Budget Resolutions

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. Unless we get to grips with that, not only will those people suffer as they fall below the line and can no longer keep their heads above water, but the economy itself will suffer. Even the sluggish growth over which the Government have presided since they took office has been driven by an increase in household debt. What happens to those families, and what happens to the economy, when the money dries up—when there can be no more lending, or when families can no longer service their debt? Of course, it is not just national insurance or, indeed, income tax that the poorest pay. Other forms of taxation have a disproportionate and regrettable impact on them: VAT, council tax, and other unprogressive tax measures are causing them to become the very worst off.

If that were not bad enough in itself, it was explicitly ruled out in the Conservative manifesto, not just once but four times. It is a bit rich for the Chancellor to come to the House and talk about the small print produced by companies, and for his Ministers to tidy up the mess the next day at the Dispatch Box by talking about the small print in the National Insurance Contributions Bill. This is a broken promise, plain and simple. Not only was it in the manifesto; it was a central line of Tory attack. The Tories were wrong to warn at the last election that a Labour Government would somehow cause chaos and instability. Look at the mess they are presiding over now, and look at what they have done to the country in the short time since that election!

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has referred to the Conservative manifesto. That was the same manifesto that committed the Government to staying in the single market. The lesson, surely, is that Conservative manifestos are worth nothing, not even the paper they are written on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I entirely agree. I am not sure how many experienced, wise leaders of the NHS and local councils could come forward and warn the Government about not just an impending crisis, but a crisis that is affecting hospitals and care services in each of our constituencies today. What more will it take for the Government to show the courage, and find the money, to fund social care? Imagine what a cross-party commission led by the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) or the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) could do to build a health and social care model for the 21st century.

Was it not a travesty that, as schools in our constituencies faced cuts in their budgets, the Chancellor chose to arrive yesterday with a funding package that would benefit a small number of pupils at a few selective schools? What do Ministers have to say to headteachers and parents in my constituency, or to the pupils who attend the vast majority of schools in my constituency, about the fact that they face on average a funding cut of £188 per pupil per year? I do not need an opinion poll to tell me that there are a few things that people, whether they vote Labour or Conservative, expect the Government to do, and among them are to make sure that we have decent hospitals and well-funded schools. It is a scandal that so much of the educational progress made in my city and across the country, led by the last Labour Government and following on since then, is being put at risk because of swingeing budget cuts to schools. What sort of Government choose to cut education for the next generation while also cutting the tax bill for the very wealthiest?

The flimsiness of the Budget Red Book—for once it did not take long to get through—betrays the fragility of our economy. In the long list of supposed good news the Chancellor arrived with yesterday, a few facts were missing. This was the ninth Budget by a Conservative Chancellor since 2010, and what do we have to show for it? We have the only developed economy that has a growing economy but falling real wages; rising costs of living, but wages still at pre-crash levels; a widening productivity gap holding back growth and depressing wages; a weaker currency fuelling inflation that households and businesses can ill afford; a failure to meet the Tories’ own targets for debt and deficit reduction because they have never understood the need to balance spending cuts with investment for growth; and a failure to meet their own welfare cap because of their failure to tackle unemployment, under-employment, casualisation of the labour market and exploitation by unscrupulous employers, which leaves a welfare system that lacks the confidence of the majority of the public but also fails the people who need it most. That is the very worst of all worlds, and even now, in the wake of a Brexit vote driven in large part by the votes of people who have been left behind, we have a Government willing to preside over rising child poverty, public services at breaking point, and an economy ill equipped for the challenges that lie ahead.

It should not take dragging a former—Conservative—Prime Minister out of retirement to tell this Government that the way they are handling the single biggest issue facing our country, the departure from the EU, and the path they have set us on is putting the economy at risk. What John Major said was very straightforward:

“There is a choice to be made, a price to be paid; we cannot move to a radical enterprise economy without moving away from a welfare state. Such a direction of policy, once understood by the public, would never command support. It would make all previous rows over social policy seem a minor distraction.”

Sir John Major could have been reading from the Labour party script on this issue. There we have it: a former Conservative Prime Minister holding up the truth that we on the Labour Benches know, which is that unless the Government negotiate a smooth and sensible exit from the EU, they will consign this country to being a small tax haven off the north-west coast of Europe, unable to meet the needs of their people and unable to make sure that prosperity is shared.

Of course, it is not just John Major who has concerns: the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), told the House that this Government have chosen not to make the economy the priority. When so much of this country’s economic success relies on trade abroad, when we have the largest single market in the world on our doorstep, and when being a member of the customs union gives us access to more trade agreements than are enjoyed by any leading economy in the world, for a Government to decide not to make the economy the priority is reckless and irresponsible.

[Mike Gapes]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He mentioned the former Chancellor’s remarks, and the Government’s position is clearly that immigration is the priority. The Government’s target of a reduction to 100,000 seems a bit strange, however, given that the forecasts in the Red Book are based on the assumption that 185,000 migrants will come into this country in 2021; that is the Office for Budget Responsibility statistic on which the forecasts are based. How can the Government reconcile the 100,000 and the 185,000 figures, and surely the economy will be in a worse position based on those facts?

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard calls for a real debate on immigration, but a real debate requires an argument. There are undoubtedly real sensitivities and concerns about immigration in communities across the country, not least when people feel that their own wages have been depressed because employers are able to bring in cheaper labour from abroad to undercut the pay, terms and conditions of local workers. For me, that is an issue of social injustice that Governments need to tackle. However, we have an ageing population and a shrinking working-age population, and we can barely afford the pensions bill. We need a greater working-age population to come to this country, do their work and pay their taxes. Any politician who says that immigration is a price that this country cannot afford must also come to the House and tell us how they plan to pay for the public services on which every citizen in this country relies.

