HM Revenue and Customs

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The closure of tax offices is an important issue in north Wales. I hate to be parochial, but I represent an area in which about 20% of the working population are self-employed. The need for self-employment is paramount in north Wales, because the economy is so fragile that unless we create our own job opportunities, we cannot work at all. Unfortunately, over the past few years we have seen the downgrading of the Porthmadog, Bangor and Colwyn Bay tax offices. The 20% of the working population who are self-employed must now travel to Wrexham and even over the border to be served, which is a big problem. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, when a small business is forced to use an accountant because it is unable to talk to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have short interventions.

[Mr Mudie]

I am sorry that you stopped the hon. Gentleman, Mr Deputy Speaker, because his was a better speech than mine. I do not think that he needed to use the word “parochial”, or even to apologise if he thought that he was being parochial. In fact, he was being regional. Here in London, it is assumed that any region above Watford can be written off. The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely valid point.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who is sitting behind me, is a strong supporter of tax office staff. However, I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee about the number of telephone calls that are not answered. At one stage, the figure was 43%. One of the professional witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee said that an HMRC tax manager had been in his office and observed that it took 12 minutes for a call to be answered and seven minutes simply to change a tax code. That simple transaction took 20 minutes. That is a witness’s statement, and a very good one. I am sure that the Minister has read all the evidence given to the Committee, and has noted that that particular witness described his experiences brilliantly.

[Mr Mudie]

That is an interesting point.

I am using up time rapidly, but let me mention in passing another feature of call centres. Telephoning 0845 numbers can be very expensive for pensioners—indeed, for everyone. The fact that people have to hold on for so long does not help, but in any case it is not the right way to decide complex matters. It is best for people to deal with those face to face. The best people in the whole business are the agents, as they are the professionals. They take the frustration and get angry about it—and they have given good evidence. The ordinary individuals are in the worst position, however. The professionals get used to things and can get on with other tasks, yet, as the professionals said, those who are not represented get the worst deal, and with office closures, cutting hours, and relying increasingly on telephone calls, e-mails and letters, the whole system knocks out a fair number of the population. That is what is happening. Plenty of Members want to speak, and they will spell out their constituents’ experiences.

Does the system need to be improved and will it be improved? I do not think it will, first because it goes against the grain—I will explain that. Sadly, every time witnesses from HMRC have appeared before us, they have been in a state of denial. If someone has a problem, there is no chance of their dealing with it unless they own up to it and accept it. I sympathise with them in a way, however. The hon. Member for Chichester said we are to blame and that is true; we are to blame, in particular the Ministers. It is hard for a civil servant to go before a Select Committee and say, “Yeah, I admit it; we can’t do this because we don’t have the people.”

We look for loyalty and a straight bat from civil servants, but the way we are doing things is not generally the best way to get a real dialogue. Therefore, when we have them before us in a couple of weeks, I am not sure that Dame Lesley will do anything other than give us the Geoff Boycott treatment, or even do a Pietersen and knock us out of the ground a couple of times. Because she and the management are in this state of denial, I cannot see things happening unless the Minister takes some steps. I really do think this comes down to staff and resources. Unless they are in place, we cannot load new jobs on.

Finally, let me describe a few points that should push the Minister to want to have a fresh look at resources. One of them is to do with what the Chairman of the Select Committee said about the integrity and reputation of the system, and real tax compliance in this country. If we frustrate and ignore people, and make it difficult for them to get explanations, one way or another, non-compliance will grow. There will be increasing disrespect for the system and the people in it, and a growing feeling that they are not here to help. The tax inspectors and staff are adamant that they are here to help however, and that has always been my experience at that level—when we can get to speak to someone, they are helpful.

If something is not done and we treat people in this way, they will respond in a manner that I think is natural, which is to say, “Get on with it”—I almost said “Sod it”—and “I am not complying.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot say “Sod it.” I am sure the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that.

[Mr Mudie]

Well, I did withdraw it; I said I will not use the phrase “Sod it.”

