Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In fairness, it is up to the Minister whether they wish to. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would want to speak or not—that is his choice. If he does, of course I will give way. What I would say is that you would not expect me to comment on that. I was not chairing the debate, and, in fairness to Mr Speaker, if it was disorderly, he will have said so. That is the one thing I want to be clear on. In fairness to Mr Speaker, he will have done the right thing at that moment.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Parliament is expected to prorogue today, but, unusually, the Privy Council website still does not list an Order in Council as having been approved for Prorogation. The matter is listed on the Order Paper and in the House of Lords on the Order Paper, yet, for some reason, an Order in Council does not appear to have been passed so far according to the Privy Council website. Normally, Orders in Council for Prorogation are passed several days before it actually occurs. It is 3.26 pm. I wonder what is going on.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair. It is not for me to speculate on the Privy Council. I am sure that you will not take your eye off your mobile phone, to ensure that that first-line knowledge will be through to your good self once you see it there. But it is not a matter for the Chair, as much as it is frustrating. As a member of the Privy Council, I have to say that I have no further information to add.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend’s points are particularly relevant to new clauses 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) which seek, I believe artificially, to restrict the nature of amendments that could be placed in relation to any motion on an extension. It is very relevant to new clauses 4 and 5 for us on this side of the House to say “No, there should be greater latitude for the sort of issues to come into that.”

[The Chairman]

Order. I think in fairness that it is my judgment that we will take. Thank you for your advice, but actually it will be the opposite way, not the way the hon. Gentleman is trying to open up. I have said I will allow flexibility, but I am not going to allow discussion on matters that are not part of tonight’s debate.

United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

If the Secretary of State wants to rebuff Donald Trump’s claim that these tariffs are for national security reasons, he need only look at the President’s tweet from six hours ago, in which he starts off down the avenue of saying, “Oh, what about European farming tariffs or manufacturing tariffs?” It is quite clear that the Secretary of State and the European Union should be able to drive a coach and horses through the national security nonsense that the American President is putting up. Will the Secretary of State at least see this as an opportunity for us to work with our partners in the European Union and to use the leverage that we have in that alliance of 500 million customers to ensure that the Americans cannot walk all over us?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A load of constituencies are affected. May I suggest that we have short answers and short questions, so that hon. Members can get in?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 345, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, include regulations to match or exceed World Health Organisation air quality standards.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that the UK continues to meet international air quality standards after withdrawal from the EU.

Amendment 292, page 6, line 38, at end insert—

“(e) impose or increase taxation”

This amendment would prevent the imposition or increase of a tax by regulations made under Clause 8 to comply with international obligations.

Amendment 390, page 6, line 38, at end insert—

“(e) confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal).”

Amendment 352, page 6, line 40, at end insert—

“(5) Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary to ensure that standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards will continue to remain in all respects equivalent to those extant in the EU.

(6) In particular, no agreement relating to international trade or investment with the EU or with a third-party state or states shall be made that permits or requires standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards to fall below those extant in the EU at the time.”

This amendment would ensure that in exercising the powers under this provision, the Government maintains equivalent standards to the EU, and in particular, in making trade agreements.

Clause 8 stand part.

[Mr Leslie]

What a privilege it is to have the opportunity to speak on such a momentous evening when Parliament has had the guts and foresight to stand up to the Executive, take back control and give hope to those who thought that all hope was lost, and to see Members from all parties working together in the national interest.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Committee: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 80—Transparency of the financial settlement—

‘(1) Financial provision may be made for a financial settlement agreed as part of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.

(2) Subsection 1 applies only if the financial settlement honours obligations incurred by the United Kingdom during the period of its membership of the EU.

(3) The Treasury must lay before both Houses of Parliament an estimate of the financial obligations incurred by the United Kingdom during the period of its membership of the EU, together with reports from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the National Audit Office and the Government Actuary each giving its independent assessment of the Treasury’s estimate.

(4) Any financial settlement payment to the European Commission or any other EU entity may be made only in accordance with regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may be made only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”

This new clause ensures that any financial settlement as part of leaving the EU must reflect obligations incurred by the UK during its membership of the EU, must be transparent, and must be approved by Parliament.

