Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman almost had it. The crisis in Ireland is around the banking sector, not the fiscal position. I believe that we are taking the right measures to stabilise the UK economy—the cuts we are making in public spending—to get our deficit under control and to keep interest rates as low as possible for as long as possible. Labour Members are the only ones calling for a weaker fiscal position when the world is moving to stronger fiscal stances.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

If we are to spend taxpayer money dealing with this crisis, rather than bailing out the euro should we not be helping Ireland to bale out of the euro or, at the very least, to retain her economic independence against the Van Rompuy system of pan-European economic governance?

[Mr Hoban]

I hear what my hon. Friend says about the crisis. Let me be absolutely clear: no request for support has yet come from the Irish Government. It is important that we ensure that the Irish economy is stabilised—it is in our national interests to do so.

European Union Economic Governance

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I shall be brief, and I shall vote against the motion. The House is being asked to endorse an agreement that would strengthen European Union economic governance. It is not in dispute that the new measures would give EU institutions, the Commission and the Council greater powers. What is in dispute is, first, the extent to which such changes would involve the United Kingdom, and whether the new arrangements would apply only to the 16 members of the eurozone, or to all 27 member states, including Britain.

The second point of contention is the extent to which Britain is now subject to EU oversight when we set our own Budget. Having gone to Brussels promising not to give away so much of our money, Ministers seem to have returned having given Brussels the right to have a say in how we spend the rest of our Budget.

No one was more heartened than I to hear the Prime Minister tell the House back in June that any new deal with the EU

“should not interfere with national competencies”.

He also said:

“On budget surveillance, let me be clear: the UK Budget will be shown to this House first and not to the Commission…co-ordination and consultation, yes; clearance, no, never.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 35.]

Such assurances were welcome, yet within a couple of weeks we heard Olli Rehn, the Economic and Monetary Policy Commissioner, spell out the details. He said:

“All member states would submit their fiscal programmes at the same time in April to allow the Council to issue country specific policy guidelines”.

Is it any wonder that when the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury Select Committee he was able to reveal the date of the next Budget? It is now part of a timetable set in Brussels.

Ministers have claimed that the level of disclosure is nothing new, and that it is no more than what a think-tank might find out about UK fiscal policy via Google. Indeed, but think-tanks do not have the power to issue guidelines, and they cannot pass legislation on the basis of the analysis that they then make.

Ministers are keen to tell us that as a result of the new arrangements Britain would not at this time be subject to sanctions. To the best of my knowledge, no one is suggesting otherwise. The issue at stake is not whether the new EU regulations apply sanctions to the UK, but whether, from now on, the EU has the right to make laws on UK fiscal policy in the first place.

At his press conference on 17 June, the Prime Minister assured us that because we are outside the eurozone our opt-outs would be safeguarded. He talked of Van Rompuy’s efforts to “strengthen Eurozone governance arrangements”. He referred to the eurozone, not the EU. Since then, the talk has been not of eurozone economic governance arrangements, but of EU governance arrangements. Within a couple of weeks of the Prime Minister’s assurances, talk shifted from measures that would affect just the 16 eurozone members to measures that would apply to all 27 member states, including Britain.

Angela Merkel made it clear that economic governance should apply to all EU states, not just the eurozone. Barroso declared with reference to economic governance:

“Europe must show it is more than 27 different national solutions”.

He said 27, not 16. It is clear that his intention is that the new arrangements apply to the UK. Van Rompuy went out of his way to warn against creating what he called “dividing lines” between 27 member states and 16 eurozone countries. What were clear assurances to be welcomed and embraced in early summer had, by the onset of autumn, become dividing lines to be done away with.

Paragraph 34 of the Van Rompuy report states that there will be a new legal framework

“applying to all EU Member States”.

Can the Minister explain what part of “all” excludes Britain? Regardless of paragraphs 35 and 39, or reference to protocol 15 of any treaty, such wording creates ambivalence at the very least. It suggests that EU institutions will now be able to legislate in areas of UK national competence in which they could not previously legislate. Has the precedent now been set? Is the field occupied? Is not the stage set for the day when some other Minister returns from Brussels to explain to the House how we have been sadly outvoted?

So who is right? Ministers who assure us, or Eurocrats who do not? How can we explain the differences between Ministers’ assurances and what lies in the small print of what is before the House today? At best, this can be explained by sloppy drafting by officials, but if that is the case, why are we employing sloppy drafters to negotiate matters of such fundamental importance? Are those officials the ones on whom we will depend to turn the contents of the Van Rompuy report into the treaty changes? I cannot support the motion, as it will mean a further transfer of powers from this country to Brussels. I urge colleagues to oppose it.

