Multiannual Financial Framework

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The speech by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) sounded more like a speech in favour of an increase in the European budget, albeit disguised as a speech in favour of a cut, because that happens to be what he is being asked to vote for today.

I note that passions are high in this debate, not least among my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). Let me assure them both—because I think they come from the same European stable—that the last thing those of us who support the amendment want to do is wreck Europe or to wreck our relationship with our European partners.

But something very big is happening in British politics—much bigger than this debate. We are debating the European multiannual financial framework, but there is something rather familiar about the positions being adopted by those on the two Front Benches. One could almost imagine that, if they were to change places, each would be making the other’s speech. Indeed, in the last Parliament, one felt that that was exactly what was happening. There is something deeply disconnected about the debates that we have been having in the House about our future relationship with the European Union, and about the aspirations of the British people and what they want that relationship to be.

I would caution my right hon. and hon. Friends against taunting Labour Members over their volte face on this issue. I have no doubt that they have made a volte face on the question of European spending, but for us to accuse them of doing so will cut absolutely no ice with the voters. I would note, however, that the Labour party’s volte face represents a big shift in the politics of this country and in the politics of our relationship with the European Union. Labour is an opposition party that is hungry for power. Even Labour Members can now sense the tide of opinion that is flowing against the European Union among our voters. They are picking up the vibrations from their constituents and from the voters they need in order to get elected, and they have discovered a new principle in order to reflect that: they now want to cut the European budget.

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I give way to my newly Eurosceptic colleague.

[Mr MacShane]

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Whether this is a volte face or a volte farce I am not quite sure, but he is quite right to say that the tide is flowing; it is flowing to Labour and away from the Conservatives.

[Mr Jenkin]

I believe that the Labour party is picking up the anger of the British people about the idea of spending more money on European policies when we are having to cut back on policies of our own.

There is something rather chilling about the exchanges between those on the Front Benches, which tacitly suggest that a veto is a defeat and that it could lead to a worse budgetary outcome for the United Kingdom than could a negotiated settlement. That seemed to be the burden of the argument put by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I should just like to point out to him what that says about the relationship that we now have with the European institutions. Those institutions are so overpowering and so powerful that even the veto of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot stop the European train on its way to its destination. The British people feel that something has gone wrong with that relationship. This was not the basis on which we were sold membership of the institution, and it was not the basis on which all the assurances were given by successive Governments that each treaty represented no substantial change and was just a “tidying-up exercise”.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the veto does not really work. Ought we not therefore to be looking to amend the European Communities Act 1972, while recognising that this motion is dealing with the system as it is?

[Mr Jenkin]

I would just point out that we should not try to make ourselves too important in this debate. This is a take-note motion. I have spoken in many debates on such motions. The amendment expresses an opinion on whether the Prime Minister should adopt this little bit of body language or that little bit of body language. It will not make a blind bit of difference to what he does when he goes to the Council of Ministers. The amendment is simply a cry of despair from the British people who want their elected representatives to say something to the Front Benchers of both parties, who have betrayed the British people on the question of our relationship with our European partners throughout the 20 years I have been in Parliament.

The problem in this country is that the governing class is now so out of line with our people’s aspirations for the relationship with our European partners that they are putting the United Kingdom in the worst of all possible worlds. It cannot deliver the engagement of the British state with our European partners on the terms set down in the treaties, and it is not trying to deliver the different terms of agreement with our European partners that the British people would prefer, that our country needs, and that are in the national interest. So wide is this gulf that even the Labour party is picking up the vibrations and is beginning to respond.

[Mike Gapes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I will, because I mentioned the hon. Gentleman in my remarks.

[Mike Gapes]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if he got his wish and the UK left the European Union, as did Norway, in order to get access to the single market and to sign up to the acquis, we would pay billions into the EU yet not have any say at all?

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not want to leave the European Union; I want us to engage in a renegotiation of our terms of membership. Now is perhaps not the occasion for such a debate, but it is quite clear that the European Union is becoming a very different kind of European Union—even from the European Union agreed in the Lisbon treaty, let alone from the Common Market, which the British people voted to join all those years ago. It seems to me that if the EU is changing fundamentally and we do not want to be part of a political union, an economic union or part of a currency union or a banking union, we are going to have to change the arrangements by which the EU can legislate to make the laws in our own land.

That seems to me to be absolutely plain and axiomatic, absolutely simple, yet what we have at the moment is a coalition that is paralysed by that coalition—paralysed by an institutionalised disagreement by the two parties in coalition. The renegotiation opportunities at the moment are passing us by. The British people are aware of that paralysis and I do not think that they will put up with it. We are going to finish up having more debates like this, more crises, more difficulties, more dysfunctionality in how Ministers are forced to conduct themselves in the Councils of Europe—and that will put this country in the worst of all possible worlds. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford South.

What this country needs to do is rapidly reassess what relationship we want with the European Union so that our resources can no longer be appropriated in a manner over which even this House, which founded its powers on the control of supply, has no control. As for “own resources”, it is about the European Union having the right to sequester taxation, money and supply from our country, without the consent of this House. I do not think that is what the British people want; it is certainly not good value for money, and they can see that. This relationship is in crisis. The message that a vote for this amendment tonight will convey to the Government is that they are not addressing this crisis with sufficient urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. Without indulging in some of stronger language and rhetoric of different colleagues, I say that this may be an important parliamentary moment, because the British people decided in May 2010 not to give any of us a majority. I think they wanted a different kind of Parliament to emerge, one that was a bit freer, a bit more liberal and a bit less whipped; I am a party animal myself and the Whips are necessary, but perhaps tonight some signal can be sent that we are listening.

There are technical points that can and cannot be made. I would dearly love to see, in South Yorkshire or perhaps in Northern Ireland, every public servant’s salary reduced to €100,000—about £80,000. If that salary level was applied, there would be a revolt in Whitehall, and among Cabinet Ministers and senior Ministers of State, if not perhaps among junior Ministers of State.

We have heard the language of “betrayal” used, and I think that is silly, because the country is going through a serious discussion about what its future relationship with Europe will be. The people have never elected Mr Nigel Farage or the UK Independence party to a seat in this House, although they have elected him to the European Parliament. However, his spirit has been present in much of tonight’s debate.

We are facing a fundamental divide, as there are two approaches to European politics. We heard one earlier today, when the ten-minute rule Bill was introduced. It was supported by a large number of Conservative Members and it called for the end to the free movement of people in Europe. It was a well-argued case, but of course it utterly destroys the purpose of the European Union if we are to have passport checks at every border and not allow people to live where they wish.

We are now finding that there is a big debate about the money we spend. I take all the points that have been made about cuts, but we could have the same argument about the Department for International Development’s spending, and I might argue about whether the £13 billion we spent in Afghanistan is money wisely spent. Underneath it all is this dichotomy over Europe. There is a debate about being in or out—an honest debate that we are beginning to have—and another debate among those of us who believe we should stay in the European Union about what kind of European Union there should be.

