Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I think that demonstrates the value of the OBR. For the first time we shall have a set of entirely independent forecasts to which Members can refer.

The hon. Lady has strayed on to the detail and implications of the policy, and I think that it is perfectly fair for her to do so. We have always said—I believe that Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, said the same last year—that the recovery would be choppy. It is not at all unusual for an economy emerging from recession, particularly a recession as long and severe as the one that we have undergone, to experience at least one instance of either flat or negative growth.

I do not want to be called to order, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall move on. Let me simply say to the hon. Lady that she has confirmed my point that benefiting from independent forecasts for the first time will be key to holding a good-quality, informed political debate about the Government’s economic policy and how it is progressing, and that the OBR has also said that we are on course to achieve our fiscal mandate.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify something for me? If the OBR says that growth will be x in the next year, must the Chancellor abide by that? Obviously, measures in his Budget may encourage growth: he may cut taxes, for instance.

[Justine Greening]

The OBR makes an independent fiscal forecast and assessment of the economy. The Treasury may or may not agree with that forecast and assessment, but the point is that it is done entirely independently of the Government. Rightly, however, it will remain the prerogative of Ministers to decide policy. That is the clear distinction we have set out throughout the Bill.

We needed to make sure that we have official forecasts for the economy that the public can trust, even if that means we end up giving away some of our powers as Treasury Ministers. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, we need to fix the Budget to fit the figures, not fix the figures to fit the Budget. That is why the OBR was established, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said it is a “welcome” innovation.

To enable the OBR to get to work immediately, it initially operated on a non-statutory basis. It was headed by Sir Alan Budd, a highly respected fiscal and macro-economic expert in our country. The interim OBR produced an independent assessment of the economy and public finances both ahead of, and at, the Budget in June. We gave it direct control over that forecast, with full access to all the data, assumptions and economic models. It made all the key judgments and decisions underpinning the economic and fiscal forecasts. Great strides were also made in transparency. More information was published than ever before. That fact was noted by both the Treasury Committee and the IFS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Unless we get the public finances right, there will be no long-term consumer confidence. Can we imagine what the impact would be if the Government abandoned their approach and just started spending money, like the previous Government did, and failed to tackle the deficit? I am afraid that consumer confidence would go through the floor.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is it not right to say that to compensate for the increase in VAT, the Government have increased the personal allowance for taxpayers, so that consumers have more money to spend?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have increased the personal allowance, taking 880,000 people out of income tax, resulting in an income tax cut for millions of people. It is none the less the fact that we must tackle the deficit. To the extent that the Labour party wants to do anything about the deficit, it advocates reducing the deficit by increasing taxes by more. Think what that would do.

Treasury

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall expand on that matter a little later. An example of the participation of members of mutuals is displayed when one attends a building society annual general meeting. The participation rates in such AGMs have increased sharply over the years, and some have member panels, which play an enhanced role in the management of the organisation. I am in favour of markets, but properly regulated ones. That means that we need to redemocratise the market so that it serves people, rather than having things the other way round, which is an avenue we have gone down too much over the past couple of decades. Giving life to mutuals is a good way of redemocratising the financial services sector.

Secondly, mutuals add biodiversity to the financial services sector; a thriving mutuals sector adds to the diversity of the financial system. The more diversified the financial system in terms of size, ownership and structure of businesses, the better able it is to withstand the strains produced by normal business cycles and we can also avoid the herd instinct commonly displayed in the market over recent times.

Thirdly, mutuals have a lesser appetite for indulging in risky financial activities and so, on the whole, they weathered the storm well during the global financial crisis. For example, building society mortgage arrears are less than two thirds of those of the market as a whole. Building societies are also, thankfully, legally barred from taking positions in derivatives, foreign currency and commodity markets, which is where other financial organisations have found themselves in deep trouble. Where mutuals have run into difficulty, as the Dunfermline building society did in March 2009, it has been because they have moved away from the traditional mutual business model. So a growth in mutuals will not only reduce exposure to risky financial activities, but bring systemic advantages. It will foster a culture that moves away from the risky, reckless behaviours that we have seen precipitate the crisis, and so we can reduce the chances of that reoccurring.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on an important issue. Does his argument go on to say that the large banks should be broken up into smaller ones, as in the example from the United States?

[Mr Umunna]

I do not wish to pre-empt the inquiry being carried out by the Treasury Committee. I have some sympathy for those views, but I would like to continue to hear the evidence that my Committee is taking on this matter and read some of the submissions to the Independent Commission on Banking before coming to a firm view.

The fourth argument that I make in favour of mutuals is that they have strong local links and roots in local communities. Mutuals are often regionally based and therefore often have a better understanding of those they seek to serve because they understand and are rooted in those communities. Finally, mutuals will undoubtedly help to promote competition. As I have mentioned, building societies do not have to pay dividends to shareholders, so they can use their funds either to pay higher savings rates or provide lower mortgage rates. It is no surprise that they regularly top the “best buy” tables.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May I extend my good wishes to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all Members and staff?

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), because I, too, wish to raise a matter relating to high street banks. I shall discuss the proposals to withdraw the ability to write cheques, and in referring to that issue my remarks will in part be the reflections of a new Member—perhaps appropriate for this time of year—and draw on my early experience in a new role.

In August, I received a letter from a constituent, Miss Patricia Keats, who wrote to tell me that she was 87 years old, and since the closure of her local post office had found it difficult to get hold of cash. With her pension paid directly into her bank account, she found it convenient to ask a friend to take out cash for her and then to use her cheque book to pay that person. In addition, Miss Keats told me how useful her cheque book is for paying people who help her at home, such as her chiropodist; and how useful it is, when she watches a disaster unfold on TV, such as in Haiti or in Pakistan, for sending a donation. So, she wrote that she has real concerns about the banks’ proposals.

I am afraid that when I received Miss Keats’s letter I did not respond as thoroughly as I might have. I replied, simply pointing out that the proposal is fairly distant; that it will not come in until 2018; and that alternatives are being considered. I regret my response: I did not consider the issue sufficiently thoroughly, take account of her personal circumstances and wishes or do as much as I should have done to represent her interests. I am pleased to have the opportunity to put that matter right by going into the issue in more detail today.

This is a matter for the Payments Council, the organisation that directs the strategy for UK payments. The industry set it up in 2007 to ensure that payment systems and services meet the needs of payment service providers, users and the wider economy. Last year, the council’s board decided to set a target date of 2018 for closing central cheque clearing.

Some 4 million cheques are still written every day, so there is still a large number although it fell by 12% between 2000 and 2008, leading retailers such as Tesco and Marks and Spencer to refuse to accept them in their stores. Many people will know from their everyday experience that cheque usage is falling as people make payments by other methods, such as direct debits and internet banking.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I have a member of staff who does not know how to write a cheque and never has. There seem to be two economies.

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but somebody in the older age group has drawn the issue to my attention, and I shall go on to mention how it affects not just those people but others.

It is true, none the less, that those most resisting change are older residents, such as Miss Keats, who often do not have internet access or are uncomfortable with the open-ended commitment of a direct debit, which involves a supplier, frequently a large, faceless corporation, being able to put its hand into their bank account.

I am myself of a generation that grew up with a cheque book, and I do not wish to see them go, despite having seen cheques used inappropriately; I am thinking about the idiot in the student union bar who, rather than taking out some cash, insists on paying for half a pint of bitter with a cheque, to the irritation of other customers and bar staff alike. It is clear that people generally do not want cheques to go. For settling an account with a provider of goods or services, sending a cheque is a simple and easy method of payment—not least because the cheque book stub is a convenient reminder of which bills have been paid.

Charities in particular do not want cheques to go; they fear that that would mean a decline in their incomes because many of their donors are nervous about other methods. Small businesses do not want them to go either, because it is easy to reconcile accounts when payments are made by cheque, often with invoice numbers written on the back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

It gives me great pleasure to respond to the Members who have contributed to this debate. I stand as the Treasury Minister who sits next to the Chancellor at all the meetings at No. 11, even if I am generally not allowed to speak in the House.

My hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) raised the issue of improving financial literacy and education for the young. Over the past decade, people’s financial habits have changed considerably. High personal debt coupled with low savings are something that we need to address, especially when they are looked at in the context of the financial crisis and the ageing population. There is no point in giving consumers detailed information about annual percentage rates and other financial data in connection with products if they do not understand what an APR is. When one sees the rates of interest charged by credit and store cards or doorstep lenders, that brings home the need for better financial education.

As a Government, we want people to take greater personal responsibility for their finances. As my hon. Friends said, giving people access to financial advice and education is an important part of that. That is why we have tasked the Consumer Financial Education Body, or CFEB, to deliver a free financial advice service by spring next year. That will improve financial literacy and help consumers to take charge of their own finances. It may even save a few marriages along the way.

A vital component of the service will be the annual financial health check, to provide people with a holistic overview of their finances. In tandem, the CFEB supports financial education through the “Learning Money Matters” programme, which offers free advice and resources to schools that want to teach personal finance education. I remind the House that finance education is currently part of the personal, social, health and economic education syllabus for key stages 1 to 4. However, I was concerned to hear that the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton did not receive that tuition as part of the syllabus. As a parent, perhaps she could get in touch with her parent governor or head teacher to ensure that it is covered in future. I was pleased to hear how the banks are interacting with local schools to provide that type of tuition.

I, too, have received an invitation to the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people. I certainly look forward to attending on 31 January, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy), who are the co-chairmen of the group. As a fan of Martin Lewis, who appears regularly on GMTV, I know he reaches 6.4 million people through his website and his appearances—dare I suggest that that is fewer people than are watching this debate?

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) raised the issue of the HMRC settlement. As an employer, I know Cumbernauld well because the name appears on the prepaid envelopes when I send off my tax to that particular office. The office employs 1,500 staff and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that it has a key role in debt management and collection, and that there are no plans substantially to reduce numbers in that office.

As with all Departments, HMRC will deliver on its efficiency savings programme by concentrating on the core elements of the service it provides. In the case of HMRC, that means ensuring that resources are more efficiently focused on collecting revenue and providing a better service to the British taxpayer. As part of its settlement, HMRC will therefore improve the pay-as-you-earn system, so that there is greater use of real-time information, and extend its online resources to reduce the demands placed on contact centres.

HMRC will reinvest the £900 million in savings to tackle avoidance, evasion and criminal activity. Those savings will be recycled into activities working against tax avoidance, evasion and criminal attack to collect additional revenue of £7 billion per annum by 2014-15. That will deliver a more robust criminal deterrent against tax evasion and will increase the number of criminal prosecutions fivefold. There will also be a crackdown on offshore evasion, with the creation of a new dedicated team of investigators to catch those hiding offshore money. We wish to clear the backlog of PAYE cases by 2012 and stabilise the service in order to recover and improve customer service. Central to that will be undertaking the next stage of consultation on improving PAYE through the use of real-time information to bring improvements to employers and taxpayers. Of course, in the past, that has resulted in underpayments and overpayments, some of which had to be written off and some of which had to be collected at great expense.

[Mr Bone]

A Whip is yet again speaking at the Dispatch Box for the first time and performing better than the normal Treasury Ministers, without the backing of any official. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that. I hope to see more of it happening in the future.

Cabinet Office

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Christmas Adjournment debate is a good opportunity for the Government, 2010 years after a botched census led to a baby being born in a stable, to get the 2011 census right. Slough has for a long time been a victim of the failures of the previous census, and as a result we have been underfunded for a significant period. I am concerned that worse problems might occur in the 2011 census, and they will arise from a combination of inadequate resourcing and flawed methodology.

The first flaw in the methodology is the emphasis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) pointed out, on using the post. That is a deterrent to people in my constituency, many of whom have poor literacy skills. Moving as a primary school teacher from Peckham to Slough, I was shocked by the poor literacy in the constituency that I now have the privilege to represent.

Slough’s “hard-to-count” score is assessed as a three, which puts it in the top 20%, but that is another error. It should be assessed as a four, and in the top 10%, to account for our transient and diverse population. One indication of the rapid change in Slough between 2008-09 and 2009-10 is that schools in my small borough recorded 531 recently arrived pupils from 53 different countries.

The score also does not take proper account of the impact of houses in multiple occupation. Slough can provide the Office for National Statistics with information about 1,500 HMOs of which the authorities are aware. For the remaining 2,000 HMOs, which are implied by census and survey data, only one questionnaire will be posted, however. If the questionnaire is posted back or completed online, no follow-up visit by a census collector will take place. Only if a questionnaire is not posted back or not completed online will there be any opportunity for accurate counting through a follow-up visit, and those houses in multiple occupation are just ordinary terraced houses.

Additionally in Slough, a number of people live in sheds and other hidden households for which we have no address, so there will be serious problems in dealing with that. I should like to suggest five remedies to which I hope the Minister will respond.

First, the Minister should ensure that the people responsible for collecting census forms have the requisite language skills. Slough borough council is concerned that none of the census posts being advertised has language as an essential requirement. The recruitment and selection process that Capita is delivering on behalf of the ONS means that there are no face-to-face interviews, and that selection decisions are based on performance in online testing and questioning. Although language skills are listed as desirable for all roles, they are not part of the recruitment and selection process, but they should be.

Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the operational elements of the 2011 census include dedicated and adequately resourced events at which people can complete census questionnaires? Currently, the planned completion centres will not have sufficient personnel who are able to re-issue household questionnaires. Only ONS staff can do that, and in my borough only seven and a quarter people will be able to do so.

As a result, in a very verbal town, the events in the centres, which could be a good way of ensuring that people are able to complete their questionnaire, will not take place frequently enough or in enough places. Are the ONS staff trained in questionnaire filling? Will they have the language skills that my constituents require? The ONS says that local authorities can set up alternative completion centres, but local authority staff cannot issue new forms; only the ONS staff can do that.

Thirdly, a national marketing campaign must take place. It has been deferred because of the Government moratorium on advertising, and that is pretty stupid, frankly. Will the Minister ensure that materials are available and clear? Slough has volunteered to translate certain materials, but the ONS has not agreed, so may I have an assurance that the publicity campaign will be agreed to?

Fourthly, we must improve the arrangements for large households. Currently, the head of household will have to request an additional form if there are more than six residents in their household. They will have to do so using a phone line, and in Slough the head of household is likely to be someone for whom English is not their first language, so such requests will be hard to make. May we therefore have better arrangements for people who need supplementary forms?

Fifthly, Slough is under-represented. I am familiar with the London borough of Wandsworth, which is about twice as big as Slough.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Has she considered whether a sampling technique would be better than an actual census?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, and sampling will take place after the 2011 census, because that will be the last one. Sampling techniques are theoretically great, but I spent 10 years trying to persuade the ONS that its sampling techniques and statistical methods were inadequate, so I know that they are not perfect.

To return to resources, the London borough of Wandsworth is about twice the size of Slough and has a similar ethnic mix, yet Wandsworth has two area managers, whereas Slough has one quarter of an area manager. Wandsworth has two community advisers, the same number as Slough, and 23 co-ordinators compared with Slough’s five. I do not begrudge Wandsworth that; indeed I live in Wandsworth as well as in Slough, but the ONS has shown since 2001 that it does not get Slough and continues not to get Slough. Unless it gets Slough and puts the resources in we will—once again—be under-counted in the 2011 census.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The third sector makes a huge contribution to the quality of life of everyone in my constituency, and given the opportunity it could do even more. In Portsmouth, we are particularly indebted to Community First, which has done so much to support charities and community organisations.

However, there are some very real threats to the sector’s capacity to expand, and even maintain, its current work in the community. Local authorities are faced with reduced grants from central Government. In the economic circumstances, it would be a naive council that thought that it would be protected from the consequences of a massive deficit, but it would be a lazy council that responded to the challenge of a reduced budget by cutting funding to third sector organisations.

