Finance Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Is it not a fact that 4.4 million pensioners will lose roughly £83 a year from next year, and that people who turn 65 next year could lose up to £322 a year? That implies that it is disingenuous to suggest that people are not losing out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. “Disingenuous” is not a word that we should use. I know that it is meant to be an appropriate term, but it is not the sort of parliamentary language that we accept. I am sure that we will not be using it again.

[Barry Gardiner]

I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Dover, if that is unparliamentary language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. In fairness, Mr Gardiner, you said that you did not think that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)was disingenuous. We were all right up to that point.

[Barry Gardiner]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I absolutely recognise the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) laid before the House, and of course I think that they are accurate. He is right to say that we are talking about a cut—a cut in what people were, with legitimacy, expecting. That is the point. It was legitimate for somebody coming up to pensionable age to expect that their retirement could be based on the figures that they were using. They had a promise from the Prime Minister that that would be the case. That promise was not honoured, and they have experienced real hardship as a result.

I want to focus on one other aspect of the debate: people’s behaviour at different rates of taxation. Let me be clear that I do not, in principle, want a 50p rate of tax to continue in place in perpetuity. Indeed, the Labour party does not want that, as was made very clear when my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), as Chancellor, introduced the tax before the 2010 election. He made it quite clear that we felt it was necessary in the short term, but would ultimately wish to get rid of it. There is no desire on the Labour Benches to see a 50p tax rate imposed for ever more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the way in which wages have broadly stagnated. We are now seeing wages going down and jobs being lost, and we are back in recession. He should look at the promises of his Government in that first Budget. The promises, commitments and assertions were that the measures in it would pull us out of the problems that we were in and get the economy back on track. They would deliver growth and prosperity, but they have not. He will remember, because he is an honest fellow, to use his word, that at the time, on the Opposition Benches, people were saying, “No, this will lead to a double-dip recession.” All those on the Government Benches told us in unison that we were wrong and that the Budget would pull us through the problems.

The electorate look at that, see the analysis, see what steps were taken and ask, “Who was right?” They know, because we are back in double-dip recession, that the Government got it wrong. We are at a point where there is £150 billion extra borrowing, the largest single increase year on year in the UK’s history.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is painting the big picture, but we need to come back to the relevance of income tax. We have discussed personal allowances. I know he will come back to the point.

[Barry Gardiner]

I accept your ruling, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right. We have strayed wide of the initial focus of the amendment. It was not my intention. All I can say in mitigation is that I was led down the path by the interventions that I took.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need to worry about Take That and radios for today. I think that the circus has carried on long enough.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It has to be said that I am not the world’s greatest expert on pop stars and footballers, but none the less I think they bring a richness to our national life that enlivens many people in my constituency, and even in Scotland. They want to watch the highest quality football being played.

This is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, in case you think I am going off on a tangent. I have thought that it would be a good idea to remove the limit on overseas players in cricket, because that limit has been removed in association football and it has led to our having in this country the highest quality league football, and in English cricket—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting away from the topic under discussion—and as somebody who follows cricket and feels that it is to the benefit of the England team that there are not too many overseas players in the county game, I do not want to go any further into this debate.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the reduction of tax is what encourages them to be here and why they do not decide to work in other countries instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is worth answering that one first.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am getting so many interventions, and I am always happy to take them all; allcomers are welcome. I do not think that there is this anger; I think that people are very supportive of high earners who earn their money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of moving off the topic. We are discussing personal allowances and we need to get back to them. We have had a good lesson in the Jurassic history from those on both sides of the Chamber.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One always feels ashamed not to answer a question directly, so I apologise to the hon. Lady for the fact that I shall have to give a later answer on that knotty point of value added tax.

I will stick with the Laffer curve and its history of increased revenue. We heard from the Opposition that when rates went down, the economy boomed and so, therefore, did the revenues raised. There are two answers to that. One reason that the economy boomed was that there was lower tax, so people had more of their own money in their pockets to spend on goods and services, leading to overall economic growth. Secondly, the amount paid by top taxpayers grew much faster than the rate of the economy overall. We are now in a situation where 27% of income tax is now paid by the top 1% of income tax payers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I will have to bring the Back-Bench speeches to an end at 19 minutes past, so there are three minutes left.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly support the brilliant speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). There are clearly qualms on the Conservative Benches about this disastrous policy.

