Finance Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We shall shortly be having a discussion about the mechanics of setting VAT in the United Kingdom.

New clause 7 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). New clause 2, tabled by the Scottish National party, is similar but not as good. It was also tabled in Committee. The greater virtue of my hon. Friend’s new clause—in contradistinction to new clause 2—is that she has carefully listened to what the Government said in Committee about the road map, as we say these days, to achieving this worthy goal. She has worded her new clause in the light of the remarks made by the Minister in Committee, and I commend her for that. Her proposal has gained considerable momentum on both sides of the House, for obvious reasons. Of course, those of us on the Labour Front Bench will support it and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same. I will not say a great deal more about the new clause—

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Some of us do have a certain amount to say about it. These are weasel words. The Opposition know perfectly well that they are not going for a full relief, or any relief, and are instead going for a pathetic little report, because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. The hon. Gentleman knows it, and we know it. These are weasel words, and the proposal would make no real change.

[Rob Marris]

I wish no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to get into a big debate about this subject. It is not a great idea for a man to stand at the Dispatch Box and get into such a debate. On the broader issue of the European Union, it might surprise him to learn that more than half the population of the EU is female. It might also surprise him to contemplate the fact that this measure could be on the shopping list that our Prime Minister takes to Brussels, and that it could gain considerable support—from the Chancellor of Germany, Mrs Merkel, for example.

[Rob Marris]

It would be a welcome development. As I have indicated—

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Rob Marris]

No, I will not give way—

[Sir William Cash]

Why not?

[Rob Marris]

I will not give way for two reasons. First, the hon. Gentleman can seek to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye later. Secondly, as I have said, I do not propose to get drawn into a debate on this issue. I support my sisters in the Labour party and around the House, and they are more capable than I am of putting forward the reasons behind the measure being proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. They are more than capable. They do not need me to do it, and I shall say no more than I have already done.

New clause 10 seeks to place a statutory requirement on the Government to produce a report, within two years of the passing of the legislation, on the effects of clause 47 and schedule 8. In lay terms, clause 47 and schedule 8 will—with safeguards—allow HMRC to nick money out of our bank accounts without a court order.

Of course, under these provisions HMRC would not, in any legal sense, be stealing money from a bank account. Were it to do so, that would be covered by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968—I am not a criminal lawyer, but that is my recollection of it. What HMRC would be doing is something that other people cannot do: it would, with safeguards, be removing money from a debtor’s bank account without a court order and without the agreement of that debtor. That is a very big step forward for our society to agree to, refracted through clause 47. In Committee, the Labour Members tried to persuade the Government not to press ahead with the clause, as did other organisations, but we failed on that. We are not trying that again tonight directly, but we are saying that we take cognisance of the safeguards the Government have introduced and beefed up as a result of representations, and that a report should be produced within two years to see how they are working.

Before I deal with the safeguards, I wish to remind the House of why clause 47, allowing HMRC to go into people’s bank accounts without a court order, has been introduced. One major driver is HMRC’s fears about revenue loss through non-compliance. In an earlier Budget speech, the Chancellor said:

“I am increasing the budget of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackle non-compliance.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 785.]

That was welcome: there is too much non-compliance going on, some of it blatant, some of it immoral avoidance but not illegal evasion, such as large corporations squirreling away money in tax havens and in places such as Luxembourg; and there are people who owe money to HMRC but fail to pay, and so HMRC has to take steps to recover that money.

Another major reason given by HMRC, which might trouble the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), was as follows:

“The current processes for recovering debts…can be costly”.

That was said on page 2 of the consultation document, which contains an introduction by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—the words I read out were not his but they were contained in a document whose preface he wrote. Paragraph 2.31 on page 9 goes on to say that

“a county court judgment…can be a slow and expensive process.”

In clause 47, the Government are therefore saying, “We find the court system a bit slow and a bit costly, so we are going to have our own system to take money out of people’s bank accounts, with safeguards.” That is echoed in clause 48.

Where someone wins at court, there is a calculation to be made as to how much they are owed on a debt. I believe the basis for calculating what is known as the judgment debt rate goes back to about 1837, but the Government are not having that either in clause 48. Under the interest rate provision in clause 48, and in clause 47 on HMRC taking money out of bank accounts without a court order, we have one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us. We have to ask ourselves: are they right about the court system? Is it a slow and expensive process? I have not practised law for almost 15 years, but I try to keep up with it and I think the process is getting slower and more “costly”. That is because it has been starved of money by this Government and their predecessor Conservative-led Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty is that we have high energy prices because we have not invested in new technology to bring them down. For example, if we had cracked the holy grail of carbon capture and storage on a commercial basis—it is already cracked on a scientific basis—this country would be quids in, because of all the coal we have.

[Sir William Cash]

The short response to what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that massive subsidies deployed in other countries are being authorised by the European Commission, but we do not get them. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said just now, there is an increasing failure in renewable energy because it is too expensive and the subsidies are a complete disaster zone.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the European energy market and the production of energy within the European Union are a bit of a mess. The United Kingdom is part of that mess because we are in the European Union, but it is a mess here anyway because we have not tackled energy security. Again, the problem started under the previous Labour Government and I berated them for it at the time. I was berating a Labour Government on energy security before I lost my seat in 2010, and on returning to this House five years later, so far as I can tell almost nothing has been done on that front apart from the poisonous deal—in many senses of the word—backed by China and EDF for new nuclear power stations in this country.

One can see a bit of a pattern with what is happening with the removal at 28 days’ notice of the climate change levy exemption for electricity from renewable sources used by non-domestics—non-doms, as it were. The Liberal Democrat policy was for the percentage of taxation to come from environmental taxes to keep rising year on year, and when the Liberal Democrats first came up with that crazy idea in about 2007 I pointed out that it was a bit self-defeating. That has been formally abandoned by this Government, which is not necessarily a mistake, but in the context the issue is what has or has not replaced that policy. Support for large onshore wind is being cut, and support for photovoltaics is being ended one year early. The Government’s policy is to lessen air passenger duty, and they aim to abolish it and to expand airports. That is not good news for the environment. The policy on zero-carbon homes for 2016 is being scrapped, not just diluted. There is a massive nuclear subsidy, which we heard about last week with the visit from China. What will our nuclear industry be built on? State support from China and from France.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. We want those highly skilled jobs and we want the cheaper energy that one hopes we can get from that technology. We need the Government to kick-start research and development investment to develop that technology. However, I must caution my hon. Friend. There is only so far I can go in agreeing with him. Yes, we want those jobs, and quite a lot of them will be highly skilled, but it is a dead end for us as a country always to have subsidised jobs. That is the obvious thing to say, but it is a dead end. We need a plan to get from where we are, without energy security and without technological development, to the sunlit uplands where we have that technology and development, and where they are self-sufficient and commercially viable. That will need some support from Government, and the removal under clause 45 of the CCL exemption for electricity from renewable resources used by non-doms is a step in the wrong direction.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth wrote to me on 26 August saying that the Government had committed to delivering on the national infrastructure plan published in December 2014, which contained a number of priority investments. He went on to list some of them. One is rail electrification, and we know what has happened to that—it is on pause. Another is low-carbon energy such as nuclear; we know the cost of that, which is enormous. A third is low-carbon energy such as renewables, but clause 45 is going in the wrong direction on that. Lord Bourne also cites energy efficiency measures such as smart meters, but the evidence on them is mixed, to say the least. Before Conservative Members jump up, I know that it was a Labour Government who started down that route and it struck me as a very odd thing to do at the time.

The final point that Lord Bourne mentions, which will please my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, is carbon capture and storage. We need to go down that route, but as I say, we need a bit more help from Government, and the measure in clause 45 goes in the wrong direction—at least, we are uncertain what direction it is going in as there has not been a whole bunch of consultation on it as far as I can tell and I am not aware of an impact assessment.

On 8 July—Budget day, I believe—HMRC put out a consultation document on the subject, which said that one of the factors being examined was the “operational impact” in pounds. It stated:

“Changes in HMRC costs are estimated to be negligible and would fall as part of the existing operational cost of administering CCL. The government will consult Ofgem and NIAUR”—

that is, the utility regulator—

“over summer/autumn 2015 to establish the costs and other impacts on the regulators of removing the exemption.”

That is a consultation, as I understand it, only on the impacts on the regulators, but that might shed some light on the impact on the industry and on employment. I hope that when he responds to the debate, the Minister can address that point.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not think new clause 7 is strong enough. It just asks for progress. We are not doing enough. Let me explain why.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who presumably helped to draft this proposal, knows perfectly well that he is trying to find a way of satisfying those who would like to see a serious attempt made to reduce the VAT on these products. They are clearly necessary and the tax on them should be reduced in the way that has been proposed. Unfortunately, however, he also knows that because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act, it is impossible to do that without getting the agreement of all the other member states. There is a variation as between other member states and ourselves to the advantage of those states, the net result of which is that supporters of new clause 7 are not going to get that agreement and they know it.

I am completely on the side of those who want to see a total elimination of VAT on these products.

[Stella Creasy]

I note with pleasure the hon. Gentleman’s support for the idea that tampons, as they are called, and sanitary towels are an essential. I am an avid follower of many of his debates in Parliament, and I know that he has raised concerns before about the European Union. Having discovered his support for this proposal, I wonder whether he can update us on when he last raised in this House the issue of VAT on tampons.

[Sir William Cash]

I am not going to say that I did, but I put through an Act of Parliament, the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, both to protect women and to promote their interests, with massive support from all parts of the House, so I want no suggestion that I am backward in coming forward on these issues.

New clause 7 contains weasel words. It does not solve anything. It is not in the interests of the United Kingdom not to deal with the problem properly.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I have raised the issue over a number of years, and I am pleased that we are debating it tonight. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is one of the ridiculous things that the European Union does, and that we need to get back in our own country control of how we levy VAT, which is why we should vote to leave the European Union?

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s last remark, for the reasons that she has given. We need to get back control over our own power to make laws, levy taxation and deal with all the matters which we do not need to go into today. The supremacy of this House affects tax, spending, and the way in which we run our own country. We have a right and a duty to return to the people of this country the right to govern themselves. This happens to be an extremely good example of the kind of thing that would help women in a way that I would much like to see.

[Stella Creasy]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about his concern for global gender inequality, and his support for the idea that tampons are an essential and therefore should not be zero-rated. There is another way to read the amendment, is there not? Were we to pass it and to propose these matters at the European Union and secure zero-rating on tampons across the whole EU, he would be showing solidarity with his sisters in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy—indeed, he could be helping many more women by supporting zero-rating across the European Union.

[Sir William Cash]

If there were a cat in hell’s chance that we would get this through the European Union, I would entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s sentiments. I would like to see the changes. The problem is that everybody on the Opposition Benches and the Government know quite well that they are not going to be able to achieve that with the kind of progress report that is mentioned in the new clause. It would be a great opportunity now to propose a provision that would override European law to make sure that we could achieve the objectives that she and I clearly share.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I do not want to pursue this, not least because I am avidly waiting for the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), which I think will be compelling, but may I give him a spark of hope? It is not just on these shores that there are women—and men—fighting for zero-rating on tampons; there are others doing so in France. The proposal was put forward just this summer. Should he choose to vote with us and support the new clause, he will be joining many people across the European Union. I want him to have hope that we can win this at the European level, rather than the despair that he currently feels.

[Sir William Cash]

My final remarks on the issue are these: that is wishful thinking. What is needed is not a report, but action—action to return to this Parliament the right to determine its own levels of taxation. I regard the proposals in the new clause as aspirations without substance, yet I agree with the underlying principle, which can be implemented only by an effective legislative change to the Finance Bill, whereby we take back control over our own affairs and govern not only the men but the women of this country in the way in which they would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Sherriff]

I completely agree that homeless women face enough challenges without the added burden of periods without sanitary products.

Some great work is being done by food banks, and student unions, such as those at Leeds University and Sheffield University, have started selling sanitary products at cost price in order to avoid VAT, but this is an issue where the Government need to lead from the front. The Minister told us in Committee that he was sympathetic to this, but we do not need to be patronised with tea, sympathy and platitudes; we demand action. He told us that his hands were tied and that change would require difficult negotiations and EU reform, but the Prime Minister has just promised us that he will undertake just such negotiations, and that he will be able to deliver just such EU reforms. This issue, which affects the majority of people across Europe, could hardly be more difficult to achieve than the rest of his demands.

Frankly, VAT on tampons is the vagina added tax. It is a tax on women, pure and simple. Therefore, instead of going to Brussels to water down our protections at work, the Prime Minister has an opportunity to deliver a victory for women across the continent. This issue transcends party politics, and I am pleased that the amendment has received cross-party support, from other parties on the Opposition Benches and from some Members on the Government Benches. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House will support taking steps to axe the tampon tax tonight.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady refers to people across Europe, no doubt meaning the European Union. The only problem is that if we cannot get unanimity among all member states, we will not get any change at all. From that point of view, the most important thing is to fight and fight again to ensure that we get what we want, but also to guarantee that we bring back the powers to this House.

[Paula Sherriff]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should do absolutely nothing about this huge inequality that affects more than half the population. We have an opportunity to take a significant step forward for women and families this evening. We turned our clocks back on Sunday. Let us not turn them back even further tonight, period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Members may have seen the images circulating on the internet of groups of world leaders with the men photoshopped out, where Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton cut lonely figures. A version has even been done of the House of Commons. I imagine that some of these Benches would look pretty bare this evening if we took away the men.

That is a stark reminder that despite much progress, we still have a long way to go before gender equality is realised. That is desirable not just for its own sake but because without women the issues that disproportionately affect women do not get resolved. VAT on essential women’s sanitary products is one such issue: it affects only women. I dare say that if it did affect men, it would have been resolved long before now. Every month when I purchase a box of tampons or towels, the Chancellor benefits. Women, on average, begin menstruating at age 12 and continue until age 52. That represents a significant sum of money spent by every woman in the country over their lifetime. This seems particularly unfair for younger women who may not even be old enough to work. That is why our new clause mentions women under 25, who will most likely be in lower-paid jobs or not yet working at all.

I do not know of any woman who exclaims on a monthly basis, “I have my period—what a luxury!” For women, these items are not treats, and they are certainly not optional. Any number of female colleagues here today may have their period and nobody knows, and that is quite right. But people would certainly know all about it if, like the brave London marathon runner, Kiran Gandi, we came into this House deliberately forgoing sanitary protection. That is no doubt an uncomfortable prospect for male Members of this House, but I would say, “Good. I did not come here today, or any day, to make you feel comfortable but to challenge any status quo that I feel is unjust, and I am not done yet.”

I want to highlight the particular case of maternity pads. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, it is illogical that incontinence pads are zero rated but maternity pads are not. Such pads are essential for women who have just had a baby; they are absolutely essential for post-birth lochia for up to 10 days after birth. I do not understand why these items are not treated as medical items and similarly zero rated.

[Sir William Cash]

Can the hon. Lady explain—I am genuinely curious—whether these matters have been raised in the Scottish Parliament and what is the attitude of the Scottish Government?

[Alison Thewliss]

As I suspect the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Scottish Parliament does not have jurisdiction over this matter, but the SNP feels sufficiently strongly about it that we put it in our party manifesto for this place, and the First Minister has been vocal in speaking out in support of zero rating for sanitary products. We would very much like this to happen, and we will give any support that we can in the Scottish Parliament as well as from our Benches here.

This issue has been very protracted over many years, and this House cannot resolve it alone, but we can make a start. VAT has already been reduced by a previous Labour Government, and we have a good deal of cross-party support here tonight. I think that we can do much better than the Prime Minister, who, during the election campaign, described this as a “difficult” issue and said that he “can’t remember the answer”. The answer, of course, is that we can take a lead on this. In June 2015, the European Commission, which is yet to have a female President—perhaps that would make a difference on such issues—gave an answer that was not entirely positive. It set out the background to its reasons why this cannot be done, but it also said:

“As part of its upcoming work on a definitive VAT regime based on the destination principle, the Commission will assess the functioning and possible improvements to the system of reduced rates.”

So we have an opportunity to get involved in this debate to say that this is an important issue for us as a nation and for women across Europe.

We have an opportunity and an obligation to try again to resolve this issue. Members may not know this, but the Republic of Ireland entered the European Union at the time of a 0% rating on sanitary products that it was able to retain in much the same way as we have derogations in different areas, so there is already a precedent within the EU of a zero rating in a European member state. I urge the Government to take a lead on this for women across these islands and across the EU. Let us end this bloody unfairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Surely what this really boils down to is that the European institutions intend to—and actually do—tax women on these products in order to get the money to run the very system that is discriminatory.

