Amendment of the Law

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I welcome many aspects of the Conservative parts of this Budget, including its emphasis on the need to encourage small businesses, enterprise and research and development, and its encouragement of economic growth, which is the key to everything. I welcome the simpler cash accounts system, which will bring significant benefits to small businesses, and the R and D tax credit system, as well as the seed investment programme for start-ups, which is very important. The patent box arrangements will be very useful, too, as will the proposals for young enterprise loans. Indeed, I recently attended an event in my constituency at which young people from Alleyne’s school in Stone were selling produce, based on proper commercial principles. They were learning key enterprise skills, therefore, and it would be wonderful if they could have access to some loans as well, to enable them to continue in that virtuous direction.

I welcome the reductions in corporation tax. In fact, I believe we should aim to reduce it to 15% by 2020, as the Institute of Directors proposes. I also approve of the proposals to reorganise personal allowances. That will be enormously beneficial to many people. However, despite the statements made this morning, I remain slightly concerned about the situation of pensioners. I am not yet convinced on that issue, so I think we shall have to tease it out during our deliberations on the Finance Bill.

I remain deeply worried about fuel duty. I do not think we should increase it at all. At least £31 billion comes into the Exchequer as a result of that duty, and 60% of the price at the pump is represented by taxation. Therefore, more positive policies were required. I would have liked fuel duty to have been reduced, and certainly not increased.

There will be no economic growth unless we have proper private enterprise, as that is what pays for every penny received by the public sector. There is no money except for what comes from reasonably taxed private enterprise. We must therefore ensure that we are truly competitive, and if that requires reducing our tax rates, that is the direction in which we must go.

I am deeply concerned about the failure to deal with the problem of over-regulation. I have read the Red Book, and it does not fill me with a great deal of confidence. On page 43, under the heading “Exports and inward investment”, there are a few comments about export finance. The next heading on that page is:

“Making the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business”.

[George Freeman]

The best place in the world, surely?

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say: the UK should be the best place for businesses in the entire world, not just Europe.

That is very important. Especially given the current eurozone crisis, we cannot carry on kidding ourselves that our future depends on our trade with Europe. It is an important part of our trading relationships, but it is a failing part. Our balance of payments figures show that in just one year the deficit in our trade with the other European Union member states has risen from £14 billion to £46 billion. I understand the figures will be revised on 28 March. I trust the figures for 2010-11 will not show that the deficit is worse still.

The previous Government put all their eggs in the European basket. This Government, to their credit, are beginning to refocus their trading relations with the rest of the world. We have a monumental opportunity to be able to get that straight in terms of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Time is up.

Remuneration of EU Staff

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 17625/11 and Addendum, relating to a draft Regulation adjusting, from 1 July 2011, the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union and a Commission staff working paper: Eurostat report on the 2011 update of the 2010 actuarial assessment of the Pension Scheme for European Officials, and No. 17627/11, a Commission Communication to the Council providing supplementary information on the Commission report on the Exception Clause of 13 July 2011; questions the European Commission’s conclusion that recent and challenging economic conditions do not warrant application of the Exception Clause; regrets that the Commission has not modified the salary adjustment method this year; stresses that consequent increases in EU staff pay, proposed by the Commission, are completely unacceptable when as part of its fiscal consolidation plans the Government has imposed restraints on public sector pay; notes that the framework for setting EU remuneration requires reform to increase Member States’ oversight and control, which the ongoing review of the EU Staff Regulations may enable; and commits to achieve very significant reductions in EU administrative spending in the next Multiannual Financial Framework as part of the UK’s overarching goal to impose real budgetary restraint.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the 2011 EU salary adjustment and the Government’s agenda to reform and reduce EU administrative spending. The House is familiar with the context for EU spending: while Europe’s economy remains very fragile, delivering and supporting plans to consolidate public finances remains crucial and, at the same time, we must also seek to promote growth using available resources.

There are two clear implications for the EU budget. First, the EU must live within its means; high spending is not the way to fix Europe’s problems. Secondly, all EU spending must deliver the highest added value. Strict and rigorous prioritisation is necessary to reduce waste and inefficiency.

Over the past few years, the Government have worked hard to establish a new framework for budget discipline at EU level. That is an important task because current EU spending targets, agreed by the previous Government, set a rising trajectory for EU spending to 2013 that is no longer realistic.

We have pursued our goal with considerable success. For 2011, growth in EU spending was limited to 2.91%, far below the unacceptable 6% increase demanded by the Commission and European Parliament, and last year, the 2012 EU budget was set at only 2.02% above the original 2011 budget, exactly as proposed by the European Council in July. That delivered on the Prime Minister’s determination to freeze the EU budget in real terms, and set spending €4 billion below the level advocated by the European Parliament.

A drive to limit EU administrative savings is a key plank of the Government’s approach to budgetary restraint at EU level. It reflects the tough domestic measures the Government are taking to find savings. As set out in the spending review, the administrative budgets of central Whitehall Departments will be reduced by 34%, saving £5.9 billion a year by 2014-15 so that resources can be focused on front-line services.

The EU should show a similar drive to find efficiency savings. Any suggestion of waste in the EU budget damages the standing of the EU institutions and of the EU as a whole. Its ambition, however, is evidently lacking. Strikingly, for 2012 the Commission proposed to save only €695, much less than one 1,000th of its €3.3 billion budget. We are clear, however, that the EU institutions must manage themselves and the programmes that they help to manage far better and on lower budgets. We have called for a cash freeze in EU administrative spending in recent annual budget negotiations and we want to see cash cuts in that area over the next multi-annual financial framework.

Today, I can inform the House that the Chancellor took the unprecedented step of voting against discharging the accounts for the 2010 EU budget. We have not seen enough progress in reducing the level of errors in EU transactions, which is unacceptable. We should remember that national taxpayers stand behind the EU budget and that is why we have clearly signalled the need for important and urgent improvements to the quality of EU financial management.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister because of the effects of her unfortunate accident, but is there a blocking minority against the proposals and has it been exercised? May I ask whether we are not only voting against it, but have voted against it, and what the outcome was?

[Miss Smith]

I think I will cover all those points in my speech, although I am grateful to my extremely well-informed hon. Friend for his prompt to do so.

Let me turn now to the 2011 EU salary adjustment. The Commission’s attitude towards EU staff pay adjustments is another clear indication of its estrangement from reality. In the UK, the public sector pay bill makes up more than half of departmental resource spending, so action on pay is inevitably part of the Government’s fiscal consolidation strategy. Accordingly, the Government have announced a two-year public sector pay freeze for those earning above £21,000, with pay awards following that averaging only 1%. Those measures are estimated to save around £3.3 billion a year by 2014-15.

At EU level, on the contrary, staff remunerations counted for 69% of the Commission’s budget in 2011, which means that EU annual salary adjustments have important implications for the size of EU administrative costs. However, rather than taking action to reduce its wage bill the Commission proposed to increase it by 1.7%, representing an extra €39 million, in the year from July 2011, despite the fact that the vast majority of EU officials earn significantly more than most public officials in the UK and many other member states.

I turn now to the position of the UK and the Council. Clearly, any pay increase for EU staff is unacceptable. In conjunction with other member states, the Government called on the Commission to lower its proposals, taking into account the economic situation and the policy measures in many member states to curb public wage bills. The request was made not once but twice, first in December 2010 and again in November 2011. The requests were made by invoking the so-called exception clause—article 10 of the 11th annex to the EU staff regulations—the only means for seeking to alter the mechanistic salary adjustment process under the current system.

Each time, the Commission has stubbornly refused to reduce growth in EU staff pay. Its defence for its inaction has been internally inconsistent, self-serving and, as the European Scrutiny Committee observed, one-sided. By claiming that there has been no

“sudden and serious deterioration in the economic and social situation”

in the EU, the Commission has undertaken faulty analysis. For example, it based its rosy evaluation on forecast indicators that did not pertain to the period defined for its assessment.

More seriously, the Commission ignored the huge number of important fiscal consolidation measures adopted and implemented by member states during the period under review. The Commission itself has strongly advocated such measures, yet incredibly it used stabilising debt and deficit levels to justify higher pay for its own staff.

Most seriously of all, the Commission has manipulated the current system to deprive member states of the opportunity to evaluate the situation independently and to adopt appropriate measures, at a time when it is evident to us all that taking immediate action to curb growth in EU staff pay is the right thing to do. That is why the UK and the wider Council rejected the 1.7% pay increase in December. It is also why we have blocked reductions in EU staff contribution rates to their pension scheme. In addition, the Council has lodged a court case against the Commission for mishandling the 2011 salary adjustment.

The Council’s decision to proceed with legal action against the Commission indicates the seriousness with which we treat the issue. Should the Council lose the case, it will simply add weight to our view that the current process is defunct and cannot adapt properly to difficult economic circumstances. In any event, reform of the salary adjustment system is urgent. The ongoing review of the EU staff regulations, which set out the rules in this area, provides an important opportunity to make that happen.

Delivering a subtler and more responsive way of setting EU staff pay, which empowers the Council to make suitable adjustments in times of economic distress and more generally, is an important objective. One part of the Government’s broader agenda to achieve efficiency gains and financial savings in the EU budget is via reform of the staff regulations that determine such a high level of the EU’s administrative budget.

Overall, the potential for savings is high. This dossier is subject to qualified majority voting and co-decision with the European Parliament. Our success will depend on building firm alliances, so the Government are already working closely with other member states to agree cost- saving ideas that can command broad support in Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I had better not incur the wrath of the Speaker by commenting, other than to congratulate those MPs who were able to take part. I note that, apart from my hon. Friend, none of them is here to participate in the debate. Perhaps they are recovering.

I begin by thanking the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending this for debate on the Floor of the House and for the work it has done in scrutinising these documents. European institutions can sometimes seem remote and impenetrable, but as we are aware, the workings of the EU in general, and of the Commission, have a significant impact on a range of issues that affect us all. We also know that the EU produces a huge volume of documents, and members of the European Scrutiny Committee do us a service by examining a number of those in detail, and recommending debate on the Floor of the House where there are further questions for the Government to consider.

The Committee’s reason for drawing attention to these documents relates to a number of specific concerns: first, the process that has led us to the position where once again we might see a legal battle between the Commission and the Council in the European Court of Justice; secondly, the Commission’s view that there was no justification for invoking the exception clause; and thirdly, questions about what action the Government have taken, and will take, regarding the negotiations on the amendment of Annex XI.