We must grasp the reality of the immigration debate. If we continue to fail to address the genuine and well-founded concerns about immigration while pandering to the myths about it, we will set this country on a course that will make us poorer, and that would be the worst possible response to the EU referendum. If people went to the ballot box and voted to leave the European Union because they felt left behind by globalisation in a world that was changing around them, imagine the betrayal they would feel if, having been sold the promise of a brighter future, they found that jobs were drying up, the economy had been left behind and the public services on which they relied were being decimated. That is the real risk of a botched Brexit.

In the context of a rapidly changing global economy in which jobs are changing, huge digitalisation is taking place and a new industrial revolution is sweeping the country at a pace and scale that we have never seen before, the purpose of the Labour party has never been more relevant or more urgently needed. More than 100 years ago, the party was founded to champion the interests of labour over the interests of capital. In a future of deregulation and a loss of jobs because they no longer exist in huge sectors of the economy, it is the job of the Labour party to protect the interests of labour.

When we look at what this Budget does to the self-employed, the strivers and the people across the private sector who make up the backbone of the economy and at what it does to public services, and when we look at how the Government are botching Brexit, we can see that it is long past time for the Labour party to take this lot apart. People across the country are counting on us to be an effective Opposition and an alternative Government. That is the job that we must face up to, and we need to start doing it sooner rather than later.

Greece

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, Britain is much better placed than it was a few years ago; our banking system is much better capitalised. Of course, the eurozone and the European Central Bank have previously taken steps to try to contain the contagion, for example by setting up the outright monetary transactions programme and the European stability mechanism—in other words, various bail-out mechanisms that came into operation during Spain’s financial problems a couple of years ago—but I was very clear in my statement that a Greek exit from the euro would have an impact on Europe’s financial system and knock-on effects for the UK. I do not think that anyone should underestimate the challenge of establishing that a country could leave the euro. Those are all issues that we need to be alert to in the months ahead.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Chancellor accept that glib comparisons between Greece and other countries do not take account of the fact that even before the global financial crisis Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 100%? It rose to 170% by 2011, which was much worse than in Spain, Italy or this country. Therefore, should he not concentrate on the specific problems of the previous Governments in Greece who created the situation and the dysfunctional coalition between the far left and the far right, which seems unable to make sensible decisions?

[Mr Osborne]

I was making the observation that the UK is far better prepared than it was five years ago, when we had a budget deficit of over 10% and an undercapitalised banking system—something I was well aware of, because the Greek crisis had its first big flare-up a few days before I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are in a better position, but I do not pretend that the UK will be immune from the impact of the financial problems in the eurozone.

European Union Referendum Bill

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I just do not think that makes sense. The bottom line is that we are now so invading the ability of the voters in the referendum to make a free and fair choice, by canting the process and taking all the things to which I have just referred out of the equation, that we could seriously undermine the whole democratic process with respect to referendums. This is simply not a tenable position. If it was good enough for the Scottish and the Welsh, why is it not good enough for the referendum on the EU, which will go even further towards infringing—as we would put it—the role of this Parliament and our democratic freedoms?

I also want to discuss what publishing means. Section 125 of the 2000 Act is very general on this point, and this is what hon. Members are being asked to repeal this afternoon. It states:

“‘publish’ means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means”,

and the relevant period

“means the period of 28 days ending with the date of the poll.”

There are profound reasons for maintaining the status quo at this stage and for retaining the restriction, because once it has been repealed, we would then have to reinvent the wheel, as it were, on Report. That could open a huge can of worms for the Government. The question is: what would the Government not be restrained from doing, compared with some of the things that it is currently stated they would be restrained from doing?

The Minister for Europe has sent us a letter today, 16 June, in which he says:

“It is our clear intention, through the Bill, to provide a straightforward, fair and effective framework for the referendum.”

I have to say to him that I must cast some doubt on that in relation to the questions that are being raised. He goes on to say that it would be “inappropriate” to

“prevent Ministers from effectively conducting the significant amounts of ordinary day-to-day business between the Government and the EU that will necessarily continue during the pre-poll period.”

I have been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for five years, and I just do not recognise this at all. There are things that go on in the monumental amount of material that comes in from the European Union, but in my judgment there is no suggestion that anything of this nature would be affected by retaining section 125. The section was applied during the Scottish referendum, which had a European dimension. The same applied to the Welsh Assembly. If it was all right for Ministers to continue to make statements in those circumstances, we should keep section 125 and do as the Foreign Secretary suggested during the Second Reading debate. The Minister for Europe’s letter states:

“The Foreign Secretary said during the debate that the Government will exercise proper restraint to ensure a balanced debate during the campaign.”

This is the moment to ensure that we get this right by keeping the restriction for the time being, having discussions and coming back with specific proposals on Report, on which we can then vote.

I acknowledge that the Minister for Europe has conceded that we have more than a reasonable case. His letter goes on:

“Working out a system that will reassure colleagues and voters that the referendum is a fair fight, yet will preserve the Government’s ability to act in the national interest is not straightforward.”

Well, it would be very straightforward if we kept section 125. He adds:

“It is important that it is legally clear and robust.”

It would make things very unclear and very unrobust if we were to remove the provisions in section 125, which are based on common sense and fairness and on giving voters a proper opportunity to make a fair choice.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 49 and 50, which have been tabled in my name, and to give my support to amendment 54, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden).

The Bill proposes that the referendum be held by 31 December 2017. That is in line with what the Prime Minister proposed in his Bloomberg speech in January 2013. I often wondered why 31 December 2017 had been chosen. I assumed that it was an arbitrary date midway through a Parliament elected in May 2015. In the last Parliament, when the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, was questioned by the Foreign Affairs Committee, it seemed to come as a surprise to him when we pointed out that under the rotating presidency of the Council of Ministers the United Kingdom’s presidency would begin in July 2017. I do not know whether that had been taken into consideration when the Government produced their original proposal, but it will clearly be a major complicating factor.

