of common sense in september. the ursday, members in house of lords discuss the economic and financial future of the eurozone. month, british prime minister david cameron cutst to secure additional in the european union budget. even though the uk is not a part eurozone, it isr a part of the 28-member european union which sets the budget. hour and 35 minutes. >> it is a great pleasure to invite you back to speak about the crisis.

opportunityome the to discuss, and we are anxious to talk to you about the 2014 budget. usual warnings. we would be grateful if you had , we would be most grateful. we come to the section on the euro if you wish to make us eight-man. please do so. i wanted to start off with the relationship between the treasury and the committee. i wanted to start with a slightly brighter note that we have restored this committee to

as helpfully as possible. as for the guidelines for government departments, i been your bedside reading for the past week. you have been kind enough to say your department would make a , and i dofort understand that will be subject to change. i do hope the dialogue will be so this committee has been put in the responsible position in aing able to comment way that is useful to the

government, so let me start off with that. you will recall you came before us in february of last year. outline thate did it had been frustrated with the delays ofd also receiving outlines for questions and items we scrutinize on behalf of parliament, helping you make up the government's mind on the matter.

me if i tellive you we have done some homework, and we looked into the number of occasions these delays or inadequacies have unregistered. they are responsible for all memorandums emanating from received 12d we correspondence from you, six of late,were over two weeks and the other ministers we had replies from within the treasury. we only had reasons to complain about two. replies we had five

of the treasury, and yours was late. with the start off to say you are making progress, and i wonder if we can learn how you intend to and sure -- to ensure you are replying with the polity of replies -- quality of replies this committee is used to receiving. directolleague is the are in charge of eu policy. warmnk we have had a relationship. i think we have been able to

communicate by telephone. at various junctures it has been helpful to have your reactions. let me say something to the point you have made. i am happy to take any members of the committee have. in terms of the agenda many of you will know there is no such thing as a draft agenda. the provisional agenda tends to the thursday before

the meeting on tuesday, so it is quite late in the day. there is a lot of variation. the dossier can be on or off again. there is no reason at all you should not the experiencing what , so i am happyng a rapidly changing agenda in the weeks ahead. you are aware of what is going on. >> the committee is always ready to feel your pain. i do emphasize the point you have been kind enough to tell me

an later this year when you put , you were kind enough to alert me. could the transferred to the policy advisor. those little updates would be most helpful. sometimes when things are informuickly, they can -- i think you have had in formal sessions with my officials, who are the face of so they can give

you a report of negotiations, and i think from what officials have said, they found it useful to have those conversations with the committee. we might make more use of those. verye these things seriously. i work personally on everything that comes to me. you will know the volume is .robably greater that itrtainly the case outstrips any government body.

during 2012 there were 218 .ocuments i think the nearest equivalent is 162. the letters it is worth having this in mind in context, so in 2012 we had to 18 documents and 86 letters. about 304 over the year. withis about to a day pretty substantial documents. it would be very easy to have them pass across my desk. i do take a passing interest.

passes it. atthat context, if you look the performance on these dossiers over the time the government has been in office, it is one of progress. i got the figures going back to 2010. in 2011 it was 69%. 2012 was 72%. year to date is 77%. for the most part it is well above that.

the months of april and june i think they delayed some of those. commitment -- what commitment is to continue to increase performance on this. you are right to take it but also it does reflect my views and my colleagues rather than if they come to you. i recognize there is further progress to be made. >> i think if you glance at the

it fellhat came to us, short of being a quality replied. i am going to pass on, because i think there are other important issues. >> i do not mean to be rude, but we heard the same thing from you since february. we corresponded in 33 letters. just over a third of those had elements of complaint and criticism. i wonder if i could focus on a couple of specifics to see if we can help with why we find such difficulty dealing with your .eam

why are they so prone to delay the response. give you the dates if you but let's pick the dates. we find we are being sold short. we are trying to get to a position where we can do our job better. >> i think in the financial they areon sector different. frustration as to the amount of information available and whath to comment,

we had in front of us in the earlier stages of that proposal was unsatisfactory. we did not regard as satisfactory the information we got from the commission, in particular the impact assessment . which was a reinterpretation this should have been better and and we wereensive, engaged in trying to improve , and eventually we got some improvement but not

satisfactory. on the annual these do move quickly and i thinkedly, this is a good area we might have a system to update you. date,mes they are out of and they submit a memorandum that has been overtaken by a placesion that has taken shortly before. that is an example of the dossier that takes place quickly.