As the European Scrutiny Committee recognised, the documents are technical in content, but they nevertheless raise issues of far greater political importance. In properly scrutinising these documents, it is important to understand their background and history. The Minister has already covered some of that territory and I will not seek to repeat it. However, it is worth highlighting some of the context again, because it is entirely linked to the wider economic situation we face.

In less difficult financial times such documents, which essentially put in place the necessary paperwork for salary upgrading, might have passed, if not entirely unnoticed—the Scrutiny Committee would always have had an eye on them—at least without significant comment, except from Members who view anything to do with Europe as by its nature a bad thing. I do not take that view, but we are in a climate where there is justified anger at excessive pay, outrage at bankers’ bonuses and a general feeling that staff who are already highly paid should not get extra rewards simply for doing their job properly.

[Mr Cash]

Is there not a further point on economic performance arising from the hon. Lady’s comments? The calculations being made are based on the assumption that there is reasonable growth in the European Union, which simply is not the case. It falls on economic as well as legal grounds.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point that I will address in greater detail later.

Being somewhat older than the Minister, I can recall the days when the so-called Eurocrats were high on the hit list of public anger, as salaries and conditions in European institutions were perceived to be far more generous than those enjoyed at home. Some of the most highly paid officials might be relieved that they are no longer the focus of that anger as bankers and others have taken over. However, the subject of EU salaries and pensions remains important. As the European Scrutiny Committee has highlighted, it is clear that this subject needs greater clarity and resolution. As we have heard, the Commission took the Council to the Court over EU salaries and pensions in 2009, and only last month it announced its intention to do so again. In advance of today’s debate, I asked the House of Commons Library about the costs involved in the last case. I was told:

“There is no straightforward way of getting a figure for the costs borne by the Council in Case C-40/10.”

I was also told that the Library had attempted to obtain information, but the Court had said that

“replying would be a massive undertaking that will require all sorts of cost allocation analyses (within the Commission’s legal service and the European Court of Justice), at great expense to European taxpayers”.

The Court might be unable to tell us exactly how much that wrangling cost, but it is clear that any legal fight will have come at great expense to the taxpayer. The questions that taxpayers will no doubt ask is whether that ping-pong between the Commission and the Council is really the best way to resolve such matters, and I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to that. However, taxpayers will want to know exactly what the Government have done in the past year to push for reform so that we are not faced with this annual tit for tat and ongoing uncertainty.

The second area of major concern for the European Scrutiny Committee was the Commission’s decision not to provide for an alternative salary adjustment in its 2011 report and the basis on which that decision was taken. Members of the Scrutiny Committee amplified their concerns in the conclusions of their report of 2 November by describing the assessment required of the Commission in considering the exception clause as appearing to be a one-sided exercise.

There are different opinions on Europe across the political parties, and indeed within them, but there is one thing that I am sure we can agree on: times are now tough across Europe. GDP fell throughout Europe at the end of the previous quarter, unemployment in the eurozone is at a record high and we continue to face uncertainty surrounding the eurozone crisis. In reality, apart from those at the very top, people in work in both the public and private sectors are already experiencing those tough times, and families are bearing the brunt. Every day we hear that small business are struggling, and they consistently report that they cannot get the finance that they need or, indeed, previously had. It is becoming harder and harder for people to buy their first home, with the deposits required now out of reach for many young people starting out in family life.

Yet, despite that wider economic climate, the Commission did not deem the general economic outlook in Europe to be an “extraordinary situation” as defined by the European Court of Justice. Try to explain that to the low-paid couple who are set to lose about £4,000 in working tax credits when they hear that a highly paid official could gain an extra £4,000 under the proposals.

If we are not in an extraordinary economic situation, what would make for one? We have to question why it is deemed correct to ask hundreds of thousands of public sector workers in the UK and throughout Europe to take the hit and to face a cap in their pay and an uncertain future, while no similar restraint is shown by the EU institutions.

Another part of the problem is that, owing to the structure of the current arrangement, annual adjustments are implemented across the board irrespective of salary levels, meaning that a high earner who is already on £200,000 will receive thousands of pounds more under the proposals.

The Opposition have made it clear that financial discipline in the public and private sector must be accompanied by fairness, and in terms of salary scales, just as at home, we must be tougher on those at the top to help protect those at the bottom. Have the Government made representations on that point during any part of the negotiations?

I agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the process smacks of being one-sided, and it could be argued that the Commission’s conclusion that we do not face extraordinary times has made a mockery of the exception clause, so urgent reform is clearly needed.

That brings me to my next point, and the Committee’s third area of concern: the Government’s action and representations on the issue. We hear a lot from the Government, as we have again today, about them taking a tough position on EU administrative expenditure and wanting to see real budgetary restraint in the EU over the coming years. They spell that out in their memorandum on the subject, and they go on to express dissatisfaction with the substance and procedure of the salary and pension adjustment proposals, making the point that the formal proposals were first circulated only on 24 November 2011 but required Council approval by the end of the year.

Again today, although we have heard a great deal about the facts of the situation, we have not heard in detail how the Government intend that tough position to manifest itself, or who exactly they are going to be tough on. The fear and worry for many will be that this is just another example of talk but not necessarily action on Europe by the Government, so I should like to hear from the Minister how the Government expect to take the lead in talks on reform at a time when the UK’s political capital in Europe is at its lowest in a generation.

In recent months we have seen how the Prime Minister’s actions have left Britain somewhat isolated in Europe, because leading up to last December’s summit he did not appear to put any real effort into alliance building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am in the unusual position of largely agreeing with not only my own party’s Front Benchers—that is always a great pleasure, if something of a rarity in European affairs—but, as it happens, the Opposition spokesman. This is a very important debate, because it indicates what is going on in the European Union. There is a complete cloud cuckoo land, which I observed when I went to the multi-annual surveillance framework meeting a few months ago.

[Mr Lidington]

indicated assent.

[Mr Cash]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is nodding vigorously, because it was simply staggering. There we were, faced with a huge European financial crisis, and all people were doing was getting up, one after another, and demanding more and more money.

There is so much common ground in the House that I am happy to be brief and allow my hon. Friends to explain their points of view and concerns. I am conscious of the fact that I have had quite a few opportunities to do so. However, I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently signed a joint letter with Mr Rajoy, the Prime Minister of Spain, and other EU leaders. It is also signed by the Prime Ministers of a number of Nordic and Baltic countries, together with the Polish Prime Minister. It is about building up a sense of alliance, and it is reported in today’s Financial Times under the headline, “Cameron steps up moves to rebuild links with Europe”. I trust that that is being done on an entirely realistic basis.

For example, to return to the point that I made to the Economic Secretary, I hope that the group getting a blocking minority and voting consistently against the measures in question will include a sufficient number of member states to ensure that the Commission cannot get away with what is no more or less than the manipulation of the rather arcane formulae contained in the regulations. The European Scrutiny Committee is deeply concerned about the situation, as other Members will be.

I entirely agree that the European Commission’s analysis is faulty, and it is also completely out of date, to say the very least. I am being rather generous in saying that, because it has fitted the facts to what it wants to hear. That is why the Committee describes what it has done as “self-serving”. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, there is also the problem that the Commission is the judge and jury in its own case.

We must also consider what we might expect to get from the European Court of Justice. Serious questions often arise about whether many of its decisions are taken on too much of a political basis rather than a strictly juridical one.

[Mark Reckless]

On a recent visit to Brussels, I had the pleasure of meeting the civil servant who negotiated the package in question. He was absolutely up front in saying to me that his role was to do the best for his colleagues. Having done that so successfully, he was promoted. What more do we need to know to see that the EU is run for the benefit not of its members but of its staff?

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and that is far too much of an endemic problem throughout the EU. We know about the case of Marta Andreasen, who was one of the chief accounting officers in the EU some time ago and had the temerity to challenge the basis on which its administration in the Court of Auditors was being run. She was sacked. Before that, there was Bernard Connolly. I am given to understand today that in Greece the chief representative for EUROSTAT, who has to operate within its regulations, is under siege and under incredible personal pressure, and may even be taken to court because he has taken unpopular decisions.

The problem lies in the idea of acting as judge and jury and being self-serving when the whole of Europe is in a state of complete crisis. People are, frankly, lining their own pockets at public expense at a time when we know, because we have just had our letters from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that we are not going to be given an increase, any more than are the civil servants and so forth. The disparity between what is going on in the European Union and what is going on in the domestic administration of this country is so glaringly obvious that we have every reason as a Parliament not only to debate the issue but really to put our foot down.

How are the Government approaching the negotiations on annex 11 of the staff regulations, which deals with annual salary adjustments? It strikes our Committee that the procedure by which the exception clause is invoked is tantamount to a breach of natural justice, as the Commission, in effect, decides whether it should freeze the salaries of its own staff. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how she would like this procedure to be amended.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would it not be natural justice for European bureaucrats to have exactly the same conditions as our own civil service, with no additional money being paid by this country for them to get an add-on to their salaries?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly agree with that, and I would say the same about the European Parliament and the analogy with this House. The reality is that there is an air of unreality. In the words of T. S. Eliot,

“Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”

It is time that we sorted this out.

Connecting Europe Facility

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16176/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 16499/11, No. 16006/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, No. 15629/11 and Addenda 1 to 35, No. 15813/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to the European Commission’s draft regulations on the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20; supports the Government’s view that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial increases in EU spending in this area compared with current spend is unacceptable and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken to bring deficits under control in both the UK and countries across Europe; considers that spending in this area should focus on identifying and providing genuine EU-added value, and not on spending where domestic governments and the market are better placed to act; and further supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce both the Commission’s proposed budget for the Connecting Europe Facility and the overall level of spending in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20.

The European Commission’s proposal for a connecting Europe facility for transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure cuts across the work of Government. I am therefore grateful that I have been joined in the Chamber by ministerial colleagues from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in putting forward the Government’s case on the motion.