If local authorities use this spending round as a cover for a retreat to the comfort of central provision, they will not be thanked and nor will they be acting responsibly. I am sure that everyone in the House understands, and can give many examples from their own constituencies, of how the third sector delivers better value for money and the most client-focused services, raises additional funds and inspires more good will than its public and private sector counterparts. It is said that the people do not know what the big society is, but people do know that and the third sector has been laying the foundations for years. It is big state local authorities that are refusing planning permission for the next stage.

I have identified four key concerns in Portsmouth. First, local authorities must harness the power of the third sector rather than stifling it and running it down. There is a lacuna in service commissioners’ understanding of what the sector can offer and an unwillingness to fill it. The Government have done and are doing much to level up the playing field, but unless commitment is continued at a local level where powers are being pushed, we will not succeed in empowering charities and community groups to become providers or set up sustainable services.

Take a service such as Motiv8, for young people in Portsmouth. The enormous amount of money that it saves the public purse in the long term is well documented and there is no doubt that such services are required. Yet unless it can be sure of transition funding, some of its activities might have to stop. There is no doubt that the ill effects of its absence will be keenly felt and, in time, the council will need to re-establish similar provision—but this time, probably council-provided. That is a complete waste of money and the same could be said for other services such as Pompey Stars, Off The Record and Enable Ability, which already deliver very good returns on investment.

To shut such services in spring purely to reinvent them in the summer, following the loss of staff, premises and good will, seems a crazy thing to do, especially as these services are often able to attract considerable additional funding if they are given enough time to do so.

This small-mindedness is further represented by the lack of a commissioning framework in Portsmouth. That makes it extremely difficult for organisations such as the Alzheimer’s Society to plug into the service needs of the population. Work is under way to streamline and standardise commissioning in Portsmouth, but I am very sceptical about whether that will create a level playing field for small voluntary organisations.

There is much to be done on the demand side of commissioning, too. If we are really to tackle the considerable unmet need that exists in Alzheimer’s and dementia care, we must be focused on that need and find ways to meet it. Portsmouth city council must cut its backroom costs and find ways of making every pound spent on these services lever in more funding and volunteers. It should be increasing provision, not shutting services in the north of the city such as those provided at the Patey centre.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case when mentioning her local council. What she says is absolutely true and applies across the country. My council in particular could learn from it as well.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am sure that everyone can give examples of such things happening on their own patch.

Another example of how the sector could support the commissioning and design of services can be seen in the work of the wonderful Beneficial Foundation, which provides not only training and life skills teaching for people with learning disabilities, but a fantastic business recycling scheme that provides arts and crafts materials for so many organisations. At a time when the council is seeking to introduce a business recycling scheme, would a conversation with the Beneficial Foundation not be worth while?

Thirdly, there is a refusal to maximise our community assets. The Stamshaw and Tipner leisure centre, which has been threatened with closure and demolition on more than one occasion, is due to be made structurally sound next year, but there is no funding to bring the interior up to a standard that would guarantee a sustainable number of bookings from community groups. In response, members of the community have stepped forward to do it themselves—time, tools, materials and donations have been offered. But it has been very difficult to engage with the local authority on simple matters such as the building schedule and getting approval for the work to be done. How much good will is lost when the local authority is not responsive to such offers?

In my patch, many community assets have been neglected for years, and—one suspects—earmarked for demolition, to be replaced by housing. In Cosham, for example, there is the Moat club and the amazing Wymering manor, which is even mentioned in the Domesday Book. I am delighted that at long last the Hilsea lido has been transferred as a community asset. The Pool for the People group is legendary for its hard work and dedication to restoring this wonderful community facility to its former glory. I have every confidence that we will be able to retain these assets and that in the not-too-distant future, generations of Portsmouthians will be able to enjoy the manor and the lido again. However, we have to make it as easy as possible for communities to help themselves.

The final obstacle that I have identified in Portsmouth is the lack of financial transparency at Portsmouth city council. If you go to the council’s website and look for information related to its expenditure, you will find this statement:

“We believe transparency is a key condition and driver for the delivery of our services. As a publicly funded organisation, we have a duty to our residents to be transparent in our business operations and outcomes.”

Unfortunately, that is it. There is no information about what it does spend the money on, and it is one of the only councils in the country not to have published its expenditure online. The north of the city has been scandalously underfunded for decades. The council must move to publish all its expenditure online, so that people in my constituency can see what they are owed and what has been spent—exactly what has been spent on Alzheimer’s and dementia care, for example, and what is going into our community assets.

I also want my local authority to set up a modest transition fund—of tens of thousands of pounds, not hundreds of thousands—to ensure that services whose external funding is not secure by the time of the Budget can continue until the end of summer, when statutory or other funding will be in place. The Cabinet Office needs to work closely with the Department of Communities and Local Government—and, I would argue, directly with Portsmouth city council.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I start by echoing the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), a member of the Backbench Business Committee, to all the members of his Committee and the staff who support its work. We have had an interesting first chapter to this debate and I shall try to provide substantive responses to each contribution.

First, I turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who both spoke passionately about social mobility and the contribution that community organisations make to delivering the big society. Unlocking social mobility is at the heart of the coalition Government’s agenda. We believe that a fair society is one in which opportunities are detached from origins and everyone has the chance to do well regardless of their background. If everyone can fulfil their potential and people’s talents are unlocked, our economy will also benefit.

However, we should recognise that social mobility trends in the UK are not encouraging. There is evidence that social mobility declined for people born in 1970 in comparison with those born in 1958. Data from the OECD show that, relative to other countries, the earnings of individuals in the UK are strongly related to the earnings of their parents.

We want to reduce the degree to which patterns of advantage and disadvantage are carried across from one generation to the next. The Deputy Prime Minister is championing social mobility within the Government and is chairing a social mobility ministerial group to ensure cross-Government action. A social mobility strategy will be published early next year and several reforms that aim to improve social mobility are already in process. Alan Milburn has been appointed as the independent reviewer of social mobility, to keep us on our toes.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, who said that the Government cannot improve social mobility by working alone. That is true. Individuals, civil society organisations, employers, community groups and other non-governmental organisations play a critical role in helping people to do well, regardless of their backgrounds. The three pillars of the big society—social action, community empowerment and reforming and opening up public services—will empower people to take control of their lives, and the rest of society, not just the state, will help them to do that.

The Government are committed to supporting the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector to take up opportunities and play its part in the big society. We want to recast the sector’s relationship with the state and give it a huge range of new opportunities to shape and provide innovative, bottom-up services and solutions where state provision has failed. We recognise that those opportunities will not emerge overnight and that, furthermore, spending reductions will also have an impact. We are making £100 million of transition grant funding available to front-line organisations over this and the next financial year to support the sector through this difficult period. That will give such organisations the breathing space that they need.

Ministers have also made three clear commitments to support the sector over the longer term. First, we will make it easier to run voluntary and community groups and social enterprises; secondly, we will put more resources into the sector; and, thirdly, we will make it easier for the sector to work with the state. Examples of our work in that area include the Lord Hodgson review into cutting red tape, and the big society bank, which will help to grow the social investment market and broaden the finance options open to the sector. We are consulting on proposals to improve infrastructure support for front-line civil society organisations in order to ensure that the Government’s investment in improving the capability of the sector in the future is appropriate and effective. That consultation closes on 6 January.

[Mr Bone]

When the Backbench Business Committee produced this pilot form of business, I did not know that we would have the novel experience of hearing a Whip at the Dispatch Box. I think it is my hon. Friend’s first time at the Dispatch Box, but he is doing a good job. I wonder whether we will be hearing from more Whips at the end of term. In many regards, he is doing much better than the normal Ministers.

