I spent the last two days of this week in Spain with a group of MEPs considering Economic Affairs. Unemployment in Spain has rocketed to nearly 20%. Whilst the country’s temporary workers are almost all not working , the unionised permanent workers have negotiated large wage rises. In an early morning walk around the block I saw a person wrapped in a blanket holding out a paper cup begging on nearly every doorstep.
The traffic was terrible – the governments “fiscal stimulus” (i.e. spending money) seems to be paying for relaying of pavements everywhere, and everyday travellers were often brought to a halt by siren blasting motorcades of visiting politicians preparing for Spain to take over the rolling presidency of the European Union next month.
Our own bus (with no outriders) took us to meet the Central Bank as well as insurance and market regulators, the employers' union (CBI equivalent) the bankers' association and Spain’s largest bank Santander. Despite their economic woes Spain survived the financial crash well thanks to their conservative regulatory approach in recent years. Part of our visit was to discuss the new European Authorities for financial services that have been causing in Brussels a stir in the UK press this week. Unanimously the Spanish experts said that whilst the European wide Authorities will be helpful for sharing information and setting guidelines they also stated firmly that regulation of individual financial institutions should remain a national concern not an EU concern.
Back at home people have asked me why my office in Brussels and Strasbourg are so busy. Part of this is because of the new group that the Conservatives have helped form in the Parliament. The committee structure of the EP means that every bit of legislation is scrutinised in detail by one member from each political group. Whereas before the Conservatives sat within the very large EPP with over 200 members now our group is 54 members. This means we have a much stronger voice and can be involved in every issue.
My own office is leading on the new European Banking Authority, Bank Capital (yes and bonuses) and new rules to tighten up on Tax havens. Through my second committee I am looking at dodgy drugs (well actually counterfeit medicines) and we have recently completed work on Energy requirements for buildings – helping to bring the rest of the EU close to UK standards. I am also helping colleagues with their scrutiny of legislation on alternative investments, which if we get it wrong will have a huge impact not only on UK pensions but on investments in innovative start-ups and in developing countries. The devil is in the detail on all of this with sometimes hundreds of amendments proposed by the parliament to any given paper – it’s fascinating, stimulating and yes sometimes a mountain of paper work.
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Is the EU hiding debate on its accounts...
I have been a bit rushed off my feet over the past fortnight in manning the front line in Europe (with a stinking cold) but I thought I had to blog about today.
This morning there was the open debate about the court of auditors opinion on last year's EU accounts. As I sat listening in the chamber it was clear that whilst some members are willing to brush aside the controversial issue of 15 years of "qualified" accounts, there were also members from all parties with strong and critical views. There were also a number of suggestions of how the situation could be improved. Many others made good suggestions of areas they think could be improved. I heard socialists, liberals, greens, centre-rightists raise questions that deserve answers. No time was given for answers.
Is the EU trying to hide the MEP's voices in this debate?
The first thing that raised my (now very cynical) antennae is that the debate on the accounts happened today whereas the vote was yesterday. (I voted against). The second issue is just how long the secretariat of the parliament took to post the video on the website. Whereas normally the video record of parliament appears almost immediately - this debate took until the end of the day. Other debates have quite clear labelling on their subject matter but this debate is just labelled as "2008". Who will ever find this on a google search in years to come? Will our questions be answered or are they just being brushed under the carpet?
If you want to watch the whole debate you could spend hours searching the internet or you could perhaps find it here.. My contribution is about an hour in.
This morning there was the open debate about the court of auditors opinion on last year's EU accounts. As I sat listening in the chamber it was clear that whilst some members are willing to brush aside the controversial issue of 15 years of "qualified" accounts, there were also members from all parties with strong and critical views. There were also a number of suggestions of how the situation could be improved. Many others made good suggestions of areas they think could be improved. I heard socialists, liberals, greens, centre-rightists raise questions that deserve answers. No time was given for answers.
Is the EU trying to hide the MEP's voices in this debate?