Matters of deficits, spending and growth are at the top of all of our concerns, not just here in the UK, but across Europe. Those issues go to the very heart of the continued instability in the euro area. That ongoing instability vindicates the Government’s decision to get ahead of the curve, cut our deficit and impose strict financial discipline on our budget.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Whereas many hon. Members will agree with the sentiment of the Government’s motion, the idea that we should contribute to the EU indirectly through the International Monetary Fund on the scale that is proposed is unacceptable.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend’s point is outside the topic of the debate this afternoon. He is aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments and assurances on that matter.

As I have said, at home, we have taken tough decisions to tackle our deficit and demonstrated leadership. We expect exactly the same leadership on spending in Europe from the European Commission, but whether on the annual budget or the financial framework, such leadership has been completely lacking. Instead of finding ways to cut spending or to drive better value for money, the Commission, through the connecting Europe facility, proposes to increase spending on transport, energy infrastructure and telecommunications by 400% as part of a multi-annual financial framework that increases payments by more than €100 billion over its duration.

Just as at home, where we have prioritised spending on growth while tackling the deficit, the Government would like a higher proportion of a restrained EU budget spent to promote sustainable growth. The proposal does not achieve that objective. We are arguing that spending should be lower, and that what spending remains should be focused on areas that offer genuine added value across the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (a), in line 5, leave out from ‘2014-20’ to end and add

‘believes that there should be no overall increase in expenditure compared with current levels; takes note of the concerns about the Eurozone economy expressed by Standard and Poor’s that “a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”; calls on the European Commission to reduce its proposed budget and the proportion of the Multiannual Financial Framework set aside for the Common Agricultural Policy and to reorder the Connecting Europe Facility proposals to phase capital infrastructure components so that they enhance employment and economic growth within a more limited multi-year budget; supports action to promote EU competitiveness and review the impact of the structural funds; and calls on the Government to develop more effective deficit reduction strategies at home and across the EU by advocating urgently a credible plan for growth.’.

I am glad that the amendment has been selected, because the Government’s motion is missing a rather important component—something conspicuous by its absence. To give hon. Members a clue, it is a word missing not only from the motion but from our economy.

What problem do the Conservative party, and those very full Liberal Democrat Benches, have with the concept of economic growth? The lack of growth is the reason the Government say they have to borrow £158 billion more than planned last year. It helps to explain why in the three months to November unemployment was at its highest level since 1994; and, of course, it explains why business confidence has collapsed. The Government are either ignorant of the negative impact that an austerity obsession here and in Europe is having on the prospects for growth, or they are wilfully pulling the rug from underneath the economy in the twisted expectation that that will somehow restore confidence and deal with the sovereign debts created in the wake of the global financial crisis.

The European Commission’s plans before the House are revealing of the current approach to economic policy across Europe and of the Government’s lack of influence and lack of interest in showing a positive lead. We are all agreed on the need to reduce the planned budget for the multi-annual financial framework for the years until 2020, and we too believe that there should be no overall increase in expenditure when compared with current levels, but why are Ministers totally failing to make the case for a proper growth strategy in Europe with our main trading partners, with whom we need to do well if our exporters are to succeed?

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely interested in the shadow Minister’s approach to the question of growth. When Labour was in government, over several years I raised the question about lack of growth and the vast increase in indebtedness, but there was no response or attempt to deal with over-regulation—over-regulation being one of the main reasons we are not getting growth. Does he accept therefore that it is difficult to stomach any lectures from him on growth? I have criticisms of the failure on growth in Europe and in this country, but we certainly do not want any lectures from him and his team.

[Chris Leslie]

I hope that I am not striking a lecturing tone. I am simply imploring the Government to pull their finger out and do something about economic growth in the UK and Europe. I am making the point that what happens in Europe affects our economy. The regulatory debate did indeed go on for many years. The Minister himself called for deregulation and light-touch approaches across the City and elsewhere. We have to get regulation issues correct, and we all have lessons to learn from what went wrong in that regulatory debate. We have admitted that mistakes were made, but I am still waiting for the Minister to accept that he too made poor decisions in calling for deregulation, particularly in financial services.

Nothing in the Government’s motion seeks to steer the Commission towards a more activist role in boosting and stimulating European economies, particularly in the short term. There is no sense that the Government are seeking to influence this connecting Europe facility in order to re-phase capital investment and bring real help now to an economy on the brink. One-dimensional collective austerity, as advocated by our Government—and also, unfortunately, by the Germans and others—makes it harder to get deficits down, not easier to reduce public debt.

Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Six days ago, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s, after downgrading the status of some eurozone nations, stated that

“a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”.

Even the credit rating agencies are now worried about the lack of growth in the European economy and about whether the eurozone has the right strategy for building its way out of the fiscal hole in which it finds itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The problem with this over-arching proposal is basically that it will be carried by qualified majority vote and is therefore, in effect, a form of taxation. Whatever proportion of that overall budget of £43.7 billion eventually falls on the United Kingdom, the Committee of which I have the honour to serve as Chairman believes that the scale of the Commission’s ambition for the 2014 to 2020 financial period is clearly unacceptable. On that basis, there is no doubt that the thrust of the Government’s motion is correct.

Although I happen to agree with the proposals on growth in the Opposition motion, the fact is that the Opposition are guilty of having severely restricted any opportunity for growth through the massive increase in public expenditure that they imposed on the United Kingdom. I and two or three other Conservative Members continually attacked that increase for the best part of three years and, as I repeatedly said at the time, there was no proposal for growth, which was connected to the problems of over-regulation, of which these proposals are yet another example.

The truth is that there should have been a full debate—there still may be opportunity for such a debate—on what is going wrong with the European Union as a whole. That debate is necessary because, as the Government have pointed out, the EU is calling on member states such as ourselves to produce more money for projects that could be better carried out under the so-called principle of subsidiarity at a national level.

At the same time, it is abundantly clear that there is no money in the European coffers. We should be debating the eurozone crisis as a whole in a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, which my Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide, but when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) repeated our calls this morning for a general debate it was denied by the Government, yet again.

[Mr Bone]

On that point, the Backbench Business Committee can, of course, grant a full-day debate on Thursday of next week if the Government release that day, which they are holding back for a general debate. Would my hon. Friend urge the Chief Whip to consider doing that?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly would. I endorse that course of action, and I would be grateful if the Whips on duty would pass that message to the Chief Whip—and, indeed, the Leader of the House—because we are faced with a monumental crisis in the European Union. That is only a symptom of the problem, which is generated by the intrinsic defects of the accumulated treaties, particularly since the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s.

So much is decided by qualified majority vote despite the fact that we currently face such severe restrictions and so much austerity, which is causing difficulties for our hospitals, schools, transport and so much else. Proportionality in respect of allocations is required. Getting that balance right is vital for our national interest. We should therefore have a debate on the Floor of the House, and not only on this one issue, important though it is.

I attended the multiannual financial meeting of about eight weeks ago as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the United Kingdom national Parliament, and I felt compelled to get up and complain bitterly about the complete “Alice in Wonderland” attitude that prevailed there. People were calling for an ever-greater increase in the amount of money that should be made available to the EU, and they were justifying that by reference to the Lisbon treaty, for example. They said that as the functions had grown, there ought to be more money. There is absolutely no recognition of the fact that there is simply not enough money to go around. We should be proceeding on the basis that we must reduce, rather than merely freeze, the budget.

The Government motion is right, therefore. However, we are facing demands from the financial transaction tax—I accept that we can veto that—and there are also attempts to stop our rebate and proposals to increase own-resources. Cumulatively, those moves are putting pressure on us to move in the wrong direction. There are great opportunities for the UK in a trading environment that is global—across the world, rather than just in the EU, important though that may be—and that is the direction we should be going in. All transport issues, including aviation policy and the development of our local infrastructure, should be taken by ourselves in the interests of the UK, rather than determined by QMV involving the other member states.

The European project is completely misconceived, and it is failing; the eurozone crisis will ultimately lead to collapse. The current situation is rather like the phoney war of 1938 and 1939: everybody knows the situation is doomed, but they are continuing to pretend that somehow something will turn up.

My message is that the Government motion is right in general, but that there is not enough determination to renegotiate the treaties. I welcome the veto, but once we cross the Rubicon, we cannot cross back. The reality is that any attempt to do so will meet with disaster, division and acrimony.

I am glad that we have had this debate, but there are also more important matters that must be debated as a matter of urgency. As I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Bury North and many others have said, we must have a proper debate on the extent, range and depth of the eurozone crisis and its impact on the UK.

We must also explore the other key issues facing us, such as why we are being confronted with QMV decisions to impose what is, in effect, a form of taxation to provide for certain facilities. Such decisions should be made on a bilateral national basis. It is not anti-European to say that is what we should do, because doing that is in the interests of Europe. What Europe is doing, however, is determinedly pursuing a completely false prospectus and then compounding that—sadly, with our Government in agreement, it appears—by proposing that we should find yet more devious means of providing money through the IMF to support what is an insupportable project. That simply flies in the face of common sense.

Banking Commission Report

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There are things that we have done and are doing now to make our banking system safer. Banks are required to hold more capital—more cushion—to protect them against losses, whether from sovereign debt or anything else. We regularly take part in pan-European stress tests, and actually the British banks pass those tests when other European banks do not. I think that that is because the British banking system is well capitalised and liquid.

We are also introducing a new system of regulation, which, as I say, will be operational in 2013; once the legislation has passed through the House of Commons, the Bank of England will be in charge. Furthermore, we are introducing the Vickers requirements over the next three and half years, until the general election at the end of this Parliament—we are getting all that legislation through as well. We are doing a huge amount to make the British banking system safer now, but also safer in future.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

To protect the City of London, will the Chancellor follow the example of the Prime Minister when he used the veto the other day? When necessary, will the Chancellor here in Westminster override European legislation to protect the taxpayer, the City of London and the United Kingdom?

[Mr Osborne]

We need legislation that works effectively for British banks across Europe; British banks have subsidiaries in other European countries. Actually, a single market in financial services would be a very good thing—and it is a good thing for this country, although we need to see it deepen. We also need to make sure that countries with very large banking systems, such as our own, are able to take national decisions that protect our banking systems. I am confident that we can secure agreement to that.

Eurozone Crisis

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Caton, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to what is probably the most important subject of debate that we will have during this Parliament. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate and on presenting his arguments in a challenging and clear way. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points he has raised.