We are debating the period of purdah. Just imagine what would happen if there were a meeting of the Council of Ministers in September 2017 and the referendum were to be held within 28 days of that meeting, in the October. What would Ministers be able to do or say during that period? Those Council of Ministers meetings have to be convened and chaired by the appropriate representative of the rotating six-month presidency, and there would have to be a British Minister present to represent the interests of the UK Government. What could those Ministers and their officials say and do during that period? There would be enormous complications if the Bill were to lead to a referendum being held in the last few months of 2017.

Under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, there is a defined period within which the next German election will be held. It has to be held on 27 August 2017 at the earliest, and at the latest on 22 October 2017. One can imagine Chancellor Merkel, Mr Sigmar Gabriel, Mr Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Mr Wolfgang Schäuble and all the other senior figures on both sides of the German coalition being somewhat exercised and diverted from considering matters to do with the possible negotiated terms, or the nature of the negotiation, if we had not yet set the date for our referendum.

It seems, therefore, that any referendum held in the second half of 2017 would have major problems. Amendment 49 recognises that, and provides that the referendum in this country should be held before 1 July 2017—before the United Kingdom takes over the rotating presidency of the Council of Ministers and before the German election campaign. We might bring it forward to the first half of 2017, but I suspect that when the Prime Minister came up with his proposal in his Bloomberg speech he had not considered the election cycle in France. The first round of the presidential election has to be held in April 2017 and the second round in May. We could face trouble with the renegotiations in France if we were to have the referendum later in 2017.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, but is not the logic of his argument that, with 27 other countries in the European Union, there would never be a good time to have a referendum on our membership of the European Union?

[Mike Gapes]

My position on this matter is well known. I am not in favour of referendums, and neither was Margaret Thatcher. She quoted Clement Attlee, who said they were the devices of demagogues and dictators. However, that is a diversion from these amendments, so I will not go down that route.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was a mistake of his Front Bench team to go against Labour’s manifesto commitment and to back a referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

No. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, if I lose an election or a referendum, I recognise the result. The fact is we lost the election. There will be a referendum and the best thing that we who believe in the European Union can do is to get into the fight and build a strong yes campaign. It is a pity that Scottish nationalists do not accept the result of the referendum they lost last year.

The problem we face is fundamental: the two major countries within the European Union—Germany and France—may be preoccupied with internal political campaigns and processes at precisely the time when we might be concluding the most difficult part of the renegotiation strategy. The solution might be to bring forward the referendum, as amendment 50 suggests, to before the end of 2016. That would still give time for the renegotiation to proceed, and for the Government to have a piece of paper to wave, saying it is a protocol that can be implemented later in future treaty reform, but not at that time. It could still provide the fig leaf that the Prime Minister will need if he is to claim that he has fundamentally renegotiated the terms of our membership. It will also give enough time for a considered campaign to ensure that there is a clear majority for our country staying within the European Union.

The other advantage of bringing forward the referendum is that it cuts the period of uncertainty for the Koreans, the Americans, the Chinese and the other countries wishing to invest in the United Kingdom. They would have less uncertainty than they would have if we left the referendum to the end of 2017. One of the strongest arguments against a referendum is the economic and political uncertainty it engenders. If foreign investors, or people planning long-term investment projects, think there is no guarantee that the United Kingdom will remain in the European Union, they will not give priority to investing in our country. They will hold back, or choose to go to a country such as Ireland, the Netherlands or France, where there is certainty over their continuing membership of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

Free trade.

[Mike Gapes]

The free trade that Switzerland and Norway have with the European Union is dependent on their complying with rules and regulations that are determined within and by the European Union member states, over which Switzerland and Norway have absolutely no say.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Does that not show the hon. Gentleman what a complete protection racket the whole thing is?

[Mike Gapes]

There we have it. We have the authentic voice of those who want us to leave the European Union. They do not want to comply with the rules and regulations. Presumably, they do not want us to have unfettered access to the single market of 500 million people. The Norwegians think better than that—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather far from the dates that are the subject of the amendment. It is fascinating material, but we do not really need another Second Reading debate.

[Mike Gapes]

I was tempted by the interventions, so I apologise to you, Sir Roger, for following the temptation. I will get back to the point.

There is an issue here to do with purdah and how the purdah requirements would apply. There will be great difficulty in holding a referendum at the end of 2017, when we are chairing the Council of Ministers meetings, because of that issue alone. For that reason, I hope that, if we are to have a referendum in 2016, we plan for it now—and that may already be, privately, the Prime Minister’s intention—rather than getting into great difficulties with the way in which it can be conducted, and damaging the United Kingdom’s role and relationship with the other 27 member states of the European Union. Once the referendum is over, assuming that it is won, we must work constructively with our partners to restore the trust and relationships for the future. It is better that we confront the issues early, rather than slipping into some kind of disastrous outcome.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. At various times during this debate, there has been reference to a letter. I was somewhat puzzled because I did not seem to have been sent such a letter. But now, through access to Twitter, it seems I may have found it. What I now have is a letter from the Minister for Europe to various Members on the Conservative Benches—it can be described only as a letter begging for support. I am somewhat disappointed not to have received it, and to have been ruled out of providing such support. If we are debating amendments—this letter specifically gives Government assurances relating to those amendments—should this communications not have been available to all Members, and should it not now been placed immediately in the Library of the House?

Voter Engagement

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered voter engagement and the franchise.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I have the great privilege of representing an area that, throughout history, has served as a hotbed for new and often radical ideas about democracy, justice and representative government. Mary Wollstonecraft lived in Islington for many years and established a school for girls at Newington Green. Thomas Paine began writing his “Rights of Man”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]—at the Angel in 1790. And Lenin—let us also have a cheer for Lenin, please—worked in Clerkenwell Green during the early 20th century, publishing several issues of his communist newspaper from the site now occupied by the Marx Memorial library.