The first thing that raised my (now very cynical) antennae is that the debate on the accounts happened today whereas the vote was yesterday. (I voted against). The second issue is just how long the secretariat of the parliament took to post the video on the website. Whereas normally the video record of parliament appears almost immediately - this debate took until the end of the day. Other debates have quite clear labelling on their subject matter but this debate is just labelled as "2008". Who will ever find this on a google search in years to come? Will our questions be answered or are they just being brushed under the carpet?
If you want to watch the whole debate you could spend hours searching the internet or you could perhaps find it here.. My contribution is about an hour in.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
From Fridges to the Future of Europe and Financial taxes
Britain’s next aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, due to enter service with the Royal Navy in 2016, is still years away from being completed, let alone battle ready. On Friday, in a damning testament to our defence procurement system, I saw the final touches being applied to the fridges that will stand in her galleys. As I stood at my own village war memorial this morning I listened to the familiar family names in the roll of honour and I wondered what our British soldiers in Afghanistan would think about the money that has been spent on un-needed fridges.
Actually I was very impressed by the fridge company. Based in deepest Norfolk they are Europe’s leaders in commercial refrigerators. Every product is hand finished and environmentally of the highest standards. Even with the recession their sales have held up – declines in domestic sales helped by increased exports especially to France and Germany. In a week when Britain has ceded so much control to Europe this reminded me that it was to help companies like this that we went into the common market in the first place. On the other hand the company also explained that the last thing they need is the “Agency Workers Directive” – the vast majority of their staff are permanant but to be competitive they need to employ agency staff when they have bigger orders. This was a real world example of the opt out of Employment law from Brussels is so important.
Negotiations in Brussels are often more complicated than they first seem. I have been looking at the plans to create new European Authorities for banks, financial markets and insurers. Everyone agrees that we need a new form of regulation and must not go back to the risk taking that led to the financial crisis. We need better ways to share information across borders and to manage not only national but global risks. But these new authorities potentially go much deeper – the current drafts cede powers from the FSA/Bank of England to Europe to manage emergency failures in the future. With Britain being home to the world largest financial centre and such a vast amount of British tax-payers’ money currently on the line with our banks I believe the current draft crosses a red line.
To date the principal has been upheld that if national taxpayers are affected then national regulators (not Europe) should make the decisions. Gordon Brown’s step this weekend to propose a “transaction tax” on all financial trades starts to move into a potential grey area. Whilst I totally agree that financial institutions need to show some austerity and pay back the tax payer for the pain they have caused, I also know that if trading is more expensive in Europe then financial market business will just be driven overseas. But if Europe starts to set up a “pool” for future bail outs then Europe will argue for central decision making and ultimately wrench control of financial institutions from National regulators. Is the UK really ready to see the Bank of England subservient to the European Central Bank, the European Commission, or majority votes of the other 26 member states?
It may be easy to brush Gordon’s proposal of a transaction or “Tobin” tax away as pre-election posturing (the first reactions from the US are so negative that it’s unlikely to happen globally and therefore maybe not at all) but it does open up the possibility of another set of very difficult negotiations with Brussels.
Actually I was very impressed by the fridge company. Based in deepest Norfolk they are Europe’s leaders in commercial refrigerators. Every product is hand finished and environmentally of the highest standards. Even with the recession their sales have held up – declines in domestic sales helped by increased exports especially to France and Germany. In a week when Britain has ceded so much control to Europe this reminded me that it was to help companies like this that we went into the common market in the first place. On the other hand the company also explained that the last thing they need is the “Agency Workers Directive” – the vast majority of their staff are permanant but to be competitive they need to employ agency staff when they have bigger orders. This was a real world example of the opt out of Employment law from Brussels is so important.