I had the privilege of being at the TUC general council 37 years ago as a staff member when the original policy was approved by the TUC general council. At that time, we had the social contract between the TUC and the Labour Government, which I think was a brilliant success. Harry Urwin, the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, argued the case against some trade unionists who were concerned about a tax allowance, which would tend to go to male workers, being given through a universal benefit largely to women for their children. It was a massively progressive policy and was the right thing to do. It was in line with the principles of universality established by Beveridge and many brilliant social scientists and theorists later on, such as Richard Titmuss. It was of enormous benefit to families and children.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), my nextdoor neighbour, talked about punishing children for the sins of their parents. If their parents, by accident or design, have large families, it is not the fault of the children. The money goes to the children, not to the parents. To punish the children for what their parents have done, by accident or design, is completely wrong.

The principle of universality is rightly carried through in the basic state pension, the winter fuel allowance and a number of other things. If we want to redistribute income, we do it through the taxation system, not with means-tested benefits. We talk about trying to get people back into work. If they receive means-tested benefits, they lose them when they get back into work. Sometimes it is cheaper to stay at home and claim benefits than to go to work. Universal benefits do not have that problem, because everything else comes as extra.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is right, our amendments are right and I hope that the House will carry them.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of Members want to speak and I want to get everybody in, but we need brevity in both questions and answers.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

This ruling surely confirms that the financial markets, as many of us suspected, have been neither free nor fair, but rather a sewer of systemically amoral dishonesty. Is not the case for separation of retail banking from merchant banking now so overwhelming as to be unanswerable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman voted for 13 years for a Government who failed this country. We are changing the regulation, changing the structure of banking—[Interruption.] and we are dealing with this latest abuse— [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have heard the question. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to listen to the answer, even if he does not like it. There is no need to get so excited—

[Clive Efford]

Plenty of people out there are excited.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman questioning me?

[Clive Efford]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Green Economy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am going to have to introduce a time limit, but let us see how we go. If Members try not to use this much time, I shall start off the limit at eight minutes, but I may have to reduce it. How is that?

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who serves with distinction on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, on bringing the debate to the Commons this afternoon, and I note that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is in her place, because if we really are going to make progress on this most important issue, we will do so only if the Treasury puts the whole issue at the core of its policy making.

It has always seemed to me perverse that we have a Green Book that is anything but green, so the time has come to ensure that the Treasury’s guidance on the national infrastructure programme, in particular, guarantees that every single policy is appraised and joined-up in taking further forward the agenda of securing more renewable energy and more energy efficiency.

I shall try very much to comply with the limit on speakers—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The limit is eight minutes, and we will not go beyond that, so if we can please keep to it that will be much more helpful. I do not want to have to use a big stick, as I want to get everybody in.

[Joan Walley]

I, too, want everybody in the Chamber to get into the debate.

Let me bring to the attention of the House the two reports that the Environmental Audit Committee has produced, and which for the benefit of Members we have tagged on the Order Paper: the Committee’s twelfth report on “A Green Economy” and its sixth report on “Budget 2011 and Environmental Taxes”, which shows how we have examined the Treasury’s role in the matter.

We intended the two reports to be a starting point and an overarching basis on which the discussions that now need to take place throughout business, local government, the private sector and international development might be brought together, so that our policies—including what we do, and how we keep scrutinising what happens, in Parliament—can be tied to that agenda. We found that two years after making the commitment to increase the proportion of tax revenues accounted for by environmental taxes, the Government still have no strategy for achieving this commitment. In addition, they have not published their definition of an environmental tax. In our further follow-up inquiries, we will do what we can to obtain that definition and to scrutinise what is happening so that we get some real progress.

A further relevant aspect is the Rio+20 summit that took place last week. Its outcome was extremely disappointing given the lack of a highly ambitious outcome and follow-up action plan. However, all the different parties who were there, from business people, to legislators, to parliamentarians, to members of civil society were in absolute agreement that if the high-level leaders cannot come up with significant outcomes, everybody else has to raise their game. So it is with our Parliaments. I urge the Economic Secretary to demonstrate that she understands this issue by saying what she is doing through Treasury policy and in making sure in Cabinet meetings that there is a joined-up approach towards environmental taxes.

