Sanctions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are running through a list, and we have already sanctioned over 120 businesses in Russia and oligarchs. We have prevented the Russian central bank from deploying its international reserves to counteract sanctions. We are freezing bank assets of vast parts of the Russian economy, and we will continue to do more to target individual companies with freezes and sanctions. As I have said, nothing is off the table, and we are working in train with our allies on all of this.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Government on the swift action they have taken, including the action against the Russian central bank, and I commend her for her work to go further. Frankly, however, is it not desperate and indeed pitiful to try to blame words from Her Majesty’s Government for the outrageous Russian escalation of dangerous rhetoric yesterday, because the truth is that it is imperative for the stability of the international order that Putin fails?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right. The reality is that Putin has made these threats to distract from his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We are being targeted because the UK has been leading on measures both to support Ukraine and to degrade the Russian economy, and the Russians do not like it.

Judiciary and Fundamental Rights

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My advice is that that has to be a sovereign decision for the country concerned. I do not waver in my view that joining the euro would not be in the national interest of the United Kingdom, and I make no apology for having long held that view, but each country must take its own decision. Some countries with small economies, which are, perhaps, very dependent on trade with immediate European neighbours, would find it more difficult to see themselves outside the euro, at least over the longer term, than a country such as the UK. At the end of the day it must be a matter for each accession country to decide for itself in the course of EU negotiations.

The third argument for enlargement is an economic one and it is—

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on to that further point, is there not an important and slightly more domestic political benefit to support for enlargement of the European Union? There are more countries in the European Union that want to see a less deeply aligned European Union and more of a trading union, which we on the Conservative Benches also want to see. The more countries with that view of Europe, the better. Therefore accession countries with that view and that approach to markets should be encouraged.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point indeed, although it would be a mistake to class all new accession countries as if they were of one mind and part of a bloc. The Government of the Czech Republic, for example, take an approach towards the European Union that on many issues is not dissimilar from that expressed by the United Kingdom Government. With the Slovak Parliament’s controversial debate over the future of the euro, we have seen the strong view that even a small member state is entitled to have a say and not be overruled by a directoire of the larger member states.

However, I caution my hon. Friend. If one looks at, say, Estonia, the ambition that it had to join the euro, and the celebrations on the streets when it joined the euro—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) prompts me from a sedentary position about Poland, which is keen to be in the euro one day, but certainly not to be told what to do by other, older member states. There is a variety of different positions among member states.

The political value of enlargement is partly that it recognises the truth about the diversity of European political culture. It is important that as the EU evolves and reflects upon its own systems of governance and its institutional set-up, it does so in a way that takes full account of the diversity of European political and cultural experience. The model that may have served six member states in western Europe in the 1950s will not be the right one for a community of 27—soon to be 28—member states encompassing all parts of our continent.

The third argument for enlargement relates to economic interest. The economic benefits of expanding the single market are significant. British exports of goods and services to the 12 new member states of central and eastern Europe increased over the 10 years straddling their accession by more than two and a half times to over £11.6 billion in 2009. So there are advantages for our businesses and our people, as well as for the businesses and people of the accession countries. In Croatia’s case, meeting the single market rules means that British businesses will be better able to benefit from trade and investment opportunities in that country—for example, in Croatia’s expanding ports sector, its tourism industry and agriculture.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but although there might be extensive post-decision debate, after the implementation of the Bill we will no longer be in a position effectively to give the Prime Minister a mandate. That is a step backwards and a negation of democracy.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that he believes it is an error not to have a mandate, but did the previous Government have a mandate when they signed up to the EFSM after losing an election?

[Mr David]

I have already referred to that point. The former Chancellor and Government were facing exceptional circumstances, and my guess is that if the current Government had taken over the reins at that point, they would have done exactly the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that the Labour party position is that the UK should be a part of the European stability mechanism, and therefore tied into bailing out eurozone countries, or does he agree with the Government’s proposal that the European stability mechanism should be for eurozone countries only?

[Mr David]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will tell him what I propose.

One sure way to prevent the single market from developing in a way that does not work to Britain’s advantage is for Britain to be involved in the current discussions. It is important for us to have an appropriate involvement in eurozone summits. I understand that countries such as Poland and Sweden, and even the Czech Republic, which has absolutely no intention of ever joining the single currency, have already indicated that they wish to be involved in those discussions. In contrast, Britain has made it clear—so I am told—that it does not want to be involved in any way whatever. I suggest that that is potentially harmful to Britain’s national interest, and therefore urge the Government not to close the door on our eurozone partners.

The second issue is another important and profound one. I have reservations about the economic and political assumptions that underpin this treaty change and the ESM. Let me be clear that the eurozone countries are correct in agreeing a permanent crisis mechanism. To that extent the treaty change is understandable, but my concern is that the ESM is part of a wider economic approach that is completely insufficient to address Europe’s deep-seated economic problems. Austerity, rapid economic retrenchment policies and fiscal consolidation will not of themselves create the kind of growth that the eurozone desperately needs. If all EU countries cut back at the same time, growth is likely to be sluggish at best. The hardest hit countries could find themselves facing stagnation, or even another recession. The risk is low economic growth and high long-term unemployment, with the poorest member states being hit hardest.

Of course, Europe has a 2020 strategy, which is supposed to be a 10-year strategy for jobs and

“smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”.

The stated aim of the strategy is to help Europe to deliver structural reforms and to recover from the crisis. However, although it is full of good intentions, the strategy plays second fiddle to Council and the Commission plans for deep economic retrenchment. It is clear that throughout most of Europe economic recovery is far from strong, and there is little evidence that private sector job growth will be fast enough to compensate for the huge number of jobs lost in the public sector. My concern is that the political and economic philosophy underpinning the treaty change and the ESM will make economic recovery in the eurozone both fragile and uncertain. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that is not in Britain’s best national interests.

These are important and serious reservations, and I hope that our concerns will be listened to carefully. Europe, including Britain, needs a coherent, well-thought-out growth strategy. Without that, the treaty change will fail to deliver the stability and prosperity that we all want.