[Mr Jenkin]

Our problem with the EU’s VAT directives is that they are a one-way street. Once the EU has adopted powers to regulate a particular tax, that power cannot be taken back by the member states. We are then left begging the EU as to whether we can set the tax rates for which the British people vote, as opposed to setting them ourselves. It strikes me as ironic that the Scottish National party wants independence from the United Kingdom in order to do its own thing, but it is happy to go on giving up more and more power to the European Union, so it will have even less freedom and less voice than it has in the UK.

The problem is that once VAT rates on any product are set above 5%, the European Union does not allow any member state to reduce them to below 5% again. We therefore have an anomaly whereby there is a zero VAT rate on sanitary products in the Republic of Ireland because it has never charged VAT on them. Had we started from the principle of charging no VAT on sanitary products, we would be in the same position as Ireland, but because we already charged it we cannot take it away. What a mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). However he got to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), I am grateful, because tonight we have an opportunity to make progress on this issue.

I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and hear his story of our meeting back in 1993—more than 20 years ago. That offers a parable for tonight’s debate, and an opportunity for the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) to have hope when it comes to difficult issues. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is right to recall that, as a newly elected MP, he came to my school to speak to the girls on a wet afternoon, and got a grilling from one member of the sixth form. I am sad that the debates we had about child poverty and access to further education did not make such an impression on him, but I am delighted and genuinely humbled to hear that he took the issue that we raised back to the then shadow Cabinet for debate. As he knows, at the same time my headteacher threatened to exclude me should I ask the MP any more difficult questions.

The parable that I think that offers for negotiations in Europe is simple: we may need courage to raise difficult issues with a respected authority figure, but—I say this to the hon. Member for Stone—look at what happens when such issues are raised. People who we think might disagree with us, in fact turn out 20 years later to be champions for social and progressive change.

[Sir William Cash]

In 1993 we were conducting the entire Maastricht referendum in order to get the results that the hon. Lady wants on this particular matter. At that time, we realised that if we did not sort out the European Union properly, we would never get the kind of equality that she is now demanding.

[Stella Creasy]

The idea that if we do not ask a question we shall never find out the answer is an issue that is on point tonight, and one reason why this eminently reasonable and sensible new clause should garner support from across the House. This debate has not happened at the European level, and, given what happened 20 years ago, my point is that when we ask such questions and challenge people, we can be amazed at the results we secure.

This debate is not about VAT or even the European Union. I recognise that the hon. Member for Wycombe was too young to take part in the vote to join the European Community, but my point in mentioning the purchase tax is that it is a bit of a red herring to think that this is about the European Union. Tampons and sanitary towels have always been considered a luxury. That is not by accident; that is by design in an unequal society in which the concerns of women are not treated as equal to those of men. Even if we were not in the European Union, there is every possibility that a purchase tax would be applied to sanitary towels and tampons but not to other products.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

Go on then.

[Sir William Cash]

The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 was nothing to do with the European Union. Some of us believe passionately in the same sorts of arguments that the hon. Lady is putting forward, and that is by no means exclusive to issues of the European Union.

[Stella Creasy]

I will come on to issues of gender and equality on an international level, but I give the hon. Gentleman warning that I will not take any more interventions from him unless he uses the terms “sanitary towels” and “tampons”. It is important to use appropriate wording in the House.

The inequality that women have faced in having to pay this tax has existed for generations. The question for us all is what we can do to change that, which is why I add my name to those who have congratulated the former Member for Bristol South, Dame Dawn Primarolo. She is a hero to many of us for her persistence in fighting to reduce the rate of VAT on sanitary towels and tampons in the European Union in 2000. I have talked to her at first hand about those negotiations—she had to use the appropriate terms and explain that if we did not resolve this issue, men and women could be sitting next to each other, with women experiencing their periods and the difficulties that can come from that, but without that same protection because of the cost of these products. Her work was visionary.

Talking to Dame Dawn Primarolo, it became clear that this is not about VAT rates but about VAT descriptions. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this, because there is common agreement that we wish to resolve this issue and a recognition that in 2015, a tax on women—a femitax, a vagina tax, or whatever we want to call it—is unfair. The issue can be resolved not necessarily by considering VAT rates, but by considering the way that VAT is described and ascribed to certain products. That is where the inequality has come from—the concept of what is a necessity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I have been very clear with the hon. Gentleman. Unless he is prepared to talk about the actual products that we are discussing, I will not take any more interventions from him, but if he is indicating that he can say the word, I will happily give way.

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the question of sanitary towels and tampons, may I simply make this point? I recognise that the hon. Lady really knows what she is talking about, so I would like to know whether, in her experience, there is a similar problem internationally, outside the European Union, that perhaps comes from international organisations? Could she please explain whether there is anything in that?

[Stella Creasy]

And people say that progress cannot be made in this Chamber or that there cannot be cross-party agreement! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, 10% of girls in Africa do not go to school when they have their periods because they do not have appropriate sanitary protection, so he is right to be concerned about this. What I am saying—let us see whether we can tempt him to make further progress—is that feminism should be without borders; in which case we should be concerned about inequality in the tax rates and VAT that our sisters pay in a range of countries, including those in the European Union.

Tonight we have an opportunity, here in the British Parliament, to show solidarity across the continent and make sure that this issue is part of the negotiating process. Because let us be honest, it was never part of the negotiating process in this House prior to joining the European Community. It was only part of the negotiating process because of Dame Dawn Primarolo. It is a red herring to think that this is about the European Union; rather, it is a recognition that the time has come to end these inequalities. Our sisters in France tried to bring forward legislation just this summer and were defeated. What a strong message of social progress we could send from the British Parliament today by passing this proposal and sending our Prime Minister to have that difficult conversation and to say, “How do we clarify the way in which essential items are categorised across the European Union? How do we make this work for 51% of our population?”

I am sensing from the hon. Member for Stone that he does care about these issues deeply and does recognise the inequality. If he has frustration tonight, it is simply that he is not seeing progress happening quickly enough. Let me reassure him that, whether it takes 20 years or two hours of debate, it is possible to make progress. I urge him to support our new clause, so that we can send our Prime Minister to the European Union with something worth fighting for. We can all hear back from him in February whether he has made progress and been able to say to our French, German and Italians counterparts that tampons and sanitary towels should be treated as necessities in 2015. I am sure that when we hear that message from the Minister tonight, he will give us great succour—that he will use the appropriate terms and bring us all into the 21st century by supporting the new clause as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I will address that point in a moment.

New clause 7 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

“lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on his strategy to negotiate with the European Union institutions an exemption from value added tax for women’s sanitary protection products”

within three months of the passing of the Act. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to

“lay before Parliament a report on progress at achieving an exemption from value added tax for women’s sanitary protection products within European Union law by 1 April 2016.”

This debate has highlighted the ongoing campaign to zero-rate or exempt from VAT tampons and other sanitary protection products. As we have heard tonight, that campaign has cross-party support. In the case of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), that support goes back many years to when she was at school. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) has also campaigned on the issue for many years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) has raised it tonight and on other occasions, as have many other hon. Members.

As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, this Government sympathise with the aim of the new clause. As we have also heard, however, the UK does not have the ability to extend zero rating to new products unilaterally. We have more extensive zero rating than most, if not all, other member states, but any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states. Without that agreement, we are not permitted to lower rates below 5%. None the less, as this debate illustrates, there is considerable cross-party support for the UK to abolish VAT on sanitary products. To that end, I undertake to raise the issue with the European Commission and with other member states, and to set out the view, which has been reflected in this debate, that it should be possible for a member state to apply a zero rate to sanitary products. In that context, I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for raising the matter tonight. We have seen on both sides of the House a demonstration of the belief that that flexibility should exist.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend used the word “permitted”. We do not have the capacity to effect a change such as this, because of the European Communities Act 1972. He knows that, the Opposition know it, and Members on the Conservative Benches know it. Will he now commit not only to talking about this but to doing something about it? It is a hugely important cross-party issue. Will he please take on board the fact that we insist on legislating on our own terms in this House? We want to govern ourselves.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not want to conceal from the House the fact that we do not have flexibility in these circumstances. Nor do I want to conceal the challenge that we would face in reaching agreement on this. Other member states take a different approach. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow has pointed out, it was striking that the vote in the French Assembly just a couple of weeks ago on an attempt to move the rate down from 20% to 5.5% was defeated. I do not wish to pretend that this would be a mere formality; other member states do take a different approach to this issue.

Euro Area

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[John Redwood]

Indeed. After I secured the debate, no less a figure than the President of the French Republic made an important speech saying that the recommendations of the five presidents of the European Union do not go far enough. I thought theirs was a blockbuster recipe for pretty comprehensive union, but the President of France has said that he would like them to go further and faster. He would like to supplant the current European Parliament, or put alongside it a euro area parliament, to provide some democratic accountability to the increasingly large and important decisions that the Eurogroup makes.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend also note that, according to the press release I have here, President Hollande said that the eurozone needed a specific budget as well as its own government and parliament? In other words, they are going for political union or bust in the eurozone.

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The President of France has gone even further than the five presidents. I will briefly highlight what is in the rather lengthy and important report, because it has escaped most comment and attention in the United Kingdom. The five presidents say:

“For all economies to be permanently better off inside the euro area, they also need to be able to share the impact of shocks through risk-sharing within the EMU. In the short term, this risk-sharing can be achieved through integrated financial and capital markets”.

That is pretty comprehensive union, which they call “private risk-sharing”. Those markets would be

“combined with the necessary common backstops, i.e. a last-resort financial safety net”—

presumably that is public finance. They continue:

“In the medium term, as economic structures converge…public risk-sharing should be enhanced through a mechanism of fiscal stabilisation for the euro area as a whole.”

That is rather wordy and slightly opaque, but I think the meaning is clear. The five presidents have recognised that to have a successful single currency, taxpayer money needs to be standing behind the financial institutions—the banks and others—and the states involved in that financial union. That is exactly the issue that the tragedy of Greece has highlighted.

Euro banknotes have no symbols of French or German taxpayers in the way that our banknotes have the Queen as a representation of the full power of the sovereign in Parliament and the revenues going into the Treasury. Euro banknotes do not have that, for the good reason that the symbols could not be agreed and there was a bit of reluctance to put the full power of taxpayers behind the banknote. They have a misleading symbol on them: the European Union flag. One has to ask why that is, when the United Kingdom—the largest country in the “outs”—has made clear that we have no wish to put any taxpayer money or finance behind the euro, because it is not our project and we are not part of it. That illustrates a much bigger problem that the eurozone is grappling with: who stands behind its banks? Who stands behind the member states when they get into financial difficulties? That problem has come out in the Greek struggle.

The five presidents go on to say:

“Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union…Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing…This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation”—

that means sharing tax revenues, basically—and

“finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability”.

They go on to say that there will have to be a lot more common decision making or shared sovereignty, although I would call that the gift of sovereignty to a higher body. They say that

“this would require Member States to accept increasingly joint decision-making on elements of their respective national budgets and economic policies. Upon completion of a successful process of economic convergence and financial integration, this would pave the way for some degree of public risk sharing”—

that is, countries using other people’s taxes to sort out their own problems—

“which would at the same time have to be accompanied by stronger democratic participation”.

[John Redwood]

I hope that it would be the United States of Euroland, but my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will say that we will not be part of it and that a plan exists to negotiate a new relationship for the United Kingdom. We will clearly need such a relationship, because no party in this House wants the UK to risk-share on that basis, putting in British taxpayer money to help Greece, Portugal or whoever is in trouble due to the euro.

The five presidents want a euro area system of competitiveness authorities that will try and create commonality of policy and outturn across the Union. They claim to have largely achieved the goal of bank supervision with the setting up of the single supervisory mechanism, but the single resolution mechanism is not fully implemented, and they want to complete a financial union, launching a common deposit insurance scheme and a full capital markets union. They want to get on with those immediately and not await treaty change, which they will need for some of their other proposals.

The five presidents ultimately want a single European capital markets supervisor, which would have great implications for the City of London and the conduct of our markets and our regulatory system were we to take part. They say that

“regulation creates incentives to risk-pooling and risk-sharing and ensures that all financial institutions have sufficient risk management structures in place and remain prudentially sound.”

Even more importantly, they go on to say, referring to the capital markets union:

“Taxation can also play an important role in terms of providing a neutral treatment for different but comparable activities and investments across jurisdictions.”

Will the United Kingdom be able to opt out of this capital markets union? If we sign up to it, does that mean that we would have to accept common European taxation on this rather important business interest for the UK?

Last, but by no means least, the report contains a heading referring to a euro-area treasury, under which it states:

“The Stability and Growth Pact remains the anchor for fiscal stability and confidence in the respect of our fiscal rules. In addition, a genuine Fiscal Union will require more joint decision-making on fiscal policy”—

in other words, a euro-area treasury.

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend knows this, but there is benefit in getting it on the record. The Germans and the French broke the stability and growth pact three years in succession with impunity when it suited them. On the question of how far our Government would go in accepting the proposals, does he agree that the creation of a eurozone is only a de facto organisation and not a legal one? We are caught up in this. When the fiscal compact was proposed, our Prime Minister, having listened to us, decided that he would veto. Would we not want him to veto all this as well and to make it clear that that is the case now?

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the legal complexities that the euro area and the EU face. He is right that there is no formal, treaty-backed legal entity of the euro in full. There is the relatively informal euro-group of Ministers, who meet monthly just before the full economic affairs council, to settle euro business.

The process has gone a bit further, because of course there is a separate legal entity called the European stability mechanism, which is a formal entity for bailing out or offering loans to euro states in need of additional money. It is currently the object of the entreaties of the Greek state as the Hellenic Republic seeks a long-term loan to replace the short-term loan that the European financial stabilisation mechanism has just provided to see it through July. Greece is currently in negotiation over €86 billion—Germany would like it to be less—of possible money from the ESM. There is a legal structure to do some of the financing but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, they probably need treaty modification and a firm legal basis for the euro. In recognition of that, the five presidents suggest that they may need to move towards having an elected-President of the eurozone, which I imagine would have full legal authority and would therefore give personality to the zone as a legal entity and which would make things easier from their point of view.

I am conscious that several colleagues have turned up to join in this debate and, with your permission Sir David, I would like to see whether they can be accommodated, so I will move rapidly on to my questions to the Minister. It seems that much of what the five presidents want is perfectly reasonable in the context of people who have set up a currency that does not yet have a country to love it or back it. They desperately need to make a lot of progress to create a political union, to create a flow of tax revenues and to provide the financial solidity that a main currency usually has, so I can see their agenda. We have already heard the French President say this week, “Let’s go further and faster”, so we know the direction of travel.

Will my hon. Friend reassure us that the UK could not conceivably travel that route? Having made the crucial decision not to join the euro, the British people and Parliament are not going to want to go down the route of political union. Will he also say where the British Government will now stand on the challenge or opportunity of full banking and capital markets union? There would be great hazards in the UK signing up to the full banking and capital markets union, because that would, by implication, drag us into the financing of the euro area and involve us in decisions that it would properly want to make for itself, as we are not a full member. I would be grateful to hear the latest Government thinking on how we can have our own independent markets but co-operate with and work alongside the euro area as it creates its capital markets union.

It seems to me that there will definitely have to be treaty change. The five presidents are suggesting that they can get by without treaty change until 2017, after which they will need it. From the UK’s point of view, that is an inconvenient date, because we would like treaty change as a result of our renegotiations. As the gap between the likely date of our referendum and the date for the euro area considering treaty changes is quite narrow, might one part of our renegotiation be to say to our partners in Europe, “As you need treaty changes quite soon and we would like them now, let’s bring the thing together”? Is it not the case that the treaty changes we need relate not only to the fact that the EU already has more power then we would like over aspects of our lives, but to the fact that it is about to take a lot more power to consolidate the euro? That is a step that we could not conceivably take.

The detailed issues under all that relate to who is responsible for recapitalising failing banks—for example, who is going to recapitalise the Greek banks? Are we fully insulated from all that? Are we now happy that the formulation from the European financial stabilisation mechanism is watertight so that there is no recourse to British taxpayers in the temporary loan to Greece? Can we ensure that all future bailout loans and other advances to euro states come entirely from euro funding and not from EU legal structures, which have added complications? Can we urge the euro area to ensure that it completes its banking arrangements as quickly as possible? It would be much to the convenience of not merely the Greeks but everyone else who needs to deal with Greece that its banks do not shut down for several weeks and can reopen, as they have done partially today, with a full service, so that they can be a proper part of the European market and the world economy.