i think a rapid discussion would be in our interest. >> let me try and be helpful. problems weme the face are complex. i wonder if you are saying they are more complex. my question is this, whether we can help you within the treasury. >> i think as a result of the , there has been senior staff attached to this.

it is significant use. great importance is attached to this. they are technical and have a lot of moving parts. they move quite quickly. implemented ae that allows for more formal discussion. >> a lead to the budget. december west related in adequate information to parliament on the budget that led to the meeting

and on the january, budget i cannot see any trace in the improvement in performance that you described. lastbate the draft budget , and it reached us two days before the decision was taken on what the council's decision would be. that meant we had no chance to do our job. i am puzzled why this. i do not inc. there is a reason

-- i do not think there is a reason you should not securities funds. your defense may be that you did in fact a decision would be taken within two days. ok, but what you should have week we would have had a to think about it, and it could have been helpful. i think parliament is in support of the government's policies. whatannot inform us position you are going to take. quality of me the

memorandum, this is true particularly of the budget tapers we get. you tell us there has been a in the councils view of the payment necessary for next year. grossly miss be the samebecause at stage of the 2013 budget, the number was considerably lower. there was an increase compared to where the budget was.

as part of the deal to get media term -- medium-term rim work and comparing that with next year's budget, it is misleading. your point of not wanting to send documents. ushink you should only send an exploratory memorandum within the rules. apply the rules. i think when you do send an expansion you should try not to , andad us about the timing

you should try not to mislead us. when you have agreed to an increase. say that yout you would rather have a deadline met. i think the deadline was a thursday and it was dismissed on a monday. that is later than the target. i accept that and will try to do better than that. i certainly do not accept the

reporting. the payment would be less than the current situation. they were against the vote. >> you did not include them. you should compare the budget as it was when the council first be.ded what they should you should compare that with where they are now. they have just reached the decision on where the budget should be.

if you do that you have increased the budget. >> the implication is so the people can make their judgment about that. i think the key point is they are proposed to the respected in this. commission to the propose a budget to the department, and as we know, the reduction of three point three percent in payments has been reflected. most people would conclude this is an improvement.

is the first year cutting the budget. >> i agree. important, but my feeling is you have told the problem for the future. get them to agree, you have given them seven and a and the expenditure in each year was at the level set for this year, they would be broken. loaded theont end

budget by agreeing to these .pendings you have agreed to more flexibility between spending divided. which were but is also likely to increase pressure. it seems to me even though it has strong support it is not as good as it looks because you have had to concede greater >>xibility between programs. when you say you have agreed, we did not agree. it was a qualified majority vote.

>> the budget is agreed. you could do what you like with negotiations. >> in terms of the annual budget, we opposed the budget. we felt they should have been redeployed. i understand that. >> i would like you to send us of the concessions made to secure the numbers.

i am not saying i would oppose these concessions. i am saying i think parliament is entitled to hear about them. is theot know what change between commitment and payment. is there a serious problem? i feel like there is. what does the parliament gain with flexibility? these go to the heart of it, and we would love to hear from you.

>> i am going to ask you to shade it a little. >> you know there appears to be inrowing role in parliament budgetary negotiations. it would secure a larger budgets. we are a little confused. >> if i commented to the help. just to and that perhaps having further discussion in form by written communication adds to the content of the headline with

what is coming to be an parliament,tween flexibility, of -- of our object is objectives is we want to move to the infrastructure, the nature of which is an expenditure takes place somewhat later at the end of the program than at the beginning. there is a degree of reshaping. was at last time we met a time when parliament expressed

.hemselves to be dissatisfied indicated they were not going to accept it. parliament has indicated they are likely to accept it. they are apprehensive of various changes. it is subject to unanimity. there is a degree of flexibility that in some cases has logic to commend it.

think some of them were once we could share. we were rebuffed in insisting it should be unchanged. in general it is fair to observe the parliament did take a great deal of interest. recognize i think we the agreement was something that .ad legitimacy >> perhaps we had better press on.