The voting of money is, of course, what determines what kind of policy we have. This budget is the wrong budget, drawn up by conservatives and cautious, complacent centre-right bureaucrats and politicians. It is inappropriate and it keeps the European budget in the same old tramlines of protectionist common agricultural spending and ineffective regional spending.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

I will not give way. I am very happy with the Speaker’s reduction of the time limit.

Last week, Labour MEPs voted against that budget and for a different priority that would focus on growth, on jobs and on what is needed. That is what I believe should be done, which is why I am happy to vote for the amendment tonight. I am not sure what will happen thereafter. This country will have to face a big question. Tonight it is right that Parliament asserts its authority. That does not mean the end of the debate; it is just the beginning of the debate about whether we stay in the European Union or not.

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I shall be happy to look into the matter, within my powers, and come back to him. However, it might well be a question for the Charity Commission, in which case the hon. Gentleman will know where to direct his inquiries. If there is information I can give him, though, I shall be happy to get back to him.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

To assist the Minister and the House, may I inform Members that the Public Administration Committee is conducting an inquiry into the post-legislative review of the Charities Act 2011 and that the role and charitable status of religious organisations are subjects we are concerned about? I invite the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) to engage with the Committee on this subject. We are happy to discuss it with him.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which I hope has given the House enough to go on on this subject.

The purpose of the scheme—

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

It is indeed about getting it right for those groups that we all care about. I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have already made changes to the Bill on a number of points, in comparison with what was originally outlined. If I can make a little progress, I will come on to explain them. I further reassure her that the whole point of having a public scrutiny stage for the Bill is exactly to hear those points. I have made it my priority to work with those representative bodies and, indeed, to work directly with charities as much as possible, reassuring them about the benefits of the scheme and explaining why I designed it carefully in order to protect its aims.

[Mr Jenkin]

I welcome the Bill, as does the charitable sector generally. So many people making small donations have thought about the need for this reform, and it is such an obvious reform to make—although, of course, the implementation is much more complex than the concept. Would it be sensible for the Government to agree now that whatever scheme is implemented in the Bill will be subject to review after two or three years, so that there is a mechanism allowing it to be swiftly amended by secondary legislation within a limited period? That will enable lessons to be learned, and perhaps it will be possible to extend the scheme to a broader range of charities so that more of them can benefit from it in the future.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I know that he has spoken to charitable groups in his constituency and others and has benefited from his experience on the Public Administration Committee. He will be aware that the impact assessment contains a commitment to keep the scheme under review. I am sure he will agree that the purpose of the scheme is to engage the charitable sector, and that it is certainly not intended to “turn off” charities that we want to support by means of the mechanism that it provides. I hope I can reassure him that we want to encourage smaller charities not to give up on gift aid, and to embrace a new scheme which we hope will be helpful.

As I was about to say to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), many improvements to the Bill have been suggested, and I have listened to those suggestions during our consultation on the scheme. We originally proposed a one-for-one match in relation to the amount of donations on which a claim could be made under the scheme, and on which a claim could be made under gift aid, in the same tax year. Every £1 claimed on small donations would need to be matched with £1 claimed under gift aid. However, the sector feared that that would constitute too high a barrier for many organisations, especially small charities.

Having listened carefully to what charities thought, I accepted that our proposed arrangement would limit the amount of small donations payments that could be claimed for some of those charities. We have therefore reduced the level of matching from 100% to 50%, so that charities and CASCs will be able to make a claim for £2 on small donations for every £1 donated under gift aid. I think that that is a good compromise between helping charities to claim as high a level of small donations payments as possible, and ensuring that the payments go only to legitimate charities. Given that such a matching procedure will significantly reduce the attractiveness of the scheme to fraudsters, I hope that the sector will support it.

Let me now explain how we intend to ensure fairness of access to the scheme for charities that are doing similar work in a given locality. The scheme allows all charities that meet the entry requirements to claim a payment on up to £5,000 of small donations per charity. For many charities, that will suffice. Small local charities that are independent charities in their own right need consider the rules no further. I hope I can reassure Members that small charities will welcome the scheme, and, in terms of what they receive of the proportion that they seek, will obtain the most benefit from it. However, the scheme also allows some charities to claim more on small donations than the main limit of £5,000 if they carry out charitable activities in what we have called a “community building”, and meet certain conditions.

When we were developing the detail of this part of the scheme, it became clear that unless special rules were introduced, some charities would be able to claim hundreds or even thousands of times less under the scheme than their counterparts doing very similar work, simply because of the way in which they were historically set up. For example, Church of England parish churches are generally set up as separate charities, but in the Roman Catholic Church there is usually one charity at the diocese level with a couple of hundred parish churches below it. Without special provision, the Catholic Church, and certain other secular and faith charities with similar set-ups, would qualify for a small fraction of what their counterparts could claim under the scheme, unless they were to fragment and set up many more charities locally. I do not think forcing charities to set up more charities just for the sake of this scheme is sensible, nor would placing them at a very significant financial disadvantage simply because of the way they have historically been structured. So I have introduced the community building rule to ensure that charities carrying out similar activities in local communities—either through independent charities under an umbrella organisation or as local groups of a larger charity—get allowances under the scheme that are not hundreds or thousands of times different. Finding a solution to that issue was a priority.

[Mr Jenkin]

Why has £5,000 been chosen as the sum, and why is it actually written into the Bill? Is there some means of amending the figure at a later date, in the light of experience or inflation?

[Miss Smith]

As I have said, there will, of course, be an opportunity to review the Bill in the light of how it operates. The answer to this question is all to do with realism: the Bill’s provisions are, in effect, a form of public spending—I shall explain later how they differ from tax relief—and so a limit has to be included in the design, because such funds are not endless.

The sector has raised concerns about the perceived complexity of the community building rule. It is true that in order to obtain a simple result—that charities doing the same things should get an entitlement that is similar—we are going to need to put in place some fairly detailed rules. I hope Members agree that that is preferable to disadvantaging some charities just because of the way they are set up. However, as I have said, it is only those charities, or groups of connected charities, wishing to apply for top-up payments on more than £5,000 in donations who need to consider the community building rule. Most small charities collect less than £5,000 in small donations, so the rules will be irrelevant to them. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will issue clear guidance, developed through working with the sector, to show exactly how these rules will work in real-life situations. I am confident that that can be made to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on an issue that is particularly important for charities and CASCs. I am sure that Ministers well recall the Finance Bill Committee debates, where we heard about the good work being done by charities, local organisations and CASCs across the UK. I have no doubt that the success of the Olympics and Paralympics is leading to more and more people, particularly the young, seeking to be involved at that local level. That will, of course, be welcomed by the clubs and organisations, but it also places additional pressures on them to recruit, to retain volunteers and to expand on their activities, rather than just sustaining what they are doing. I am sure that we will hear a lot about the good work being done in each constituency.

We also know that many charities are feeling the impact of the recession. A number of individuals have told me that they are no longer able to keep up their monthly gift aid donations as they feel the squeeze on their household budgets. Many have reluctantly had to take the decision to cancel their donations or to lower the amount that they give to charity, and a large number of them have told me that they have felt particularly bad about that when they have received a phone call, an e-mail or other correspondence from a charity asking them to reconsider.