My constituency has often been described as a citadel for constitutional reform, and it is not hard to see why. One of my predecessors as MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, presented the second, and by far the largest, Chartist petition to Parliament in 1842. The petition is said to have been signed by 3,315,752 people and was so large that it could not fit through the doors of Parliament without being unrolled. The Chartists sought radically to reform the way that hon. Members were elected to this House and called for an extension to the franchise, a secret ballot and the abolition of property qualifications so that wealth was no longer a precondition to vote. Of course, the Chartists called only for the enfranchisement of men, but we have since moved on.

Unfortunately, Islington’s recent history has, at times, had a more troubling side, and its elected officials have not always taken such an expansive view of the franchise. During the many years in which the local authority was under Liberal Democrat control, the council tended to draw most of its support from more affluent voters. Registration remained stagnant in the most deprived parts of the borough, where many ethnic minority people, in particular, live. In 2006, the Labour group tabled a motion asking the council to do better, and particularly to work hard to ensure that black and minority ethnic voters register to vote and are included on the electoral register. The Liberal Democrat majority voted down the motion and, after the vote, one of the leading Liberal councillors shouted across the council chamber, “That’s how we win elections!” Fortunately, there has been a significant improvement in voter registration over recent years, which is largely attributable to the proactive measures taken by the Labour majority that took the council in 2010. Islington has gone from being the area with the second-worst voter registration rate in the entire country to being a model for other local authorities that seek to maximise registration.

Voter registration is not a partisan issue, or it should not be. Anyone who wholeheartedly supports a healthy democracy should start from the principle that both registration and turnout should be as close as possible to 100%. Our current system is wholly inadequate for making that aspiration a reality. We have had a lot of counterproductive talk over the years from politicians of all parties who suggest that the vote is some sort of privilege that should be proactively seized by voters on an individual basis. That tendency was markedly on display when the coalition Government introduced the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, in the last Parliament. They announced their intention to implement individual electoral registration, dropping the existing plan for a phased introduction purely as a cost-saving measure. Ministers in the last Government spoke of giving people the opportunity to register to vote and of people being removed from the roll only if they failed to do so. On Second Reading in the other place, the Bill’s sponsor, the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire, claimed that its goal was

“to give people greater ownership of their own registration”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2012; Vol. 739, c. 616.]

It is as if what was needed at the time was for people individually to seize their right to vote, but the Bill did not address the fact that more than 6 million people who were entirely eligible to vote were missing from the electoral register.

Who are those 6 million people? Members may be familiar with a report produced by the Electoral Commission in July 2014. The report lists the groups who are most likely not to be on the electoral register. This list will not surprise hon. Members: young people under the age of 35, especially students; private tenants; black and other minority ethnic groups; Commonwealth and EU nationals; and those classified as social grades D and E or, to use plain English, low-skilled and unskilled workers and the unemployed. If the Government have a genuine interest in maximising participation in the political process, I would have thought they would see that as a serious problem and seek to address it, but that is not happening—the exact opposite is happening. It is abundantly clear that the excessively hasty introduction of individual electoral registration has had an even more detrimental effect on voter registration and engagement, particularly among those groups, and we should all be alarmed.

It is appropriate at this point to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), under whose chairmanship the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform produced a report on this vital issue, “Voter engagement in the UK”. The report stated that the 5.5 million voters who were not transferred to the new register following the initial implementation of individual electoral registration included “disproportionate” numbers from particular groups: private tenants, students and attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 before the date of the next general election. The Committee recommended that

“every effort is made by Electoral Registration Officers to reach all registered voters who have not been automatically transferred to the new register”.

I do not understand why people are not automatically registered. If we are all true democrats, we should wish for everyone who has the right to vote simply to be on the electoral register. Putting unnecessary hurdles in the way of people exercising their democratic right to vote is entirely counter-democratic, and I do not understand it.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend, like me, is a London Member of Parliament, and she will know that in recent months there has been a significant increase in the number of people evicted from their property because of the impact of benefit capping, which has resulted in people moving from one London borough to another. People are moving to my outer-London borough of Redbridge from Westminster, Kensington and other inner-London boroughs, and our own people in Redbridge are now being placed in bed-and-breakfast hotels in Hounslow, Staines, Heathrow or other parts of England. What can be done to ensure that those people do not lose their democratic rights?

[Emily Thornberry]

It is particularly important that such people exercise their democratic rights, because many of the difficulties that they face are the direct result of decisions made by politicians. Such people should make it clear what they think about those decisions, so they must be able to exercise their democratic right to vote. They must be able to make their views clear about such decisions, and the chaos among certain groups in London, with people having to move around because of caps on benefits and the shortage of social housing, is yet another reason why we should be proactive.

When the Chartists handed in the petition, my predecessor was asking for every man living in Finsbury to have a vote. This is not my party’s policy, but he would be turning in his grave if he knew that more than 8,000 people in my constituency are on the electoral register for European and local elections but are not allowed to vote in general elections. They are here, they pay taxes and they play a full role. A man came into my surgery last Friday who was very exercised by the fact that his Japanese wife, who has lived and paid taxes here for seven years but cannot get dual nationality for cultural reasons due to her Japanese background—I do not understand it, but they are firmly of the view that that is the reason—cannot vote and will not be able to vote. At what stage do we reach a tipping point? In an increasingly international world, and particularly in a world city such as London, what proportion of the population can be excluded from the ballot before we lose our identity as a democracy?

At the moment, there are perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 adults in my constituency who cannot vote. They turn up at my surgery and want a proper service from their Member of Parliament, but they do not count because they are not allowed to vote. The title I originally wanted for this debate—I understand that it is not the sort of title that one is allowed to have, but it seems to me entirely the right title—was: “Who counts?” In a democracy, who counts? Who is and is not a citizen? Whose voice should be listened to, and who should be flatly and determinedly ignored?