I want to raise issues relating to my own constituency, because we will not deal with this situation nationally or internationally unless we can deal with it locally as well. It is a matter of great concern to me that a large number of people in Stoke-on-Trent are living in fuel poverty. Indeed, of the 40,678 households in Stoke-on-Trent North, 10,120 are in fuel poverty, which is absolutely outrageous. It is a rate of 24.9%, which compares with the UK average of 18.6%—and even that is shocking. If ever there was a reason we should be getting support from the Treasury to address these environmental issues, it is that. We have a commitment to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016, and we will not achieve that unless we scale up everything that is done and look at how revenues can be reinvested so that whole communities see the importance of moving towards the renewables future that is so urgently needed.

I say this as someone who represents a constituency where the industrial revolution started because of our reliance on carbon.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Because so many Members wish to speak, the time limit on contributions will now fall to seven minutes.

Financial Services Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

The amendment does not make the Government do anything, because clause 47 states that the

“Treasury may by order amend the legislation”.

If the Treasury does not want to do so, it does not have to do so. The amendment does not hold the Government to account. No wonder you are failing as an Opposition; your amendments are badly drafted.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not failing as an opposition, so I do not think that is parliamentary.

[John Healey]

I have not seen the hon. Gentleman’s amendments to make the measure not permissive, but a requirement of the Government—Mr Speaker must not have selected it. Clearly, anything in statute would be a significant step forward, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, has argued. Those on both sides of the House who have an interest could use a permissive measure in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier and interventions are meant to be short, not to be another speech.

[Mr Hoban]

Consolidating something like 18 pieces of legislation is not a simple task. It needs to be done properly and well, and we would need to do it in conjunction with the co-operative movement, as well as with the Law Commission. Other pieces of legislation need to be implemented before the introduction of the consolidation Bill. It represents an important step forward, which is why it has been welcomed by people like Ed Mayo as a way of making it easier to set up mutuals in the future.

In the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking, we committed to assess whether the Building Societies Act 1986 should be updated in line with the reforms to the wider banking sector. We want to work with building societies to identify the barriers to their growth. We will shortly publish a paper, alongside the White Paper on ICB implementation, as a consequence of that work, to identify where the Building Societies Act 1986 needs to be amended to enable building societies to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there.

I believe that this Government have demonstrated a clear commitment to promote mutuality and to diversify the mutual sector. Our commitment takes its shape in many forms—whether it be the new capital instrument, the protection given to members of Northern Ireland’s credit unions, legislation to help to take forward and grow credit unions, or the increased public investment in credit unions that should flow from changes to the model on which they operate. That demonstrates the practical concrete steps that the Government are taking to strengthen the mutual sector.

The information requested by the amendment is clearly widely available, if my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) can Google it in a minute, and it will be maintained and kept. I do not think that this requirement to provide information, placing additional burdens on the regulator and the sector, is necessary. Actions speak louder than words and they speak louder than data. What this Government have clearly done is bring forward a series of measures to strengthen the mutual sector, which will be to the benefit of all our constituents.

Jobs and Growth

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Standing Order No. 33 provides that, on the last day of the debate on the motion for the Address to Her Majesty, the House may also vote on the second amendment selected by the Speaker. The Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Angus Robertson for that purpose. The vote on that amendment will take place at the end of the debate, after the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been disposed of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

Let me make some more progress; I will allow more interventions in a few moments.

As for the Chancellor’s promise of “a brighter economic future”, it is not just that his economic plan has been so unfair, but that it has failed completely. On the recovery being secured, our economy has not only flatlined for 18 months, but has contracted. As to a private sector-led recovery, confidence is down, business investment has been revised down and since June last year, we have lost more than 100,000 public sector jobs, but the private sector has created only half that number of private sector jobs. As for the Chancellor’s absurd claim that Britain is a safe haven, we are in recession. What kind of safe haven is that?

The Chancellor will try to claim today that it is the eurozone crisis that has blown him so badly off course. I will return to the eurozone crisis in a moment, but trying to blame that crisis for the UK recession flies in the face of the facts. This is what the Chancellor said in his autumn statement:

“if the rest of Europe heads into recession, it may prove hard to avoid one here in the UK.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 799.]