I have also heard that small local charities are finding that while donations are less than they would have received in the past, the calls on their services are increasing during these tough economic times. Only last week, I heard from people in my local area about churches being approached to help people who are struggling financially, and that has not happened for many years. So every additional penny and pound that can be added to the funds that charities have raised for themselves will, of course, be very welcome and will be put to very good use.

I recognise that the Bill’s intention is to provide more help to those organisations, which is why the Opposition support the Bill in principle. However, it is our responsibility to examine it closely, and to assess whether it delivers what it promises and where it may need to be improved. That will be the focus of my remarks. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is being done in a constructive way ahead of the Committee stage.

As the Minister said, the Bill introduces the gift aid small donations scheme, which was announced in the 2011 Budget; the Chancellor proposed a new scheme enabling gift aid to be claimed on small donations, up to a total of £5,000 per charity, without the need for donors to fill in a gift aid declaration. That would mean that each charity could claim up to £1,250 per year. As she said, the scheme is similar to gift aid, in that the amount the charity gets is linked to the income tax rate of the donor; it is a gift aid-style top-up payment. As we have heard, the scheme’s purpose is to enable charities and CASCs to claim a gift aid-style payment on small cash donations of up to £20, where it is often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the gift aid declaration.

When the Chancellor announced the scheme, he said that it would deliver

“gift aid on the contents of the collecting tin and the street bucket”.

He also promised that the reforms would be bureaucracy-lite, as he described it,

“without the need for donors to fill in any forms at all.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 962.]

More recently, a Treasury spokesperson confirmed that the scheme is

“intended to reduce the administrative burden and boost the income of small groups that rely on”

those very important

“bucket donations.”

As the Minister has said, and other Members have commented, the Bill’s intentions have generally been welcomed. Concerns have been expressed, however, by organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charity Finance Group and the Charities Aid Foundation, who described the legislation as highly complex and not accessible enough for smaller charities. They have raised concerns that there is a danger that it will simply act as a reward scheme for the established organisations that are already good at, and involved in, claiming gift aid. They also suggest that some of the provisions proposed in the Bill could significantly disadvantage certain types of charities, which has prompted some concerns about the equality dimensions of the scheme.

Those organisations are asking the Government to simplify the scheme, to make it more accessible to smaller organisations and to make it fairer, allowing equal access for similar charities. We have already heard the comments and concerns from Caron Bradshaw, the chief executive of the Charity Finance Group, and Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of the NCVO. I say gently to the Minister that the Opposition’s approach is not about a battle of quotes. I am sure that she agrees that people such as Caron Bradshaw and Stuart Etherington reflect the sincerely held views of the charities and organisations and their concerns about the Bill. We should listen to those voices. The Minister has the opportunity to lay out how she will take account of some of those concerns as the Bill makes progress. To be fair, she has gone some way towards doing that, but we still need to hear more from her about a number of matters.

[Mr Jenkin]

As I said, the Public Administration Committee is very interested in this issue and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was very receptive to the idea of revising the scheme after a period of operation to accommodate those concerns. Does the hon. Lady agree, therefore, that it would be sensible to include a clause that allows the scheme to be amended by secondary legislation without having to come back to the House to get another Act of Parliament? That clause is not in the Bill at the moment, but would she support its inclusion?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and that is precisely the kind of thing that the Bill Committee will want to consider very closely. Anything that makes reviewing and improving the Bill once it has been enacted better is worth considering and, potentially, supporting. I also hope that we will see where we can improve the primary legislation to make it less likely that we will need to revisit or revise it quickly. I hear what he says and I am sure that we will have further such discussions in Committee.

Let me return to some of the issues raised by the charities and the voluntary sector. The Bill proposes that an eligible charity must have been registered with HMRC for a minimum of three years, have made a gift aid claim in three of the past seven years and not had a penalty imposed as a result of a gift aid claim. One obvious concern raised by many small charities who rely on small cash donations is that they will not necessarily have a three-year history of claiming gift aid. They feel that that has the potential to disadvantage them from the start. I shall say something else about that shortly.

Another area of concern is the matching provision outlined in clause 1, and the Minister has given us some information about her thinking and why she decided to set the ratio at 2:1 rather than at the point she originally intended. In order for a charity to take full advantage of the scheme, claiming the maximum £1,250 on £5,000 of small donations, it will need to have claimed at least £625 in gift aid in the same year. Charities say that that raises a number of potential problems. As we have heard, many small charities may not be registered with HMRC, and unless they register they will not be eligible to join the scheme. There is a worry that the three-year period may not give people an incentive to do so. Many may simply decide that the scheme is too complex, particularly some of the small charities that do not have the resources or an extensive staff network; they may just rule themselves out.

Additionally, many small charities only receive cash donations, so they often do not raise enough to claim the maximum £625 in gift aid in a year that they would need to benefit from the scheme. Ministers may want to give charities some reassurance about that, because charities that claim less under gift aid are at a direct disadvantage as a result of the matching provision, compared with those that are better able to use the scheme. That could further reduce access to the very small charities that the Minister said she would like to see benefit.

The NCVO recommends that the matching 2:1 principle is dropped, and would welcome steps to open up the scheme—for example, so that start-up charities and those currently not registered for gift aid had the opportunity to register and get into the system sooner. I heard what the Minister said about anti-avoidance measures and potential fraud, but we want to ensure that we do everything possible to allow smaller charities that try to respond to local issues, or are set up to respond—not quite on an emergency basis—to a particular issue, to get as much benefit as possible.

On the connected principle, charities have identified additional areas of concern in clauses 4 to 9, which cover the rules intended to stop charities and community groups fragmenting in order to be eligible for greater amounts under the scheme. Clause 5 defines the meaning of “connected” using section 993 of the Income Tax Act 2007, where a person who has control is “a trustee”, or a person who

“has power to appoint or remove a trustee…or…has any power of approval or direction in relation to the carrying out by the trustees of any of their functions.”

However, charities are not connected

“unless the purposes and activities of the charities are the same or substantially similar.”

Once again, charities and the organisations that represent them have pointed out that in reality many trustees will serve on more than one trustee board, which is particularly likely at local level. The concern is that there could be an impact on the charity’s eligibility to join the scheme if a trustee sits on the boards of two organisations that are considered similar. Charities suggest that that could easily occur, because if an individual has expertise or an interest in a particular area of service provision, they might sit on the boards of two comparable organisations. It is important that the rule is not seen as a barrier to attracting people or appointing high quality trustees with experience and expertise. I hope the Minister will look at the issue and offer some reassurance and, if necessary, some changes so that we get the maximum benefit from the Bill.

It is highly unlikely that an organisation would be incentivised to fragment to increase its accessibility to the scheme, which has been given as the main reason behind the provision. The majority of charities simply want to get on with doing the job—I see the Minister nodding. Of course they want to maximise their resources and the last thing on their minds is setting up different structures to fragment to obtain some other advantage—as it has been described. Will the Minister consider providing further clarification so that charities with similar purposes will not be disadvantaged simply because they have a common trustee?

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I understand the points made by Members on both sides of the House.

