Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I begin by echoing the Chief Secretary’s condolences to the family of Robert Key, his predecessor as MP for Salisbury?

It does feel like this is the time of the year when we have the annual George Osborne tribute debate. This exercise began in his period as Chancellor, but little did we know—and, I suspect, little did he know—that when he started this exercise more than a decade ago, he would end up being denounced as part of the left-wing economic establishment. The purpose of the exercise has always been more political than economic. It was to show that no matter how much the Government had set everything on fire, they could turn up here and portray themselves as paragons of fiscal rectitude—a little bit like angelic choirboys smelling strongly of petrol. The trouble for Ministers is that since this exercise was first conceived over a decade ago, there is now a long economic record for everyone to see and, perhaps even more seriously, a bitter economic reality and present that people are living through.

The UK is the only G7 country not to recover its pre-covid economic position, under the stewardship of the Conservative party. Controlling debt was supposed to be a big part of this exercise. Debt used to be numbered in the billions. It now stands at £2.4 trillion. So successful has this exercise in controlling debt been that we need a whole new word to describe it; it is now counted in trillions. Of course covid added to this, as it did in all countries, but lest Government Members claim this is all about covid, let us remember that most of the increase was built up before the pandemic.

There really is a gulf—one the size of the Grand Canyon—between the statements of fiscal probity and sound financial management, and the reality of the economic performance. When we look to the future, we see that this Government have earned the very dubious distinction of the UK being downgraded by the International Monetary Fund in its growth forecast, while the rest of the world has been upgraded. It is one thing to move in line with others, but to move in the opposite, downward direction is an achievement we should not want.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I am happy to—I thought mention of the IMF might bring the right hon. Gentleman to his feet.

[John Redwood]

I would like to know the Labour position. The European Central Bank is not selling debt at a loss into the market because it does not want the losses. The Americans are selling debt into the market at big losses, but they do not send the bill to the taxpayer. Only the Bank of England insists on both making huge losses and sending the bill to the taxpayer for immediate payment. Who is right?

[Mr McFadden]

I suspect that the Bank of England will not be the only institution attacked by the right hon. Gentleman tonight, but I remind him that part of the purpose of the charter is to restore our faith in the economic institutions, after what happened less than six months ago.

The IMF has forecast that the UK will have the lowest growth among developed countries for the next two years: bottom of the league on the record and bottom of the league on the forecast. And yet still the Government come along tonight and table a debate supposedly designed to enhance their economic credentials.

Well, what will the effect on those credentials be of the re-emergence of the former Prime Minister at the weekend? I have to give her 10 out of 10 for timing. What better time to write an article saying that her mini-Budget was right all along than the day before the Chief Secretary has to come here and stand up for the Government’s fiscal stability record? What better moment for her to say to members of pension schemes that had to be put on life support as a result of her mini-Budget that it was not her fault? No contrition for trying to borrow from my constituents in Wolverhampton South East in order to pay for a tax cut for people earning over £150,000 a year; not a word of apology to the millions of mortgage holders left paying a Tory mortgage penalty because of the reckless irresponsibility of the Conservative party. Just when the Government were trying to bury the memory of that mini-Budget under 10 feet of concrete, up she pops—like one of those hands coming out of the swamp at the end of the film—to tell us it was all someone else’s fault.

For me, the best bit in the article was when, in a long list of culprits, other than the Government that actually introduced the mini-Budget, the former Prime Minister blamed the Treasury civil servants for not warning her about the impact on pension schemes. I had to ask myself, were these the same Treasury civil servants that she had spent the whole summer scorning and disparaging? Were they the same Treasury civil servants whose boss was shown the door on the first day of her premiership? In what world are we expected to believe that the former Prime Minister, her Chancellor and the Government would have listened to a word those civil servants said, when all along she defined them as being part of the problem and not part of the solution?

The real problem for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Treasury is that this is not going away. The last Prime Minister is not a lone voice, and the more that Conservative Members realise the Government have nothing left in their tank and are resigned to managing decline, the louder the drumbeat will become; and it will be cheered on by the same newspapers that gave such a warm welcome to that mini-Budget in the first place. The Prime Minister, demonstrating the sureness of touch with which we have come to associate him by now, has labelled those on the Government Benches calling for tax cuts “idiots”. That is his phrase, not mine—about those on his own side. And yet today, fearful of them, the Prime Minister now says he will listen. Which is it? Are they idiots or is he listening? This weekend’s intervention, and those who cheer its argument, will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor looking over their right shoulders every day between now and the election, when they should be focused on the needs of the country.

