Business of the House

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Tabling is one thing; selection for a separate decision is another. If the hon. Lady has a concern about the latter, which I think she has and am advised that she has, then she can table an amendment accordingly in an attempt to protect that potential for separate decision. This has all happened very quickly, but I am sensitive to what the hon. Lady has said, and a view will have to be taken by the Chair as to what is orderly and in the interests of Members of the House.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is, in a sense, a developing theme here. I do not know whether you have had sight of the Bill. The Table Office has had no sight of the Bill. The Leader of the House has beetled off, so we cannot ask him about these things and he has not said when the Bill will be available. If proceedings are to start tomorrow at 11.30 am, at what point will hon. Members have the opportunity to actually see the clauses that we are being invited to supposedly amend with only a couple of hours’ capability to do so? May I urge you, Mr Speaker, to please make representations to the Government that they publish the Bill this evening, so that at least we can digest it overnight and try to figure out out what potential there is for amendment and where that is necessary? I cannot remember, in all my time since coming into Parliament in 1997, a Bill being not available the day before being rushed through in this way. I do not know whether you can recall such a circumstance, Mr Speaker.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to the exchanges on this matter. He does not have to do a salute.

[Mr Leslie]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was clearing my throat at that particular moment. I am grateful to have caught your eye.

This may look like an innocuous motion from the Government, essentially suggesting that hon. Members, prior to Second Reading, should be allowed to table amendments for the Committee stage, but these are highly unusual circumstances and this motion relates to probably one of the most momentous pieces of legislation that has happened certainly in the last 50 years. It is of course preferable to give hon. Members as much time as possible to table amendments for the Committee stage and potentially for the Report stage, although there is normally an intervening period between the Committee stage and the Report stage.

For the benefit of the House, I want to highlight that, as far as I know, the programme motion for this Bill has not yet been published, although I have heard some quite frightening rumours about what the programme motion is likely to look like. One suggestion I have heard—I invite the Leader of the House to disabuse me of this—is that, as well as seeking Second Reading tomorrow, the Government also intend to commence the Committee stage and have a number of hours in Committee tomorrow.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very gently interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that that information was divulged, and therefore this prospect was foreshadowed, in the business statement that the Leader of the House delivered earlier, so it is not something on which we need to dilate further.

[Mr Leslie]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I may not have been in the Chamber at that moment in time, but I am still quite shocked at the idea of having the Second Reading take place and then moving straight on to the Committee stage on Tuesday—tomorrow. The reason this is relevant to this motion today is that the House is expecting Members to frame and draft amendments to a Bill that we have not yet had the opportunity to see. It has just this preceding moment received its First Reading. The time is now 7.41 pm, and we are expected to table amendments for a Committee stage that will take place tomorrow—I think on clauses 1 to 4 of the proposed Bill.

While this motion is, I think, absolutely the minimum required, it is worth reflecting on the appalling notion that this Bill is going to be rammed through in this way and in this particular fashion. I say this for a very good reason. Many hon. Members will remember—the Leader of the House is too young, possibly, to remember many of these things—that the practice when considering legislation that amends aspects of European treaties has quite a long pedigree. The House of Commons Library has rather helpfully produced a briefing paper about the parliamentary process of Bills in respect of EU treaties. We know that the Commons Committee stage on the treaty of Rome was not three days or two days, but 22 days; for the Maastricht treaty, 23 days; for the treaty of Lisbon, 11 days; for the treaty of Amsterdam, five days; for the Single European Act, four days; and for the smallest of them all, the treaty of Nice, three days. In total, there were five days of Commons consideration for the treaty of Nice reform.

This is an unprecedentedly short period of time to dedicate to a massive and momentous piece of legislation. Personally, I am very worried that the motion we are now debating is the first in a series of attempts by the Government to presage what is essentially the ramming through of a piece of legislation in what I regard as a disorderly way. Order in this place is a matter for you, Mr Speaker, but from my perspective, in terms of good law making, this has all the hallmarks of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and all those other bad pieces of legislation. We know that legislation that has not had a chance to be properly scrutinised tends to end up with ill effects or unforeseen consequences for our constituents.

At a quarter to eight in the evening, what are hon. Members really supposed to do? Presumably, by now, the Bill has been published and is hot off the press and available for us to scurry to the Vote Office and look at. Perhaps the Leader of the House—I have not had the opportunity to see it—can tell me how many pages there are in that legislation. He is asking in this motion for us to go and write amendments to that piece of legislation and table those this evening for them to be in order for a Committee stage that is taking place tomorrow. I do not know whether the Leader of the House can say on how many occasions a Bill of such magnitude and importance has had a Second Reading and Committee stage on the same day. Perhaps he can give me some examples, but I do not see that that was the case in any preceding piece of European Union legislation going back to the early 1970s, before I was even born. I am really worried about this motion being the first of many such motions. I think it is necessary as an absolute minimum, but everybody needs to be alert to the fact that it is not just an unfair way to treat the House of Commons, but quite a dangerous approach to take.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It will be if it is orderly, and I will reflect upon that matter. The Government are not the arbiter of what is orderly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I indicated to him during the exchanges on the business question on Thursday. That is a matter that brooks no contradiction whatsoever. Even if people feel that they are immensely knowledgeable about procedure or have a right to have their own way, or both, they can do so only within the rules.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to what appeared to be a quasi-business statement from the Leader of the House, which was or was not about matters that the House may be discussing on Monday but of which we have not had proper notice—and there is no intervening day for a motion tabled today for discussion on Monday, which is the normal course of events—the suggestion that we should repeat the same debate on essentially the same matter, section 13(1)(b), is surely contrary to all our normal practices, whereby the Government of the day, if a matter has been disposed of, cannot repetitiously and vexatiously keep asking the same question until they receive the answer that they prefer.

I do not ask you to rule on this matter now, Mr Speaker, but I strongly urge you to take account of the fact that many of us would feel that it would be an abuse of the power of the Executive to come back on Monday and ask the same question again just because they did not get the answer that they wanted today.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of course I will come back to other colleagues. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order, which I think requires no response from me; it stands on its own.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are in an invidious position: you have an extremely difficult job to do, but can you confirm in relation to your rulings—whichever way they go; sometimes we will agree, and sometimes we will disagree—that it would not be in order for you simply to respond to the loudest voice at a particular point of time, or in any way to be pushed by a minority view because some are acting in a co-ordinated way to attempt to overrule your rulings?

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will not be surprised to know that I share his judgment in the matter. For the avoidance of doubt and the understanding of people who are not Members of the House but are attending to our proceedings, and are possibly even present in the Palace of Westminster today, let me say this so that it is crystal clear from the vantage point of the Chair: what the Chair is proposing to do is select an amendment because in my honest judgment it is a legitimate selection. It is for the House to vote upon—[Interruption.] Order. It is for the House to vote upon that amendment, and indeed to vote upon the motion. The Chair is simply seeking to discharge the responsibility of the holder of the office to the best of his ability. That is what I have always done, and no matter what people say or how forcefully they say it, or how many times they say it or by what manner of co-ordination it is said, I will continue to do what I believe to be right.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the next Member, we must hear from the Minister, and the Opposition Front Bench should really have the chance, very briefly, to comment on its own lead new clause before we come to the vote.

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

I will be brief, Mr Speaker. I will want to move amendment 8, which stands in my name and in those of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In many ways, it complements amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

Amendment 8 would institute a commencement motion for the powers that the Treasury is seeking. Clause 89 might have been wrapped up as fairly minor and inconsequential, but essentially the Government are asking for pretty whopping permission to start legislating for no-deal arrangements. At this stage in the game, I really do not think that right hon. and hon. Members should be delegating our powers entirely to Ministers in this way without question. I know it is difficult for the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to rebel for a second time, on amendment 7, but I would like to persuade him to do so for a third time on amendment 8. A commencement motion is an important adjunct so that we can give the House and hon. Members the chance to express how they wish Brexit to go forward—so that we have the opportunity to express our view. A commencement motion would allow hon. Members the chance to do just that.

As things stand—certainly if the Government’s Brexit proposal is negatived next week—there could be 21 days or perhaps another seven days before anything is voteable on in this place. My own view is that before we start delegating powers to Ministers on these issues, or indeed on others, we need to start saying that enough is enough. Hon. Members need a chance to help to guide the way forward. There are many different views on these particular issues—the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) has his particular preference and I have mine—but we need to provide for ourselves the time and the space to express them. Amendment 8 would simply provide for a commencement motion.

