Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I always listen carefully to the views of right hon. and hon. Members, but as people will appreciate, we have set out that there will be an amendable motion, and we will bring that forward as soon as possible to enable amendments to be tabled.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Leader of the House elaborate further on the good point raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? She will know that, to be frank, there have been trust issues with the Government on this, and opportunities for debate have been tabled and then pulled. Can she pin this down precisely? She is not saying that this will be a 90-minute motion in the standard form of a normal Government motion, so presumably the debate will be all day on 14 February. If so, will she confirm that the business of the House motion necessary to enable that will be tabled on Wednesday 13 February? If not on Wednesday, then when?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have tried to set out, if we are able to bring back a second meaningful vote, the vote to approve the deal will be on a motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and it will be an amendable motion, as it was in January. Any business motion that may be necessary will be tabled in the usual way, and will be debatable and amendable in accordance with the usual rules of the House. If there is no revised deal, the Prime Minister has set out that she will provide an update to the House next week, and if necessary I will provide a revised business statement. If there is not a meaningful vote, the debate next week will not be on a motion under section 13, but because of a commitment that the Government have made outside the statutory framework of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Any motion brought forward then will be tabled in good time for right hon. and hon. Members to amend it.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised this issue, and I absolutely share her enthusiasm for the importance of legislation being brought forward by a number of private Members’ Bills. Examples are the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 and the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Act 2018, which have already received Royal Assent and will make a significant difference to people’s lives in our country. It is important that we continue to make progress with private Members’ Bills. There have been conversations in the usual channels, and my right hon. Friend will appreciate that, given that amendments had been tabled to yesterday’s motion, we had to take the decision not to move it so that further discussions could take place to ensure that all Members are given an equal opportunity to bring forward their own important private Members’ resolutions. We believe that consensus can be found, and I expect a further motion to be brought forward next week.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House be able to secure time for a debate on knife crime and the public policy responses to it? This is a big issue not only in London but in many of our cities, including Nottingham, and many people are facing challenges in the community. This is not just about the need for tougher sentencing for possession of a knife without just cause; I would also ask her to convey to Local Government Ministers that Nottingham’s bid to the troubled families programme for diversionary activity support to help to reduce exclusions from schools is part of the prevention package that we need.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this incredibly concerning issue. Across the House, we are all worried about the increase in the use of knives as the weapon of choice in lots of gang problems and in the appalling attacks that we have seen in recent days and months. I commend him for raising the matter. He will be aware that there is a three-hour debate on knife crime in Westminster Hall this afternoon, which he might well wish to take part in, but I can also assure him that the Government’s serious violence strategy, our Offensive Weapons Bill and our many investments in community schemes to encourage young people away from this appalling activity are top priorities for us.

Business of the House

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of learning. I am not aware of the organisation he mentions, but I am sure he will, in his usual way, seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise the issue directly with Ministers.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can we share some understanding for the Leader of the House, who is obviously struggling a little bit at having been defeated in yesterday’s vote? It is sometimes very difficult when one loses a vote, and we really should show some appreciation for how she is struggling to reconcile herself with being in that losing position.

Perhaps the Leader of the House, however, can confirm that she is keeping space free on Monday 21 January, for after the Prime Minister’s proposals have been defeated, so that the House will be able to debate what comes next. She would not want to fail to comply with the instructions of the House, albeit she is a bit sore at having lost on that particular point. Finally, can she confirm, excellently, that she will also be publishing the advice her officials are giving her about Monday 21 January since she was entreating the House and the Speaker to publish all the advice that is given to him?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am slightly disappointed at the hon. Gentleman for helpfully mansplaining my job to me. I am perfectly able to carry out my job, and I have already answered the question put by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) by saying that the Prime Minister will, of course, abide by the terms of the Grieve amendment.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am truly sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend is not treated as a demigod. I can assure him that I am not either, and I absolutely keep a sense of proportion in all things—that is the only way to survive in this place. He makes a very serious point, however, which is that, as Dame Laura points out, the issue is the few. The vast majority of Members of Parliament, as well as members of House staff and MPs’ staff, are neither victims nor bullies. We should share a common interest in ensuring that we eradicate this entirely from the Houses of Parliament. I say again that my ambition in the time that I hold down this job is to take the journey towards being a role model for all Parliaments around the world. I will do everything I can to see that happen.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank Dame Laura for her important report, in which she emphasises the importance of not just transparency and information—for everyone in the House—but independence. As we have heard, however, if we are to have confidence in that independence, it is not just the operation of the policy but, I am afraid, its formulation that must be independent. The notion of politicians adjudicating upon themselves also comes into the formulation process. If we are to get rid of the perception that individuals are using this process to further their political agendas, it is important that we take senior political figures out of the formulation process. I also agree with those who have questioned the notion of the Commission being the main driving force.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have listened carefully to what has been said by other Members. I will give it serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman, and indeed all Members, will appreciate that there are limited options for kicking the process off if it involves no elected Member—that does make it tricky—but I will give the matter some thought and see what can be done.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I do not think that I can give my hon. Friend an idea of the scale of the problem. Different cases have appeared in the media, and it is difficult to understand the enormity and range of the problem. Suffice it to say, we are determined to see change for the better across the House.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the emphasis that the Leader of the House has placed on due process and the principles of justice. Complainants must be taken seriously, but the person who has been complained about also has rights, and it is important that cases should be heard on the basis of evidence. Will she also say a word about the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who hears complaints about hon. Members and can then put them to the Standards Committee? That route needs to be somehow incorporated into the new process that she envisages.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and indeed that is part of the process. Very specifically, an independent complaint is heard in confidence; if there is a finding against the alleged perpetrator, in the case of a Member of Parliament being complained about, that would go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who would either carry out an appeal and look at the evidence again, or find against the Member, or find that there was no cause to answer. She will have expanded sanctions at a lower level, or indeed she will pass it on to the Committee on Standards so that it can consider the matter, including recommending suspension to the House, which could lead to the Recall of Members of Parliament Act 2015 being invoked.

Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think that, on this fine morning, I too should declare an interest, although there is no requirement for me to do so. I am a Labour and Co-operative Member, and have received support from the Co-operative party. More generally, the House is aware of my historical support for the mutual sector. Unlike other Members, I come to the Bill at a late stage in its progress, and I commend, in particular, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and Lord Naseby for their diligence.

As the hon. Member for Cardiff North explained, after the global banking crisis had swept across the world like a tsunami and the tide had eventually ebbed, one of the critical risks that were revealed was the issue of the ability of organisations—in this instance, mutual insurers and friendly societies—to withstand, and have the capacity to absorb, difficult circumstances that might make a call on their capital. So the need to resolve this has been a priority for these institutions, although I feel that regulators and others have perhaps not put this as high up the agenda as it should have been, hence the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff North about the building society sector getting its house in order in terms of the core capital deferred shares, but now we also require a similar set of instruments for the insurance sector.

It is important to put on the record the work done not just by the Building Societies Association but the Association of Financial Mutuals and many others who have helped create a potential solution here. It is not absolutely necessary for the sector, which is able to cope with the new regulatory requirements, but it would certainly make it easier and provide much more of a level playing field, given the ability of the PLC shareholder sector to obtain capital in a far simpler way.

I also want to commend the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for at least taking the opportunity to put the spotlight on clause 2 and the question about the number of votes. Having listened to his comments, however, I would not want to see that part of the Bill taken out. The hon. Member for Cardiff North was very persuasive in pointing out that the particular character of mutual insurers and friendly societies is that their members together have control and ownership of the organisation, and history shows, through demutualisation efforts in the past, that we need to safeguard the ownership and the integrity of those organisations in this way. Therefore, I am persuaded that the single vote, regardless of the amount of the investment, through the deferred shares is the right way to proceed.

This is a sensible set of measures. It is important that we have them on the statute book. However, we are at a late stage in this Parliament and I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s intentions for bringing forward the regulations and making sure we can get these changes through, because this is a piece of primary legislation that then enables regulations to be made by affirmative order, hopefully in quick succession. I therefore ask the Minister to give us a sense of the time scale for when that may happen, because, with the level of scrutiny we have had on this, there is quite a lot of consensus on the matter and we need to ensure that the financial services and insurance sectors have this diversity. The gradual disappearance of mutuals in this area will be to the detriment not just of the sector and competition, but consumers as well. Therefore, we have to modernise and sustain the mutual sector. The Bill provides worthwhile provisions for doing that and has the support of the Opposition.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I would like to put on record my great pleasure at the extent of cross-party consensus on the importance of this Bill to support the mutuals sector. I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who raised some important points. I hope he will be persuaded to withdraw his amendments, as there are clear reasons for doing so.

One of the Government objectives for the Bill is to preserve the mutual status of firms in the sector. Government amendments give firms the option to provide membership rights to deferred shareholders, if they so wish. However, if deferred shareholders do become members of the firm, they will not be entitled to additional voting rights, regardless of the value of their deferred shareholding. This clause serves to protect the principle of mutuality. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) set out very clearly why that is vital to ensure the success of this sector, which the Government have been so keen to support.

The proposals in the Bill have been carefully drafted to provide mutual organisations with a means to raise external capital in a way that preserves the mutual status of firms. This is no easy task, and the merits of attracting external capital into the mutual sector have been debated at length by mutuals, and some mutual organisations have taken steps to reform and issue mutual capital instruments. For example, in recent years building societies have commonly issued permanent interest-bearing shares that pay the holder a fixed rate of interest. The shares cannot be sold back to the society, although they can be bought and sold on the stock exchange, which means that the price can vary. Changes in banking regulation mean that those instruments will no longer be classed as core tier 1 capital, so the building society sector has designed a replacement mutual capital instrument, known as core capital deferred shares, which will enjoy the same tax treatment as ordinary shares.