I have made points about management being in denial and non-compliance. The next point is more current. We live in a time of austerity. It is a hard time and people’s wages and homes are being affected, yet the public are reading about Barclays paying £190 million on billions of pounds of profit, and about Vodafone being willing to pay £3 billion or £4 billion and having that available to pay to the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue accepting £1.3 billion. This big multinational company is getting away with paying that amount of tax at a time when we are closing vital public services. We see Mr Green paying his wife through Monaco. In last Sunday’s papers, we read about a man with reputed wealth of £47 million being forced by someone he sacked to confess that he pays no tax at all because of the trust his father set up. Such stories are starting to resonate among ordinary people.

The Governor of the Bank of England came before the Treasury Committee yesterday, and at one stage in the evidence session he accepted that the anger we have witnessed in the past couple of years is nothing compared to what might happen when we see the real cuts, which are starting now. Last year, we talked a lot about cuts, but they amounted to only £6 billion. However, in Leeds recently, people invaded the council chamber when the budget was being fixed. There were people outside in wheelchairs whose benefits were being cut. Cuts were made to housing benefit. Students and trade unionists were also there. Some 1,000 jobs there are to go.

I genuinely say to the Government that a dangerous situation is brewing. A very affluent lady in America said, “Tax? That’s just for the little people.” That belief is starting to take hold in this country, as a lot of evidence shows. We need to get the tax people working properly. The tax gap is reckoned to be between £40 billion and £120 billion. We would not have these cuts if everybody paid their tax in a responsible fashion. That issue needs to be tackled, yet right now thousands of tax staff are being given their cards, when they could be dealing with it.

I want to finish by being helpful to the Minister. Another computer program is wending its way through the Department that has a crucial bearing on the Minister’s future. It deals with real-time initiatives and has very strict deadlines. It is for not only the Treasury but the Department for Work and Pensions, and it is a crucial factor in delivering the universal credit. I know that Treasury Ministers are very anxious to get universal credit in. To judge by past performance with computer systems, I wish the Minister luck. However, let me mark his card in this debate: all the signs from the Department are that, unless he gets a real grip and has a serious word with the Chancellor, that deadline will not be met. We are talking about not just one Whitehall Department negotiating a contract, but two, and when you put two Departments together, that leads, I fear, to trouble.

As an old friend of the Minister—we have worked together on the Treasury Committee and on other matters—I would not like that contract to be lost on his watch, and that is the third, and perhaps most compelling reason why he should do something about this problem.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on the difficulty of forecasting, as even the best economic forecasters get it wrong, but I wonder whether she was as shocked as I was to read in the Financial Times about the bullying of the International Monetary Fund by the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority. Was that not a pretty disgraceful way to behave?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of going off into past subjects. The hon. Lady may be tempted to answer, but we have to deal with the Bill before us and not with speculation in a newspaper about bullying. I think that we will stick to the Bill.

[Ms Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Let me be the first to say that the Opposition support an independent OBR, so long as it is indeed independent. In that respect, the OBR has some ground to make up and some points to prove after its very difficult start in life. Initially it was located a few doors down from the Chancellor in the Treasury and consisted entirely of Treasury civil servants. Its much vaunted “independence” was utterly compromised in June last year when it was unwisely bounced into the politically convenient early publication of employment forecasts, suspiciously just ahead of Prime Minister’s Question Time—the Minister did not refer to that incident. The forecasts themselves turned out to be controversial and the OBR ended up looking more like an offshoot of the propaganda machine inside Conservative central office than an independent and trusted forecasting organisation. Sir Alan Budd, the interim head of the OBR, announced his shock departure shortly afterwards. We may well have to wait until he writes his memoirs to find out exactly what really happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field]

Although the hon. Lady makes a fair point about explicit mandates, it is surely also the case that there was absolutely no explicit mandate for any of the actions taken by the erstwhile Government after 2008, given the situation that we found ourselves in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are getting tempted once again. If Members stick to the Bill, that will be helpful.

[Ms Eagle]

There is a difference between having an economic policy that is put into place directly after a general election, when manifestos said one thing and the Government did another, and responding to a crisis that very few people saw coming and that threatened the entire infrastructure of the global banking system. There are obviously differences between those situations, but I respect the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in financial matters, particularly regarding the City.