This debate is supposed to be about all of us swearing fealty to fiscal rules, but there is another problem: since this Government came to office, they have broken their fiscal rules 11 times. They have had even more sets of fiscal rules than they have had Chancellors and Prime Ministers over the past year. If you don’t like one set, don’t worry—there will be another one along in a while! The Chief Secretary himself outlined how these rules were different from the ones we debated this time last year in the George Osborne tribute debate of 2022, and each time we are expected to treat the new rules as though they were the ten commandments.

The second part of this is about respecting the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility. The document before us is very clear about that. It talks in great detail about the importance of that role. Indeed, when it was first launched, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury of the time set out the benefits of the OBR, making clear the value of its

“strong, credible, independently conducted official forecasts”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 747.]

She said that the establishment of the OBR and its independence from the Treasury meant that

“Governments will be reticent about introducing policies that seem to take them off course”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 749.]

Well, there was not much sign of that reticence last year as the Government crashed the economy, caused a run on the pound, caused mortgage rates to rise and put pensions on life support. Indeed, we had a real-time lesson in the cost of disparaging our institutions—institutions that the Conservative party used to care about. But tonight, even after that experience with chapter 4 of the charter, we are back to a hymn of praise for the OBR.

The real problem here is not just inconsistency, but credibility. I am afraid that the many-year record since the idea of this charter was first conceived a decade or more ago has meant that the Conservative party has now forfeited the right to call itself the party of sound management; it has forfeited the right to call itself the party of growth, because the record on growth has been abysmal; it has forfeited the right to call itself the party of low debt, because debt has rocketed; it has forfeited the claim to careful stewardship of the public finances, with billions lost in bounce back loan fraud, personal protective equipment waste and tawdry stories of one dodgy contract after another; and it has forfeited the right to call itself the party of low tax, because the tax burden is at its highest for decades.

What, after all that, has this been for? We have record waiting lists, trains that people cannot rely on, and delays and backlogs everywhere. In fact, there is not a single public service that runs better now than it did 13 years ago, when the Tories took office. Low growth and high tax for a worse outcome—that is the record. When people are faced with the question, “Are you and your family better off?”, the answer is no.

Two weeks ago, we had the Chancellor’s speech on the way forward. He had four Es, and more than one person said that the biggest E was for empty, because the real problem for the Conservatives is that, when it comes to growth, the only policy they reach for is unfunded and untargeted tax cuts, and when they tried that in September, it blew up in their faces. Growth is the right question for the country, but it does not come from the discredited idea of trickle-down economics. It comes from the efforts of all of us—from every businessperson with a new idea and the drive to make it happen, and from making sure we use the UK’s strengths to make the most of the green transition that is coming, rather than standing back and allowing those investments to go elsewhere. It comes from every teacher equipping a pupil with new skills and knowledge, and from not having 7 million people on NHS waiting lists, keeping many of them out of the labour market. Talking of former Prime Ministers, it does not come from saying “F*** business”, but from a modern partnership with business that brings in the long-term investment the country needs. Most of all, in a knowledge economy like today’s, growth has to come from everyone, not just from a tiny proportion of people at the top.

Fiscal stability is an essential foundation for what we have to do—I agree with the Chief Secretary on that—but it is not an end in itself. It has to be the foundation for meeting the challenges the country faces and for giving people a more prosperous future. After many years of this debate, we look less at the latest version of the rules and more at the gap between claim and reality, because after crashing the economy and leaving the British public to pay the bill, the Government have no credibility to come forward and claim to be the champions of fiscal stability.

The idea for this charter was born in another political time, as I said at the start, and if it did have a purpose, events since have rendered it an unconvincing exercise to say the least. It certainly has not kept the Government to their fiscal rules, which have been broken many times, and it is unlikely, particularly after recent months, to convince anyone outside this Chamber that the Government have got the economy back on track.