[Stephen Crabb]

I think there was a compliment in there somewhere. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not an entirely novel experience. In the previous Parliament and in this Parliament, Whips have been deployed in a variety of ways, including at the Dispatch Box.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) raised the “knotty” issue of the West Lothian question. The Government have announced that they will establish a commission to consider that issue as part of their wider political reform. She referred to the answer to a question asked last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform, in which he said that the Government will make an announcement on the commission in the new year. I am happy to confirm that we do indeed mean 2011. That is very much part of our programme for next year. The issue has been around for at least 150 years, so I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to bear with us and show patience, because it is important that we get the right solution to some difficult issues.

We are continuing to give careful consideration to the timing, composition, scope and remit of the commission. Its work will need to take account of our proposals to reform the House of Lords to create a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. There are changes being made to how this House does its business and there are developments in devolution, not least through the Scotland Bill before the House. As I have said, we will be making an announcement on that in the new year.

Two hon. Members addressed the issue of the 2011 census. We had powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). All hon. Members will be aware that the census takes place on 27 March. Accuracy of the census is very important, because it is used to allocate billions of pounds of public spending every year. The Office for National Statistics takes the census extremely seriously and is working very hard to ensure that the problems of undercounting experienced in 15 local authority areas in 2011, including in Westminster, are not repeated. The ONS is actively engaging with every authority to ensure that there is a successful census next year, and it has a partnership plan in place with each local authority. A plan for London as a whole has also been developed with the Greater London authority and the London boroughs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

We will write to both hon. Members on a number of the questions they asked about the census. Recruitment is, overall, going very well. Recruitment of 4,000 special enumerator and census collector jobs began in September and is nearing completion; 67,000 applications have already been received. Recruitment of collectors began in November and is also progressing well, with 82,000 applications received so far for around 30,000 roles. Efforts are targeted in the small number of areas where allocations have been slower.

On the subject of the Queen’s diamond jubilee competition for city status, I pay tribute to the work, energy and commitment of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in supporting his local community’s bid. The last occasion to have been marked by granting city status was Her Majesty’s golden jubilee in 2002, when separate competitions were held in the devolved nations. That resulted in the granting of city status to one town.

[Mr Bone]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I right in understanding that the 10-minute limit for my hon. Friend to respond is only guidance and that he can run on into extra time?

[Mr Speaker]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is correct. The time limit was an expectation that I stated at the outset, but the Chair will exercise judgment about when the debate should be concluded. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) is seeking to respond to points, and he may briefly continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

If the hon. Lady speaks to building societies, which are finding it difficult to lend at the moment, she will hear their concern about the amount that they pay towards the financial services compensation scheme. Contributing to a pre-funded scheme would add to that burden and reduce the ability of banks and building societies to lend to support the recovery.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Government Members, including me, believe that the Chancellor and his team are doing an exceptionally good job for the country. May I suggest another policy to reduce the deficit in this country? A freeze on our contributions to the EU would save us £22 billion over the next five years, which should be given back in tax cuts.

[Mr Hoban]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is working with his international partners to freeze the EU’s budget over the next financial perspective.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

We therefore tabled manuscript amendment (a), which achieves the same effect as amendment 1, but more clearly.

[Mr Bone]

Does that not show that this coalition Government are willing to listen to Parliament’s views and to change their mind now and again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I do not necessarily wish to pour more congratulations on to the shoulders of the Minister—that would not be doing my job correctly—but in the spirit of Christmas I have to acknowledge, albeit begrudgingly, my appreciation of manuscript amendment (a), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has tabled. I like to imagine him poring over the Order Paper, happening upon my amendment 1 and immediately thinking, “I must accept that amendment, but the drafting is not quite right,” and therefore rewriting it in his own fair hand. However, I suspect that several dozen parliamentary draftsmen and women were involved in the process. As the Minister said, the intention was indeed to ensure that when we report every six months on what is happening with the loans, we are talking not just about the aggregate amount of the payments made and the interest, or about the sums that are returned, but about some of the other dimensions.

As the Minister said, the reporting arrangements as set out in the Bill do not exclude the ability to make the reports more comprehensive. Indeed, we ought to state at this stage that we would appreciate as much data being contained in them as possible. One piece of information that I would have found useful is the remaining term of the loan, although that is a small point; given how small it is, I am grateful that the Government have conceded it. Perhaps I should regard this as a famous victory for the Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

No, for Parliament.

[Chris Leslie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Just at what I thought was my moment of great glee, he took it away from me. Nevertheless, I will take some satisfaction from what the Government have decided.

I was trying to listen carefully to the Minister’s statement on amendment 2. As a lone traveller trying to amend the legislation, I might have misread the wording of clause 2, but I still do not quite understand the sequences of subsection (4), which states:

“No report is required to be prepared or laid in relation to a period if—

(a) no payments…are made…

(b) no sums…are received in the period, and

(c) no amount of principal or interest in respect of an Irish loan is outstanding at the end”.

I could not see any circumstances where paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would simultaneously apply. For example, if no amount of principal or interest were outstanding, how could there be any circumstances where, under paragraph (a), payments had been made or, under paragraph (b), sums had been received? Surely if no report is required when no amounts are outstanding, the conditions under subsections (4)(a) and (b) are redundant. Looking at the drafting of subsection (4), it would be easy to imagine the parliamentary counsel becoming entangled in an arcane discourse on ontological logic. There are several twists to the double negatives set out in the drafting.

As a layman reading subsection (4), I could not see why paragraphs (a) and (b) were necessary, when they must be concurrent with subsection (4)(c), given that (4)(c) states that there is nothing left owing, according to my reading of it. If each of the three paragraphs were alternatives, or contrasting, perhaps using the words “either” or “or”, that might make sense. They are conjoined, however, by the non-contrasting linkage “and”, suggesting that each of the three conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously, and I am not quite sure that I follow that. Perhaps the Minister needs to walk me through it one more time. I do not wish to press this matter to a vote, because I am sure that there is a higher drafting power at work here, but as I read it, I could not see any circumstances in which paragraph (c) would be true simultaneously with paragraphs (a) and (b).

In general terms the reports will be important, not least because we need to see the terms of the loan that the people of Ireland will have to repay, as well as the amounts of money that the British people will have in return for adding to our national debt. There is a whole series of other questions to which I would eventually like answers. For example, what is the aggregate amount of interest that we expect to be paid by the Irish Government, and what is the impact for us in this country?

As I have said, it is a shame that the summary of the terms of the credit facility was deposited only at the eleventh hour, and I hope that we will have another opportunity to scrutinise it at another time. For the time being, however, that was the purpose of amendment 1, and I am grateful to the Minister for his acceptance of the first amendment that we tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

It is right that the duty to report is extinguished when there is no principal outstanding, and that is the purpose of subsections (4) and (5).

I hope that, with that explanation, hon. Members will accept manuscript amendment (a) and will not seek to press amendments 1, 5 and 2.

Manuscript amendment (a) agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Short title, commencement and extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Bone]

Can the Minister answer the following question, which has been raised several times during the debate: why is the Bill called the Loans to Ireland Bill rather than the Loans to the Republic of Ireland Bill? That seems very strange, as it gives others the impression that we are lending money to Northern Ireland as well as to southern Ireland.

[Mr Hoban]

That is an interesting question, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House knows because he also recently asked it. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to clause 1(2), which defines an “Irish loan” as

“a loan to Ireland by the United Kingdom.”

Of course the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. Therefore, the loan is clearly to what one technically might describe as the Republic of Ireland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, in order to enable me to put that clarification on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The Bill has, as he said, been microwaved through the House today, but the trouble with microwaved meals is that although they are quick and do a job, they are not healthy and are not of good quality. That is how I regard the Bill, but I certainly do not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. I have made it clear that I am against the Bill, but it would be wrong to claim any victory today. My remarks and those of some of my colleagues resulted in at least seven Members going through the same Lobby as me, but the Chancellor’s remarks got several hundred Members to go through the same Lobby as him, so it probably is not a good idea to divide on Third Reading.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the coalition’s Treasury team, who are doing an exceptional job. They are the part of the coalition that is dealing with the economic crisis and we have a collection of very good Ministers here, headed by the Chancellor. It is just my opinion that we have got things wrong on this particular measure; I am very much in the minority but at least I have made my point today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is one of the most able in the House. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”] However, it was not his best speech.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point about emergency measures, but the Minister did not call the Bill an emergency measure—he just said that it is an important Bill and that it be would rather nice to get it through quickly. It is absolutely true that the Bill is not an emergency measure and there is no such urgency for it. However, it is not the duty of the House to say to the Executive, “It will be jolly nice to get the Bill through quickly.” We are here to scrutinise the Bill. It matters not what team Back Benchers are on: they are here to hold the Government to account. I said that as an Opposition Member and I shall say it as a Government Member. The Minister remarked that the longer he spoke, the more he would eat into time on Second Reading, but the Government designed the allocation of time motion in that way. When we were in opposition, we said that that such remarks were appalling, and they are also appalling in government.