The Government have chosen to cut public expenditure faster and deeper than any other country in the industrialised world except Iceland and Ireland. They have chosen to announce the deepest cuts in public spending in the UK since the second world war. Nine months into the life of this Government there is still no sign of any plan for jobs and growth, but sensible people know that without a plan for jobs and growth it will not be possible to get the deficit down as the OBR predicts it should come down. Meanwhile, the cuts are beginning to bite and the OBR has forecast that more than 330,000 public sector jobs will be lost. Some 10,000 police jobs have been announced as going so far, and there are reports that 250 Sure Start centres will close. Unemployment, which had begun to fall, is now rising again and inflation, which was low and falling when we left office, is now rising. All that is before the effects of the Government’s ill-advised decision to increase VAT. Growth has stalled.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Hon. Members have been tempting us away from the Bill, but I am sure that the hon. Lady wants to stick to it. We do not want to be tempted through further interventions, so if she will keep to the Bill, that will be helpful.

[Ms Eagle]

The important issue is how the independent forecasts interact with what happens in the economy and how that can change and be affected by the Government’s economic decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to compare and contrast the public sector net debt of 1996-97, which was 42.5%, with that of 2007-08, before the financial crisis—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am trying to allow some freedom, but we are in danger of straying off Second Reading and on to a general debate about the economy. Can we please come back to the debate in hand?

[Mr Bain]

I am very grateful for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To conclude my response to the hon. Gentleman, public sector net debt in 2007-08 was 36.5%, so it was lower than that which we inherited when we came to office.

The analysis of the IFS, in chapter 2 of its green budget, produces the conclusion:

“The financial crisis and associated recession have reduced revenues and, to a greater extent, increased public spending as a share of national income. Without action, there would have been an unsustainable increase in borrowing and debt. The government’s spending cuts and tax rises are forecast to be sufficient to return the UK’s public finances to a sustainable position, but the same would have been true under the fiscal consolidation plan set out by Labour in its March 2010 Budget.”

I doubt that even Government Members would label the IFS a deficit denier, so a fiscal mandate that pays insufficient attention to the impact of higher growth and employment in bringing the public finances back to stability will fail the needs of the country.

We look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee, to improving the operation of the OBR and perhaps, during the Bill’s proceedings, to securing the change in fiscal mandate that would improve the economic prospects of the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are getting tempted into an area where we should not be. We are dealing with Second Reading. I am sure the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) will stick to that, and that Mr Shelbrooke’s intervention will be relevant to it, and not a history lesson for those in the Chamber.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend was trying to make the point that the key word in the name of the Office for Budget Responsibility is “responsibility”.

Court of Auditors 2009 Report

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman would have to explain the position to me, because I am not an accountant, but if there were no budget and no European Union at all, that would solve the problem entirely. Given that we are generous by nature and would want to help our fellow European countries to develop, some sort of transfer might be helpful and the European Union would be a way of doing it. So I am not against the idea of wealthy countries contributing to poorer countries, but the current cumbersome approach, which invites corruption and irregularity, is not the way to do it and does not work out fairly. I have made my suggestion a number of times and I hope that, in time, our Government at least will take it seriously. Perhaps we will be able to debate that in the European Councils themselves and discuss completely changing the method by which these fiscal transfers take place. I have made my point and I have spoken for long enough.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that at 8.54 pm I am going to call the Minister to do a three-minute wind-up? There are three speakers to come. The first will be Chris Heaton-Harris.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we will discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 6, leave out lines 24 to 29.

Amendment 4, page 6, leave out lines 35 to 41.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I do not think that it is the Deputy Speaker’s responsibility.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In fairness, some may hold me responsible, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not.

[Stephen Timms]

This is what the Prime Minister called for in November:

“The right framework, so it’s easier for new companies to start up”.

That is what he wants to happen in the east London tech city initiative. My question to the Minister is why is the Bill not doing that which the Prime Minister has so clearly called for? If it were my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn appealing to the Minister to do that, I could understand why he would not be willing to do it, but it is the Prime Minister, who appointed the Minister to his job. Why is the Minister not doing what the Prime Minister said?

