas—I do not know to what extent—but if hon. Members care to take the time to look at the voluminous documentation associated with this debate they will find some interesting correspondence between the Minister and the European Scrutiny Committee. The Minister will have to forgive me if I paraphrase him incorrectly, but in that correspondence he says that the Council discussions have been somewhat fractured—I think that was the word he used—as a result of the fact that the criminal sanctions directive is taken through the Justice and Home Affairs Council whereas the market abuse regulations are taken through ECOFIN.
We then have the added little twist that the Cypriot presidency is taking over on 1 July an issue that has not been resolved and is still in abeyance. The Justice Secretary attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council at the end of April, which kept open—this is where we get into Eurospeak—the “horizontal articles” for a “partial general approach”. I know that is something that Members will be familiar with. In other words, those involved were saying, “Nothing is really going to change on this particular issue. We are just going to tread water for quite some time.”
Then we have the crazy situation in which the market abuse regulation grinds slowly forward while in a parallel universe the criminal sanctions directive enters an entirely different Council Committee. One almost, but not quite, feels sorry for the Minister trying to balance or juggle this particularly tricky set of negotiations, but rather than waiting, reacting and observing the process, he needs to grip this issue by the scruff of the neck and move it forward.
Ultimately, this is the main question I want to ask him: what is he doing to move matters forward? Can he give a proper explanation of where he stands on the substantive elements of the market abuse regulations and of the criminal sanctions directive in particular? He says that it is difficult to assess the scope and implications so far because it depends on the review of the markets in financial instruments directive and various other factors. Difficult or not, he needs to set out the Government’s position on the substantive policy issues. That is what I expected him to do this evening. The issues are not rocket science. He should set out his position. Even if it is a negotiating position, I would like to know the Government’s starting point in this set of discussions. This is a poor way of making decisions.
Clear leadership is not being shown in sorting out the matter and getting a grip of the question. It is necessary to improve and modernise the regulations on market abuse because modern-day financial markets have left behind the old regime. I understand the Commission’s attempts to get some coherence and harmony on market abuse issues and to deal with the regulatory arbitrage issues that arise from time to time, but the Government must answer a number of questions. Why do they feel that they are still unable to set out their position on the substantive policy issues? When does the Minister expect some resolution of the issues? In particular, who does he think should be moving matters forward? Is he just a bystander, waiting for others to do that—the Cypriot presidency or someone else? When will he, as a Minister, show a lead, tackling market abuse, dealing with insider trading arrangements and ironing out some of these important questions? He is too relaxed and a little complacent on these questions. He needs to take charge and grasp the issue.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I thoroughly endorse almost everything my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said, but I would go somewhat further, because I have a complete aversion to the whole concept of the transfer of our jurisdiction over matters affecting the City of London. I have said that for many years now. In fact, when the de Larosière report was published I wrote in the Financial Times that I saw it as a ticking time bomb, or words to that effect, and that if matters were allowed to continue we would find ourselves mopped up by European jurisdiction.
Following the statement my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made to the House only last week, I asked a simple question: in the light of the vast amount of commitment and time that has been spent transferring jurisdiction over matters affecting the City to the European Union, how on earth will we be able to protect the City, the related single market aspects, including financial services, and matters of the kind now before the House in the market abuse directive when they are governed by qualified majority vote? Those are the realities.
The truth is that we have made the most massive strategic mistake in relation to matters of this kind, which are governed by qualified majority vote, under directives such as the MAD directive otherwise known as the market abuse directive, which was bitterly opposed by the City of London in the early part of this century. I have to say that events then turned for the worse and those proposals have now been overtaken.
Before I turn to the specifics of the matter before us, I ought to mention that the veto on the fiscal compact, which the European Scrutiny Committee said was effectively unlawful on the evidence we received, has not been followed up. The Government and the Attorney-General are clearly of the view that the agreement on the fiscal compact between the 25 was unlawful, but in reality nothing has been done. We have just had a reply from the Government to our report on the question, and on which we held an inquiry, but in no way do they continue to do anything to put to the test the illegality that lies at the heart of the fiscal compact. We are therefore still in the position whereby the Government regard the fiscal compact of the 25 as being a matter of irregularity, but they do not do anything about it.