Before I summarise, let me say to the Attorney-General that I have tried to listen very carefully to his contributions. There have been many of them, all have been helpful and constructive and they have helped us to understand the challenges that we face rather better than we had done on the basis of the Chancellor’s contributions in recent days.

Let me say also that, if at any point I misrepresent the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I will always in an honourable way correct the record in this House—not, as we now know, a standard of behaviour that we can expect from the Chancellor in this House.

To summarise, the argument goes as follows. Point one is that the Attorney-General does not believe that it is possible to have a proper, thorough investigation into all the details of the LIBOR market by the end of the year. I understand that; I hear his argument. Our argument is that a judge-led inquiry gives us a better chance of having an investigation into something legally sensitive than a parliamentary inquiry. If one is true and two is true, that means that the Government’s proposal for a parliamentary inquiry by the end of this year is defunct—dead, torpedoed, gone.

That is why, rather than intervening again, the Attorney-General should speak to the Chancellor, call the Prime Minister—wherever he is—and say that they should withdraw these motions, get to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is baked rather than half baked. [Hon. Members: “Plan B!”] Plan B.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that even if the House votes for establishing a Joint Committee, Her Majesty’s official Opposition will continue to press for a judicial inquiry. Will he clarify that? Does that mean that he will be discouraging Members from the Labour party, be they in either House, from co-operating with and taking part in a Joint Committee? Is he going to wreck it?

[Ed Balls]

I was going to come to the votes at this point. I have said that we will vote for our motion. I have said that if that fails, we will continue to press for a full public inquiry because we think that that is the only way to do this properly. The Attorney-General probably agrees with us on that matter now.

Tonight, the Leader of the Opposition and I will vote against the Government’s proposal for a limited parliamentary inquiry, for the reasons I have set out, as currently proposed. On the basis of the contributions we have now heard from the Government Front Bench, the inquiry is not even remotely up to the task ahead.

In answer to the question, put by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), about what we would do if we lost the second motion, on the basis of the debate so far and the Attorney-General’s comments, I say to all Members of the House, including the Liberal Democrats, that they should think hard, do the right thing, ignore the Whips and vote for the inquiry that will work.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I am not going to give way because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I have.

We want to win this vote for the British people. Set against the depths of malpractice that have now been revealed and the scale of the challenge that we face, our strong belief is that the Government’s decision to reject our call for an independent and judge-led public inquiry is a grave mistake. Only an independent and open public inquiry—not politicians investigating bankers—can rebuild trust. That is our view, and the view of many Opposition Members. The doubters have been persuaded by the Attorney-General. Members on the Government Benches should change their mind—withdraw the motion, do the right thing and let us sort this out once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I will make further progress in my speech and then give way, but I am not giving way at the moment. If we—[Interruption.]

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret to say that I cannot hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Speaker regularly reminds this House that we do not look very good to the public, and I think this might be a prime example.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am eternally grateful for the help from the hon. Gentleman in reminding the House of what I have already said to the House, which is that if Members believe that this demonstrates the behaviour of the House at its very best on a serious matter, they are sorely mistaken, regrettably. However, each Member in this House is responsible for their own behaviour, and not me, thank goodness, so perhaps we can continue with the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) has underlined the importance of having a banking system that commands public confidence. I do not know how serious the LIBOR scandal is in relation to the ability of the banks to support jobs and growth, which we so desperately need at the moment, but it is clearly a mortal blow to the reputation of the City so we need to deal with it effectively and quickly.

I say to Front Benchers on both sides in this debate that this has not been the finest hour of the House of Commons. We have not seen the finest, highest and most principled leadership from Front Benchers of either side. Many among the public will look at the debate and scoff at our self-importance and arrogance. The City itself will be in utter despair that Front Benchers should have chosen to use this opportunity to tear chunks out of each other instead of co-operating to find a solution on which they can agree.

No solution will work unless there is consensus. I say that with a very heavy heart, having great respect for the prodigious abilities of both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor, as well as for their public service in the House. But I really think that we have to do better. Anybody could have seen over the past few days that the debate would be a complete car crash, and so it has been. We must seek to extract something positive from it at the end of the day.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) raised the tone of the debate in a laudable manner. He referred to the Marconi scandal of 1912; this is its 100th anniversary, and I will say a few words about it soon if I have time. The parallels are chilling.

First, I shall say a brief word about the powers of Select Committees. The shadow Chancellor is completely wrong—we have the powers. There is some doubt about the manner of their exercise and how we might deal with contempt, but there is no doubt that we have the powers. As Chairman of a Select Committee, I have exercised them. People are in fear of them. It does the House no service for the shadow Chancellor to go around saying that we do not have powers. That undermines the authority of the House and it is not in the interests of the House.

[Damian Collins]

I am closely following my hon. Friend’s argument. Is not the Standards and Privileges Committee currently looking at the sanction for contempt of Parliament?

[Mr Jenkin]

Actually, it is the Liaison Committee on which I serve as a Select Committee Chairman. I am personally looking into the matter and will report to the Liaison Committee next week; that will be part of our report on the powers and effectiveness of Select Committees, which we hope to produce before the end of this term. It greatly ill serves the House to denigrate the powers of Select Committees.

I am going to support the Government motion. I am not in favour of a judicial inquiry; I think it would be completely dotty to plunge us into such a lengthy procedure. However, I want to sound some warnings about the dangers that might befall a parliamentary Select Committee inquiry as proposed in the Government motion. We must be mindful, not least, that if Ministers or ex-Ministers were to be called to give evidence to try to sort out the absurd row that we have seen this afternoon, the Committee could not possibly function. Indeed, it could not possibly function if Opposition Front Benchers were determined to undermine its authority and operation.

It was highly irresponsible of the shadow Chancellor to fail to answer my question or that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about whether the Opposition will go on non-speaks if the motion is carried. I commend the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who said that even if the Opposition lose the vote, Scottish National party Members will co-operate with the inquiry. How is the House meant to make a judgment about whether to vote for the motion unless we have a clear view from the shadow Chancellor?

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester mentioned the Marconi scandal. That occurred when Ministers—Liberal Democrat Ministers, I hasten to add, just for fun—were accused of buying and selling shares for profit—

[John Thurso]

I want my hon. Friend to tell us all about the Marconi scandal, but we were Liberals then.

[Mr Jenkin]

I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon. Of course—rebranded to cleanse the history.

Lloyd George’s Government were deeply embroiled in what we would call an insider dealing scandal. A Select Committee was very contentiously set up. It divided on party lines, it divided on whether to call Ministers as witnesses, it divided into party groups during the questioning of witnesses, and it divided along party lines in the writing of the report. In fact, it produced three reports—the official report, the Chairman’s report, and a minority report. Interestingly, the introduction to the 23rd edition of “Erskine May” says:

“Such highly visible failure condemned their successors”—

Select Committees—

“to a very limited role for almost half a century.”

I place great faith in my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that he will draw stumps on the exercise if there is any danger that the Joint Committee is going to collapse in such a welter of recrimination. First, it could not produce a decent report under such circumstances; and secondly, it would damage this House in a very serious manner.

