EU Draft Budget 2017

Debate between Peter Grant and David Gauke

Monday 31st October 2016 General Committees

[Mr Gauke]

I am sure that it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that there were several meetings this time last week between the First Ministers of all the devolved Administrations, the Prime Minister and several colleagues, and I met the Finance Ministers on Monday afternoon. There is obviously significant interest from the devolved Administrations in these matters, which were discussed. Where the devolved Administrations sign up to structural investment projects under their current EU budget allocation prior to Brexit, we will ensure that they are funded to meet those commitments. It will be for the devolved Administrations to decide what criteria they use to assess projects, in line with the devolution settlements.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have three questions, which I will ask together and allow the Minister to deal with together. First, following up on the answer that he has just given about consultation with the devolved Administrations, I did not hear him say specifically what discussion there has been about the EU budget. He has indicated what will happen once the EU budget has been agreed and allocated, but can he clarify what discussions, if any, there were with the devolved Administrations prior to the Government beginning the process of agreeing the 2017 budget?

Secondly, in his explanatory memorandum of 11 July, the Minister did not tell us whether the Government supported the Commission’s proposals. What he has said today implies that the Government supported them at that early stage. Can he confirm that and tell us when the Government came to that position? It seems to me that if it was the Government’s position before 11 July that they would support the Commission’s proposals at the first reading stage, they should have told the European Scrutiny Committee that, so I am interested to know when they reached that position.

Finally, the budget still has to go through a number of further processes. The Minister reminded us that, as often happens, the Council and the European Parliament have different views about what they want in the final budget. It appears from the Minister’s comments that the Government are looking for the Commission’s proposals or less—certainly not any more. Given that there is disagreement with the directly elected European Parliament, will the Minister give a commitment that this will be brought back again and will go through the full scrutiny process, and that any requests of the European Scrutiny Committee will be complied with before the Government commit to supporting either the European Parliament’s proposals or some compromise thereon?

Scotland Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and David Gauke

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let me address the issues that have arisen during the debate, starting with new clause 20 and the refund situation. It is correct to say that there is a refund scheme for Government Departments and the NHS. This scheme refunds the VAT incurred on certain outsourced services. It was introduced to ensure that irrecoverable VAT does not dissuade Government Departments from contracting out services where this results in greater efficiencies of scale. There is also —this is relevant to the discussion—a refund scheme in respect of matters that can draw funding directly from local taxation. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is funded by the Scottish Government, rather than through any legal call on local taxes, so it does not meet this criterion.

That was not the case prior to the reforms brought in by the Scottish Government. I stress that this was a choice of the Scottish Government, with their eyes wide open to the fact that the VAT refund scheme would not be available in the event of that reform. They decided, as they were perfectly entitled to do, to proceed with those reforms, notwithstanding that loss.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

For 18 years, during which I was a member of both Fife regional council and Fife council, they were unitary authorities but we did not have a joint police board and we did not elect or appoint members from different authorities to a separate organisation in which the police were funded entirely by a budget decision of a single authority. In effect, they were operating financially as though they were the education service or the social work service. At that point they had the same VAT treatment as the police in Strathclyde or Lothian, which were managed by a joint board. Fife police did not have, in the Minister’s words, a legal call on the resources of the authority. They were funded because the authority thought it was the right thing to do, not because the police had the right to demand the funding from us. Will the Minister explain why the same position does not now apply to the Police Service of Scotland or the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

[Mr Gauke]

As I understand the situation that the hon. Gentleman set out, if services were funded through local taxation, the refund scheme was available. That is no longer the case, as the changes have been made. It therefore does not fall within section 33 as it currently stands. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) acknowledged, it is technically valid that the refund scheme does not apply.

Many arguments are made in respect of the VAT refund schemes, and requests are made that they be broadened and applied to additional organisations. It is customary for the case to be made that charities, for example, should benefit from such refunds. That comes with significant fiscal cost. Now is not the time to run through the whole argument, but there may well be a case for reconsidering the position, but we should not look at it in isolation because of a particular decision that was made in one case. If there is a case to do that, the matter should be looked at in the round, not just on the basis of one case.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and David Gauke

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I could understand the Government’s reluctance to incorporate the amendments in legislation if they did not deal strictly with the narrow interpretation of the Bill, but in view of what they ask the Government to do, I cannot see why the Government should be reluctant to take any of those actions. Why do they not simply give an undertaking to do so? Then we would not need the amendments, and we could all agree on something.