Amendment 54, in clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert—

‘(5) No payment shall be made to the European Union or its member states in respect of the making of a withdrawal agreement or a new Treaty with the European Union or any new settlement relating to arrangements that are to be made after exit day unless a draft of the instrument authorising the payment has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would ensure that there is a vote in the House of Commons to approve any settlement payment agreed by Ministers as a consequence of negotiations on a withdrawal agreement or new Treaty with the European Union.

Clause 12 stand part.

Amendment 152, in schedule 4, page 32, line 35, leave out “(among other things)”.

This amendment would limit the scope of regulations modifying the levying of fees or charges by regulatory bodies to only the effects set out in sub-sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Amendment 339, leave out lines 1 to 3.

This amendment would remove the power of public authorities to levy fees or charges via tertiary legislation.

Amendment 340, page 33, line 3, at end insert—

‘(3A) Regulations under this paragraph may not be used to prescribe fees or charges that go beyond that which is necessary for recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service to the specific person (including any firm or individual) who is required to pay the relevant fee or charge.”

This amendment would prevent delegated powers from being used to levy taxes.

Amendment 153, page 35, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3) Modification of subordinate legislation under sub-paragraph (2) may not be made for the purposes of—

(a) creating a fee or charge that does not replicate a fee or charge levied by an EU entity on exit day, or

(b) increasing a fee or charge to an amount larger than an amount charged by an EU entity for the performance of the relevant function on exit day.”

This amendment would prevent Ministers using the power for public bodies to alter fees and charges either to create a fee or charge that does not currently exist for the purposes of EU regulators, or to increase a UK charge to be higher than an existing EU fee or charge.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Leslie]

New clause 17 relates to clause 12 —[Interruption.]

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I have not used those words. The hon. Gentleman is reporting words that have apparently been said.

I believe it is important that the Opposition today look at the spin and the headlines that the Chancellor created in his Budget yesterday. Less than 24 hours later, the Budget is beginning to unravel—[Interruption.] Have I said something wrong? The Budget is beginning to unravel and I will explain why, but in the spirit of magnanimity I want to explain that there are Budget measures that we welcome. The Budget fails to address the long-term challenges Britain faces—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am desperate to hear what Mr Leslie is going to tell us. Keep shouting and you will not even be able to ask the right questions.

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Many parts of the Budget were suggested by Labour in recent months. Abolishing permanent non-dom status—that sounds very familiar to my hon. Friends. Increasing the minimum wage—again, we have repeatedly called for that. We welcome any action on low pay—by the way, the Conservatives opposed the creation of the national minimum wage in the first place—but this so-called national living wage is unravelling as it becomes clear that it is nothing of the sort. It is the rebranding of an increase in the national minimum wage—as I say, Labour created that in the first place—which, with the tax credit changes, will still leave working families worse off.

We will support steps to tackle tax avoidance—again, we have consistently pressed the Government on that—but this Chancellor has a poor record on hitting tax avoidance targets, with the amount of uncollected tax increasing to £34 billion last year and his so-called tax deals continually failing to bring in the revenues he predicted. In yesterday’s Budget, the Conservatives broke their manifesto promise to deliver £5 billion of savings by 2017-18. The Chancellor made that promise at the last general election, and he is now saying that we might perhaps get it by the end of this Parliament. We will file the supposed £5 billion of tax avoidance measures in the “believe it when we see it” category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we said in the election that we wanted to focus in particular on business rates. He will know from talking to small firms in his constituency that companies are concerned about the pressures on business rates, but where did the Chancellor mention business rates in yesterday’s Budget? We felt—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is far too much noise. In the end, I want to hear, I will hear, and I am sure that you agree with me. Let Mr Leslie speak. He will give way as and when. We do not need be told that he has to give way; it is his choice.

[Chris Leslie]

We felt at the election that it was more important to prioritise support for businesses through business rates than through a change in corporation tax—but we lost the election. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Conservative Members feel the need to crow about these things, but the public will be concerned that they said one thing before the election and have done totally different things after it. Yes, the Conservatives did win a majority, but they hid their specific cuts from the electorate—they concealed them. It was a secret agenda, only now partly revealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman again if he will confirm that the childcare promise, which was supposed to happen this summer, has been shelved until at least 2017. Is that correct? I will give way to him. This is a debate, so I will give way to him. He wanted to talk about the case studies. He thinks it is—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order on both sides, I cannot hear!