I hope that the Minister will recognise there is a strong cross-party opinion that we need now to give voice to Parliament. We cannot just drift into a no-deal situation. Parliament does want to take back control. He should concede and accept the amendment now.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will not get into secondary matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I can confirm that his exegesis of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is broadly correct. I am not surprised by that; I would expect nothing less from him, as he is an experienced parliamentarian. He is right on that front.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of your rulings just now, could you clarify whether it is possible for any hon. Member to table a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government? You will know that many of us are unhappy with the way in which Her Majesty’s Government have been conducting themselves, and that we are frustrated that a motion stating “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” has not been tabled.

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to other Members to table such a motion, but there is a difference between tabling a motion and having the assurance of time for a debate on it.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

To the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who effectively asked me what restitution was available to her in the event that the Secretary of State did not clarify the matter to her satisfaction—that is to say, did not issue a correction—I would simply say that on this point, we have to leave it there. It is not for me to seek to insist on a correction; that is not within the power of the Chair. Perhaps I may say, in a moderately jocular spirit as we approach the festive season, that for my own part—this view may be more widely shared by colleagues—I greatly welcome the free legal advice provided by the hon. and learned Lady, as she is a QC, not least in the light of the fact that she referred to QCs earlier and the fact that their services tend not to come cheap.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Secretary of State scarpers from the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “Come back!”] Under the procedures of the House, it would obviously be wrong for me to accuse the Secretary of State of deliberately misleading the House, but what are Members to do if the Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House? I was in Luxembourg at the time of the ruling, and there was no similarity between the Government’s case and that of the European Commission. What are we supposed to do if he has inadvertently misled the House today and if he perhaps inadvertently misled Andrew Marr on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday because he thought the vote was taking place on Tuesday and it is not?

[Mr Speaker]

I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, although I understand his disappointment, not to say irritation, that the Secretary of State has not remained in the Chamber, strictly speaking, points of order are raised with the Chair. It is not a formal obligation for Ministers to remain for the duration of points of order. Whether the Secretary of State thought that points of order appertaining to him were at an end, I cannot know because I do not know what was in his mind, but the situation is that the point of order is raised with me.

Secondly, I have a sense that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West are not going to let this issue go, and I dare say it will be played out and replayed out in days to come. I think we should leave it there for now.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the intervention. There is a lot of noise.

[Mr Leslie]

Actually, I wanted to agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a bad deal. Does he not agree that our country would be better off remaining in the European Union than exiting on the basis of this deal?

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, yes, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie); he is a patient and laid-back fellow.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I think.

On reflection, it was probably quite wise of the Chancellor not to come here to give this statement. He definitely owes the junior Minister a stiff drink afterwards, because he is not waving, but drowning, especially as in this dodgy prospectus he has essentially admitted that we will not know on what free trade agreement the country is being asked to vote on 11 December. Does he not realise that the reason so many Members will not buy the dodgy sales pitch he is peddling today is that nobody is convinced about this Brexit lottery and just being told “Have faith, keep your fingers crossed, go with us in this giant leap in the dark”?

Windrush

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I must add to the many other qualities of which the right hon. Gentleman can boast—although he rarely does so—the quality of being psychic, because he correctly anticipated what would be my likely advice to him, which, in its purest and most succinct form, consists of one word: persist, persist, persist. If the matter continues to be raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government will be left in no doubt of the appetite of the House for the said report to be published. It is very difficult to come to a view of the merits of the recommendations in a report if one has not been allowed to see it. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I urge him not to lack self-confidence, but to go forth with vigour and robustness.

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

And persistence.

[Mr Speaker]

And persistence.

Trade Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Magnificent. We are very grateful to him.

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

This group of amendments is about parliamentary scrutiny, and in a way it is a shame that some on this subject are in later groups. The key thing I want is to ensure that appointments to the Trade Remedies Authority are subject to confirmation by the International Trade Committee in the same way that the Treasury Committee has confirmation hearings on the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Policy Committee.

New clause 12 gives me a little tickle, a little laugh, because it says that Ministers will now come to report to the House when there are any significant differences in the free trade agreements we have as a member of the EU that will be rolled over. Apparently the agreements will be cut and pasted, and it was only at last year’s Conservative party conference that the Secretary of State for International Trade himself promised that, one second after midnight, all 40 agreements will be rolled over and available from March 2019. Well, it has not quite been going his way, because the Government have not got a single other jurisdiction to sign up legally to doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Two-minute speeches are now required.

[Mr Leslie]

Surely new clause 17 is a no-brainer. If we are going to preserve anything, we must surely keep the frictionless flow of medicines and treatments for our national health service going. If ever there were an example of an ideology getting in the way of common sense, it would be that of a hard Brexit attitude physically placing itself at the border in the way of the free flow of those medicines. We know that 45 million packages of medicines cross that border every month. That is how essential this is, so new clause 17 has to be supported.

New clause 18 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I have to say to him that he is being incredibly generous to the Government in relation to this proposal. He is giving them the benefit of the doubt on the free trade area in goods. It is true that, whatever we get, the lowest common denominator will be a free trade area in goods. We will have to get that. But frankly, I am really quite surprised by the way in which some Conservative Members have been treated by the Government in respect of the ERG amendments—all of which were accepted without any objection—when some of them are trying their best to preserve the Prime Minister’s Chequers plan. Those Conservative Members are being very generous, but I think it is reasonable to put in place a safety net in the form of a customs union in January. I hope that, on this one occasion, we can put party politicking to one side and do the right thing for our country.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. Two minutes, please. I call John Redwood.

Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have very little time left for this, I am afraid, so we will need short questions and short answers.

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

Apparently it was at a Foreign Office reception in honour of the Queen’s birthday that the Foreign Secretary applied his four-letter expletive to the concerns of Airbus and business about leaving the single market. I can think of a few suggestions myself, but what four-letter word comes to mind for the Secretary of State when he thinks about the Foreign Secretary?

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a strange point of order. Can you confirm that, unless a complaint has actually been made and a process has actually begun, it would be quite invidious for you to have to comment on matters or allegations that are reported in the press and elsewhere? It would not be fair on the person being alleged against, and it certainly would not be fair to any complainants, which is why I think it is right that we are talking about future processes. Until such complaints come forward, it is very difficult for all of us as hon. Members, and especially for you, to engage with this, beyond the limited statement you have already made.

[Mr Speaker]

In the two cases to which public reference has been made, there has been nonesuch. It is absolutely right, of course, that work should be taken forward under the auspices of the Leader of the House with a view to presenting policies for the approval of the House, including, very importantly, an independent grievance procedure. I am on record on that matter on a number of occasions, and I gave evidence to the cross-party inquiry. My support for thoroughgoing change is very well known and has been oft-repeated. I am happy to take the opportunity to repeat that support today.

Salisbury Incident

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely important parliamentary occasion and it is understandable that very large numbers of Members should want to question the Prime Minister. Can I politely suggest that colleagues should seek to ensure that their questions are as succinct as the Prime Minister’s replies have been? That way, we might get through a very great many more quickly than we otherwise would.

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

I add my support to the measures that the Prime Minister has announced and the condemnation of what is increasingly looking like a rogue state. On the question of the integrity of the United Nations Security Council, we must now begin to talk about reform. Russia cannot be allowed to simply sit pretty, thumbing its nose at the rest of the world community and feeling that it is immune from the rule of law internationally. Will she initiate that sort of reform discussion with the Secretary-General?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Everybody is awake; we have been listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with rapt attention.

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

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on warming up the debate so well. In a way, Mr Speaker, I feel sorry for you in the Chair, because it is perfectly ridiculous that the programme order is such that we have to conclude our series of debates at 4.30 pm when so many issues have not been properly aired on Report. I said that during yesterday’s debate on the programme motion, and I hope that Members in the other place will bear that in mind when they consider the Bill.

I tabled amendments on six issues that I did not think had been adequately covered in Committee. Being a dutiful Member, I felt it my responsibility to table amendments to cover those issues, but I must rush through them, because otherwise I will not exactly be flavour of the month with many of my colleagues.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I just want to ensure that we do not simply pass the motion—I know it is a narrow procedural point—about the amount of time that the House will dedicate to debating the myriad issues covered in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Committee stage was limited to only eight days. Noble Lords in the other place will have noted that on many occasions lots of amendments that had been tabled could not be fully debated. The view of the House could not be taken on some of them. We are not talking about frivolous amendments. The Government were defeated on some amendments, and they may well be defeated again—who knows?—on another occasion.