This is a great opportunity for the UK from which the Prime Minister should take heart. I admire the honesty of the five presidents coming out with all this now, despite the Greek crisis and the knowledge that the UK wishes to negotiate a new relationship. I think it makes things much easier for us, and we should share that fact with the British public, which is what I am trying to do in my modest way today. We must say that there is a big plot afoot—a wild ride to political union that is not something to which the UK can sign up. We should not get in their way, but the price of our happy consent to their new arrangements must be a new set of arrangements for us to get back powers that insulate us from all this. We need to try to find a way to work alongside the euro without being part of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Perhaps I should put on the record the fact that this morning I was re-elected as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

In a nutshell, everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said is completely true. The current situation represents both a massive challenge and an opportunity for the Government. On a number of occasions, when the Prime Minister has been confronted with such difficult, challenging questions, he has decided to do the right thing. This debate, however, demonstrates that there is another new opportunity because of the disarray in the European Union.

The question of the relationship between the eurozone and the rest of the EU provides us with an opportunity, in particular given what President Hollande has said about wanting a eurozone budget, Government and Parliament, as I said in my intervention. That is completely inconceivable for the United Kingdom, the Government and our Parliament. We would be driven inexorably into all the nooks and crannies of those arrangements, because we are bound to be affected by them, as we already have been in the crisis that has engulfed Europe for the past five or six years and that I believe has been apparent since the Maastricht treaty in 1990.

The question of what President Hollande said a few days ago is important. In my judgment, what is significant is that he has a real problem with Germany—I will come on to Germany—because the question for France is one of sovereignty and the question for Germany is one of sharing the risk. That will present a significant problem between France and Germany, which is why Angela Merkel and President Hollande clearly had severe differences of opinion. This is a moment when it is imperative for the British Government to make their position clear. With France and Germany at loggerheads over the question of sovereignty and sharing economic risk, we have a classic Waterloo moment, when we should simply go straight through with our cavalry and say through the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Prime Minister what we will not have, that we want clarity and that this is not the time for fudge. This is the time for decisive action and to make it clear what we cannot possibly accept.

Other matters to be looked at include the purposes that lie behind what Wolfgang Schäuble has been edging and pushing, nudging and driving, during the Greek crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and I each wrote essays in a recent book called “Visions of Europe II”, following on from “Visions of Europe”, which came out in 1993 and in which I quoted myself. I said, I hope not immodestly, that

“the answer to the German question lies primarily in Germany itself”,

but to

“hand her the key to the legal structure of Europe with a majority voting system gravitating around alliances dependent on Germany simply hands to”

Germany

“legitimate power on a plate.”

We can say that that is exactly what has happened since I wrote those words in 1990.

Furthermore, because I wanted to be positive, I wrote:

“Britain wants to work together with Germany in a fair and balanced relationship, based on free trade, co-operation and democratic principles. She does not want to be forced into a legal structure dominated by Germany. Plans for a united Europe stray into the darkest political territory, and must be firmly rejected.”

That was in 1990, and here we are now.

I added that

“if Germany needs to be contained, the Germans must do it themselves…now is the time for the Germans to prove themselves”—

I am afraid that they have. Given the treatment of Greece, irrespective of whether there was culpability on the part of the Greeks, the really big landscape—the manner in which the whole European project has been driven forward since Maastricht—the really big landscape—the manner in which the whole European project has been driven forward since Maastricht—is that the Germans are now in control of the eurozone. No one doubts that. I have a whole stack of cuttings here, from Germany, including from Bild, and from French newspapers. I do not have time to go through them all, but every single newspaper throughout the whole of Europe—rather curiously, there was a fairly muted response from the British press—has made the assumption that it is now effectively a German eurozone, if not a German Europe.

It is not in our interests to allow that, or to allow ourselves to be affected by this situation. We will be driven into the second tier of a two-tier Europe. The eurozone is part of the over-arching legal framework of the EU as a whole, of which we are a part. That is what is driving us towards the exit of the European Union.

[John Redwood]

I wonder, Sir David, whether, if my hon. Friend agrees, it might be helpful to know how many colleagues would like to speak, so they can all have a fair amount of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

On that point, I will sit down so that others can have their shot. I simply wanted to get that point about Germany across.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Sir David, for your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) on securing the debate. It is a particular pleasure to end the term by debating some of these issues with my old friends on the Government Benches.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham chose his usual neutral language to describe the report of the five presidents as a plot to take us on a wild ride to a European superstate. I want briefly to discuss the report and pose two questions, not so much directly to the Minister but for consideration in the debate. First, is what the report outlines a threat to the UK, and secondly, will the measures in it happen? Let me elaborate on both of those points for a couple of minutes.

Of course, it is timely to be discussing how the eurozone moves forward in the wake of what we have seen in Greece in recent weeks, but it is also instructive, as has been said, that throughout all the difficulties, and even in the wake of the referendum that was held a couple of weeks ago in Greece, a majority of people both on the yes side and on the no side wanted to stay in the euro and the eurozone. That was not a referendum about breaking with the European Union.

The discussion about how the eurozone moves forward and tries to resolve some of the difficulties—weaknesses, one might say—in its architecture that have been exposed by the crisis is not a plot. It is not surprising that this discussion is happening. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has said time after time that members of the eurozone will inevitably come closer together in the wake of the crisis and what it has exposed. The report does set out major changes—I will not detail them all, because the right hon. Member for Wokingham set them out—such as convergence, mutualisation, risk sharing and so on, but it is not a plot, and the direction of travel it sets out for the eurozone is not surprising in the wake of the crisis. As I said, the question for us is whether it is a threat. Surely it is in our interests that the eurozone sorts itself out, eases the unemployment that Members have referred to, secures better economic growth and becomes a stronger trading partner for our exporters and businesses. In fact, whether we were inside or outside the European Union, it would be in our interests for the eurozone to resolve its economic difficulties.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be discourteous to him, but I have only a couple of minutes, so I ask him to forgive me for not giving way to him today.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham and many others Members who have spoken in the debate have used language about seeing all this as a dastardly plot and a threat to the UK. I will not comment on each of the specific items in the five presidents report, but I argue that in a general sense, it is in our interests for the eurozone to sort itself out economically and become a stronger trading partner for the British economy. I do not see this as a zero-sum game in which a stronger eurozone is somehow a threat to the UK—not given that we have been a member of the EU for 40 years and it is our biggest trading partner, our biggest source of exports and the source of half our inward investment. However, continued economic weakness in the eurozone and a failure to resolve the problems that have been exposed in recent years would certainly not be in our interests. I therefore take a different view from the right hon. Gentleman.

The second point, which is related to whether the report represents a threat, is that although most of the report concentrates on the eurozone, some of the measures apply to all 28 member states. An example is the capital markets union, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. That is being governed by Lord Hill, our own Commissioner and his party colleague. The UK is the member state with the strongest financial sector, and it has a world-class cluster of associated services such as accountancy, so that poses opportunities for the UK, not just challenges. We must not see everything that happens as a threat.

Let me move on to my second question—whether all this will happen. To an extent, I echo the question that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked. Germany may well resist mutualisation because it involves taking on risk in other states, and other countries may resist subscribing to common rules. Although the five presidents report has a grand title, I suspect that the issues that it raises will be debated for some time to come, and it is not at all certain yet that everything it sets out will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The logic of the position—this point was made by numerous right hon. and hon. Members before the formation of the euro—is that if there is a currency union, certain other things flow from it. Indeed, we are seeing the consequences of that. In a way, it is the background to the five presidents report. It is part of an ongoing process to identify the next steps to better governance in the euro area. There is a clear appetite for reform demonstrated by the process, which echoes the conversations that the Prime Minister and Chancellor have had in their bilateral discussions. The Government have submitted two written contributions to the five presidents’ process. We note the report’s proposals and have set out its content and implications in an explanatory memorandum. Therefore the Government do not currently plan to issue a further formal response. However, although the report’s focus is on the euro area, many issues it covers affect the interests of all member states. The UK will therefore remain fully engaged in discussions in this area.

So far, other member states have expressed a range of views on the report’s proposals. It is worth nothing that these reviews have been mixed. As I said, it is in our interests that the euro is a successful, strong currency area, so we do not want to stand in the way of the euro area resolving its difficulties. However, we will not let integration of the euro area jeopardise the integrity of the single market or in any way disadvantage the UK. The Government are pushing for further reform to improve the single market, focusing on the digital single market; further liberalisation of sector-specific services; and better regulation for small and medium-sized enterprises.

In return for supporting the euro area’s efforts to stabilise its economy, we want a settlement between the UK and the euro area that protects the single market, that is stable and fair and that lasts. This is in the interests of everyone—it is the basis for stable and sustainable governance of a reformed and prosperous EU—and is one of the UK’s important objectives in its renegotiation with the EU.

It has been 40 years since the British people last had a say on our EU membership. The organisation has changed vastly since then and it is time that we addressed this matter. The British public are clear that they are not happy with the status quo. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is determined to address those concerns. He has already talked about four areas where he wants change: sovereignty, competitiveness, immigration and fairness. For example, ever-closer union—a theme that runs through the five presidents report, to some extent—may be right for others, but it is not right for Britain, and change should include increasing economic competitiveness to create jobs and growth for hard-working families, and reforming welfare to reduce the incentives that have led to mass immigration from Europe. Those things are important to us. These reforms will improve fairness, which cuts to the heart of today’s debate: protecting Britain’s interests outside the euro. They will also improve the EU’s effectiveness as a whole. We want a dynamic, competitive, outward-focused Europe, delivering prosperity and security for the benefit of every country in the EU, with the UK playing its role.

[Sir William Cash]

In a nutshell, on current account transactions, the UK runs a deficit with the other 27 member states of well over £60 billion a year. Germany, on the other hand, runs a surplus in the same year. How on earth can we continue on that basis?

[Mr Gauke]

In the time available, I will not attempt to address that point in great detail. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me.

A key part of the UK’s response to the five presidents’ process was the need to focus reforms, as well as the work of the institutions that the presidents represent, on the important priorities of delivering jobs, growth and stability to the European economy. Working alongside national Parliaments to drive competitiveness and streamline costly processes should be at the heart of the EU’s mission. That will be the foundation of public support and legitimacy for the EU.

Efforts to improve competitiveness go hand in hand with improving our own productivity. We support the euro area in sorting out its own problems so it can function more effectively. We will not allow further integration of the euro area to jeopardise the integrity of the single market, or in any way disadvantage euro-out countries like the UK.

Greece

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

What I should say, without going into too much detail, is that we have a number of contingency plans. We just hope we do not have to put them into operation.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Greece bears responsibility, there is also the intensely political German question? Statements by the Germans recently seem increasingly self-righteous about compliance with European rules, when they themselves have been in defiance of the stability and growth pact for many years and the surplus rules. There is also the question of their over-lending to Greece, against the background of their export policy and currency manoeuvres. Does my right hon. Friend recall that in 1953, under the London debt agreement, Germany received £86 billion of debt, and does he agree that they might well be rather more generous in their attitude towards debt relief in respect of the Greek people?

[Mr Osborne]

We should understand that of course the German Government, and therefore the German people, are one of the largest creditors and therefore take a close interest in developments in Greece. Under the terms of an application for a new programme from the European stability mechanism, that requires a vote in the Bundestag, so there are clearly some key German political issues here. Where I agree with my hon. Friend is on the observation he makes about the stability and growth pact. One can argue that many of the problems that the eurozone has encountered in recent years were because of the lax interpretation of the rules, not least by France and Germany, over a decade ago. To be fair to the German Government and others, they have tried to strengthen those rules in recent years.

European Union (Finance) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will certainly give way, before I deal with the new clauses.

[Sir William Cash]

I am happy to wait if the Minister wishes to deal with the new clauses. I will come back at that point.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and amendment 1, all tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), would require the Treasury to undertake a series of actions prior to the Act coming into force. New clause 1 would require the Treasury to inform both Houses that it has formally requested a review by the European Commission into alternative ways of running the EU budget and a comparative analysis of commitments and payments as the basis for appropriations for the budget. New clause 2 would require the Treasury to request a fundamental review by the Council of Ministers of EU budget priorities, waste and inefficiency. New clause 3 asks for the Chancellor to issue an invitation to the Commission to provide further details of the draft budget to scrutiny Committees. Amendment 1 would delete subsection (3) of clause 2, which would mean that the Act would not come into force until 14 days after the conditions specified in each new clause were met.

We recognise the concerns underlying the amendments. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady will recall that the Bill relates exclusively to the financing of the EU budget, while the amendments relate to the separate, although equally important, issue of EU budget expenditure. On that basis alone, we reject them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

On the reference in new clause 3 to

“the relevant European affairs select committee in each House of Parliament”

as my hon. Friend knows, the European Scrutiny Committee always goes through all the budgets, makes reports regularly and has the power to invite anybody, including officials from the European Commission. In addition, it receives explanatory memorandums from the Government—in fact, from the Minister himself. I would like to make some further remarks about this later, but I agree very much with what he says in rejecting the Opposition’s proposals.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Let me come straight to new clause 3, as he has raised that point.

Along with many across Europe, we share the concern that lies behind new clause 3 that the EU is not sufficiently accountable to EU citizens. Hon. Members will need no reminding that the Prime Minister has already made it clear that strengthening the role of national Parliaments is a central tenet of his reform programme. Within the existing legal framework, the Government already take the role of national Parliaments in scrutinising EU proposals very seriously. That is why, when the European Parliament requested the formation of a high-level group on own resources to review the EU financing system, we insisted that national Parliaments, as well as the European institutions, were given a voice as part of the consultation. We therefore amended the joint declaration on the formation of the group explicitly to take account of input from national Parliaments.

We do all we can to ensure the transparent and effective scrutiny of each year’s annual budget negotiations. An explanatory memorandum is deposited as soon as possible after the publication of the draft EU budget each year. That is followed by debates in both Houses and regular ministerial updates at significant stages of the negotiation process.

We are committed to working with both scrutiny Committees to make this process as efficient and effective as possible for all parties. However, we believe that requiring the Government to write to invited officials to appear before the scrutiny Committees would add little to the scrutiny process and would be a very peculiar precedent, for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It would add little because the Committees can, and have, invited officials to appear before them. For example, in June 2014, Nadia Calvino, the Director-General of the European Commission budget, gave evidence to the Lords EU Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee.

It really should not be the place of Government to determine who the scrutiny Committees should see. It is for the Committees of both Houses to decide for themselves who should appear before them and when. It would be a peculiar precedent for the Executive to begin to interfere with that freedom, no matter how benign the initial intention.

[Mr Gauke]

I will return to that point. My remarks, when the hon. Lady intervened, were in respect of new clause 3 and the European Scrutiny Committee. I have been very clear that it would be a curious thing to do to place this in legislation and for the Executive to take that role upon themselves. I very much echo the remarks made on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

[Sir William Cash]

Let me add one further point before I deal with the matter in substance. The European Scrutiny Committee’s most recent report, which in this respect has been accepted by the Government, recommended that each Committee, including the Treasury Committee, establish a rapporteur to consider these questions. We could effectively work with the Treasury Committee to ensure, if necessary, that there would be an even deeper examination of the Treasury aspects.

[Mr Gauke]

We obviously welcome scrutiny in this area. If the European Scrutiny Committee or other Committees seek the Government’s support, for example, in bringing over Commission officials to give evidence, the Government would of course gladly support them. Let me offer that hand of co-operation if I may, but I do not see a strong case for placing this within the legislation. Indeed, I would go further and say that it would be inappropriate for us to do so. That deals with new clause 3.

We do not believe that the proposal, which would require the Government to write to various European institutions to invite them to undertake a review of one or other aspect of the EU budget, would really add to the work that the Government have undertaken and continue to undertake to improve the expenditure of the EU budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Some progress has been made since then. The Commission has improved its transparency record, partly thanks to the Government’s ongoing work. In particular, it released a payments plan containing much more detail on payment forecasts. I accept that we can go further, and that UK citizens expect more, but requiring the Government to write a letter inviting officials to attend Select Committee meetings will not really deliver that. What is required is constant vigilance and discipline. We have shown that, and it is delivering results.

[Sir William Cash]

Earlier, the hon. Member for Worsley raised the question of how the proposals for budget reduction came about. As I am sure the Minister remembers only too well, I was one of the so-called rebels, although actually we were not really rebels at all: all that we were doing was asking the Government to listen, which is exactly what happened, because our amendments were accepted. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury—or perhaps the Economic Secretary—paid tribute to us for having presented the proposals, and everything was hunky-dory.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for the constructive tone that my hon. Friend brings to the debate; he has a history of so doing. He has argued for greater efficiency and transparency in the expenditure of the European Union for many years, and I am grateful to him for that.