That is a dangerous situation, and it has gone beyond that—to the fiscal union itself being promoted and advocated by the Government. That will make things even worse, with an even deeper black hole, as I said on television yesterday. The banking union proposals, which are also now being pressed upon us, will come to fruition around the time of the summit on 28 June, and I fear that we are being taken down an extremely dangerous route.
The market abuse directive before us is one example of that tendency to legislate continuously on financial services matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is quite right that we could legislate for ourselves on them. Bad markets, as I have said in articles I have written in the past, are bad business, and we have at our disposal in this Parliament every means to pass legislation on our own account, without necessarily or by any means having to leave it to the European Union. I would be going beyond the remit of this debate if I went into that in any further detail, but I repudiate the idea that we cannot legislate for ourselves on such matters.
I am by no means convinced that the Government intend to make it entirely clear whether or not we will opt in, and that is the problem with the opt-in. I think my hon. Friend is of the opinion that the Government have decided that we will not. I am not sure, but I thought he said that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. No, that is not what I think. I think that the Government have not opted in, technically, at the moment, but hope to do so in future, and I think that will be a great mistake.
Mr Cash
In that case we are, as so often, ad idem and in agreement, and I am glad to hear that confirmation from my hon. Friend.
This whole business has one way or another been developing over the past 12 years—and before. It has been before the European Scrutiny Committee, and we have recommended it for debate, but it has been overtaken by further developments, particularly since the financial crash, which we are now in. I am extremely doubtful about whether market abuse in itself—important as the subject matter is, and something that needs to be dealt with—is in any way a contributor to the financial mess that the European Union is in.
We are in an economic crisis, we are in a black hole, and we should have a convention at which all those matters, including directives of this kind, are put before the member states with their cards on the table. We should say unequivocally that we want a different kind of Europe and put it to them, and the negotiating position that we adopt, those red lines, should then be put to the British people. We should have a referendum on those matters to make it absolutely clear that the direction of this over-legislated, over-burdensome European jurisdiction is doing no good whatsoever to the free markets—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman took some time to set his intended comments in context, which I allowed, but I now require him to address the business before us. We do not need any more general scene-setting on his attitudes towards the European Union, so perhaps he could come back to the business before the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to disagree with me. He thought that he was covering the subject by making general points about opt-ins, but I would like him now to refer to the documents before the House. He has been speaking for some time, and he should bring the attention of the House to his points on these documents.
Mr Cash
Well, to put it simply, the Committee is concerned that the Government might opt into the draft criminal sanctions directive once it is adopted. There would be a debate on that matter if they decided to do so. I do not think that we should opt in. That matter is part of the broader landscape and specific issues that are before the House.
The question of what the draft directive means by the word “intentionally” in relation to market abuse raises some very important legal issues. Then there is the question of whether the draft directive would apply automatically if there were proof of intent or whether there would be discretion to apply an administrative penalty rather than a criminal one. Those are all matters on which we could legislate on our own account if we wished to do so. I make no apology for repeating that point.
A further point concerns the practical application of the proposed new definition of “inside information”, which involves the whole issue of insider dealing. The trouble is—I say this with respect to Madam Deputy Speaker—that definitions in relation to European legislation raise the question of how this matter will be adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice. We have our own means and opportunities to pass legislation in this House that will define these questions.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has come to the absolute crux of the matter. Once we opt into something, it is then justiciable by the European Justice of Justice. That brings the ECJ into a role regarding our criminal law, and that is a very substantial step for the Government to be taking.
Mr Cash
I am deeply grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and who has very considerable expertise in his own right. He has developed an acute sense of British and United Kingdom interests in relation to matters of great importance to the City of London.
A further point is that there is no useful recital in the directive, as there normally would be, to indicate the parameters of the draft regulations. We are deeply concerned about that. There is no certainty that we will opt in, but that does not alter the fact that there is grave concern that we will eventually end up being told that we will do so. If that is what happens, I, for one, will undoubtedly vote against it.