There are concerns that there may not be sufficient time on Report to air many very important issues. The usual channels will have talked about the nature of the programme motion. I see that today very much focuses on the questions that are of concern to the Government, where they want to make a concession, or focus on particular areas, but many Members feel that there are other important questions. Those questions include the customs union and the single market, whether we can reach a full trade deal in time, before falling over the cliff in March 2019, and whether there are choices and options available for the British people, other than the very narrow red lines set out by the Government in their policy. I am worried that the programme motion means we will only have a certain amount of time tomorrow—up to 4.30 pm—for the debate on a very wide range of questions.

I do not want to delay the proceedings because that would obviously go against the point I am making, but this needs to be put on the record so that those in the other place can see that there are concerns in this House of Commons about our not having had sufficient time to debate and fully to consider the full range of issues. I hope that the other place will be able to do justice to the Bill and to such other questions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do my best in the Chair to facilitate full debate and such votes as there is an appetite to have.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill that we are discussing has been designated as an aids and supplies Bill, and potentially as a money Bill, which I understand is in your gift at the end of the Commons proceedings. Could you confirm that no decision is imminent on your part on the designation of the legislation as a money Bill? I am not seeking a ruling from you this evening, but perhaps you could reflect on whether it is fair use of procedure for the Government to have unilaterally designated the Bill as an aids and supplies Bill, because there are measures in the Bill, particularly in relation to the customs union, that the other place might have a great appetite for amending. Obviously it is not for us to determine the procedures that take place in the House of Lords, and while that is not a matter for you, will you confirm that you have not yet made a decision on the designation of this Bill as a money Bill and that, as far as you are concerned, the House of Lords can do what it will with the Bill, should it pass to the other end of the building?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I am making no decision at all at present about the certification of a money Bill. Such decisions do fall to the Chair from time to time, but they tend to be made at a slightly later stage in the process, and I will not be making a decision tonight. More widely, the hon. Gentleman advances an argument about what he thinks are appropriate arrangements in respect of the Bill, given its contents and implications, and I will reflect carefully upon what he and other Members have said. I hope that that is hopeful to Members and to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of the detailed content of which I had no advance knowledge. However, I make no complaint about that whatsoever.

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I would respond as follows. First, in my judgment, it is not principally for Mr Sedwill to be the judge of which Committee has competence—I use the term “competence” in the technical sense—in respect of this matter, or indeed to conclude that only one Committee is involved. That is a matter about which other people will have a view, not least parliamentarians. I would very politely suggest to the National Security Adviser that he should be sensitive to the views of senior colleagues.

Secondly, it is a matter of established fact—not least testified to by the exchanges at Defence questions this afternoon—that questions relating to the subject matter that the right hon. Gentleman describes are in order. If such questions were not in order, they would not have been accepted as oral questions by the Table Office, but they were in order, and therefore so were supplementaries appertaining to those tabled questions. That therefore gives the matters a relevance that the National Security Adviser, with the very greatest of respect, is in no position to deny. Thirdly, I would say it is a well-established principle that if a Select Committee requests that a witness gives evidence, in almost every case that potential witness accedes to that request.

Finally, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether it is relevant in this case—that I know of an instance in which a potential witness indicated that he did not believe he had much to say that would add to the deliberations of the Committee in question. However, he was advised that, whether or not he thought that what he had to say would greatly assist the deliberations of the Committee, the Committee nevertheless wished to see him. It might even have been the case that Committee members wanted to say things to him, almost irrespective of whether he wanted to say things to them.

All in all, I therefore think there is a compelling case on this matter. There are powers available to Committees to report a refusal to appear to the House, and thereafter the matter can be escalated. I very politely suggest that it would be highly undesirable for such a procedure to be needed in this case.

In the light of all those considerations, I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts to secure the attendance of the National Security Adviser will now bear fruit. Moreover, I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 34 years as of last month, and while I am sure that the National Security Adviser is an extremely formidable fellow, I would say to him, through the right hon. Gentleman and through the medium of the House, “Give up the unequal struggle and just appear.”

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am saving up the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady nods in acquiescence to my point and I will leave that matter there.

The hon. Lady is obviously dissatisfied and she has put her dissatisfaction on record—indeed, she has done so for a second time as, if I remember rightly, she had a go on Thursday at topical questions and received a similar answer. The hon. Lady is nothing if not consistent and persistent. I also say to her that what Ministers and others say in the House is a matter for them; it is not for me to act as the corrective to Ministers who might be thought to make a mistake, and nor am I a policeman in such matters. The hon. Lady’s dissatisfaction will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench and I am sure she will find other parliamentary avenues to pursue this matter—there is nothing to stop her doing so over and over and over again, although I suspect that she will require no encouragement from me to do so.

[Mr Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have noticed that in the past half hour the Department for Exiting the European Union has finally given in following the resolution of this House of Commons that insisted that the 58 Brexit impact assessments—the Government call them “sectoral analyses”—should be published to the Brexit Committee. This is an overdue moment, but I seek your guidance, because these sectoral analyses cover many, many areas of interest to all Members of the House, whatever Committees they serve on. With no disrespect to members of the Brexit Committee, I wonder what you could do—perhaps make representations to the Chair of the Brexit Committee or to the Government, or to both—to ensure that all those sectoral analyses can be published and made available to all hon. Members. We are talking about aerospace, agriculture, the automotive sector, chemicals, construction, defence, the creative sector, financial services, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, tourism and manufacturing. These are issues that the whole country deserves to know about.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he says, publication to the Select Committee has taken place today. I had anticipated that it would, because obviously conversations about this matter took place between the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Chair of the Brexit Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and conversations took place that included me. I had expected that the analyses would be released no later than today and am pleased that that has happened.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the extent of the interest in the matters covered by the sectoral analyses. My response is to say to him that publication is to the Committee and the matter is in the hands of the Committee. It is perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman —and, indeed, to other Members similarly interested—to approach the Chair of the Select Committee and to seek disclosure. I must emphasise, however, that at this stage it is very much a matter for the Chair of the Committee, although an approach to him is in no way improper—indeed, not least on the back of this point of order, it is very much to be expected. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central is a very experienced Member of this House, as well as an unfailingly courteous one, and I rather doubt that he would be surprised to be so approached.

Student Loans Company

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a statement coming, but if the hon. Gentleman is in a state of uncontrollable perturbation, I will take his point of order now.

[Mr Leslie]

You may not be aware, Mr Speaker, but in the other place this afternoon, Lord Callanan, a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, had to give a specific statement to correct something that he said about whether article 50 could or could not be revoked. Indeed, he said that “for the avoidance of any doubt, the Supreme Court…did not rule on the legal position regarding its irrevocability.” That is relevant, because we are set to resume Committee proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill tomorrow. It is important that everybody recognises that it is possible for article 50 to be revoked. The Government should not contradict that, even though it may be Government policy not to revoke article 50. Following that statement in the other place, have you had notice, Mr Speaker, of whether a Minister will also come to clarify the matter in the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In short, I have received no indication that any Minister intends to come to this House to make a statement on that matter. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if an error is made in the other place, it can be corrected only in the other place. The requirement for correction does not span the two Houses. However, the hon. Gentleman is an eager beaver and if, as these matters are broached by Members in Committee, he wishes to leap to his feet with the athleticism for which he is renowned in all parts of the House to challenge a Minister to confirm the veracity of that correction, it is open to him to do so. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I feel sure that he will be in his place and ready to leap at the first opportunity.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

True. It might in fact be more appropriate to regard the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex as an institution. It would certainly be proper, and in no way disobliging, to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a very notable representative of a rare breed. The reason why I think I can say that with complete confidence is that the right hon. Gentleman was for some time either patron or president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust—a patronage or presidency of which he was very proud.

[Mr Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who has left the Chamber, reminded me of a very important point of order. I think it is two weeks since the House passed a motion to instruct the Government to publish the 58 Brexit sectoral impact assessments. Two weeks later, I am certainly not aware of when they will be forthcoming. I wonder whether you have any further information about a date on which we can expect them. As you will recall, there are serious issues, perhaps relating to contempt of the House, if that motion is not adhered to.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. That motion is effective and it is binding upon the Government. About that there can be no further argument—I was asked about it and I ruled on it. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I know that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is in contact with the Chair of the Brexit Committee about publication and when that is likely to happen. They are also discussing the question of form of publication and the attitude that the Brexit Committee might take to that. Those discussions cannot long continue.