This motion contains one of the most draconian guillotines we have ever seen in Parliament. It contains 16 separate restrictions on debate, it is longer and has more words than the Bill itself, and it is designed purely to restrict debate and to remove the right to vote on amendments in Committee. I am afraid that it is as bad as those we used to see under the previous Government. It is rubber-stamping at its finest. The motion proposes to rush through legislation at a speed that would win approval in North Korea and to take Parliament for granted.

This is not my first time scrutinising a Government who are trying to rush a Bill through Parliament. Coincidentally, the circumstances of a debate on a Northern Ireland Bill on 4 March 2009 were very much the same, in so far as the Government tried to rush through a Bill in one day when, as now, it was not necessary to do so. Therefore, I feel that we have come full circle. Here we are with a different Government—a coalition Government—who are trying to rush through another Bill.

As a trained chartered accountant, I am rather partial to my numbers. Therefore, I would like to read out a few. Three and a half hours is the amount of time that Parliament is being given for the Second Reading debate of the Bill; £3.25 billion is the minimum amount that the Bill proposes to give the Republic of Ireland; and zero is the probable chance that the House of Lords will be able to scrutinise it, because it will most likely be certified as a money Bill. Let me expand on those three figures. Three and a half hours for Parliament to debate a Bill on Second Reading—actually, I should have said that three and a half hours is the maximum time that we are being given, because the time starts from the moment that the allocation of time debate starts. If the allocation of time debate runs its full course and there is a Division, the time for a Second Reading debate on a Bill that proposes spending £3.25 billion will be a maximum of 15 minutes. The Chancellor will not have cleared his throat in 15 minutes. In other words, we will be spending £216 million a minute during that debate.

One could argue that none of these things matters—we saw it all the time in the previous Parliament—because we have the backstop of the other place, which cannot limit debates, and Members can scrutinise the Bill clause by clause and vote on amendments. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this Bill: because it will be certified as a money Bill, there will be limited time for debate in the other place. We therefore do not have the backstop, so it is up to this House to scrutinise the Bill properly. This is a most draconian guillotine motion and is entirely unnecessary, and I intend to try to divide the House on this most important matter. Whether one is for or against the principle of the Bill—or, indeed, whether one is indifferent to it—we as parliamentarians must demand proper time for debate.

It is important to set out the reasons why all stages of the Loans to Ireland Bill should not take place on one day. Let us consider the circumstances under which the Government can legitimately push their legislation through all its stages in one day. I understand that in national emergencies, such as those relating to terrorism, the swift progression of a Bill through Parliament is needed. However, the Loans to Ireland Bill is not one of those Bills. Since 1997, only a handful of Bills have been pushed through the Commons in one day alone. The last one was the Northern Ireland Bill in 2009, which I referred to a few moments ago, but let us look at the typical Bill that has gone through in one day and the precedents that this motion creates.

On 4 April 2001, the Elections Bill went through all its stages in one day, owing to the national crisis caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. Clearly that is not a reason for the Loans to Ireland Bill to go through in one day. On 2 September 1998, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess to pass all stages of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, as an urgent response to the terrible Omagh bombing. Again, that does not apply to today’s Bill. On 19 February 2008, the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill was passed in relation to Northern Rock, and therefore needed to be rushed through the Commons. The House sat until midnight on that day, which I understand was because of market sensitivity. Again, that does not apply to today’s Bill. None of those exceptional circumstances applies to the Loans to Ireland Bill. If this guillotine motion goes through, the Government will have set a dangerous precedent for curtailing debate and excluding proper parliamentary scrutiny on controversial issues.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) say in his intervention on the Minister that we should not waste any more time on the motion than is necessary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend, and is he as intrigued as I am to know under what circumstances time wasting would indeed be necessary?

[Mr Bone]

This Government have put us in a Catch-22 situation, which the previous Government used to put us in too: time for debating guillotine motions is taken out of time on Second Reading. That never used to happen; it was something that the previous Government got into the habit of doing. That means that all these people on the Government Benches want me to shut up, so that we can get on with Second Reading. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Well, my colleagues behind me are going to be disappointed. The newer Members of this Parliament are going to learn—I know that they are keen on this, because they want parliamentary scrutiny, not rubber-stamping—that there is a simple way for all my colleagues on the Government Benches and for Opposition Members to get into the debate, which is to defeat the guillotine motion in a vote.

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

We may have heard one or two “Hear, hears”, and I am certainly someone who wants to speak on Second Reading, but let me make clear my appreciation for what my hon. Friend is doing. Any responsibility for the curtailment of time for Back Benchers should rest squarely where it belongs, which is with those on the Treasury Bench.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. If we do not get it right today, this coalition Government and future Governments will use the same trick again and again.

What I am doing is not a wrecking manoeuvre; nor is it about stopping the Bill from making progress. All we need to do is defeat the guillotine motion now, and then there will be a full Second Reading debate, followed by the Committee stage and Third Reading. The current situation is an abuse of Parliament and its democracy. Normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod. Surely I am not mistaken that the only possible reason for proceeding today would be if the Minister had written a cheque for £3.25 billion last night and handed it to the Irish Government. Then I might be inclined to agree that we should get on with things today. However, the Minister does not seem to be leaping to the Dispatch Box to confirm that.

One argument for pushing the Bill through could be the lack of space in the parliamentary calendar and an inability to spare any more time to debate it, but we all know that that is not true. Even with recess upon us, we could have abandoned the Backbench Business Committee debate tomorrow—Thursday—and had the Committee stage and Third Reading instead. However, if that was not the flavour of the will of the House, we could have used Monday, for which a general debate is listed. If the general debate were abandoned, Government business would not be lost, and the debate could be rescheduled for another time. Alternatively, if there really is an emergency and the Bill really does need to be progressed now, let the House sit this Friday until the business is complete.

Parliament could be allowed a full day on Second Reading, which would occur after the allocation of time motion were defeated, and the Government could then choose Thursday, Friday or Monday for Committee and Third Reading. That would in no way hold up progress; nor could it be interpreted as letting our friends in Europe down. Indeed, the idea that they do not take our word for it that the Government are serious is also, I have to say, not believable. If the Government say that they are going to give £3.25 billion to Ireland in a loan, they know that that is what will happen, so that argument is just an excuse to push the Bill through in one day.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Clearly the issue at hand is not whether the Government will give £3.25 billion to Ireland. However, the Minister did not necessarily make it clear in his response to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) whether money would be going just to Ireland, or to Portugal or Spain in future too. Could the hon. Gentleman give us his views on that?

[Mr Bone]

Mr Speaker, you would rightly tick me off if I answered that question. That is a matter for the Second Reading debate, because it is to do with the issues in the Bill. I am expressing no view on that at the moment. However, unless we have adequate time to discuss those issues, the hon. Gentleman’s point might not be clarified.

Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion. The advantage of splitting the debate over two days is that it would allow a proper debate on Second Reading today. I believe that many Members would like to take part in such a debate. It would also allow amendments to be tabled in the normal way, and enable us to have a proper debate in Committee, with time for a debate and votes on each of the amendments. There would also be time for a Third Reading debate.