Negotiations in Brussels are often more complicated than they first seem. I have been looking at the plans to create new European Authorities for banks, financial markets and insurers. Everyone agrees that we need a new form of regulation and must not go back to the risk taking that led to the financial crisis. We need better ways to share information across borders and to manage not only national but global risks. But these new authorities potentially go much deeper – the current drafts cede powers from the FSA/Bank of England to Europe to manage emergency failures in the future. With Britain being home to the world largest financial centre and such a vast amount of British tax-payers’ money currently on the line with our banks I believe the current draft crosses a red line.
To date the principal has been upheld that if national taxpayers are affected then national regulators (not Europe) should make the decisions. Gordon Brown’s step this weekend to propose a “transaction tax” on all financial trades starts to move into a potential grey area. Whilst I totally agree that financial institutions need to show some austerity and pay back the tax payer for the pain they have caused, I also know that if trading is more expensive in Europe then financial market business will just be driven overseas. But if Europe starts to set up a “pool” for future bail outs then Europe will argue for central decision making and ultimately wrench control of financial institutions from National regulators. Is the UK really ready to see the Bank of England subservient to the European Central Bank, the European Commission, or majority votes of the other 26 member states?
It may be easy to brush Gordon’s proposal of a transaction or “Tobin” tax away as pre-election posturing (the first reactions from the US are so negative that it’s unlikely to happen globally and therefore maybe not at all) but it does open up the possibility of another set of very difficult negotiations with Brussels.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Unsexy Methane, Railways and more
I have been (rightly) told off for failing to boast on my blog about how delighted we are to get EU funding for the upgrade of the railway lines East West across the UK to allow freight to travel by rail not road. This is a project I have been working on for over a year, and since elected working very closely with my Conservative MEP colleagues Geoffrey van Orden and Robert Sturdy. The press release we put out last week is here. Its good news.
I’ve just had one of those luxury weeks when the parliament doesn’t meet and MEPs get a chance to catch up with their home issues. Yes it is a luxury to stay in one’s own bed for a week but it is not a week off!
In Essex I met up with Rebecca Harris who has appeared in recent newspapers for having an “unsexy interest in methane gas”. She is right. Rebecca is the Conservative Candidate for Castlepoint, a constituency that includes Canvey Island. The small Island has 45,000 residents, one exit route and a very large and now old gas storage plant. Many of the residents live within a mile of the plant. Post the disaster of the Buncefield fire residents are justified in asking questions about safety. Rebecca and I met local campaigners. They were very well informed. I have offered to raise the issues of safety as part of the debate that we will have on Gas Storage in the parliament this month. It is always good to be able to try to help a local issue.
In Cambridgeshire I visited yet another world leading organisation. The Welding Institute (TWI) was founded during WWII to investigate welding and joining material. I saw how they have been involved in everything from formula one cars, to heart by-passes, nuclear waste to gas rigs. It’s a superb institution at the forefront of real research – I hope that they are successful in their bid to expand.
I had a few days in London discussing finance – I am becoming concerned about the speed that some of the new legislation may rush through Brussels without real debate. In particular I have been looking at the plans for the new “European Banking Authority” – now I have no problems with sharing information between banking regulators and yes we do need a new system of regulation – but, digging into the detail, it appears to me that various national sovereign powers are being transferred over to Brussels and I am yet to be convinced that this is in the interest of taxpayers, savers or borrowers.
At the weekend I joined Conservatives from across all 58 Westminster constituencies of the East of England for a regional conference. The final session of the day was a talk from Joe Johnson, deputy editor of the FT. Inter alia, Joe pointed out that a 1% increase in the rate UK Gov pays on the National Debt costs £15 billion per year. That’s a hell of a lot of money. We need to get our debt burden down – not just because it is so high but because the ratings agencies are watching us and if we don’t investors will start demanding higher spreads. Food for thought as I sit on the Eurostar rushing back to Brussels – the spending capital of Europe.
I’ve just had one of those luxury weeks when the parliament doesn’t meet and MEPs get a chance to catch up with their home issues. Yes it is a luxury to stay in one’s own bed for a week but it is not a week off!