[Chris Leslie]

The Secretary of State has shot himself in the foot. He should read the small print of the Chancellor’s announcement. Without much fanfare, he left that childcare—

[Chris Leslie]

I have not finished. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Whip needs to relax a little, and we cannot have two people standing at the Dispatch Box, as entertaining as that may be.

[Chris Leslie]

It is quite entertaining to see the Secretary of State struggle in this way.

Finance Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just to be helpful, there are three more speakers to come. The debate that is ping-ponging across the Chamber is very interesting, but I would like to hear from Back Benchers as well.

[Chris Leslie]

You are completely right, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had this debate going on throughout the day.

The Minister is a Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire. If his constituents find work in London, under one set of statistics the jobs are classified as located in London, but under the set of statistics he prefers, they are located in Hertfordshire and not London. We can talk about the methodology used in relation to these things.

Ultimately, this Finance Bill is not focused on the long-term best interests of this country. It is not a long-term Finance Bill for stability and for the vast majority of this country; it is a short-term Finance Bill from a part-time Chancellor who is more concerned about getting from here to election day than building a sustained recovery that is fair for all. The defining challenge of our times is to reconnect the wealth of our country with the ordinary finances of households up and down the country. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Finance Bill and to send this Bill and these Ministers back to the Treasury drawing board.

Cost of Living

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I do not know whether you voted against those measures, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we appreciate any efforts to help alleviate the cost of living. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that when people fill up their tank at the petrol station, they think, “How grateful we are to the Conservatives for the cost of petrol today”? When it comes to the cost of living—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous so far, but he cannot give way to six people at once. Let us get our act together and try to get through the debate. There are 21 Members who want to speak, and I am sure that other Members will want to hear them.

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am still on the first page of my speech. I remind Government Members that the profits of the energy companies, which in many ways are the drivers hurting many of our constituents, have risen astronomically in recent years. Since the general election, energy company profits are up from £2 billion to £3.7 billion. Members will have read in The Independent yesterday that profits were £30 per household at the time of the general election, that they rose to £53 per household in 2012 and that they are now expected to be £105 per household this year, and yet the Government continually cower in trepidation of the big six gas and electricity corporations. They are not just recoiling from any willingness to challenge their behaviour, but in their cowardice the Government defend the status quo as though nothing can be done.

Labour says that energy bills can and should be frozen while Parliament legislates to reset the energy market to one that provides true competition, reduces scope for excessive profiteering and offers reductions for customers when wholesale prices fall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way in a moment. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Everybody else has sat down, but somehow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) feels he can hang around for another five minutes. I assure him that he cannot. The Minister will give way when he wishes to, not when the hon. Gentleman demands. [Interruption.] I do not need help from others, either.

[Chris Leslie]

I think that shows that we have touched a nerve. We know that the best we can expect from the autumn statement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Did somebody shout out something about cowardice? No; okay, carry on.

[Chris Leslie]

I did not catch what was said, but we will see what Hansard records.

We know what will be in the autumn statement next week. The best we can expect is that the Chancellor will probably transfer about £100 or so off people’s energy bill and on to their tax bill instead. That is a ruse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order. He has made that point on many occasions and I did not need reminding.

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We can all make a judgment about that, but it might be helpful to remind Members that there are many speakers to come, so if we are going to have interventions they have to be short and not speeches. I will be honest with Members: anyone on my list of speakers who makes a long intervention will go down the list accordingly.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is short in his contributions on most occasions. I note that he wanted to change the subject from energy prices. The problem is that, time after time, the Conservative party has no answers for the public, who want politicians—their elected representatives—to take action on the cost of living, particularly on energy prices. As long as the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues let the rip-off merchants and unfair profiteers continue with business as usual, the public will take exception to the deceitful claim that we are all in it together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about questioning whether this subject is being taken seriously by Government Members, because the record should note that there are more Government Members than Opposition Members present to debate this important issue. On energy, will he now concede that Labour failed to ensure that the lights will be kept on in this country by failing to invest in nuclear energy? More than six nuclear power stations have closed down. That is why energy prices have gone up—because we are not making our own energy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I asked for short interventions. Please shorten them, Mr Ellwood, or we will not take any more from you. I am sure you will want to get another one in later.

