Prevention of Nuclear Proliferation

Debate between John Baron and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. As anyone listening to it will have recognised, there is a range of views about Iran and how the UK should engage with it, but there is also the common strand that everyone expressed—our concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and how we seek to tackle that.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), I say that we all want to see a diplomatic solution, but we need a process whereby there is not only engagement but pressure on the Iranian Government. At the moment, unfortunately, there are no signs to suggest that the Iranians are interested in meaningful and serious negotiations on the key issue of their nuclear programme, and it does take two parties to engage. The E3 plus 3 has been trying to negotiate with Iran, and it is not that group’s fault that the negotiations have not yet succeeded. It is Iran that needs to engage in serious negotiations.

Let me reflect on some of the comments that have been made. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who are co-chairmen of the all-party group on Iran and are currently at one of its meetings, asked about support for the action that the Government have taken and why we did not act in concert with EU member states. It is worth highlighting two points in that regard. We have undertaken a significant programme of lobbying internationally and continue to do so. As I said earlier, the US and Canada acted alongside us in imposing the sanctions on 21 November. However, there is a balance to be struck. Clearly, we want to encourage as many people as possible to join with us to impose these sanctions, yet at the same time there is a real sense of urgency on this issue. The risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon becomes more serious as time passes, as was highlighted in stark terms by the IAEA report. We consider it imperative to act now and to encourage others to follow.

[Mr Baron]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I want to make progress and conclude fairly promptly because there is a time limit on this debate.

We will engage with our European counterparts at the Council meeting next month. As I said, President Sarkozy wrote to us supporting moves for financial sanctions but also suggesting broadening them to the import of oil.

Let me turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I have dealt with his first point about putting pressure on other countries to act. His second point was about whether the UK will use significant fines to promote enforcement. As I said earlier, the civil and criminal penalties for breaching these restrictions enable the authorities to levy unrestricted fines. In the context of the civil sanction, for example, the fine should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. I believe that the authorities take this matter seriously and will act proportionately to that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about exemptions, which relate to the licensing process that we have talked about in other situations. Some general licences are in place to deal with transactions that are already in progress. People can also apply for specific licences. Fifteen specific licences have been applied for; one has been granted and 14 are in the process of being considered. This is an ongoing process. I hope that that also addresses the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North.

We are committed to reporting regularly to Parliament. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 says that we should report as soon as possible after the calendar year in which the actions have been taken. We will endeavour to do so, and we will keep the House informed about the progress that is made.

Everyone across the House recognises the dangers that attach to nuclear proliferation. This is a process of negotiation and diplomatic engagement. We need the other party to engage in that diplomacy, too, but we should not be afraid of applying pressure to the Iranian regime where we think that that is appropriate and proportionate and will help to further our objective of keeping the world a safer place. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 2775), dated 21 November 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 November, be approved.

Eurozone Crisis

Debate between John Baron and Mark Hoban

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate.

Let me be absolutely clear: it is in our vital national interest that eurozone states reach a coherent, comprehensive and lasting solution. First and foremost, they must implement the agreement reached towards the end of October, which involves a three-pronged strategy to recapitalise the European banks, resolve the situation regarding Greek debt and reinforce the EFSF to create a firewall between Greece and other vulnerable euro area countries. The new Governments in Greece and Italy need to show that they can implement the tough measures required to deal with their debts and make their economies more competitive. Uncertainty in the eurozone is undermining not just their economies, but ours. A return to stability in the eurozone will benefit our economy, whereas continued uncertainty will harm it. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) made that point.

We have a clear interest in greater certainty in the eurozone, but at no point have we committed, or will we commit, any British taxpayers’ money to a special purpose vehicle, or through the EFSF or the ESM, either directly or through the EU budget.

[Mr Baron]

If I may be so bold, the Financial Secretary is coming up with the economic clap-trap that we must all save the euro. Does he accept that binding divergent economies into a single currency without fiscal union was and remains a massive mistake? It is as simple as that. The world will not fall apart if the euro breaks up, and countries such as Norway and Switzerland have proved that by trading with the eurozone using their own currencies.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why we did not join the euro in the first place. The remorseless logic of monetary union, as he said in his speech, is fiscal union. Fiscal union is necessary for monetary union to work. That is what we are seeing throughout the globe, and that is why we said that eurozone members must make greater progress towards fiscal union.

