Peter Bone
Main Page: Peter Bone (Independent - Wellingborough)Department Debates - View all Peter Bone's debates with the HM Treasury
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
Of course, in a way, the Commission’s view is that it is probably somebody else’s problem to resolve the financing. It put forward measures in the multi-annual financial framework that will increase the amount of money flowing to Europe. It has put forward an EU-wide financial transactions tax, which we object to. Its view is that if such a tax went ahead, the revenues would go not to member states, to spend at their discretion, but to the European Commission to spend. As part of its financial framework, the Commission also proposed the end to our rebate—another proposal we would reject.
The Commission would look to member states to meet the cost of these projects, which is why it is absolutely vital that we work with like-minded allies to restrain the EU budget and ensure that we can spend more money at home, while less money goes abroad. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) chunters, but if he had listened to my speech, he would have heard me say that we have signed a letter with the Chancellor in Germany, Angela Merkel, and with the French President calling for a real-terms freeze in payments. That is the sort of alliance we can build in Europe. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment later, but I am rather bemused: the Labour Government talked tough in EU negotiations, but they happily gave away our rebate, costing this Government €10 billion over the life of this Parliament.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister is being far too generous to Labour Members. Over the last five years of the Labour Government, our net contribution to the EU was an extortionate £19 billion. Under this Government, it will be £41 billion, because Labour gave away a large part of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate. That is a disgrace, and Labour should be held to account for it.
Chris Leslie
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the break-up of the euro would be in the UK’s interests, but there are dangers with a permanent deflationary lock in the fiscal policies of the eurozone countries. That is why, both in the UK and across the eurozone, far more must be done to get growth into those economies. They have to grow in order to build their way out of the hole that they are in. In that sense, the ambitions, which many people share, of improving infrastructure across the EU, while laudable, need to be seen in the context of the affordability criteria that must be applied to them. We have to act to unblock the clogged arteries of Europe, connecting the major cities of the continent, making it easier for business and opening new opportunities for growth in the single market. Capital investment in infrastructure is extremely important as a driver for growth.
What progress are Ministers making in shaping the European spending review? That is absolutely at the heart of today’s debate. After December’s phantom veto—the first veto in history that stopped precisely nothing—the UK has to pick up the pieces and try to influence the important EU budget process. The Minister was throwing around history lessons about the common agricultural policy and various other things. However, we need to know what exactly this Government are going to do about the common agricultural policy. What is he going to do about the spending proposals? Rather than walking away before the negotiations even begin and leaving another empty chair, the Minister has to raise his voice, build some alliances and secure a more appropriate level of expenditure that also shifts priorities.
Mr Bone
We have an excellent shadow Minister, who is always on top of his brief, but I do not think he was here when Tony Blair gave a commitment that the CAP would be reformed, so that our net contributions to the EU now would be at the same level as they were then. Clearly that was wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman and his party support our most excellent Minister going into battle and saying, “We’re not going to pay any more than our initial subscription was to the EU”?
Chris Leslie
I did not quite hear that from the Minister. If that is the Government’s position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Prime Minister on these matters—I would be very interested to hear it.
I agree that the proposed budgets for EU institutions are still too high. Export refund practices have to be cut back. We have to change agriculture policy so that it is fairer to smaller farmers and ends the ridiculous tobacco and wine subsidies that are lavishing payments on some of the very wealthiest players in the wealthiest EU countries.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I strongly support the amendment and its heavy emphasis on growth, because growth is the way to reduce deficits. Members who have seen The Independent today will know that our deficit is rather lower than those of many other major European member states, and that our biggest debt is located in the banks rather than in state spending. The fact remains, however, that the way to lower deficits is to achieve growth. Creating employment and ensuring that people pay taxes rather than living on benefits is the way forward.
I agreed with most of what was said by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in the Chamber. In particular, I agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who pointed out that we do not need the European Union or the European Commission to tell member states what they need and what they should build, and to spend our money for us. Member states themselves know best what they need, and what should be done to meet those needs. International co-ordination is best achieved through bilateral and multilateral agreement and collaboration, rather than through the bureaucratic controls imposed by the European Union.