The Economy

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In particular, our achievements must be seen against the backdrop of our inheriting the toughest economic conditions in living memory.

I do not accept that we have broken our pledge to balance the books; nor do I accept that the recovery has somehow insulated the richest. What total nonsense! The richest are contributing more in income tax than they ever did under Labour, with over 28% of income tax revenue coming from the top 1%. In every single Budget, we have raised revenues from the most well off, and we have used those extra revenues to help the most vulnerable in our society. It is a sad fact that many have been hit hard by this recession, and I know how genuinely difficult many people have found it. We owe it to them not just to improve their living standards through an economic recovery, but to make sure we never get into this mess again. That is why it is all about finding the right balance: between ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders take the biggest burden and ensuring the UK remains internationally competitive and open for business.

This Government have looked to strike the right balance. That is why our above-inflation increase of the adult national minimum wage came into force on 1 October: more than 1 million people benefited from the largest cash increase since 2008 and the first real-terms increase since 2007. On child care for working parents, we are introducing comprehensive support. Under our tax-free child care plans, 20% support for child care costs of up to £10,000 per year for each child will be available. We have also doubled small business rate relief for a further year, helping more than 500,000 small businesses and giving 300,000 local shops, pubs and restaurants a £1,000 discount. We have made infrastructure a top priority—we are setting out a long-term pipeline of infrastructure investment of £383 billion to 2020 and beyond. Housing is a major part of this, and we are investing £7.8 billion to deliver 335,000 new affordable homes.

However, it is not our plan to reinstate the 50p tax rate. That rate was crudely thought out, distortive and economically inefficient. It failed to raise the £2.5 billion Labour claimed it would and it gave a damaging signal that the UK was not open for business. We have instead raised far more from tax changes targeting the richest, including the bank levy, which will raise £8 billion during this Parliament. We have also taken tough measures against tax avoidance: we have closed loopholes; we have clamped down on stamp duty avoidance; we have given Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs new powers to collect disputed tax; and we have led international tax reforms through the G20.

The motion's final point related to creating new funds for health and care. Since 2010, the Government have increased the NHS budget in real terms every year. Health funding will continue to grow in real terms in 2015-16, which means an additional £2.1 billion for the NHS next year. But a strong NHS needs a strong economy, and our long-term economic plan is designed to provide both.

[Chris Leslie]

The £1 billion from the foreign exchange-rigging scandal is coming in as a windfall. Will the Minister do the right thing and allocate it for the NHS?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a strong NHS needs a strong economy. In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) about foreign exchange fines, she is absolutely right to say that we are talking about disgusting, appalling behaviour, which represented extreme arrogance on the part of the bankers who thought they could rig foreign exchange. Our Chancellor decided that those fines for misdoing would no longer go back to reducing the levy for the industry’s own regulation, but would instead be used for the public good. This is a big sum and we intend to think carefully about how we use it, but it will be used for the public good.

Whatever happens, we cannot go back to the bad old days. What a shocking mess we were left with—total economic carnage. The Opposition’s motion, calling for a current budget surplus and falling national debt as soon as possible, shows complete economic illiteracy. They want to keep on borrowing, hiding behind so-called “capital spending”, as if, somehow, one type of borrowing does not count. I do not see how voters can be fooled by that; it is the equivalent of saying, “I will spend my wages on food, clothes and petrol, but if I buy a car or a house, that’s investment and so borrowing to fund it doesn’t count.” It is this Government’s plan that will get our debts under control; eliminate borrowing over time to ensure that our debts fall as a share of GDP; and allow future Governments to respond much more quickly to any economic shocks, while continuing to support individuals and businesses across the country.

We know that the job is far from finished. As storm clouds gather once again over the world’s economies, we need to be clear about the scale of the task that we face. When a country loses control of its finances, it loses control of everything, and it is the poorest who are hit the hardest. Labour’s recession proved that only too clearly. This Government have taken the tough decisions to pull our economy back from the brink and, through our long-term economic plan, to put an economic recovery in place, so now, more than ever, it is a plan that nobody can afford to abandon.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

May I first thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and say how very much I enjoyed working with him for several years on the Treasury Committee? As with many Opposition Members, there has been a lot of agreement between us on issues of competition and minimising pay. With regard to allowances, the key point to remember is that bonuses at RBS are down 68% overall since 2009. The figure we want to focus on is the restriction in pay and bonuses across that bank.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, genuinely welcome the hon. Lady to her post and the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint her to the Chancellor’s Department. May I ask her to be very clear on this particular point? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is using the EU bank bonus cap legislation in respect of RBS, but at the same time the Government are mounting a legal challenge against that legislation. Will she clear up some of the confusion? She alluded to whether it was a UKFI decision, and it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister apparently waded in to override the Chancellor. Was the Deputy Prime Minister at odds with the Chancellor, or was the Chancellor just at odds with himself?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The key point to remember is that we are challenging the proposal at the European Court of Justice because we believe that it will not suppress remuneration and create proper equivalence between risk and remuneration in the banking sector. We in this country are at the forefront of trying to ensure that risk and reward are properly aligned. We do not think that the bonus cap will do that, so it is perfectly consistent to implement the cap—since it is the law—but to challenge it in the European Court of Justice.