The hon. Gentleman asks me to put a date on the matter; I can say to him only that I was given to understand—if memory serves me, at the beginning of last week—that the material would be published no later than three weeks from that date. I think we are a little under halfway through that period. Thereafter, publication can, will and should be very widely expected. If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman and others, I can say that I am very focused on that matter, in the interests of the House as a whole, and I can tell him that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who chairs the Select Committee, is, too. It will not be let go.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

What was that?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State said yes.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. First, as I said in response to the point of order from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) a few minutes ago, motions of this kind have traditionally been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern, I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the Humble Address in the usual way.

I say what I do, as colleagues on both sides of the House and on both sides of any argument will recognise, on the strength of an understanding of advice received in relation to precedent grounded in “Erskine May”. When I am asked, as I think I was by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, about contempt or breach of privilege, what I would say is that, if anybody wishes to make an accusation of a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, it must be done in writing to the Speaker. If I receive such a representation in writing, I will consider it and apply my best endeavours, and take advice, in reaching a view and reporting it to the House.

I have explained the position, I think, as clearly as I am able, but of course on this sensitive matter, about which I understand passions have raged this afternoon, I will take further points of order, if there are such.

[Mr Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to waste him at an early stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think I am obliged to do that, and I am not sure how much difference it would make. The issues are important but I do not think—I may be contradicted by senior procedural experts, to whose wisdom I should defer—that the matters are particularly complicated. One can take a view about this, one can consult “Erskine May” and one should reflect in a sober and considered fashion, but if the hon. Lady is asking me whether I envisage this being something that needs to be deliberated on over a period of several days, the answer is no.

[Mr Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you assist the House in explaining how serious it is for any person, a Member of this House or someone outside it, to be in contempt of the House? Were an individual to be found in contempt of the House, that would not be a frivolous matter—it is not something that should be just ignored. Page 191 of “Erskine May” sets out the consequences for individuals found in contempt of the House and the penal jurisdiction rights of this Parliament. I would be grateful if you explained to Ministers present that this is a very serious matter.

Schools Update

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mistakenly, because I was trying to do two things at once, I called two Government Back Benchers in succession. I would not want there to be a lingering sense of resentment on the Opposition Benches, so I call Mr Christopher Leslie.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to press the Secretary of State a little on the point that the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—the new Chair of the Select Committee on Education—and some of my hon. Friends have mentioned: where in the Department is the money coming from? It sounds as though the Secretary of State will be robbing Peter to pay Paul from within central programmes. Will she set out a bit more clearly which of these central programmes will be cut: the teaching and leadership college, the standards agency, the mentoring programme, the longer school day programme, the 16-19 budget, university technical colleges or the apprenticeships programme? Or is she promising not to cut any of them?

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that colleagues who arrived in the Chamber after the start of the statement should not stand or expect to be called. That is a very long-standing convention of the House.

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

This is obviously an acutely embarrassing episode for the Chancellor, but will he not acknowledge that it is also quite embarrassing for those of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, whom he sent out there to defend this breaking of the manifesto commitment? Has he already apologised to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues, or will he take this opportunity to say sorry to them from the Dispatch Box?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I urge the Minister, when thinking about national procurement and national commissioning, to look at the national strategies that can underpin them—for example, at why we need to renew the national stroke strategy. Some 100,000 people a year suffer a stroke, and nearly 1 million people in this country have had a stroke. They care very much about rehabilitation and other services.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister’s challenge is to relate that very important matter to the equally important issue that happens to be the subject of the question: procurement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are deeply grateful, but we must try to attend to the questions asked, and to do so in a timely way, because progress is desperately slow. Members can do better than that, one would hope.

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

Would there not be a double whammy if Britain left the EU? First, there is the widely predicted risk of depreciation, which will lead to higher interest rates. Secondly, any notion that our exporters would benefit from a cheaper pound is more than offset by the additional tariff barriers that those firms would encounter worldwide.

The Economy

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the usual convention, if there are significant changes to the estimates and supply that support public services, that the documentation and details for every single Department are laid before the House of Commons, so that all Members can be informed of what is happening with our public services within a financial year. This is ripping up any semblance of long-term continuity, and it is a shabby way to treat Parliament and the public services.

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Chancellor has spoken, but this is not a matter with which the Chair needs to deal. He has made his point and it is on the record, but the Chancellor will now continue.

[Mr Osborne]

We made this announcement to the House of Commons, and the detail is there for people to examine. There will be estimates debates as usual, but there is a very simple question: does the Labour party support further savings in public expenditure? If it does not, that means the Labour party wants to increase borrowing, increase taxes and take this country back to square one and repeat all the mistakes it carried out in office—and, indeed, repeat all the political mistakes that meant it went down to a historic election defeat just a month ago.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I commend to Conservative Members, who should have a good read of it, this very authoritative document with very carefully crafted figures:

“Source: Chief Secretary to the Treasury”.

It was a classic. My hon. Friend knows that the real Budget was in the Red Book. Shall I pass it to him? Perhaps not.

The Chancellor told us in the Budget that everything was sunshine and roses, but in coalition Britain, 900,000 people use food banks, 600,000 people are affected by the bedroom tax, the typical working person is £1,600 a year worse off and the NHS is in crisis. The Chancellor tried to find the best statistic, however obscure, to muddy the waters and deny what most working people know, which is that their wages have eroded year after year as we have experienced the longest period of prices exceeding income since the 1920s. He did that by relying on a forecast for this year, rather than real data, and by adding university and charitable income, as well as what are known as imputed rents from homes even if they are not actually rented. That was basically designed to say, “If you stand on one leg and squint a little, there you are—you’re back to 2010 levels of affluence and incomes.” Even on that statistical measure, from election date to election date—rather than the start of the calendar year, as the Chancellor tried to use—people are still worse off than they were. Of course, all that does nothing to change the burden of higher taxes and lower tax credits that have seen families worse off by more than £1,000 a year. As ever, the Chancellor may give a little with one hand, but he takes away much more with the other.

By the way, now that the Chancellor has taken the time to enter the Chamber, it would be interesting to know whether he has spotted the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon. I understand that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will not stand for election again after this general election. He has said tonight that he is likely to be gone in a couple of years’ time, so what will the country be voting for at the next election? I can see the poster now—“Vote Cameron, get Osborne”—and all the right-wing agenda that would go with it. A Prime Minister who did not win his first election, and had not won a second election, would be saying that he would not win a third.

Of course there were a few give-away measures in the Budget, and we welcome anything that helps those on lower and middle incomes. Why, however, does the Chancellor still stand by the biggest give-away of them all? His tax cut for the wealthiest 1%—those earning £150,000—means that someone earning £1 million each year gets an annual tax cut of £42,000. That is simply unfair and unacceptable, and that is why we will vote against those income tax plans this evening. We will vote against the Government’s Budget plans for public services and public investment, because although we must balance the books as soon as possible in the next Parliament, going so far beyond that—with cuts over the next three years that are twice as deep as those of the past three years—means extreme cuts to services on a scale not experienced for generations. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a most discourteous exchange taking place between those on the two Front Benches while the hon. Gentleman the shadow Chief Secretary is addressing the House. Modesty forbids me from naming the errant Members, but I feel sure that they will correct their behaviour at once.

[Chris Leslie]

Perhaps we can ask Hansard for a transcript later. I would certainly be interested to read that.

When we look at the Chancellor’s plans—and those of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—we see that he is thinking about cutting for the next three years at twice the level we have seen over the past three years. The Chancellor realised how toxic his plans were shortly after the autumn statement, when he published the trajectory that showed he would take Britain back to 1930s levels of public investment as a share of national income. In the days running up to the Budget, we were therefore told that he had had a change of heart on public spending—coincidentally, it was just weeks before an election campaign. Sure enough, the figures for 2019-20 were shuffled around in the Budget. However, in the end, he just could not fight his gut instinct, so all he did was to front-load the cuts on to the first three years of the next Parliament and hope that nobody would notice.

Unfortunately for the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility did notice. It said that his plans will mean

“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years”

and

“a sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services”.

That will create what the OBR calls

“a rollercoaster profile for implied public services spending through the next Parliament”.

We remain with a path of public spending that is based on ideology and political game playing, rather than a Budget for our public services based on what the economy requires and what our country needs.

I ask my hon. Friends to imagine the impact these extreme plans will have, especially on the public services that the Government say are unprotected—the police, bus and rail services, the Army and our defences—and on all those who depend on tax credits to make ends meet. I encourage my hon. Friends to take a moment to look at exactly what those extreme cuts will mean. They are not just statistics in the Red Book; they will have real consequences for real people’s lives.