Big infrastructure has indeed been built by European national Governments, especially rail freight infrastructure. We have our own channel tunnel, which is a product not of the European Union but of a collaboration between France and Britain. We have the channel tunnel rail link, which is also nothing to do with the European Union. We have rail tunnels through the alps, built to a broad gauge that enables trains to carry lorries and double-stack containers and providing a freight link from southern to northern Europe. Those were built by states using state funds. The Brenner pass, a 28-mile tunnel built to a broad gauge through faulted rock, also carries freight between northern and southern Europe, and it too is the work of member states rather than the European Union. We have the Betuweroute, another broad-gauge freight route linking Rotterdam to the Ruhr. When I visited it, I asked who had paid for it. I was told, “The Dutch Government, of course.” The state bears the cost, not the European Union.
We know that the EU offers token amounts to investment projects to try to confer some relevance, presence and significance on itself, but that is not the real deal. The real deal is that states decide what they want and need and pay for it—sometimes with private finance, but largely with state funds—and, on occasion, collaborate with neighbouring states to ensure that things work well.
What the United Kingdom needs is investment in a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow. Although we are somewhat peripheral to the continent in geographical terms, we need to be linked with its economy. I refer to the continent rather than the European Union because we are talking about the whole continent, which extends beyond the bounds of the European Union as it is currently constituted.
We need to be linked to the continent by freight as well as passenger rail, and that will be possible only if the delivery system on this side of the channel is capable of taking trains carrying lorries and full-scale and double-stack containers, and, indeed, continental-gauge trains, which cannot gain access to our platforms or our tunnels. In fact, I have been involved with a scheme—which I have mentioned in the Chamber a number of times in the past—to build a line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations of Britain and capable of doing all the things that I have just mentioned.
Mr Bone
The hon. Gentleman is making an enormously powerful speech, as he normally does on these issues. Does he share my concern about the fact that, although members of his party and the nationalist parties have been in the Chamber today and the Conservative Benches are full, not a single Liberal Democrat Member has been present? Given that the Liberal Democrats make such a fuss about Europe and restrict what the coalition can do about it, where on earth are they?
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I have to say that the Liberal Democrats are in a coalition with his own party. It is his grief rather than ours, I think, so I will not intrude.
To an extent, work on a dedicated rail freight line has already begun. A terminal at Barking is taking trains from as far afield as Poland. However, although they can travel as far as Barking using the channel tunnel rail link, they can proceed no further because the gauge will not allow it.
According to an old chestnut, if we build HS2 we shall be able to take the passengers off the west coast main line and free it up for freight, but making that line capable of taking continental-gauge trains, double-stack containers and lorries would be prohibitively expensive. We need to build a line to take the freight off the west and east coast main lines and off our roads, so that the lines can be freed up for more and faster passenger trains and we can provide more capacity for passengers travelling to the north while taking as much traffic as possible off the roads. It is estimated that we could take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads simply by building that route, which would be economically viable and cheap to build.
The scheme has a precise route that uses old track bed and under-used lines, and requires only 14 miles of new track, mostly in tunnels. It will be easy to construct, it will not cause any environmental problems as the track bed is already there and it will be cheap to build. Some estimate that the whole route will cost as little as less than £4 billion. We have put in an estimate of £6 billion, which is still a third or so of what we will spend on Crossrail—I support Crossrail—and a tiny fraction of what will be spent on HS2, yet we would get an enormous advantage to our economy and transform road transport in Britain as we would not get the road damage caused by lorries, as the freight would be on trains instead.
The scheme would attractive to hauliers because they would not need to worry about drivers’ hours problems. They could put their lorry trailers on trains in Glasgow, south Lancashire, south Yorkshire or the north-east and, eventually, in the south-west and south Wales, and overcome such problems. On the question of unemployment, there is a shortage of long-distance lorry drivers because it is not a popular job. It takes people away from home and it is very difficult. The little group proposing the scheme even has a major haulier working with it.
That scheme is what Britain needs. It has nothing to do with the European Union, which would not pay for it—we would. It would offer value for money, it would be profitable and economical and it is vital for our future. I hope that both the Government and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen carefully to our suggestion.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The problem with this over-arching proposal is basically that it will be carried by qualified majority vote and is therefore, in effect, a form of taxation. Whatever proportion of that overall budget of £43.7 billion eventually falls on the United Kingdom, the Committee of which I have the honour to serve as Chairman believes that the scale of the Commission’s ambition for the 2014 to 2020 financial period is clearly unacceptable. On that basis, there is no doubt that the thrust of the Government’s motion is correct.