[Chris Leslie]

There are only another 18 months during which there will be more Conservative Members than Labour ones in this Chamber. I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is watching the clock, because they are running out of time.

The Prime Minister has broken not only that list of promises, but more records than most Prime Ministers over the decades, and not in a good way. How has he been a record breaker? Since entering No. 10 Downing street, he has delivered a record-breaking cost of living crisis, with wages failing to keep pace with prices for an unprecedented 40 out of his 41 months in office. That is the longest period of diminishing real wage values since records began.

A record-breaking number of people now rely on food banks just to get by—it has tripled in the past year alone—with more than 350,000 families requiring food parcels in the past six months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise another point of order, but the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan suggested that I may have misled the House—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let me reassure both hon. Gentlemen that I am not going to decide who is right. You have each claimed that you are right and that the other is wrong. It is on the record, and people can make up their minds tomorrow. I want to continue with this debate.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth may have time later to elaborate on the quote. It may be incorrect, and we will see whether journalists want to look into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am very pleased and somewhat flattered that he should be referring to the Free Enterprise Group on the Floor of the House. What was the size of the deficit when his party left government in 2010? What was the absolute size of the deficit and what was the proportion of the deficit—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have got the point.

[Chris Leslie]

The national debt was about £800 million. The national debt—[Hon. Members: “The deficit.”] I know what the hon. Gentleman said. I could hear what he said. I am giving him the figures. The national debt—[Interruption.] It seems that Government Members do not want to talk about the national debt. The national debt was about £800 million. It is now £1.2 trillion. As Brucie might say, “Higher, higher!”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will let that go. It is up to the shadow Minister how he wishes to answer the question. It is not for you, Mr Newmark, to waste the House’s time on an irrelevant—[Interruption.] Order. On an irrelevant point of order. If you do not mind, we will have no more.

[Chris Leslie]

It goes to show—

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. You also want to speak, Mr Davies. You are constantly on your feet. I want to hear Mr Leslie. I also want to hear what the Government have to say. I will not hear either of them with the amount of time we have taken so far.

[Chris Leslie]

That is a good point, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief in talking about the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the Free Enterprise Group. The Free Enterprise Group published plans to slap a 15% increase on essentials such as food and children’s clothes through VAT and to triple the tax on heating bills. A number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber today are members of the Free Enterprise Group. They might be shuffling away from the hon. Member for Spelthorne now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend realise that the reason why some of us worry about the proposals of the Free Enterprise Group is that they are all of a piece with what the Tories have done already, including a drop of £35 a week in real wages in my constituency, the imposition of the bedroom tax on the poorest people and, contrary to what they say, increases in council tax for the poorest people? The reason Tory Back Benchers worry about being seen as the party of the rich is that they are the party of the rich.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am concerned because the debate has been going for 36 minutes already. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is due to be five minutes. I do not want it to go below that. At this rate, a lot of Members will drop off the list.

[Chris Leslie]

I want to draw my remarks to a close, so I will not take any more interventions.

In a moment, my hon. Friends will be subjected to the Minister claiming that the Government alone are responsible for the long overdue return of economic growth. What he cannot grasp is that growth is appearing despite his policies, not because of them. As the Nobel prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, said of the Government’s attitude just the other day,

“It’s like hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat for years. Then, you stop hitting yourself with the baseball bat and say, ‘See? I feel much better now—hitting myself with a baseball bat was clearly the right thing to do’.”

That sums up their view perfectly. They do not understand that only the return of strong economic growth will tackle the deficit in any meaningful way. Three years on, they still have not cottoned on.

The reason we have a cost of living crisis is that the historic connection between economic growth and household wealth has been severed. Even though it looks like we are finally seeing some growth in some parts of the economy, that growth is not being shared fairly. Indeed, GDP per capita remains flat. I pay tribute to the companies and households that have managed to keep it together despite the Chancellor’s inaction. What we need now is help for those who are trying to do their best—the people who never complain, who never say that they should be at the front of the queue, who go to work and who manage as best they can. Those people need real help with their energy bills and child care costs. They need us to tackle low pay and to freeze business rates for small firms.

