Autumn Statement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will not confirm or deny what discussions are going on across Whitehall. I did say—I fully understand that the right hon. Lady might have missed it in the depths of the statement—that we are setting up a review of markets, including the retail energy market, to ensure that they are operating fairly for consumers. Where we find that they are not, we will make proposals and take action.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the autumn statement. There is always a question on the beer industry, and here it is. Beer is taxed at three different levels depending on its alcohol by volume. The lowest rate is for beers with an ABV of 1.2% to 2.8% to try to attract consumers to less alcoholic beers. Will the Chancellor meet me, as president of the all-party beer group, to discuss the upper level, and perhaps raising it to 3.5%, with a view to attracting people away from those heavier alcoholic beers to lower-alcohol beers?

[Mr Hammond]

If my hon. Friend names the bar, I will meet him.

Supply and Estimates Procedure

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier]

It is good to see a member of the Procedure Committee here today. He will be fully up to speed with everything that is happening there. We look forward to the report—we hope that it will be published in November this year—and I hope the Government listen to its recommendations and respond constructively.

As I said, three days is completely inadequate. Furthermore, it is an oddity that more time is given to supplementary estimates than main estimates. After all, main estimates are where the vast majority of the decision making occurs. It seems eminently logical to switch the number of days available at the very least, so that two are set aside for consideration of main estimates and one for supplementary estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the SNP shadow Leader of the House, who has joined us in this debate, has submitted written evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the estimates procedure in which he makes a common-sense proposal to allow both Opposition days and Backbench Business Committee days during the estimates windows, which should take the form of amendable or debatable motions to approve estimates or parts of estimates.

My hon. Friend also advocated the case advanced by the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Southport (John Pugh) back in 2012 for the establishment of a separate Budget Committee to examine Government expenditure plans and to make recommendations to the House. I, too, think that has great merit and warrants serious consideration. It is currently all too easy for the Treasury to bury important changes within hundreds of pages of information. We owe it to the taxpayer to ensure both transparency and effective scrutiny, neither of which are possible in the current system. A Budget Committee would allow for a much more thorough inspection of spending proposals and could complement a heavily reformed Supply and estimates process. Such a Committee should also play a vital role in the scrutiny of Barnett consequentials to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, Westminster should introduce a proper Budget expenditure debate, such as those held in the United States or the Scottish Parliament. That sensible measure would allow a much closer assessment of spending. The compelling case for the inclusion of Barnett consequentials in estimates has been further compounded by the introduction of English votes for English laws. The complicated EVEL process reduces the ability of Scottish MPs to influence matters with funding implications for Scotland. The Leader of the House has repeatedly claimed that the estimates process provides a suitable avenue for us to affect those matters of great financial importance. However, in reality, it does not.

The Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), said during an oral evidence session of that Committee last September:

“the way we execute Estimates and appropriations is less than satisfactory in the House of Commons, and for those colleagues who are concerned about Barnett consequentials, perhaps the concerns could be alleviated if we had proper debates around supply procedure.”

Legislation that might be considered to fall within the rules for the exclusion of non-English MPs might have important expenditure implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The previous Leader of the House showed reticence in accepting that fact. I urge the new Leader of the House to give proper consideration to the argument being put forward. Will he agree to review the interaction between the Supply and estimates procedure and EVEL arrangements as part of the review of the latter?

Legislation passes through the House that could have a significant impact on the block grant available to the devolved legislators. Members who represent constituencies in the devolved nations are now denied a right to vote at crucial stages of that legislation. Many other Members and I have raised serious concerns regarding Barnett consequentials and the effect that such legislation could have upon them. The Government contend that the estimates process provides ample opportunity for all Members to address that. However, there exists a complete lack of relevant information available to Members regarding amounts derived from each Department’s spending, which makes up elements of the block grants. That is wholly inadequate.