To take social care as an example, in the past five years, the number of vulnerable people who receive social care support has fallen by 500,000 and the number of home-delivered meals—meals on wheels—has fallen by 59%. Of course, there has also been a rise in the peremptory 15-minute visits. That is just what has happened so far, before the Government tip social care over the precipice of the rollercoaster. Just imagine what the next three years could bring. Care cuts like this are health service cuts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, our health services will be placed in real jeopardy in that scenario. It says everything one needs to know about this Chancellor that the battle of Agincourt got twice as many references in the Budget speech as the NHS. When I look at the Government’s Budget, it is not so much “Henry V” that comes to mind as “The Comedy of Errors”.

This path of spending—extreme and unnecessary, going way beyond tackling the deficit—is why we will vote against the Budget resolutions tonight. This is a Budget that delivered little, but revealed much. It revealed the Conservatives’ ideological obsession with shrinking public services in preparation for a privatised society. There is no support for those struggling on low incomes and in insecure work, no credible action to tackle tax avoidance and close the tax gap, nothing to reverse their tax cut for millionaires and no help for the NHS. We have a Chancellor who is full of spin but is fooling no one, and a Chief Secretary who is enjoying his final days in office but not in power.

What we need is a Labour Government who will put the interests of the British people first; who will balance the books in a fair way; who will help small businesses with a cut in business rates, rather than simply helping the largest corporations; who will raise living standards by raising the minimum wage and expanding free child care; and who will govern for the many and not for the few, because Britain succeeds when working people succeed. That would be a better plan and a better Budget. That is why I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Budget of this failing Government.

NHS (Government Spending)

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members shouting, and then expecting to intervene, do not display great wisdom. The hon. Gentleman can probably do better, and he should certainly try to do so, within the limits of his capacity.

[Chris Leslie]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

In urgent questions, there is obviously a time limit on our ability to read out quotes from NHS England documents, but there is no such time limit in an Opposition day debate, so let us take the opportunity to spell something out clearly for the record. The Secretary of State is here now. I apologise for not noticing him as he came into the Chamber, but he is here now, and that is good, because I can hold this document up and show it to him—it says “NHS England” on the front. He is nodding; he has accepted that point. I turn to page 21, where in paragraph 7.2.3, under the heading—[Interruption.] Government Members want to shout me down. If the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), is patient I will read out the full quote from the NHS England document. It refers to principles for considering escalation and the responses to be had. Paragraph 7.2.3, under the heading “Politics”, says:

“(a) Is there increasing involvement of senior command and control tiers, political involvement or excessive media coverage?

(b) Is there a requirement to bolster or assure public confidence?

(c) Is there a risk of reputational damage?”

I do not understand why an NHS document contains those exact words. The Secretary of State can probably read them from there, across the Table—he is nodding again. Yet only a few minutes ago he denied that NHS England had such a document. What am I holding up—a mythical piece of paper? We can now at least establish that NHS England has been issuing documents suggesting that reputational damage and politics need to be taken into account when preventing major incidents. We have now at least had the opportunity to read into the record, as Hansard will reflect, the full text of that NHS England document.

This is the set of situations and circumstances that the NHS faces: pressures on A and E departments, pressures on cancer treatment, and pressures on the major incidents as we have seen. Why are things in such a fragile and critical state? The Government took £3 billion out of elderly social care and wasted it on a £3 billion reorganisation of the NHS that nobody voted for and nobody wanted. They are cutting corners and rushing the care that is needed to help the frail elderly to stay out of hospital. What greater example of a false economy could there be?

The Economy

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My constituency has the 10th highest youth unemployment of any in the country and I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman. The Government have no answer for the 700,000 young people who remain long-term unemployed. They have a Work programme that sends more people back to the jobcentre than it puts back into work—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very uncertain quite what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) had for breakfast this morning. Without wishing to be personal, I would simply observe that a close family relative of his lives in my constituency and he is a person of impeccable manners, as the hon. Gentleman usually is. My constituent would not approve of the hon. Gentleman’s ranting from a sedentary position. If the hon. Gentleman undertakes to behave in a seemly manner from now on, I promise not to report his bad behaviour to my constituent.

[Chris Leslie]

I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

Income Tax

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Chief Secretary is being most generous and accommodating in giving way. I simply point out to the House that the second debate has a comparable number of would-be contributors as does this one. If we are working on the assumption that this debate will finish at about 4 o’clock, it is important to ensure that there is maximum time available for Back Benchers who wish to make speeches. After that, I am in the hands of the House.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

To bring my hon. Friend back to the whole subject of fairness in taxation, especially in these economic times, it was this Government who told us that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the majority of the burden, yet the first thing they did was reduce the tax rate to take that burden off their shoulders. [Interruption.]

[Chris Leslie]

There is a lot of protest coming from Government Members. Only those who are not standing for Parliament again will dare to stand up and defend cutting the 50p rate. Mr Speaker, I have heard your entreaties about being a little more strategic in the way we progress through the arguments, but I thought that it was important—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne)—[Interruption.] Order. I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as a very cerebral denizen of his House. I do not know whether he has become a bit demob happy because he is standing down, but I look to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as a gentleman, to comport himself with a dignity comparable to that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), who is beaming on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.

Banking

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There they go again, denying that the banks had any responsibility whatever for the global financial crisis. Obviously, it was Labour’s investment in schools and hospitals that caused the devastation in dozens of countries worldwide and recession across—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) is usually the epitome of the cerebral philosopher; an air of calm usually exudes from his every orifice. He has become uncharacteristically over-excited. He must calm himself, consider the merits of yoga and listen to what the shadow Chief Secretary has to say.

[Chris Leslie]

I now have an image in my mind, Mr Speaker, but we will move on.

I want to pin down the position that the Prime Minister was trying to spin in Prime Minister’s questions. The market expectations are that the loss-making RBS will pay about £500 million in bonuses in 2013, despite the string of allegations about LIBOR fixing and the accusations that it forced viable businesses into default in a bid to seize their assets on the cheap. When life is getting harder for so many households and bank lending to businesses is falling, it cannot be right for the Chancellor to approve a doubling of the bank bonus cap when the taxpayer has a stake.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Chancellor. [Interruption.] Order! In the name of respect for parliamentary process and the traditions of the House, I ask Ministers not to behave in that way. We deserve better.

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

I shall return to the actual question of duties. Has the Chancellor found the £750 million that is needed to pay for the freeze? At the party conferences, he also promised to spend a further £700 million on school meals, a further £300 million on his Work programme, and a further £600 million on a marriage allowance. That is £2.3 billion of promises. Let us be clear about this. Is the Chancellor going to raise taxes or cut services to pay for those promises, or is he planning simply to borrow even more? Which is it?

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Sale of state-owned banking assets—

‘(1) Before the sale of banking assets in the ownership of HM Treasury, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the manner in which the best interests of the taxpayer are to be protected in connection with such sale,

(b) the expected impact that any sale might have on competition for the provision of core services, customer choice and the rate of economic growth,

(c) an appraisal of the options for potential structural changes in the bank concerned including—

(i) the separation of the provision of core services from the provision of investment activities,

(ii) the retention of a class of assets in the ownership of HM Treasury,

(iii) the impact of any sale on the creation of a regional banking network.

(2) A copy of the report in subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament and sufficient time shall be given for the appropriate committees of both Houses of Parliament to consider its findings before any sale decision.’.

Government amendment 5.

New clause 15—Local stakeholder banks—

‘(1) Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish for consultation a report setting out proposals for the creation of networks of local stakeholder banks.

(2) This report shall contain an examination of stakeholder banking structures, defined as credit institutions that are not owned by private shareholders, with the with the aim of maximising shareholder returns. The examination should draw on experience in the UK and elsewhere and include—

(a) co-operative banks;

(b) credit unions;

(c) community development finance institutions (CDFIs);

(d) public-interest savings banks.

(3) The report shall examine potential impacts of the creation of networks of local stakeholder banks on—

(a) customer service and product range,

(b) accessibility to banking services for customer underserved by commercial banks,

(c) financial stability,

(d) accountability to local stakeholders.

(4) A copy of this report and the outcome of the full consultation shall be laid before Parliament and sufficient time shall be given for consideration of its findings by members of relevant committees of both Houses before any decisions are taken on the sale of state-owned banking assets.’.