Most of my hon. Friend’s speech dealt with the financial aspects of the issue. My view, however, is that it is not possible to consider the issue without also looking at the wider context. Indeed, I raised that point when I intervened on him. The key concern for me and many others is that the euro is destroying democracy as we know it in western Europe. That was my main reason for opposing Britain’s entry to the euro when it was established.

I am not sure how many of the hon. Members present were involved, like me, in the 1975 campaign to leave the European Economic Community, but I think that some of us might have been—I can see one or two. At the beginning, we thought there was a chance that we would be successful, but in the end the argument that I supported was well beaten. I was not trained as an economist—or as anything really; I left school when I was 16 to be a farmer—but my argument was that the public’s gut instinct in those days was that we were creating a huge bureaucracy whereby the ability to influence decisions in our country was to be transferred somewhere where we would not have influence. That was the fundamental gut instinct that drove us to the “no” side.

When the eurozone was being established, I became involved in the opposition to it, which was unusual, because I was the chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in the National Assembly for Wales and the agricultural community was fairly supportive of Britain joining the euro. I remember being dismissed on platforms as an extremist, but I was simply not in favour of Britain joining the euro. My argument was exactly the same as that which many people are making today—to create a successful eurozone almost certainly means financial union. Nobody has hidden that. In 1975, the purpose of many people who were behind the establishment of the EEC was that we would eventually move to political union in Europe. That was the small print. Today, I hear people saying that they thought we were joining an economic community, but that is not what I or a lot of other people thought.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Last night, the Prime Minister made a speech at the Guildhall in which he called for fundamental reform in the European Union, but it is not really just a question of fundamental reform in the EU, is it? What we have to have is a fundamental change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, because it is a failed project. We have been enmeshed in it and it is increasingly causing damage to our own economy.

[Glyn Davies]

My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point, although I shall not use precisely the same language that he uses and has used for a long time—probably about 30 years. The Government’s policy, which I support, is that we should seek to repatriate powers from the European Union. That is easy to say, but for the Government to deliver that objective, the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary have to have a way to do so. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to think about exactly how we are going to do that. Which parts of European policy, precisely, do we wish to repatriate—whole blocks or just specific parts? The issue is hugely complex and a tremendous amount of work will have to be put in to enable it to be addressed.

We could speak for hours on the issue—I am sure that I could. A lot of Members want to speak. I have raised the points that I wanted to make and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate. Like him, I spent some years in the City of London, in various institutions. I want to address three things. First, I want to look at the theoretical construction of the euro as it was set up. My hon. Friend talked about the various eurozone summits and why they failed to find a solution. The reality, of course, is that a theoretically implausible project means that any eurozone solution will not be practical. I also want to talk about some of the reactions, and conditions the International Monetary Fund might want to attach to its bail-out, and our interest in it.

The single market was much welcomed in terms of the encouragement of free trade, which then drove some people to the aspiration for a single currency. It was clear that those countries that were going to join would lose the basic levers of economic policy, namely taxation—that is, fiscal policy—as well as interest rates, exchange rates, protectionism and, indeed, unemployment. It was also clear to any undergraduate, or even A-level economist, that the reality was that a fudge might be possible in good times, but not in a recession. The opponents of that view pointed to optimal currency area theory, which showed that the transaction costs would be lessened and that everything would, therefore, be fine. In practical terms, however, we have seen a theoretical misconstruct. The euro was a misconstruct because it failed to recognise exactly what that theory says: for optimal currency area theory to work, the economies have to be homogeneous in nature or flexible in their arrangements, so that they can move to homogeneity, or a currency union needs to be established alongside a fiscal union at the same time; otherwise, the overwhelming point is that whatever is set up in terms of a single currency will fail.

On the economies that were in the eurozone when it began—the wealth of Germany, the emergence of Ireland and the agrarian underdevelopment of Portugal— surely the appropriate description is diverse rather than homogeneous. Moreover, if we look at the policy formulation since the currency has been in existence, we see that there has been no flexibility that would allow movement to a homogeneous economy. Unless we recognise that the project is flawed in theory and do something about the theoretical basis, we will never find a practical solution. It is not surprising that we have had 15 eurozone summits that have provided no solution whatever.

The absurd reactions of Europe’s senior eurocrats are also of extreme concern. They are preventing any serious discussion of a resolution. The basic premise at the moment is, “The euro must be saved, the euro must be saved, the euro must be saved.” Only last week, President Barroso said yet again that the euro should be the norm for Europe. He even denied the UK’s permanent right to opt out. The President of the European Council, Mr Rompuy, also made an extraordinary remark over the weekend when he suggested that, if the eurozone’s integrity was not preserved, the functionality of the internal market could not be taken for granted. That is an absurd proposition. First, we need only look at the history of how the single market functioned before the euro came into being. Secondly, a single market does not need a single currency, but I will not bother to go into the theoretical construct for that.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend remember Madame Lagarde saying on 17 December 2010, when she was Finance Minister for France, that they broke all the rules because they wanted to save the euro at all costs? The rules have been broken, and that relates to the stability and growth pact and every single aspect of this.

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay made exactly that point. I will not go on, but it seems simply ridiculous. If the eurocrats of Europe think that saving the euro is more important than working out the solution to the economic crisis, progress will be, at best, tortuous.

From a UK perspective we must be interested. The idea that we are not interested in what the IMF bail-out is—or, indeed, in the fact there is a eurozone crisis—is clearly wrong. The impact on the UK is extraordinary. We trade with the eurozone, and therefore have a significant interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the possibility of a default of Greek banks. It may or may not be true that we have little or no exposure to Greek banks—I think it is broadly true—but we have great exposure to banks that lend to Greece within the eurozone. That contraction of balance sheets will affect lending to small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK. Therefore, we must have that interest.

A basic and necessary precondition of what the IMF must say to the leaders of Europe is that they must recognise their wider international responsibilities. My hon. Friend also made the point about the Germans effectively wanting to control the eurozone, but not being prepared to accept the economic leadership that that implies by allowing the ECB to attempt to solve the liquidity crisis. We should extend money to the IMF, but I am realistic in accepting that, overall, that means the IMF would extend extra money to the eurozone. Any money that the IMF extends to the eurozone should be met with the precondition that the ECB becomes entirely independent and able to print money for the eurozone, or else it is bound to fail.

The IMF also needs, and almost certainly will accept, a necessary theoretical construction that provides a solution. The most likely solution is that we see a number of countries leave the eurozone—leave the euro—and some perhaps form a tighter unit. That being so, the IMF must stand up and say that it is prepared to fund the cost of dislocation for those leaving the eurozone, so that they have a chance to devalue, make the necessary adjustment to living standards and the necessary lowering of labour costs to allow a competitive solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

This Government’s real achievement is to address the deficit. They have set out a plan that is effective and encouraging markets to understand that we are taking the appropriate action. That is one of the benefits of being outside the euro, and we should focus more on that, rather than worrying about the benefits or otherwise of devaluation. I repeat for the last time that I do not think that devaluation is a panacea that we should be pursuing.

[Mr Cash]

What is my hon. Friend’s evidence for the success of the reduction of the deficit? Growth is running at almost zero, and much of that comes surely from the fact that we cannot trade with a completely stagnant Europe.

[Neil Carmichael]

One of the obvious pieces of evidence is that we are not talking about the IMF coming to bail us out—a huge achievement by the Government that should be recognised. We will have to move on from devaluation, but I think that I have made my point and others have attempted to make theirs.

Inflation would certainly help debt reduction, because it does in the long run. As I said in an intervention, when Denis Healey borrowed money from the IMF, that did arrest devaluation. We were more easily able to pay the IMF back quite quickly because of the impact of inflation. I do not support inflating the economy in that way either, as a remedy.

European Budgets 2014 to 2020

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

[Mr Hoban]

Let me finish a couple of sentences and then I will give way.

Tackling financial mismanagement in the EU can help meet spending commitments, so our message on spending is clear. There should be a real-terms freeze on spending, a focus on the amounts actually spent, not plans dreamt up over five years ago when the world was different. Let us tackle waste and financial mismanagement across the EU. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

This goes back to some of the challenges in the Commission’s presentation of its numbers. The budget proposed by the Commission is £100 billion larger than the real freeze in spending that the UK and its allies have proposed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) says that I have not answered the question. It is clear that the way in which the European Commission has structured its budget, by having some things on or off-budget and by talking about commitments rather than actual spending, confuses and clouds the position, leaving some to think that the Commission has embarked on a freeze on the budget, whereas in reality the EU is proposing a real-terms increase in the budget.

Let me move on to the second issue in relation to the funding of the EU budget. The Government strongly oppose the proposal for new taxes to fund the European Union budget. They attach considerable importance to the principle of tax sovereignty. Tax is a matter for member states to decide at a national level. We oppose any new taxes or changes to the existing system that increase the UK’s contributions or pose a threat to our long-term position, including a financial transactions tax to fund the EU budget. We cannot accept a budget which asks for more and asks for a greater share from taxpayers and from the UK.

A year ago, the Government set out their plans for the consolidation of public expenditure at the spending review. Supported by the International Monetary Fund and OECD, the Government set out plans to reduce the deficit. We have shown our resolve by keeping the UK out of the storm that has engulfed the euro area, and we will show the same resolve with the European Commission. The inflation-busting increases proposed by the Commission are out of touch with the realities felt by taxpayers across Europe, and out of touch with the views of José Manuel Barroso, who in June argued that many states

“need to show more ambition when it comes to fiscal consolidation”.

We as a Government believe that the Commission needs to show much more ambition, too, when it comes to fiscal consolidation. We will continue to press the European Commission and member states to deliver a multi-annual framework that delivers real fiscal consolidation. This will be a challenging negotiation.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hoban]

There will always be pressure from others to spend more, and a failure to agree the framework would shift the focus to the annual budget process which, unlike the framework, is decided by qualified majority voting. It is an uncertain prospect that we are eager to avoid. That is why we will work tirelessly to seek the best deal on the multi-annual framework, but a deal on our terms—a deal that curbs EU spending and puts a brake on the Commission’s plans for EU-wide taxes and seizing some of our rebate—

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I was about to conclude to give my hon. Friend time to speak in the debate, but let me take his intervention.