>> i think everyone is going to be disappointed with the growth numbers. i wonder what you think could be to tryrough the budget to deal more effectively with growth and competitiveness, and are there any practical steps you would be advocating in this area? >> we know growth in the euro zone continues to be subdued. they are likely to be .6% in 2013 and not much better in 2014.

we know there is a lot of divergence between member states. it would be wrong to think competitiveness comes out of the eu budget spending money. i think a lot of the progress is not necessarily aspect of with the labor flexibility, which we think is important in terms of each member state. the transatlantic free-trade agreement is making europe a more attractive place for global so iesses to complete,

think in general we would favor the types of reforms that would increase openness and flexibility of the company. within the budget we would refer , but igress we have made do not take the view it is where they spend the money. >> one thing we have done is the infrastructure, and that can certainly help.

>> that was one of our objectives. it is now going to be 13% of spending. it is moving towards paris -- two up the budget words a reshaping of the budget. >> i am sure this committee agrees it is a better area. there was this cut for this country.

>> we had a good record of achieving our object to is. objectives. exposure.creased our when you get into final , as in anys there is aspending, coming together and an agreement. have been successful in emphasizing the importance.

will have 30 billion euros more. >> this is a negotiation about what you can get. overall our view is that spending has increased , and we arey where the areas budget can create added value. in areas like connecting europe where there are particular and theyder benefits

can act in a way where they have largeative advantage on infrastructure projects compared with the previous year. across the board, i think we are -- we are. to see expecting to see focus on high- value, and the eu valued it over and above. >> we can make a start by asking about your views on the current state of lay. -- state of play. is the worst behind us?

>> i think it would be foolhardy to predict the end of this. i think it has been slow, but i think it has been genuine. what the market , they haveen hadowed, and what the ecb to say a year ago was part of that. think the various dossiers have something to say about

this. we have gone about nine months now. whether the banking union was likely to make rugrats at all was not certain, but we have had .greement we have had agreement on recovery and resolution. the various component parts are slowly but surely being put in place. reflect that the around half a

percent with the degree of i think it would be rushed to predict all was well and all was settled. >> with the banking union you mentioned two elements. >> this is one of the other discussions. i think there is cautious goodwill towards these measures but it is eurozone, cautious. members are engaged in different ways. with the in particular ,anking recovery resolution

where there was a discussion, -- hadh had a friend , but it doestories take time for these arrangements to come together. many of these measures are four euro zone members to put in place himself. there have been models of a difficult situation. that is a very generous

but i thinkof that, the agreement that was reached took some time, and we have ,ertain object is to be made , and theme together need for repeated counsel does not necessarily equate. complexity not just of the issues. >> do you think we reached a stage where there could be proper assessment without things going awry? i think there is an understanding within the that there needs to be a clear view of the risks and legacy that is there.

i think there is an understanding. i think that will happen. >> do you think the structure is strongt in place enough to take a genuine look at ?he assets at this time >> i do not think it is there yet. it has only recently been agreed. i think these will have to mature over time, and somegements will require degree of confidence. >> i would be happy to add to this.

clearly the key is to strengthen for financial stability, and the government is set to end to end the cycle debt cycle, and there are a number of ways that can be done. one.asing bank capital is the supervisory mechanism is an that hasstep forward. .mportant new mechanisms that the important

directly they can and thelize on banks conclusion of negotiations and implementation of the bank clearly in the past some of the s perhaps could have but we areobust, moving to a situation where we , andeal with the affect the government said it would be key to making sure future stress transparent.

could i make the point that we seem to have forgotten the other problems. the german description of the and worsening budget deficits. it seems to me the devaluation for economic problems is manifestly not working. politicaling to problems. >> you have talked about two s which they want to introduce.