The challenge for the autumn statement is to take action now on the cost of living, not to use sleight of hand to pile more burdens on the taxpayer. We need long-term reforms that ensure that there is a balanced recovery that is built to last, not short-term, knee-jerk flip-flopping. We need fairness for the many, not tax cuts for the few. The Government are out of touch with the mood of the public—the wealthy elite are looking after the wealthy elite and are all in it together. They are timid in the face of excessive profiteering from big energy companies, while the rest get broken promises on the economy and the deficit from a Government who are lurching to the right and reverting to type. The British people cannot afford this Government any longer. Britain deserves better.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5 —Mansion tax

‘The Chancellor shall review the possibility of bringing forward a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million and publish a report, within six months of the passing of this Act, on how the revenue could be used to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes as part of a fair tax system.’.

[Chris Leslie]

This first group of new clauses to this year’s Finance (No. 2) Bill relates broadly to issues of housing policy. Sadly, new clause 6, which urged the Chancellor to focus on the availability of affordable housing particularly in the wake of the bedroom tax, has not been selected for debate. My hon. Friends will be delighted to know, however, that new clause 5 seeks the support of Parliament for a review of a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million and the earmarking of revenues for a tax cut for low and middle-income households.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just referred to the bedroom tax, and we all know that this has huge implications for the future finance of our country. Does he think that those implications are reflected in the Bill?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

Order. Much as that issue might be in Members’ minds, we are unfortunately not going to discuss it. I allowed a little bit of sailing earlier in the opening comments, but we must now deal with what is on the Order Paper.

[Chris Leslie]

You are of course entirely correct, Mr Hoyle, as we are debating new clauses 1 and 5. New clause 1, however, talks about the Government’s approach to the housing market more broadly and, in the context of taxpayer support for the housing market, it would be remiss of any hon. Member not to recognise the volatility created by consequential changes in other areas of departmental policy, particularly those of the Department for Work and Pensions, as they affect the availability of housing supply. After all, in most of our constituencies and particularly the least well-off ones across the country, there is a sense of foreboding about the potential displacement of many constituents who are being told that they should look for other housing market options when it is, in fact, quite clear that there are no suitable social housing options to fit the circumstances of nine out of 10 of them. You are completely correct, Mr Hoyle, about the nature of new clause 1.

[Chris Leslie]

Very few people—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

Order. We need to stick to where we are. I know that Members are being tempted, but much as we might like to go down that route, I know that we are not going to do so.

[Chris Leslie]

New clause 1 talks about the way in which the Government’s approach may target help on those who want to buy a second home. In tabling new clause, we were concerned that we should prioritise those who need their first home—a primary residence. That is an important part of our argument in new clause 1.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) Scheme regulations shall not make any provision which would have the effect of reducing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity, insofar as that amount is directly or indirectly referable to rights which have accrued (whether by virtue of service rendered, contributions paid or any other thing done) before the coming into operation of the scheme, unless the persons specified in subsection (3B) have agreed to the inclusion of that provision.

(3B) The persons referred to in subsection (3A) are the persons or representatives of the persons who appear to the responsible authority to be likely to be affected by the regulations if they were made.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 6, line 27, in clause 10, at end insert—

‘to be agreed with employee representatives’.

Amendment 5, page 11, line 8, in clause 19, at end insert—

‘with a view to reaching agreement’.

Amendment 34, page 11, line 24, in clause 20, leave out from ‘—’ to ‘(b)’ in line 27 and insert—

‘reach an agreement through consultation with the persons specified in subsection (3), and’.

[Chris Leslie]

Clause 3 is an important part of the Bill, as it makes a series of arrangements for scheme regulations. Hon. Members will now be turning to page 2 in their copies; when they merrily flick through to it, they will discover that subsection (3)(c) states:

“Scheme regulations may…make retrospective provision.”

The theme of retrospectivity gives the Opposition great concern. Essentially, the Bill allows the reduction of accrued pension benefits.

The measure is not qualified in any way: it allows all retrospective provisions, including, essentially, the reduction of the savings that people have put aside, which many regard as sacrosanct—the contributions from their monthly salaries or income into a pensions pot that is supposed to safeguard their financial future in retirement. We now discover that the Bill contains a provision that allows the Government to dip their hand into what are normally regarded as safe amounts of money—the accrued benefits for which people have paid in over their years of service. The Opposition believe that that breaches a central tenet of pension provision. Benefits that have been accrued are deferred earnings and should not be reduced. Retrospectively reducing accrued rights is essentially akin to taking back a portion of an employees’ wage that has already been paid; there is very little difference.