New clause 12—Portable account numbers—

‘(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament a report considering—

(a) the adequacy of voluntary arrangements made by UK ring-fenced bodies to facilitate easier customer switching of bank account services; and

(b) legislative options for the introduction of portable account numbers and sort codes for retail bank accounts provided by UK ring-fenced bodies.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may, by affirmative order to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, confer powers upon the appropriate regulator to require UK ring-fenced bodies to comply with any specified scheme to establish the use of portable account numbers and sort codes.’.

New clause 14—Portable account numbers (No. 2)—

‘(1) Within 12 months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament a fully independent and comprehensive report detailing the options for introducing portable account numbers for bank accounts within the UK, including a full cost benefit analysis of the available options.

(2) The appropriate regulator may require banks and building societies to comply with any scheme to introduce and facilitate the use of portable account numbers, which is introduced in regulations made by the Treasury.

(3) No regulations may be made by the Treasury under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Government new clause 1—Minor amendments.

Government new schedule 1—Minor Amendments.

[Chris Leslie]

Here we are again—a second bite at the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Today, we debate a series of amendments and new clauses that have been loosely grouped together under the title “Competition etc.” I shall speak in particular to new clauses 8, 10 and 12 in due course, but I shall start with new clause 8.

We felt it important to discuss the obstacles in the way of better competition in the banking sector. I am sure that it is not true of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but many hon. Members have probably been with their retail bank since they were very young—not so long ago in your case, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although an aficionado of switching and looking at different services in banking, I must confess that I have been with the same bank since I was 14, and with no real logic other than the inertia that afflicts many customers: we tend to think that it is inconvenient to change bank accounts; we tend to think, “There is not much choice, so what is the difference or the point of shopping around?” It is this sense of a lack of competition and lack of choice that we want to remedy with the new clause, tabled with other amendments in the group.

There are significant obstacles to competition, particularly to new challenger banks coming into the system, breaking into the business and trying to do something to challenge the absolute dominance of the big five banks. The new clause would require the Treasury to publish a review considering the obstacles to those new challenger banks and ways of increasing the number of new banks coming into play.

Under the new clause,

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to begin a full market study…into UK financial services institutions involved in the provision of core services”—

in other words, retail banking. The aim is to provide a structure to support better competition, dealing with obstacles in the way of allowing new institutions to break into the market and to consider what actions could be taken to facilitate the new institutions entering into general competition.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, I propose to put Lords amendments 98 to 290 together.

[Chris Leslie]

Amendment 98 is in a separate group relating to clearing houses, and I would like to make some remarks.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister will need to move amendment 98, and can do so.

Clause 27

Powers in relation to recognised investment exchanges and clearing Houses of Parliament

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House agrees with Lords amendment 98.—(Greg Clark)

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 99, 122 to 127, 224 and 225.

[Chris Leslie]

I would have thought the Minister wanted to speak, as Lords amendment 98 is the lead amendment of a group relating to the extension of resolution schemes from banks and building societies to investment firms and in particular UK clearing houses. There is a wider set of issues, therefore.

UK clearing houses stand between two parties in a trade, ensuring that a deal goes through in the event of one party defaulting. Once a deal is agreed, the transaction is honoured even if one party goes bust.

The Government’s decision to extend a set of resolution arrangements to clearing houses is incredibly important, as the debates in the other place set out. Clearing houses are highly significant entities nowadays. After the 2009 G20 summit, it was clear that several hundred trillion dollars of market transactions, especially in over-the-counter derivative arrangements, were part of the clearing house ambit. Therefore, a failure in a clearing house could clearly mean a big problem—a series of problems—for the financial services sector more broadly.

I have a series of questions for the Minister, as I would be grateful for his help in respect of the provisions of this amendment and others in this group. First, I want to ask him about today’s Financial Times, the front page of which talks interestingly about the extension of resolution plan arrangements from covering just companies within the UK to an agreement between the United States and the UK that the Bank of England seems to have struck which will mean, for the first time, that there is a template for larger, serious, significant international financial institutions to have resolution arrangements that span borders. Clearly that is relevant to these amendments on clearing houses. [Interruption.] I can tell that hon. Members are very familiar with these arrangements. Clearing houses have a great deal of cross-border interoperability, they cut across jurisdictions and there is a need to co-ordinate their work. Will the Minister assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that international efforts are made to promulgate resolution arrangements that also cut across borders for clearing houses?

Central counterparty clearing arrangements these days contain a requirement also to hold Government bonds as collateral. As we know, Government bonds are not what they once were; there have been some questions about their safety. The Minister needs to explain: are we guarding against the deterioration of standards in central counterparty collateral arrangements? If we are increasingly reliant on gilt-edged securities of an international variety, are we actually ensuring that there is sufficient strength behind our central counterparty clearing arrangements?

Finally, may I ask the Minister a further question? Basel III arrangements will be ensuring that banks that are members of clearing houses need to capitalise their exposure to central counterparty contingent liabilities. Can he just give us a sense of the impact on the UK banking system, particularly on its capital adequacy, of processes that will see a rapid change on central counterparty arrangements from an over-the-counter arrangement to an exchange-based arrangement? If the regulators are insisting more and more on exchange-traded arrangements in those clearing houses, there will be an imperative for those clearing houses to become more and more price sensitive and they will be more desirable for the market more generally. That is why we are seeing so many mergers and acquisitions of clearing houses. Are these costs eventually going to be finding their way on to customers and our constituents? I would be grateful if the Minister replied.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Fair deal—

‘A member of a public service pension scheme is entitled to remain an active member of that scheme following—

(a) the compulsory transfer of his contract of employment to an independent contractor; and

(b) any subsequent compulsory transfer of his contract of employment.’.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

‘(5A) This Act shall not apply to scheme regulations relating to local government workers in Scotland unless the Scottish Parliament approves its application.’.

Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, at end insert—

‘(3A) A scheme under section 1 which replaces a final salary scheme may only be established as a career average revalued earnings scheme or a defined benefits scheme of such other description as Treasury regulations may specify.’.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 9, after ‘scheme manager’, insert ‘and employee representatives’.

Amendment 19, in clause 16, page 9, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) New scheme regulations made under section 1 and 3 shall replace existing schemes’ current regulations and shall take effect on the amendment date.

(1A) Following the implementation of new scheme regulations under subsection (1), benefits shall only be provided in accordance with those new regulations.’.

Amendment 20,  page 10, line 5, leave out ‘closing’ and insert ‘amendment’.

Amendment 21,  page 10, line 6, leave out ‘1 April’ and insert ‘2 April’.

Amendment 32,  page 10, line 7, after ‘scheme,’, insert—

‘(aa) 1 April 2016 for a Scottish scheme,’.

Amendment 22,  page 10, line 8, leave out ‘5 April’ and insert ‘6 April’.

Amendment 23,  page 10, line 10, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert ‘(1A)’.

Amendment 24,  page 10, line 21, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert ‘(1A)’.

Amendment 25,  page 10, line 23, leave out ‘closing’ and insert ‘amendment’.

Amendment 26, page 10, line 27, at end insert ‘regulations’.

Amendment 27,  page 10, line 28, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert ‘(1A)’.

Amendment 28,  page 10, line 28, leave out from ‘benefits’ to ‘includes’.

Government amendment 35.

Amendment 7, in clause 28, page 15, line 12, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Amendment 8,  page 15, line 12, after ‘new’, insert ‘defined benefit’.

Government amendments 36 to 39.

[Chris Leslie]

Having spent a considerable number of weeks serving on the Bill Committee, I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to press the Government on questions that remain unanswered and largely unaddressed. Considerable changes are being made to many of the public service pension schemes as a result of Lord Hutton’s report on the future shape of those schemes. The report was largely welcomed throughout the House and that has contributed greatly to the improvement of the reforms. However, a number of the report’s aspects have not been adopted in full by the Government in this Bill, and we are concerned about that.

New clause 2, the first in a considerable group of suggested changes specifically to pension schemes, would implement recommendation 18 on page 132 of the Hutton report that

“public service pension schemes should issue regular benefit statements to active scheme members, at least annually and without being requested”.

At present, defined benefit public service schemes are obliged to provide such information only if they are requested to do so. That limited obligation is set out in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, but normal occupational pension schemes that do not have an arrangement for either a final salary or career average payment at the end of the scheme are obviously a different state of affairs from defined contribution schemes. New clause 2 would simply implement Lord Hutton’s recommendation and ensure that public service workers have a better understanding of the benefits that they have accumulated to date and what they stand to receive if they continue working until their normal retirement age.