if you want to give your replies. they have just been mentioning growth and competitiveness. there has always been a confusion between competitiveness in europe as a whole and individual countries. some are doing not as well as others. in particular, would you like to say something about youth unemployment, and are we doing enough, and should we not read -- not be doing more? you already mentioned it.

described by the german finance minister as being a template. ?o what degree is it a template >> but is a difficult group of questions. >> it is, but they are very much related. they are having -- having a more resilient financial system is in , so i think it is markets have local some concern over the financial

arrangement. the work of these dossiers has and to address that, but i do that there are aspects beyond the banking sector, beyond financial sectors, that are incredibly important to effectiveness. served recall when we the conservative party when it was in opposition, william hague .ade a speech he says, european countries need to tackle head on that unless they free the labor markets it will be out priced and

rest of the by the world, and unacceptable levels of unemployment will exist. danger is that europe is being left behind by the rest of the world. europe, these aspects of competitiveness need to be addressed. in many cases these are to be taken by member states. havenk the fact that we enabled to -- we have been able employment, that youth unemployment is still much in othern it is

countries. in part it is a reflection of our labor market and also some suchtic policy initiatives as the focus made on apprenticeships. there are some changes that have been proposed. investment they --re are discussions investment bank there are discussions to access the funds that have a positive impact on are somet, so there things across europe and some things are in member states. in terms of cycles, we want some

part in the discussions over easter that resulted in a somewhat unacceptable proposal. i think lessons need to be learned from it. it was very interesting to me how important it has been to , both the initial proposal but ensured it would be -- that it would the dependable. i think it also shows the need, tois the pace of discussions

inw that we should not be the uncertainty that existed for so many weeks. the arrangement should be agreed so i think the lessons are being learned. money can no longer take out of cyprus and invested in other parts of the eurozone. capital concerns must not be permanent for the reasons you say.

with a single currency you can spend the money anywhere, also around the world. i think there is a great requirement for everyone to these controls need to be removed as soon as is consistent. we have not had a chance to , butibe this we arestanding the fact a participant in the eurozone, we did offer significant technical assistance. secretary was a conduit for a while to help. somet together toangements in this country

make sure no uk customer , so it isny detriment in which the participation of not being part of the eurozone. we did take a close part, and there is contact between our two countries. do you identify any continuing problems, or do you think they are on the way to recovering financially? portugal has made progress.

it starts from a difficult position. because of my reluctance to comment on the affairs of member states, i should not do that. all i would say to agree with itr description of portugal, is very important. and want tot well do everything we can to see that it does recover and stabilize it addition. -- its position. it should be a productive member

.n terms of its economy >> i know he is particularly interested in the troika. all emphasize of that it three major institutionings on which the stability of europe increasingly seems to depend. case, in the cyprus a y actually signed off on proposal to raid the bank deposits of depositers are less than $100,000 yours. that will eco. although it was corrected two or the three days later. at error will remove

confidence in one of the fundamental pillars in financial stability in the banking system of europe. you said a moment ago that bryn was quite involved in influencing these matters. did you on that particular one shout and scream and say you cannot do this? >> when i say we were involved it was with the government in the aftermath of that to help with the resolution of the banks. ot re not being passively the eurozone. as soon as we knew about it from reports rather than being part of discussions, we were always critical. the prime minister has been very clear that there are

guarantees that are promises . de possible form we've been consistent in that. do i agree with you that i think uncorrected it would leave a dangerous impression that these things were somehow negotiateable or could be set aside. i think two things provide some confidence that that potential impression may not be. the first is that proposed agreement was not agreed and was set aside and replaced by one that did protect insured depositers. and second is it was very much present in the discussions of the recovery and resolution directive where there was a shared view, in fact, i said

coming out of the counsel it was very important to send a message to the -- >> i'm interested what is the future of the troika because competence is in inexcusable. can we in some way at least as members of the i.n.f. and represented in the commission, can we in some way ensure that e troika performs in the future? >> i think there is recognition around the world. i think if you advocate it, you would reflect that it is important that the i.n.f. be part of these discussions. -- it portant that the