Economic Governance (EU)

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

As I reiterated earlier—and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear—we will not endorse a treaty that transfers sovereignty from Westminster to the EU. The hon. Lady takes a close interest in these matters, and I know that she will recognise that views among member states about the desirability of treaty changes vary, and that the UK is not the only one that is concerned about this.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

In June, Ministers made a big deal of the fact that the UK Budget would not need to be submitted to EU institutions before it was brought to the House of Commons. Will the Minister confirm that, in fact, the UK pre-Budget report data are part of the European semester process, and that, while we might be exempt from sanctions, we are part of that surveillance? Will he be honest and admit that we are part of the EU fiscal scrutiny process?

[Mr Hoban]

I believe that this Parliament should hear news about this country’s finances before the EU does. We have secured that situation and that was the right thing to do.

Draft EU Budget 2011

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has done as much as any Member to encourage this House over many years to consider its duties in a wider European context. He is the best kind of Committee Chairman—one who never forgets that the role of his Committee is to hold the Executive to account, regardless of which party is in government. I thank him.

All hon. Members face spending cuts in their constituencies—cuts that none of us wanted and cuts made all the more painful by the economic downturn. With the exceptions of health care and overseas aid, every Government Department is looking for budget reductions of between 25% and 40%. At the same time, however, our net contributions to the EU are rising by 60% over the next two years—from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12 and to £10.3 billion in 2015.

Our gross contributions, of course, are higher still. Currently £13.3 billion, they are scheduled to rise to £19 billion. Although it is true that some of that money is spent in the United Kingdom, it is by no means always spent on projects that we ourselves would have chosen to spend it on. In any case, normal practice in politics is to measure what people actually pay rather than to deduct the notional cost of services they receive in return. Would any Member argue that the basic rate of income tax is not 20p in the pound but zero, on the grounds that the entire sum is given back in the form of roads, schools, hospitals and so forth?

The sum of £19 billion is, of course, colossal—enough to give the entire country a 50% rebate on council tax in perpetuity or to pay off our Olympic debt in a single year. The scope of amendment (b), however, is not nearly so ambitious. It would not strike out the entire EU budget—it is not about that—and it would not even strike out the increase in the year-on-year EU budget. All this modest proposal is designed to do is to reject the additional sum that the European Commission demanded over and above the increases already built into the 2011 budget.

At a time when every one of the 27 member state Governments are struggling to find savings, the EU must show some willingness if not to reduce its budget, at the very least to be satisfied by the increases we have already given it. Why has the EU come back on 15 September and asked for more resources? The Commission has been admirably frank that the additional funds are earmarked for three institutions: the European External Action Service, Europol, and the three supervisory agencies that will regulate financial services. I remind Members that the European External Action Service is the EU’s diplomatic corps. It already has about 20 times the budget of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Europol is the EU’s police agency, and the three new supervisory agencies have been widely denounced as likely to drive revenue away from the City of London to non-EU financial centres.

In other words, we are being asked for this extra money to fund three projects that are not in the interests of this country to start with. How much is the bill? To be precise, the EU has awarded itself a €3.6 billion budget increase this year, and Britain’s share of that increase—not its share of the budget—is £380 million. The bail-outs and the financial stimuli around the world have, of course, recalibrated our sense of monetary value, but even by today’s standards we are talking about significant sums. Given this morning’s headlines about the pressure on public sector jobs, it might be helpful to calculate how that £380 million could be translated into Government spending. It would pay for 6,022 NHS doctors, 12,666 NHS nurses, 14,600 police constables, or 22,332 Army privates.

The purpose of the legislature is to control the Executive. In the last analysis, that is why we are all here. The additional work that we do in scrutinising laws, taking up cases for our constituents and participating in debates is valuable, but essentially supplementary. When we strip it down, we see that Parliament exists to ensure that the Government do not spend our money wrong-headedly. That has been the elementary function of our predecessors since the Tudors, if not the Plantagenets.

[Mrs Main]

I will support the amendment, because I could not look the people of St Albans in the eye if I asked them to make economies and explain why cuts are necessary, and then voted for a measure that would mean the EU’s sucking out more and more of our money. I do not think other Members could explain that to their constituents either.

[Mr Carswell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the other 32 hon. Members—many of whom are present—who supported the amendment. The £380 million increase comes at a time when there will be costly cuts in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in others—cuts that none of us wants to see—and when it is surely wrong to reduce spending on public services in order to increase the money that we give to EU institutions.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman said that some of the increase would fund the External Action Service. Does he recall that when the service was debated in the House, it was promised that it would be budget-neutral? That was bad enough—there should have been a decrease—but can the hon. Gentleman explain why we are now being asked to finance an increase in its funding?