Delivery of Public Services

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that UK economic growth is forecast to grind to a halt next year, with only Russia worse in the OECD; further notes that GDP has fallen in recent months while inflation has risen to 9.1 per cent and that food prices, petrol costs and bills in general are soaring for millions across the country; believes that the Government is leaving Britain with backlogs such as long waits for passports, driving licences, GP and hospital appointments, court dates, and at airports; and calls on the Government to set out a new approach to the economy that will end 12 years of slow growth and high taxation under successive Conservative governments.

It is my pleasure to speak to the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and those of me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Prime Minister told us at the weekend, speaking from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, that he was “actively considering” his third term in office. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), replied that she was actively considering marrying Ryan Reynolds.

While the Prime Minister considers his future, here at home concerns are more prosaic and more real. In area after area of life, standards of service that used to be taken for granted have crumbled, leaving people facing delays and backlogs for basic services, and all this is coming on top of the cost of living crisis, which is biting deeper with each passing week. As each new backlog and delay builds up, the Government look more and more powerless to address them. Even the Government’s supporters do not seem to believe that the announcements made by No. 10 will be followed through with any proper delivery. The Government were supposed to take us forward to the future, but as we read the news each day, it feels more and more like a step back in time towards the 1970s.

In another, more candid remark, also on Saturday, the Prime Minister admitted that since the Conservatives took office the UK economy had

“not grown as it should”.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Member agree with me that if you wish to improve service you do not go on strike and if you wish to pay for higher wages you do not go on strike? Will he give that advice to the rail unions?

[Mr McFadden]

I had anticipated one or two interventions on strikes, so let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that whoever’s responsibility the strikes are, it is certainly not that of a party that has been in opposition for 12 years. He and the Ministers he supports will have to take responsibility for the industrial strife they are presiding over. I say that to him in the anticipation of other interventions in the same vein.

Finance Bill

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

The matter of what is voted on is of course, a consideration for the Speaker. I do not always get to decide what is voted on in this House.

New clause 26, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, focuses on the issue of jobs and does so for the very good reason that that is the principal economic challenge facing us right now. If there was any doubt about that, we need only look at the news over the past 24 hours—1,700 jobs lost at Airbus, up to 5,000 job losses announced by the owners of Upper Crust, 4,500 at easyJet a couple of days ago, another 4,500 at Swissport, and many more around the country that do not make the front page of the national news. These are not just numbers. Every one of them is a human story of a livelihood taken away and a family wondering how they will pay the bills and what the future will hold for them.

Across the country, the claimant count measure of unemployment is up by 1.5 million since the start of the year. In addition to those out of work and the estimated 9 million on furlough schemes, it is estimated that up to 8 million employees are working fewer hours than usual. These stark figures show us that we are facing the jobs challenge of a generation. It is decades since young people leaving school, college or university graduated into a labour market such as this.

Giving my age away, I remember, as a young teenager growing up in Glasgow, attending the people’s march for jobs. Unemployment back then was around 3 million. The vocabulary of it infused the times—“signing on”; “the Girocheque”. It even gave birth to the great band UB40, named after the unemployment card that people got for signing on. The damage caused by that mass unemployment affected not just the city where I grew up, but the Black Country that I now represent, and many similar communities across the country. Long-term social and economic pain was caused by far too many people facing a life on the dole, and we must never go back to those days. If we have learned anything from that experience of the 1980s, it is that the cost of not acting is greater than the cost of acting, and we must do everything we can now to prevent mass unemployment. That is the challenge facing us.

At the start of this crisis we called for wage support to help people through. The furlough scheme and the self-employed furlough scheme were the right and necessary things to do, but as lockdown is eased, and support from those schemes starts to be withdrawn from next month, we can see the danger facing the economy. The danger is that businesses that have been just about hanging on start to let people go, caught between having no income and facing rising employment costs. This is the moment that the Government need to act to preserve jobs, jobs, jobs.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of jobs. Is he worried that the reform the Government have in mind might mean that a self-employed person working on their own in one of our constituencies could lose a contract to a foreign company, because the big company undertaking the contract might think that was safer?