I do not wish to give succour to Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, but I note that the consequence of the Marconi scandal was the passing of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 when, following a subsequent scandal that engulfed the Government, it was decided that there had to be an alternative means of conducting a judicial inquiry outside Parliament with a judge, and that is how that format came into being.

The report by the Salmon royal commission on tribunals and inquiries, which was produced in the 1960s and is still the bible of how tribunals and inquiries are conducted, said that it would be “a retrograde step” to resurrect the format of a judicial inquiry within Parliament. Among the drawbacks listed by Lord Salmon were that Committees were composed of Members representing the relative strength of parties in the House, that parliamentary Committees do not hear counsel—something that has been suggested today—that some of, if not all, their members will have no experience of taking evidence or cross-examining witnesses, and that witnesses might not enjoy the same absolute privilege as in a tribunal set up under the Act. Those are the dangers that we have to guard against when we vote for the motion.

As I say, I am going to support the motion, but I add one other caveat. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the Government will not present any objection to providing the resources—the money—that the Joint Committee will need to carry out its functions. We cannot have this new Committee raiding the staff and resources of other Committees. I think that if the inquiry is confined to matters of policy and recommendations for legislation rather than trying to settle the internecine disputes that we have seen on the Floor of the House this afternoon, then it can function with the support of the Opposition, but if the Government want it to happen it must have the necessary resources, which may be substantial. I would also recommend recalling a senior Clerk who has recently retired instead of raiding a Clerk from another Committee, because otherwise all our work will be disrupted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

In 1993, I joined Warburg’s as UK economist. One of the first things I recall is visiting the chairman of the bank, Sir David Scholey, in his office with my entry cohort. He said to us that what the bank had that mattered most was its reputation, that capital would always flow to good ideas and that if we did not have great amounts of capital, that was not a problem because we had our client relationships. He said that we must always remember to put our clients’ interests first, never our own.

My first boss was George Magnus, the chief economist at Warburg’s, who is still active. I remember him saying to me that we should never talk our book, and that we were there to be objective. He said that we should never be particularly proud if we got something right or concerned if we got something wrong, but that we should be proud of the integrity of our way of thinking. When I was given a bonus, I expressed gratitude. The culture had not yet become that we should look upset in the hope of more next time.

Only when I went to do an MBA at Columbia university in New York did I realise that the fact that I had become a rated analyst was of personal value to me and that I could perhaps have gone to another bank and got more money. When I came back from America, the position here had changed. We had the regulatory system of the FSA, and I was more involved in advising retail banks.

One case that I worked on for a substantial time was that of a retail bank merging with an insurance firm. It was clear to me that to treat customers fairly in merging the compliance function, as I was tasked to do, we had to focus on how that insurer might sell products to the bank’s customers. There was nothing wrong with that per se—that, along with stripping out cost, was the rationale for the merger—but it clearly brought risks, and we needed a function that would stop inappropriate sales to customers for whom they were not correct. Yet the main issues in dealing with the FSA were a turf war between the bank and the insurance regulator and a vast amount of time spent on box-ticking compliance. The question is not just whether the system is over-regulated or under-regulated, it is about the quality of the regulation.

I then became a lawyer—I am both a qualified barrister and a solicitor—when I worked on bank recapitalisations and FSA litigation. I served as a judicial assistant to the vice-president of the Court of Appeal. The motion asks for a judge-led inquiry. I have enormous respect for our senior judiciary, but they have almost entirely been judges and lawyers—they have not worked in financial services industries and are not, as hon. Members are, representative of wider society.

On LIBOR, two separate things happened with Barclays. First, there was market abuse—we will see what happens in respect of other banks. Because the two mid-quartiles of LIBOR were measured, it was thought there could be no gain by giving a low or high response, but there was collusion by so many players that there was market abuse, and the FSA was asleep on the job.

I would encourage hon. Members to think about the second Barclays aspect in terms of the perspective of the time. The British Bankers Association says that LIBOR

“is not necessarily based on actual transactions”.

Banks are asked a question:

“At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size”?

We should note that the question refers to “offers” rather than “an offer”, but the BBA goes on to say:

“Therefore, submissions are based upon the lowest perceived rate at which a bank could”

borrow. It also says that “reasonable market size” is not defined and that

“it would have to be constantly monitored and in the current conditions would have to be changed very frequently.”

Whitehall was therefore using Barclays reports for a purpose for which they were not designed. It was looking not at LIBOR, but at one particular bank’s reports, which were quite possibly compiled by a junior person, in an incredibly difficult market position. Therefore, if Barclays reported a higher rate than other banks, it might be that it had different perceptions of “reasonable market size”, or it might not ask the offered rates because the market had frozen. Which banks were asked and how are those considerations to be reported? The banks are not being asked: “What are your bid and offer rates?” They are being asked: “What do you perceive one of your competitors might offer you were you to ask?” In the context of the financial crisis, that is potentially different from the market abuse I have described.

We should also consider the UK in the international context. We have a huge banking industry in this country. If a regulator says that much of it is socially useless, people might reply, “Yes, but the employment and prosperity of many people in the country depend on it.” How do we clear it up so we can offer a market and export our financial services to the world sustainably and in a way that will keep our reputation? Hon. Members can rail and bash the bankers for the bust we are suffering—that is quite fair and proper—but we must accept that the bankers also gave us our boom. Our borrowing and extra spending was based on candyfloss, and on a boom that the bankers created. They are as responsible for what we enjoyed in the boom as they are for the bust.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is my hon. Friend saying that wrong regulation rather than under-regulation robs the system of discipline, and that we want a more capitalist, self-disciplined system rather than more bad regulation?

[Mark Reckless]

Elements of such regulation have been backed, but we must look at the quality of regulation. We can have a market system in which people are clear what the regulation is, or a system in which the Government run regulation and bail everyone out, making the taxpayer responsible. We were betwixt those two separate models. Some parts of the market but not others were regulated, and people put stress and reliance on LIBOR that it was never designed for, which led to much of the problem.

We cannot take what the regulators say as Gospel. Many say that Barclays accepted that the Bank of England and Paul Tucker had not told it to lower the rate. Barclays was let off tens of millions in fines because the regulators agreed that, but the regulators have a vested interest—people might ask why they were asleep on the job in the earlier phase, and what LIBOR was doing in 2008-09. Hon. Members should consider what reliance Ministers or officials at that time put on LIBOR—we should ask what LIBOR said about Barclays, why the Government were trying to push Barclays into a bail-out it was trying to resist, and why there was such reliance on that rate.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech. Is he saying that because it was widely known that the Government were prepared to rescue the banks, the self-discipline that liability for bankruptcy provides in a banking system was abandoned and the whole market was distorted?

[Mark Reckless]

For the calculation of LIBOR, I wonder whether it had been abandoned for RBS and Lloyds HBOS—as it became—while Barclays continued operating in a market context. The BBA now says that banks have to quote on the basis of an unsecured, unregulated, non-Government-supported rate, but I do not know whether that was the definition it gave at the time. That would have been a concern.