I should also point out that we are providing technical assistance to the Commission as it considers all the options for enhancing performance on the budget. We are sharing our expertise in areas such as value for money, spending area objectives and improving budgetary performance—for example by removing adverse incentives and improving accountability and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Yes; my right hon. Friend makes an important point about the euro area. No doubt he will have heard the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Mansion House a couple of weeks ago, in which he made it clear that one of our priorities in the UK’s negotiations ahead of any referendum will be to ensure that the “euro-outs”—the European Union member states that are not in the eurozone—are properly protected and do not find themselves disadvantaged by the eurozone countries working together to the disadvantage of the “euro-outs”. That is a real priority for the United Kingdom.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates the difficulties inherent in this matter. It is all very well to want to disaggregate the eurozone from the non-euro member states, but the reality is that we are all part of the same European Union. Any attempt to make a change of this kind would involve a fundamental change to our relationship with the EU and would therefore require a treaty change by any reasonable standards. Does he appreciate how serious the position would be if we neither sought nor achieved that objective?

[Mr Gauke]

It is important that we meet that objective.

On the subject of the report, I would make the point that we benefit from the single market and do not want to stand in the way of the eurozone resolving its difficulties, but we will not let the integration of the eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the single market or disadvantage the United Kingdom in any way. That is one the important objectives in our negotiation with the European Union, and it is exactly the point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making in his Mansion House speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) are right to raise the importance of this point, which we fully recognise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I think the hon. Gentleman will see when we come to the vote that we do have support.

Our new clause 3 would also improve accountability and transparency by inviting EU budget representatives to appear before the European Scrutiny Committees in this House and the other place each year before the EU budgets are negotiated. I appreciate the points made by Conservative Members that of course there should be no interference with the work of the European Scrutiny Committee in this House, but what we have tried to do in these new clauses is send the strongest statement we can send and give the strongest possible support to all those in this House who want to see these important aspects of value for money and budgetary control put in place.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sure the hon. Lady would appreciate the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee functions by virtue of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Leaving aside the merits of this proposal, if there were to be a stream of requirements imposed by Parliament on the manner in which the European Scrutiny Committee, an all-party Committee containing many Labour Members, were to conduct its business, the life of the Committee would be made pretty intolerable and its purpose would probably be undermined.

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much take that point on board.

New clause 1 requests a review by the European Commission of the basis of appropriations for the European Union budget and a study of whether alternative arrangements might offer improved value and enhanced budgetary control. On Second Reading, I highlighted a concern about the growing gap between the ceiling on spending commitments and the ceiling on payments. That gap, as agreed in the settlement of February 2013, is between €960 billion on commitments and €908 billion on payments. As I pointed out in the earlier debate, that gap has crept up from an average of 2.6% to the current 5.4%, and it is projected to rise to 5.7% in the period from 2014 to 2020. We must now seriously question whether that gap is manageable.

The Commission describes the system as follows:

“Commitments are tomorrow’s payments, and payments are yesterday’s commitments. Commitments are planned future payments whereas payments are legal obligations from the past…if every year the increase in commitments is much higher than that in payments you end up promising many partners to pay their future bills but find yourself unable to pay those bills when they arrive years later.

This is what has been happening over the last years: as many commitments were made years ago for projects that are being completed now”.

That is a key issue with the drive to smaller EU budgets, yet, as the Commission says,

“many bills related to projects remain unpaid and have to be rolled over to the following year. This leaves no choice to the Commission but to call for increases in payments.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

The more reviews that we carry out of those priorities, the more that we develop our understanding of where the money is going. Earlier, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) called for these matters to be discussed in a language that his constituents could understand, and I do not think that they are discussed in such a way. Having ploughed through very many debates and very many documents in relation to the Bill, I do not think that those matters are understood. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted that expenditure on the CAP is

“still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1426.]

If that is what the Treasury team currently feel—that it is still too high, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget—what are we doing to understand that better, to review it and to change it?

It is my assertion that previous reviews have not led to the level of reform that we want to achieve. It was our purpose in tabling new clause 2 to keep focus on that vital issue. When most member states are finding it necessary to make very difficult decisions—clearly, we are in that position ourselves—about their own budgets and spending, the European Union must ensure that expenditure is efficient and focused on addressing the major concerns that member states face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the October 2012 debate:

“The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies.”

As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is much needed when we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK looking for work. That should be our focus—those young people.

We need a better balance of funding and we need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve growth and jobs. Looking deeper into the detail, and the spending commitment to the EU’s smart and inclusive growth priority, only a quarter of that is spent on competitiveness for jobs and growth, and three quarters on the EU’s cohesion policies, including structural funds. It probably is not appropriate today to open up further debate about the use of structural funds. That is often discussed when we are discussing EU finance, but as my hon. Friend also said:

“Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that…are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

The Opposition say strongly that the proportion of the EU’s smart and inclusive growth expenditure that goes towards securing competitiveness for jobs and growth is too small. That important area of spending accounts for around a quarter of the EU budget in 2014, but that rises to only 27% across the whole six-year period.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. Lady appreciate that much of what she says in terms of generalities is understandable, and is reflected very much in European Commission documents, which I have been looking at for the last 30 years, one way and another, on the European Scrutiny Committee, but that the inherent problem is the fact that every time there is a need to argue for jobs and growth, the answer from the European Commission is to give more subsidies, more bail-outs, and more cohesion and structural funds, when actually what is needed is deregulation and to provide people with a means of increasing productivity and jobs and to deal with youth unemployment?

[Barbara Keeley]

I hesitate to say that I think we agree on this point, but I think we do. [Interruption.] All right, then: we enthusiastically agree on this point. It is very clear indeed that, particularly with youth unemployment, we have a serious problem. It is a problem throughout the EU. We must spend more on that and we must find a way of doing so. Although the Minister spoke at great length, he did not tell us at any point what the difference would be between the ongoing review in the EU and the existing commitments. We want to send a very strong message. Until the Bill is passed, it is our last chance for a considerable period to make these points strongly to the EU, and we believe that we should do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

That is strange, but I cannot answer for the Minister. He may want to intervene for himself now or at some later point.

I have emphasised jobs and growth, but this EU budget priority also includes policies and programmes to promote vital areas of research and innovation—infrastructure, education, training and enterprise development. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has been a staunch advocate of the importance of EU funding for research and development in the UK. In 2012 he said:

“The more the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits, because the quality, breadth and depth of UK research puts us in a position whereby we gain disproportionately from European research programmes.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 292.]

It is self-evident that competitiveness for jobs and growth should be more of a priority, but also that we would benefit more if the priorities were switched to increase funding for research and innovation.

Serious consideration of reform of the EU’s spending priorities is needed if we are to use the EU budget, as the Opposition believe we should, as a mechanism to promote future jobs and growth in the UK and other member states. We can only get that change of spending priorities if we keep a focus on the balance between competing priorities and continue to drive down wasteful and inefficient spending.

Much was said on Second Reading, as I am sure the Minister recalls, about what hon. Members consider to be wasteful and inefficient spending. Some Members might cover that again today, but we have already talked about staffing costs and administration costs, and the costs of the move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Other items of waste and inefficiency can also be drawn to the Minister’s attention.

We have already discussed new clause 3, and I do not need to keep on emphasising this, but in tabling it we did not in any way want to disturb the balance between the Government and the scrutiny Committees. I hope that hon. Members accept that. However, points have been raised in previous debates on why we need that relentless scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said in the debate on the multi-annual financial framework that we need

“a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on Second Reading:

“Many in Europe agree with us that the EU is too uncompetitive, too democratically unaccountable and too inflexible to the concerns of citizens in its member states.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1389.]

That is a very poor situation that we find ourselves in.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady referred to the need for relentless scrutiny. I have a thought in my mind that maybe some people think that the European Scrutiny Committee, at least over the last five years, has indeed been relentless in its scrutiny, and that goes for all members of the Committee, which has produced many unanimous reports. Is she effectively prepared not to press her amendment because of the problem I gave about the constant stream of legislative requirements that might interfere with our status as a European Committee?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, we could do that. We would definitely want to press the other new clauses, but there was no intention to upset that balance. It has been suggested that the Minister could solve these matters by giving some kind of undertaking on the matters raised in our new clauses. We do not resile from the position that we want to send out the strongest possible message from this House that we are serious about scrutiny. The European Scrutiny Committee is of course relentless in its focus on those matters, and so too must the House be relentless. Doubtless we will have many more reports and reviews.

When in opposition, the Minister was part of the team that tabled an amendment to get a report, as I mentioned earlier. It was not agreed to at the time, but the Commission review went ahead anyway. The results of that report, which was published in 2010, were interesting. Its main finding—it was a very substantial finding—was that the current rules for the EU budget make it slow to react to unforeseen events, while too many complexities hinder its efficiency and transparency.

This is a week of tumultuous events for the European Union. The situation we find ourselves in with the EU budget, with its complexity, its slowness to react, the difficulty in balancing priorities and the fact that it does not represent the priorities that we think are important, means that it is clear to all—there is often broad agreement on this in the House, and I am sure that there will be today—that it is past the time when it needs to change.

Our remaining amendments would assist in ensuring that reports are made to the House on value for money, budgetary control and, importantly, budget priorities and waste and inefficiency. I commend them to the Committee.

[Sir William Cash]

I have already said much of what I need to say on new clause 3, which is my main concern today, so I will make only a few points. Basically, new clause 3 is inappropriate. The European Scrutiny Committee does its job relentlessly, as the shadow Minister has just indicated, so there is no need for the new clause. We can invite officials to it if we wish to, and we do on occasion, but we are perpetually scrutinising the budget and recommending matters for consideration on the Floor of the House.

Imposing on the European Scrutiny Committee legislative functions that would be monitored by other Government Departments could cause enormous difficulty by interfering with its Standing Orders functions. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee has to form a judgment on what is of political and legal importance. We can invite European Commission budget representatives to see us, and indeed we can also recommend to the Treasury Committee, for example, that it might wish to do the same, so we already have various means at our disposal.

It is not necessary for me to repeat the points that I have already made in interventions. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for agreeing not to press new clause 3 and putting that on the record, so that in future nobody else is tempted to impose on the European Scrutiny Committee, or indeed on any Select Committee, legislative requirements that might in one way or another interfere with their discretionary judgments under the Standing Orders.

[Barbara Keeley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we have no intention of doing that, but I also hope that he will agree that it is important to send out the strongest possible message that we are focusing on these matters relentlessly throughout the House, and that the European Scrutiny Committee will continue its excellent work.

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not mind my mentioning the fact that she is sitting in glorious isolation on the Opposition Front Bench, and with nobody behind her, other than my friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not known to be enthusiastic about all matters European. Perhaps the relentless scrutiny to which she refers could be improved by having a few more Labour Members here to support her.

[Alex Salmond]

It is a great pleasure to follow what must be the briefest speech I have ever heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on this subject—it is wonderful to see him able once again to stand in his place today.

Let me turn to the question of EU finance and agriculture. I know that agriculture is not a subject that much concerns the Conservative party; the Tory party these days is much more likely to be concerned with asset stripping, rather than agricultural production, and with financial derivatives, rather than agricultural crops—that is what gets its pulse moving.

I was concerned when the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said that far too much of the European Union budget was consumed by the common agricultural policy. The fundamental reason for that—we did not hear this simple point from the Government Benches—is that the common agricultural policy is one of the few policies that financially is effectively under the competence of the European Union. If the European Union had competence over health, for example—I doubt that there is much support for that, from me or anyone else in the House—its agricultural budget would be totally dwarfed by what it spent on health. The dominance of the agricultural budget is a factor of its being one of the European Union’s relatively few common policies.

Of course, it is possible to argue that there should not be direct farm payments. Indeed, that was the argument that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) took into the CAP negotiations. He started from the position that the UK Government, without much opposition from Members from rural constituencies in the Conservative interest, thought that there should not be direct farm payments, and he found himself in a minority of one in the negotiations; his position was not supported by any other member state. It was therefore decided that we were to continue with farm payments. Therefore, if we have a common agricultural policy, and it is a substantial part of the European Union’s budget, it is reasonably important to ensure that our share of the agricultural budget as component nations in these islands is fair and competitive, because our agricultural production has to compete in that common market with that in other member states.

Does the Minister really think that the share allocated to UK agriculture, and to Scottish agriculture in particular, can be counted as a considerable achievement, as he claimed in his opening remarks? Let us remind ourselves of some of the facts. Under pillar one of the CAP budget, it was agreed that the lowest that any member state should receive in support was €196 per hectare. It was agreed in negotiations that each country in the original 15 would work to that minimum. Scotland receives substantially less than that—just over half of that payment per hectare. That is going to cost Scottish agriculture about £1 billion in the period to 2019.

European Union Referendum Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I shall speak from a standing position.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to take a seat? The last thing that I want him to do is get himself into difficulty, and take too much out of himself. Please, Sir William, do whatever you feel is necessary,

[Sir William Cash]

I will sit down then. I am sorry to have to make my speech in this way, but I have been in hospital for the last four days.

Our problem is this: the situation in which we now find ourselves is not necessary. I speak more in sorrow than in anger, because I have spoken to the Minister for Europe, and we had a good discussion, as we always do. I was also grateful to him for saying in a letter that he was himself grateful for the constructive way in which concerns had been raised. It must be said, however, that the Government have not allayed those concerns, and that is the real point. I shall try to explain why, but let me first congratulate the Government on having listened. They listened over the question of having a referendum at all, they listened over the question of whether we should veto the fiscal compact, and they listened over the reduction in the budget. Those are all positive steps.

Having given the matter as much thought as I could—admittedly, I had an opportunity to do so from my hospital bed—I have to say that, in this instance, I am convinced that the Government are taking a step in the wrong direction. However—I ask Ministers to listen, if they would be kind enough to do so—it is possible for them to retrieve the situation so that there need not be a vote against.

Ultimately, what is raised is a question of trust. There are extremely strong reasons for the provisions in section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but we have heard very little about those provisions. Let me briefly explain them, so that people will know what we are about to repeal. Most might assume that, given the momentous and historic nature of the EU referendum, what is good enough for a Scottish referendum, a referendum on the alternative vote, and a Welsh referendum—all of which have taken place under Conservative-led Governments in the last few years—ought to be applicable to a referendum that goes to the heart of how we are governed and who governs us.

However, it is not just about trust. We do not know what the outcome of the promised discussions and consultations will be, but we do know that conducting a referendum in a manner that is unfair on the voters is an extremely retrograde step in the kind of democracy that we uphold. The provisions in the 2000 Act were introduced for very sound reasons. I applaud the then Government for that, and, even at this late stage, I appeal to the present Government to think again.

Incidentally, this has absolutely nothing to do with Maastricht or anything like that. There was a rebellion then because we did not have a referendum. On this occasion, we merely wish to ensure that the voters are given a fair choice. That must be one of our prime duties, because we are sent here as representatives of those people. If the Bill is passed, we shall have made a decision to transfer back to those people, by means of an Act of Parliament, the right to make their own decision. Therefore, they will have an absolute right to know that the way the referendum is conducted will in no way be canted or manipulated, whether for yes or no. Taking this out and then asking us to consider on the basis of consultations yet to come seems to me quite bizarre, because if the Government were good enough to accept my amendment 11—I am grateful for the support of many Members on both sides of the House on that—nothing would change in terms of the referendum. It is not going to take place in any immediate future. All we will be doing is re-securing the status quo so that we will then have the restrictions set out in section 125. I will come on to that section in a moment, and demonstrate what we would actually be repealing this evening. This is not just a Eurosceptic argument. This is not about a Eurosceptic position, in essence. It may be that we would prefer to ensure there is a fair vote, but the real question is about our democracy. That, to me, is the main question.

[Alex Salmond]

But does not the experience of the Scottish referendum tell the House that not only should the protections that are in statute not be removed from this Bill and that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 11 should be carried, but that there needs to be an enforcement mechanism to make sure the purdah period is applied and adhered to by Government Ministers and civil servants?

[Sir William Cash]

I very much agree, and it may be of interest to Members, if they have not already noticed, that the Electoral Commission has examined not only the Bill but my amendments, and has stated:

“The Commission is therefore generally supportive of proposals to reinstate restrictions on the publication of promotional material by central and local government in the run-up to the poll.”

Even after Second Reading, the Electoral Commission—which is, after all, charged with these duties—has concluded it would be important to retain these restrictions. Some adjustments may need to be made in due course, but we should secure the status quo, then have the discussions, and then have the vote on Report. That would be the right way round.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

How far does my hon. Friend want to take this? In a general election, the whole government machinery closes down for four weeks and studies the potential future of alternative political masters and waits to see what the political policy of the new Government will be. In this case, however, the Government at the time of the referendum will be the Government for the next several years, and the Government, as a Government, will have been involved in producing the terms that are part of the referendum. Does my hon. Friend intend that no Minister can act as a Minister, as could be the case if we strictly applied purdah, or take advice for all those weeks on anything that might pertain to an issue in the referendum? Is the Prime Minister going to be prevented from expressing a view? Surely some compromise that is a modification of purdah is required—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been here longer than most Members, and he should know that interventions must be short, especially if he wants to make a speech later.