The directive aims to prevent insider dealing and the misuse of financially sensitive market information in the financial markets. That cannot be separated from the broader landscape of the manner in which the European Union is interfering in matters in the United Kingdom that affect the City of London. The City of London represents some 20% of our gross domestic product. I entirely take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that we are at the top of the league in global financial market activity. I believe that a serious attempt is being made by other members of the European Union—with Frankfurt at No. 13—to move further up the positions. That will be done partly through regulatory collusion and the use of qualified majority voting, as Professor Roland Vaubel has indicated in his general concerns about the manner in which qualified majority voting and directives are dealt with.
The intervention of the financial crisis in 2007 delayed the implementation of the original provisions and prompted a rethink. Whether that rethink is beneficial is another issue. The new EU regulation that will replace the original directive, which is proposed alongside the new directive, provides for minimum harmonised standards of enforcement and sanction throughout the community. Although the UK Government are broadly supportive of the measures, there are procedural uncertainties, notably in the problem of aligning the three interlocking legislative measures at the same time. That has led the Government to conclude that the UK should not yet opt into the directive. I am interested to hear whether the Minister has a view on the words “not yet”. I do not think that he will commit himself at this stage, but there will be considerable difficulty and trouble for the City of London if we do opt in.
I do not believe that the directives are in the interests of the United Kingdom. We can legislate on these matters ourselves. There is much talk of fiscal union, banking union, supervisory authorities and the wholesale transfer of our jurisdiction over the City of London, which means so much to our gross domestic product and to our ability to compete internationally. That is being undermined by proposals of this kind, whether or not they are brought into effect.
Banking Reform
William Cash Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
It has always been the case that I would make the statement today. This may come as news to the shadow Chancellor—it may be different from his experience when he was City Minister—but the Treasury is a team. We have worked together on these reforms, and it was always the intention that I would make today’s statement. The shadow Chancellor should not believe what he reads on Twitter.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Having invested so much time advocating EU jurisdiction over banking in the City, how are the Government going to protect the City of London both from that EU jurisdiction and from qualified majority voting?
Mr Hoban
I think it is very clear that the emerging debate about a banking union flows from the problems we are seeing in the eurozone. It is important that the banking union helps resolve some of the problems in the eurozone, but it is a consequence of having a single currency, not a consequence of having a single market. It is important for the eurozone to move ahead in dealing with its problems and strengthening the banking regime within it. It is also important for the future of the City to ensure that there are proper safeguards over the functioning of the single market.
Financial Services Bill
William Cash Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
There is a saying that what is measured matters, and if it matters, measure it. In many ways, that is the core of the argument being made by Opposition Members.
Sixteen per cent. of those who aspire to own their own home and who borrow to buy do so from building societies. Roughly one in six of us borrows our mortgage from a building society. That significant market share is gradually growing. That is why I have argued that building societies are the unsung success of British financial services. They are certainly unsung by a Government who promised to be their champion.
In my view, building societies are the quiet strength of British financial services, but it is time that that strength was properly supported by Government policy and action. Mutuals look at the coalition agreement and point to the words on the paper, but they cannot point to the action that followed. The amendment is designed to force the hand of the Minister, the Treasury and the Government. I am surprised that it finds any objection on the Government Benches, because it simply seeks to hold the Government to the promise they made
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have found this debate both curious and inconsequential in many respects. There has been a great deal of talk about the technicalities of achieving the objective, but not, as far as I can judge, a great deal about the reasons why mutual societies are so important. However, I share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that the coalition agreement, of which I am not an uncritical observer, clearly stated that there should, in effect, be support for mutuals.
I declare an interest, because my family founded the Abbey National building society and the National Provident in the 1830s and later in the 19th century. The Abbey National is now Santander, and we need only look at what is happening in Spain to hope that there is some ring-fencing for its customers in the United Kingdom. The reason why mutuals are so important is the same reason why John Lewis is so important. It is the reason why the co-operative movement, which was founded in Rochdale—I do not apologise for also pointing out that that was where John Bright was born—is important. The Rochdale co-operative movement was the means whereby people could buy houses that they could not otherwise afford.