I understand that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment today, although I have not seen it. That amendment has been tabled without allowing Members the time to consider it. That just shows the weakness of this procedure. If the allocation of time motion were defeated, we would have a full Second Reading debate and the Government would have to rearrange their business to provide for the Committee stage and Third Reading. The loan would still go through, but the Bill would have been properly debated and, if necessary, amended. Defeating the allocation of time motion would not wreck the Bill; it would simply give more time for proper scrutiny so that the Bill could be improved. We have already seen that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment. What will happen if, during the 15 minutes of the Second Reading debate, a Member decides that they want to table an amendment? They just will not have time to do it.

How does the motion fit in with the principles behind parliamentary sittings? The present timetabling of our sittings is broadly based on the Jopling reforms and encompasses three principles. It is against those three principles that we should judge the Bill today. The first is that the Government must be able to get their business through, and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to improve or oppose legislation as they think fit. Thirdly—this is of more interest to me—Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern from their constituents. A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about this Bill.

A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact—I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree with this—that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. It is also a major role of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive to hold the Executive to account, whichever party or parties make up that Executive. That is one of the most important roles we have as Members of Parliament. This motion removes that role. It is appalling that the coalition Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament. I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of parliamentary power to scrutinise legislation has been a long-adopted approach by successive Governments. This motion, I am afraid, is a step too far. Individual Members of Parliament attach a great deal of importance to scrutiny and accountability, and problems arise when the Executive try to deny us that right.

The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. They ask MPs to table amendments before we have had a chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can MPs properly table amendments when they have not heard the details and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 11 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a three-page document—I have it with me—of amendments, and another five-page document on their justification for rushing the Bill through. These documents were produced only in the last few days. How can they, and the amendments, realistically be scrutinised if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.

The House of Lords got rather fed up with the Commons bouncing it, so it has now come up with a procedure whereby the Government have to answer a number of questions—I think it is eight—before they can get a Bill such as this through. Those questions are printed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Let us look at some of them for a minute, and see whether the answers hold up to scrutiny.

The first question is: “Why is fast-tracking necessary?” The notes go on to explain that the proposal is for a bilateral loan, and that the timing of the UK’s proposed loan is currently unclear. They state:

“It is necessary to fast-track the Bill so that the UK’s international partners can be confident that the bilateral loan will be implemented.”

That is an absolutely hopeless answer to the question. It does not tell us why the Bill is being fast-tracked. It is ridiculous to suggest that our international partners would think that, because we had not taken another day or two to debate the Bill, the Government were not going to proceed with the loan.

The next question is:

“What is the justification for fast-tracking each element of the Bill?”

Again, there does not seem to be an answer. The notes state:

“The Bill is a short Bill, with few substantive provisions other than to provide for sums required by the Treasury”.

Yes, the Bill is short because many of the provisions deal with statutory instruments and affirmative resolutions. It is an important Bill, but it is short because many of the provisions do not go into detail. That is exactly why we need a proper Second Reading debate. I do not think that the Government have answered that question either.

The next question is a good one:

“What efforts have been made to ensure the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised?”

The answer is:

“The Bill is being published on the same day it is introduced and arrangements are being made for amendments to be accepted in advance of second reading in the House of Commons.”

How on earth does that answer the question about making time available for parliamentary scrutiny? It is like the Prime Minister being asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions and giving an answer to a completely different one. It might be a good answer, but it is not the answer to the question that was asked.

The next thing that the Lords want to know is this:

“To what extent have interested parties and outside groups been given an opportunity to influence the policy proposal?”

The answer talks about our European Union colleagues, but the key is in the last sentence, which states that

“there has been limited opportunity to give interested parties and outside groups an opportunity to influence.”

By the Government’s own admission, they have failed in regard to that question.

The next question asks whether the Bill includes a sunset clause. The Government can argue, with some justification, that it does, because it stipulates a period of five years. It does not tell us when the loans are to be repaid, but it places a five-year limit on the period in which they can be made. That is not what is normally understood by a sunset clause, however. Sunset clauses normally stipulate that in, say, a year’s time, Parliament will look again at the legislation to see whether it is correct.

The next question is:

“Are mechanisms for effective post legislative scrutiny and review in place? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?”

The answer states:

“The Bill provides for regular reports”.

On that one, I will give the Government a tick. So far, they have passed one of the six tests. The next question is:

“Has an assessment been made as to whether existing legislation is sufficient to deal with any or all the issues in question?”

The Government do not really answer that one. They say:

“Statutory authority for such expenditure is required in accordance with the Concordat of 1932 between the Government and the Public Accounts Committee.”

I am unclear as to what that means, but it does not seem to answer the question that has been asked. The final question is:

“Has the relevant Parliamentary committees been given to opportunity to scrutinise the legislation?”

The explanatory notes were drawn up in such haste that the spelling of the question was incorrect, but the simple answer to it, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) might confirm, is that no such scrutiny has taken place.

In concluding my opening remarks, I want to say a few words about what I think is wrong. Let me state to the House how this mother of Parliaments should work in relation to timings of debates. The driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power—from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the Government of the day to account. The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for Governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it and send it back, get it back, look at it again and improve it some more—Bill by Bill, clause by clause, line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?

Let us compare that with today. Let me take Members on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It is likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of No. 10. A Bill is drafted and it is sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bells ring, the whips are cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all the Members turn up to vote. More often than not, they do not even know what they are voting for. The Bill limps through. Then it goes into Committee. The Committee’s duty is to look at the detail clause by clause, but it is packed full of people that the Whips have put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely lose a vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny. Then it is back to the House to do it all again—debate, bell and then vote to wave the legislation through.

Every Bill now has a programme motion setting out how much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. There are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the time, to an audience of dozing Back Benchers—that is not accountability. How can the mother of all Parliaments turn itself into such a pliant child?

Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for that last section of my speech. It was in fact from a speech on fixing broken promises delivered on 26 May 2009 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). I do not think that Ministers on the Front Bench today want to upset the Prime Minister. So they have an opportunity, before the conclusion of the debate, to say that they will withdraw the allocation of time motion, and that we will have proper debate.

For many years I have sat on the Back Benches imploring others to give more time for Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I believe that to be the fundamental role, not only of the Back Bencher, but of Parliament itself.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say just how much I stand behind the Prime Minister in his remarks, which my hon. Friend has so generously shared with the House. However, does my hon. Friend agree that if this bail-out is necessary at all, it is an emergency?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to enter the debate, which I am not going to do, and as time is short, I shall conclude my remarks.

Time is all we have as Back Benchers, and if that is taken away from us, so is power. I urge all parliamentarians in the House to vote against the guillotine motion.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Two weeks ago I told the House that it was my intention to ask for authority to make a bilateral loan to Ireland as part of the multinational assistance programme for that country. I said that I judged it to be in our national interest, given our country’s close economic, financial and political connections to the Irish Republic, to be ready to help, and I want to thank all parts of this House for agreeing with that judgment.

Let me directly address the question of why we are taking this legislation through today, and why we are seeking to do it rapidly. The reason is that this week we expect the International Monetary Fund board to meet and agree the assistance package, the eurozone to sign off on its contribution, and the Irish Parliament to accept the international help that is offered. Let me say this to hon. Members in reference to the previous debate. I actually have the authority to make, under common law, a loan to Ireland and to seek at a much later date retrospective authority from Parliament. I decided—[Interruption.] Let me say that I decided that that was a wholly inappropriate thing to do, and that I should come to Parliament to seek its authority before signing the loan agreement. The loan agreement may be signed at any moment.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, but has he not let the cat out of the bag? He has just said that there is no urgency, because he had the power to do this anyway. If that had been said in the previous debate, the result of the vote might been different.

[Mr Osborne]

From what I could tell from what my hon. Friend was saying in the previous debate, he thought it important to have parliamentary scrutiny. It is true that I could have issued the loan under the common-law powers available to me, and come back at a later point to seek parliamentary approval. I thought the House would prefer me to seek parliamentary approval first, before making the loan—but there we go; you can’t please everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

As I explained to the House previously—my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) is here, and might at some point want to give his own version of events—my understanding is that in the period between the general election and the formation of the Government, an emergency ECOFIN meeting was held to address the Greek situation and to provide confidence that the European Union and the eurozone stood behind other member states that were potentially in difficulty.

