All 2 Debates between David Gauke and Natascha Engel

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between David Gauke and Natascha Engel
Wednesday 19th April 2017

(7 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Gauke Portrait The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
- Hansard - -

I beg to move,

That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

The legal requirement to give the European Commission an update of the UK’s economic and budgetary position—our convergence programme—means there is a welcome opportunity for a wider economic debate, should we want one. [Interruption.] Clearly, since last year’s—[Interruption.]

Natascha Engel Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. If Members leaving the Chamber do so a little more quietly, we can hear the Minister. Thank you.

David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - -

Clearly, since last year’s convergence programme debate there has been a momentous change in the UK’s relationship with the European Union. The article 50 process is now under way and the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. There cannot, as some suggest, be any turning back from that. In accordance with the outcome of the referendum, we are leaving the European Union and will make our own decisions, take control of the things that matter to us and seize every opportunity to build a stronger and fairer Britain.

Given our decision to leave, some Members might find it odd that we are debating the UK’s convergence programme here today. It is right that we should do so, however, because we continue to exercise our full membership of the European Union until our exit and because to do so is a legal requirement that we must take seriously. I should, however, remind the House that the content of the convergence programme is drawn from the Government’s assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position. This assessment is based on the spring Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent economic and fiscal outlook. It is that content, rather than the convergence programme itself, that requires the approval of the House.

I should also remind the House that although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, which requires convergence programmes to be submitted, we are required—by virtue of our protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro—only to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. The UK cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of our participation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Natascha Engel
Tuesday 11th December 2012

(11 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - -

First, it is not unpopular with business. Business groups have welcomed it, and the fact is that some aspects of our employment law can stand in the way of job creation. The OBR estimates that within the scorecard period this policy will cost £80 million in 2017-18. We believe it is the right move in order to ensure we have a more competitive environment.

Natascha Engel Portrait Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

12. If he will take steps to open up dark pool trades on the UK equity markets to greater transparency.