[Mr McFadden]

I am not sure about the part of the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention that referred to foreign companies, but the turbulence of the labour market right now does pose a danger to contractors. The Government have already recognised that to some degree in the delay announced for this measure.

Withdrawing support schemes at the same pace for all sectors does not recognise that some sectors are in far more difficulty than others, and that is particularly true for any sector based on the idea of people gathering closely together. Many sectors such as transport, aviation, sport, theatre, music, and others, are global British strengths, but right now they are on their knees. Dropping the social distancing rule from two metres to one metre is not enough when, in some cases, any kind of social distancing is impossible. Let us take live music, for example, which is based on the very opposite of social distancing. The break-even point for many venues and events is often being 80% to 90% full, and the change to one metre will not make that much difference to them. We need an approach that takes into account the different impact on different sectors.

If there was already a sectoral problem in withdrawing employment support, there is also now a geographical one, because Leicester is entering its second period of lockdown. Our thoughts go out to the people and businesses there who, like the rest of the country, have made great sacrifices over the past few months. We cannot yet know how long that second period of lockdown in Leicester will last. It could be a few weeks, but equally, it might be longer. Neither can we know whether Leicester will be the only place to go into another lockdown. Other cities may follow, and there has already been speculation about where those might be. How can it be right to withdraw employment support on a national basis when we are no longer in a single national position on the easing of lockdown?

We are asking people and businesses in Leicester today, and possibly other cities in the days and weeks to come, to shut down for a second time, and they should not be penalised for doing so. Will the Minister consider as a matter of urgency flexibility in the unwinding of the furlough and other support schemes, to take account of the new development of at least one, but possibly more, local lockdowns? Let me now turn to the future, and the jobs that might be created. The Government announced their back-to-work plan yesterday.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It seems to me that the Opposition are yet again falling into the trap of thinking that it is possible to trade with the EU only if we have a special arrangement with it, like Norway or Switzerland. Yet all the world’s countries trade with the EU, and the very badly drafted Lords amendment invites comment on all those different arrangements, many of which have no special deal at all.

[Mr McFadden]

I am not saying that the Norway example is the only one out there. There are others, but Norway is a real live example, which I think is relevant to our debate. Moreover, some in the campaign to leave the EU have drawn attention to it as a model, while others have drawn attention to Switzerland as a model. It would be good to understand from the Leave campaign exactly what model they seek to support. It is right that in advance of the referendum, the Government should publish as much information as possible so that the voters are clear about what is involved.

The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stone calls on the Electoral Commission to be the marker, as it were, of the Government’s homework, but the Electoral Commission has said clearly that it does not want to do that. It accepts that there is an appetite for more detailed information, but it states that

“we would not have the capabilities to do so…nor the required expertise to judge a report to Parliament”.

That is very clear.

[Mr McFadden]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views on this matter, but I am afraid I disagree with him. The amendments are not asking the Government to stick a finger in the air and speculate on what the UK’s arrangements would be after withdrawal. Amendment 6(b) shows that this is about

“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union”.

That is not speculation; those examples already exist. We can study the obligations on countries subject to these arrangements. They have been there for some time, and those countries have negotiated specific details with the European Union. That is not a matter for speculation; it is out there for us all to see.

I am pleased that the Government have, in effect, accepted requests that we made in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons. It is important for voters to be clear about the renegotiation, clear about the results of that renegotiation, clear about what being in the European Union is like and what it requires, and as clear as possible about what being out might look like. A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on only one future, and that is why the amendments are important. It is right for us to have access to reports of this kind, and it is right for the maximum amount of information to be made available to the public on what will be a crucial choice for the country.

[John Redwood]

I put my name to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) because I thought that Lords amendments 5 and 6 were ill considered and unwise, and that we needed to debate them for that reason.

Lords amendment 5 is easy to deal with and I have no particular problem with it, because it states the obvious—namely that, when the negotiations have been completed, the British Government should share their view of the outcome of those negotiations with Parliament and the people. Well, of course they will: it will happen naturally. There will be a statement, and I dare say there will be a written text as well. I therefore think that the amendment is an unnecessary addition to what was a simpler Bill before their lordships got hold of it.