In conclusion, Members of Parliament, representing their constituents, have the necessary range of experience to have a reckoning, as a society and a nation, with what has happened with our banks, to assess the costs, as well as the benefits that we enjoyed, and to consider how to move on and put the matter behind us. I know, from my experience on the Home Affairs Committee, that we can have a non-partisan Committee that can reach across. We have people with the necessary experience and independence of mind. We can get together a group of people to come up with a report that downplays partisanship, to find out what went wrong and to learn the lessons for the future.

Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) for her questions. Certainly, Treasury officials will co-operate with the investigation which I gather her Committee will undertake into these matters. I welcome that because, as I said in my statement, it is important that the light of transparency is shed on the issue as much as possible. I am sure that her Committee can play an incredibly valuable role in that, as it always does. I gather that the role of HMRC may be the subject of a soon-to-be-forthcoming report from her Committee. No doubt that will speak for itself, but of course the rules that I am putting in place today and the rules that exist for managing public money should be applied by all Departments in relation to public service appointments, and I made clear my view about the particular case that she referred to when I responded to the question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).

I agree that scope matters. I should say in relation to the NHS that although the review looked at board members in NHS organisations, because I wanted it to be done quickly so that we could bring forward recommendations and change the practices across the public sector, its recommendations will apply across the NHS and will need to be applied there in the same way as in any other part of the public sector.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend stress an important assurance which I think he made, that HMRC will continue to be blind as to whether they are dealing with somebody who works for the public sector or the private sector, that all people will be treated equally by HMRC, and that for the most part in his statement he was speaking as an employer? In his review of IR35, will he take great care not to catch up with musicians, artists and others who are traditionally regarded as self-employed but may have controlling roles in organisations? It would be a great mistake if we made the cost of employing those people, particularly international people, much more expensive, to the detriment of the arts in this country.

Eurozone Crisis

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I am afraid that I am reminded of “Groundhog Day” every time I hear the hon. Gentleman speak.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Why are the Government advocating fiscal union? I put it to the Minister that the words “remorseless logic” are, in fact, a cover for a policy preference, and that the remorseless logic of the present situation is that fiscal union will be economic dictatorship, that it will fail and that we had better be planning for something else.

[Mr Hoban]

I think my hon. Friend would recognise that if a monetary union is to be successful, it requires closer fiscal integration. That is a precondition of the success of monetary union. When the decision was made to opt out of the Maastricht treaty and to keep sterling, one reason for doing so was that monetary union had to be underpinned by fiscal integration. One follows the other as surely as night follows day. That is why I think we were right to take that position then and we are right now to encourage the eurozone, if it wants the euro to be successful, to move towards closer fiscal integration. Frankly, if it does not, it will cause huge economic damage to all of us.

Public Service Pensions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

No, this is not conditional on industrial action. Some unions are saying that they are planning strikes on 30 November. Talks on a scheme-by-scheme basis will still be going on at that time. I hope that those unions will feel that, on the basis of this offer, they no longer need to go ahead with that action. I think that would be a constructive response to what I have set out today. The offer is conditional upon an agreement being reached—an agreement by the end of the year on the heads of terms on a scheme-by-scheme basis. It is appropriate that we set out a good offer; as a Government, we want to reach agreement, but at the end of the day the trade unions need to want that, too.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the tone in which he has delivered it—and, indeed, commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General? Will the Chief Secretary welcome the notes of conciliation in the response by Her Majesty’s official Opposition? Although our politics does not lend itself to consensus, is this not a subject on which we wish to reach a broad consensus both for the well-being of public sector pensions and for the country and economy as a whole?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. It is precisely the sort of subject on which there should be a cross-party consensus. I think a consensus could be formed around the proposals we have made today. The shadow Chief Secretary says that she wishes to study our proposals. That is fair enough, but I hope that she will see on reflection that the proposals we are putting forward are the right way to go forward on public service pensions both for public sector workers, who are fully entitled to a proper and decent pension, and for the taxpayer as a whole.

Eurozone

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I think that is called a trick question. The hon. Gentleman has been an absolutely consistent and principled opponent of the euro. When I first arrived in the House in 2001, he was making the argument then and he is still making it now, and I respect him for it. As I have said, however, “I told you so” is not an economic policy at the moment. He may well be right about the problems of combining the economies of different countries with totally different structural problems, competitiveness rates and so on, let alone fiscal policies. He is right about all that, but we have to deal with the world as it is, and at a time like this I do not think that advocating the break-up of the euro is in our national interest. We need to make the euro work. Monetary unions can be made to work, but that involves things like fiscal transfers. At last, I think, the eurozone is facing up to that.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I remind my right hon. Friend of what he said on 24 September, when he reminded the world that there were six weeks to save the euro? If we get to 5 November and this crisis is grinding interminably on, will it not be time to start advocating the advice of Lord Lawson, who advocates an orderly break-up of the euro in order to restore growth to European economies and limit the liabilities that are constantly building up the longer this crisis goes on?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the G20 summit in Cannes is the last of a string of international meetings that have involved the G7, ECOFIN, which the Treasury Secretary attended, the International Monetary Fund, G20 Finance Ministers later this week and the European Council next week. It all culminates in the G20 meeting of world leaders at Cannes. That really is the moment when the world needs to be in no doubt that there is a solution to the eurozone problems and that we have the firepower and strength in the banking system to deal with them. If we do not deal with them, the situation will go from bad to even worse. However, as I say, it would not be sensible to advocate to our European colleagues the break-up of the euro. That would greatly diminish what we had to say in these meetings, as it would not be seen as practical—[Interruption.] Well, I also think it would be wrong, as it is not in Britain’s national interest to see the euro break up.

European Union Fiscal Union

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cash]

The short answer is that it would depend on how the renegotiation went. If the renegotiation was entirely in line with protecting fully our own interests, if it were guaranteed that we were not tied to the existing arrangements by a treaty that drew us in to all the adverse consequences of being part of this overall European Union in the shape and form that it has at the moment and if we could manage to achieve the perfect answer, then that would be a good idea. However, I do not think that that is the way it is going to go. I think that we will put forward positions, if we ever get to the point of renegotiating the treaties. A meeting took place a couple of days ago in which it was clear that a very large number of MPs in the Conservative party want renegotiation. Some of us have been arguing for that for 20 years. However, the fact is that that is the position in the party as a whole. The question is not only whether we want to renegotiate, but how that would be done.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important distinction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be suggesting that we would consent to a fiscal union provided that we were insulated in some way from the direct effects of that fiscal union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is saying something much more profound, which is that we should use this opportunity to recover control over a whole lot of policies that are already damaging the British economy, and continue to damage the British economy, whether there is a fiscal union or not. It is that latter position that has to be, ultimately, subject to a referendum, or the danger is that we will sell the pass on fiscal union and we will not recover very much.

[Mr Cash]

I agree with that entirely. My hon. Friend is very much in line with the views of many us on this side of the Chamber, which is that if this is going to be done, let it be done properly. Let us not nibble away at some of the minor matters. Let us get down to the real nub of the issue and say that this kind of Europe is not a Europe with which we are prepared to continue. The status quo is completely untenable, and so a referendum question that dealt with those matters—including the question of fiscal union, because it will be so damaging, and I will give further examples of where I think it would be damaging in a moment—should be: do we want to leave the European Union all together; or, given that the status quo is untenable, do we want to renegotiate the treaties?