Pursuant to Budgets and autumn statements each year, the Treasury provides information to the devolved Administrations of the amount within the block grant derived from the spending of each Department. However, Members of this Parliament are not given access to that information when they are asked to give formal approval to Government spending. It seems incomprehensible that absolutely no consideration is possible of the full implications of Government spending, including the effect on the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House engage with the Treasury specifically on that issue?

The current measures for the estimates day debates were put in place before the process of establishing separate legislatures for the devolved nations commenced, so there is a fundamental inadequacy in how we examine Barnett consequentials under the current process. As a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I heard evidence last September from Sir William McKay, who said:

“There is neither possibility nor opportunity”

to do so, and that

“estimates opportunities are limited in both time and matter.”

In fact, he commented that EVEL is “a dog’s breakfast”—a phrase my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire loves to use in the Chamber.

In evidence recently given to the Procedure Committee, Dr Joachim Wehner, associate professor of public policy at the London School of Economics, said:

“The UK generally does extremely well in terms of macro fiscal disclosure, but it does less well when you look at the details of public spending. That is a weak spot in the overall transparency assessment of the UK. So the quality of the estimates is below par compared to the UK’s own high standards in this area, but also compared to its peers and other OECD countries.”

The mother of Parliaments, like many mothers, is not as in touch with the modern world as its younger descendants. The OECD wrote that we have some of the worst levels of scrutiny of estimates of any country in the developed democratic world. The House does not formally consider, debate, amend and vote on expenditure in the same way as with the Budget and taxation. There simply must be more opportunity to consider, debate and make amendments. MPs should have some measures to amend or affect estimates short of attempting to vote down all Government spending. There must be a way for Members to amend spending without having to defeat the Government on a major money motion. If nothing else, such a system makes minority Budgets much harder and, in doing so, cements a tendency in this place to move towards a two-party system with power pooling with the Executive. That is not a healthy way for a democratic country to operate.

Before I summarise, I would like to quote Adam Tomkins MSP, professor of public law at the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Conservative spokesperson on the constitution. In his written evidence to the Procedure Committee, he said:

“Whether these procedures give MPs the means fully to scrutinise any Barnett consequentials of England-only or England and Wales-only legislation may be doubted. If they prove to be inadequate, it may be that one unintended consequence of EVEL will be to reform the House of Commons’ supply process. From the perspective of parliamentary openness and effective parliamentary scrutiny, that would be no bad thing. The Treasury, however, may take a different view.”

I urge the Leader of the House to engage specifically with the Treasury about reforms to the timing and presentation of estimates, including the case for draft estimates, and the need for clear information on Barnett consequentials, including a statement of change from the previous year. Will he agree to examine specifically any lessons that can be learned from the Scottish Parliament’s procedures on the consideration of spending? Will he agree to engage with the Procedure Committee about the likely recommendations of its current inquiry on this matter?

Will the Leader of the House agree to look at the arrangement for estimates days, with a view to increasing the number available and making more time for main estimates than supplementary ones? Will he have discussions with the Treasury, with a view to making estimates motions more easily amendable? Will he seek to engage with relevant parties to explore the merits of establishing a Budget Committee? Lastly, will he agree to review the interaction between Supply and estimates procedure and the arrangements for English votes for English laws as part of the review of the latter?

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to his new role.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Should the British people decide to vote leave on 23 June, what arguments would the Chancellor deploy on 24 June in favour of the United Kingdom to attract investors and encourage them to invest in the United Kingdom rather than in other countries in Europe?

[Mr Osborne]

I will always fight, and the Government will always fight, for the best interests of the United Kingdom, and we will do whatever we can in response to the verdict of the people. My recommendation, and the recommendation of the British Government, is that we are better off in the reformed EU—

[Mr Evans]

I did not ask that.

[Mr Osborne]

The point I make to my hon. Friend is that, of course, we will have to handle the situation if the British people choose to exit, and I would always want to stress that we are a great country to invest in, but I think that that argument will be weaker if we are not in the EU.