[Mr Cash]

This gives me an opportunity to put one thing on the record, not necessarily in a spirit of cynicism. Last year I moved an amendment, which was accepted by the House, that we would have no increase in the budget. By the end of the convolutions that took place, the Government accepted an increase of 2.9%. May I be absolutely assured that on this occasion, given the robust nature and the tenor of what my hon. Friend has said, that there will be no increase whatsoever?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is well versed in the intricacies of the European Union. As he knows, the budget negotiations later this month are done on a QMV basis. We do not have a veto on the 2012 budget and we will be seeking to build a coalition of allies who are as committed as we are to curbing the expenditure of the EU, and who are as committed as we are to opposing the inflation-busting increase proposed by the European Commission. I am sure that when we reach that deal later this month, my hon. Friend will seek to hold the Government to account on that. I can assure him that we are doing everything in our power to ensure that we curb the EU’s plans and reduce the spending levels proposed by the Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Although we are all going to acquiesce in this motion—I understand that there will not be a vote—and although I support the conclusion that we should not increase our spending on the European budget, and, indeed, that it should be reduced, I do not support some of the wording in the motion.

I agree that we should not increase our UK contribution to the EU budget, now or at any time. We have to look towards a world where we reduce our contribution very substantially. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and others have mentioned the common agricultural policy. Many times, when sitting on the Government Benches in previous Parliaments, I have called for the abolition of the common agricultural policy. If it were abolished and we carried on subsidising our own farmers at the level they are subsidised now, we would have a massive reduction in our contribution to the EU budget.

The proposed changes to UK abatement and new taxes are unacceptable. We should decide what our level of taxes should be. The UK abatement was wrongly reduced in a previous negotiation on the common agricultural policy that did not result in anything beneficial for Britain. At the time, The Economist said that the deal was so bad that it could have been better to have had no deal. I agree. I support the Government’s efforts to reduce the Commission’s proposed budget. The numbers that are being talked about are clearly unacceptable. It is regrettable, too, that all these things are governed by qualified majority voting instead of unanimity, but there we are.

I do not care for the wording of the motion. It refers to “economic fragility in Europe”. Yes, the situation is certainly very fragile at the moment, and we will not recover from that fragility until we have more common sense about the eurozone. Certain members should be allowed to recreate their own currencies, find an appropriate parity for their currencies, and then reflate behind those currencies. That is the way forward for those countries, and it will benefit the eurozone and the European Union, and indeed the world economy overall, when that is allowed to happen.

[Mr Cash]

I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on something. The multi-annual financial framework is governed by article 312 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, under which:

“The European Council may, unanimously,”—

in other words, we could have imposed a veto—

“adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by qualified majority when adopting the regulation”.

That means that it is unanimity first, and then QMV.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I would like to see Governments, and in particular our Government, using their veto from time to time in a more bold and radical way.

The wording that I am particularly concerned about is that which talks about

“tough decisions being taken…to bring deficits under control and stimulate economic growth”.

Those things are incompatible. If one wants simply to bring down budgets by cutting, that will not stimulate economic growth, but reduce it. The wording should be the other way around. If one wants to bring deficits under control, the best way to do so is to stimulate economic growth. Economic growth would bring down unemployment, increase tax revenues and reduce the burden of benefits.

If we encourage all the member states of the European Union to deflate collectively, that is the route to depression. There are lessons from the 1930s on that. I hope that we will quickly come to our senses and realise that we are in a pre-1930s situation. If we do not reverse it, we may head towards depression.

In questions to the Chancellor the other day, I talked about the Labour Government of 1945, who had a gross debt much larger than we have now. They chose not to cut spending, but to create the welfare state, bring in the national health service and run a full-employment economy. Full employment was sustained for two and a half to three decades. That is what brought the deficit under control, and that is what we should do again.

There are other bad examples from history, which I have mentioned before. After the first world war, there was the Geddes axe. There was a deficit after the war—there are always deficits after wars—so we thought that we should cut our way back to a lower budget. What happened, of course, was that for a decade we had low growth, high unemployment and the deficit got worse, not better. We are in danger of doing that again.

In the short term, we have to spend. We could reduce our contribution to the European Union budget and spend some of that money on areas of labour intensity with low import content. Those areas are obviously construction and the public services—precisely the areas that are being cut. Cutting is exactly the wrong thing to do and we should do the opposite if we are serious about bringing the deficit down. That would be beneficial for everybody because the people who do not have jobs would have jobs, the public services that are now suffering would not suffer, and the people who are dependent on public services would not be hurt.

I agree with the objective of reducing our contribution to the European budget and constraining it in the short term, but I do not believe that we should emphasise simply cutting deficits without recognising that that could make unemployment rise and the deficit get worse in the long term. That could lead us into a very serious economic situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, I should like to demonstrate the extent of the documents that I will discuss in the next five minutes, just to give some indication of what is going on.

Secondly, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I had the opportunity to go, on behalf of our national Parliament, to a conference on the multi-annual financial framework. It was a complete farce. Mr Barroso, our Minister for Europe, Ministers from other countries and their permanent secretaries and so on were all there. I was completely staggered by their inability to have the faintest idea of what was going on. I said to them, “You are living on another planet!” Somewhat unusually, I ended up being congratulated by our UKRep representatives on at least spelling that out. It is devastating how far removed those people are from the realities of life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said.

On the structural questions, the proposals—the financial transactions tax and the change to greater own resources—are fundamental changes. The chairman of the European parliamentary committee, Mr Alain Lamassoure, who gave us the benefit of his many speeches, and who has written a huge pamphlet on the subject, is living on another planet. In the meantime, a meteor has hit planet Europe and huge chunks are falling off it, but it is still spinning, even when the whole thing is disintegrating in front of our eyes. These people are astonishing.

With respect to the Minister, I look to the future with some concern, if only because we could end up with another increase in spending despite the blandishments of the motion. Delighted as I am that right hon. and hon. Friends have signed the motion, I issue that cautionary note.

[Mrs Main]

I would like to test the resilience of the proposal about whether we have to pay more, and say, “No more will we pay,” and see what happens. We for ever capitulate when we are pressed to the point. I would like to say, “This is the will of this sovereign Parliament, and we will not pay any more”. We should test that

[Mr Cash]

I, too, take that view. My hon. Friend is completely right. I note that the motion states that the House

“supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce the Commission’s proposed budget”.

I would hope to go further, but we shall see.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he wanted to gain more reductions, but seemed to imply that he was held back by qualified majority voting. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Prime Minister has a veto, or is it down to QMV?

[Mr Cash]

I have already quoted article 312. There is no doubt that the whole process can be blocked by unanimity, but once the European Council has made a decision to go ahead, the decision reverts to qualified majority vote. I think that is right, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

I want to deal with one fundamental question that came up over and over again. That conference was regarded as important because it supposedly carried the national Parliaments with it. That was partly the case, although it did not apply to the United Kingdom Parliament—certainly not to me in my capacity there. Growth is the key question, but, over that too, they are living on another planet, because their idea of growth simply means more investment of public money. I had to ask them, “Where is the money coming from?” There were about 300 people there—I was a little bit in the lions’ den, but it was worth doing simply to see the unreality. As T. S. Elliot said:

“humankind cannot bear very much reality”.

When I asked, “Where’s it coming from?”, they said, “The taxpayers”, but it is not coming from the taxpayers; it is coming from small business men all over Europe, who, when running their businesses profitably, can then be taxed. But what if they cannot run them profitably? Here we have the problem with social employment laws, and I had the temerity to mention to them things such as paternity and maternity leave, the working time directive, the temporary agency directives and the rest. I told them about the scale of redundancy payments. We saw the Channel 4 programme the day before yesterday on pensions in Greece. Apparently, when people leave work, those pensions remain, for the rest of their lives, equivalent to what they had earned per year when working.

The growth must come from the small and medium-sized businesses. I have here another of these documents—none of them ever see the light of day, but I have the pleasure of being able to tell the House about it today. This one is entitled, “Towards a European Consensus on Growth”, but it, too, is completely and utterly unrealistic. There is no serious understanding of where the money comes from or of the fact that the result of having no growth in Europe is that there is no growth here either, because 40% of our economy is tied in to Europe. But these people will not change the structural system or the labour laws.

The EU representatives are talking and talking, but they are doing and doing nothing, and as a result, this black hole, whether Greece, Italy, Spain or wherever else in the EU, is condemned to getting deeper and blacker, simply because there is no realisation of where the money comes from in the first place. That is the problem at the root of this multi-annual financial framework. The whole project is based on a con trick of monumental proportions. They believe that they simply need to spend money on infrastructure and bridges—I would like to know where the contracts are going and how they are composed—but that does not solve the problem of the small businesses that simply cannot operate in the kind of environment that Europe now represents. That is all I need to say. This is a dead parrot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As ever, it is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who speaks straightforward common sense. I also rise to support the motion. We have had a good debate, and I want to make some brief points.

First, we must not lose sight of the fact that, under the proposed new EU budget, there remain very few net contributors to the budget. Perhaps if more EU nations contributed to it, the EU might become a more prudent organisation. Secondly, I agree with the wording of the motion that states that the Commission’s proposal for an increase is

“unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK”.

Those words would be a good candidate for the winner of the understatement of the year competition.

The Government state, in paragraph 97 of their explanatory memorandum on the EU budget, that their provisional estimate of the UK contribution to the next EU financial framework is 11.5%, after the UK rebate has been taken into account. The Commission’s proposed ceiling for EU payments within the financial framework over the period from 2014 to 2020 is €972 billion, so a UK contribution of 11.5% on that level of EU payments would see this country paying in almost €112 billion, which is about £96 billion at an exchange rate of £1 to €1.6.

[Mr Cash]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the European Commission’s proposal for the lump sums “adjusted for relative prosperity”—the annual lump sums relating to the period from 2014 to 2020—Germany’s would be adjusted to €2.5 billion and the United Kingdom’s to €3.6 billion, which is more than Germany’s?

[Mr Nuttall]

No, I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House.

This country will need to contribute about £70 billion to the EU budget during the Parliament that will run from 2015 to 2020. Finally, the EU is proposing a substantial extension of its ability to collect its own revenues by introducing new, EU-wide taxes—the so-called own resources decision. It is also proposing a new, dedicated EU VAT and a new financial tax. And, just to rub it in, it is proposing to end the UK’s rebate.