[Mr Carswell]

I cannot. I wish that I could, and I should have liked to hear an answer from the Minister. I am perplexed and puzzled about why we are now being asked for an additional increase in funding for a measure that we were told was budget-neutral.

The issue before us is indeed one of supply. It is a question of whether we think that our constituents’ money is being well and wisely spent. Do Members believe that, in our current financial circumstances, we should find more resources to pay for, among other things, high commissioners’ entertainment allowances and additional staff for Members of the European Parliament? Is that really the best possible use for this money? Is it better to spend it on that than on the 13,000 nurses whose jobs we might otherwise save, or on 22,000 servicemen? I do not think it necessary to be either Eurosceptic or fiscally conservative to believe that there are better ways to allocate our finite resources. When all the Governments in Europe are cutting their budgets, it cannot be right for the EU bureaucracy to be expanding.

If we do not think that this is the best use we can make of our constituents’ tax contributions, our duty is clear: we should support the amendment and reject the increase. Our predecessors fought a long and bloody civil war to establish that only this House might raise revenue for central Government through taxation. We are the inheritors of a sublime tradition, but also of a heavy duty. It is not for any outside agency, either our own Ministers or overseas Commissioners, to tell us how to dispose of this nation’s resources. We shall make that decision guided by our consciences, and in the interests of those for whom we speak.

I respectfully seek to press the amendment to a vote. Others have signed it, and I hope that they will speak in its support tonight.

Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House, but I shall not be drawn down the path whereby new, eager and young—or no longer so young—Members jump up with every cherished item of Government expenditure and pose such questions. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the spending review and Budget for a discussion of the whole Government programme, but he should not assume anything from that answer.

The next thing that we will do is bring together, from within the Government and outside, the best people in their fields. We want the best civil servants helping us in that collective effort, not defending their Whitehall Departments. We want the inspirational head teachers, the chief inspectors in the police service and the nurses with new ideas to have their opportunity to put their ideas to us. The remit will be to innovate, to challenge entrenched ways of doing things and to identify the best ideas from throughout the world; and, in order to ensure that the resulting reform programme is achieved, we will establish robust mechanisms to ensure accountability to the public.

Thirdly, the spending review will cover the large, cross-cutting areas of Government spending. We will set out our plans to reform the welfare system and restrain the cost of public sector pay and pensions, and for capital spending we will undertake a fundamental review of spending plans to identify the areas of spending that will achieve the greatest economic returns. Opposition Members should know that we have inherited a capital budget that is set to halve.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been quoted talking about having a Star Chamber to oversee public spending. For years, have we not had an elite clique of Treasury officials doing precisely that? Somehow, no Executive quite manage to rein in the executive as planned. Why not in addition try a radical solution and give the newly liberated Select Committees powers to curb departmental spending? As well as fixing our finances, that might give Parliament some purpose.

[Mr Osborne]

I am probably going to regret this, but I am quite attracted to the idea that my hon. Friend has proposed, not just in the Chamber today but to me privately; I think he has also written about it. The key thing that he proposes is that Select Committees should be able to recommend reductions, rather than increases, in Government Department budgets. I would certainly welcome that if we were ever to proceed in that direction.

I honestly mean it when I say to my hon. Friend that I am attracted to his idea. I will come back to him and see whether we can take it forward. Obviously, it would be the collective decision of the Government, rather than mine alone. My hon. Friend is right to say that we are trying to get away from it simply being the Treasury that conducts the spending review, imposing its decisions on everyone else.

I believe that when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, he and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath would simply agree a total. Every Secretary of State would then receive the number in an envelope, before it was announced to the press about 20 minutes later. We are going to have a more collegiate approach and we are genuinely seeking to engage as many people as possible—the brightest civil servants across all the Government Departments and the best people from the devolved Administrations, pressure groups, independent think-tanks and front-line public services. There will be a Cabinet committee to chair and oversee the process and its membership will be restricted to those Cabinet Ministers with very small budgets of their own. Other Cabinet Ministers will be eligible to be members of the committee once they have settled their departmental allocations. That will create an incentive structure within the Cabinet.

Finally, over the summer we are going to conduct a wide public engagement exercise so that the whole country has a chance to get involved. We have already begun to implement the most radical transparency agenda that the country has ever seen. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and I were talking earlier about the £25,000 disclosure limit for central Government expenditure. The previous Chancellor refused my freedom of information request to publish the Treasury’s combined online information system, or COINS, database of public spending. But the current Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted that request and the raw data in the COINS database are now available online.