I have always been very much in favour of the right to buy, because having a property stake is important for individual responsibility. The great thing about the mutuals—and it still pertains, because they still exist, but need to be enhanced, improved, developed and encouraged—is that they enable people to come together in a proper and balanced relationship, with a sense of individual responsibility and, by co-operating together, to benefit each other and society as a whole in relation to the most fundamental aspects of property and insurance, without excessive profits, or indeed any real profits, for the people who put it together. That does not mean that I am against capitalism. Indeed, those who promoted mutual societies were invariably capitalists, and I count my own family in that number. William Cash founded the National Provident with the Lucas family, and the Cadburys were much involved in similar objectives. A raft of Quakers and other Dissenters were integral to the development of this incredibly important movement, which changed the face of society in the 19th century. We could do with that now.
Some five years ago, I wrote a letter to The Times, criticising aspects of the manner in which the banking system had given way to greed and self-indulgence. The Minister knows my views on the subject of the transfer of jurisdiction from the City to Brussels, including the point that legislation is no substitute for self-help. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) understands that better than anyone else. Indeed, Samuel Smiles, who wrote the famous book on self-help, was devoted to all these objectives because he knew that individual responsibility, operating within the framework of co-operatives and mutuals, would and should provide the kind of society that is worth living in. I put it as high as that, because to me this is a moral objective. We do not talk enough about morality. Law is no substitute for morality.
Mr Thomas
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one lesson regarding the regulation of building societies, friendly societies and other financial mutuals arising from the inquiry by the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) referred, was that regulators did not put enough time and effort into understanding the mutuals market and that this simple amendment will help to prevent a repeat of that scenario?
Mr Cash
It may well. It behoves the Government to take this kind of amendment very seriously, despite drafting imperfections. It is important to the integrity of our financial system and, above all else, the sense of individual ownership in a mutual context for this movement not merely to be nudged along but to be massively encouraged. The more people have a stake as a result of being in a mutual condition, the better society will be.
I am completely in favour of capitalism—that might disappoint Opposition Members—but each category of activity in financial markets requires its own remedy, and the mutual system is vital to ensuring that there is a proper balance in society and that those who, for one reason or another, cannot get on to the capitalist ladder in the way that some can have the benefit of mutuals and can share in the prosperity that others provide. I regard that as a very important objective.
Even if the amendment is not perfect, the intention behind it is important. Wrapping the whole thing up in jargon—some of us are very familiar with jargon—will not solve the real problem in the way that mutual societies can. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give careful attention to the objectives and purposes of mutuals, in the context of the amendment, and not simply say that the Opposition are talking nonsense or that the Opposition spokesmen are trying to be troublesome and criticise the coalition agreement. It is time we grew up, actually. By that I mean that instead of constantly talking about the Opposition as if they were simply trouble making and mischievous, we should recognise that in such matters we are trying to achieve something worth having.
Mr Cash
The Opposition spokesman says, “Hear, hear”, but I do not want to give him too much encouragement. We need to understand, however, that the objective behind the Opposition’s amendment is important, not because of party politics but because it is about having a stable, good and fair society. That is what we should all be seeking.
Mr Love
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), whose strictures I shall try to address. First, however, I want to appeal to the Minister, who, I know, is personally sympathetic to mutuals: this will be a modest contribution that tries to reflect his own coalition manifesto commitment to foster diversity and promote mutuals. In answer to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), I say that the amendment seeks to do that by trying to measure the strength and complexity of the mutual movement using the regulator.
No one has said why we would want to foster diversity and promote mutuals. I want to address that question, because it goes to the crux of what the hon. Member for Stone talked about. First, members benefit greatly from membership of mutuals. The tables of the best savings rates or lowest mortgage rates are populated by mutuals, which provide basic but risk-averse financial services—exactly what the ordinary consumer is looking for. Of course, the reason they can provide such services is that they do not have any shareholders and, therefore, no demands for dividends each year, allowing them to deliver their services efficiently.