should have a role too. but i think reflecting on that and there are many dossier that is remain to be negotiated not just the recovery and resolution directives but what last tutes a resolution summer whether banking was ddress that. dossiers that remain to be

they are talking about diluting get. it it not the fundamental conflict -- is it not the fundamental conflict? an obligation to the banks for sovereign debts which has been guaranteed. how do you see this eveloping? >> we made that distinction between diluting between the two. we will see in october. >> it is further evidence of the abuse of being able to take a tuneup. and ask on that. it reflects on the discussions that we have had that the progress towards banking the

union -- is breaking the link between sovereign and banks. it is not going to be made through a single initiative or change. various components of banking are themselves a risk. we have started with a resolution and there are others to follow. it is collectively an answer to this problem. within each one, there are questions that need to be resolved. not the least among them is of he eurozone.

those we discussed in this committee before. he question of -- the legacy or about arrangements for the future. it is clearly an important one. t has not been resolved. it will be a major part of discussions through the months ahead. in terms of the question of dilution versus interruption of breaking, i would see it this way. i would like to hear from you. given there is not a single policy, a single initiative that is going to do this altogether in one respect. i think a different proposal and agreement has been made

constitutes a dilution towards a destination of a eparation. f you dilute, you have not broken. this might be a danger of using an analogy. >> dangerous water. >> you already mentioned resolution mechanisms. what are your views on how it should be assigned? and would you agree -- national authorities or ideas that they might be granted the path? would you agree with the germans? > again, the discussions are

in an early stage. at this point, it will be through letters and discussions with this committee as we form our view toward the proposals. i think to point i would make. one is to reflect on the road of commission. i think was some cause for concern of this capability of operating sometimes over a weekend decisively was emonstrated there. >> how much are we going to have? are you forcing your concerns bout it?

>> the discussions, this might be one of the areas. the discussions where we were formulating red lines in the position. sometimes we want to do that and not to get a totally comprehensive review of hat. >> sometimes people would think we do not come forward early enough. >> we are. one of the features that i find gratifying is him and discussions such as this -- even in discussions such as

this we are engaged. ar from being uninvited. let me ask this point. >> can we show you that we are fully involved in the discussions which are taking place between member states in russels on the appropriate design for the srn. clearly to decide a banking resolution in our area and decisive decision-making arrangements. but we have been involving

ourselves in detail and both -- as europe's major, largest financial center is a constituent for us to support the objectives without it as rotecting our interests. to give you a sense of some of the questions and the discussions which are taking place area as you mentioned, there were big questions about decision-making in finance that should be transferred from the national european policymaking. we are very concerned that any mechanism needs to work and works for the eurozone and also or us. and to work, it needs to be accountable to national parliament to produce big decisions. at what point and how you do it and to get the certainty is

that we need as trading artners that euro zone ountries and need as well. it has to be rocksolid. we are looking at these issues from a policy perspective and a legal perspective. it is very, very early. but i think we can say already that a part from the legal question, there are two particular issues that we will be focusing on. will it work? and secondly, how would a mechanism work? actually it might look like 120 ut it is more like -- also questions about if it goes forward how the commissions and

this proposal would fit with the other obligations? >> the british house of commons is in recess for the ummer. i'm fog to pinpoint how he could approximate helpful in the aftermath by making some suggestions myself. ? lord davis. >> thank you. i think the government takes some credit in the 23450egses on a recovery and resolution directive for obtaining a degree of flexibility and member states ordering the high arki which is necessarily part of any resolution procedure.