I commend to the Minister the Prime Minister’s speech of 4 November, in which he went on to describe what different parties are doing to help to secure this vision of a new high-tech city in east London:

“But what about here—in the heart of east London where there’s already so much to work with? We’re working with business to make sure the infrastructure and advice you need is in place. Imperial Innovations, the venture capital arm of Imperial College London”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am fascinated to hear the right hon. Gentleman make these points, because I do not remember you proposing a national insurance cut. Indeed, you went to the polls with a national insurance increase.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I was not in the Treasury. I am getting a lot of your blame, and I do not like it.

[Stephen Timms]

I reassure the hon. Lady that when I was in the Treasury, I put an enormous amount of effort into supporting exactly this kind of initiative. I supported the Thames Gateway initiative specifically, as well as other regeneration initiatives.

The Government are now saying that they will not give grant funding, but instead will provide incentives. This is our one opportunity to boost the incentives for establishing the kind of business that the Prime Minister wants in east London, and it will be forgone unless the amendment is agreed by the House this afternoon.

I do not know exactly how things work in the Conservative party. Who speaks to whom, and who is on whose side is all closed to me. It may be that the Exchequer Secretary feels that he does not need to take much notice of what the Prime Minister says. Perhaps he speaks to other people in his party. Let me therefore point out that it is not just the Prime Minister who wants the initiative to go forward. I point him to what the Mayor of London said—perhaps he takes more notice of him than the Prime Minister, I do not know. The Mayor said:

“we can and must do more to cement our position as a global magnet”.

He went on:

“the Olympic and Paralympic Games will bequeath to London a vibrant new business quarter in the east of our city. We must do everything we can to support its development”.

This afternoon, we have the opportunity to do something to support the Mayor of London’s call to develop the vision set out by the Prime Minister. We must not let this opportunity pass us by.

Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary does not take much notice of what the Mayor of London says, either—again, I do not know about that. If that is the case, let me point out to him the position of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Its website states:

“The Government is committed to making a success of the Thames Gateway…we will promote incentives to invest and develop in the area, instead of grant funding specific projects.”

That returns me to the point that I made a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). We understand that the Government are not now willing to contribute grant funding. We disagree with them about that, but are told that there will instead be incentives to invest and develop. Here we have an opportunity to provide just such an incentive. As far as I am aware, the Government have not come forward with any other incentive, and we can provide one along the lines of the policy that the DCLG has set out. We should take that opportunity, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will do so this afternoon by accepting the amendment, so that we can provide an incentive in an area that has been so specifically identified by the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the DCLG.

The DCLG website also states that the Government will

“work with other departments to identify how their programmes bear on the Thames Gateway and need to be adapted”.

The initiative in the Bill clearly needs to be adapted to fulfil the Government’s policy for the Thames Gateway. I hope that the Minister will tell us what representations he has received from the DCLG, because it is an extraordinarily disjointed approach for one Department to say that it will introduce incentives and initiatives in one area and for the Treasury to take not a blind bit of notice and send all the incentives somewhere completely different.

The previous Government used to talk about “joined-up government”, and indeed we made important progress towards achieving it, so that all the different parts of Government were pushing in the same direction towards the same goal. Here we have a case in which the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Mayor of London are on one side, and the Exchequer Secretary and his colleagues are on the other. I invite him to support what his right hon. and hon. Friends are saying, and not to stand aloof from the policies of the Government of whom he is a member. The Treasury should not be an island, cut off from everybody else and doing its own thing without talking to others or supporting what they are doing, but that seems to be the position with this Bill.

I invite the Exchequer Secretary to accept the amendment and agree that the incentive should be applied in places in which the Prime Minister has so clearly identified its importance.

Treasury

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising a subject that I consider to be tremendously important. I particularly endorse what she has said about Christians Against Poverty and the citizens advice bureaux, which operate in my constituency. Does she share my huge disappointment that there is no Treasury Minister present to respond—[Interruption.] I was not aware that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) was a Treasury Minister. Is he the Treasury Minister who will respond to the debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Fiona Bruce.