Perhaps even more importantly, mutuals provide a consumer benefit by offering a competitive spur in the marketplace. The hon. Member for Stone says he believes in capitalism. I believe in a market system, and competition is a very good spur, and that is exactly what the mutual movement provides. The reduction in the number of building societies has meant that they have not been able to provide a stronger spur, which provides another reason for the amendment.
Mutuals provide choice in financial services. Does someone want a mutual member benefit or to contribute to shareholder value? People will make that choice in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of reasons, but it is important in a marketplace to have choice. We are confident that people will choose mutuals, because all the studies and polling of consumers of financial service show that mutuals are more popular and, perhaps more importantly, more trusted than their plc rivals. That is a very important consideration.
Why move the amendment now, other than to reflect the coalition agreement? Currently, the marketplace is dominated by the plc model, which is unhealthy. We all know what happened in the lead-up to 2007 and 2008: heightened risk, and the search for yield followed by the credit crunch. I am not suggesting that the Government are not taking steps, including in this Bill and forthcoming legislation this Session, to address some of these problems. I am saying that there developed a monoculture—group-think—in which everybody thought exactly the same. We need to avoid that. This modest amendment will help us to do so.
The amendment will also address the danger of the one-size-fits-all attitude displayed in recent years by the regulator, who did not deal effectively with life funds for friendly societies and mutual insurers. At the heart of the ongoing dispute is the failure to understand the essential difference between a mutual and a plc. The amendment would go some way to address that. The regulator now admits that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which was introduced some years ago, got it wrong by basing what each organisation had to pay on deposits, discriminating directly against building societies. There was no understanding or empathy in the regulator to address the issue. The Minister will say to me, “But the FSA has now updated its regulatory role. It’s opened a department to deal with these specific matters.” That is all to be welcomed; however, I hope that the Government will welcome this amendment, which represents a small step towards creating greater understanding and trust in the regulator’s dealings on these matters.
Mark Durkan
I had not originally intended to speak to this amendment, as time is tight and we need to make progress. I have also dealt with some of the points in interventions.
The Government say that they are committed. This Bill gives them an opportunity to go a bit further on that commitment. That is what the amendment offers them. The Government have said that they want to encourage mutualisation. I have heard Ministers talk about the damage done by the rampant trend towards demutualisation in the past—they have blamed that on others, as well as perhaps accepting some blame on behalf of a previous Government. However, clause 47 is a permissive clause, and there is good cause for saying that if the Treasury amends legislation dealing with mutuals—let us remember that we are talking about industrial and provident societies, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies—and if it transfers functions to the FCA, the PRA or both, given that the clause provides that functions can be transferred between different bodies, the Treasury should, in making those arrangements and exercising those powers, have regard to ensuring that someone can measure the size of the mutual sector overall and show progress where that is relevant. That is what the amendment would provide for. Such information will be relevant for Parliament’s interests and purposes—I am sure that future Treasury Committees will want to know what is happening and who is responsible for measuring such things, rather than relying on the market players. The information will also be hugely important for consumers, because if, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, we are to encourage more people to have confidence in this option, then the more people we can show are using it successfully, the better.
When the hon. Gentleman suggested that the mutual sector would, by its nature and character, not need detailed regulation and legislation, it occurred to me that he was going off in a different direction. Given the experience that some of us had with the Presbyterian Mutual Society and others, I can say that mutuals do need to be regulated by their nature, so that people can be sure that they are living up to the good name that they properly have. Consumers embrace mutuals on the basis of that confidence. They need to be able to rely on the fact that legislators have put in place a regulatory system to ensure that what they are getting is what they think they are getting.
Mr Cash
I would not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand what I meant. It is not that I do not think that there should be a degree of regulation. Rather, I am concerned about over-regulation to the point where the purposes of mutuals, as with so many other sectors of society, are sucked out by a vast amount of oppressive legislation, which is so bureaucratic and impossible for people to understand that they cannot see the wood for the trees. The whole objective of the mutual arrangement is that it is very much a personal relationship in a society to enable people to benefit one another.