[Mr Baron]

If the Financial Secretary accepts the logic about the deficiency of the euro, are the Government joining in the chorus that we must all come together and save the euro?

[Mr Hoban]

As I have said, uncertainty and problems in the eurozone have a damaging impact on the UK economy and have a chain effect on what is happening here in the UK. It is not in our economic interest for that to continue. Just last week, John Cridland, director-general of the CBI, commented on the negative impact that the problems in the eurozone are having on the UK economy. We are an open economy and our European partners are our largest trading partner, so it is in our interest to ensure that the eurozone works. That will be of huge benefit to the UK economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

(Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I would like to make some progress. Let me address UK commitments through the IMF, which is the centrepiece of this debate. In a carefully worded statement, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) covered Labour’s retreat on its IMF policy. He was bravely leading his troops through the No Lobby in July without the support of the architects of the G20 London deal. The former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor were not there. What has happened? Last week, his boss, the shadow Chancellor, cut his legs from under him by saying that

“the Labour party supports an increase in the UK’s International Monetary Fund subscription”.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is in a position to lecture anyone about consistency and principle.

As a founding and permanent member of the IMF, and as one of its largest shareholders, we continue to be a strong supporter of its role as a global backstop to the world economy. Currently, 53 countries are being supported by the IMF, of which only three—Greece, Ireland and Portugal—are in the euro area.

[Mr Baron]

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

[Mr Hoban]

Let me continue. As a founding member of the IMF, we recognise its important role in stabilising the global economy in times such as this. That is why we participated on the nine previous occasions when its quota was increased. In these turbulent times, it is essential for confidence and economic stability that the IMF has the necessary resources, and there may well be a case for further increases. At the G20 two weekends ago, Britain, the US, China and all the other countries round the table made it clear that in principle we are willing to have an increase in IMF resources to boost global confidence. We stand ready to contribute within limits agreed by the House and set out in the International Monetary Fund Act 1979. That limit, denominated in the IMF’s units of account—special drawing rights—stands at 38.8 billion SDRs, or about £38.3 billion pounds.

Let me remind the House that no one who has lent money to the IMF has ever lost that money. The money goes directly to the IMF and not to individual countries. It is one of the most creditworthy institutions in the world, and its loans are afforded preferred creditor status, which means that they are first in line to be repaid, even if not all other creditors are paid. Consequently, no country has ever lost money as a consequence of lending to it.

There has been no agreement about the timing, extent or exact method through which IMF resources will be increased, but an immediate need is to implement existing plans to increase its resources. Let me make clear how IMF resources will be used. Any increase must be available to all its members and not reserved for use only by the euro area. There can be no hypothecation, and money is lent to the IMF, not to specific countries.

The use of IMF resources is linked to the question of the need for economic reform. All hon. Members recognise the need for the euro area to reach a comprehensive resolution to the crisis, and clearly it is for the euro area to resolve that crisis. That resolution cannot be simply through recapitalisation of banks, the creation of a euro area bail-out fund or resolving the problems in Greece.

[Mr Baron]

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

[Mr Hoban]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will be patient. There are areas where the eurozone needs to tackle its competitiveness to respond to those issues. There is the question whether IMF money is conditional on structural reform to improve competitiveness. The answer is yes, because conditions are built into IMF programmes to ensure that competitiveness changes take place. Portugal, for example, has an extensive programme of privatisation, and the Portuguese Government’s right to be involved in private companies must be abolished. In Ireland, legislation has been passed to increase the state pension age to provide a significant boost to long-term fiscal stability. In Greece, the Government are discussing breaking the link between the national minimum wage and the annual inflation rate, and market reform is being promoted to allow businesses to set wages independently of collective agreements.

[Mr Hoban]

Let me continue. I have only three minutes left, and I want to ensure that I address as many of my hon. Friends’ questions as possible.

We are seeing structural reform to improve the competitiveness of economies hand in hand with IMF programmes. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends that reform is taking place in those countries to ensure that they meet their international obligations.

[Mr Baron]

Returning to a previous point, I suggest that the reason why the eurozone crisis is causing a bit of a problem over here is that existing policy is making the situation worse. Denying devaluation is forcing greater austerity packages on populations that are already trying to pare down their debt. That is the problem that the Government do not see.

May I take my hon. Friend back to devaluation? The Government make great play of the fact that only three of the 53 packages go to the eurozone. Can he name one programme outside the eurozone where a country cannot devalue?