Financial Conduct Authority

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I sympathise fully. When I established the all-party parliamentary group on interest rate swap mis-selling, I expected it to be closed within a year. Four years later, I am still raising debates on the issue, so I share the concern that people are knocking their heads against a wall and getting nowhere.

The Treasury Committee intervened and the FCA finally published its rules in February 2015. Therefore, it can be argued that for two years, every appeal was being made in the dark. The release of the rules led to a further complication. It suddenly became apparent that the way in which the customers of RBS were being treated in the redress scheme was significantly different from the way in which the customers of other banks were being treated.

The APPG did a significant analysis of cases that had been through the redress scheme. It showed clearly that the chances of getting a swap for a swap outcome was much stronger for RBS customers than for customers of other banks. A swap for a swap outcome basically means that the redress to which someone is entitled is significantly less than it would otherwise be. The reason was that RBS appeared to be relying on a generic condition of lending that was not deemed significant by some banks within the review, but that, for some reason, was deemed sufficient for a swap for a swap outcome by RBS.

I met RBS with other members of the APPG to highlight the discrepancies. We were told that the rules that were released to the Treasury Committee were not rules, but principles. Although those principles had been established for the scheme, apparently 11 different methodologies were agreed with 11 different banks. It is arguable that the Treasury Committee was misled because when it asked for the rules, it is unclear whether it got rules or principles.

I ask again: if a business does not feel that it received an adequate offer from a bank, how can it challenge the decision if it does not know what the methodology was? I met the FCA, because RBS was perfectly happy about this issue. It said, “We have a methodology that we have agreed with the FCA and we are delivering on it.” When I met the FCA, it confirmed that it had different methodologies within the scheme, but, again, it did not share those with me. If an RBS customer is unhappy with their outcome, it is difficult for them to argue their case, because they are not being provided with the information that they need to do so.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the FCA ought to look at transparency, speed and fairness? It seems to me that the FCA has taken no regard of the fact that many of our constituents—probably running into the hundreds of thousands across the country—have lost tens of thousands of pounds. In many cases, these are elderly people who were relying on that money to keep them into their old age.

[Guto Bebb]

I endorse those comments completely.

Swap for swap outcomes are much more likely for RBS customers and the percentage of non-compliant sales that do not result in a tear-up of the agreement within RBS has gone from about 40% to about 60%, which is not in line with other examples. I would argue that the voluntary scheme that the FCA put together is not delivering and is not being monitored in accordance with the FCA’s mission statement. I will leave that issue there because I have spoken at length about interest rate swap mis-selling in this Chamber and made my concerns known time and again.

When the voluntary redress scheme was announced, we thought that the inclusion of consequential losses was a pleasant surprise. I am afraid that we were being overly optimistic. Our analysis of the redress scheme showed that in 50% of the 3,104 cases that we looked at, no consequential losses were received, and in 85% of the cases that did receive consequential losses, they amounted to less than £10,000. I have personally seen dozens of well-argued cases in the redress scheme that have been rejected by the banks without an explanation. Even worse, the business is allowed one appeal against that decision without knowing the basis on which it has been rejected—it has one opportunity to challenge, and invariably that challenge fails. On consequential losses we are again failing businesses.

Time and again cases go to court. They are often settled outside court, where the settlement will be better than what was offered under the redress scheme, and that should be a cause of concern for the regulator. Of perhaps even more concern to Members of the House is the fact that time and again gagging orders are placed on those settlements by a taxpayer-funded bank on the back of taxpayers. I find that utterly unacceptable.

Let me move on to the Connaught Income Fund, which creates a real problem concerning regulation in this country. The regulator was informed not of mismanagement but of fraudulent behaviour, yet it took four months before it put a notice on its website to highlight its concerns and say that the fund in question was not as safe as a bank account, and a further year before that fund was wound up. In the meantime, between the whistleblower informing the regulator about the problem with Connaught and the winding up of the scheme, more than half the total investments into the Connaught income stream occurred. It could therefore be argued that the regulator was responsible for at least half the fund.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear the truth, that is the problem.