[Chris Leslie]

I very much hear what the hon. Lady says, but I am asking a question about how the decision was made. Who was involved: was it UKFI; was it the Chancellor; or was it the Deputy Prime Minister who did it? I might not get a clear answer, so maybe I can move on to the next question: how much has this cost so far? It is a legal challenge to the change that she is herself using. How much has it cost so far, and is it a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Well, personally I prefer our new clause 10, but that is a good try by the hon. Lady. She has raised this issue in the spirit of trying to generate consensus on it, but I hope that in the limited time available to us we focus on the principle of making sure we get those commitments from the Government, which we all want in order to help get this transparency about what is happening in localities, as well as making sure we look at the state-owned assets and think about how they might be applicable to a regional banking network.

Government amendment 5 looks at some issues to do with competition, although they are mostly to do with the nature of ring-fencing and changes that might happen to the ownership of ring-fencing. I want to ask the Minister a question about the tensions between some of the objectives in the Bill. Government amendment 5 inserts a new requirement to consider competition issues, which seems to be slightly in tension with the existing provision to make sure there is no significant adverse effect from changing the ring-fencing arrangements. Can he clarify that that tension is resolvable, and confirm that the duty to consider competition will take effect subject to clause 4(3)?

On Government new clause 1 and new schedule 1, can the Minister help us by talking about the practical implications of the amendment to the Companies Act 1985 omitting disclosures to the regulators, done for the purposes of helping them fulfil their functions under part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000? In particular, this appears to stop such disclosures being exempt from section 449 of the Companies Act, which criminalises disclosure of information obtained in certain circumstances. What is the reasoning behind that change? Also, paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 amends section 376 of FISMA, changing “PRA-authorised” bodies to “PRA-regulated” bodies. Is that a significant change? Are there any bodies that are classed as PRA-regulated but which are not PRA-authorised? If so, which are they?

Our new clause 12 addresses the portability of bank accounts. I know that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has been very active on this, and that she has tabled similar amendments. She has been vocal in favour of some of these changes, and has tabled a sensible set of proposals. I hope she would agree that we are mirroring each other on this question.

Our new clause 12 would mandate the Chancellor to publish a report on the adequacy of the current account redirection service and on a possible change in the law to compel all ring-fenced banks to introduce a current account redirection service that might include portability. The banks themselves have made proposals for a seven-day switching arrangement from this September. The Minister claimed in the Government’s response that they had secured that commitment, but that might be a little bit of exaggeration and spin; I suspect that the banks were heading in that direction, but I will let him off on this occasion. This all comes down to whether that seven-day switching will radically transform the convenience for the customer. It is all very well saying that there will be a year or so when some transactions from the existing current account will automatically be made into the new account, but I do not understand why that provision has been time-limited. Some people will forget that that provision expires after a certain number of months.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Interestingly, when we get into the nitty-gritty of how the seven-day switching process will work, we find that it seems to be more string and Sellotape—on top of the string and Sellotape currently holding the legacy systems together—so it is hardly a 21st century technological solution.

[Chris Leslie]

That is the worry, and we want to see how it is going to work. It is all very well if direct debits and standing orders—the sums leaving someone’s bank account—may be switched in that way, without the aggro and hassle of having to fill in new forms and so forth, but one of my anxieties is about payments into an account. For example, even the little step of someone having to tell their employer that they have a new account number and sort code is an inconvenient step too far. Apparently the banks are saying that they might deal with that as well, but this does not feel adequate and sufficient.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is more likely to get divorced than to change his bank account?

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was so close to Labour Members of the European Parliament. I am not familiar with what they were thinking at that time, but on the Labour Benches here we are keen on the principle of an FTT and I have no idea why he is not. I do not understand why Government Members are taking such a stick-in-the-mud view of the issue when it is clear that some of the obstacles that are in the EU variant could be overcome if we engaged and took a leadership role. We have dealt with the stamp duty issue. There are ways of dealing with the extraterritorial and residence issue.