EU officials should spend more of their time ensuring that eurozone nations start to live within their means and less time devising new ways to tax my constituents. The EU wants to spend more and wants the UK to pay more. The EU wants to scrap the UK rebate, and the UK wants to bring in new Euro-taxes. To each of these, and to echo the words of Baroness Thatcher, it is absolutely right that our Government should say no, no, no.

Credit Institutions and Investment Firms

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the draft Regulation on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms (European Union Document No. 13284/11 and Addenda 1-4) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the Annex to Chapter 1 of the Forty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 428-xxxvii); and in accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the European Union’s proposals on prudential requirements for the financial sector, and I welcome the Scrutiny Committee’s thorough report on the issue. I find myself in a slightly odd position today, in that the motion before us today, which stands in my name, was tabled by the Committee. The Committee has done a fantastic job in identifying this issue around subsidiarity, and we shall be supporting the motion.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I am one minute in to my speech and my hon. Friend wishes to intervene. I am happy to give way.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend would need to be only half a minute in for the point that I am about to make. There are some recommendations sculling around in the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee that the Minister would not necessarily have to reply to the questions put forward by the European Scrutiny Committee and by the Chairman. Is my hon. Friend aware of that?

[Mr Hoban]

I am indeed aware of that and I think it is a good thing. Although my hon. Friends and I see eye to eye on many of these issues, there may be an occasion when a reasoned opinion is put forward which the Government do not quite agree with. That would put the Government and the Committee in a strange position.

I agree with the Committee that the Commission’s co-proposals on prudential requirements raise serious concerns over subsidiarity and, as drafted, the proposals seriously undermine the efficacy of the Basel reforms in the EU. As argued in the Committee’s report, the proposals for maximum harmonisation will severely restrict the ability of member states to conduct macro-prudential policy. They limit the ability of member states to respond to the unique characteristics and risks of their market, and where necessary, go beyond minimum standards to ensure financial stability in their own jurisdiction.

We cannot risk being straitjacketed into a one-size-fits-all approach in setting prudential levels. Across Europe, no two financial systems are the same, and in a system where euro area banks face the same centrally set interest rate, it is even more important that member states retain the flexibility to use other tools for financial stability. Let me deal with these issues in a little more detail.

As hon. Members are aware, the Commission’s proposal on prudential requirements is the mechanism by which the EU will implement the Basel III agreement to strengthen capital requirements and introduce minimum liquidity and leverage standards, changes that are absolutely necessary to correct the failures that preceded the latest crisis. Basel III is an ambitious agreement, a strong demonstration of collective endeavour and ambition, and an agreement that will fundamentally reform the global financial system. As we agreed with our international counterparts at the G20:

“We are committed to adopt and implement fully these standards”.

There are those who would seek to use current economic circumstances to row back from full implementation of Basel III—those who argue that full implementation would undermine growth at a time when we need to do everything we can to support a global recovery. We disagree. At a time of instability and at a time when bank balance sheets are under intense scrutiny and pressure, now is not the time to row back from strengthening those balance sheets. Stability is in itself a vital precondition for growth, and Basel III sets out the vital reforms that we need to increase stability in the banking sector.

Earlier this year the Commission published its draft regulation on prudential requirements for the financial sector. Despite the G20 commitment to implementing Basel III in full, the draft regulation deviates from that agreement in crucial areas. In doing so, the proposals significantly dilute the minimum standards agreed internationally for global banks and increase the taxpayer’s potential exposure to future losses. As the Scrutiny Committee highlights, the draft regulation also seeks to embed maximum harmonisation of prudential requirements.

I share the Committee’s concern that the draft regulation will severely limit the ability of member states to conduct macro-prudential policy, and where necessary, go beyond minimum standards to ensure financial stability in their own jurisdictions. We believe that it remains the case that member states are best placed to identify risks to financial stability in their jurisdiction. This is particularly the case when it comes to taking action concerning their own financial stability. Given the considerable experience, expertise, information and knowledge available to member states, it is difficult to see how the Commission can be considered to be better placed to assess macro-prudential conditions, systemic risks and appropriate policies for each member state than the member states themselves.

Furthermore, it is not clear that the Commission would be able to respond faster than the competent authorities of member states to risks as they arise. Therefore, I share the Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the inclusion of article 443, which contains a delegated power for the Commission to adopt delegated acts to impose stricter prudential requirements on member states, is entirely inappropriate. Not only is subsidiarity a matter of economic principle, but it is a matter of past experience. The financial crisis taught us that it is vital that national authorities retain discretion to react decisively and speedily to economic developments. It is vital that member states retain their flexibility to adjust prudential requirements to respond to emerging systemic risks and cyclical variations in economic activity, which, as we have seen in the build-up to the eurozone crisis, can be very large.

The crisis also taught us that we were not alert to those systemic risks, and not just at the firm level. It is vital that we are not caught out again. National authorities must retain the tools and flexibility to tackle those risks. Therefore, although Basel III provides an historic and coherent set of minimum standards, the ability to go beyond them if necessary and deploy macro-prudential policy to tailor our response to idiosyncratic macro-financial risks is in our vital economic interest.

We are not alone in making that judgment. The previous head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, has said that

“the Basel requirements are minimum, and they have to be considered as minimum.”

Likewise, the IMF argued in its UK spillover report:

“UK financial stability will be weakened (with adverse spillovers) if EU rules constrain UK financial regulations at insufficiently ambitious levels or if they limit the ability to use macro-prudential instruments to address emerging risks.”

Retaining that flexibility will not, as the Commission has suggested, undermine our commitment to the single rule book. Of course, a single rule book helps to reduce the burdens on cross-border firms, but that cannot come at the expense of a member state’s ability to implement higher prudential regulations. Instead, a single rule book that establishes harmonised definitions and minimum requirements would protect the flexibility to allow member states to adjust their prudential requirements as necessary, while at the same time helping to reduce burdens on cross-border firms.

Indeed, recommendation No. 10 of the Larosière report on financial supervision states that

“a Member State should be able to adopt more stringent national regulatory measures considered to be domestically appropriate for safeguarding financial stability as long as the principles of the internal market and agreed minimum core standards are respected.”

It is interesting that we have an agreement here. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), Jacques de Larosière, who is the architect of the financial regulation, and the Government all agree with that we must have the flexibility to go further if that is appropriate.

I believe that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reform financial services and ensure that we embed a system that works in the interests of consumers and underpins stable and sustainable economies. The Government have neither dithered, nor delayed in implementing fundamental reform of our financial sector and our system of regulation. We are reforming the failed tripartite system, leading the debate on the future of the financial sector through the Independent Commission on Banking and leading the international agenda for full and fundamental reform across the global financial system.

At a time of instability, the European Commission will inevitably come under pressure to delay, obfuscate and pander to vested interests across the EU that want to soften standards. It is critical that the Commission stands firm against those pressures and, with respect to the prudential requirements legislation, implements the Basel agreement in full. We must ensure that the Basel requirements are implemented as harmonised definitions and minimum requirements, not a maximum, that member states have the flexibility to respond to the unique risks and characteristics of their own markets, and that we implement regulations that are effective, credible and consistent. I commend the motion to the House.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The capital requirements directives have sought to translate the proposals of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and apply them across the EU. Today’s proposal, CRD IV—another acronym that is familiar to many of our constituents—attempts to update those arrangements so that they fit the circumstances of today’s banking system and learn the lessons of the global financial crisis. As the Minister said, no one disagrees that the quality and quantity of capital that banks hold in order to absorb losses should be increased, and there is broad consensus on that.

CRD IV will make four changes. It will, first, introduce sanctions to ensure that all EU banks comply; secondly, prevent over-reliance on credit rating agencies, which should not substitute for proper internal due diligence; thirdly, improve corporate governance in the banking sector; and fourthly, address the pro-cyclicality of lending, which can accelerate the expansionary tendencies of an economic cycle. The difficulty comes when the Commission proposes “maximum harmonisation” in order to achieve a single EU rule book for banking, preventing member states from setting higher standards beyond the levels proposed in the directive.

I am aware that many City institutions also favour a harmonised international approach to regulation, but such an approach could render many of the recommendations of the Vickers commission, for example, redundant as we would simply be unable to introduce tougher standards here in the UK. The EU says that the directive is to prevent a race to the top, but we need to ensure that our financial services industry—by far the largest and most systemically important of any EU country—has a regulatory system that can protect UK taxpayers and UK consumers. After all, when domestic banks fail, domestic taxpayers have to come to the rescue, so we need domestic regulation that has the room and flexibility to go beyond any internationally agreed minimum standards.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges, I am sure, that the real reason why we are in the situation we are in—I shall make a short statement about it later on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee—is that we have transferred such jurisdiction to the European Union. As I said in a letter to the Financial Times the other day, we are fighting back against the background not only of the City having moved against the proposals, but of our having opened the sluice gates and allowed it to happen.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman’s work on the European Scrutiny Committee has been useful in respect of the proposals before us, and it would have been helpful if the Minister had clarified where we stand in terms of qualified majority voting versus any veto options that we might have. I would be grateful if the Minister could set them out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend may well be correct. “Who knows?” is the ultimate question, but his cynicism has been proved right in the past and may well be right today.

The motion is a sensible assessment, and asking the Clerk to send a reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions is absolutely right, but what happens next? Will the Minister set out in a little more detail the consequences of today’s motion, and whether we would have any prospect of shaping our own financial regulatory agenda if, indeed, many of the changes in the directive went through regardless of the opinion that we sent? The mismatch between the Commission’s view and the UK’s position is only the tip of the iceberg or, to use a better metaphor, only the beginning of the story.

I am afraid to say that the Government’s proposals for financial regulation have not been properly thought through and clash so much with European regulatory arrangements that they just will not be able to stand up adequately to their strength and power. Ministers knew very well that the EU supervisory institutions would be split across thematic groups around banking, pensions and insurance, and markets. Yet according to the Minister’s legislation, we are choosing to split our arrangements between prudential and conduct regulation.

I agree completely that we need a greater focus on prudential regulation, but there is a growing risk and increasing evidence that our UK institutions may leave us in a tangled mess unable to engage effectively with those very powerful EU structures. That concern is shared not only by Opposition Members, but across the City and other financial service sectors. If our voice is not adequately heard, we may be unable to be represented properly in the right meetings at the right time.

It is not just the Opposition who are saying that. Last year, the Financial Services Consumer Panel said that

“the current European structure under the ESMA would be a poor fit with the proposed new UK arrangements and that this could potentially weaken the UK’s voice in the European Union.”