Many hon. Members and many of my constituents find it difficult to resist the grey mist that descends and the heaviness of the eyelids that pensions law tends to bring about, but hon. Members should wake up and realise what is in the legislation. They should recognise that we are talking about the Government’s ability retrospectively to reduce the amounts that ordinary employees have saved for their retirement, which they believe are safe.

Public sector workers and their representatives are extremely concerned about the retrospective powers that the Bill gives to this and any future Government. Understandably, they believe that as long as the Bill contains those powers, the pensions of ordinary working people—public sector employees—are not safe. On 29 October, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was asked about the retrospective provisions in subsection (3) by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The right hon. Gentleman replied that there was no need to be concerned about the reduction of accrued benefits, because the Bill mirrored the Superannuation Act 1972 in that respect. It is important to read out his exact words:

“The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the clause to which he refers mirror directly those in the Superannuation Act 1972, which this Bill in many cases replaces. It was passed in the year I was born,”—

in the year I was born too, but let me not digress—

“and it has been used by a number of Governments to make adjustments to public service pensions.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 60.]

The Chief Secretary went further than that when he gave one of those famous quotes—a bit like the George Bush “read my lips” quote—in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 20 June 2011. He said:

“We will honour, in full, the benefits earned through years of service. No ifs, no buts.”

Well, it turns out that the Bill does not mirror the Superannuation Act 1972 in relation to accrued benefits. The 1972 Act provides that accrued benefits can be reduced only with the consent of scheme members—in other words, only if members of those schemes, employees, agree to such retrospective arrangements—whereas the Bill allows for retrospective reductions without the consent of scheme members.

Given that the Bill does not mirror the Superannuation Act protections in the way the Chief Secretary said it would, we can only assume that it must have been a drafting error by the Minister—perhaps some sort of oversight or typo. We are not sure why the Government did that. We tabled an identical amendment in Committee to ensure that the protections for accrued benefits in the 1972 Act were retained, but, surprisingly, our amendment was rejected. The Economic Secretary said that there was no need to mirror the protections in the 1972 Act, which prompts the question: why on earth did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say that the Bill contained certain protections when it obviously does not? It may be, as we have said, because the Chief Secretary is from a different political party from the Economic Secretary. We are not quite sure why the Chief Secretary said that it mirrors the Superannuation Act provisions, but this Minister, the Economic Secretary, resisted that arrangement.

As we have said time and again, when employees in the public sector find themselves facing changes, without any consultation, to their contribution rates and radical changes to the valuation arrangements for their pensions, the question of trust comes up again and again. This Minister says, “Oh, don’t worry, we’re not going to use this provision on retrospectivity,” but when employees voice their doubts and say, “Hang on a minute. Why on earth are you putting it in the Bill?” we have to sympathise with them. They will be extremely sceptical of the Government’s motivations.

We tabled the amendment to give the Minister another chance to include the protections that the Government—or at least one Minister—said were already in the Bill. When accrued benefits and retrospective changes were raised in Committee, the Minister did not dispute that the Bill allowed the Government unilaterally to reduce members’ accrued benefits, but he said repeatedly that the Government had promised not to reduce those accrued benefits. He said that that promise—a verbal promise—offered adequate protection to public service workers and that legislative protection was therefore unnecessary. That is an extraordinary argument. Even if this Government intend to keep their promise—that is a big “if”—their words will have no effect on a future Government, particularly a Conservative Administration. Surely the Government appreciate that, among the public, the level of trust in politicians and Ministers is low and that our request that they enshrine this protection in statute is a basic one.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In this Bill, has consideration been given to the differentials in prices across the United Kingdom? Northern Ireland has the highest insurance premiums in the entire United Kingdom. Is it not time to have the same competition in Northern Ireland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are now on Third Reading, and questions must be relevant to that stage.

[Chris Leslie]

That was an important point, however. There are regional disparities in consumer insurance. We tried, through an amendment, to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and he should know that on Third Reading we cannot discuss what was not in the Bill. We must make progress.

[Chris Leslie]

Your strictures are very firm, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would not in any way want to stray out of order. Suffice it to say that this Bill will, I hope, help all parts of the country, especially the regions where we need to ensure that insurance standards rise.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is no longer in the Chamber. We were talking about pet insurance, and I did not realise that he owned a llama. Perhaps he has gone to groom his llama.