Lords amendment 6 is far more worrying, because it is so sloppily drafted and because it leads to all sorts of arguments that are properly arguments for a referendum campaign rather than for good legislation to set up the referendum. The first part of the amendment says that the Government must publish information about the

“rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law”

from our current membership. As has already been remarked, if that were done properly it would result in a very long book, given that we are now subject to so many legal restrictions and obligations as a result of an extremely voluminous consolidated treaty and thousands of directives. I think that to fulfil that remit properly, the Government would have to set out all the directives, and explain to the British people why there are now very large areas of law and public practice that we in the House of Commons are not free to determine as we see fit and as the people wish. While that might be a useful thing to do, I fear that the Government might fall short because they might not wish to give a comprehensive list of our obligations, and it is not good law to invite people to do things that they do not really intend to do.

I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify whether he will be publishing a full list of the thousands of legal restraints that now operate on this Parliament in preventing us from carrying out the wish of the British people, and also on the British people, who must obey these laws as they are translated into British law, or else obey the directly acting laws. Of course, all these laws, and our own laws, can be construed by European justice through the European Court of Justice, which, rather than this court of Parliament, is now the true sovereign in our country because we have submitted ourselves to the ultimate judgment of the European Court.

European Commission: National Parliaments

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Last night we debated the similar issue of the Commission’s work programme for this year. The programme expresses commitments to better regulation and to focusing on the big things that the European Union needs to do, and that leads us to the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality. Over the years, there has been much talk in the European Union of subsidiarity—a concept whose origins lie in Catholic social teaching—but few would claim that the EU has abided by the notion that it should act only when it has to, and should otherwise leave things to the Governments of member states.

The Minister gave the example of the agency workers directive. In fact, the CBI reached an agreement with the TUC on that directive, and I think that the record should show their participation in order to present the complete picture.

As the Minister said, we are debating two reports, the one on subsidiarity and the one on relations with national Parliaments. They concern the interaction between the EU and national Parliaments, and, specifically, the use of reasoned opinions on EU proposals when, for instance, Parliaments come together to invoke the yellow card procedure—that is, to ask the Commission to think again about one of its proposals. According to the reports, 621 written opinions, including reasoned opinions, were submitted by national Parliaments in 2013, down slightly from 663 the year before. The most common subjects were the proposal to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office, regulations covering the manufacture and sale of tobacco products, maritime spatial planning, access to ports, and matters relating to Europol. Opinions from 20 Parliaments were received on the EPPO proposals, of which 13 were reasoned opinions, triggering the yellow card procedure.

The European Scrutiny Committee has understandably voiced its frustration that the triggering of that procedure did not result in the Commission’s either withdrawing the proposal or changing it radically. That has, of course, prompted further debate about a range of different procedures going by the names of differently coloured cards—not just yellow but orange, red and even green cards, which will allow Parliaments to initiate proposals if they so wish. If a system is established whereby national Parliaments are given a voice and can come together to lodge reasoned opinions or objections, it is important that those objections are taken seriously and not simply ignored.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Let us say that a really important issue to the British people causes them to vote in a new Government who promise to do what they want on it, and then that Government are advised it is against European law. What right should this House have to say, “This is the will of the British people”?

[Mr McFadden]

The procedures we are talking about here are in line with European law. I think what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at is the question of vetoes, and we do not have vetoes. It is important for clarity, as well as the political debate between us, to be clear that these yellow card procedures are not national Parliament vetoes of the kind he may be referring to, and there is a difference between the two.

The objections to the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office focused on the Commission’s own interpretation of subsidiarity, the comparison between the new proposals and the arrangements already in place and the question of whether this proposal would add value in combating fraud. The House of Lords has issued a report on this matter, and it gave the following verdict:

“We fear that under the Commission’s proposed model an EPPO enjoying exclusive competence for PIF crimes”—

financial fraud in the European Union—

“would be in danger of being overwhelmed by its workload, and its structure would not be sufficiently robust to enable it to monitor its investigations and prosecutions in the Member States. We see a similar problem with the Presidency’s alternative proposal. The evidence we received on the proposed introduction of a collegiate structure into the EPPO overwhelmingly suggests that this would complicate the prosecution of these crimes even further.”