We are so proud of this city of London, and one of the things that we are proud of is that we have a mixture of people from all over. I would like to represent the whole of my constituency and everyone in it, and I do my best, but it seems profoundly wrong that those people are not allowed to vote. They might all vote Tory. We might end up with a Tory MP in Islington—I would take that on the nose—but they should be allowed to vote. They are here, they are people and they participate. They walk our streets, use our services and pay their taxes. Why are they not allowed to be involved in decisions about how politicians act on their behalf?

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommended that electoral registration officers make every effort to reach all registered voters who have not been automatically transferred to the register. In the absence of anything resembling leadership on this issue from the coalition, local authorities have been left to their own devices. Of course, results have been decidedly mixed. To its credit, Islington council has made strenuous efforts to get as many people on the electoral register as possible. This year, EROs in Islington went knocking on doors of unregistered households right up until election day. They did four rounds of door-knocking, more than any other borough. Thanks to those efforts, turnout in my constituency increased from 54% in 2005, when I was first elected with a majority of just 484 votes, to 65% this year, when my majority grew to 12,708 votes, more than the total number of people who voted for me in 2005.

I applaud the hard work and dedication of those EROs, and it is welcome to the extent that registration and turnout reached much higher levels this year than they would have if the council had been as complacent as Ministers in Whitehall have been, but there is something perverse about it. My local authority is suffering enormous cuts. It will lose nearly half its budget in the next few years, yet we have spent £326,000 and who knows how many hours of public servants’ time knocking on doors again and again. Would that money not be better spent on public services? Would it not be a better use of public servants’ time if, instead of knocking on doors trying to get people to register to vote, they visited the elderly, the marginalised and the vulnerable, who are often not seen enough?

It seems to me to be the wrong way to do things. We should have automatic registration, including for students. Why are student halls of residence not included? There are many thousands of British students living in my constituency. Why must they all register individually to vote there? It is perfectly obvious where they live. The university knows and the council knows. There is no possibility of fraud, so why are they not on the voters’ register? Why must we knock on their doors individually and get them to register to vote? If we are true democrats, what is the problem?

We know what the problem is: the fear of voter fraud. However, we must consider the difference between perception and reality. The Minister formerly responsible for this issue, when asked about it, referred to reports saying that some 30% of the population believe that election fraud is a real issue. Perception is one thing, but reality is something else: the total number of people who have been prosecuted successfully for voter fraud is, I believe, three. However, in order to counter the perception that there is voter fraud, we are creating obstacles to people’s exercise of their democratic right. More voter fraud may be occurring, and more work should be done on that, but it does not seem to me that we are starting from the right place by beginning with, “We are worried about election fraud, so we’re going to make sure we make it very difficult for a lot of people to come to the ballot and vote.” That seems wrong. It is about time that we addressed that point.

The constituencies affected most by the changes to individual election registration are those such as mine: inner-city seats where, although there might be a lot of differences between people, on the whole they vote Labour. I am sure that there is no conspiracy, but the fact is that, if we get a shrinking Labour vote at the same time as the Government keep redrawing the boundaries to reflect so-called fair constituencies, Labour constituencies will shrink, there will be fewer Labour MPs, there will always be a Conservative majority and we will always have a Conservative Government. That would not be democratic, because we would be excluding large numbers of people.

We would also end up in a situation where our Members of Parliament did not know their constituencies. For the past 10 years, I have been putting down roots in my constituency in order to be the MP for the south of Islington. Everybody knows me. I go everywhere; I am at everything. Open an envelope and I will be there. Everybody knows who I am, and I am absolutely honoured. However, if I believed that every five years my constituency would move from here to there to somewhere else, my engagement with my area as a Member of Parliament would change.

Are the Government going to proceed with the so-called fair constituencies or not? If so, are we talking about 650 constituencies or 600? That is important to know—the newspapers have given completely contradictory reports—so I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer. We need to know where we are going on this issue. We need to stop the nonsense about people seizing the opportunity to vote, ensure that they can vote and make it easier for them. It is not right to put barriers in the way of people’s exercise of their democratic right.

Hon. Members will forgive me if this is too radical, but maybe we could do this with boundaries: we could take the decisions out of the hands of politicians and give them to another group that could not be criticised for exercising self-interest, for instance a non-partisan group of experts. We could call it something like “The Boundary Commission”, and we could ask it to look at communities and take an objective view about what the most sensible divisions might be throughout the country to ensure that communities are properly reflected.

We could have had such a body since 1944, and of course we have. It is indeed called the Boundary Commission, and that is what its job is. The Conservatives want to take a partisan view of the issue and introduce a strict cap of 600—or not; who knows? They want to make a rule that the population cannot deviate more than 5% in either direction. Will that be the new plan? Will fair constituencies be less than 5% one way or the other? When the Conservatives tried to introduce that in the last Session, as they will remember, it resulted in complete chaos.

Removing the Boundary Commission’s historical ability to take local authority borders and other natural dividers into account resulted in bizarre constituencies, such as the infamous Devonwall constituency with Cornish voters, over which a few hon. Members were up in arms. I was to represent the City of London, which I was happy to do—I thought that “Islington upon Thames” had a certain ring to it, and that it was about time that the bankers were represented by somebody radical; they had not been represented by anybody radical since John Wilkes—but unfortunately the City of London had a different view, which I thought disappointing and not very open-minded.

The issue has serious ramifications as well, as changes have added up to a system that simply stacked the decks against Members representing densely populated urban areas with highly mobile populations and large numbers of people from overseas, who tend to be represented by Labour. The truth is that allowing the Boundary Commission some latitude in determining the shape and size of constituencies is necessary, precisely because it allows the commission to take into account the huge variations that exist up and down our country.

Let me take one example at random; let us compare my constituency with Weston-super-Mare. Weston-super-Mare has a population of 105,300, compared with 105,820 in Islington South and Finsbury. So far, the two constituencies have much in common. However, in my constituency the electorate is only 68,127, whereas in Weston-super-Mare it is 80,309. Guess whose constituency falls within the magic 5% of the electoral quota and whose does not?