[Mr Gauke]

In the case of new clause 2, which relates to how we deal with the way in which the Council of Ministers works, we are making progress and taking action, which includes cutting the budget. In the case of new clause 1, I do not need to undertake to write a letter calling for the Commission to do something that it is already doing. As for new clause 3. I have already made it clear that I do not think it would be appropriate for us to impose on members of the European Scrutiny Committee something that is a matter for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I do not know whether that is a bid to be the first independent Scottish ambassador to the European Union, but if I am in a position to put anybody’s name forward I shall certainly bear in mind my right hon. Friend. He makes a valid point, which is related to the question he has asked repeatedly and on which he has still not had an answer: what the Prime Minister’s negotiating position and priorities are going to be. The fishing industry is not a massively important part of the United Kingdom’s economy; it is a massively important part of the economies of some nations that make up the United Kingdom. The negotiations are, however, always carried out through the Westminster lens, and it is seen as a major achievement when all we come back with is, “Not too many things have got worse.” We talk about aspiration. I think aspiration means we want things to get better, not to think we have achieved a lot when we come back from negotiations and have not had to lose too much.

The European Union does not mange its finances very well at all. We do not need to be accountants to work that out. Most companies would not be allowed to continue if they went 20 years without having their accounts signed off. Sometimes we need to look, however, at how we manage the part of it for which we are responsible. Some questions today, particularly those from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on the Labour Front Bench, about scrutiny of the European budget and the performance and financial management of the European Union, were pointing to weaknesses in the way this House holds Europe to account. That points either to a lack of involvement of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, or to the fact that it has not been given sufficient powers. There are many weaknesses in the way European finances affect the responsibilities of this Chamber, and changes could be made to the way this House holds Europe to account, but their delivery does not necessarily mean having to threaten to walk away from Europe altogether.

As I said in an earlier intervention, I do not see why the amendment needs to be put to a vote. It does not contain anything that the Government should be reluctant to do. I defer to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has left the Chamber, and his expertise on the procedures of the House and the position of the EU Scrutiny Committee, but it is time to put on a statutory basis a process whereby the Government ask things of Europe on our behalf—and which no Government in their right mind should be reluctant to do. How could any Government not want to ask Europe to be more accountable, or to think a wee bit more carefully about its spending priorities before it sets them? I hope that we see an outbreak of common sense among Government Members.

The United Kingdom’s position in whatever negotiations the Prime Minister has would be strengthened if we could find a way for this Bill to be amended and approved unopposed. If the proposed changes are put to a vote, I am minded to go with them. It would be sad if it were a matter of public record that this Committee had divided on such an important matter—on the crucial question of whether we wanted the Secretary of State to write a letter to Europe.

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a wide-ranging debate over the past two and a half hours. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was not far off the substance of the matter before us: the disagreement is over whether there should be placed in statute a requirement to write a letter.

I recognise the spirit of the proposed changes before us, and the need for us to improve the value of expenditure in the European Union, to cut down on waste and to increase transparency. We strongly support and have advocated those points.

I have to say that writing to the Commission, asking it to review the issues, will not particularly achieve the objectives we have heard set out, but the Government have taken action and continue to do so to improve EU spending. That began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, cutting the budget in real terms. It has forced the Commission to prioritise, which we very much welcome, and it has led to the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The UK is playing an active role in that process, and we continue to push the Commission to bear down on waste in its responses to the EU budget discharge process. The Government are contributing to the simplification proposals from the Commission, and the UK will continue to fight for restraint in the annual budget.

Those steps have led to concrete results: the Commission has become more transparent and has shifted more funding into pro-growth spending. We certainly make no apologies for that—although there appears to be some resistance to it in some parts of the House—and the UK’s contributions will be lower for every year in this seven-year deal period than in the final year of the last MFF deal. That is a saving of almost £8 billion over the forecast period compared with 2013-14.