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. That brings us to the point that we go through all this complicated legislation, with all this complicated jargon, to try to give consumers confidence that a regulatory regime is policing these matters for them, so that they know that the people they are entrusting with their money—their savings and so on—are performing to a due and proper standard. I would not want the House to create a situation where people felt that mutuals were, by their nature, less safe and less regulated, because non-mutuals would use that on a predatory basis in their marketing.
Business and the Economy
William Cash Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
Yes, and this is one of the big success stories. I understand that since the Government came in, half a million apprentices have now been trained through this process, which is 63% growth in an area where we made a major commitment, even in the context of necessarily declining public expenditure.
My hon. Friend’s first point leads on to my comment on the reform Bill, which contains a wide-ranging package of measures to overhaul the competition framework to support dynamic markets, to scrap unnecessary bureaucracy that is holding back companies, and to boost business and consumer confidence.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
We have been here before. We have heard about enterprise and regulatory reform Bills and all the like. Will the Secretary of State categorically assure us that he will arrange in the Bill for the overriding of that European legislation that imposes an impossible burden on small and medium-sized businesses? He knows it, the Government know it, promises have been made, and the Prime Minister said that he regarded it as an imperative necessity. Will the Secretary of State please get on with it?
Vince Cable
I think that I can deliver the spirit if not the letter of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I do not think that we can override European legislation in quite that way, but I do agree that there is a lot of unnecessary and burdensome European regulation, and I am working with what we call like-minded Ministers in other European Governments to get rid of it as much as possible.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Queen’s Speech has not been universally well received in the press—we saw that yesterday—or by the electorate. However, I want to concentrate on the broader landscape, and on the question of what is at the root of the problem that we face today. It is partly the level of debt. We are not really telling the British people the truth about that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and I, as well as others, said repeatedly before the general election. If we include pension funds, Network Rail and all the rest, the level of debt is probably about three trillion pounds. That debt has to be serviced, and finding the money to pay for it presents an enormous challenge.
The second point that I want to make is that this is not just a question of austerity or no austerity. Yes, we must be efficient and we must reduce public expenditure, but as I must have said a thousand times before the general election and on other occasions—and in a paper that I wrote only last year—the main issue is growth. I agree with earlier speakers who have pointed out that that growth must be demonstrably produced, and that cannot be done without a prescription. Small and medium-sized businesses must be given the oxygen that will enable them to provide employment and generate the revenues that pay for public expenditure.
Let us consider what is going on in the rest of Europe. Mr Hollande has just said that he does not want austerity and he does want growth, but the problem is that when he applies his test to austerity, he will not be able to secure growth. Let me say this to some of my friends on the other side of the Chamber. The fact is that employment regulations, the working time directive, paternity and maternity leaves and so forth have reached a point at which—in aggregate; I do not refer to any individual measure—they have strangled the small and medium-sized business environment of Europe which, in the real world, must compete with the Indias, the Chinas and the South Americas.
For practical purposes, we in this country must recognise that growth will come only from the generation of small and medium-sized businesses and a reduction in legislation. Yes, there is massive youth unemployment in other countries, but we cannot grow within a European Union which itself represents about 40% of our trade with those countries, and they cannot grow because they themselves were inhibited by the strangulation of small businesses, and also by the increase in legislation. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I can assure the House that there is no stopping that; every week we are given pile after pile of it.
Another problem is caused by the treaties themselves, and by the whole construction of the economic governance. I ask Members on both sides of the House to try to see the broader landscape, and to recognise that this cannot go on. It is destroying not only our economy, but other economies throughout the European Union. This is not just about the amounts of bail-outs; it is about the reason for the bail-outs. This is the message: the reason for the bail-outs is the fact that there is no growth and no competitiveness. Young people are out of work because there is no means of giving them work.
We need a convention of the whole of Europe, at which the leaders of Europe sit down opposite each other and talk this through in a sensible, rational manner, admitting that what has gone wrong has to be remedied. Representatives of the national Parliaments must be present, too, and there must be a constructive dialogue about the kind of Europe we want, because at the moment it is heading for disaster.
In the meantime, we have to deal with our own immediate problem, which is that there is no growth in this country either, and there is the massive debt, and the deficit is not really being reduced at all. The Opposition’s criticisms are therefore justified in theory, but in practice they offer no remedy. I strongly believe that we should override the European legislation. I was disappointed in what the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention of mine, because it is essential that we kick-start our small and medium-sized businesses and reduce the burden of regulation.