We now know that the bulk of the Conservative party, which, after all, is the bulk of the Government, wants renegotiation. The next question is, are we just going to nibble away and pretend that it is renegotiation, or are we going to get down to the structural questions and really do it? I believe very strongly that the Prime Minister has an obligation to go the next summit and to put forward proposals for renegotiating those treaties in a way that would actually change the entire system. If the other member states say, “No, we are not prepared to put up with that,” then we will deal with that situation at that point in time. The case for a referendum in either event, to my mind, is completely unanswerable.

On the question of fiscal union itself and damage to the United Kingdom, I have already mentioned the problems that will arise in relation to the single market bloc voting arrangements. We are always being told that our trading relationship with the EU is vital to us, and that it represents approximately 50% of our trade. Some dispute that, but the reality is that it is a substantial proportion of our trade. However, if one actually looks at the net results of the so-called benefits of that trading relationship, I am bound to say that in the past year alone, between 2009 and 2010, our trade deficit with the European Union, the other 26 member states, has gone from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion. The deficit has leapt up by £40 billion in one year.

Those figures are taken from the House of Commons Library and the Office for National Statistics, so I am not going to dispute them—others may wish to do so, but they are official figures. I have repeated them several times and no one has challenged me on them. That demonstrates that our trade with the rest of the European Union is not working. The reasons for that are over-regulation and a system of economic constraints that prevent us from allowing our small businesses to grow. After all, small businesses make up the greatest percentage, by a massive amount, of the prosperity of this country. The downside of our failure to grow is increasing unemployment. We heard the figures today. The truth is that we are not growing because we are trading with a Europe that is bankrupt, except for Germany.

There is also the question of the position vis-à-vis the City of London. The Minister and I have crossed swords on this from the very outset. When the de Larosière report came out—it was about four years ago, I think—I wrote letters to the Financial Times, several of which it published. I argued that we had to keep the City of London within the framework of our own legislation and not appease those in the European Union, such as those in France and elsewhere, who would like to take control over our City of London. The Government caved in, and now the whole City of London is within the jurisdiction of the European institutions and the rules and regulations that will be made there. Every single time there is a new problem in the City of London, we will have to ask ourselves to what extent it is the consequence of that fatal mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is all part of the problem. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 26 years now, and over and over again I have found that legislation brought to this House is based on European legislation, but that is never disclosed. People do not say, “Oh, by the way, we have got to do this, therefore we are going to,” so we go through a charade of passing legislation as if we have control over it. The Whips move in like the clappers, saying, “You can’t possibly vote against this, because it’s all based on European legislation that we have already agreed to under the European Communities Act.” In reality, we are being governed by Europe, and that is my greatest objection—plus the democratic question, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton has mentioned—and why I got so exercised about the Maastricht treaty. We have gone beyond that now, and what we are faced with is much more critical, but we can remedy it if we renegotiate the treaties.

[Mr Jenkin]

Before my hon. Friend leaves those shocking trade figures too far behind him, do they not demonstrate another factor? Our European partners, notably Germany, have far more to lose by disrupting the trading relationships between us and the rest of the EU than us. I do not diminish the point that we want to maintain the free movement of goods within a customs union, if we can, but the idea that they simply will not talk to us or chuck us out is absolutely ludicrous.

[Mr Cash]

Given the growth the rates elsewhere in Europe and the complete mess that the eurocrats and other Governments—including our own—have created, allowing us to get into this parlous state, it is inconceivable that they would dare to argue that somehow or other they could operate without us. That suggestion is simply child’s play and a joke, although it has got beyond a joke because it is so serious. That seriousness might come out this afternoon, but it will certainly come out—as night follows day—over the next few months.

I have been looking into the £53 billion trade deficit. I made some further inquiries, because I wanted a breakdown, and I was given the figures yesterday. In the trade balance of £53 billion against us, £17 billion is in vehicles—cars and lorries. In other words, we have destroyed or have had destroyed our manufacturing base in car making—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North knows that better than me—and yet our trade in commercial and other vehicles is now on a monumentally adverse basis.

Another point that I am bound to make, which is deeply concerning, concerns the consequences of the departure of one or more states from the European Union, which some advocate. Some will have read Hans-Olaf Henkel in the Financial Times the other day. He is the former head of German industry, the equivalent of the director-general of the CBI, and he said that the “biggest professional mistake” of his life was to have supported the euro process, which is an important statement from someone of his standing. He is completely against the idea of the European Union as it now is. Germany has some very important voices, because it is effectively the paymaster for the rest of Europe.

Our negative trade balance with Germany is devastating. I was in Poland the other day, and I looked at its trade figures. I suspect that a lot of people in Poland desperately want to remain within the framework of some protective system but are deeply worried about the imbalance between Germany and Poland. And so it goes on—if we look at the Greek or Spanish situations and at the bottom line, what is happening with fiscal union is also, to use an expression, the creation of a greater Germany. For practical purposes, if we examine what is said at the various meetings, no one can be in any doubt that the Germans call the shots. The Germans are benefiting enormously from the European Union for one reason, which is that they are benefiting from their investment in other countries.

In that context, I have the figures for unit labour costs, if anyone is interested. In the past 10 years, German unit labour costs have gone up by only 2%. The average of all the other member states put together has unit labour costs increasing by no less than 25%. That is worth thinking about. Not only do we have the most monumental trade balance against us with Germany, but its trade balance with the rest of Europe is monumentally in its favour, and the Germans have done that largely through what we might call their skill or commercial nous. None the less, they have managed to do it and so they make huge profits from other parts of the European Union. Let us not be taken in by the argument that, somehow or other, Germany will suddenly go walkabout. The Germans get so much out of the European Union, and Angela Merkel is making it clear that they will continue to do so, and that is one of the reasons why Germany is so committed to political union. That does not mean, however, that it is in our interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I invite the Minister to explain why the Government are now advocating fiscal union. We opposed the euro because we did not believe that fiscal union was viable. Lord Lawson graphically explained on BBC Radio 4 this morning that fiscal union will not work because it needs budgetary union and a European Treasury, which needs a European Government and a federal Europe. There is no popular support in any European state for a federal united states of Europe, so fiscal union is unsustainable.

This is no time for positioning or appeasing; it is a time for blunt truths, and I thoroughly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that it is time for us to go to Europe and to tell our European partners positively that we have an alternative plan for Europe, which is about the orderly break-up of the euro to limit liability. The longer the issue continues, the greater the liability will be.

It is like the ERM; the officials who are today advising the Minister to support fiscal union are the same officials who advised the Conservative Government to stay in the ERM. The longer we stayed in the ERM, the more damaging it was. Why are the Government on the wrong side of history?

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is nothing if not consistent in his arguments. The holding of today’s debate reminds me of the fact that I have been in the House for 19 and a half years and that the bags under my eyes started to appear when I was up all night listening to the hon. Gentleman in the debates on the Maastricht treaty in 1992 and 1993.

[Mr Jenkin]

Which way did you vote?

[Mr Hanson]

On many occasions I voted differently, because the purpose of the Opposition was to keep the Government on their toes and divided—as, indeed, we see today in the interactions between Back Benchers and the Minister.