[Sir William Cash]

I seem to have spurred my right hon. and learned Friend to a passionate pursuit of his arguments, because he does not want what I am proposing at all. The fact is that the Electoral Commission says the proposal to remove section 125

“could mean that governments and others will be free to spend unlimited amounts of public funds promoting an outcome at the referendum right up until polling day.”

It goes on to say:

“In the Commission’s view, there is a risk that the use of significant amounts of public money for promotional activity could give an unfair advantage to one side of the argument. Unlimited government spending would also undermine the principle of having spending limits for registered campaigns.”

We have already heard about the interference in the Scottish referendum, and what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said is completely right.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the section 125 provisions were adopted by the Venice Commission in the following year and are now universal best practice, and that the Venice Commission has endorsed the fact that there should be a prohibition on Government expenditure in the four weeks of the referendum campaign?

[Sir William Cash]

That is absolutely right. I was going to refer to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point.

I want to refer to what section 125 actually does say, because the proposal is to remove that tonight, in the face of our opposition. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state what they do:

“These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office…to help inform debate”

and

“in order to assist the reader of the Bill”.

However, paragraph 52 of the notes gives no explanation and simply says:

“Paragraph 25 provides that section 125 of the 2000 Act does not apply for the purposes of this referendum”,

and then mentions a consequential amendment. There is no explanation at all. That itself is a reason for our being concerned about the way this is being done.

I want to return to the question of what we are repealing. What is in the 2000 Act is very sound. It refers to

“any material which—

(a) provides general information about a referendum to which this Part applies;

(b) deals with any of the issues raised by any question on which such a referendum is being held;

(c) puts any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question; or

(d) is designed to encourage voting at such a referendum.”

It is very comprehensive.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the provisions of section 125 would allow the European Commission to make statements and publish material affecting a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, but would prevent British Ministers or Departments from publishing material to correct or counter such a publication?

[Sir William Cash]

Very simply, any suggestion that the European Commission or the EU should be involved in this process is the subject of another amendment I have tabled, and nor should they be allowed to make any provision by way of financing. We can debate that later.

On whether contradiction might be created in respect of the position of Government Ministers in this country, my flow has been slightly diverted by my hon. Friend’s perfectly understandable intervention, but the fact is that Ministers and the civil service are in a position under the purdah rules such that they would not be able to use the machinery of government. In relation to the EU, which I know a little bit about, the machinery of government is extensive, but there are methods that could be applied, with a sensible degree of amendment, to ensure that the restrictions on the matters to which I have referred are complied with, because this is what we are talking about; it is not some generalised assumption that Ministers are going to wander on to completely different paths.

Section 125 lists the material I have already referred to—

“general information about a referendum…any of the issues raised by any question…any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question”

and questions

“designed to designed to encourage voting”,—

and it states that none of that material

“shall be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of—

(a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority”.

It could not be clearer; it could not be more sensible, more sound or more comprehensive.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend like to confirm that it is a principle of fairness in all British elections and referendums that individuals—Ministers as well—participate on whichever side they wish under a single campaign, for yes or for no, which has proper controls over expenditure and publications? Does he also acknowledge that there cannot be a third category of intervention by the Government, because that would break the normal rules of campaign funding and control?

[Sir William Cash]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Jenkin]

The Government argue—I think we have to accept their argument—that these detailed and broad restrictions are too prescriptive and that they would not be able to carry on with the normal course of government, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has explained. Does my hon. Friend not agree that there would be too much interference in the normal conduct of government?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Which is why I believe that the parliamentary system of democracy is so very good. A representative body of people elected from time to time have continuous responsibility for step-by-step decisions, and eventually they have to face the consequences of their decisions and can be removed. But we are already going wide of the amendments.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is able to stand when he feels passionately on the subject. I am sympathetic to the problems he has had, and I am glad that he was able to speak from a sedentary position, which I had never seen before. I will finish making my point before I give way.

I hold my hon. Friend and those who agree with him in the highest possible regard. We in the Conservative party have to be careful that we do not repeat the folly of Harold Wilson and tear our party apart in the course of a referendum campaign. After quite a few decades of this battle, I continue to be on excellent personal terms with those of my hon. Friends with whom I disagree. It is best that we proceed by putting forward our respective views of the public interest. We must certainly not divide the strong purpose of the Government, who have been so recently elected with the support of the whole Conservative party.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me?

[Mr Clarke]

Let me make a little more progress. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constraint will stop him leaping up too frequently; I will give way in due course.

I do not believe that there is any bad faith anywhere. Everyone wants those who campaign and the public to feel that the referendum has been conducted with absolute fairness. I am surprised, therefore, that, in these opening days of the European referendum process, so much passion is being excited by procedural issues. I will not describe them as footnotes, but, although they are important, none of them will make the faintest difference to the result on the day of the referendum. If we asked most of our masters—the public—whether purdah was followed properly during the campaign, they would not have the first idea what we were talking about. So my first plea is for a sense of proportion.

My plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister—I do not think I need to make it because I have seen the letter, which did not get to me either; I have just been shown it—is to live up to his undertakings. It is right to bend over backwards to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is no conspiracy, that they must not leap into paranoia, and that the intention is to hold a referendum in which the British public will be able to reach a view on balanced presentations. It seems to me that Ministers have started doing this straight away. I got the impression from the Second Reading debate that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench were as surprised as I was at the sudden excitement about the rules in what should have been a fairly routine Bill paving the way for the referendum.

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way in a moment.

The Prime Minister has announced that he will suspend the rules of collective responsibility and that members of the Government will be able to campaign on whichever side they choose. We now have the letter giving an undertaking that the Government will depart from section 129. People seem to think that there is something magic about 5 May 2016, so we will not hold the referendum on that date. I have sympathy with Ministers; they are being derided. The moment they make concessions to all these impassioned pleas, they suffer the fate of all Ministers and are immediately accused of a humiliating U-turn and held up for ridicule.

Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and perhaps others in the Scottish National party are difficult to calm down and reassure. I ask them to accept, as I accept, that every effort is being and should be made to satisfy fears about the propriety of the campaigning period.

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. and learned Friend’s rather Hush Puppy approach—saying that there is really nothing much that we need worry about, and that Parliament is far better at doing this than the people—seems somewhat dangerous and disrespectful of the voters. We have had a lot of referendums over the years. He says that purdah would not make a difference anyway. Does he think that the Electoral Commission is wrong when it says that disapplying section 125 of the 2000 Act would enable the Government to spend unlimited sums of money?

[Mr Clarke]

I once gave evidence to an inquiry chaired by Sir Nigel Wicks into the workings of the Electoral Commission, and my recommendation was that it should be abolished as a useless quango, but that is a wider issue.

Of course we have had referendums, but my hon. Friend has never accepted the result of any referendum if he disagreed with it—for the sound reason, for which I respect him, that he has strong personal principles and convictions. I took part in the referendum 40 years ago. No serious Member of Parliament on either side of the argument changed their beliefs one jot the day after the result of the poll was announced. Tony Benn, who was personally responsible for floating this innovation in British politics, was one of the first to start demanding that we left the European Community within a few weeks of the announcement of the result. The Labour party was committed to leaving the EU by the time we got to the 1983 election, having shed a high proportion of its members to the Social Democratic party. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and I agree that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair]

Amendment 11 comes later in the proceedings. Whether or not that is the subject of a Division will be a matter for whoever is in the Chair later in the day. My expectation is that there will be a Division, but that is a matter for the Chairman at the time.

[Sir William Cash]

My view about the clause is that we have managed to have a wide-ranging debate. In the interests of brevity, I do not think much needs to be said on the subject. We really ought to get on to other matters, including the question of European Union financing. I have no further comments to make on clause stand part.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

(Gainsborough) (Con) rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not want us to repeat yesterday’s debate, but we all know that there was a shift in public opinion following the Scottish referendum, so we have to be careful.

The UK is lucky not to suffer from the money-infused politics of the United States, where power goes to the highest bidder or spender. As we all know, it is virtually impossible to have a serious intention of becoming President without access to millions of pounds of spending or unless your name is Bush or Clinton. We do not want to replicate that situation here. British voters are very resistant to such a culture. We have been brought up in our constituencies knowing there is fairness and that all sides roughly spend the same.

[Sir William Cash]

Has my hon. Friend noticed my own amendment about restricting the money that will surely come from the EU and European Commission? They are described by the Electoral Commission as foreign sources, but they are not. Are they not actually part and parcel of what applies to us under the European Communities Act 1972?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It would be ironic if the European Commission were a major player—but actually why should it not be? It is entitled to its point of view and to put its case. It has massive resources, however, to which we have contributed greatly, as my hon. Friend says. Nobody minds the Commission having a point of view, but we know what it will be, and we do not want its spending to come on top of all the rest, as it would create a sense of unfairness.

The official yes side in the AV referendum spent £3,436,000, and the official no side spent £2,595,000, so although the no side was outspent, spending was broadly not too dissimilar and fairly low, and voters still rejected the proposal. That is fair enough. Although the yes side spent a bit more, the arguments were well put. We all understood the arguments and there was broad acceptance of the result. There was no backlash and people felt the whole thing was fair, and in any event the result was clear: two thirds voted no.

Now, let us consider other referendums that I do not think have been conducted as fairly as our AV referendum. In 2008, voters in Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty, only effectively to be told they must vote again, until the “correct result” could be obtained. The behaviour of the pro-EU side in the subsequent 2009 referendum campaign has resulted in several legal challenges in Ireland. One campaigning group even offered Irish citizens resident on the continent free Ryanair flights home, provided they canvassed for a yes vote. Before Lisbon, Irish voters also rejected the treaty of Nice in a 2001 referendum, but the Government pushed through a law on the last day before the Irish Parliament broke up for Christmas to remove the responsibility of the Referendum Commission to ensure that voters were informed of arguments on both sides in a balanced way. There is a great deal of unhappiness about that in Ireland. I should have thought that the yes campaigners could have won anyway.

We want to ensure that when it comes to our own referendum it is clear to everyone that there has been fairness. In the case of other EU referendums, when the stakes have been incredibly high and when it has been possible for huge amounts of money to be spent, there have been allegations of dirty tricks. We do not want that to happen in our own country. Our Government must show that they will insist on a free, fair, balanced and clean referendum, with equitable arrangements for all sides. As we know, a large proportion of the populace is already somewhat disengaged from and disenchanted with politics, and allowing such an overspend by one side would only deepen those feelings. It would reinforce the idea that the deck is stacked and the game is rigged.

Members in all parts of the House are profoundly aware of how difficult it can be to engage ordinary people in the political process. Too often, we meet with responses such as “What is the point?”, “It will not change anything”, “It is all fixed anyway”, and “If voting changed anything, they would abolish it.” We reject that, as politicians and as people who value debate in the House of Commons. We want the referendum to be fair. However, the mindset of many people out there must be acknowledged and challenged.

Public confidence in our parliamentary democracy is a matter of grave concern, and this referendum is a crucial turning point. The very fact that it is taking place is testimony to the Prime Minister’s having kept his word, and that has meant a great deal in the context of restoring confidence in the whole EU debate and in our democracy. As I have said several times, and as everyone knows, no one under the age of 55 has yet had a chance to vote yes or no in a referendum such as this. There is now a great opportunity for a really good debate, and for both sides to be given broadly equal funding to enable them to put their arguments.

Finally, let me say to the Minister that more needs to be done. The Government need to ensure that this problem is addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is a Jacobite white rose. I have always had the hon. Gentleman down for a Jacobin rather than a Jacobite, but there is also the MacDiarmid rose in the poem:

“The rose of all the world is not for me

I want for my part

Only the little white rose of Scotland

That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.”

SNP Members were adorned by the MacDiarmid rose during the Queen’s Speech.

The point about spending limits is well made. Fairness in terms of spending capacity is one important part of elections and referendums. There is an enforcement mechanism—some may say that it is not always used as rigorously as it could be—for election or referendum spending rules and there are severe penalties for breaching them. There is no such effective mechanism for breaches of purdah or when Ministers or civil servants go clearly outside the purdah rules. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the new clauses, which we will vote on later, which would introduce exactly such an enforcement mechanism to ensure fairness not just in our debates but in a referendum.

[Sir William Cash]

The civil service code does not impose any restriction on civil servants as far as I am told. That would definitely have to be dealt with, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Alex Salmond]

I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who is in a sedentary position. His colleague the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), whose Committee’s report condemned the activities of Sir Nicholas Macpherson a few months ago, has alluded to exactly why that should be done. The hon. Member for Stone is right and I commend him to look at our new clauses 3 and 4, which seek to set out what the rules should be and to provide an enforcement mechanism to make sure that they are adhered to.

You have been patient, Sir Roger, and I know that a number of other hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak. I say to the Government that this debate has already flung up a range of issues. There are severe deficiencies in the Bill, although we certainly welcome the concession on the timing of the referendum, whether that happened as a result of listening or of panic. However, there are other areas on which the Government have not yet convinced me as a pro-European or, I suspect, some of their colleagues who take a different view on the European referendum. The joint view that we hold, as far as is possible, is that we would like to see a referendum that is conducted in a proper and fair manner.

[Sir William Cash]

I am going to speak to my amendment 9, which is a simple amendment with very important consequences and implications. It would ensure that the referendum period lasts for at least 16 weeks.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, there is a maximum six-week period for potential lead campaigners to apply and be appointed, followed by a minimum four-week period before the poll. However, the Electoral Commission, drawing on its experience of regulating the rules for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, has concluded that an alternative approach is needed to the timetable for appointing lead campaigners. The amendment recommends that, should the legislative timetable allow for it, the appointment should take place shortly before rather than during the first six weeks of the referendum period.

The effect would be to provide clarity at an earlier stage for voters and campaigners, and to ensure that the lead campaigners were in place shortly before the majority of the regulatory controls come into force. I cannot think of anything much more important than people knowing who is running which organisations. That would therefore allow for a shorter total duration of the subsequent referendum period—for example, a designation period of six weeks—with a subsequent 10-week regulated campaign period.

This is a massively important referendum and it is pretty astonishing that there is a vacuum on this subject. This is an extremely important amendment. The Minister for Europe is not in his place, but one of the senior Whips is, which is no substitute—

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I am the Minister responsible for constitutional reform.

[Sir William Cash]

I do beg my hon. Friend’s pardon. He was a Whip a short time ago, but he has now been promoted, on which I congratulate him. I hope he will pass back the message that we really must have a substantive response to this question.

Furthermore, the amendment will extend the minimum referendum period to 16 weeks, thus providing for a minimum 10-week post-appointment period. I am glad to say that the Electoral Commission supports my amendment; indeed, it supports the majority of my amendments. It says that extending the period to 16 weeks

“would go some way to giving designated lead campaign groups the time needed to get their messages to voters, including to plan and effectively use free mailing and TV broadcasts.”

As a matter of fairness—that hallowed expression—I cannot think of anything more important.

[Mr Jenkin]

I commend my hon. Friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name, but does that not presuppose that the Government will conclude the negotiations and report them to the House well before the 16-week period kicks in, and that it is not legitimate for them then to use the Government’s machinery to explain the deal that they have reached through the purdah period and the 16-week period up to polling day? Does that not suggest that the Government will try to pull a fast one? Would it not be better if they made it clear now that they are going to conclude the deal long before the referendum is called so that there can be a proper and dispassionate debate about it?

[Sir William Cash]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I will go further and say that in the period between now and Report there will be substantial issues of this kind that we will need to dig into. There are references to counsel’s opinion on the purdah period and views that have been expressed by the Electoral Commission. We had a Bill before us without our having any idea of the outcome of the negotiations. This is not a satisfactory way to proceed.

As one who spent 25 years in very senior practice as a constitutional and administrative lawyer dealing with matters such as the dispute between Canada and Quebec, I can only say that counsel’s opinion is not the basis on which to make political decisions. We as lawyers may be very good at coming up with legal answers, but when I get my hands on that counsel’s opinion, as eventually we did on the Iraq opinion, there will be quite a lot of question marks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said in an earlier intervention, the Government can take their counsel’s opinion; we will take ours.

That is the position on that important amendment. The Electoral Commission supports the principle behind it. Will the Minister be good enough to give us a substantive reply and support amendment 9? I might not hold my breath about that.