Of course, there may be a number of reasons that might account for the difference between the two constituencies. We know that the level of electoral registration is significantly higher among older people, and there are more older people in Weston-super-Mare than in my constituency, forming 19% of the population there compared with 9% in my constituency. However, I also represent a much more diverse constituency than the Minister does, with 48% of Islington residents identifying themselves as white British, compared with 97% of people in north Somerset. More than a third of my constituents were born overseas and many of them are not on the electoral register because our current law does not allow them to be. They would love to be on the electoral register; they are terribly political and I can tell you that they are not invisible to me.

Therein lies the most insidious implication of the boundary rules, as they stand. The rules quite literally tell every single person who is not on the voters’ register that they do not count, and that for the purposes of determining who represents them in this place they do not matter. I hope we all agree that we should show our constituents, regardless of their backgrounds, more respect than that.

It seems to me that the current Government have kicked this can down the road in this Parliament, but we want answers to some of the questions that I have put today. I hope that I have helped the Minister by preparing a series of questions that I would like him to answer if possible. I have copies of the questions for other Members and I have left helpful gaps at the bottom, so that we can fill them in with the answers that the Minister will hopefully come up with this afternoon.

The questions are as follows. First, at the next general election, how many constituencies will be contested—600, 650 or some other number? Secondly, what does the Minister mean when he says that the Government remain committed to equalising the size of constituencies? Thirdly, will the size of a constituency’s electorate be allowed to deviate by more than 5% from its quota? What would happen if it deviates by 8%, or 10%? Fourthly, how about the Government just doing us all a favour and putting the question back in the hands of the independent Boundary Commission, where it has always belonged? Fifthly, does the Minister recognise the “manifest unfairness”, to borrow a phrase from his own party’s manifesto, of basing the size of constituencies so closely on the number of electors as opposed to the number of people?

There are countries around the world that divide up constituencies on the basis of the size of the population and not just those who are on the voters’ register, and given the number of difficulties and issues that I have raised today—simply in relation to my constituency—surely it is fairer for us to start thinking about constituency sizes based on the size of their population. Does the Minister appreciate that not doing so would put MPs representing diverse, inner-city populations, the majority of whom just happen to be members of the Opposition party, at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to their ability to do their job? Finally, can the Minister explain how on earth reducing the number of MPs to 600

“would result in savings to the public purse of £13.6 million a year”,

as he has claimed, without there being a serious decline in the standards of service that our constituents can expect to receive?

As I am sure Members here can tell, I have a lot to say on this subject and I could say a great deal more, but I will drop the rest of my speech and sit down so that other Members can contribute.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

Of course if we create more jobs in the UK than in the rest of the European Union combined, it is not surprising that we are doing well, and that people are leaving our great friends in France to come here to increase our prosperity. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has such a distinguished record of supporting the firefighters, did not wish to congratulate the Government on changing the rules to ensure that spouses of firefighters who die in action will be able to remarry, should they desire to do so, and not lose their pension.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State has referred to halving the deficit. Will he remind us of the policies his party was advocating in 2010, which should have eliminated the deficit by now? Will he admit that this Government are a total failure in respect of their own aims?

[Mr Pickles]

Essentially, what the hon. Gentleman has said is that his party created an almighty mess and we have not been quick enough on the broom. He thinks we should have cut deeper, kicked harder and been tougher, but we are a compassionate coalition Government and we had to take those things into consideration. Had we gone any faster, there would have been social consequences. We have gone about the process without causing the problems that the hon. Gentleman would have been so difficult about.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that that was why the International Development Secretary acknowledged, at least in words, the importance of the matter. Today we are seeking to poke the Government into quicker action than we have seen so far.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency I have a large Somali community whose members send remittances to different parts of the world, as do other people. I want to supplement what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said. Remittances do not just add to international development assistance because, globally, they are of greater value. If we cut them off, we will do serious damage to a number of countries and some of the poorest people in the world.

[Kevin Brennan]

If I keep taking interventions, I fear that my comments will become less fresh and novel to listeners because my hon. Friends, with their expertise on this matter, are anticipating many of my points. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for what he said.

Sadly, following the withdrawal of banking services by Barclays, my constituent, Mr Anwar Ali, had to run down his business severely, and I understand that if he is unable to find a solution to this banking problem, the business may have to close. It is one thing for large banks to refuse to lend to small businesses—we all know about that—but it is another to deny to legitimate, law-abiding small businesses the basic service of a bank account. The banks casually say that they are making a commercial decision, but to small businesses it is a commercial death sentence. Let me remind hon. Members of the importance of such remittances, especially to developing countries.

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report in 2012, in 48 of the least developed countries, remittance receipts climbed from £3.5 billion in 1990 to more than £27 billion in 2011—that figure might be much higher. In Somalia alone, the authorities said in 2012 that around one third of the country’s GDP—$2 billion—came through small money transfer agencies, and that 40% of people in Somalia depended on remittance flows.

A major multinational bank, which in recent years was heavily fined for wrongdoing, is operating in a market dominated by a small number of players of its kind and has withdrawn, mainly from small businesses, a service vital to their existence and crucial to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is difficult to get to the bottom of exactly why that has happened, because it has not made its reasons clear. Are they commercial reasons, as it blithely says, or are they fears about terrorism and money laundering? There is a lack of clarity about the reasons.

Anthony Jenkins, the chief executive officer of Barclays, said that it was stopping offering bank services to such business because they

“don't have the proper checks in place to spot criminal activity and could unwittingly be facilitating money laundering and finance terrorism”.

In a letter to Dahabshiil, which is one of the larger payment firms and is located, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Barclays said that the decision was

“not a negative reflection of your anti-money laundering standards, nor a belief that your business has unwittingly been a conduit for financial crime. It is, however, a commercial decision that we have taken due to the risks of the sector”.