We had a very healthy debate on this matter in Committee, where the exchange of views did not follow the usual to-ing and fro-ing of partisan speechmaking. A number of Members agreed that it would be very healthy if we improved the information and transparency for employees to enable them to make more informed decisions in planning for their savings and their financial future. For example, members of the schemes would be better able to judge whether they were saving enough for their retirement. The new clause is therefore compatible with the aim of reducing people’s need for state benefits in retirement—something that many Members across the House want to achieve.

When we tabled a similar amendment in Committee, it gained quite a degree of vocal support. The hon. Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who are in the Chamber today, helpfully pressed the Minister to resist his usual logic, which says in big block capital letters, “This is an Opposition amendment; thou shalt resist this devious device by Labour Members to do something nasty in the legislation.” That was not our intention. We actually wanted to implement Lord Hutton’s recommendation and bring defined benefit schemes into the modern age, especially in respect of communicating more regularly and effectively with scheme members. I live in hope that those hon. Gentlemen will chip in and offer their support again, because surely the goal of improving people’s understanding of their pension and helping them to plan more effectively for their retirement should find favour on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making an important argument in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). It is not just that the Bill includes certain things that advantage employers; the measures are principally to the advantage of the Treasury, which is given the whip hand and ultimate say over schemes that should be run by their members and managers accountable to them.

My hon. Friend quoted the Economic Secretary in Committee. When the Minister rises to his feet, is it not important that he explain the discrepancy between what he said in Committee and what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said to this House in December last year? He said:

“Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1203.]

There is a big difference between those two statements and the Economic Secretary needs to explain himself on that point.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) replies, let me say that although I have indulged the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on this occasion I hope he will not repeat such a long intervention. I do not want him to induce the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) into following bad habits. That would be a very undesirable state of affairs.

[Chris Leslie]

It may be a bad habit but it was a jolly good intervention. I do not often do this, but I commend my right hon. Friend for quoting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. What is the difference between the Chief Secretary and the Economic Secretary? Well, one is a Liberal Democrat and the other a Conservative. However, my right hon. Friend should take that with a pinch of salt, as I too have a quote from the Chief Secretary, who said that

“establishing a relationship of trust and confidence between the Government and public service workers is critical to the success of these reforms.”

How long will this coalition Government persist? What we need is not just a commitment from a Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury whose parliamentary and ministerial career might not endure. We need to know what would happen should there be the dreadful set of circumstances of a Conservative majority Administration. Would a promise on the new fair deal, given only verbally by Ministers, endure in such circumstances?

Given the Minister’s trajectory and career momentum, I want to hear a commitment from him to the new fair deal on behalf of the Conservative party. That might mean something, although I would still prefer to see it in the Bill. It would be invidious for the Government to speak against new clause 3, let alone vote against it if we decided to test the opinion of the House. I am conscious of the time so I will move on.

Amendment 11 relates to issues of local government workers in Scotland and would exclude the Scottish local government pension scheme from the Bill, unless agreed to by the Scottish Parliament. Primary legislation on public service pension schemes has always been reserved to the UK Parliament. Scottish Ministers have had responsibility for regulations for public service schemes but those have been subject to Treasury approval and have tended to mirror arrangements for England and Wales. The exception is the Scottish local government pension scheme, which is a funded scheme that has not been subject to Treasury approval in the past. The Bill extends certain prescriptions to the design of the Scottish local government pension scheme that, in practice, have previously been left to Scottish Ministers to negotiate and decide—most importantly, they negotiated and decided on normal pension age; that benefits should be based on career-average revalued earnings and not final salary; on the cost cap, as it is known; and on rules for governance and fund valuations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 5, line 21, after ‘age’, insert ‘or deferred pension age’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, page 5, line 21,after ‘section 1’, insert

‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.

Amendment 2, page 5, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

‘65, or current pension scheme age if lower’.

Amendment 1, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

‘(d) prison officers and psychiatric nurses.’.

Amendment 14, page 5, line 28, after ‘age’, insert ‘or deferred pension age’.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 28, after ‘section 1’, insert

‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.

Amendment 9, page 5, line 28, leave out ‘must be 60’ and insert ‘shall be set out in scheme regulations but must be no more than 60’.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply in relation to any category of public service worker as the Secretary of State may by order specify following the publication of a scheme specific capability review.’.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 31, page 5, line 30, after ‘section 1’, insert

‘(other than a Scottish scheme)’.

Amendment 33, in clause 33, page 19, line 25, clause 33, at end insert—

‘“Scottish scheme” means a scheme for the payment of pensions to persons specified in paragraphs (c) to (g) of section 1(2) in respect of service in Scotland;’.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I do not quite understand why the Minister is reluctant to be straight with the House on the facts, particularly given the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any Minister would be anything other than straight. He may want to deploy another word with reference to dealings with the House.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. Perhaps it was inadvertent—I would not in any way wish to imply that the Minister was deliberately obfuscating on the facts. I wanted to pick up on a specific question. As I understand it, public sector borrowing in the first six-month period of the last financial year was £62.4 billion. It was £65.1 billion in the first six months of this financial year, so will he confirm that that is £2.6 billion higher, that borrowing has risen, and that the deficit has gone up?

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why the Government do not get it. They need a negotiating strategy to get the best deal for the taxpayer. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, and the Chancellor is next to him puppeting him along in his hilarity, but I say to the Chancellor that this is an incredibly serious issue. It is about taxpayers’ money, and incredibly large sums of it at that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Zahawi, I am sure that in your own way you mean well, but you are far too excitable. It is no good looking up and around, and at places outside the Chamber, and waving your hands in a bizarre manner. What you need to do is calm down. It will be good for you, good for the House and good for Stratford-on-Avon.

[Chris Leslie]

I am sure there is some Shakespearian reference about being calm in negotiations, and calm, persuasive diplomacy is the strategy that we need today.

Northern Rock

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for inadvertently demoting him. I had been advised that this statement was to be made by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, but I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a still more senior man, serving the Government as Financial Secretary.

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

The Chancellor might have chosen to make this announcement when Parliament was in recess, but he really ought to have been here today—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just say this, once and for all, to the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma): sit there silently, please, doing your duty. If you feel unable to do so, you have a very simple alternative, which is to leave the Chamber.

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was simply making the point that the Chancellor ought to have been here today because there are so many questions to answer about this deal. Obviously it is right that Northern Rock should be leaving public ownership, just as it was right to take it into public ownership in 2008 to avoid a catastrophe, but the decision to sell at this time and in this manner raises some very serious questions. Will the Minister confirm the net loss to the taxpayer from the sale, and that the proceeds will be used in their entirety to pay down the national debt?

On the sale’s timing, I read in the papers, and the Minister said again today, how the Government are blaming Europe and Labour—I am surprised that they have not blamed the civil service yet. These are weak excuses that just will not wash. He should start taking responsibility for some of his own decisions, and he should be doing what is right for the British taxpayer, not hiding behind EU rules. If he felt constrained by the EU requirement to sell by the end of 2013—let us remember that it is still only 2011—why did the Government not try to change that? If he is now suggesting that it was a bad deal for the taxpayer and that he would rather have waited, why did he not ask the European Commission for an extension? With the economy flat-lining, bank shares in decline and a deepening crisis in the eurozone, he could easily have made the case that circumstances had changed. Or does this fire sale suggest that they think that conditions will get even worse?

The Government have a duty to ensure that the deal is good for taxpayers, the economy, the new company and its customers and staff, so why is he scared to issue an initial public offering for Northern Rock? With about £700 million of excess equity on its balance sheets, why on earth is he selling it privately for 66p in the pound? Contrary to the headlines, this deal is funded not principally by Richard Branson, but rather with £250 million from US financier Wilbur Ross, a stake from an Abu Dhabi sovereign fund and—wait for it— £250 million of Northern Rock’s own money, using its existing capital assets in a complex financial swap deal. Is the Minister not a little troubled that the company’s assets are being stripped even before it changes ownership?

What is Northern Rock’s current core tier 1 capital position, and what does the Treasury anticipate it will be in three years? We know that the Financial Services Authority has voiced its anxieties about such a substantial removal of capital. What safeguards will it be given if these capital buffers are to be thinned out so dramatically? The Financial Times reports that Wilbur Ross has paid about 80% of the book value for Northern Rock, yet he is quoted as saying that he would have

“to sell out a few years down the road for 1.5 times book value.”

That is 150%. Is the Minister comfortable with the news that the Government have sold to an individual actively planning to dispose of the bank quickly and nearly double his money? Does that not indicate that the Treasury might be selling prematurely and at the wrong price?