In 2005, the current Prime Minister described it as an imperative necessity to repatriate powers. On 16 May 2006, I proposed an amendment to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill that, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, would have enabled us to override European legislation where necessary. Some 50 current Government Ministers—Conservative Ministers—supported my amendment. It was then “three-lined” in the House of Lords, and it was opposed by the current Deputy Prime Minister and the Lib Dems. No repatriation of powers is a suicide note for the British nation. That is the message. We have to deregulate; we have to give oxygen to the SMEs. That is in the national interest.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
William Cash Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
We have a blinkered and, in many ways, deluded approach to austerity—or über-austerity, as some might characterise it—which is hurting not only in the eurozone but here as well. What angers many people is that the Government’s approach to helping the eurozone out of its difficulties is to throw money at it. Technically, that money is going to the International Monetary Fund, but everyone knows that it is all about eurozone bail-out funds. We are giving a further £10 billion loan, even though the Americans and the Canadians are all saying that we should stand firm and negotiate with the wealthy eurozone countries, including Germany, and make them dip deeper into their own pockets. If they do not do that, and if Britain, China, America and others provide the money, those eurozone countries will not do the deep, serious thinking that they need to do, and they will not take the consequences of their situation within the single currency. They will not put up a proper firewall, as they ought to do; they will not build what has been characterised as the “big bazooka”.
That is why we have consistently expressed our scepticism about the Chancellor’s decision to cave in and give extra resources—British taxpayers’ money—to the IMF, which we all know is going to be used for that particular purpose. We like the IMF for its work with other countries in the developing world, and of course we want a strong IMF, but we should not be letting those wealthy eurozone countries off the hook. They need to confront those issues.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I apologise for coming in late, but I have just got off the plane from Denmark where I was meeting the chairmen of the scrutiny committees of all the other national Parliaments of the European Union. We have recently witnessed the resignation of the Dutch Government and the consequences of the French elections. Would the House be interested to know that there is deep disquiet behind the scenes throughout the whole of Europe, as I discovered through speaking to those chairmen in the last couple of days?
Chris Leslie
I am afraid that I am not surprised to hear that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman spends a great deal of time and effort monitoring how these issues progress. Personally, I feel we need to find ways of supporting and stabilising the situation in the eurozone, but I do not think that the Government’s strategy is the right way to do that. However, I digress.
Kelvin Hopkins
That is a problem for Ministers and local authorities, but it has been estimated that we need another 4.5 million homes over the next few years if we are going to house our people. However, I will not go into that now, because I want to talk about the European Union.
I do not agree with the Budget—I think we ought to have a different one—but even if it were a good Budget, I nevertheless do not think that we should necessarily be required formally to send it to the European Union. I say that because the motion before us refers to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the Maastricht Act—which, I am pleased to say, my party voted against. Indeed, some Government Members voted against it as well. It is the Act that requires us to send the report to the European Union. Personally, I do not feel bound by that, because my party voted against it, and I do not think it is sensible anyway.
However, let us return to the stability and growth pact, which, as I have suggested, is like building castles in the air. What stability? What growth? We have grotesque instability at the moment—terrifying instability, in fact—and absolutely no growth. Indeed, even the powerhouse economy of Germany has serious problems. There is talk of convergence, but who do we want to converge with? Greece? Portugal? Some of the countries that are actually contracting, with mass unemployment? In Spain there is even talk of unemployment rising to 6 million, which, as a proportion of the population, is the equivalent of 9 million in Britain. This is absolutely insane. I do not want to be “disable-ist” about this, but anybody running that economy must want their head examined, quite frankly.
Mr Cash
Given the hon. Gentleman’s important comment about the convergence criteria, does he accept that it is absolutely clear that what was thought would happen in 1993, when the Maastricht treaty went through, has gone completely off the wall, as we predicted at the time and as everybody now knows? The Prime Minister said recently that he thought there ought to have been a referendum on that treaty. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, therefore, that there is a powerful case for having a referendum on the current situation with the euro and the eurozone?