The other amendment in my name, amendment 10—again, I am grateful for the support of hon. Members who have signed it—would ensure that no funds or support provided directly or indirectly by European Union bodies have a bearing on the outcome of the referendum. Is there any conceivable basis on which the Committee of the whole House would think a proper and fair referendum could be conducted if the entire resources of the European Commission and the European Union can be deployed in order to support a yes vote in the United Kingdom? By the way, there is no chance whatever that those bodies will not use all that money. They may have problems with Greece and they do not want a Grexit, but that pales into insignificance.

This is a very important proposal. The Electoral Commission takes the view that it already has controls on direct and indirect sources of campaign funding. Before I come to that, I refer to the situation as it applied in Ireland. I have spoken, debated and been at mass meetings when campaigners have been good enough to invite me in the run-up to referendums in France, Ireland, Denmark—all over Europe. There one sees the power of the state, pouring money down the throats of voters, and the machinery that underpins the yes campaign. I have come across some figures suggesting that in the second Irish referendum the amount of money deployed by the yes campaign after the machinery was geared up was around 15 times the amount available to the no campaign. That shows the scale of the problem.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman’s concern is partly due to the behaviour of José Manuel Barroso, the former President of the European Commission, during the Scottish referendum, and whether that model is what he envisages seeing, in amplification, in the European referendum.

[Sir William Cash]

It certainly is. I have heard over and over again in this debate claims that, “We all want fairness. We all want transparency. We all want to be sure that the British people are treated fairly.” The fact is that with European Union money there is not the slightest chance of that happening, and the purdah arrangements, by bringing the civil service into the equation, will have exactly the same negative effect.

[Mr MacNeil]

By extension, the logical conclusion of what the hon. Gentleman has just said is that the Scottish people were not treated fairly last September.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me down that path, but I have been in this place for 31 years and will not buy that one. I am very glad that we got the vote we did last September, but that does not prevent me from being critical of the manner in which the procedures were followed.

I want to say something else. We have mentioned Mr Barroso. Here we are in the Westminster Parliament, described as the mother of Parliaments, and yesterday the celebrations for the Magna Carta were seen all over the world. The fact is that the traditions of those two things are illuminated around the world. We have fought in two world wars, against unprovoked aggression, and through our Parliament—through Churchill in this Parliament—we managed to save not just the United Kingdom, but Europe. They managed to drop a bomb on this place on my first birthday. Indeed, on the day I was born Hitler invaded Holland and France and Churchill became Prime Minister, but that is another story. The fact is that we have played a massive part in relation to democracy. What really worries me is that allowing the European Union to use its financial resources to manipulate the system is very dangerous.

According to the Electoral Commission, a central principle of its regulatory regime is to ensure—this is important—

“that foreign sources of funding do not have an undue influence on our democratic process.”

As hon. Members know, I have an eagle eye for the danger points. The Electoral Commission states that the 2000 Act, which sets out that regulatory regime,

“already provides that referendum campaigners are only able to accept donations over £500 from certain ‘permissible’ sources. In general, the permissibility rules provide that funding can only be accepted by referendum campaigners from certain UK-based sources. There are also rules and offences related to using permissible donors as agents to circumvent the rules.”

The Electoral Commission therefore put in place its regulatory arrangements. What it goes on to say is extremely important, and I still believe that my amendment would achieve this, because it uses the words “directly” and “indirectly” when talking about moneys, resources or support from any source within the European Union. The Electoral Commission states:

“It is important that the legislation is clear about those organisations that can and cannot participate in the referendum. The Commission’s view—

wait for it—

is that the European Commission does not fall within the list of bodies that can register as a campaigner or donate to other referendum campaigners. This amendment is therefore unnecessary.”

However, the analysis that I have provided shows the reach of the tentacles of the European Union, driven by Mr Barroso and his successors—Mr Juncker and all the others. We must never forget that Mr Barroso has said that the European Parliament, and only the European Parliament, is the Parliament for the European Union. He and his successors do not believe in this Parliament. There is a lot of talk now about national Parliaments, but his comments are on the record.

The Electoral Commission’s view is that the European Commission does not fall within the list of bodies that can register as campaigners. We should look into that carefully, because if the Electoral Commission were wrong, the European Commission might manage to worm its way in, on the scale that it has at its disposal, and subsidise the yes vote. I understand that that happened in Ireland, not to mention other countries throughout the European Union.

The Prime Minister has said that we can find an answer to the problems inherent in the purdah question. The Government acknowledge that there are problems with section 125 of the 2000 Act, but they say that they will get around them. That would include dealing with the civil service, but we must remember that the civil service includes permanent representatives. Members who are new to the House may not know about COREPER, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which is the most powerful body in the European Union bar none, because it stitches up deals between all the member states. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I took evidence from our chief representative on that body. I emphasise to the Committee that the evaporation of section 125, combined with the monetary intrusion of the European Union, represents a monumental challenge to our democratic system.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is explaining coherently how even though the European Commission does not consider itself to be a permitted participant or a permitted donor in a UK referendum campaign, its ability to fund bodies that will be participants or campaigners is unlimited. What about the Brussels-backed CBI, which has already received funds from the European Union, presumably to promote the EU? What is to prevent the CBI from receiving further funds? What restrictions will the Bill place on the CBI’s ability to receive such funds if it wants to donate to other campaigns?

[Sir William Cash]

This is vital territory. In a nutshell, we will have to get it right. Opening the floodgates on that money would be devastating, especially if it were to be employed alongside the lifting of the restrictions in section 125, which would bring the whole panoply of the civil service into play. That would be a nightmare scenario, but it is a genuine possibility. I am not convinced that the European Union is not a foreign source, although I will look into that. We passed an Act of Parliament, the European Communities Act 1972, under which we absorbed into our legislation all the treaties and all the functions of the bodies in the European Union. Because they became part of our constitutional settlement—for the time being, I trust—I believe that it would be an uncertain, if not a dangerous, assumption to make that the European Union and the European Commission would not be construed as being based in the United Kingdom as well as in all the other EU countries, in other words, as not being a foreign source. This matter will have to be looked at very carefully. I shall consult and confer with my colleagues as to what we do about these amendments.

[Mr MacNeil]

Part of the difficulty that the UK has is the way that countries such as Ireland, Cyprus and Malta are to be treated. We also have the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; we do not consider Commonwealth citizens to be foreign but do consider some European Union citizens to be foreign. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is anomalous because the Irish Republic is neither in the Commonwealth nor is it considered legally foreign in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s own mess is contributing to some of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I respond merely by saying that there are those who once described the Foreign Office as the Common and Foreignwealth Office, but that is another story.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend help me to understand his amendment 10? It appears to bar people who want to engage in the process by donating to the in or out campaign from doing so because of their business interests. For example, a large agricultural company that was receiving basic payment scheme money from the European Union would not be able to donate to an in or out campaign because it was getting that assistance. The same could be said for many industrial companies that may receive grants to extend their factories, or other such support mechanisms.

[Sir William Cash]

It is a question of the manner in which the funds or support are provided. As far as I am concerned, the framework of amendment 10 is to do with campaign funding and donations. The interstices and tentacles of the European Union are so extensive that we will keep bumping into these problems. The scale of the moneys in question is so huge that we have to be sure about this. The determination of the European Union bodies to keep Britain in the European Union is such that they will stop at nothing to use every means that they legally can to ensure that the money goes where they want it for the yes campaign.

I will confer with my colleagues on what we do about amendments 9 and 10.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I associate myself entirely with the comments made earlier in welcoming him to this debate. I will often disagree with what he says, but I am delighted to see someone who goes to such efforts to express in this Chamber views that are very clearly and sincerely held. I always think that a sincere political opponent is the kind of opponent one likes to have a debate with.

I want to focus on amendments 53 and 32. I have some sympathy with the intention behind amendment 53, but from my experience of the referendum in Scotland last year, I suggest that the last thing anybody should want to do is to artificially restrict or control the number of individuals in organisations who can play their own small but important part in what should be a celebration of grassroots democracy if we get it right; it could be something very different if we get it wrong.

The Scottish independence referendum was the biggest celebration of grassroots democracy that I have ever seen or expect to see. That was partly because neither the political parties nor anyone else tried to artificially control who was and was not allowed to take part. I am sure that on a number of occasions the SNP’s lawyers were quite pleased that they were not in control of some of the things that were happening. That is what made it so much fun, that is what gave us a record-breaking turnout, and that is why public engagement in politics in Scotland is still at a much higher level than it was just a few years ago.

I caution the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) to be careful about artificially restricting this debate to the great and the good and suchlike. A lot of wee people out there have something important to say, and a lot of smaller organisations will have an important part to play, on both sides of the question. We should encourage them to have their say rather than artificially restrict them.

It is interesting to hear so many Conservative MPs complaining that they might get outspent in an election campaign; in almost 30 years of party politics, I do not often remember Conservatives complaining that an election was not fair if one party was being massively funded by big business and was able to outspend all the other parties combined by a factor of five or 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend. There are stages in this process. That is what the Bill and the Minister’s letter are trying to get at. The Government will have their renegotiation and then come back with a package saying it is a triumph, whatever is in the package. It might have three loaves and two fishes, or it might give us complete control of our own destiny—whichever it is, the Government will say it is a triumph. That will be the Government’s answer, and they can tell the electorate what they have managed to do. From then on, however, it will become a matter of straightforward politics whether someone believes the Government and agrees with what they have done. I approve of the adversarial system in this country. We do not develop our arguments and get to the answer we want by getting authoritative documents from the Government. Actually, such documents always contain a bias. It might not be obvious on first reading, but, reading through the detail, one will see the way the Government want people to go, and that will bolster the position they have set for themselves.

[Sir William Cash]

I might be corrected by SNP Members, but, as I understand it, the Electoral Commission put out leaflets during the Scottish referendum campaign agreed between the yes and no campaigns. Even if that did not happen, it might be a way of dealing with the situation. The no and yes campaigns could exchange information and come up with a bottom line, and then that line could be taken and put as a fair choice.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I certainly see no impropriety in that. In the London mayoral campaigns, the views of all the candidates are circulated in a single booklet. That is not improper. Perhaps, however, I am more of a believer in capitalism, in respect of elections as well as the economic structures of the country. I believe that people should campaign for what they want, and should put their own arguments rather than thinking that they could be better put—or even well put—by a nominally independent third party, least of all the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a very important point, which may be worth discussing when we debate other amendments. Ultimately, the Government must accept the will of the people—that is what we all believe in, and that is why we are all here—but they must deal with that fairly.

There is also the question of where the Government should proceed from here. There seems to be a wide consensus that paragraph 15 of schedule 1 is deeply unsatisfactory, and that the removal of the issue of purdah was simply a mistake. I am willing to trust the Government, so I accept that it was an honest mistake, and not a mistake that was made in an attempt to fiddle the referendum result. I believe that partly because I am a simple fellow who is very trusting of the Government, but also because trying to fiddle the result will damage whichever side wishes to do it.

The British electorate will not have the wool pulled over their eyes. If little bits of legislation are squirreled away into the Bill to make things easier for one side or the other, those of us who are on the other side will campaign on that basis. We will say, “Look, we need to act against this, because people are trying to fiddle us over what is happening.” There is a wonderfully contrary spirit among the British people, who will not be cowed by those who try to trick them.

[Sir William Cash]

The explanatory notes relating to section 125 of the 2000 Act were so explanatory that a line and a half said simply, “This is what we are going to do.” For practical purposes, I do not think that my hon. Friend would be entirely right in thinking that the Government got there by mistake, particularly as they had taken counsel’s opinion, which we are determined to ferret out.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not know too much about ferreting, or indeed about counsel’s opinion, but my hon. Friend knows only too well that explanatory notes are anything but explanatory. They consist of a complicated a set of notes which, when read carefully in conjunction with a Bill, can shed some light, but I do not think that anyone expects them to be like the Book of Revelation, revealing everything that one could possibly want to know about a Bill. They require Members of Parliament to look diligently at what underlies them.

The Government must examine clause 3 very carefully. They have given undertakings to do so over the next few months, but they need to come back with something that is just as rigorous as what is there already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and that point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. An uncharacteristically weak argument must have been given to the Minister for Europe to read out—he could not have made so poor an argument himself—when he said that if the negotiations have finished it would be very difficult for the Government not to be able to explain them immediately before the election. It cannot be that we will have the referendum two weeks after the negotiations have been concluded. That would be preposterous. There has to be a considerable period of time beforehand, so that what has happened can be understood, debated and campaigned upon. That must mean a period of a minimum of 28 days, as currently set out, but realistically we are going to need three months at the end of the negotiations before we can move straight to the referendum.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is developing an excellent argument, which perhaps brings out the fact that the amendment I have tabled specifies, fully supported by the Electoral Commission, at least a 16-week referendum period, and then it describes how it should be conducted.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I think the Government need to be thinking along those lines. I am going to support the Government this evening; I am not going to vote with my friends in the SNP on this occasion, or indeed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which is more of a break with the habits of a lifetime. There is an important “but”, and I think other hon. Members on the Government Benches share my view: because the Government have made a mistake at this stage, they now need to come back with something better than we would have needed had they not made this mistake. Therefore, the Government’s position of purdah must be a stricter one than they might have been able to get away with had they simply amended the existing restrictions rather than taking them all away and having a completely clean base from which they could have done anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I am speaking to amendment 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who seeks to clarify this point and prevent the use or abuse of EU money. I hope that the Minister will respond and that he will have his own proposals on Report. The Electoral Commission has given exceedingly good advice across the board on this referendum. It seemed to suggest that it would not be right for the EU to give money for the campaign, and it would be nice to have a reassurance that the Government share that view and accept the advice of that august body, which is there to guide us.

There is an additional issue with EU money, to which some colleagues have referred. What do we do about the EU money that is routed to bodies or organisations within the UK that choose to make a donation to a referendum campaign? That is another difficulty. As I understand it, such a donation would be perfectly legal because the organisation giving the money would be able to say that it had other sources of money and it was not a direct gift of EU money to the referendum campaign. Such a body may be swayed by the fact that it had had generous access to EU moneys in the past. While one would hope that none of them were donating for that reason, people would suspect that a body in receipt of substantial EU moneys in the normal course of business that saw fit to give money to the campaign to stay in would hope that the EU would be better disposed to it when it put in its next application for money.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was here when we were debating part of this, but the Electoral Commission’s position is that a central principle of the regulatory regime that it supervises is that foreign sources of funding should not have undue influence on our democratic process. It has come to the conclusion that the European Commission does not fall within the list of bodies that can register as a campaigner. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to get to the bottom of that? It is highly arguable that the European constitutional arrangements are effectively embedded in our own constitutional arrangements by virtue of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. We need to get this right.

[John Redwood]

I was present to hear my hon. Friend speak to his amendment, and I am aware of the legal minefield that the provision could represent. That is why I worded my remarks cautiously—I said that I thought it was the view of the Electoral Commission that it would not be appropriate for the EU to spend money on the campaign. As he reminds us, it has made a clear statement about being a principal donor to the campaign, but there are other ways in which it could help, and it might argue that it was a domestic institution for these purposes. It might say that the EU’s writ runs within the UK. There is an office of the EU in London; it might try and route it through the London office. We need to say that that would be unwise. The Minister may think that it is illegal or that it should be impeded in some way. We need clear guidance from the Minister.

I return to the issue of indirect funding of the campaign by grant-in-aid to organisations that are helped or partially funded by the EU. Of course, it is a matter for the referendum campaign to argue over the rights and wrongs of EU funding. I am sure the no campaign will want to say that the money we send to Brussels and which it gives back to our organisations could be given to them directly by the United Kingdom Government if Brussels were not in the way. It could be pointed out that the £11 billion we send to Brussels in tax revenue is spent outside the UK, so, were we to leave, that money would be available for either tax cuts or extra spending in the United Kingdom.

That would be a matter of debate in the referendum, but an issue for the Bill relates to the legality, morality and political wisdom and judgment regarding the point at which an organisation becomes so dependent on EU funding that it has a very strong interest in it. Restrictions or limitations—or at least a declaration of interest—might need to be made if such a body decides to become involved in the referendum campaign. It would be wise to let people know of such a clear financial interest if the body played an important part in the yes campaign.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be possible to have a register of interests? Then, when companies go on the BBC and say, “We don’t want the United Kingdom to leave the EU,” we would know where their money comes from, what their actual policy is and the extent to which they are dominated by the EU system.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I will happily produce a d-minus election schedule. What I will not be able to do, because it has less to do with the Bill, is to say when negotiations might be complete. However, we will be able to work back and produce a schedule that indicates how the process could and should look.