Its reservations about the proposal were clear, and we shared many of them, although for the sake of clarity and completeness I should say that that does not mean that we on the Opposition Benches object to all European involvement in matters of criminal justice. Without rehearsing debates in the House on the European arrest warrant—that may be to the relief of all—we believe that that measure does have a useful role to play in combating crime both here and elsewhere in the EU.

Following all these exchanges and the rejection of the yellow card procedure by the Commission, there have been proposals from a number of Parliaments, including the Dutch and Danish Parliaments as well as our own, for reforms to the yellow card procedure. We welcome the Commission’s willingness, indicated by Mr Juncker, to establish a working group on the role of national Parliaments in the EU, but it is important that that is a serious process and that it takes the suggestions for different reforms seriously. We would also endorse the sentiment in the Government’s response to the reports about the value of Commissioners appearing before national Parliaments to explain and answer questions on the Commission’s actions and policies. We would like to see more of that in the future.

The important point is that, however many opinions are submitted or whatever the architecture of the yellow card procedure, it will be seen to be of little value if it is simply ignored. To refer to the question of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), we do not seek to turn the legal basis of the EU on its head or make demands which are incompatible with membership, but we do believe that dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments must take seriously not only the sum of correspondence over the course of a year but its content.

Commission Work Programme 2015

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

I do not believe that that is what I said. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because I thought that the issue for him was principally parliamentary sovereignty, rather than the free movement of people. Perhaps he has shifted his position, and I should stand corrected.

The Minister outlined the position on the numbers in the measures. I noted the scepticism with which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) greeted the numbers. I do not propose to go over that ground as the Minister has done so, but on the face of it the Commission is proposing a narrower, more focused programme—under 10 headings and 23 specific measures —than it has in the past.

At the top of the Commission’s agenda is something we would all welcome—an emphasis on growth and jobs. In a continent still struggling to recover from the financial crisis, it is right to have such an emphasis and focus on the very high level of youth unemployment, on doing what is right on the big issues, and on less interference in and over-regulation of issues that do not need it.

In his speech in London last week, Mr Timmermans, the vice-president of the Commission, said:

“It is incredibly important that we follow through on limiting the initiatives we take to those areas where EU action is urgent and needed. For too long we worked on the premise of doing things because they were nice to do; I want to work on the premise that we do it because we need to do it, because Member States can’t do it by themselves alone. There needs to be added value of acting on a European scale.”

I very much welcome that emphasis from Commissioner Timmermans, and I hope that it is followed through in reality as well as in the written plan.

[Mr Redwood]

As the right hon. Gentleman is such a fan of all this interference, will he say which of the 23 measures will actually reduce the shocking levels of youth unemployment, which are the curse of Europe thanks to the idiotic policies of this Union?

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for painting me as a fan of all the measures before I have even spoken about them. One measure that could help to create jobs would be a properly negotiated free trade agreement between the EU and the United States. That has the potential to help our exporters and create jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. The Italian Foreign Minister told me that of the estimated 270,000 illegal migrants who landed in the EU last year, 170,000 landed in Italy. This cannot be a problem for just one member state, because it is broader than that. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on our Government’s input in dealing with both the consequences and causes of this problem.

Concerns have been raised about what is not in the programme. The Minister wrote to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee about the air quality package and the circular economy package. Concerns about that have been raised by Members of the European Parliament as well. A number of Select Committee Chairs have written to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee on the matter. It is therefore clear that there is a lot in the work programme that will concern the House.

Before I end, I want to turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and his colleagues on the European Scrutiny Committee. It asks that the Government ask the Commission to develop policies relating to the free movement of citizens. That is something that the Labour party has put forward, and before Christmas my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) produced proposals that related to how free movement interacts with access to benefits and public goods. We would like the Commission to work with member states on that, because access to benefits and public goods is not an issue just for the UK but for other member states. We saw that in the recent European Court judgment on the Dano case, which was initiated in Germany and affected a lady who it was judged did not have the right to access social security benefits. We have an interplay between a founding principle of the European Union and social security systems that are national in nature, and it is right that we discuss work in that area with the Commission.

[Mr Redwood]

When the right hon. Gentleman said that Italy should not be expected to handle the problem of migrants to Italy on its own, is he recommending burden sharing? Is he saying that other member states should take a share of those migrants through a common policy?