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed, and I think many of the peoples of the European countries that are now suffering would like a referendum as well. What I find difficult to understand is why so many people in the countries facing difficulties still support the euro. I do not know why, because supporting membership of the euro is almost like having a death wish. If only there were some courageous politicians who could say, “The way out of our problems is to recreate our own currency, depreciate it against the countries we’re competing with and reflate behind that barrier,” those countries would start to solve their problems. However, they cannot do it because they are tied into the euro.
We have collective deflation, right across the entire European Union, and although this country is perhaps tinkering round the edges compared with some other countries, that is entirely the wrong way to go. One thing that is causing us problems at the moment is that the eurozone is in such trouble that the euro is now weakening, which, by contrast, is strengthening sterling and making life more difficult for our manufacturers. That is causing problems in many ways. However, if there were a sensible, managed deconstruction of the euro, with the re-creation of national currencies in many, or possibly all, of those countries, thereby allowing them to reflate their economies, they would benefit, as would we, and the whole European Union would then start to work properly—as a group of democratic, independent nations co-operating voluntarily for mutual benefit, rather than something driven by people in central banks or people in Brussels in the Commission.
Mr Nuttall
I am most grateful, as I am sure are all Members, for that confirmation from the Minister. That answer raises the following question, however. No doubt many officials at the Treasury have been engaged in the preparation of this convergence document, spending many hours of precious time and energy on it, but why? What a complete waste of time! As was ascertained last year, anybody who is interested in this information could glean all of it from the internet, without any need to move any paper about. This is a complete, gigantic waste of time. It is a giant, paper-shuffling exercise.
Mr Cash
As someone who took a very active part in the Maastricht debates, I can say that this current debate is a case of déjà vu. As my hon. Friend said, we are being required to submit this report under the provisions of section 5, even though everything has changed and it is utterly impossible for us to set out to achieve the stated objective, because it is impossible for us, in the national interest, to attempt to apply the convergence criteria. The whole thing is a complete mess, which is why we need to have a referendum on the whole issue, including our relationship with the European Union.
Mr Nuttall
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points: first, this is a complete waste of time, and secondly, we certainly ought to have a referendum. That is not, of course, the matter before us tonight, however. Instead, this is the question under discussion tonight: what is the point of sending this document to Brussels?
The Minister admits that we pay no attention to what Brussels says to us, and that we govern our own affairs, so what is the point of producing this document? We should be honest with the people in Brussels and say, “Look, we’re not going to listen to you anyway. We’re independent in these matters, and we’re going to stop sending you this document every year.” It is a complete waste of time to send it this year—and I would be very interested to know what happened to last year’s document.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I just wish to contribute a few words at the end of this debate, which I have listened to with interest. I am extremely concerned, but not because we are having to justify our Budget. I think that our Government are doing absolutely the right thing in cutting back on the deficit left to us by the previous Government, putting our house in order and putting the public first. That is where I would like to be: putting the public first. I do not wish there to be any consideration of whether Europe agrees that we are putting our public first or that we are putting European issues first. The European issues must be sorted out in Europe, among the people there. I do not feel that, as a sovereign Parliament, we should have to submit our Budget, regardless of whether the Opposition oppose or agree with it. It is up to us to decide the best for the British people and deliver the best for the British people—whether or not that causes “convergence” is neither here nor there.
The convergence that was perhaps envisaged in 1993 is not a route we would even want to go down now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, we are not sure what we are trying to converge with. I do not know why we are submitting documents that have the word “convergence” on the front of them, unless people are giving us marks out of 10 for converging with something.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I simply wish to say that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) really put his finger on it. He told us exactly what the position is with regard to which paper we were considering and he identified the questions that needed to be asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). This is about whether that treaty that we entered into all those years ago, after all that contention, has or has not done its work. It has failed, and it has failed not only this country but Europe as a whole. That is why we need to vote against the motion; this motion makes an assumption that this treaty is still alive. It is as dead as a parrot.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That must be the shortest speech that Mr Cash has made.
Question put.