[Andrea Leadsom]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the impact on job losses and costs to savers and pensioners in this country if we were to adopt the financial transaction tax?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think there would be any such impact if we designed the FTT correctly and implemented it in the best interests of the UK, and if we persuaded the Americans to do likewise. Not all financial transaction taxes are the same. Stamp duty is very different from the FTT proposed by the European Union. That is a very broad concept and we need to look at it in a proportionate and modest way. I know that the hon. Lady is familiar with what I am talking about. She should read the amendment. I do not understand why she objects to it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that if there is a financial transaction tax, that money has to come from somewhere. If it is not coming from savers and pensioners and from moving business overseas, where does he think that money is coming from?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady knows very well that millions and possibly billions of financial transactions take place every day of the week—almost every hour—and it is a question of whether there is a social benefit that we should look at as a recompense to society at large, which should not see those financial transactions as totally disconnected from our economy and our society. We know that excessive risk taking and many of the problems that arose from the attachment to the derivatives trade and others got us into the problems of the global financial crisis. Rather than turning its back on it and not engaging, as the Government are doing, the financial services industry should engage in that and think about the design. Let us get it right and do it on our terms, rather than waiting to play catch-up.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Recently I have been looking at a number of Thatcher quotes, given that the Prime Minister mentioned TINA—there is no alternative—which hon. Members will remember. Another famous quote from Lady Thatcher was, “Always leave yourself a way out”, and I wonder whether the emollient approach taken by the Financial Secretary is because he realises that when there is inadequate scrutiny in this House, the questions go to the other place and it is likely that the Government will have to back down on some of these matters. Perhaps he is listening to the advice of Baroness Thatcher on some of these issues.

It is not adequate to expect, as the Minister suggested, that we will be able to scrutinise the Bill sufficiently on the Floor of the House on Report. As he knows, with the knives that come into effect during considerations on Report, one often finds that amendments are put without a full debate. It is a different process from the Commons Committee stage. The programme motion should reflect the right of the Commons to scrutinise the full version of the Bill, and that is not the version we have before the House today. If the Government were serious about this issue, the Chancellor would be here. Clearly, our downgraded Chancellor has downgraded the banking reform Bill.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a few times that the Chancellor is not here. Does he regret that his former boss, the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), is not here to make a sincere apology to the House for his role in the mess that put us in the place we are in today?

[Chris Leslie]

I presume that is almost an apology for the anti-regulatory approaches historically taken by the Conservative party. I do not seem to recall Conservative Members ever saying, “Please, more regulation! Let us have it now. This is insufficient; we must regulate far more firmly.” It does not seem that that was ever part of the lexicon in the approach taken by Conservative Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is telling the full story of what he truly believes about regulation. To listen to Conservative Members today one would think they were all keen market regulators. Perhaps the Conservative party has transformed—the Cameronian vision we have all been waiting for—but, as I understand it, it still regrets the regulatory encroachment on to the market in these matters.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that back in 1995, when Barings went bust, there was not a run on a bank? I remember playing a very small part helping Eddie George, the then Governor, to call round international banks urging them not to allow a run on the banks in the following weeks. The reason was that he understood that he was entirely accountable for ensuring the integrity of the banking system. Is that not the point? When Labour came into power and created the tripartite system, it simply removed accountability from any one body. We are trying to return it to the Bank of England.

[Chris Leslie]

We will see what happens under the new Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank of the England and the Chancellor. It is important that Conservative Members realise that self-regulation failed and that not having that statutory arrangement was no great thing. Eddie George was the Governor who said, “Let’s just trust the chaps at the desks to deal with these issues.” That was how banking reform was regarded during their tenure in office. But this is turning into a history lesson.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

In an era of increasing life expectancy, it is right and necessary to reform public service pensions in order to ensure that they are affordable and sustainable in the long term. That is why Labour made significant changes to public service provisions when in office, including through increasing the normal pension age from 60 to 65, introducing a cap-and-share mechanism to protect taxpayers from increasing costs and reforming contribution levels. According to the Public Accounts Committee, those reforms, implemented by the previous Government, will save the taxpayer £67 billion over 50 years.

Unfortunately, instead of building on those reforms, the Government ripped up many of them, making sensible reform harder: they have imposed, without negotiation, a steep 3% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the indexation of future pension income from RPI to CPI. Announcing those changes before the Hutton report on pensions was even published was unfair and needlessly provocative. Those changes are not in the Bill, however, so we did not have a chance to address them in amendments and in Committee and on Report.

Conversely, the main aims of the Hutton reforms in the Bill are ones with which we broadly agree, most notably the shift from final salary to career average defined benefit schemes, the increase in pension age to take account of increasing longevity, and a mechanism to ensure that increasing costs are contained within schemes and do not fall squarely on the taxpayer. It is important for the sustainability of public service pension schemes that those changes are implemented properly, which is why we do not wish to oppose the Bill this evening. However, as we said on Second Reading, we have serious concerns about the detail of the Bill. We said that we hoped the Government would work constructively with us in Committee and the other place to improve it. There was some movement from the Government, but in our view it was not sufficient.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Can the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that his party would not change the future pensions link from CPI back to RPI?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think it would be sensible to make a permanent “no review” announcement when it comes to indexation, particularly when some of the projections have been showing that the future burden on the taxpayer might not be as great as the Government have made out. For the time being, we have not been able to make propositions on that, because the scope of the Bill did not allow it.