This has been an important debate, and I am grateful to all Members who have contributed. Although we must keep an eye on the impact of its measures, we support the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I hope we will have no further mention of the llama of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I understood that this was a Committee stage, and that we were considering the Bill in detail. Is it usual practice for a Minister responding to a debate not at least to give way and allow a dialogue on the clause in question?

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

That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide whether to give way, and I am sure that he heard the cries for him to do so.

[Mr Hoban]

Subsection (2)(a) of the amendment requires a report on

“the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy”.

It might help Opposition Members if I explained how we designed the levy, and why we set the rate and threshold as we did. The levy is intended to ensure that the banking sector makes a fair and substantial contribution, reflecting the risks that it poses to the financial system and the wider economy. It is intended to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models, and complements the wider regulatory agenda to improve standards and enhance financial stability. During the crisis, it became clear that some banks had become over-reliant on short-term funding for long-term lending. When financial markets seized up, those banks were exposed.

I must emphasise that the levy is based on the liabilities of a bank, not on its assets. It is based on the bank’s deposits, its share capital and loans made to it, not on loans made by it. It applies to the global balance sheets of UK banks, building societies and banking and building society groups, and to the UK operations of banks from other countries.

In determining the scope of the levy, we concluded that foreign banks operating in the UK also posed potential risks to the UK financial system and the wider economy, whether they operated as branches or as subsidiaries. It therefore follows that they should contribute on the same basis, and branches and subsidiaries of foreign banking groups are included to ensure that they cannot avoid the levy by group restructuring. That will ensure the provision of a level playing field for all banks operating in the UK.

The levy will be paid by between 30 and 40 building societies and banking groups, and we have made it clear that we expect it to yield about £2.5 billion of revenues each year in its steady state. That appropriate contribution balances fairness with competitiveness, and the rates of the levy were chosen to allow it. We initially announced that a reduced rate would apply for 2011, recognising the uncertain market conditions prevailing at the time, but we no longer consider that to be necessary.

In December the Bank of England noted that the near-term outlook and resilience of the UK banking sector had improved. Markets also now have greater certainty about the timing and direction of regulatory change, with the Basel III regulatory reforms being introduced in 2013 and transition periods being extended to 2015. We therefore decided that from 1 March this year, the full rate of the levy should be introduced for 2011. The levy will now yield £2.5 billion in that year. The steady state target yield was set out last year, when we also announced our intention to make significant cuts in the main rate of corporation tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[The Chairman]

Order. I think it would be of interest to the House to hear from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), and I am sure that he will not take too long.

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. The Chief Whip really needs to take a breath and perhaps calm down for a moment. [Interruption.] I did not quite put it in the way that the Prime Minister might.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury usually does act honourably by trying to respond to the debate, and probably he secretly would have done so today. Our debate was wide ranging and we covered a number of specific points on the detailed design of the bank levy, with which he entirely refused to engage. He refused to give way in this Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which shows the Government’s thinly veiled contempt for the parliamentary process. No debate, no scrutiny and no contributions came from those on the Government Benches, other than the speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). They have accepted absolutely no challenge and no scrutiny. They have put their heads down and ploughed on—the Lansley strategy of policy making in action.

The Financial Secretary gave no explanation of why the Government set the banking levy at this puny £2.6 billion or why they have given a very generous tax-free allowance of £20 billion to the banks. Their original design, as set out in June, could have netted £3.9 billion, but when the banks complained the figure went back down to £2.6 billion. He says that we should not criticise the levy for being set at such a low rate because the French levy will raise less, but of course it will because the French banking sector is smaller. The fact is that our banking levy is being set at a third of the rate that the French are pursuing. He did not answer any questions on the netting of derivatives, the double taxation treaties or what would happen in terms of accounting practice. He certainly did not address the outrage in the country, never mind in the House, about the continuing appalling abuse of bonuses in the banking system. That is an obscene ongoing process and although bonuses might reduce slightly in one year, that is offset by the increase in the salaries that those bankers are enjoying. He did not even address the new loophole he is introducing in the Bill so that those enjoying deferred bonuses will now be able to pay the tax rates in future years, thus perhaps avoiding the 50% income tax rate when eventually the Government scale back from that.