Perhaps the Minister can explain—I know he talks to these big banks—what he thinks is behind the fact that every single major UK bank refuses to provide banking services to the sector, effectively financially excluding the firms, without considering each of them on its merits. Does he believe that that is purely commercial coincidence, or is it—[Interruption.] I wonder whether those in the civil service Box would stop talking while I am addressing the Chamber.

Does the Minister believe that that situation is a commercial coincidence, or is it another aspect of the overall lack of competition in the banking sector that the Government are failing to address? What can he tell us about the role of the National Crime Agency in this matter? In effect, the uncompetitive major banks have erected a complete barrier to the financial sector for some of its smallest members. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?

Dahabshiil was able to win an injunction against Barclays in the courts in October, so its account remains open for the time being, at least. Unfortunately, however, many other firms, including the one in my constituency, have not benefited from the development, because their accounts have already been closed by Barclays. Does the Minister believe that Barclays should offer to reopen the accounts that it closed before the court’s decision so that the account holders are able to carry on their business until the case is finally settled? Does he agree that that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do? It would allow businesses such as the one in my constituency to get on with the business that they were doing perfectly legitimately and legally beforehand so that money transfers could take place. Will he call on Barclays to reopen those accounts until the court decision is made? I understand that so far Barclays has refused to reopen those accounts, so I hope that the Minister will condemn that.

I pointed out in the 2013 debate that there seems to be a different set of rules for large banks and financial institutions, such as Barclays and Western Union, which stand to benefit from the situation. It has been proved that Western Union helped to facilitate money laundering in Mexico—it paid a fine to the Arizona state authorities in relation to that—yet it stands to inherit a lot of the business of small firms against which nothing has been proved. In recent years, almost all the large banks and institutions have been found guilty, in one way or another, of financial misdemeanours, and they have sometimes been fined—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could ask you, Mr Owen, to appeal that those in the civil service Box do not interrupt the debate.

Money Transfer Accounts

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and to the Minister. I have a Select Committee meeting at a quarter to 4 and hope that they will accept my apologies for having to leave.

I want to comment briefly on two things. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to the position taken by Ministers at the beginning of July; but unfortunately, I am going to disappoint him. I have received a letter dated 10 July from Lord Deighton, in response to representations that I made in June on behalf of constituents. He said:

“I hope your constituents will be able to secure banking facilities from another bank, or make alternative contractual arrangements, rather than close. I cannot oblige the banks to make facilities available. The choice of business customer is a commercial decision for banks to make.”

He simply refers to the fact that the Office of Fair Trading will examine support for small and medium-sized enterprises later in 2013.

As for the 12 August deadline, which businesses in my constituency face, I received a letter from a Mr Duale of the largest organisation that transfers money to the Somali community—other Members may have received the same letter—and it pointed out how just a few weeks after the international Somalia conference in London, when we pledged £180 million of support, the damage implied by the decisions that have been made could outweigh that increased support.

Other hon. Members have talked about the effects elsewhere. I have constituents in various organisations who are very concerned about the impact in countries all over the world. My constituent Mr Shah of Zak Money Exchange, Ilford lane says that the business could close and that eight employees would lose their jobs. He raised the same concerns that others have raised: why cannot the nationalised banks do more? Barclays may have got into trouble, and we have heard about Mexican drug barons and money laundering, but why cannot other banks do something?

Barclays’ reputational damage in this country is an issue. I suspect that many people who will be affected by what is happening will have bank accounts—their own commercial bank accounts for their small businesses, or personal accounts. It is not good for Barclays’ reputation if the perception arises among millions of British people that it has a down on the poor and on migrant communities. Barclays should consider that carefully.

As for Western Union, there is a wider issue to do with the relationship between the United States, the US authorities—perhaps in particular US jurisdictions—and their way of dealing with extraterritoriality. We have the potential through the forthcoming European Union-US negotiations, which are to do with trade and international co-operation, to exert pressure back from the European side. Britain is more significant than many European countries in such matters, but we should not ignore the potential to raise with the US authorities, at all levels, the effect of their behaviour globally on communities in the UK, in the wider European context and worldwide. That is a matter for another debate—perhaps tomorrow—but I want to highlight the need for us to be more robust about the issues.

It is true that we need to eradicate money laundering, crack down on terrorist and drug financing, and all the rest. However, an alternative to the present arrangements is that people will start to take money in suitcases through airports and smuggle it across borders, making themselves vulnerable to being taken prisoner—to hostage taking, banditry and piracy. That is a bigger global threat than some of the other problems that are cited.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I should like to comment on the point about fears of money laundering and drug dealing. People in my constituency—I do not know about other parts of the country—who use small companies to send remittances are hard-working people who earn very ordinary amounts of money. They send very ordinary amounts: £50, £100 or £150. They do not send thousands and thousands of pounds, and therefore those small businesses feel insulted that somehow they are being tarnished by the suggestion that they are laundering money.

[Mike Gapes]

People are right to feel that way, because it appears on the one hand that Barclays and on the other that the Government do not care. The Minister says, “This is a commercial matter and we are not going to get involved.” However, Barclays, without giving reasons to people in small money exchange firms, is simply saying, “Sorry, we are no longer prepared to deal with you.” It is not saying that those people have done anything irregular or illegal; it is saying only that the facility is no longer available. That is terrible.

In a wider context, we have been criticising the banks for their failure to support small and medium-sized enterprises; yet it seems in this context that the Government are not prepared to get off their seat and do anything to help the poorest communities globally and the people in Britain who are trying to transfer money, which, as has been said, is a larger amount than the international development assistance that is transferred from states to countries and people in the poorest countries in the world. Instead, the Government say, “This is nothing to do with us. This is simply a commercial arrangement.” I am sorry, but that is not good enough.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

You and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, were both Members of this House in 1992-93, when I was one of those pro-Europeans who followed my pro-European party leader, John Smith, and the spokesman for foreign affairs, Lord Robertson, into the Lobby with people whom I would never have described as having the same view as me on Europe and its future. The same thing will happen this evening, but I wish to make it clear that I do so not because I agree with the tenor and tone of the many Europhobic speeches we have heard from Government Members—and some, unfortunately, from this side of the House—but because I believe it is wrong for the European Union to increase its spending at a time when national budgets, not just in this country but in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere, are being reduced.