However, we proposed amendments in a number of other crucial areas in seeking to improve the Bill, focusing particularly on the questions of trust and confidence. We sought to improve the Government’s proposals in a number of ways, most notably in implementing the fair deal—a commitment that was integral to the agreements that had been reached. I am glad that the Minister had the opportunity to correct his words on the local government pension scheme aspect of that, because there were some ripples emanating through the Chamber from some of the previous words he uttered. There is also the question of the Government’s ability to reduce accrued benefits retrospectively. They should have been stronger on that and firmer commitments should have been given as guarantees on replacing defined benefit schemes with new career average defined benefit schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

We did not table any amendments on judicial pensions. I suspect that the question of relative taxpayer support for private pensions might come up tomorrow in the autumn statement. I am intrigued that hon. Members have castigated previous Governments for changes that have affected private sector schemes. It will be interesting to see what the effect will be on the sustainability of some of those pension pots, but we can only speculate at this stage and see what happens. However, this question is certainly of the moment. It is only a matter of hours before the Chancellor stands up and—undoubtedly—makes his announcement on pensions tax relief. We will see what happens at that point, but we felt that some significant proposals needed to be made.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I am conscious of the time. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady let me conclude my remarks.

It was argued that we must not bind future Governments by amending the Bill. That was not a very strong argument, given that legislation can be introduced at any time. We also felt that safeguards were needed to address people’s concerns about the effective sequestration of their deferred wages—their pension savings—by retrospective changes. At no point did we propose amendments that contradicted the Hutton principles. We sought to be constructive, and I am grateful that the Minister recognised the constructive changes that we proposed.

We had some significant victories, and I am grateful to the Minister for at least keeping an open mind on some of these points. In particular, I am pleased that we managed to get a guarantee—it is due in the other place—that future members of defined benefit schemes will receive an annual benefits statement setting out full information on changes to their pensions. That is a big step forward, and I am grateful that the Minister moved on that point.

We will want to come back to some of those questions in the other place, particularly those on scheme capability reviews and the working longer review in the NHS, and to ask why the Government are irrationally not letting those arrangements come to fruition in the drafting of legislation. I am still not fully convinced that the issue of the closure of local government pension schemes has been adequately dealt with, but I know that the Minister has said that he is happy to look into it.

Many colleagues will naturally have serious doubts about the Bill. That is entirely understandable, given the differences between it and the Hutton proposals. However, pensions reform is important both for the taxpayer and for scheme members themselves. Our hope is that the other place will see the strength of our arguments and make the changes that this House has been unable to secure. We hope that their lordships will appreciate that only through changes to the Bill will we achieve successful and sustainable pension reform. It is with that hope in mind that we shall not oppose the Bill at this stage, but we hope for further improvements in the other place.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I would like to make progress as we have a limited amount of time.

The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies. Building up those elements, however, means reducing EU spending elsewhere. Savings can be made on the common agricultural policy, which currently costs European nations £45 billion with the UK contributing about £1 billion a year. The common agricultural policy is a distorting barrier to trade liberalisation, a wasteful programme that is in need of further reform, and it is astonishing that the Government motion does not refer to it.

Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that represent 35% of the budget and are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified. Savings can also be made on subsidies for tobacco growers, which will be discontinued, on outdated practices such as relocating the European Parliament to Strasbourg for a week each month—that costs €200 million each year—on non-essential projects such as the House of European History museum, which cost a reported £137 million, and on export refunds, which cost millions and disfigure fair trade.

Savings can and must be made, and delivering a real-terms reduction in the EU budget requires a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure. That is why we need a more effective and independent EU auditor who is able to examine the impact of programmes on the EU economy. The auditor must also improve the accountability of spending on pro-growth activities, which will require the bringing together of disparate Commission priorities under the auspices of a single commissioner for growth, persistently and single-handedly concentrating on that overarching concern.

How capable is our Prime Minister of delivering real reform in the EU budget? Can he come back with a deal that sees the contribution from the UK Exchequer reduced in real terms? Those are the tests he must now face. We know that his phantom veto last December placed the UK in the margins of influence, just when it mattered most, but today’s debate must be about more than the frailties of the Prime Minister. It boils down to how much we care about taxpayers’ money—money that is hard-earned and needs to be safeguarded.

For every 1% that the Government concede in additional spending on the multiannual financial framework, nearly £1 billion will transfer from UK taxpayers to the EU budget over the seven years of the spending review period. If negotiations fail because a member state walks away from the talks, we will simply see last year’s settlement rolled forward and supplemented by an automatic 2% inflation upgrade which, as I said, will cost our taxpayers at home an extra £310 million in 2014.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not realised that trying to negotiate in a calm way on a deal that was agreed two years ago by our Prime Minister is the most sensible way to proceed. If he looks into it, he will find that new member states also have a lot of skin in the game, and they will not want us to use our veto because they will also lose out. This is not just about Britain and Britain’s veto, but about dynamics across the whole EU membership. Using our stated policy over two years in a consistent and calm fashion gives us the best chance of achieving real reductions in cost for the British taxpayer.