My predecessor ensured that we stayed out of the eurozone facility—I have acknowledged that in the House —but acquiesced in the use of article 122 of the treaty, which allowed the European Union to disburse funds when a natural disaster, such as an extreme weather event, was affecting a member state, to create a mechanism that could stand behind countries that got into difficulties. The decision on the use of that mechanism is taken by qualified majority voting, so although we could vote against its use in this situation, I did not think that that would achieve anything. I am focused, in a way that I shall describe, on trying to extricate the UK from the EU-27 mechanisms that stand behind eurozone countries. If hon. Members will bear with me, I shall talk about that later, and if people want to intervene at that point, that would be more sensible.

Let me move on to the connections between our banking sectors. Our banking sector has a considerable exposure to Ireland, but I should stress that in the opinion of the Financial Services Authority, the UK banks are sufficiently well capitalised to more than manage the impact of the situation in Ireland. For a long time now the devaluation in Irish asset values has been accounted for and priced in.

One thing is clear. It is undoubtedly in Britain’s national interest to have a growing Irish economy and a stable Irish banking system. In the judgment of both the Irish Government and the international community that was not going to come about without the assistance package we debate today. I would now like to explain to Members the principles of the Bill, and then take them through the heads of terms of the loan agreement.

The Bill has two substantive clauses. Clause 1 sets out the parameters under which the Treasury may make payments under UK loans to Ireland. As I explained earlier, the total international assistance package, including our contribution, is denominated in euros. However, we are making a bilateral loan in sterling so that Ireland bears the exchange rate risk over the coming years. Subsection (3) of the clause includes a cap on the total size of our bilateral loan. It is written on the face of the Bill that

“the aggregate amount of payments made by the Treasury by way of Irish loans...must not exceed £3,250 million”.

In other words, the £3.25 billion we originally agreed will be the maximum total size of our bilateral loan to Ireland. A sunset clause is also, in effect, built into the legislation. The period over which the loans may be offered begins on 9 December 2010, when the Bill was published, and ends on 8 December 2015.

[Mr Bone]

Subsections (4) and (5) seem to say the opposite. They seem to say that the maximum amount may increase because of differences in the exchange rate. Is that not what they mean?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is pre-empting my speech. I shall get on and explain exactly what those two subsections mean.

As I said, there is no expectation that we will have to make further loans to Ireland in the future. Subsection (4) is intended to prevent an increase in the size of the loan, unless an order is made by statutory instrument, but because the loan is denominated in sterling, a mechanism is needed to accommodate potential changes in the exchange rate in the period between the publication of the Bill and the signing of the loan agreement—that answers my hon. Friend’s point—which could happen in a matter of days. This is not about the exchange rate risk over the coming years—that risk is borne by Ireland—but merely a mechanism to deal with the fact that we are publishing the Bill before we sign the loan agreement, for the reasons that I set out earlier.

The Bill allows the Treasury, under subsections (5) to (7), to make an order once the Bill is in force to increase the limit, as long as that is done solely to take account of exchange rate fluctuations between now and 30 days after Royal Assent, without further Parliamentary procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

This may be news to the hon. Gentleman, but his party is in government now. As I said, my party ensured that we contributed nothing—not a penny, not a euro, not a drachma—to the Greek bailout. The Chancellor is coming before this House with a £6.6 billion contribution to Ireland, which we support, but the various aspects of the mechanism need to be explained and understood.

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Chancellor is on to something here. It is bizarre that less money is being taken from the €440 billion fund than from the €60 billion in the EFSM. Would he have encouraged the Government to vote against the use of that €60 billion?

[Alan Johnson]

We have the €60 billion fund, about which the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) intervened, and we have a second fund of €440 billion. I am simply pointing out—the public deserve to know this—that only 4% is coming from the larger amount and 37% from the smaller amount. I am curious about that, and we need to understand the logic of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations.

None of my constituents, particularly those in the business community, understand how or why we can justify increasing our national debt to help Ireland. The line is that the Irish are friends in need, but I remind the House that there is a strong argument to suggest that the Irish Government exacerbated the original banking crisis. When we had problems with Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, and our Government limited the deposit guarantee to £50,000, the Irish increased their guarantee to all deposits. That helped the run on Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock accounts, thereby developing our banking crisis. We did not get much help from the Irish when we were in need in that situation.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that the Irish people have received enormous sums of British taxpayers’ money through our membership of the EU. We make big net contributions to the EU, and a lot of that money was subsequently pushed into Ireland, enabling the Irish people to sustain for a time a much higher standard of living.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that our net contributions to the EU over the next five years will be £41 billion, which is £21 billion more than in the previous five years?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are contributing to Ireland through our EU membership, so the Irish people should be very grateful.

When, on behalf of my constituents, I weigh up whether we can be pleased with how Ireland conducts its affairs, I must express renewed disappointment that Ireland caved in on the Lisbon treaty, with the consequence that this country has been landed with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). He made many powerful points, especially his last one. I note that the Bill is called the Loans to Ireland Bill, not the Loans to the Irish Republic Bill. I wonder whether the Government have had some foresight, and whether some of the loans will actually be provided to Northern Ireland, to help to reduce corporation tax there. Perhaps there is some hope in that regard.

I want to start by saying that we have an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer and a first-class Treasury team, including my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who has the misfortune to be at the Dispatch Box to listen to my remarks. On this particular issue, however, I think that they have got it wrong for a number of reasons. Everyone in the House wants to see the Irish Republic prosper, but the question is: which is the best way to help it? Its problem is that it is part of the euro. Government Members have always argued that the United Kingdom should not be part of the euro, because it cannot possibly work. It is not possible to have one fixed interest rate and one fixed currency covering a number of different countries. What we are witnessing is a crisis in which that problem has come to light.

If Ireland were not part of the eurozone—if it had its own currency—it could change its interest rate, but more importantly, its currency could depreciate, which would make it more expensive for exports to come into Ireland and cheaper for exports to go out. It is a market mechanism for self-righting an economic collapse, and because Ireland is part of the eurozone, it cannot do that.

I take the view that in the next few months the euro will collapse. It will not just be Ireland and Greece; it will be Spain, Portugal and possibly Italy. At that stage, it will be necessary to abandon the euro entirely or have two eurozones. If I am right in that assumption, it is a mistake to give £3.25 billion to the Irish at a time when it will do no good at all and that money will never be repaid. If we were paving the way for the Irish to have their own currency again, which would be part of the sterling area, we would be more of a help to Ireland. My argument is that we are sending the money in the wrong direction.

The second issue we have—to be fair to the shadow Chancellor, I think he was on to it—is that we do not know how the figure has been arrived at. Nobody has explained—at least, I have not heard anyone do so—why we have settled on £3.25 billion, but I think the Chancellor was arguing that that is the sort of amount we would have had to provide through the European financial stability facility if we had been part of the eurozone. Well, we are not part of the eurozone, so why should we be contributing to something that eurozone countries should be providing on their own?

[Sajid Javid]

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently the Prime Minister of Luxembourg made a proposal that the EU should issue EU-wide bonds, and does he agree that Britain should have nothing to do with such a proposal?

[Mr Bone]

Of course; I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.

I disagreed with the shadow Chancellor when he said that there were two extremes. One was to have a unified eurozone with central controls over taxation and spending. It is one option, and I accept that such a model would work, but I reject it completely. However, no one can pretend that the current system will ever work. We would just end up putting billions and billions more pounds into a system that will eventually collapse, and, in my view, that will happen earlier rather than later.