Although I happen to agree with the proposals on growth in the Opposition motion, the fact is that the Opposition are guilty of having severely restricted any opportunity for growth through the massive increase in public expenditure that they imposed on the United Kingdom. I and two or three other Conservative Members continually attacked that increase for the best part of three years and, as I repeatedly said at the time, there was no proposal for growth, which was connected to the problems of over-regulation, of which these proposals are yet another example.
The truth is that there should have been a full debate—there still may be opportunity for such a debate—on what is going wrong with the European Union as a whole. That debate is necessary because, as the Government have pointed out, the EU is calling on member states such as ourselves to produce more money for projects that could be better carried out under the so-called principle of subsidiarity at a national level.
At the same time, it is abundantly clear that there is no money in the European coffers. We should be debating the eurozone crisis as a whole in a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, which my Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide, but when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) repeated our calls this morning for a general debate it was denied by the Government, yet again.
Mr Cash
I certainly would. I endorse that course of action, and I would be grateful if the Whips on duty would pass that message to the Chief Whip—and, indeed, the Leader of the House—because we are faced with a monumental crisis in the European Union. That is only a symptom of the problem, which is generated by the intrinsic defects of the accumulated treaties, particularly since the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s.
So much is decided by qualified majority vote despite the fact that we currently face such severe restrictions and so much austerity, which is causing difficulties for our hospitals, schools, transport and so much else. Proportionality in respect of allocations is required. Getting that balance right is vital for our national interest. We should therefore have a debate on the Floor of the House, and not only on this one issue, important though it is.
I attended the multiannual financial meeting of about eight weeks ago as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the United Kingdom national Parliament, and I felt compelled to get up and complain bitterly about the complete “Alice in Wonderland” attitude that prevailed there. People were calling for an ever-greater increase in the amount of money that should be made available to the EU, and they were justifying that by reference to the Lisbon treaty, for example. They said that as the functions had grown, there ought to be more money. There is absolutely no recognition of the fact that there is simply not enough money to go around. We should be proceeding on the basis that we must reduce, rather than merely freeze, the budget.
The Government motion is right, therefore. However, we are facing demands from the financial transaction tax—I accept that we can veto that—and there are also attempts to stop our rebate and proposals to increase own-resources. Cumulatively, those moves are putting pressure on us to move in the wrong direction. There are great opportunities for the UK in a trading environment that is global—across the world, rather than just in the EU, important though that may be—and that is the direction we should be going in. All transport issues, including aviation policy and the development of our local infrastructure, should be taken by ourselves in the interests of the UK, rather than determined by QMV involving the other member states.
The European project is completely misconceived, and it is failing; the eurozone crisis will ultimately lead to collapse. The current situation is rather like the phoney war of 1938 and 1939: everybody knows the situation is doomed, but they are continuing to pretend that somehow something will turn up.
My message is that the Government motion is right in general, but that there is not enough determination to renegotiate the treaties. I welcome the veto, but once we cross the Rubicon, we cannot cross back. The reality is that any attempt to do so will meet with disaster, division and acrimony.
I am glad that we have had this debate, but there are also more important matters that must be debated as a matter of urgency. As I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Bury North and many others have said, we must have a proper debate on the extent, range and depth of the eurozone crisis and its impact on the UK.
We must also explore the other key issues facing us, such as why we are being confronted with QMV decisions to impose what is, in effect, a form of taxation to provide for certain facilities. Such decisions should be made on a bilateral national basis. It is not anti-European to say that is what we should do, because doing that is in the interests of Europe. What Europe is doing, however, is determinedly pursuing a completely false prospectus and then compounding that—sadly, with our Government in agreement, it appears—by proposing that we should find yet more devious means of providing money through the IMF to support what is an insupportable project. That simply flies in the face of common sense.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is, as ever, absolutely right in all he says.