In Essex I met up with Rebecca Harris who has appeared in recent newspapers for having an “unsexy interest in methane gas”. She is right. Rebecca is the Conservative Candidate for Castlepoint, a constituency that includes Canvey Island. The small Island has 45,000 residents, one exit route and a very large and now old gas storage plant. Many of the residents live within a mile of the plant. Post the disaster of the Buncefield fire residents are justified in asking questions about safety. Rebecca and I met local campaigners. They were very well informed. I have offered to raise the issues of safety as part of the debate that we will have on Gas Storage in the parliament this month. It is always good to be able to try to help a local issue.
In Cambridgeshire I visited yet another world leading organisation. The Welding Institute (TWI) was founded during WWII to investigate welding and joining material. I saw how they have been involved in everything from formula one cars, to heart by-passes, nuclear waste to gas rigs. It’s a superb institution at the forefront of real research – I hope that they are successful in their bid to expand.
I had a few days in London discussing finance – I am becoming concerned about the speed that some of the new legislation may rush through Brussels without real debate. In particular I have been looking at the plans for the new “European Banking Authority” – now I have no problems with sharing information between banking regulators and yes we do need a new system of regulation – but, digging into the detail, it appears to me that various national sovereign powers are being transferred over to Brussels and I am yet to be convinced that this is in the interest of taxpayers, savers or borrowers.
At the weekend I joined Conservatives from across all 58 Westminster constituencies of the East of England for a regional conference. The final session of the day was a talk from Joe Johnson, deputy editor of the FT. Inter alia, Joe pointed out that a 1% increase in the rate UK Gov pays on the National Debt costs £15 billion per year. That’s a hell of a lot of money. We need to get our debt burden down – not just because it is so high but because the ratings agencies are watching us and if we don’t investors will start demanding higher spreads. Food for thought as I sit on the Eurostar rushing back to Brussels – the spending capital of Europe.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Another Strasbourg Week
I have been told by some of the older MEPs that we new kids on the block have it lucky. "Just wait until the new Commission arrives, then you'll really see a Strasbourg voting list". They say.
Given that this week I have been asked to vote on everything from the death penalty in Iran - to coercive abortion - to dairy subsidies - to increased funding for EU embassies - to how many vehicles should be in the parliament car pool... I almost can't believe that it could get more varied.
The big vote of the week was to be the EU budget. I understand that every year the same charade is played out. The Commission proposes a budget, our national governments through the Council of Ministers reduce it and then the various committees of the European Parliament put it back up again. Many of the increases seem for very worthwhile causes, but at a time of economic crisis when our own workers are facing very constrained times I just could not bring myself to back the EU's bulging budget. Sadly the majority of MEPs didn't think the same way. We now go through another round of haggling before coming back to a second vote.
Just in case you want to know where my thoughts lay this week: I don't support a death penalty; I don't think women should be forced to have abortions against their will; I am very concerned about our dairy farmers (but we need to find a long term solution); I think it is shocking that the UK is reducing its embassies around the world while the EU is opening up its own (without giving the British people their vote on the Lisbon treaty); I don't think we need any more cars in the pool (the majority of MEPs agreed); I also voted to reduce MEP travel allowances by 25% (the majority disagreed).
This week constituents have been writing to me regarding shocking disclosures of how horses are treated on their way to slaughter (I agree that something must be done) and whether MEPs should have passes to the House of Commons (ideally yes, because we need to co-ordinate closely with our colleagues in the House of Commons and therefore have a great deal of business in the Palace of Westminster) but I pray that the BNP never get a vote in that parliament).
This week we have seen the UK entering its longest period of recession ever and across Europe unemployment is still rising. In the meantime the parliament is still arguing a lot about what caused the recession in the first place and spending tax payers' money like never before.
Sometimes its easy to understand why voters are disillusioned.
Given that this week I have been asked to vote on everything from the death penalty in Iran - to coercive abortion - to dairy subsidies - to increased funding for EU embassies - to how many vehicles should be in the parliament car pool... I almost can't believe that it could get more varied.