This is not the most important debate about the future of Europe that we will face, and we must put it into perspective. Although there is talk of billions of pounds and euros, the EU budget is only 1% of the GDP of all member states. In this country, public spending accounts for more than 40% of our GDP each year, and we must put into perspective the fact that the EU’s total spend is very small.

In his introductory remarks, the Minister referred to the size of the Commission. I was unable to intervene at that point, but let me place it on the record that the European Commission has, in total, between 30,000 and 33,000 employees who serve 27 member states. The Minister’s Department in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs alone has about 80,000 employees, and we must get such things into perspective. We do not have a gargantuan European Union bureaucracy hoovering up resources; in fact, the UK Government spend five times as much servicing the interest on the national debt each year than they do in European Union contributions.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the administration of the European Commission, which at 30,000 employees I think is still too large. The bulk of the EU budget goes on redistributing money, typically from net contributors such as the United Kingdom to other parts of Europe. Does he feel that we need a little more restraint in that respect as well?

[Mike Gapes]

I agree with that, but I also point out that the UK contribution to the European Union is less than that of Germany. Our net contribution—with the rebate that was retained by the previous Labour Government—is comparable to that made by France, a similar country in terms of size, population and GDP. We are among the net contributors, but the European Union is also about solidarity. One thing that led to the growth of the European Union, and the increased trade and prosperity from which British workers and British companies benefit, is the fact that countries such as Spain and Portugal—and, increasingly, countries such as Slovenia—are growing and benefiting by their membership of the EU.

The EU also makes a contribution to democracy and stability in Europe, for which the Nobel prize committee has rightly—[Interruption.] Oh I see. Here they are; here is the real agenda. The Nobel prize committee has rightly recognised the European Union’s contribution to peace in Europe over the decades. If somebody like Henry Kissinger can get the Nobel peace prize, the European Union certainly deserves it.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my hope that the EU—some time, and perhaps this century—will get the Nobel prize for economics?

[Mike Gapes]

I would hope that my right hon. Friend and I—we are of a similar age—will live long enough to see that, but I do not think it will happen immediately. It will require the eurozone to become much more tightly organised than it is today.

Last week, I visited Germany and Norway with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We are considering the future of Europe and the implications for this country of different options that might arise. Two or three years ago, the political debate in Germany was about trying to keep Britain on board and to move with Britain. However, the reality, right across the political spectrum, is that Germany has given up on the UK under the coalition Government. The Germans see their future as being with France and Poland, and their priority will be to save the eurozone at all costs.

That means that the UK will be in an uncomfortable position. The Prime Minister might have signed a joint letter with European leaders in 2010, but the reality in 2012-13 is that Germany is not with us. Anybody who thinks that only Germany is not with us should read the remarks of Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister, who gave a radical speech in Oxford just a few weeks ago, in which he used phrases such as:

“Poland wants to be with Germany and France as partners”.

He also said:

“You could, if only you wished, lead Europe’s defence policy…Britain’s leaders need to decide once again how best to use their influence in Europe…The EU is an English-speaking power. The Single Market was a British idea. A British commissioner runs our diplomatic service…But if you refuse, please don’t expect us to help you wreck or paralyze the EU.”

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Gapes]

I cannot—I have very little time.

The Polish and German Governments and many others want the UK to stay in the EU as partners, but they will not wreck the EU to keep us. We need to realise that our options are narrowing. The Government are in danger of taking us into an isolationist position.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

HSBC and RBS are two of the banks under investigation, but international banks such as UBS and Citigroup are under investigation too, partly for activities conducted in this country.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor referred to the costs and penalties that the general public have suffered. Is there any estimate of how much per head ordinary people in this country have suffered from the activities of a group of corrupt banksters?

[Mr Osborne]

First, I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying on behalf of the whole House that we very much welcome him to his place. He has the deepest sympathy of the whole House for the tragedy in his family. It is good to see him back here.

There is no estimate of the cost to individuals or consumers, and it would be very difficult to construct one. We are talking about the daily rate set, in the case of these abuses, over a three or four-year period, and it was used to set mortgage rates, loan rates and all sorts of other things. Sometimes the rate was manipulated to be too low and sometimes it was manipulated to be too high compared with the true market price. We do not have an estimate, but it is clear that, as the FSA says, the manipulation contributed to the risk to the entire financial system, which then, in effect, collapsed, not because of that, but as part of the culture we have been talking about, and the country has paid many billions for that.

IMF

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We are not pouring money into some eurozone bail-out fund. We are providing a loan to the International Monetary Fund. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the decision, but every single previous Government have been part of increases in IMF resources—in 1983 and in 1990, under Lady Thatcher’s Government, we contributed to increases in IMF resources. He says that these countries are lost causes, but in Portugal, where very difficult decisions have been taken, exports are up by 7% and the current account deficit has been reduced; Ireland has gone into a current account surplus and Spanish exports are up. Of course they are having to make the adjustments in a brutal way, by real cuts in wages rather than a currency devaluation, but that is the consequence of being in a single currency. The Governments in those countries, with, in most cases, the support of the public now, are taking those difficult decisions. It is interesting that even in Greece, which is probably the most traumatically affected of those countries, there is a clear and overwhelming public majority for Greece staying in the euro.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor claimed that the additional contribution that this country is making is proportionate to our shareholding. Can he explain why we are paying $15 billion, whereas France is paying $40 billion, Germany $55 billion and Japan $60 billion, and South Korea, with a smaller population and a smaller economy than ours, is paying the same as we are?