[Sir William Cash]

The direction of travel is good, because we are interested entirely and exclusively in one thing: not the views of Members of Parliament, but that the choice before the voters is fair. As the Minister knows, the Electoral Commission has supported my proposal. Will he re-engage with me if he has discussions with the Electoral Commission on his new proposal, so that we know which track the commission is going down and what its response is?

[John Penrose]

I am happy to confirm that we have had discussions with the Electoral Commission—I am sure they will continue—about early or pre-designation, which will be an essential part of the alternative that I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman. That will ensure that the 10-week official referendum period is not eaten into, leaving too short a time for a proper airing of the issues. I know that he is concerned about that.

While I am sure that the recent general election campaign was fascinating in all possible respects to everybody in this Chamber, it is possible, given that it started rather earlier than normal because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, that in the minds of one or two of our constituents it might have dragged a bit by the end. I am sure we all had cases of knocking on doors when we were out canvassing during the campaign and people saying, “Oh God, I wish the whole thing was all over.” We need to take care not to go to the other extreme—I know that my hon. Friend is not suggesting this—of having an election campaign that is too long. We are already beginning the referendum campaign—it is clearly starting to gear up—and we need to be careful about going too far the other way.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend talked about some of the organisations that are allowed to donate. There are very great existing protections to stop external non-British interventions in British elections of all kinds, including this one.

[Sir William Cash]

The Electoral Commission’s view is that the European Union does not come within these parameters, but will my hon. Friend share with us the legal advice that the Foreign Office is getting? I think he can take it, though, that we shall be looking at this ourselves, because it is so important in terms of the volume and disproportionateness of the funds that will be available. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, it is half our money anyway.

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is half our money.

I have here the schedule of those who are eligible to donate to the permitted participants under the Act. It is all about UK-based organisations of one kind or another, be they third sector or private sector. Nothing anywhere would allow an organisation like the EU to get involved. The established protections have applied to British elections for quite a few years, and relatively successfully. I do not think that people feel there has been undue influence from organisations abroad in previous elections. The only changes we are making to those protections are, in effect, to make sure that Gibraltarian organisations can, if necessary, be part of the campaign actively or through donations.

My hon. Friend is aware—he mentioned it, as did a number of other colleagues—that the amendment as currently drafted probably has some rather serious technical flaws. He acknowledged that when he was talking about its underlying principles. Those flaws would, in particular, prevent a number of legitimate potential participants in the campaign from participating. For example, any farmer who had received payments under the common agricultural policy would potentially be excluded, as would any firm that had done business on the basis of trading with the European Union Commission. Civil engineering firms that have built roads in France, or indeed in this country, that have been paid for, even in part, by our money routed via the EU, would find themselves caught. In addition, the amendment does not have a time limit, so it would not only apply to the past couple of years but could affect anybody who has ever had any of this money since the EU was first started. Of course, that would be incredibly wide-ranging and could count out some entirely legitimate campaigning organisations or people who wanted to be involved.

Strong protections are in place, and we would need to be careful about the issue raised by the amendment.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I was about to move on, but my hon. Friend wants to make one final point.

[Sir William Cash]

The BBC, of course, has been receiving money from the European Union, so my hon. Friend is right that I am concerned about that point.

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend has confirmed my view, and I am sure that we will continue these discussions.

I move on to amendment 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think his intention is to ensure equal force of arms on both sides of the debate. I was starting from a slightly different presumption: I think that both sides will be pretty well funded—there are well funded and strong views on both sides. There is no tradition in this country of overall, global limits on total campaign spending. As colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, have mentioned, there are individual limits on constituency spends and national limits on individual political party spends. However, there is no overall global limit on the total amount that can be put behind a movement or campaign because other third party campaigning organisations, even after the closer regulation following the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, can also contribute to the campaign behind a particular cause. As there is no limit to the number of organisations that can contribute, there is de facto no overall limit on the total that can be spent.

Opposition colleagues may dislike this example, but it may have resonance on the Government Benches. It is possible and entirely legal, under the right conditions, for trade unions to contribute to and campaign strongly in elections. There are constraints on what they can do, but it is entirely open to one union or 10 to contribute. If 10 contribute, the money that unions could spend goes up by a factor of 10. There is no overall global limit on the amount of money that traditionally can be spent in British elections, although there have been individual limits in specific constituencies.

I caution my hon. Friend a little. The hon. Member for Glenrothes rightly pointed out that people get enthused, excited and involved in political debate at different points and in different ways. If a campaign on either side captures the popular imagination and engages people, people who were not involved at the start can decide to become involved part of the way through. My hon. Friend’s amendment would limit the number of people to only those who were organised and enrolled at the start; once the maximum number had been reached, the gates would close and no one else could enrol.

It is an entirely unworthy thought, I know, but the Chief Whip and I suggest that one side could grab all the slots of eligible campaigners on the other side and then do absolutely nothing with those slots. That would effectively kibosh the other side. I understand my hon. Friend’s attempt to equalise force of arms, but I am afraid that things will not work as he has described. The amendment would also run counter to some deep-rooted, fundamental principles about how British democracy has worked.

Amendment of the Law

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that the shadow Chancellor mentioned the word “employment”, which is interesting because when we first entered office we heard nothing other than the threat of mass unemployment.

Let me pursue the argument about how we will deal with the deficit in the future. It is perfectly right to say that the parties could debate our actual priorities. To be fair to my Conservative colleagues, they are quite explicit about how they wish to deal with the deficit by relying on reductions in public spending. They recognise, as we do, that there is still a significant problem left. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary set out a different way of achieving the same objective. We all have a responsibility to deal with the problem, and we suggest going about it through a different mixture of taxation and spending. The Conservative approach is to deal with it through spending cuts, and given where they come from politically, that is perfectly understandable. Our approach is different: it is a mixed approach, with a ratio of 55% spending increases to 45% tax increases.

With that different balance, we could do more for the NHS. We have talked to Simon Stevens about the finances required to sustain services, including the extra £8 billion and the commitment on mental health. As far as my Department and its work in supporting growth is concerned, I can say—I do not know what my shadow can say, because he is not in the Chamber—that, on such a trajectory, we could sustain spending on the Budget headings that support growth. Those headings cover the industrial strategy and business support; financial interventions, such as the business bank, the green investment bank and the regional growth fund; innovation, which we need to double by the end of this decade if we are to be competitive internationally; science and research, which we plan to grow in real terms, and which the Chancellor has shown a particular interest in and whose budget he supports; adult skills, further education colleges and apprenticeships; and higher education teaching, research and student support. Those are my priorities, and I am very interested to hear what the Opposition’s are. I think their priority is tuition fees, and I will make a little analysis of how that will be done in a moment.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend made a very important speech relating to banks, particularly in rural areas. Will he be kind enough to give us a few extra thoughts on that question? For example, the last bank in Eccleshall in my constituency has been closed. Does he not regard that as a very retrograde step? It is very important to maintain facilities for banking in rural areas.

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that that is a very retrograde step. The Economic Secretary and I have had discussions with the banks about how to deal with that problem, and about how to mobilise the post office network—under this Government, it has been saved and stabilised—to provide an alternative. I am not absolutely certain, but I hope that an announcement will be made within the next few days to protect the position of the last bank in the village.

Bank Closure (Stone)

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

Following the news of the decision to close the Eccleshall branch of NatWest bank, I called for a meeting with the head spokesman for Royal Bank of Scotland, which owns NatWest. Eccleshall is in my constituency, and I support my constituents to the hilt in this important matter, not least because the branch is the last bank in Eccleshall. I urge RBS to keep the essential facility open as a key service. My constituents in Eccleshall, including businesses, the elderly and the infirm, need access to bank services. They should not be made to travel, using cars and increasing traffic; their local banking facilities should be in the town where they live.

Eccleshall is a vibrant, attractive place with many small businesses, pubs and restaurants, and farmers nearby, all of whom need banking facilities daily. The bank will be keeping the ATM—I asked for how long—and has reached some agreement with the Post Office, but our local concerns in Eccleshall far outweigh any of that.

Accounting procedures within the bank’s internal systems remove large chunks of income, such as business, wealth management and mortgages, from the branch income measurement. As a result, only large city branches are likely to be shown as profitable. Were interest rates to rise again to a higher rate, would not small town branches such as Eccleshall become profitable again? Furthermore, banks go on and on about their good customer service, while often making huge losses—even when not in turmoil—but closing a bank in a place such as Eccleshall is the opposite of good customer service.

Stafford borough council’s letter on the matter followed an emergency motion and stated:

“The council expresses its disappointment at the decision by National Westminster Bank to close its branch in Eccleshall. This is the ‘last bank’ in Eccleshall and leaves all residents, particularly the elderly, vulnerable and those in remote areas without an adequate banking service.”

Such an emergency motion is a most unusual step for a borough council. It was also supported by 780 signatures on a petition and, indeed, I will be presenting a parliamentary petition after the debate.

Letters went from the council to the chief executives of RBS and NatWest, copying in the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. In addition, I wrote to the Minister for Business and Enterprise. I asked and continue to ask RBS to review its decision in the light of those letters and the strength of feeling against the closure. In its letter to the NatWest chief executive, Stafford borough council requested that the bank review its decision. In 2010, RBS as a whole had committed to maintain a bank in communities where—I emphasise—it was the last branch in town, even identifying 168 communities where it was already the only branch in town. In 2014, however, at least 25 of those were closed, and Eccleshall appears to be facing the same fate soon. Through the Minister, I ask RBS not to close our NatWest branch.

In the past five years alone, 431 communities have lost their last surviving bank branch. The nearest alternative NatWest branches for Eccleshall residents are in Stone, which is a 12-mile round trip; Stafford, a 16-mile round trip; Trentham or Newport, each a 19-mile round trip; and Market Drayton, a 25-mile round trip. The banks seem to want to accelerate the rate of closure, especially in rural communities, in spite of the speech by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills the other day, and what about the national NatWest pledge not to close the last branch in town? Why can RBS not branch-share, while maintaining the Eccleshall branch to achieve its existing targets? We only need the one branch. The fact that NatWest is part of RBS, with all its historic difficulties, only makes the proposed closure worse.

My broader personal interest derives from the fact that my family founded the Abbey National building society and the National Provident in the mid-19th century, and in my view and that of many of my constituents, banks also have a social purpose. NatWest data claim to show low usage of the Eccleshall branch, but the data is contrary to local reports. People have noticed that queues for the counter service are often extremely vibrant and visible.

The post office, which is intended to offer substitute services, according to the bank, can undertake a wide range of counter transaction services, but it does not have significant capacity to provide a real alternative. The queuing area in the post office is too small and it has only one full-time staff member and two counter positions. How long will the queues be when businesses pay in their weekend takings, especially the pubs and restaurants, on Mondays? As I said, there are plenty of pubs and small businesses in my constituency, so the banking of weekend takings will make things worse, especially for the disabled and elderly if coinciding with pension days and so on.

Banks offer a core service to all in the community, not only to individual people, but to businesses and groups, whether families, single people, the elderly, the infirm, farmers and so on—every stratum of society. If there is a mobile banking service limited to an hour, what happens if people cannot get to Eccleshall at that time? The post office has no disability compliance and wheelchair users cannot obtain access, while its standard paying-in maximum for business is £1,000 per day, which is far below what the pubs need to pay in each Monday. Also, the bank branch can amend or cancel standing orders, but the post office cannot.

On communications about the closure, I have been told that five NatWest Eccleshall business customers merely received a letter and that no meetings have been held. On internet banking, Eccleshall does not fit a pattern of internet-subscribed services and telephone banking. My constituents will be forced to use online or telephone banking services. Many do not have access to the internet and do not feel safe talking to people on the telephone about personal finance.

There has been no effective community involvement in the closure decision. If my constituents are to have a growing and diverse community in their local area, with local employment and services and increased housing, they need to be supported by a local bank in the community, rather than decision making being taken away from their people and business. The Eccleshall community is a caring one, and as I go around the town I know that people feel strongly about the issue. My constituents in Eccleshall value the local NatWest branch and want to retain it. The town is a small, vibrant community. I urge the Minister to intervene with RBS to recommit to maintaining the “last branch in town” policy commitment.

The chief executive of RBS, Mr Ross McEwan, wrote to me last week with the RBS 2014 full-year results. Part of that correspondence refers to a section in the results entitled “A better bank for customers”, in which he says that for too long UK banks have focused on “market share”, rather than “customer care”:

“It is why over the last year our people have worked hard to embed this ‘customer first’ mentality into everything we do as a bank…we are determined to reach our aspiration of being number 1 for customer service, trust and advocacy”—

by 2020—

“It won’t be easy, but I firmly believe it is doable.”

At the end of the letter, he says:

“We will continue to focus on doing what is right for our customers.”

All I have to say is: we shall see.

RBS has an operating profit of £3.5 billion, with an underlying operating profit that increased by £l billion in 2014, less the £2 billion in fines—the ones we know about. That is not good. Thus, in 2015, we might reasonably expect profits to exceed £5 billion, but what about my constituents and their service from the bank in Eccleshall? The chairman and chief executive both reiterated their “customer first” policy. The chairman stated that NatWest must become the No. l bank for trust, service and advocacy, with the chief executive adding that

“the customer has to come first in everything that we do”.

The chief executive met the Chancellor to discuss bank branch closures on the very same day that I was meeting NatWest executives to discuss the closure of the NatWest bank in Eccleshall. That was on Tuesday 27 January 2015. The Chancellor called for a minimum standard for managing any bank branch closure. That speaks for itself.

I also now have problems with closures by the Co-operative bank. It, too, has a poor history. I met with the head of branch network for the Co-operative bank last Wednesday to oppose its decision to close branches at Blythe Bridge, Cheadle and Stone in my constituency. The nearest alternative branch will now be in Longton, which is approximately eight miles from all the other branches. The branches are scheduled to close by the end of July. The Co-operative bank also claims that its customers are its main priority, but how can customers be its main priority if it is removing banks in such key local towns? It says it will write to affected customers to let them know about the changes and the alternatives available to them.

I understand that Bob Rickert, the chief operating officer tasked with helping restructure the bank, left it last week, and last October saw the departure of its chairman, Richard Pym. The Co-operative bank is struggling to turn itself around after facing a £1.5 billion financial black hole, which we have all heard about and was quite clearly self-induced. The bank is not expected to make a profit until at least 2017, and in December, it failed the Bank of England stress tests, designed to scrutinise banks’ ability to weather a downturn.

My constituents in Stone do not want the Co-op bank in their town to close. They banked with its predecessor for 30 years and want a full local branch. The post office is not a good alternative, as it could not offer a full service and the queues are long. The same applies in Cheadle and Blythe Bridge.

I call on the Minister to intervene by writing to the banks and to do everything possible to try to prevent the proposed Co-op closures in Cheadle, Stone and Blythe Bridge, as well as the closure of the NatWest branch in Eccleshall.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

It is a great to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this debate and on presenting his case as compellingly as he always does. He has made good points to which I am extremely sympathetic. I well understand—I have my own constituency cases on the issue—how people feel when a bank in their area is to be closed. Bank branches are often felt to be at the heart of a local community. I appreciate that, as he said, the people of Eccleshall have produced a petition with close to 800 signatures expressing their concern at the loss of their bank branch. Each of those people, and those in the neighbouring communities in Blythe Bridge, Cheadle and Stone who are losing a branch of the Co-operative bank, will feel, quite rightly, that their town is losing a little piece of its identity.

Eccleshall has had a NatWest branch since 1970, and has had a bank branch operating since the 1870s on what I can well imagine is a well loved local site, so the situation must be unsettling for local people. I am deeply concerned about closures not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency but across the country. I therefore want to tell him a bit about what I and others in the Government have been doing to try to make sense of the situation and to protect the important local access to banking services that so many people need and want.

At the same time, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the way we bank is going through an unprecedented period of change. Customers are reducing their use of high street branches and embracing new online and mobile technology. Although we all recognise that decisions on where branches are located are commercial ones, I assure him that the Government can set the tone, stressing the importance of day-to-day banking services to everyone’s daily life. As Economic Secretary, I have made that a personal priority and have worked hard to make sure that the vital services that the banking industry provides remain as widely available as possible.

NatWest has set out its case that the number of transactions at its Eccleshall branch is low compared with the rest of its branch network, but I absolutely recognise the disappointment felt by customers more broadly in the local area at the news of the closure. People often feel that there is inadequate consultation with the community and local stakeholders who may be affected. NatWest has followed current best practice, giving customers a three-month notice period and contacting its most active and most vulnerable customers to help them find alternative ways to bank. However, if people are to feel that their concerns have been heard, and if local businesses are to feel that the services underpinning their livelihoods are safe, banks must go much further. That is why I have been working to encourage the industry to adopt a new protocol that each bank will undertake to follow so as to mitigate the impact of a local branch closure.