Let me return to how the €85 billion package is made up. We have €17.7 billion from the facility and €22.5 billion from the mechanism. The mechanism was designed for natural emergencies; it was never designed for this purpose, and yet we are taking more out of the mechanism, which has a total pot of €60 billion, than out of the one that has €440 billion. Why? The simple answer is that the United Kingdom has to contribute to the mechanism, but we do not contribute to the facility because it is all eurozone money. In my view we do not need to make this £3.25 billion loan; it should come entirely from the €440 billion that is available for exactly this reason. That is why the facility was set up.

I also did not follow the Chancellor’s argument when he said that because of qualified majority voting, we would not have voted against the use of the mechanism because we would have been overruled. I have to say to him that on a number of occasions I have voted on measures on which I know I will not win, but it does not mean that one should not vote that way; one should vote as one sees fit. I think on that small point the Chancellor has also made a mistake.

Many hon. Members will refer to the man on the Clapham omnibus, but in my case it is the man on the Wellingborough 46 bus, and such people make the following very simple point. My county council has announced that it will fire all its lollipop ladies and close a number of libraries, and those people say to me, “If we’re having to do that because we’re not allowed to increase the national debt, how on earth can you provide £3.25 billion to a country that is in the eurozone?” It is very difficult for me to give an answer. In fact, the answer I give is, “We shouldn’t be doing it.”

If the House divides on the Government’s proposal, I will, reluctantly, have to vote against it, not because I think the Government’s aim is wrong—because, yes, we want to have a prosperous Ireland—but because of the way this is being done and the way it is being funded. Nobody is suggesting that because we trade a lot with the United States of America, if there were a crisis there, we would suddenly lend it money. Ireland is a grown-up country. It decided to become part of the euro. The problem lies in the eurozone, and it should sort this out, not us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

This has been a good debate about the principles underlying the Bill, and I welcome the Opposition’s support for it.

I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor is not in his place. He made a typical speech: a couple of jokes, a few quotations and then a shaky grasp of the facts. I shall not match him on jokes, but let me give the House a couple of quotations. He talked about the views on Ireland, but let me quote a former member of Labour’s shadow Cabinet, who said:

“The whole purpose is to bring the Welsh economy up to the standards of those of other countries in Europe, so that we can follow the lead of the Irish economy and become, in a matter of 10 or 20 years, one of the most successful regional economies in Europe.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 868.]

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:

“The Irish economy has enjoyed a good deal of success over the past few years. The corporation tax regime has contributed to that, but there have been a number of other factors”.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2007; c. 19.]

There we go: a record of Opposition Members’ hymns of praise to the Irish economy.

It struck me as remarkable, however, that the shadow Chancellor did not understand the mechanisms being used to support the Irish economy. He seemed to think that the UK would bear a higher share of the bail-out costs than other European Union members, such as France and Germany, and that they do not contribute to the IMF or to the stability mechanism. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that the UK is contributing through the IMF, the stability mechanism and a bilateral loan. Other European countries are contributing through the IMF, the stability mechanism and, if they are members of the eurozone, the stabilisation facility.

Owing to their share of the contribution to European Union funds, Germany and France are contributing more than the UK: some 27% of the contribution is through the facility. France contributes 20% through the facility, compared with our 14%. And through the mechanism, the UK’s contribution is 14%, Germany’s 20% and France’s 17%. It is a pity that the shadow Chancellor does not understand how the package actually works. The right hon. Gentleman also seemed to deny that the euro made any contribution to the crisis facing Ireland. However, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who made a very thoughtful speech about the challenges facing the European Union, punctured his view that the euro had nothing to do with it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) asked whether we considered buying bank assets. We have in place an agreement by the Irish Government to repay our loan in full, but that could not have been guaranteed if we had sought to buy individual assets of Irish banks. He also asked whether Ireland could repay early without a penalty, and the answer is yes, but the Irish Government would have to make break payments.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) talked about the impact on the Northern Ireland economy of what is happening south of the border, and we recognise that. We recognise also that more work needs to be done to strengthen the Northern Irish economy, which is why we are in discussions with the Northern Ireland Office about the issues to do with enabling the Executive to set their own corporation tax rate. There is another part to that deal, however, because, if they have that power, they will need to bear the risk with the revenue and see a reduction in their block grant.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), asked how we can afford to do this, given the fiscal position that we are in. Let me make it clear that we are not paying for the loan out of revenue or capital expenditure; we are going to borrow the money. The measure will not lead to a reduction in the money we can spend in my constituency or theirs. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we will end up making a small profit on the loan because of interest rate differentials. The loan will not affect how much can be spent in our constituencies, and if that is the only reason hon. Members are opposing the measure, I ask them to think again.

[Mr Bone]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, the measure will increase our debt, which is something we are trying to get down. In addition, his comments are based on the assumption that the loan will eventually be repaid.

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

If it is not possible to devalue the currency, there is a more difficult route, which is to try to enforce competitiveness through, for example, wage cuts, and that, of course, is part of the Irish package. It does make things more difficult, but, as I say, those of us who argued against Britain joining the euro made all these arguments at the time. That makes for a very good discussion, but at a very theoretical level given the very practical immediate challenges we face in Ireland.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The euro could collapse—nobody can doubt that point. During the Chancellor’s wide-ranging private talks with the Irish Government, was there any discussion of a contingency plan under which Ireland would come out of the euro and become part of the sterling area?

[Mr Osborne]

No, there was not.

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the Government’s position about the proposed financial rescue package for Ireland.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement to the House about Ireland.

The House will understand that the Chancellor is currently in Brussels at the meeting of the Council of EU Finance Ministers. I understand that hon. Members are concerned about the events that have unfolded.

Ireland has been facing difficult economic and banking challenges for some time, and as a member of the euro area its ability to use policy to respond to economic shocks is less flexible than our own. As a result, there are ongoing market concerns about Ireland’s economic and financial resilience.

Let us be clear: there has been no formal request for assistance from Ireland, or for that matter from any other member state. I hope the House will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to engage in any speculation on what might happen in Ireland, given that it has made no request for assistance. It is not for me to say whether Ireland should request assistance, just as I would not tell it how to run any part of its economy. Its large financial institutions have obviously got themselves into difficultly, and we very much hope it will be able to resolve those pressures.

Ireland is one of our biggest export markets. We have very close economic ties with it and, as the Chancellor said this morning, it is in Britain’s national interest that the Irish economy is successful, so we stand ready to support Ireland in the steps that it needs to take to bring about stability. I am sure that our fellow EU member states will share that sentiment, and I assure the House that we will keep it informed of developments.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Minister for his response. At a time when the United Kingdom is already contributing extra funds to the European Union—over the next five years our net contribution will be £41 billion, an increase of more than £21 billion compared with the past five years—and when we are making drastic cuts in the UK’s economy, does he think it is acceptable that any further funds should be committed to the EU?

The coalition Government have made it clear that we will not join the euro during this Parliament, arguing that the euro, with its single interest rate but diverse economies, cannot work. Will the Minister confirm that we will not be joining the euro?

The Government have also made it clear that the UK will not support the euro. Will the Minister therefore rule out the UK participating in any bail-out of the Irish economy? Will he also confirm that the €440 billion special-purpose vehicle facility—a voluntary intergovernmental agreement between eurozone countries —should be used for any such bail-out?

Does the Minister further agree that the use of the stabilisation mechanism, which the United Kingdom guarantees up to £8 billion, was not intended to be used to bail out eurozone countries facing financial pressure? Finally, does he agree that what is required from the EU is support for member states’ policies when, like Ireland, they are trying to do the right thing? Instead, the EU has undermined Ireland and created a crisis.

[Mr Hoban]

May I first reassure my hon. Friend that it is not the Government’s intention to join the euro during this Parliament? I am not entirely sure what the Opposition’s view is, but we have ruled that out.

My hon. Friend mentions the two mechanisms that are available for stabilisation. The stabilisation facility is purely for eurozone member states, outside the auspices of the current treaties and a bilateral, Government-to-Government arrangement. The mechanism that he refers to is available to all members of the European Union. The previous Government and the previous Chancellor decided to join it in the days prior to the formation of the current Government, and I believe that they need to be held to account for that decision.