[Fiona Bruce]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I believe that financial literacy is an essential element of every young person’s education. Including it in the curriculum would decrease the cost to so many people—and to the nation—of personal debt, family breakdown and ill health. Even more important, it would enable all young people to embark on adulthood with a vital tool, and to realise their full potential in life. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is a vital issue that we need to address sooner rather than later.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to send a Whip rather than a Minister to respond to the debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Members may be disappointed that no Treasury Minister is present, but let me say in fairness that the Whip is a Minister. He is part of the Government, and he has the right to speak from the Front Bench. That is the position. There may be disappointment, but I am sure that we shall hear full and thorough answers. We all look forward to the response from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill).

[Fiona Bruce]

Let me end by saying that I know my concerns are shared by a number of Members, and that I look forward to hearing the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I wish the House—Members, staff and visitors—all the best for Christmas, and may we all have a good new year?

Public Accounts Committee

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Eight people are trying to catch my eye and I shall be calling the Front-Bench speakers at about half-past 5, if people can bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Quite a few Members are trying to catch my eye and I hope to call them all. If it looks like I will not be able to do so, I will have to put a time limit on speeches, but I do not want to do that.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to animal welfare, the Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 221, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

We have about 15 minutes available and three more speakers to fit in. I would like to ensure that all three have the chance to speak, so I ask you to divide the time up, because the speeches from the Front Benches will begin at 4 o’clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The package is described as a bail-out of Ireland, but it is important that we recognise that Ireland has not asked for the bail-out and that it is not the package that the Irish would have wished. Ireland and the IMF proposed to write down bank senior debt—that is, default on an element of that debt—because they recognised that it would be very difficult, although not impossible, for Ireland to pay back its vast amount of debt. It is not clear to me that adding another €67.5 billion to those debts and subordinating the previous debts to that will help Ireland out of this crisis.

Let us consider why Ireland was pushed into the crisis. The European Central Bank threatened to withdraw finance for the Irish banks. The ECB had extended €130 billion at a 1% interest rate in temporary liquidity support to the Irish banking sector—a courageous and rather risky thing for it to have done. It would prefer that credit to be refinanced on a longer term basis and at a higher interest rate. If the eurozone wishes to do that, that is a matter for it to agree.

What is not clear is what interest we, or indeed Ireland, have in refinancing that eurozone debt into an EU-wide debt. We must consider the funding costs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has the proud achievement, for which he deserves significant credit, of reducing the long-term costs of borrowing in the UK. Unfortunately, that has gone into reverse over the last three weeks or so. When he came in, we did not give money to the Greek bail-out. We had a rescue package with €440 billion loans and only €60 billion of the dubious EU facility. Unfortunately, that is now being confused.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) recognised back in May that this was the beginning of a European debt union, but it was only when I saw how the package was denominated that I began to share that view. Unfortunately, it is rebounding on our credit. The EU puts in €22.5 billion, the eurozone puts in €17 billion and we put in €3.5 billion or so. Rather than this appearing to be a bilateral arrangement that we have properly agreed, because it is in the interests of these islands, and that has been negotiated between the UK and the Republic, we give the markets the impression that we are being sucked into a wider EU package and those markets worry that we will do the same for Portugal or Spain. We have seen the back-up in interest rates in the past few weeks, but I ask the Treasury Front-Bench team to make it as clear as they can that this is a one-off involving Ireland. By doing that, we could at least potentially protect our credit from some of the assumptions that the market has built up in the past few weeks.

On Europe, I commissioned an opinion poll last month of 1,000 representative people in the Republic, and more than a third of that sample said that they would like to leave the euro and return to sterling. The Chancellor says that “I told you so” is not a policy and of course he is right, but he needs to recognise that there is a policy implication that we should not make the same mistake again. I shared with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, back in 1998, analysis of what had been happening in Ireland—how bank lending was out of control and how there was going to be a most extraordinary boom and bust that would serve as a vivid lesson to this country. I also shared that analysis with Bertie Ahern, prior to his becoming Taoiseach. Like the Chancellor, he said he understood the analysis and that we might be right, but he wanted to join the euro for political reasons. We saw the impact of that decision in Donegal three weeks ago, where the successor seat of my grandfather, who was the Fianna Fail Member for that area, has now been taken by Sinn Fein.