[Sir William Cash]

Did my hon. Friend hear the interview on this morning’s “Today” programme with the chief executive of Barclays bank, in which he talked about the amount of money he is earning and about bank bonuses, which are also under wider discussion? The chief executive and chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland keep making statements about customer service—we have heard much the same sort of thing from the Co-op—but that does not help my constituents or anyone else in the country. They then find a little edge here or there with regard to the profitability of a particular branch. Does she agree that if banks want a reputation that is worth maintaining, it will involve making sure that people in communities such as Eccleshall have actual access to the kinds of services that the banks say they are offering in their annual reports and in the public arena—on radio and television?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I agree to a great extent with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that banks are keen to restore their damaged reputations and that the big UK banks in particular are determined to show that they are there for their customers. I therefore agree with what he says about the need to make sure that they are addressing the needs of those customers and not looking only at commercial realities. Equally, however, I know he will agree that it is not for Government to intervene in private businesses to force them to retain completely unviable branches. We need instead to make sure that banks pay careful attention to the balance between commercial realities and the needs of local communities.

[Sir William Cash]

On Government activity, I seem to remember only a few years ago an extensive bail-out for RBS. There are also questions in relation to the Co-op. It seems to me that when banks want help—and by help, I mean monumental bail-outs—it comes from the Government and the taxpayer, yet when they say they are putting customer service first they close small but important branches in places such as Eccleshall, which needs its branch.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those further remarks. Again, I completely agree that banks have a long way to go to restore confidence that they mean what they say when they talk about customer service. However, again, he will understand if I do not say that a bank must open a branch in this place or that. Those decisions are commercial ones. The Government need to ensure that banks balance the needs of customers with commercial realities.

I mentioned that I have been urging and encouraging the industry to adopt a protocol that each bank would follow to mitigate the impact of a local branch closure. The protocol should not simply set out a series of steps for individual banks to take before they close a branch, but should raise the game of the industry as a whole, including how it listens to the concerns of its customers, and, crucially, how it responds. I am pleased to say that discussions on the protocol are at an advanced stage, and agreement is expected soon, thanks to the help of the trade body for banks, the British Bankers Association. We are hopeful that we will get something positive that will address some of the issues my hon. Friend raised.

My hon. Friend mentioned the availability of banking services through local post offices. I completely understand that for customers having a local post office is not the same as having a local bank branch. However, the services available through the Post Office offer most customers a real opportunity to continue to bank locally. We can and must do more to ensure that everybody understands and is comfortable with using the banking services available to them through their post office. For many customers, the Post Office can provide access to their bank account, including the ability to withdraw money, deposit cash and cheques and check their balance at all 11,700 of its branches throughout the UK—a huge network.

In some respects the Post Office can offer wider customer benefits. I know that a number of post offices, including in my constituency, have much longer opening hours than a typical high street bank and provide services seven days a week. Recently, I met the head of the post office network to talk about moves to improve the network, to provide more customer-facing space and more security, and to improve the range of financial services that it offers. The Post Office is working with its postmasters to ensure that facilities are upgraded and that appropriate security is put in place to enable customers to bank safely, and it is determined to do more to ensure that essential banking facilities remain available in as many communities as possible. The Government have committed almost £2 billion to protecting and modernising the post office network.

I believe that we can continue to improve the banking services that the Post Office offers and make them more consistent for customers, which is why I have encouraged the British Bankers Association and the Post Office to look at a standardised approach to counter banking services available through post offices. The Government expect a report on the progress of those talks in the near future.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about the future of banking beyond the traditional branch network, and about the services that will be accessible to all. It is vital that we ensure that vulnerable customers—particularly the elderly and those in rural constituencies—have suitable access. In Eccleshall, I believe that NatWest has made provision for a change to an existing mobile bank route, so a more traditional NatWest presence will still be available in the town.

A whole new world of banking is becoming available, and we should be excited about the opportunities that online and mobile technology can provide. The UK is positioning itself as a world leader in financial technology, and we can already see signs of the benefits that all the developments in financial technology can bring. For example, since April 2014, customers can securely transfer money instantly to other bank accounts using only their mobile phone number as identification, which means that they do not have to access a computer or travel to a branch to make a payment. From 31 July 2016, customers will be able to use their telephone to photograph cheques for payment into their bank account, making life easier for customers in remote areas. Several banks are taking action to help their customers use those new technologies with confidence.

We are also making progress on ATM provision. The number of free-to-use ATMs is at an all-time high, and 97% of withdrawals are now made free of charge. I understand that in Eccleshall NatWest will still provide an ATM in the local community. There are also two other free-to-use ATMs within 1 mile of the branch that is to close.

More generally, it is often the most isolated or disadvantaged communities that have the worst access to free-to-use ATMs, so the Government are working closely with the LINK network’s financial inclusion programme to subsidise free-to-use cash points in more than 1,400 remote and deprived areas across the UK. Importantly, members of the public can nominate their area for inclusion. I believe that the ATM network can play a more important role in addressing some of the concerns voiced by consumers whose local branch is closing.

On a trip to India last year as part of my job as Economic Secretary, I was impressed at the widespread use of smart ATMs, which have far greater functionality than those we tend to have in the UK. They allow customers not only to make withdrawals and deposits and check their balances, but to carry out a wider range of transactions, such as purchasing train tickets and bus passes. Progress in the UK could be made by simply ensuring that ATMs allowed customers to deposit cash. That facility would be particularly beneficial to local small and medium-sized enterprises if it were provided in a way that allowed depositors to feel safe and secure—for example, within the confines of a Post Office, a store or an e-lobby. I have raised that issue with the banking sector, and my officials are engaged with LINK to find a way forward.

In conclusion, although the Government recognise that individual branch closures are commercial decisions and must continue to be so, I fully understand the disappointment felt in Stone and other communities when local bank branches close. There is no doubt that customers’ usage of banking services is going through an unprecedented period of change, but it is vital that we ensure that vulnerable customers—particularly the elderly and those in rural constituencies—have suitable access.

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that it will continue to be my personal priority for the remaining weeks of this Parliament to ensure that the vital services that the banking industry provides remain as widely available as possible, wherever people live. I fully intend to make further progress on the initiatives to get banks to create a new protocol, to look at what services the Post Office provides, and to push further on using technology to provide solutions to businesses and customers in rural areas. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising these important issues in this vital debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Money Creation and Society

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important speech. I only wish that more people were here to listen to it. I wonder whether he has read Nicholas Wapshott’s book about Hayek and Keynes, which deals very carefully with the question that he has raised. Does he agree that the unpleasantness of the Weimar republic and the inflationary increase at that time led to the troubles with Germany later on, but that we are now in a new cycle which also needs to be addressed along the lines that he has just been describing?

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said emphasises that the subject that is at issue today goes to the heart of the survival of a free civilisation. That is something that Hayek wrote about, and I think it is absolutely true.

If I were allowed props in the Chamber, I might wave this 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar note. You can hold bad politics in your hand: that is the truth of the matter. People try to explain that hyperinflation has never happened just through technocratic error, and that it happens in the context of, for example, extremely high debt levels and the inability of politicians to constrain them. In what circumstances do we find ourselves today, when we are still borrowing broadly triple what Labour was borrowing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I welcome the spirit in which he asks that question. The vast majority of us, on both sides of the House, live on our labour. We work in order to obtain money so that we can obtain the things we need to survive.

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts another remark that I was going to make, which is that there is a categorical difference between earning money through the sweat of one’s brow and making money by just creating it when lending it to someone in exchange for a claim on the deeds to their house. Those two concepts are fundamentally, categorically different, and this goes to the heart of how capitalism works. I appreciate that very little of this would find its way on to an election leaflet, but it matters a great deal nevertheless. Perhaps I shall need to ask my opponent if he has followed this debate.

My point is that if a great fountain of new money gushes up into the financial sector, we should not be surprised to find that the banking system is far wealthier than anyone else. We should not be surprised if financing and housing in London and the south-east are far wealthier than anywhere else. Indeed, I remember that when quantitative easing began, house prices started rising in Chiswick and Islington. Money is not neutral. It redistributes real income from later to earlier owners—that is, from the poor to the rich, on the whole. That distribution effect is key to understanding the effect of new money on society. It is the primary cause of almost all conflicts revolving around the production of money and around the relations between creditors and debtors.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend might be aware that, before the last general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and I and one or two others attacked the Labour party for the lack of growth and expressed our concern about the level of debt. If we add in all the debts from Network Rail, nuclear decommissioning, unfunded pension liabilities and so on, the actual debt is reaching extremely high levels. According to the Government’s own statements, it could now be between £3.5 trillion and £4 trillion. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is extremely dangerous?

[Steve Baker]

It is extremely dangerous and it has been repeated around the world. An extremely good book by economist and writer Philip Coggan, of The Economist, sets out just how dangerous it is. In “Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the New World Order”, a journalist from The Economist seriously suggests that this huge pile of debt created as money will lead to a wholly new monetary system.

I have not yet touched on quantitative easing, and I will try to shorten my remarks, but the point is this: having lived through this era where the money supply tripled through new lending, the whole system, of course, blew up—the real world caught up with this fiction of a monetary policy—and so QE was engaged in. A paper from the Bank of England on the distributional effects of monetary policy explains that people would have been worse off if the Bank had not engaged in QE—it was, of course, an emergency measure. But one thing the paper says is that asset purchases by the Bank

“have pushed up the price of equities by as least as much as they have pushed up the price of gilts.”

The Bank’s Andy Haldane said, “We have deliberately inflated the biggest bond market bubble in history.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

With reference to the Treasury Committee, does the right hon. Gentleman see a potential role for some form of joint Committee, perhaps with the Public Accounts Committee, whose origins are to do with taxation and spending? Does he think that broadening scrutiny a little in that direction might be helpful so that we get the full benefit of the all-party agreement of both Committees?

[Mr Meacher]

That is a helpful intervention. Although it is a relatively big part of what I am proposing, it is not for me to suggest exactly what the structure of accountability should be. I would be strongly in favour of increasing it as the hon. Gentleman proposes. Until this House is content that it has a proper channel of accountability which is effective in terms of the way our financial system is run, we should bring in further changes to the structure of accountability as may be necessary, such as along the lines that he suggests.

On lending to businesses, the experience that we have had in the past half-decade has been very unsatisfactory. Under a sovereign monetary system, the central bank would be empowered to create money for the express purpose of that funding role. The money would be lent to banks with the requirement that the funds were used for productive purposes, whereas lending for speculative purposes—for example, to purchase pre-existing assets, either financial or property—would not be allowed. The central bank could also create and lend funds to other intermediaries—the hon. Member for Wycombe referred to this—such as regional or publicly owned business banks, which would ensure that a floor could be placed under the level of lending to businesses, which would be a great relief to British business, guaranteeing support for the real economy.

To avoid misunderstanding, I should add that within the limits imposed by the central bank on the broad purposes for which money may be lent, lending decisions would be entirely at the discretion of the lending institutions, not of the Government or the central bank.

I believe that a sovereign monetary system offers very considerable advantages over the current system. First, it would create a better and safer banking system because banks would have an incentive to take lower levels of risk, as there would be no option of a bail-out or rescue from taxpayers and thus moral hazard would be reduced. Secondly, it would increase economic stability because money creation by banks tends to be pro-cyclical, as I explained, whereas money creation by the central bank would be counter-cyclical. Thirdly, sovereign money crucially supports the real economy, whereas under the current system 83% of lending does not at present go into productive investment. I underline that three times.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, the rebate involves a discussion between member states and the European Commission, which is why we were discussing with the Commission, in parallel, the size of the British rebate. Frankly, any question from Labour Members about the rebate is a bit rich, given that they gave up half of it.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on getting rid of these punitive interest rates. I hope that he will refer the new rules that were decided at ECOFIN last Friday to my Committee so that we can scrutinise them properly. Is there any sound reason for our making any payment at all if those rules do not deal with the problem of other member states including their black economy in the statistical base that they use when putting forward their proposals? That greatly affects the whole basis on which the calculations are made.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the quality of the statistics. It was raised by the European Court of Auditors last week; it was also made forcefully by the Dutch Finance Minister at ECOFIN. The key point is that we can examine the numbers, and if there are errors we will get money repaid to us at the end of next year.

Undeclared Work (Reasoned Opinion)

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We are extremely conscious of the timetable this evening, and the fact that the whole business must be dealt with by at least 10.45 pm. We will do our best—at least, some of us will—to ensure that we get through the business as quickly as possible, but we must also have regard to what needs to be said.

The explanatory memorandum that the Minister has just discussed states:

“The Government is not yet persuaded that the proposed decision to require Member States to participate on a mandatory basis is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and believes that participation in any platform should be on a voluntary basis.”

I know that further consideration is being given to that position, and as far as we are concerned the matter is of sufficient importance to be regarded as a breach of subsidiarity. That is our view, and the view of our legal adviser and the European Scrutiny Committee. The Minister added:

“The Government’s view is that the proposal lacks the empirical evidence base or analysis of structural failure at Member State or Union level which would support a case for intervention.”

We wish to underline the inadequacy of the Commission’s impact assessment, which acknowledges the absence of a clear “incidence chain” linking the establishment of the EU platform to a reduction in undeclared work, greater social well-being and better economic outcomes.

We also seek a clear explanation from the Government about their position on the content of the draft reasoned opinion prepared by the European Scrutiny Committee, as well as an indication of how they intend to use it in Council negotiations on the draft decision. Will member states continue to express a preference for voluntary participation in any EU platform on undeclared work? The Commission’s impact assessment indicates that most member states favour a voluntary approach.

We wish to press the Minister for a clearer indication of the scale and significance of the cross-border dimension in tackling undeclared work. In that context we bear in mind that, as she has said, there are justice and home affairs implications in respect of that and of whether there should be an opt-in. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will oppose any attempt in the general approach proposed to interfere in internal governance structures and the co-ordination mechanisms of national enforcement authorities responsible for tackling undeclared work?

I think that that is as much as needs to be said at this stage, but I wanted to put that on the record and make a general comment about reasoned opinions. I have been sceptical about reasoned opinions and the yellow card system for a long time—in fact, from the moment they were first put forward. We know that there are thresholds, but we were extremely disturbed when, in relation to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the threshold was passed by all member states and—surprise, surprise—the European Commission ignored that fact. The national Parliaments, which the Commission keeps telling us are so important, took the view that there was a breach of subsidiarity. On account of that it was assumed that the Commission would withdraw the proposal, but no such thing occurred.

I say that in general as we start the new parliamentary Session, because it is no good getting these grand statements—we are getting a lot at the moment—from the likes of Mr Juncker and company about the kind of European Union they want. There are very serious questions about the drive towards political union. If they want to trample on national Parliaments, when they put forward and achieve the threshold in terms of reasoned opinions and subsidiarity, and just ignore them, then I am afraid the increase in disaffection with the European Union will grow exponentially.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

A number of the points that have been raised by hon. Members are very similar. First, it is important to put on the record that undeclared work is an extremely important issue across Europe. It is on a larger scale in some countries than others. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked what research had been undertaken on the levels of undeclared work in the UK. The most recent estimate for the UK was, I think, 1.7%—extremely low. In other member states the figure is significantly higher, so it is clearly a bigger issue in other states.

Cross-border working was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South. One of our concerns is that very little evidence has been put forward on the implications and requirement to take action on cross-border work. On the assessment of the numbers and the amount of detriment that can be attributed to them, we are not convinced that the data are particularly accurate. We have asked the European Commission to identify, in a much better way, the scale of the problem. The UK, alongside other member states, does a lot of work internationally across borders, in a completely voluntary way, to try to tackle these issues. A huge amount of work is done because, as responsible Governments across different countries, we all think it is really important to tackle this issue. We do not feel that the Commission has provided evidence that what is being done at the moment is not a good enough approach and we have not seen evidence to suggest that the problem is significantly larger. That is one of the main reasons why we feel that the Commission has not made the case for why this needs to be done at EU level, rather than at member state level.

The hon. Member for Stone asked about participation and about our position on the subsidiarity principle, given that we are saying that the position has changed. We still have concerns that the mandatory nature of the platform is a breach of the subsidiarity principle. However, as regards the operation, given that the only mandatory element is attendance at the platform, we now believe that the concerns we raised in explanatory memorandums about the requirements for member states to take action when it is for them to decide—it has been agreed in the negotiations that it should not be mandatory—are not such a problem for the UK. Yet we feel it is really important that any activity should remain voluntary rather than mandatory.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Minister saying that she still believes that, as far as the UK Parliament is concerned, there should be a yellow card for the purpose? The question is as simple as that.