I pay tribute to other Members who have spoken. The consistency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is unparalleled, although his approach has differed from that of Labour Front Benchers. The hon. Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Witham (Priti Patel) hold strong convictions on this subject, which does not come as a surprise to hon. Members or to their constituents.

I confess that I feel like an onion in a strawberry patch, as I take a different view of the benefits of our relationship with Europe and with the European Community. I want the Government to engage positively, not within the potential framework of withdrawal—the tone that percolates through the comments of the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues and of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North—but in tackling deep and serious issues of economic policy, and ensuring growth, stability and fairness across the European Community.

As I said, I feel like an onion in a strawberry patch because I hold positive views about Europe and the European Community. Our EU membership gives British companies full and direct access to 500 million consumers —the single market that Governments of all parties have supported. The 3 million jobs in the United Kingdom—10% of the work force—linked directly to the export of goods and services to the EU exist partly because of the structures of the European Community.

Our EU membership makes the UK an attractive place for investment from Europe and creates stability for the emerging countries in the east, the growing markets. Furthermore, the EU brings democracy to countries that when I was first elected were still under dictatorships and were not the positive members of Europe that they are becoming today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

No. My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] May I continue? My hon. Friend spoke for nearly an hour; I have 10 minutes and want to cover a wide range of topics.

The UK would not agree to the introduction of any financial transaction tax that damaged competitiveness and growth and, in the absence of a global agreement, the UK sees no evidence that a transaction tax would maintain EU competitiveness. Of course, that does not prevent other countries from introducing a transaction tax if they wish to do so.

My hon. Friend is quite keen to ensure, given his legal background, that words are used carefully. I think that he said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there would be a new treaty. Let me give the quote, so that we do not set any hares running. The Chancellor said in Marseilles this weekend:

“I think it is on the cards that a treaty change may be proposed.”

That is a very conditional statement. It is not saying that there will be a treaty. Before we let the argument run away with itself, I point out that there is no proposal at the moment for a treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South asked whether the Treasury was monitoring the situation in the eurozone. Yes, it is. We are working closely with the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England to monitor what is happening in the eurozone and to understand its potential impact on the UK economy and banking system. We take that particularly seriously because of the interconnection between financial markets and our economy.

Let me be clear: the responsibility for sorting out the problems of the euro area ultimately rests with the euro area Governments. We are not members of the euro and will not join it in the lifetime of this Parliament. Being outside the euro area has clearly given us the flexibility to adapt our fiscal and economic policy to manage the crisis. It is not our responsibility to deal with their problems.

However, no one should be under any misapprehension about the importance of the euro area to the UK economy—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made very powerfully. A strong euro area means a growing market for our goods and services; a weak euro area puts at risk jobs and businesses in our constituencies. We should not lose sight of that. A weak euro area is not in our interest: it puts jobs and businesses at risk. More than 40% of our exports go to the euro area. Hon. Members will know that we export more goods and services to Ireland than we do to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. No one should be under any illusions about the importance of the euro area to our continued success. Britain wants a successful euro area that can deliver growth and stability, so we want the euro area to have the rules that it needs to prevent future crises.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hoban]

No. I am sorry, but I am going to continue. As the Chancellor has said, the eurozone must accept the remorseless logic that leads from monetary union to fiscal union. That is why Conservative Members have consistently opposed joining the euro—we recognise that fundamental link. There can be a successful single currency only if there is a fiscal policy to back it up. We are seeing in the current crisis the consequences of not having that link between monetary policy and fiscal policy in the eurozone. Recognising that remorseless logic, we cannot stand in the way of closer fiscal integration in the eurozone. Clearly, our status—

[Mr Jenkin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hoban]

Let me just finish the point. Clearly, our status as a euro “out” has implications for our influence over the outcome of the discussions. None the less, we should be engaged in the debate on closer fiscal integration. It is very much in our interest to have a say in the design of any new structures or processes that may be required.

[Mr Jenkin]

Precisely because our economic interests are so intertwined with our European partners, my hon. Friend is making the case for our having a clear position to ameliorate the crisis that is developing in relation to the euro. To light on one little piece of remorseless logic, which is that there cannot be a currency union without a fiscal union, but then abandon logic on every other part of his argument is not remorseless logic; it is putting his head in the sand. Does he actually think that a fiscal union can work?

[Mr Hoban]

I think that there is a great deal of work to be done on this and that it is my hon. Friend who is putting his head in the sand. We need a successful euro area if we are to protect jobs and businesses in this country. We can see some of the impact on the economy today as a consequence of the uncertainty in the eurozone. We have seen the impact in the form of growth in France and Germany being below the rate of growth in the UK in the second quarter. These issues have an immediate impact on what happens in our constituencies and businesses. We need to ensure that the eurozone is successful if we are to continue to have a successful economy.

Independent Banking Commission Report

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I talk to UKFI all the time, and one of the things I talk about is ensuring that the banks in which we have a public ownership of shares are meeting their Merlin lending targets. I congratulate Lloyds, which has changed its operations and advertising campaigns and has tried to encourage small business lending. The hon. Gentleman talks about targets, but again there is complete amnesia about the fact that Labour were in government about 18 months ago. The Labour Government introduced net lending targets, which he wants us to introduce, abandoned them after 12 months, after those targets were completely missed, and then said in the House of Commons that they would introduce gross lending targets for two banks, RBS and Lloyds. We have not just stuck with the methodology that they developed, but have extended it to the entire banking system. Before they criticise those trying to clear up the mess, Labour should remember what they did in office.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comment that we should not confuse the interests of bank shareholders with those of taxpayers. Should we not also remind ourselves, however, that unless the shareholders are doing well, the bank balance sheets will not be doing well, and ultimately small business borrowers will not be doing well? He is winning the argument on the reforms, but will he reassure the House that he is mindful of the cost of capital of banks? By raising business costs for banks, we would be in danger not only of driving them offshore, but of raising the costs of capital for UK business.

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, that is the difficult balance that we all must get right. The challenge is to ensure that banks can lend well, as people have been asking them to, while at the same time ensuring that they have a greater cushion should things go wrong. In his report, one of the things that John Vickers points to is that if a bank is ring-fenced, its retail deposits are more likely to be used to support retail lending than to support an investment bank’s activities. He thinks that the ring fence could positively enhance lending opportunities for ring-fenced banks.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The OBR will take into account the state of the eurozone economy in its normal forecasting. However, let me be clear to the House that the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority work closely to monitor the strength of the financial system, and the exposure of UK banks to the Greek Government and the wider eurozone economy. The actions taken to date have ensured that our banks are well capitalised, have strong balance sheets and are less exposed to the Greek economy than, say, French or German banks. British banks can still access funding in international markets, which is a sign of the UK banking system’s strength.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I urge my hon. Friend to bear it in mind that the nearer we get to the inevitable break-up of the euro, the faster the denials will be made that it is not going to happen? Will he urge the European Union to design a policy that creates a legal framework for an orderly departure of Greece from the euro? Can he name a single reputable economist who believes that the Greek economy can recover without a devaluation?