[Chris Leslie]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady and she made a calm and persuasive point. The difficulty is that the Prime Minister has not been calm in these negotiations; indeed, he has deployed the veto almost three weeks before negotiations have even started. It is important to have a consistent and calm strategy, and the window of opportunity must surely be to persuade nations across the EU that their taxpayers also want a spending reduction in real terms. If the Prime Minister ends up at the November summit writing a cheque for hundreds of millions of pounds more, he will surely send an unpalatable message to millions of hard-pressed taxpayers across the country.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady will know that in the past—I believe this was in the Pensions Act 2011—people were given short notice about changes to the pension age. Does she agree that, ideally, a good 10-year notice period should be given so that people can plan ahead? If this is pegged to the state pension age, people should have sufficient opportunity to plan with enough forethought.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government made great efforts to ensure that the cliff edge affecting certain women born in a certain couple of years disappeared. He will also be pleased to note that the pensions of those with less than 10 years until retirement will not be affected by this measure, which provides the ring-fencing for those with not long to go until retirement age. I would have thought that he would welcome that—again, on the basis of fairness between those workers and the taxpayer.

Of course, two thirds of private sector workers are not members of a pension scheme. We have heard hon. Members from all parts of the House say that we do not want a race to the bottom. We are proud of our public sector pension provision, and nobody would wish to see it brought down to the abysmal level of private sector pensions. However, it would be pleasing if Opposition Front Benchers were to concede their part in the destruction of private sector pensions, which has made a significant contribution to putting us into this pitiful position; private sector pensions have been decimated by the actions of the previous Prime Minister.

An important point of fairness is involved in the fact that the taxpayer contributes three times more to a civil service employee’s pension than the average private sector employer pays in. The employer contribution rate to the civil service pension scheme is 19%, whereas the average private sector employer contribution rate for a defined contribution pension scheme is only 6.4%. To get the same pension in the private sector, someone would have to contribute about a third of their salary.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That was a minor concession but, as we can see, we have possibly an hour and a half to debate a major macro-prudential tool—and only the Treasury’s order to enact the power in principle for the Bank, not the actual use of that power by the Bank. That would be delegated to the Bank.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to the hon. Lady as I know she has thought about the matter in great depth.

It is important that we look at the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, for example. As hon. Members know, there is a steady stream of regulations coming from Brussels. Members of the Committee try their best to grapple with those, pick the most important ones and have a debate, albeit upstairs in Committee. When there are important issues, the measure is brought back to the Floor of the House for a vote. Ideally, I would like the Treasury Committee to deal in the same way with the sets of regulations that come on the conveyor belt from the Bank of England, but it has enough on its plate as it is. Perhaps we need a sub-committee of the Select Committee. Some sort of financial services scrutiny committee is required, with the time and space to go through the ramifications properly and thoroughly. Yes, then let the measure come back down under the affirmative procedure, but it is super-affirmative procedure that is necessary. That is essentially what we are doing.

We cannot amend the Bill to affect the Standing Orders of the House. That must be decided as a separate arrangement. What I am doing in amendment 23 is suggesting that there should be a longer period of time to allow the House to conduct its own inquiries into these issues. Essentially, I have cut and pasted the procedure under the Public Bodies Act which was recently passed by the Government, whereby if they wanted to abolish any quangos, the relevant Select Committee should have time and space to conduct its inquiries. That is, I hope, an appropriate way of allowing space for better parliamentary scrutiny.

I apologise to the hon. Lady; I know she wanted to come in.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has probably given me the reassurance that I was seeking. It is not that we do not want the Bank of England to have those powers. In the past a lack of accountability and of central management has led to some of the problems that we saw during the financial crisis. It is not a question of focusing the authority and the powers within the Bank. It is a question of the accountability of the Bank in implementing those powers. Does he agree?

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. That is right. We are not saying that these powers might not be necessary. However, let us say, for example, the Government and the Bank consider it necessary to lean against a consumer credit bubble. They want to change the minimum repayments that our constituents make on their credit cards from 2% a month to 5% or 10%. That will have a big effect on our constituents. Imagine us going back to those constituents when they complain to their Member of Parliament, as they undoubtedly would, and ask, “Whose decision was that?” We would say, “It was the Bank of England’s decision. We voted on this in theory a couple of years ago, but now the Bank has pulled the lever and pressed the button, and this has happened.” There would be great anger. The public would expect us, at the very least, to have had the opportunity to debate and discuss that in more thorough and substantive detail, albeit in a Committee. That is all we are suggesting in the amendment.

Finance Bill

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Chris Leslie

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman confusing a healthy banking sector that can contribute to the regeneration of a healthy economy with the issue of banks paying bonuses? I do not see what reducing the headline rate of tax that banks pay, which inevitably leads to healthier balance sheets and greater ability to lend to companies and is good for our economy, has to do with what I think he is talking about, which is the banks’ payments to themselves. I see those two issues as being very different. Perhaps he can explain.

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady who, I am sure, would have wanted to declare an interest had she been in her previous guise. I understand that she was previously employed in the banking industry, although I may be wrong and I do not want to disparage her in any way. However, it is important to know.

[Andrea Leadsom]

It was 10 years ago.