This is Ireland’s decision, but I hope, in its interests and ours, that we will work together much more closely than we have been. There have been improvements in relations since the Prime Minister’s comments about the Bloody Sunday inquiry and, given what the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has said and given his very positive and supportive attitude, I believe we should work with Ireland on a bilateral basis to try to put things right and get a long-term sustainable solution for it and us that is better than the Carolingian settlement that is being imposed by the eurozone and the European Union on an Ireland that deserves better.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has three minutes, as we must finish at 4 o’clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has made an announcement this afternoon in respect of fuel poverty and the Warm Front scheme, saying that it is fully allocated, may I ask whether there has been any request from a Minister to make an oral statement to the House? Many people will be concerned about the cold weather and the urgency of having work done, and they will be fearful that that work cannot be completed before 31 March.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As the hon. Lady is aware, that is not a point of order for me, but I am sure that the message is getting through to the Secretary of State as we speak. There are other channels that she may wish to use.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Money)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Loans to Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury for the purpose of the making of loans to Ireland by the United Kingdom; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Hoban.)

Question agreed to.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end insert

‘other than a loan by virtue of any provision by or under the European Communities Act 1972’.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

‘(3A) Any loans made under this Act, and any repayment of principal or payment of interest received thereunder, shall be denominated in sterling.’.

Amendment 4, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 18.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

‘(7A) Before determining the interest to be charged on any payments under this Act, the Treasury must specify the rate of interest by order; and the Treasury may not make such an order unless—

(a) the House of Commons has determined by resolution the rate of interest to be charged; and

(b) the order provides for that specified rate to be charged.’.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

‘(8A) All loans made under this Act shall be repaid by 8 December 2040.’.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

‘(8A) Before any loan or binding offer of a loan is made, or guarantee given, under this section, the relevant agreement must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.’.

Clause stand part.

[Mr Cash]

I have just abstained on Second Reading for one simple reason. I had intended to vote for it, but I remain gravely dissatisfied by the answer that I received from the Chancellor regarding the increase in the amount specified in clause 1. I do not want in any way to misrepresent what he said, but as I understood it, it was that that was all right because it was about exchange rates. However, anybody who examines clause 1 carefully will notice that subsection (4) states:

“The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3)”,

which is £3.25 billion.

The next two provisions simply determine whether any increase will be subject to affirmative or negative resolution. An order would be made under the negative resolution only if the increase is to do with exchange rates, but I can see nothing to say that an increase under subsection (4) would be affected by subsequent provisions. I was bound to take great exception to that. It is a serious matter, because we simply do not know what the greater amount would be. We are totally exposed, subject only to affirmative resolution, which cannot be amended. Such a measure would simply go through on a whipped vote, just as the rest of the Bill doubtless will. That is why I abstained on Second Reading.

Amendment 3 addresses the definition of “Irish loan”. I was staggered when I looked carefully at the Bill, because clause 1(2) states that “Irish loan” means simply

“a loan to Ireland by the United Kingdom.”

The background is the recent debates on economic governance, and the origins of the European financial stability mechanism and the alternative eurozone facility, which as someone pointed out is as much as €440 billion, which is easily enough to cope with the Irish situation. There is a very close interconnect at all points between the so-called bilateral loan proposed in the Bill and the mechanism that I described.

The difficulty is that there is an overall determination to do as much as possible by way of integrating with Europe when it is quite obvious to anybody that this is the time for us not only to step back, but to desegregate from the European venture. I believe very strongly that the technique that is consistently employed in all spheres of activity is to say, “We don’t like what goes on in the EU, but we can just go along with it. Alternatively, to satisfy the Eurosceptics or Eurorealists, as they prefer to be called, we can make parallel arrangements along the lines of what we would have done if we were in the eurozone.”

The research paper helpfully supplied by the Library states:

“It is worth noting that the bilateral element”—

assuming that that is what the Bill is—

“of the UK’s support is broadly equivalent to what the UK would have provided if it were part of the eurozone-only EFSF.”

In other words, we would have provided the loan anyway. The Minister may well say that that is not his intention, but that is what Library researchers believe, and they are often right.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 1, after ‘believe’, insert

‘on the balance of probabilities’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 2, line 27, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(aa) explain, as fully as possible consistent with the public interest in non-disclosure, the reasons why they are satisfied that the conditions in section 2(1) are satisfied.’.