On the issue of our having a day-long debate on Europe, I am pleased the Deputy Leader of the House is present. The Leader of the House is right that the Backbench Business Committee has been given the authority to authorise debates. If we were to have a bid for such a debate at one of our Committee meetings—which are held on Tuesdays at 1 o’clock—I think it would be given very careful consideration. The problem we have is that the Government do not allocate days to us far in advance. From what the Leader of the House said, we know that Thursday of next week has been allocated for a general debate, although at present a general debate in Government time. If the Government were to release that to the Backbench Business Committee, we could consider this question on Tuesday, and if there was a representation from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and, perhaps, other Members—we could have such a debate on Europe.
It concerns me that so few Liberal Democrat Members are present for the debate on this motion. I am not concerned that we are missing their contributions, because what they would say would not be worth hearing. My concern is that they might be boycotting again. Is this the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempt to have another boycott?
Mr Clappison
The general debate that my hon. Friend is arguing for is directly relevant to the motion, because tens of billions of pounds in extra expenditure will have to be found, and a large and disproportionate amount of that will have to come from this country. Some of that will come out of general taxation under the funding mechanism for the EU, adding to our indebtedness—and presumably other member states will face a similar situation.
Mr Bone
I concur with that remark, of course.
I do not blame any Member currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench for this, but the real scandal of the last Labour Government is what Tony Blair did. I do not blame Mr Blair either, because he may well have believed at the time that what he was saying was true. He stood at the Dispatch Box and gave away an enormous amount of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, which has led to an enormous increase in the amount we are having to contribute to the EU budget. He believed that would not happen because there would be major reform of the common agricultural policy. That has not happened, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on that. The Labour Front-Bench team may well support Mr Blair’s original position, so will the Labour Opposition and the splendid ministerial team we have combine and go to Europe and say to them, “Because you haven’t kept your part of the bargain in reforming the CAP, we will only pay the amount of money we were paying under the previous Government”? The sum in question is £19 billion over a five-year period. That is an enormous amount of money to join a club that does nothing for this country. But if we kept to that £19 billion, we would free up more than £21 billion during this Conservative coalition Government.
Many hon. Members have talked about growth, but nobody has really suggested how it could be achieved. I suggest that the £21 billion of extra money that would come to the Government as a result of paying only the amount that we were paying previously could be used either for tax cuts, which would be my preference, or for infrastructure plans, as the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) were suggesting. Alternatively, some of the money could go on tax cuts and some could go on infrastructure. That would not cost the taxpayer a penny, because all we would be saying to Europe would be, “We are paying just the £19 billion over five years as the ridiculous amount of money for our subscription to the European Union.” So instead of paying £41 billion for joining this club we would be paying £19 billion. If hon. Members think that I am being unfair to the European Union on this point, they should consider the reality of what happens. This is not just about the £7 billion or £10 billion that our “net contribution” is each year, because the EU actually takes £14 billion or £15 billion. [Hon. Members: “£18 billion.”] Oh, it has gone up. The money goes to the European Commission, which then gives some of it back to be spent on its pet projects, which it thinks should be what we want in this country—we should have control of that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
What is even worse is that the EU, when it has spent our money, then has the cheek to fine people for failing to fly the European flag. The way in which it wastes British taxpayers’ money is absolutely disgraceful.
Mr Bone
Of course my hon. Friend makes eminent sense, as always.
There is something even more worrying about this situation: all these billions of pounds are going into the European Union but it cannot even get its auditors to give it a clean bill of health—the accounts are rejected year after year. We would not give money to any other organisation—in this country—that did not have audited accounts.
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is raising an interesting point about how much of this money, were it to be granted—I hope it is not—is likely to be spent in this country. Has it escaped his eagle eye that a substantial proportion of the money referred to in the documents before the House—€10 billion-worth—is ring-fenced for the cohesion countries, and so not a single penny of that can come to this country? I have looked at these documents and if they are approved—I hope they will not be—it appears unlikely that very much money would come to this country as a result.
Mr Bone
That point was made eloquently in the debate earlier, and I noted with interest that only two regions in this country would benefit from any of that funding. My objection is not at all to what the Government are doing in this motion—it is a fine motion and in recent months the Government have been absolutely spot on. I will not say when they started to change their position on this—[Interruption.] If Ministers want to know when they changed it, I shall tell them. I believe it was after that little vote on a Backbench Business Committee motion when there was some division within the Conservative party. I urge all Members to support the Government today and oppose Labour’s opportunistic amendment—let us win handsomely.
Question put, That the amendment be made.