[Chris Leslie]

I just wanted to place the hon. Lady’s comments in their particular context.

It is certainly true that the general public have a distaste for the excessive bonuses and remuneration of those in the banking industry, but such remuneration would not be possible were it not for the high profit rates that the banks were able to post and report on so many occasions. We are indeed all shareholders in many ways—either directly, or indirectly through our pension funds or as taxpayers—and Members on both sides of the House will hope that, over time, the banks will be returned to some level of normalcy. However, necessarily, they must not, as institutions, evade—or avoid; I want to use the correct parlance—paying their fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I would not want to set the hare running across the City of London that the long arm of the law is necessarily about to grab them on the shoulder, but I understand the frustration and anger of the British public more widely, and all politicians in this House should be angry. While it is fun and games for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats constantly to say, “Ah well, it was the Labour party that left us in this predicament”, they know very well that the root cause was the greed and excess of the banking sector, which ought to pay its fair share.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The banking sector is far from being given a free ride by this Government. We are absolutely not going to allow it to get away with past transgressions—far from it. In fact, it is this Government who are going to restore banking supervision and lender-of-last-resort powers to the Bank of England. The tripartite system that Labour put in place, and which led to some of the failings of the banking system, was a key mistake. This Government are not going to ignore those issues. We also have a commission to look at competition, which is key, because we have to re-establish fair competition in our banking system and get rid of the tendency towards ever larger and more consolidated banks. I agree, in part, with the hon. Gentleman, in that we have to take the banking system seriously, we have to improve it and we absolutely have to make it more competitive. However, I do not agree that we should consider a differential rate of tax, as that is simply uncompetitive.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady makes her case. We can all, in hindsight, say that regulatory improvements should clearly have been made. The British Government could claim that work should have been done to ensure that that was the case in America, in every country in Europe and all the around the world. It is absolutely true to say that the whole worldwide banking system ought to have been more closely regulated, but that was the first time I have heard a Conservative Member defend the reduction in the corporation tax rate—that is the specific measure that we are discussing. There may be a need to debate the regulatory changes that should apply to the financial services industry—I look forward to those proposals being made—but I still do not understand her argument about anti-competitiveness. It is important to hear why the Government believe that the banks deserve this particular cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed. I cannot keep track of the turns and U-turns, with so many permutations, that the Government go through or of the chamaeleon-like arrangements of some hon. Members. There are honourable ladies and gentlemen in all parties—even in the parties opposite—and I appeal to them to consider the amendments carefully. These are incredibly important suggestions. I have not yet heard a case in the interventions—except, perhaps, for the competitiveness argument, which I shall discuss in a moment—for why there should be a corporation tax windfall, this boon for our large banks. Perhaps I shall hear one from the hon. Lady.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I want to clarify. It is to all our benefit to have a healthy financial services sector. Obviously, all parties agreed, when we had the financial crisis, that we simply could not afford to see our banking system go into meltdown. There is no doubt that that is precisely what would have happened. Nevertheless, through the banking levy the Government are seeking to make the banks compensate the taxpayer for the undoubted support that they received. If there were a reduction in corporation tax alone with no offsetting bank levy, of course the Opposition could say that the banks were getting a free ride. However, the existence of a bank levy means that the banks are paying compensation to taxpayers for their largesse while at the same time ensuring that we retain a highly competitive financial services sector that can encourage and help our economy to recover.

[Chris Leslie]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s arguments. She is saying that it would be wrong for the banks to receive a corporation tax cut—that is an important concession—but that it is all right because they are paying the banking levy. As I reckon it, that puts them right back to the standstill that they were at in the first place. In other words, they would not be paying any more and there would be no reparations, as I see it, for the public at large. They would simply be standing still. It beggars belief that the Government, having talked tough before the election, are now going to give a free ride to the banks and offset some of the costs of the banking levy.

The hon. Lady mentioned earlier that there is, of course, the Government’s independent commission on banking. I understand that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is a promoter of it and I would be interested to hear his views on whether we should give a corporation tax cut to the banks. He has gone from saint to axeman in a matter of weeks, but it is the impact on public services that we are worried about most of all.

As I was saying, it is the unfairness of this measure that strikes home most of all. People who are in a comfortable position are lecturing the world about the cuts to our public services that are needed. What really sticks in the craw is the statement, “We are all in it together”, which hon. Members will have heard. Well, that is not the case for the banks. They are not in it with the rest of us.

It reminds me a little of the polite and well-spoken cat-burglar who sneaks in to one’s home as a thief in the night and tries to purloin all sorts of goods and chattels but, when caught red-handed, explains, “No, I’m not stealing from you. I’m just rearranging the furniture and decluttering the house.” It is a grab of the worst possible kind—a grab on the public services on which the poorest in our community rely. The revenue from this measure and from reducing the corporation tax on the banks is needed by our vital public services. I hope that the Treasury will take the amendment seriously. The banks have not earned the right to this windfall. They do not deserve it and I commend the amendment to the Committee.