The big vote of the week was to be the EU budget. I understand that every year the same charade is played out. The Commission proposes a budget, our national governments through the Council of Ministers reduce it and then the various committees of the European Parliament put it back up again. Many of the increases seem for very worthwhile causes, but at a time of economic crisis when our own workers are facing very constrained times I just could not bring myself to back the EU's bulging budget. Sadly the majority of MEPs didn't think the same way. We now go through another round of haggling before coming back to a second vote.
Just in case you want to know where my thoughts lay this week: I don't support a death penalty; I don't think women should be forced to have abortions against their will; I am very concerned about our dairy farmers (but we need to find a long term solution); I think it is shocking that the UK is reducing its embassies around the world while the EU is opening up its own (without giving the British people their vote on the Lisbon treaty); I don't think we need any more cars in the pool (the majority of MEPs agreed); I also voted to reduce MEP travel allowances by 25% (the majority disagreed).
This week constituents have been writing to me regarding shocking disclosures of how horses are treated on their way to slaughter (I agree that something must be done) and whether MEPs should have passes to the House of Commons (ideally yes, because we need to co-ordinate closely with our colleagues in the House of Commons and therefore have a great deal of business in the Palace of Westminster) but I pray that the BNP never get a vote in that parliament).
This week we have seen the UK entering its longest period of recession ever and across Europe unemployment is still rising. In the meantime the parliament is still arguing a lot about what caused the recession in the first place and spending tax payers' money like never before.
Sometimes its easy to understand why voters are disillusioned.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Damage limitation and a bit of match making...
"Its 95% damage limtitation and occasionally a bit of match making." These were the words of one of my experienced MEP colleagues when describing the work in his brussels office. As we travelled back towards London pouring over thick drafts of potential regulation and covered them with red ink it was very clear what he meant about the damage limitiation part of the work. MEP's can and do put forward ammendments on individual pieces of legislation. So we are often checking the fine detail of directives.
The match making part of the role is very satisfying. One meets so many people doing this job that sometimes it may be possible to introduce those with a problem to those with a potential solution.
Last week the Chambers of Commerce leaders from around the UK arrived in Brussels. Over a coffee a representative from the Midlands explained that some of her member companies in the building ceramics trade are being asked to pay for gas and electricity up to 6 months in advance. I understand that the recession means that utility companies could be wary of customers making bricks and tiles but this did seem an excessive payment to me. Later in the week a delegation from RBS arrived. They were very keen to tell me that RBS is trying to lend money to businesses that need it - and I told him about the brickmakers dilema. I was impressed that the gentleman from RBS was aware of the problem and that they were working on ways to help these companies. So I have swapped the business cards and hope that the matchmaking will find a solution to the problem.
Also in Brussels I learnt about plans to restructure the dreadful EU fishing quota system. Emails are now pinging back to friends in some of our Eastern ports to make sure that they get involved in the consultation.
Compassion in World Farming turned up to discuss long journeys taken by animals en route to slaughter. They make some excellent points. I hope their campaign for better "origin" labelling for meat products is sucessful. They explained that they would like a 8 hour maximum for all animal journeys - However a few hours later I met representatives from the thoroughbred breeders and racing industry. They explained that rules regarding transport for horses en route to slaughter would be totally inappropriate for thier mares, foals and racehorses. As there are around 7,000 people employed in horse related industries around Newmarket I do always try to understand their concerns.... yet another bit of red ink may be needed.
I find that these sorts of meeting make a welcome break from discussing banking and financial regulation - where my drafts of potential directives are now covered in red ink, comments and question marks.
The match making part of the role is very satisfying. One meets so many people doing this job that sometimes it may be possible to introduce those with a problem to those with a potential solution.