In September, the British Bankers Association said that

“little has been related on how the regulators will go about ensuring…that UK representation around the European table is second to none. There has not, for example, been acceptance of the suggestion made by the industry that consideration be given to maintaining a single international secretariat across the relevant authorities as a common shared service and the establishment of cross-authority teams to ensure that UK representatives at the three European Supervisory Authorities and other European and international committees are in a position to draw upon all relevant expertise and knowledge.”

The Association of Independent Financial Advisers—incidentally, I am attending its annual dinner this evening—said in September:

“The AIFA is concerned that the twin peak approach to UK regulation is not consistent with the developing European sectoral approach. We must ensure that the UK system is able to efficiently interact with the European system and does not lead to significant confusion for regulated firms and cost inefficiencies, or damage the competitiveness of the UK.”

Indeed, two weeks ago, the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), said in a letter to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley):

“How will the PRA and the FCA co-ordinate their interaction with the new European Supervisory Authorities which do not neatly match the twin-peaks model—particularly where both financial stability and consumer protection outcomes may be considered together at an EU level? With an enormous amount of EU legislation under way, how will the EU regulatory authorities ensure that UK interests are represented with one voice?”

So there has been a barrage of anxiety about the Government’s proposals and how the design of their domestic regulatory arrangements will fit with those European supervisory structures. The Minister has time to think about those matters before introducing the Bill. If we try to persuade EU regulators to comply with our approach to financial regulation retrospectively, it will genuinely be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Mr Cash]

The shadow Minister is perhaps being rather disingenuous when he says that the Minister may have time to think before the Bill comes through. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that, under the arrangements for the European Union, where a qualified majority vote is being applied and the measure becomes part of our law, we implement it under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. There is absolutely nothing we can do on the Floor of the House to reverse that unless we apply the provisions of my sovereignty arrangements notwithstanding the 1972 Act. It is about time we started to do so.

[Chris Leslie]

I am simply highlighting the anxieties felt across the City, the financial service sector and by many hon. Members, who are worried that we are stepping into a new set of financial service regulation structures domestically within the UK that are far away from those bodies we need to be influencing, steering and having our voices heard by. It may well be that we are stepping in the wrong direction. That is the anxiety I am voicing today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Before I go into the question of subsidiarity, I want to raise some matters that relate to what the shadow Minister said. He made some extremely important remarks. I am sorry that our own Front Benchers did not address those questions, because they know that they are very much on my mind and have been for a very long time.

The Minister said I would be glad to know that he and Commissioner de Larosière were ad idem as regards the de Larosière report. I have to say that I have been anything but ad idem with Mr de Larosière and his report for three or four years. The moment I saw the report, I wrote a letter to the Financial Times in which I pointed out that it was a very dangerous move and that its consequences would lead to jurisdiction over the City of London being transferred to the European Union. With all due respect to the shadow Minister, his Government were in power at the time this was under discussion. He has been issuing strictures about negotiations, but I am not interested in negotiations when 20% of our GDP is at risk in relation to a legislative system that will completely and totally undermine and annihilate our ability to maintain that strength in the financial services sector. I directly blame the previous Government for their total failure to do anything about this.

I will go further. I also blame those on our side of the equation who allowed this to happen, because it is, at the very least, acquiescence in a system. Before the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne)—my own Member of Parliament—convened a meeting in the Grand Committee Room relating to these matters. Some very distinguished people were present. There were people from the City of London, the City institutions and the City of London Corporation, as well as the rapporteur, or lady in charge, of the financial services arrangements for the European Commission. It was a very high-powered conference. Despite the fact that I put up a very strong case for ensuring that this nonsense, from our point of view, did not continue, I found—not unusually, I have to say—that I was completely and utterly outvoted. At least, I was out-manoeuvred by a number of people, not on the quality of their arguments but on the sheer force of their attitudes, which amounted to saying, “This is a global marketplace, this is what we have to do, we must engage in a situation where the rest of the world works together.” We now hear the same talk about the dreadful proposal for a financial transactions tax.

The reality is that the City has woken up. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned the British Bankers Association. I have not examined every document that has come from these great and august bodies, but I fear that they did not do the right thing at the right time and that they allowed this situation to happen. The Government and the Opposition of the time went along with the idea that it would somehow be beneficial to the United Kingdom for it to be put in this peril—and peril this is. The House is fairly thinly attended this afternoon, but I venture to suggest that these documents, which are six inches high on just the one issue of European Union prudential requirements, are a dagger pointing at the heart of the City of London.

The Minister rightly said that the proposal severely undermines Basel. He said that we will negotiate firmly. However, as I asked the Prime Minister yesterday, how will the Government be able to do anything about it in the context of the fiscal union that they propose, which must include voting solidarity among the members of the eurozone, who have long wanted to take the City of London away from us, when this issue is governed by a qualified majority vote? I have taken the trouble to look this up and my best recollection is that there are 231 votes for the 17 members of the eurozone compared with 130 votes for the rest. We are in a permanent massive minority. That is what is going on. It is a kind of economic warfare. This is not just about Euroscepticism; this is an issue that goes to the heart of our capacity to deliver revenues and prosperity in this country.

There may well be cases for reform. I have great sympathy for those who think that the City has gone off beam recently in many respects, including on salaries, pay and remuneration. Some of those points are exaggerated, but some are justified. I think that we should go back to a system of regulation that is more along the old Quaker lines, whereby one knew what one’s capital was and how to use it properly, and through self-regulation people who were out of line were put back into line by common consent. That is for another day, but I am deeply worried.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) raised the question of repatriation. Why is it that I have argued consistently for the repatriation of powers, not just in social and employment legislation, which again is for another day, but in the kind of powers we are discussing? If the City of London goes down or is severely diminished, it will do nobody any good. Those who vote for the Labour party would also be affected because we need that money. For three and a half centuries, the City of London has been at the heart of our financial system and our revenue base. We cannot afford to have that money redistributed, like so much chaff, among the other member states.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making the powerful case, with which I agree, that this is malevolent legislation that is directed at undermining the City of London. I suspect he will agree with me that the Government should use the fundamental crisis at the heart of the European Union to be as brutal and as determined as possible in bringing back as many powers as they can, because the European Union is not a benevolent body when it comes to the UK’s interests.

[Mr Cash]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The more I have heard from him over the past few years, the more I have admired his determination to speak the truth. That is the position. This is not a party game; this is serious and it is deadly. This move is determined and deliberate. That is what people need to know.

Roland Vaubel, the famous economist from Mannheim university, talks about the use of the qualified majority voting system in the Council of Ministers as a form of “regulatory collusion”, and mentions the strategy of deliberately raising rivals’ costs. Particular groups of countries—there are no prizes for guessing which—enter into arrangements behind the scenes, and vote accordingly. Both France and Germany use that system to their advantage, and as I said in the Financial Times the other day, we are being outmanoeuvred.

Despite all the time, money and effort being put into the Vickers report, there are, as the shadow Minister made clear, serious worries that Vickers may yet be undermined by the very proposals that we are discussing. The problem goes much further, but I do not need to enlarge upon all that any more.

Some people tend to sneer at the idea, which I occasionally put forward, that our sovereignty is the most important issue of all. I say that for one reason and one reason alone—it is only by exercising the sovereignty of this House on behalf of the British people that we have any chance of being able to return and repatriate powers if the other member states are not prepared to negotiate.

I am prepared to listen to the Prime Minister telling me that he will fight hard, or whatever answer he gave me yesterday, but I remain totally unconvinced. We are at risk as a result of proposals such as these, so it is absolutely essential that we get things right. When I wrote a pamphlet for him—in fact, for the general public—called “It’s the EU, Stupid”, I set all that out, so I do not need to enlarge on it any further.

I have got out of the way the general points that I believe are necessary to put the whole matter in context. I see the Foreign Secretary laughing a little. I do not hold that against him, but I have to say that this is no laughing matter; it is a very serious question. We are reduced to having to argue about reasoned opinions and subsidiarity. Important though those are, as I have said, there is a dagger pointing at the City of London. Not just this particular draft regulation but an accumulated vast array of weaponry is being aimed at the heart of our economic system.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Could my hon. Friend help by reminding me how much is owed to the City of London as a proportion of national income?

[Mr Cash]

It has been declining, and that is another reason for concern, but the latest figure is something of the order of 15% to 20% of our gross domestic product. Take that away, and where would we be? The draft regulation is a deliberate attempt to do that, and it is only one document of many.

The aim of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is to

“enhance understanding of key supervisory issues and improve the quality of banking supervision worldwide.”

I hope that it succeeds. However, the various directives in question relate to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and to capital adequacy, and they are collectively known as the capital requirement directive or CRD. They introduce a supervisory framework within the EU, designed, it is stated, to

“ensure the financial soundness of credit institutions (banks and building societies) and certain investment firms.”

I take a slight interest in that, because my family founded the Abbey National building society back in the 19th century and the National Provident Institution in 1835. Those institutions were run on sound grounds and lasted until very recently, but have unfortunately now been mopped up as a result of some of the international goings-on in the financial sphere.

In 2011, the European Commission proposed a draft regulation—the document referred to in the motion—and a draft directive, known together as CRD IV. They would incorporate the Basel III agreement on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms into EU law. How often have I said that the danger is that when a matter is transferred to EU jurisdiction, we lose control? Because of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, we cease to be able to control it. We hand over control of the drafting, method and interpretation of the law, and its effect on our own institutions, our own initiative and our own ability to be innovative and succeed.

The proposals are still before the European Scrutiny Committee, pending the receipt of further information from the Government. Meanwhile, the Committee has recommended that the House submit a reasoned opinion on the draft regulation to the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. A draft is annexed to the Committee’s report. I mention that because if enough member states issue a reasoned opinion, we will be able to stop the proposals. I strongly urge the Government to get as many member states as possible together, and I am sure they are doing that, if only to retrieve the situation as best they can.

Of course, as we all know, other member states will know what we are up to, and they will not enter into an arrangement to submit a reasoned opinion. We have seen that in the past—we do not get the requisite number of member states, and the proposal goes through. This is a test not just of the Government but of the integrity of the system. If a reasoned opinion is required because the Commission has exceeded its powers in relation to subsidiarity, nothing should prevent that from going ahead on an objective basis. I am not trying to pre-empt the decision, but I am anxious, on the grounds that I am about to mention, for other member states to understand that a reasoned opinion is necessary. It is in their hands to prevent the proposals from going through.