[Mr McFadden]

It has already been agreed that Triton will be a European programme and not just an Italian one—the right hon. Gentleman is a little behind the pace if he thinks that is a new departure, because it has already been agreed. The question is about the resources given to the programme and whether it is capable of meeting the task it faces. I remind him of the terrible figure given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East of the number of people who have drowned in the Mediterranean over the past couple of years.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Mr McFadden]

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.

In conclusion, I believe that this work programme is a step forward from previous ones. It is closer to British priorities and reflects much of what we want to see, although we do not endorse everything in it and some of it does not apply to us. Like all such programmes, it is only a plan on paper and it will remain to be seen whether the Commission delivers as it has promised. It is certainly urgent that it does deliver to meet real and urgent priorities, and ensure that the European Union works in the interests of its citizens over the next five years. Whatever the plan says on paper, that is ultimately how it will be judged.

EU Reform

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my near neighbour in the west midlands, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on securing the debate. I also greet the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), with whom this is my first proper exchange since I took up this post a few weeks ago, and I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

I have found the debate extremely interesting and revealing. It has been revealing to me because it has illustrated the plight of the Minister and the Prime Minister, for which I have some sympathy. As I have listened to the hon. Member for Stone, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the other hon. Members who have spoken, I have found myself asking what kind of renegotiation by the Prime Minister could possibly satisfy them, other than one leading to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed himself to that question in summing up. I have sympathy for the Prime Minister in the task that he has set himself, given the yardsticks set for him in this debate by his hon. and dear Friends.

As the hon. Member for Stone said, we had some interesting exchanges yesterday with the Bundestag’s Committee on the Affairs of the European Union, whose members have been visiting the UK this week. This debate is timely in a sense, because both of our countries are major members of the European Union but we look at the European Union through different eyes.

It is sometimes said that for Britain, EU membership is purely transactional. I hesitate to endorse that verdict. I think it is a mistake to ignore the commitment to democracy, equality, human rights and the peaceful resolution of problems that comes with membership. It is an achievement of no small significance that today it is almost inconceivable that two member states of the European Union could go to war with one another. Given what is happening on the fringes of the European Union, it would be wrong for us to dismiss that achievement.

Britain and Germany have different histories, and we look at the issue through different eyes, but there is an aspect of common values to it, as well as a purely transactional one. On a day-to-day basis, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, Britain and Germany have much in common in our approach to the European Union. In ordinary working meetings of the Council of Ministers, British and German Ministers often agree.

Of course, as this debate has rightly outlined, we do not always face the same issues. Germany is a member of the eurozone; indeed, it is the lead guarantor. The UK is not, and is highly unlikely to join the euro, meaning that Germany faces issues, such as banking union and fiscal compacts with other member states, that we in the UK sometimes do not, and we are not part of some of those agreements. We sometimes have a distinct approach to economic and financial issues. Given our rule and the size of the financial sector in the UK, and its global reach relative to the rest of our economy, it is absolutely right that we should reserve the right to take a distinctive approach on some of those issues.

[Mr Redwood]

Does that not mean that we need a new relationship? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that, according to his logic, we cannot be in the room when a lot of financial matters are discussed because we are not part of the compacts relating to the euro?

[Mr McFadden]

The euro has been in place for some time. During that period, London’s financial strength has if anything grown, not diminished. I would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman if he suggested that being outside the euro somehow meant that we could not play a constructive role within the EU.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I will press on, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Another issue that has arisen in this debate is the free movement of people, which has been at the heart of discussion in the UK in recent months about our relationship with the EU. I have looked up the figures. Eurostat, for example, calculates that net migration from elsewhere in the EU in 2012 was 230,000 for Germany and 82,000 for the UK. It is important to give some context to the view that everyone from everywhere else in the EU is always migrating to the UK. That is not the case. There are significant migration flows into both Germany and Britain, and it is important to have a debate in both countries about the rules under which EU migration should operate.