Last week the Chambers of Commerce leaders from around the UK arrived in Brussels. Over a coffee a representative from the Midlands explained that some of her member companies in the building ceramics trade are being asked to pay for gas and electricity up to 6 months in advance. I understand that the recession means that utility companies could be wary of customers making bricks and tiles but this did seem an excessive payment to me. Later in the week a delegation from RBS arrived. They were very keen to tell me that RBS is trying to lend money to businesses that need it - and I told him about the brickmakers dilema. I was impressed that the gentleman from RBS was aware of the problem and that they were working on ways to help these companies. So I have swapped the business cards and hope that the matchmaking will find a solution to the problem.
Also in Brussels I learnt about plans to restructure the dreadful EU fishing quota system. Emails are now pinging back to friends in some of our Eastern ports to make sure that they get involved in the consultation.
Compassion in World Farming turned up to discuss long journeys taken by animals en route to slaughter. They make some excellent points. I hope their campaign for better "origin" labelling for meat products is sucessful. They explained that they would like a 8 hour maximum for all animal journeys - However a few hours later I met representatives from the thoroughbred breeders and racing industry. They explained that rules regarding transport for horses en route to slaughter would be totally inappropriate for thier mares, foals and racehorses. As there are around 7,000 people employed in horse related industries around Newmarket I do always try to understand their concerns.... yet another bit of red ink may be needed.
I find that these sorts of meeting make a welcome break from discussing banking and financial regulation - where my drafts of potential directives are now covered in red ink, comments and question marks.
Monday, 12 October 2009
A tale of two conferences
My carbon footprint has taken a bit of a battering over the past fortnight. Last week, in the middle of Conservative Party conference I left Manchester at 5am to hop back to Brussels for a debate on alternative investments. The week before I flew from Brussels to join a conference in Gothenburg (Sweeden).
In Gothenburg the masters of the European finance universe mustered. Central bankers, finance minisers, economists, regulators, "wise" men. We were locked in a complex outside the city from 8am 'til 11pm. So what did they debate? At no point did I hear employment or indeed unemployment mentioned, there was a (very) occasional cursory glance to Europe's ageing demographic and the pensions deficit, a few voices flickered on the public sector finances burden. BUT The weight of debating time surounded the proposed "Supervisory Architecture" of the EU banking system - committees of European central bankers and regulators that will meet to (perhaps) help pinpoint financial risks in the future. I returned home frustrated that so much energy had been spent on bureaucracy of the future rather than addressing the problems of today.
What a contrast then to Conservative Party conference where employment and debt was the key focus. George Osborne's speech was described by some comentators as brave - but no one doubts it was full of reality. Over the weekend I have had the chance to discuss with doctors and teachers George's policies on the public sector pay freeze and increasing the retirement age. Even the most left leaning doctor told me she thought these were acceptable suggestions if they help maintain jobs.
Back to Brussels today - by train this time - so at least I will feel a little less guilty for the planet.
In Gothenburg the masters of the European finance universe mustered. Central bankers, finance minisers, economists, regulators, "wise" men. We were locked in a complex outside the city from 8am 'til 11pm. So what did they debate? At no point did I hear employment or indeed unemployment mentioned, there was a (very) occasional cursory glance to Europe's ageing demographic and the pensions deficit, a few voices flickered on the public sector finances burden. BUT The weight of debating time surounded the proposed "Supervisory Architecture" of the EU banking system - committees of European central bankers and regulators that will meet to (perhaps) help pinpoint financial risks in the future. I returned home frustrated that so much energy had been spent on bureaucracy of the future rather than addressing the problems of today.
What a contrast then to Conservative Party conference where employment and debt was the key focus. George Osborne's speech was described by some comentators as brave - but no one doubts it was full of reality. Over the weekend I have had the chance to discuss with doctors and teachers George's policies on the public sector pay freeze and increasing the retirement age. Even the most left leaning doctor told me she thought these were acceptable suggestions if they help maintain jobs.
Back to Brussels today - by train this time - so at least I will feel a little less guilty for the planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