Eurozone Crisis

Debate between John Baron and Mark Hoban

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

We all recognise that difficult decisions are involved in the tackling of fiscal deficits, and those decisions must be made. It is owing to this Government’s actions that our interest rates are similar to those of Germany, while our deficit is at the same level as that of Greece.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

May I suggest that my hon. Friend should not listen too closely to what is said by Labour Members, given that this crisis is about debt, and given that the last Labour Government more than doubled the national debt? [Interruption.] Yes, they did.

Having said that, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the set of measures put together by the euro leaders are nothing more than a sticking plaster? They do not address the central cause of the problem, which is a lack of competitiveness. If countries cannot pay their way, this issue will come back to haunt them.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need fiscal entrenchment across the eurozone to take place in the same way as we are tackling a fiscal deficit here in the United Kingdom. However, we also need measures, in Europe and elsewhere, to promote growth. That is one of the key areas in which the Prime Minister has been influential, shaping a debate in Europe and persuading European leaders to recommit themselves to improving measures to promote growth and bring about the recovery that the eurozone economy needs.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Debate between John Baron and Mark Hoban

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I do not agree with that point. There is a clear principle: the basis on which people were investing in Equitable Life. At that point, no one knew about the maladministration.

We should also bear in mind the issue of practicality and the lack of information available to Equitable Life’s policyholders. Hon. Members should reflect on the fact that no one would have made investment decisions based on anything that happened prior to 1992 until that information was in the public domain. That is why the group has been excluded from the calculation of relative loss.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. No one suggests that the situation is not difficult, but whether or not one was aware of maladministration, and whether or not it existed pre ’92, surely the central point is that annuitants who took out a policy pre ’92 suffered relative loss post ’92, courtesy of maladministration. To return to an earlier point, perhaps there is a moral duty to include such people in the compensation, as I believe that the parliamentary ombudsman suggested.

[Mr Hoban]

The parliamentary ombudsman’s findings were clear: she said that the maladministration started in 1991, but that it would not have been obvious to policyholders until September 1992.

Let me deal with two issues that hon. Members should have take into account in assessing the point. First, as has been mentioned, there are challenges around getting information for the pre ’92 period. Secondly, there is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North about the timing of losses. We recognise that pre ’92 with-profits annuitants were affected by how Equitable Life was run. Sir John Chadwick and Towers Watson looked into what those WPAs would have received from Equitable Life had there been no maladministration. They concluded that they received more from Equitable Life as a result of maladministration than they would have done had it been properly regulated. That was because Equitable Life paid out more to them in the early years than it would have done had there been no maladministration. Let me give an example to prove that.

If a with-profits annuitant had purchased their policy in 1989 and gained through that purchase an income of £7,200, by 1993 the policyholder would have been receiving an annuity of approximately £10,000 per annum. Part of that sum was a result of the bonuses that had been declared on the policy since commencement. It is recognised that Equitable Life was paying higher bonuses than it could afford during the late 1980s and early 1990s. If Equitable Life had not been over-bonusing during that period, Towers Watson has calculated that the policyholder would have received only £9,500 per year. It is a consequence of the maladministration that the policyholder is receiving £500 more than he or she should have during that period.

Equitable Life continued to overpay bonuses throughout most of the 1990s. As a result, by 2002 that policyholder was receiving £17,000 per annum. If the over-bonusing had not taken place, the policyholder would have received only £15,800, so he or she was still receiving more as a consequence of maladministration.

In 2003, Equitable Life cut the rate of annuity payments to its with-profits policyholders by about 20%. In the absence of maladministration, the value of payments to with-profits policyholders would also have been cut, although, owing to market performance, by only 18%. After the cuts in 2003, our example policyholder was receiving £12,900 per year from Equitable Life. Had there been no maladministration, he or she would have been receiving only £12,300. I hope that that example has helped to clarify the consequences of maladministration, namely that even after the cuts in 2003 policyholders are still receiving more than they would have if Equitable Life had been properly regulated. For a range of reasons, their plight is not as it has been represented.

The first question to be asked, then, is “When did maladministration affect policyholders and the decisions that were made?” The second relates to the practicality of extracting data pre-1992, which is well established and has been well aired in the Chadwick report and elsewhere; and the third concerns the consequence of maladministration in Equitable Life, which is that with-profits annuitants are receiving more over the lifetime of their policy than they would have received if that maladministration had not taken place.