I turn now to the argument about the objectivity of a reasoned opinion. When the Commission makes a proposal for legislation, it is now required under the European treaties to produce a “detailed statement” that makes it possible to appraise the proposal’s compliance with the principles of subsidiarity. I do not for a minute demur from what I said during the Maastricht debates—that subsidiarity was a con trick intended to establish hierarchies, not true subsidiarity. We shall see.

That detailed statement is not just a bureaucratic procedure for its own sake, although one might be forgiven for thinking that some in Brussels think it is. It is the principal means left whereby national Parliaments and electorates can assess the basis on which the Commission considers legislation to be necessary at supranational rather than national level. The presumption underpinning subsidiarity is that decisions are best taken as close to the citizen as possible. Amen to that, providing that it happens.

It is not sufficient to underline the importance of those detailed statements. I remind, or inform, the House that no piece of European legislation has ever successfully been challenged in the Court of Justice of the EU on the grounds that it breached subsidiarity. Not one. That sends a very powerful message. There is not a little suspicion, therefore, that subsidiarity is just something to which lip service is paid. It strikes the democratic gong, but is not followed by any lunch. One of the jobs of national Parliaments—that is us here in the Chamber—is to try to change that position.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I suggested yesterday in European Committee A that, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, subsidiarity has not functioned well. In fact, I do not really understand it myself. I suggested that it was a political decoration, to overcome a difficulty. The reality that I would understand is opt-outs and opt-ins, with member states having the independence to do what they thought was right for their interests.

[Mr Cash]

I very much agree. All that I can say is that on this occasion, there will be a very good test of whether subsidiarity can win the day. Let us see.

Given the importance of the detailed statement, the treaty makes several stipulations about what it should contain, which include an

“assessment of the proposal’s financial impact…in the case of a Directive, some assessment of the proposal’s implications for national and, where necessary, regional legislation; and…qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative substantiation of the reasons for concluding that an EU objective can be better achieved at EU level.”

When the European Scrutiny Committee looked at the draft regulation, it found—not by any means for the first time—that neither the Commission’s explanatory memorandum nor its impact assessment contained a detailed statement to make possible an assessment of its compliance with subsidiarity. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that the draft regulation, which is of immense importance, amends the capital requirements directive by removing the discretion previously given to member states to impose stricter prudential requirements where national circumstances require that. That is a significant change. Indeed, the Government argue that it could lead to greater financial instability and, as the Minister said, could severely undermine Basel. It will be seen from the draft reasoned opinion that the Committee concluded that the Commission failed to discharge the treaty obligation placed upon it to provide quantitative and qualitative reasons for that change in the form of a detailed statement.

Putting the procedural failures to one side, the House will gather from the draft reasoned opinion that, on the substance, the Committee agrees with the Government that the objectives of the regulation were not better achieved by precluding member states from imposing stricter prudential requirements when they considered that necessary. The Committee came to that conclusion because it was clear from the Government’s explanatory memorandum that there continued to be a need for a flexible approach to address prudential concerns at a national level. That reality was reflected in the fact that the Commission proposes in article 443 of the draft regulation that it should be able to adopt delegated Acts to impose stricter prudential requirements for member states where necessary. The Committee could not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Commission was better placed than member states to address national prudential risks that suddenly arise. Indeed, there was a strong argument for saying that national authorities were not only better placed, but could react more quickly than the Commission by means of delegated legislation, thereby enhancing financial stability.

I also have grave misgivings about the Commission having such powers delegated to it—ever. EU delegated legislation is not unlike our own: it affords considerable Executive power with far less oversight.

Finally, the Commission’s approach to the consideration of subsidiarity is a matter of concern not only to the European Scrutiny Committee, but to every national Parliament of every member state. I hope that they take note and do something about it, because a great deal is at risk. At its last meeting, COSAC—the bi-annual conference of the EU Committees of national Parliaments, which I attended—concluded that the Commission was not complying with the treaty obligations placed upon it to provide sufficiently detailed statements. That was on the motion that I proposed, which was accepted by COSAC. This was good news, because the Committee had been pushing for it. We await a response from the Commission, but we need support from other member states.

I repeat: I urge the Government to use all their diplomatic and persuasive powers, because we are put at a significant disadvantage as a result of the transfer of functions to the European Union. If there is sufficient opposition from enough member states, we can defeat this proposal.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I shall be brief in following my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and in supporting the reasoned opinion. I also hope to strengthen and add to some of the arguments made by the Minister and the Opposition spokesman from the Dispatch Box in favour of subsidiarity in banking regulation.

If there is one over-arching lesson that we learned from the financial crisis of the past few years, it is the importance of having the primary banking regulator close to the financial market. I welcome the direction of travel on financial regulation in our national life, which will place much more importance on the role of the Bank of England, because the Bank follows what is happening in this country’s financial markets on a day-to-day basis.

It is instructive that the United States—a country that has had monetary union for the past century—is also caught up in the financial crisis. That subsidiarity in banking regulation continues to apply in the US in that each state is responsible for banking licences and supervision in its jurisdiction.

[Mr Cash]

I am fascinated by my hon. Friend’s line of argument, because she has raised the question of commercial states’ rights, which are embedded in the American constitution—they are inviolable. Countries in the EU have no such rights. When legislation at EU level goes through—this is why I so strongly attack and resist the idea of transfer of jurisdiction to that level—we are required under the 1972 Act to implement the law. We do not have commercial states’ rights.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed, and to continue with my example, the US Federal Reserve is very much a system of individual reserve banks—the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco all play important and distinct roles, recognising that different banking markets have different characteristics, and recognising how vital subsidiarity is in banking regulation.

My heart sank when I asked at the Vote Office for papers relevant to today’s motion and was handed this 1,200-page document. We discussed earlier how the EU could save money on its budget, but the document is a prime example of where money could be saved. It is completely unnecessary.

I opened the document at random and found that one proposal is to start dictating quotas for women on the boards of financial institutions in the EU. Page 1,132, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone will want to read in detail, is on quota laws for the number of women who sit on the boards of financial institutions in different countries. I noted that in the table of a survey of governance arrangements, Iceland and Norway are included, but the last time I checked, they were not even member states. I put myself firmly in the camp of people who think that the more diverse range of views one has on boards, the better, but I certainly do not think that that should be laid down in 1,200 pages of EU guidance.

[Mr Cash]

To give another example, article 218 refers—incomprehensibly—to the so-called financial collateral comprehensive method. To illustrate how far away we have moved from the notion of running a capitalist and financial system sensibly, we are now down to formulas. I shall try to quote it. The document states:

“Institutions shall calculate the volatility-adjusted value of the collateral (C_VA) they need to take into account as follows …C_VA = C (1 - H_C - H_fx)…where…C = the value of the collateral”.

That is absolute gobbledegook, but that is the manner in which our system is run. It is completely mad.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I can see that if I carry on giving examples, I will only encourage my hon. Friend to find more passages of gobbledegook to read into the record, but it is indeed the most appalling document.

Eurozone Crisis

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is a matter for the Greek people and the Greek Government to decide. That is a principle to which I am sure everyone in the House would wish to adhere.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister will know that the presidency conclusions last week set out 10 new areas of European economic governance. What is the legal basis in the existing treaties for the creation of these new areas of governance and for the creation of a euro summit? Was the Prime Minister asked to give UK consent? Did he give his consent or were the Government bypassed? As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I would be grateful for specific answers to those questions.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of actions have been taken throughout this crisis intergovernmentally rather than through the institutions of the European Union. That applied to the creation, for example, of the European financial stability facility. There are ways in which actions can be taken that do not depend on the treaty because they are done between Governments rather than between Governments and the European Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We inherited the highest—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear this. We inherited the highest budget deficit in Britain’s peacetime history. That budget deficit is now coming down, and that has contributed to financial stability in this country, in marked contrast with what we see on our television screens around Europe.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pass on the message to the Deputy Prime Minister, with his accusations that Conservatives who advocate repatriation and renegotiation are committing economic suicide, that we are facing not only a disastrous two-tier Europe, but now also a two-tier Government?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this occasion. The coalition Government have been able to get Britain out of the European Union bail-out that we found ourselves in when we came to office. We have been able to keep the budget increases down—again, in marked contrast with what we found on coming into office. We must now have some serious negotiations to make sure that Britain’s interests are protected in Europe, as the remorseless logic of monetary union—I am sure that he accepts this—leads to greater fiscal integration among eurozone countries. That is the reality of the situation facing us, and I think Britain under this Government will be able to negotiate well in our national interest.

Eurozone Crisis

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I fear that we are looking at a sophisticated financial instrument here. However, it is clear that Germany and the Bundestag were not prepared to provide further resources. The European Central Bank was not prepared to provide those resources either, for all sorts of reasons to do with its history and those of other central banks in Europe. They have therefore turned to those options to try to leverage up the money they have already committed. That is the sensible choice for them, given those other constraints. They are trying to get other private investors from around the world, potentially including the involvement of sovereign wealth funds, to leverage up the fund.

Of course, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner we get the agreement in detail, the better. That applies equally to what he said about private sector involvement in the Greek write-down. A mistake made earlier this year, on 21 July, was that eurozone members put together a deal and then took months to implement it and get the detail. He is completely right to say that yes, we made some good progress overnight, but the job is not finished yet. The eurozone now has to get the detail and reassure the markets that it has got a grip of the situation. That is where we will continue to exert British pressure.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In what respects does the Chancellor believe, and can he demonstrate, that the proposals for a two-tier Europe and a fiscal union do not represent a constitutional, economic and political fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and ourselves?

[Mr Osborne]

If my hon. Friend is referring, as I suspect he is, to the European Union Act 2011, there are clear procedures in place for establishing whether powers or competences are being transferred from the UK and this Parliament to Brussels. Those procedures are clearly set out, but I would say that it is in our interests that the euro works. That requires greater fiscal integration within the eurozone, which works to the benefit of Britain, provided that—this is an important proviso—we can continue to ensure that our voice is heard on issues that are for the 27 members, such as the single market, competition policy and financial services. That is what we will be fighting hard for in the coming months.