i just wonder whether that particular succession when you gained say useful acheevepl or negative achievement. the problem is policy is not working across the eurozone and in the countries where there is growth bank lending has resumed. there is this division between the two parts of the e.u. or the eurozone which is causing a great deal of anxiety in the markets and elsewhere. there is a situation where it's assumed that member states can alter the creditor and obligations at will. but in the richer countries the member states would use that flexibility. depositers or bond holders

and to use taxpayers bonds to enable the bank to be recapitalized. there are poorer countries, hose countries because any such obligation would affect their standing in the market and cause a banking crisis to be a debt crisis. so i wonder whether this degree of flexibility is -- [inaudible] . without flexibility which would employ any speculation the kind i suggested which could be destabilizing because it would drive depositers away from banks in the more vulnerable countries and place their deposits in banks in the wealthier or stronger eurozone countries which would go in exactly the opposite direction

to meeting the crisis that i just described. >> isn't that a rather long way off? >> i'm grateful for what he says about the negotiation. in terms of objective was there accepted n order to a message there is an impolice it guarantee by taxpayers by any country would not fwb justified and that is important for reasons of competition. it is an unfair advantage for the banks in any one jurisdiction if there was a credible force that the . xpayer was under >> and so it's very important that the arrangements and the

flexibility is constrained. but there needs to be some flexibility for this p reason. when a resolution proves necessary, it is obviously an emergency. decision versus to be taken quite possible over a weekend. there may be some limited categories of debt that it may rove not possible legally. for example, instrument that is have been issued in the united states under new york law that are not suitable to bailing. then the bailing process has to grind to a halt that could mean what is on paper a useful tool in practice not so [inaudible] >> the member states flexibility to address that

problem. is it legally possible to bail certain's sets? you can still have one rule for everybody argument taking account [inaudible] >> that is precisely the intentions. >> what is dangerous to give flexibility to member states to decide add hock to what extent they are going to provide taxpayer funds. >> it is for that purpose. i think safeguards -- it's desireable you have that technical ability to exclude those instrument that is would be or could bring the process to a halt. it's desireable that you provide for the impossibility of bailing certain types of bonds. that's the issue you're raising. >> that's a part of the standard rules that apply to everybody.

hat is undesireable is you leave open the possibility that individual member states are flexible and decide to bail bond. that would lead to a situation in which it would be seen that countries which were stronger with stronger governments wealthier governments behind them would be more likely to protect their depositers and that would lead to flight of capital to those countries. we need more lending in the vellnerble countries. >> do you understand my point? >> i'm going to ask you to reflect on lord davis' point d i'm going to ask the other lord cur to table the final questions and then i'll proceed from there. because i am anxious we get you way on time.

>> i'd like to tell the what influence have you with the you're group and there was any influence on the decision taken the'1"st of june that there should be a maximum of $60 billion recapitalization of bappings in the eurozone. we have evidence that is just a drop in the ocean and totally unrealistic. could you tell us what you think of that? >> given all the hurdles particularly with germany?

>> you and mr. freeman have stretched how fully involved we are in the discussion of banking. it's a bit like the chicken and position contribution [inaudible] and i'm sure the rest of them are absent minded when you lay an egg. but for the pig it a matter of thing. death this euro a number of our witnesses have argued to us that there is ound to be a degree of tension growing between the majority of members of the eurozone and who want to be members of the eurozone and the small group of to join. don't want

it is unlike that the outs will be able to influence the decision of the ins very much. it seems to me that the key problem raised is that if you are determined not to pay the piper, you can't actually expect [inaudible] i know there is talk now of separate euro institutions and separate euro capacity. isn't it going to be very difficult to strattle this line? what do you think? >> perhaps i can comment a the 60 billion.

it's important to recognize 60 billion is a lot of money in some circumstances and rather he has money in other circumstances. but in terms of the total amount available and the agreement is quite precise and it sets out first there is an appropriate level of bailing before a bank is recapitalized. that makes a financial and after that there is a burden sharing discussion to determine [inaudible] . and of course because the has a state can also point in the discussion. this is certainly the understanding that we have

formed through our substitutions with other euro group members, this means that the euro group if needed bring substantially greater resources to bear than just the 60 billion available. i should also say something about the way officials interact with the discussions. i said earlier we are intimately involved in the discussions just as we were on the resolution and recovery directive. at's because in a day of european legislation and we are present at all times. with the european discussions it's a little different because it's a discussion about who the going to write the checks. and we are not involved in writing the checks it's right we are less involved in those acts.

