European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, knows that he has my sympathy in his very difficult, some might say impossible, task. I trust he will forgive me if I start by asking whether it is not surreal, even grotesque, that we have to submit anything, let alone our Budget, to the corrupt, expensive and now pointless outfit in Brussels, which has not been able to have its own accounts signed off for the last 17 years in a row. In the background, and as a related matter, is it not even more absurd that this outfit in Brussels now presumes to tell us how to reorganise our own accounting standards, how much our banks and insurance companies should reserve and much other mischief that is actively designed to diminish the City of London and our vital financial services generally?

Could the noble Lord tell us what exactly the United Kingdom’s convergence programme is? With what are we converging and to what benefit? We are told that we are doing this in pursuit of the EU’s stability and growth pact. Surely even the Government must now acknowledge that this is a dead duck: that the whole EU adventure has not brought any stability or growth but merely civil unrest, unpayable debt and slump. The countries of the future sail on, including the Commonwealth, while we stay on the “Titanic”, with the iceberg obvious in front of us.

The European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 was the Act that put the destructive Maastricht treaty into our national law. Perhaps the worst aspect of that treaty, at least for our friends in Europe, was that it paved the way for European economic and monetary union, or the EMU, the bird that cannot fly. It came complete with its attendant single currency, the euro, which is now causing so much havoc among its members and elsewhere. The United Kingdom was of course right to avoid that part of the treaty, and credit for this is often given to the then Prime Minister, Mr John Major, and later to Mr Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I understand from friends in the Civil Service that neither of these gentlemen deserves much credit for this fortunate deliverance. The credit should instead go to the bureaucrats in the Treasury and the Bank of England, who disliked the EMU because it would have passed much of their power to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. The Treasury would no longer have been top dog in the British pecking order. That position would have passed to the Foreign Office—perish the thought.

Be that as it may, it seems that our proceedings today have their justification in the failed process of European economic and monetary integration. I cannot see, therefore, why we should have anything to do with it. Why should we submit anything at all to Brussels, let alone our Budget? It is true that the Government have rightly refused the insolent demand by Brussels that they should submit our Budget to Brussels before the House of Commons sees it. They are to be congratulated on that small show of defiance. However, I come back to the question: why are we doing this at all? I fear the noble Lord’s answer will be that it is a treaty commitment, that we take our treaty commitments seriously and that we will be fined by Brussels in the Luxembourg Court if we do not do it.

I conclude with some advice for the Government, which I have attempted to give before but which I do not think has quite sunk in yet: that there is no way in which the EU can enforce a fine against a donor member state such as the United Kingdom. EU fines can be enforced against individuals and companies in the national courts where they reside. Recipient nations can have their fines deducted from the money Brussels sends to them. This, however, does not work for donor nations such as us or Germany or, dare I mention it, Holland.

Perhaps the Minister could pass this advice on to his right honourable friend, Mr David Lidington, the Europe Minister, who I learned from today’s Daily Telegraph does not want us to pay the extra £890 million now being demanded by the Commission into the bottomless pit of Brussels. A senior EU official has apparently told the Daily Telegraph that we could be sent to the Court and fined if we did not pay up. So what? Just knock the fine off the £10.2 billion in net cash we sent Brussels last year—and it is more this year. Just knock it off and see whether they dare to do it again. If Mr Cameron and his Conservative colleagues started to behave like this, they might even win the next election. So it should be with this insulting Motion before us, which I oppose.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I will come back to the Budget, if I may, and not take up the very challenging, provocative and frankly misconceived points that the noble Lord has been talking about in the European Union context. I do not want to come back to the macroeconomic stance represented by the Budget for more than two very brief remarks, because that matter has been thoroughly dealt with by my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I also want to talk about two particular tax proposals in the Budget, the significance of which has unfortunately not been sufficiently understood so far.

Before I do that, I have those two brief comments on the macroeconomic debate. First, it is clear that the Government are committed to the Pigouvian idea, which was discredited in the 1930s and is clearly being discredited now, that if the Government cut borrowing and spending, then the reduction in aggregate demand following from that would be automatically compensated by an equal and opposite increase in borrowing by the private sector to finance consumption or investment spending. That is a very hoary doctrine that, as I said, has been proved to be wrong in the past. The Government seem to continue to be committed to it. It has become a sort of Panglossian piece of self-deception on their part.

The phrase that the noble Lord from the Treasury used this afternoon—I heard the Prime Minister use exactly the same phrase earlier today in another place—that the solution to a borrowing crisis cannot be more borrowing reflects the preference of this Government to fall back into PR slogans rather than to think through matters carefully. It is a completely nonsensical statement. Clearly, if you have a deficit, you cannot get rid of it overnight. If you are going to continue with a deficit, you are going to continue to increase borrowing. We are merely talking about the rate at which you continue to increase borrowing. There is no doubt that the solution, whatever it is—whether it is the one we on this side of the House propose, or the one to which the Government opposite are committed—would involve more borrowing. We want more clarity, a bit more analysis and perhaps a little more straightforwardness with the public, and rather less of the generation of PR slogans to disguise reality from the public.

The two particular points emerging from the tax proposals in the Budget which I want to highlight this evening are not matters which will rouse great passion around the breakfast tables of millions of families in this country. They might even seem, at first glance at least, rather technical and esoteric but they are extremely important in terms of the vibrancy of the supply side of the economy, the ability of the economy to respond to opportunities, and the willingness of people to risk their money—to invest in new or expanding businesses, to generate wealth and employment in the future. I have already raised in the earlier Budget debate the first measure that I am concerned about. I was given a one-sentence response by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, which made me feel that the Government either did not want to or could not be bothered to engage seriously with the issue. This concerns the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule. I am in favour of the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule, with the important condition—I always make this clear in any debate on the subject—that, to avoid doing considerable damage to the economy, it must be accompanied by a provision under which HMRC would provide pre-transaction rulings to taxpayers.