Our welfare reforms over the last Parliament, every one of which was designed with the aim of supporting those who are able to work in getting closer to employment, were undoubtedly part of achieving the success story I have cited.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Is not the difficulty that the Labour party, in its last year in government, borrowed £150 billion, introduced a tax credit system that started at £4.5 billion and ended at £30 billion, maxed out not only the taxpayers’ credit cards but their children’s and grandchildren’s credit cards, and chained workers to a lower minimum wage instead of a much higher national living wage?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I agree with the powerful point that my hon. Friend makes. In fact, I am about to talk about the benefits cap that the Bill quite rightly introduces. The New Statesman, by any measure the house journal of the Labour party, states:

“Most voters regard a cap of £26,000 as unacceptably high and the move draws a sharp new dividing line with Labour. By pledging to use the money saved to fund apprenticeships, Cameron sends out the message that the Tories support work, not welfare.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have to look at the entire Budget package, because that is the new contract. Part of that is a tax cut, which I suspect will help the hon. Lady’s constituents, because we have increased the personal allowance. They may also be eligible for the new 30 hours of free child care. Many more of her constituents will also benefit from the national living wage. But what is the alternative? It is to have an unsustainable welfare system, the cost of which goes up and up and squeezes out spending on infrastructure, education and science, and puts our country at risk from economic storms abroad. That is what we lived through 10 years ago and we do not want to go back there.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

The Chancellor is the darling of beer drinkers throughout the country, with his three tax cuts on beer and getting rid of the tax escalator. Will he continue his support for the brewing industry? Should he do so, it may even help any leadership bid that he may or not make at some time in the future.

[Mr Osborne]

I shall take that as an early representation for next year’s Budget. We have been able to help by reducing beer duty and ending the beer duty escalator that was putting pubs out of business. Other measures, such as those on apprenticeships and the employment allowance, are also helping the pub industry which is such a big employer of young people in our country.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that that project is very important, and we are committed to it. However, to the regret of, I think, every Member, it has been necessary to pause it, to ensure that it can be done according to prudent budgetary principles. Nevertheless, the Transport Secretary has made it absolutely clear that such transport projects are very important for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and others.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Did the Minister also welcome the news that BAE Systems announced last week that it wishes to take on 2,000 apprentices by 2018, which yet again reinforces the image of the northern powerhouse?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is marvellous news and a reflection of the confidence in the economy of the UK and of the north-west. It also underlines the point that that is happening not only in our country’s big cities, important though they are, but in all parts of the north and, indeed, all parts of the country.

The Chancellor made it clear in the Budget that we have reached agreement with the 10 councils in Greater Manchester to devolve additional powers to them, beyond those powers that were devolved previously. A land commission will help to release public land to build new homes; fire services will be put under the control of the new mayor; and new powers will encourage further collaboration on children’s services and employment programmes. This historic process of devolution is now available to other cities and other parts of the country. The Chancellor made it clear that we are in active negotiations to devolve powers to the Sheffield city region, to Leeds, west Yorkshire and its partner authorities, and to the Liverpool city region. Each area will receive far-reaching devolved powers and resources in return for the election of a directly elected mayor. We are also in advanced negotiations with Cornwall on the first devolution for a county in this country.

This is just the start. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is before the House of Lords, will enable us to negotiate with cities, towns and counties right across the country to give them the power that they need to galvanise their local economies. Such deals are in their local interest, but also in the national interest. At a time when limited public resources must be invested wisely, it is right to offer our cities, towns and counties a bigger share of the funding that is available. Why? Partly, it is because they have already demonstrated that they can make funding go further by managing it more creatively and attracting private sector investment.