so we talk very regularly to those who are there but we are not intimately involved in the euro groups agreement on precisely how much the e.s.n. should recapitalize banks. and we encourage but we are not part of those particular financial negotiations because we are not paying. >> if i reflect on the point that i made. clearly there are structural differences between bryn's position and members of the urozone. >> and it is possible to think of locks being formed inaudible]

we put arrangements in place to make sure that the possibility f a future caucus couldn't damage the u.k. interest. i think we need to be alive to it and achieve safeguards in advance. doesn't es the reflect what takes place in negotiations. i give a couple of exms. n the resolution, this was a qmv which we could easily have been [inaudible] we have certain important matters such as the recognition of the bank levy that we

collect that this should be seen as a contribution to inancial [inaudible] now other countries were either indifferent to have that or in some cases critical of it and have their own. night of rough a long discussions it proved possible to achieve an agreement that reflected a particular position when we could have easily been out voted. because i think there was a palpable recognition in an industry and sector that is so important to the u.k. to assert out ualified majority with

voting against us would not be the right approach to take. so i think that is and a similar situation took place in some of the substitutions. and that is more often the case than in my experience than the reverse which is simply a reading of where the votes lie what is possible to railroad through. that ohs the fact that we can say that ohs a lot to the hard work of har rolled and his good ues who maintain constructive relationships and can give technical assistance. we have a very technically accomplished set of officials and that is of use to other tates and other officials.

>> i don't think there say make nist i can solution to the problem but i do draw some comfort from some recent successes we have made there. >> we're not going to conclude ut going to leave you some homework. i am being told that we are sending you a letter and the very i lum nating points made by lord davis and we are asking to you reply by the 30th of august for our meeting on the september 10. i'd be grate ffl you could elaborate on the final point about thes in and outs and whether you think we are unique amongst the outs.

we are in some ways but whether that places the government in a very different position to have such a unique position. howard mentioned the engagement with the euro group and we'd like to learn much more about that. i think harold used the word we tried to recoach. but be very useful to know whether you meet on a regular basis and are able to speak to them that way. also we would like to learn a bit more about the european investment bank and how successful it actually is with helping and promoting small businesses. so i issue to you all the usual warnings about sending you the transcript and hope you correct it. nd anything you discuss this morning but it is my pleasure

to wish you well for the summer break. and i am reminded that when i was in the european parliament we gave d of ten years him the rather back handed compment of providing him with a letter bound of all his past speeches in the european parliament. y vision for you is to do such composed memorandum for you to take away to some foreign beach and read through them in those odd moments when you have nothing else to enter you. but we hope you and all your colleagues who have come this morning do have a good summer. there are opportunities where this committee will agree with

you and we'll strengthen your arm as we did with the banking union. so i thank you. i thank you colleagues and i think my members and asking them to remain seated as we have a further session after that and we conclude this meeting. thank you very much. >> thank you and your colleagues and reciprocate your good wishes. >> if i take the collected memorandum reach any baggage limit that a airline operates but i will read before i go. thank you very much and have a good summer. >> the british house of commons is in recess for the summer. prime minister questions return on september 4 live on c-span2. you watch this entire hearing on our website at ww.c-span.org. swems past british programming and prime minister's question time.

>> next a senate hearing on u.s. aid to egypt. after that a committee hearing on drug companies. . en q and a with jack doyle >> the death toll this week end in egypt is more than 70. the deadliest outbreak of violence since the military removed morsi from power on july 3. on thursday the senate heard from a former ambassador to egypt and the meers advisor about the impact of cutting off military aid to egypt. this is just over two hours.

>> this hearing will come to order. thank you for joining us today for a timely hearing on the unfolding circumstances in egypt. i want to thank ambassador dennis ross and dr. michele dunne and ambassador daniel kurtzer for being here today. we look forward to their effective on the situation in egypt and the ramifications for egypt and the united states. the situation in egypt has tremendous implications for the united states. our response must be carefully calibrated. at the same time, support u.s. national security interest in the region. these two goals are, in my