Briefly, what a general anti-avoidance rule—a GAAR—means is that every taxpayer is exposed to the risk that HMRC will suddenly challenge his or her tax return and say, “We are not accepting this particular structure or bottom line of taxable income because we think that you have engaged in some artificial practice for the purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore we are going to see through this structure and tax you on a completely different basis”. Under a GAAR regime, you never quite know when you may be exposed to such a risk. I suppose that it is true to say that if you always make sure that you adopt structures which cost you the most tax of any structure that you could adopt to solve a particular problem or to arrange for a particular transaction, you would not be exposed to a revenue challenge of this kind. That, of course, would mean that there would be an enormous increase in the tax burden. That would be a very undesirable thing. It is not something that the Government have ever thought of, I am quite certain. If, in fact, you have a reasonably tax-efficient structure which you have adopted for totally respectable operational, strategic or other reasons, you are always exposed to the Revenue saying, “No, no; you only did this in order to avoid tax, so we are going to attack you with the GAAR”. The only way around this is to have a system under which you can ask HMRC in advance whether or not it would accept a particular structure and, if it does, you know that you are safe. The IRS regularly provides pre-transaction rulings, and there is no reason whatever why HMRC should not do so. I will come on to that in one moment.

The first proposition that I put to the Minister is that the effect of introducing a GAAR without a pre-transaction ruling facility is greatly to increase tax uncertainty in this country, or to reduce tax certainty. I do not think that he will argue with that, but he will argue with my second proposition, which is that tax certainty is an important factor in the determination of willingness to exist and the location of investment decisions. That decision process which sometimes may be more intuitive and sometimes may be an explicit equation will always include certain key factors. Of course, these include political stability, the real output cost of labour, access to markets, availability of skills and monetary stability. All these things are important, but tax rates are important and tax certainty is extremely important. Therefore, if you change the variable of tax certainty, or produce a greater degree of tax uncertainty, you will change the outcome of that particular equation. You will have less investment. That is a very undesirable thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

There is no requirement to converge, but we none the less believe that we should honour our legal commitments.

I think the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said is that we should not be contributing to the EU budget. The UK remains a committed member of the European Union. However, it is unacceptable for the Commission to impose an inflation-busting budget increase for the 2013 EU budget when Governments across Europe are making difficult decisions on public spending, and we will be pressing for a more realistic budget that recognises the economic reality across Europe.

The noble Lord also suggested that there was no accountability for EU spending. For the 17th successive year, the European Court of Auditors is unable to grant an unqualified positive opinion on the EU accounts. That is entirely unacceptable. The UK Government demand concrete action by the Commission and member states to improve EU financial management.

I am just coming to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and perhaps he will let me have a go at his initial questions.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

In response to what the noble Lord just said to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is it not the case that the auditors have consistently declined to sign off on those aspects of the accounts of the Union which involve money disbursed by member states—for example, structural funds and CAP funds? There have been a number of difficulties in a number of countries, but there has never been any doubt at all about the robustness of the accounts of the Commission and the institutions of the Community. Therefore, this issue is an indictment of a lack of federalism, not of too much feudalism. If the Commission were directly responsible for disbursing all these funds, there probably would be no problem. The problem is with member states that have had a lot of difficulty in keeping accounts properly.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Before the noble Lord rises to reply to that well known canard, it is, of course, true—is it not?—that a third of the budget is under the direct control of the European Commission. If the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would like to understand how it really works, instead of continuing to produce Europhile propaganda, I suggests he reads Brussels Laid Bare by Marta Andreasen. Then he will understand how the whole thing works, and we will no longer have these fruitless debates trying to pretend that this is not the fault of the corrupt octopus in Brussels but entirely the fault of the wicked nation states, which are also at fault, of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

Perhaps I can come back to that in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, suggested that there were optimistic assumptions in the OBR forecast, in particular on oil prices and risks from the euro area. The OBR says that,

“oil prices remain a significant uncertainty and the possibility of a further temporary spike in prices represents a risk to our forecast”.

Renewed upward pressure from the record oil prices in recent weeks is also recognised as a risk to the Bank of England’s forecast, most recently in the minutes of April’s MPC meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, spoke about what might happen in the forthcoming French presidential election. He will appreciate that it is not for me to speculate on the outcome of the French election. Of course, the UK is not a party to the fiscal compact; it does not apply to us. The SGP was strengthened last year. Any proposal for fundamental change would require treaty change and that would require the consent of all 27 nations.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Can the noble Lord tell the House why, apparently on two occasions, the Prime Minister has refused to meet with Monsieur Hollande? Are his judgment and power of prediction in political matters as bad as in economic matters?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, no, I cannot answer that question. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked what would be the repercussions if the House voted against this Motion this evening. The result would be that the Government would not have the statutory authority to submit the information that forms the basis of the convergence programme. The UK would therefore breach its obligations under the EU treaties, which could lead to infraction proceedings brought by the Commission under Article 258 of the treaty, for failure “to fulfil an obligation”. As I have said before, the Government take their legal obligations seriously.

It is worth saying that a strong Europe is in the UK’s economic interests. The Government want to contribute to a strong, prosperous Europe, while safeguarding our interests.