Amendment 5, page 13, line 41, clause 28, at end add—

‘(5) In section 67(3) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Rules of court about disclosure)—

(a) in paragraph (c) after “that”, insert “subject to paragraph (ca) below”; and

(b) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) that in relation to a final designation, the material disclosed by the Treasury on which they rely is sufficient to enable each designated person to give effective instructions to a person appointed as a special advocate to represent that party’s interests;”.’.

Amendment 11, page 29, line 28, schedule 1, at end insert—

(fa) leave out rule 79.2.’.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to move amendment 2, and to speak to amendments 3, 5 and 11, which are also in my name. They reflect recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Members might wish to see its more detailed report if they have not done so already. The amendments are all about ensuring proportionality and a fair hearing.

We should clearly be able to restrict funds that help terrorists in their activities, but people who are accused of such activities should not automatically lose their regular status in this country. We have a great principle in this country whereby a person is innocent until proven guilty; it is a great British tradition and one that we should support. We should also accept, however, that errors are made in legal processes, by the court and by Governments, and that is why we should have principles of fair hearing and high thresholds before we take state action.

Amendment 2 is about errors and the thresholds that we require. How can we be sure that the courts or the Treasury are making the right decision? How much error is acceptable? Various thresholds are already used for various decisions. We have the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, which roughly equates to our saying that we do not accept even a 1% error—to the extent that we can attach numbers to it. Then, we have the civil standard, or the balance of probabilities, whereby we want to be sure that we are probably right. We want at least a 50:50 chance—in other words, with the balance of probabilities, we say that we want to be wrong less than half the time; we want to be probably sure that we are right.

If we go any lower with a threshold, we take steps—we punish people—when we say that we believe that they were probably not involved in the given situation. That is the consequence of a threshold below the balance of probabilities. None of us wants that, and none of us wants to take steps against people when we think that they were probably not involved in the first place.

I accept the principle of a lower threshold for interim designations. It is more akin to arrest, which takes place at a much lower threshold, but that is not the same as the permanent designation. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their proposal. They should consider taking such steps against people only when the Treasury believes that they were probably involved, rather than on the basis of anything lower.

Amendment 3 is a simple requirement. A fair hearing must mean knowing the accusations—the reasons why the Treasury believes that somebody has been involved in funding terrorist activities. The amendment includes an important safeguard for public interest in non-disclosure, so damaging information would not come out, only that which we could afford to release. Again, I should have thought that we all agree with such a position.

During the Bill’s passage, the Government have said that, effectively, the amendment’s intention will be achieved but they do not want to see it in legislation. I am always concerned, however, about the principle that we should not write things into legislation but trust in the benevolence of Governments—this or any future Government. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he clearly commit to disclose such reasons subject to the public interest requirement, as the amendment says—even if that takes place in a non-legislative way?

Amendments 5 and 11 deal with the hearing itself. Section 67(3)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 puts a heavy weight on the principle of non-disclosure. Although that is an important principle, we must counter it with the principle of a fair hearing. Currently, the balance goes far too far in the direction of non-disclosure.

In the case of AF, it was held that similar rules are not appropriate to control orders, so I find it hard to see why the courts will not in time hold the same principle on terrorist asset freezing. There are more details on that reasoning in the Joint Committee’s report. The courts have yet to take such a decision, but surely as a principle it would be better not to go through costly legal action, but to save time by making the changes now.

There is a review of the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings, and I welcome the fact that there will be a consistent approach. If the Minister will not agree to including such safeguards in the Bill, will he commit to the Bill being updated when the review is complete in order to reflect that consistent approach and to introduce a better system throughout those areas? I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s comments on all those suggestions, and I hope he takes on board what has been said.

Banking Reform

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

In my experience it is always better to be anything than a clunking fist.

I will end by saying this. We do not know what the future holds. We know that regulation is not perfect. It is therefore far better to have one person and an institution in charge of the regulatory structure who can exercise judgment to the best of their ability than it is to try to write a rulebook for a perfect system that we know we will never create. That is why I think that the Government have already put forward such a critical change to our financial architecture—a change that I hope will be accepted by the Opposition and which will form the basis of the good economic governance of our country for years to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr Morris. Are you going to be very brief?