Proceeding contribution from William Cash (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 April 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Financial Services Bill.
Financial Services Bill
I want to speak briefly on clause 6. Nothing is more important than that people understand exactly, as it says in the amendment,""the desirability of enhancing the understanding and knowledge of members of the public of financial matters (including the UK financial system),"" and for a very good reason. People have just been through the most cathartic experience; they have seen their savings and their jobs disintegrate as a result of mistakes, and sometimes of thoroughly misleading behaviour, by many people who ought to have known better. That goes for the Government as well as for the supervisory authorities and the companies and banks concerned. People should have proper information and understand it and, if necessary, be given in school some overall idea of the extent to which they are dependent on the financial system. Something in the order of 20 per cent. of our entire economy turns on financial services, so it would not be amiss for people to have proper financial education and understanding. That provision is extremely important and useful. Unlike the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am delighted that clause 8 has been left out. I have taken a close interest in the Bill. I have written quite a lot about it in the Financial Times and other publications. From the beginning, I have made a constant assault on the idea that the City of London should be put under threat by European institutions—from the de Larosière report to the latest regulations, which I followed as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee from the beginning to the end. The Minister knows of my interest and of my condemnation of the extent to which the City of London has been put under threat as a result of European and/or global international regulation. Even this morning, on the "Today" programme, the Prime Minister was still going on about the virtues of his great contribution to undermining—he would not put it like that, but it is a fact—our ability to run our own affairs. Given the number of jobs and the amount of gross domestic product dependent on the City, I am completely against the requirements under clause 8, and that is a very good reason why it should be left out. The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to its power, but he did not quite emphasise enough the fact that it would have provided for a legal duty, enforceable by judicial review. The hon. Gentleman is a good friend of mine, so I can tell from his expression how and to what extent he approves of clause 8. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham knows perfectly well, irrespective of whether the clause is in or out, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 will require us to comply with the financial services regulations imposed by directives and decisions taken by the European jurisdiction. That is one reason why my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill remains important. We have to have a proper adjustment, so that we co-operate with other countries. I have never been against that. As I have said many times before: European trade, yes; European Government, no. It is for this House to decide the extent to which we have proper regulation, and, whether we engage in agreements with other European countries or not, we in this House must have the last say. Clause 8, as far as our courts are concerned, would have made an imposition upon the Financial Services Authority over and above the requirements of European regulations and directives. The clause would have gone to the Supreme Court at some point or other, when somebody challenged it, and it would have been an imposition—imposed by this Parliament as a mandatory requirement. Therefore, I am glad that the clause has gone, but I remain concerned about our underlying requirement under the European Communities Act 1972 to comply with the financial regulations that are streaming out of the European Union like a tsunami. Through majority voting, they will effectively hand over control of the City of London to the axis of France and Germany—Frankfurt and Paris. Nikolas Sarkozy has been quite clear from the beginning about their overriding objection to the Anglo-Saxon methods of dealing with financial services, and about their objective of taking over the City of London. That is one of their objectives, and the same goes for the Germans in Frankfurt. [Interruption.] I love to watch the deputy Chief Whip of the Government-for-the-time-being laughing about that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c1248-50
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Bank of England Council for Financial Stability
- Legislation
- Financial Services Bill 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:58:28 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_638225
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_638225
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_638225