The Government have made certain announcements about restricting access to benefits for some EU migrants, and my own party agrees that access to benefits should be conditional. Most EU migrants come to work and not to claim—the recent report by University college London showed that overall, they are net contributors—but of course it is not just an issue of accounting. It is important that we have rules that are seen to be fair, and that operate in fairness to our own citizens as well as to those who come here. Today, in my party, the shadow Home Secretary announced that we believe that an EU migration fund should be established to help local areas that find themselves under particular pressure due to freedom of movement. If freedom of movement is to remain a core principle, it is reasonable for member states to ask for some help from the EU budget to help communities adjust where there are consequences for local areas.

I believe that on this question, Britain and Germany have much in common. I do not believe that Germany wants the rules for access to benefits to be abused; a case came to the European Court of Justice the other day. The Prime Minister has taken us into new territory. He is now talking not just about conditionality for benefits under freedom of movement but about changing the principle of free movement itself. That approach appears to have been rebuffed by Chancellor Merkel, with the Der Spiegel report that she sees it as a red line that she would not cross, and that at that point she would stop her efforts to keep Britain in the European Union. It would be one thing if I thought that the Prime Minister’s shift in strategy had been carefully thought out, but he appears to have crossed the line with little thought for what it will mean for his renegotiation. Can the Minister tell us how many member states have told him that they support reform of the principle of free movement since the Prime Minister made his announcement?

Of course some Back Benchers, and perhaps some Conservative Members in this room, will be pleased by the shift because they may not want the Prime Minister’s renegotiation to succeed. Perhaps glory for them is defined not by a successful renegotiation but by one that fails, leading to UK withdrawal from the EU. I am afraid that there I must part company with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who said that we might all be united in our view today. It is not a consensus shared by me or my party.

There are major British interests, in terms of jobs, employment rights and investment, in getting it right and in remaining part of the EU. What we are seeing is a governmental strategy, if one can call it that, which is led more by party management and trying to keep happy the party members who agree with the hon. Member for Stone than by our national interests. The danger for the Minister and the Government is that if he and his colleagues keep standing at the edge of the cliff and making demands in order that they will not jump, eventually other member states will stop their efforts to stop them from jumping and say, “Go ahead, and be our guest.”

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Pat McFadden and John Redwood

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Indeed. That point also shows that we need banks to be profitable—particularly RBS, which is still largely state owned. Until the bank is making profits, its capital ratios will not improve quickly enough and it will then not be in a position to lend the money that the Government would like it to. The taxpayer would be grateful if it could be more profitable, because our shares would be worth more, which would be in the general interest.

I conclude by making the same point to the Minister. Yes, I want us to get to stronger banks with tighter ratios, but I want us to get there through growth and growth in bank profits—particularly for HBOS and RBS, in which we have a large state stake and whose results have been disappointing for a number of years. If we can get to that happy position, we can have a bit of growth and some more profitability and then the regulator will have to have a sensible conversation with the banks; it will say that some of the money has to be put into cash and capital so that they are stronger. We will be the better for that.

[Mr McFadden]

I will not detain the Chamber for long; I just want to make a few points.

The argument is really about complexity versus simplicity in how banks are regulated. One of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is trying to bring out is the inadequacy of the over-complex Basel regulations, which have allowed banks to game the system and say they had hugely different capital ratios on similar classes of assets in different institutions. The truth is that the Basel system is so complex that it does not give confidence about the safety of our banks. That is why this debate about leverage is so important.

In all the debate about ring-fencing, separation and so on, what has perhaps been under-discussed is the fact that not enough attention has been paid to leverage—a basic measure of banks’ safety or resilience against future risks and very important in respect of banks’ ability to absorb losses. One of the features consistently pointed out, both to the Treasury Committee and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, was that in the run-up to the crisis banks were hugely over-leveraged. That meant that their capacity to absorb and deal with problems when they came was minimal.

Our banks still have very high gearing today. The banks lobby hard on the issue. I counsel caution on the basic trade-off that has been raised about lending and leverage. There are other ways for banks to improve their capital ratios than simply by reducing lending. They could, for example, look at the proportion that they give out in remuneration every year; that could make a difference to their capital ratios. Over the past decade or two, vast amounts of money have been paid out in remuneration that could have improved capital ratios without having any effect at all on lending. Let us not fall for the argument that we can either have banks that lend, or safe banks, but we cannot have both. It would be wrong of us to fall into that false dichotomy. We should aim for banks that are both safe and have the ability to lend.