I am amazed that the Minister has agreed to underwrite a further £150 million of the buyers’ payments? I have heard of vendor financing, but agreeing to accept £150 million of debt so deeply subordinated as to be basically unsellable takes the biscuit. Is it not possible that the subsidy will be regarded as further state aid, and is he presumably seeking EU Commission approval for that? Will he at least guarantee that the Treasury will receive a payment every year on that £150 million, and that we will get it all back by the end of this Parliament?

The coalition agreement promised to promote mutuals and financial services, yet no apparent consideration was given to the mutualisation of Northern Rock. Why did Ministers not try harder to develop that option? Will the Minister publish the analysis on the basis of which they dismissed a member buy-out? The concerns about the decision to run down £250 million of Northern Rock’s capital reserves are not just an issue for the taxpayer; they also reduce Northern Rock and Virgin Money’s ability to provide significant credit in a market crying out for mortgage finance. Despite the new owners’ reported assurances, there are no contractual guarantees that branches or jobs will be retained. Savers in Northern Rock will also need reassurance that their new bank’s depleted capital reserves will not bring repeated anxieties if another banking crisis occurs.

The Chancellor opposed the original decision to rescue Northern Rock, saying:

“I am not in favour of nationalisation, full stop.”—[Official Report, 19 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 186.]

Is this not a golden opportunity for him to hold up his hands and admit that he made a mistake, and do not the growing question marks lingering over this giveaway deal also suggest that his judgment is as wrong now as it was then?

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 13, page 42, line 30, at end insert—

‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the possibility of incorporating a bank payroll tax within the bank levy and publish a report, within six months of the passing of this Act, on how the additional revenue raised would be invested to create new jobs and tackle unemployment.’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 31, page 42, line 30, at end insert—

‘(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the possibility of incorporating a bank financial transaction tax within the bank levy, levied on trading in financial products including stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, futures and options and publish a report within six months of the passing of this Act, on how the additional revenue raised would be invested to tackle unemployment and reduce poverty in the United Kingdom and to assist in tackling deprivation in the developing world.’.

Government amendments 32 to 50.

[Chris Leslie]

We now come to our general debate on taxation in respect of the Finance Bill. Clearly, one of the major omissions from the Bill is a repeat of the bank payroll levy or bonus tax that the previous Labour Administration implemented in 2009. It is not only a matter of fairness that bankers should pay some of their substantial bonuses to support people far less fortunate than them and to rebuild public trust; it makes economic sense too. I hope that our amendment 13 will persuade the Government of the merits of a review of how the bank bonus arrangement could be incorporated into the bank levy. A fair tax on bank bonuses would help to get people off the dole and into work, and it is the best way to get the deficit down and stop Britain’s talent going to waste.

Youth unemployment rose sharply in the recession, as we know, but a year ago it was starting to fall steadily thanks in part to the youth jobs programme and the future jobs fund advocated by the previous Administration. One of the first things that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer did was to scrap that successful programme. Before the election the leader of the Liberal Democrats, now the Deputy Prime Minister, said:

“Parents used to worry about whether their children could get onto the housing ladder, now the concern has spread to whether they can even get a job…We must provide a lifeboat to this lost generation.”

Well, he and the Prime Minister have sunk that lifeboat.

In the 1980s, youth unemployment continued to rise for four years after the recession was over, and whole communities were scarred as a result. Many of the effects can still be seen and felt in places across the country. That is why we believe we need to act urgently to prevent disastrous mistakes from being repeated. There are now 31,000 more young people unemployed than there were last summer, and one in five 16 to 24-year-olds is now out of work. Although there has been a welcome fall in unemployment in the past two months, the claimant count is still rising, vacancies are down and job creation has slowed in the six months since the spending review. Unemployment is set to be 200,000 higher over the coming years than was expected just a few months ago, and the Office for Budget Responsibility keeps revising the figure upwards, just as it keeps revising the growth figures downwards.

We believe that a repeat of the bank bonus tax could be used to create more than 100,000 jobs, build 25,000 affordable homes, rescue construction apprenticeships and of course boost investment in businesses. Putting young people on the dole is not just a waste of talent but a waste of money, and failing to get Britain back to work fast enough is helping to push the benefits bill and welfare costs up by more than £12 billion, or more than £500 a household. It is not rocket science—more young people out of work means more money spent on benefits and less money coming in through tax receipts to pay down the deficit.

Considering how the future jobs fund and the bank bonus levy worked, we believe that sufficient revenue could be raised to invest the money in creating 90,000 good jobs to get young people into work and ensure that we do not make the mistakes of the past. It could also be used to build 25,000 homes to support people as they get back to work. Our plan could generate more than 20,000 jobs in that sector and save several times more jobs in the supply chain and as many as 1,500 construction apprenticeships. That would leave sufficient resources to boost the regional growth fund by £200 million, to support companies that want to start projects that will create more jobs, meaning more help for small businesses in regions up and down our country.

Our amendment is pretty straightforward and, I hope, fairly unobjectionable. It asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the possibility of incorporating a bank payroll tax within the bank levy, and to publish within six months of the passing of the Finance Bill a report on how the additional revenue would be used.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

‘(d) the Treasury’s objectives in relation to economic policy and policy for the advancement of jobs and growth in the UK economy.

(e) the means by which the Treasury’s objectives in relation to economic policy will be attained (“the growth mandate”).’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 20, at end insert

‘and the impact of Treasury policy on jobs and economic growth’.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

‘(c) an assessment of the extent to which the growth mandate has been, or is likely to be, achieved and the impact on employment and economic growth within all regions and nations of the United Kingdom.’.

[Chris Leslie]

It is fitting that we are discussing the Bill the day before the Budget. I understand that there are particular reasons, which the Minister will no doubt explain to the House, why the Bill needs to receive Royal Assent this evening, before we reach Budget day, so I am conscious that the ministerial clock is ticking. I pay tribute to the Public Bill Committee, whose members scrutinised the Bill in what I regard as sufficient detail.

Essentially, the first half of the Bill sets out the establishment of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the second half makes a series of changes to the National Audit Office governance arrangements. It is fair to say that the Committee spent less time on the second half of the Bill, as the House had previously scrutinised many of those measures, but for various reasons that legislation was not included in the wash-up before the last general election. Most of our attention today will focus on the OBR.

Clause 1 relates not specifically to the OBR, but to the creation of a charter for budget responsibility. As we know, the Government have their reasons and rationale for making this set of legislative proposals. It was notable in Committee that Members were quizzical about why the charter for budget responsibility has been quite narrowly defined and why the OBR’s duties are similarly quite controlled and slimline. My view is that any realistic definition of budget responsibility must take account of the impact on jobs and growth of the wider economy and Treasury decisions on fiscal policy, particularly in the current context.

We know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is currently grappling to acquire a growth strategy, some of which might have been left on a number of photocopiers around the building before Treasury questions, although I have not been party to the memo that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor picked up—I will try to get hold of him later to see what was in it. Clearly, the real economy has clashed with the Government’s plan A, which they have refused to depart from, which meant that in the fourth quarter of 2010, as GDP figures show, the economy went into reverse and shrank. The Chancellor blames the wrong kind of snow, but evidently the Government’s approach to fiscal policy has created circumstances that have not only put the brakes on economic growth, but unfortunately seem to have put it into reverse.

When we debated clauses 1 and 4 in Committee, Members felt that it was important to try to challenge the notion that we should somehow have an Office for Budget Responsibility that confines itself to fiscal, deficit and debt issues, to the exclusion of other equally important indices drawn from the wider economy.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, during the urgent question, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave the incorrect impression that Labour Members of the European Parliament supported an increase in the European Union budget. Is it in order for the Financial Secretary to be asked to come to the House to correct his mistake, given that Labour MEPs most certainly did not vote in favour of an increase in the EU budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) made clear yesterday?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of debate and not a point of order, as I think the hon. Gentleman well knows. He has placed his concern firmly and fairly on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Leslie and John Bercow

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Has the Secretary of State also done a U-turn on his views of Sir Philip Green, who gave advice about non-departmental public bodies? Once upon a time he said, talking about Sir Philip Green, that he had

“no time for billionaire tax dodgers who step off the plane from their tax havens…and have the effrontery to tell us how to…run our tax policies”.

Has he changed his mind on that as well?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not need a character assessment of Sir Philip Green, what we require is comments on the subject matter of the question. The Secretary of State is welcome to volunteer them, otherwise we will move on.