But it is the eurozone that has avoided recession and the UK that has plunged back into it. [Interruption.] Even The Sun—not known as a big supporter of Labour, but a big supporter of the Chancellor over the last few years—wrote only yesterday—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Government Front-Bench Members can do a little better by listening to what is being said. I am sure that they will want to listen to the shadow Chancellor in the same way that they will want Members to listen to the Chancellor later.

[Ed Balls]

They should listen to The Sun, Mr Deputy Speaker. It said yesterday:

“George Osborne can no longer blame Eurozone woes for our double-dip recession.”

It is a recession made in Downing street—even The Sun agrees with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. You have done very well so far, Mr Jones. Don’t overstep it.

[Ed Balls]

The economy is in recession and they hate it, and so do business organisations up and down the country. Is it any wonder that businesses have been so disappointed and upset by the Queen’s Speech of just two weeks ago? Let me quote the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce:

“There is a big black hole when it comes to aiding business to create enterprise, generate wealth and grow.”

Quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There will be some parts of the Queen’s Speech dealing with Treasury matters which we will support. On banking reform, we will look forward to supporting legislation to strengthen capital ratios and promote competition, although it is now nine months since the final report of the Vickers commission, and we are still waiting for a response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, after 18 months of flatlining, with our economy now in recession and business investment depressed, the question I ask—it is the question British business is asking too—is this. Where is the plan in the Queen’s Speech to restore confidence and promote business investment and jobs in Britain?

With net lending falling month on month—according to the Bank of England it has been down every month for over two years now—where is the action in the Queen’s Speech to promote small business lending? With youth unemployment now at a record high, and with yesterday’s figures confirming that long-term unemployment among young people is still rising, where is the legislation in the Queen’s Speech to get our young people back to work? Where is the legislation to repeat the bank bonus tax to fund a jobs guarantee for young people—or, for that matter, to cut taxes for small businesses hiring new workers, or to help the construction sector with a temporary cut in VAT? Our economy has ground to a halt and our construction sector is in great distress. Where is the plan to support jobs and growth by bringing forward new infrastructure projects? Where is the legislation to make our economy stronger and fairer for the future? Stronger corporate governance; a business investment bank; progress on high-speed rail; reforms in our universities to promote innovation—all are completely absent from this Queen’s Speech.

Business and the Economy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are not many Members waiting to speak, and we have had quite a few withdrawals, so I will extend the time limit to eight minutes. I am sure that that will be welcomed by Barry Gardiner.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I simply wish to say that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) really put his finger on it. He told us exactly what the position is with regard to which paper we were considering and he identified the questions that needed to be asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). This is about whether that treaty that we entered into all those years ago, after all that contention, has or has not done its work. It has failed, and it has failed not only this country but Europe as a whole. That is why we need to vote against the motion; this motion makes an assumption that this treaty is still alive. It is as dead as a parrot.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That must be the shortest speech that Mr Cash has made.

Question put.

Financial Services Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Quite a few more hon. Members wish to speak and the Minister wants to come in at 9.40 pm, so if we could help each other, I would be grateful.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I wish to join others in acknowledging the strong case that members of the Treasury Committee have made on the issues addressed in new clause 1. Like others, I do not think that new clause 1, in itself, goes far enough in resolving some of the Bill’s deficiencies, but it is a commendable effort.

As we are dealing with a number of proposals that appear on the amendment paper under the heading “Governance of the Bank of England and the new regulatory structure”, there is a danger that we might make the mistake of thinking that all the provisions are about issues inside the beltway; we may think that they are all about parliamentary influence, scrutiny and the relationships between the Financial Policy Committee, the Bank of England and the Treasury and so on. Of course, as we heard in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), many of these provisions touch directly on issues that we thought we were discussing in the previous grouping in relation to consumer protection and the consumer interest.

I wish to discuss a number of the amendments in this group that I have tabled, particularly new clause 13. It is aimed at dealing with what seems to be a fairly gaping loophole in the Bill and relates to provisions in clause 25, on page 108, and the regime for consolidated supervision of the parent undertakings of financial institutions. The provisions in the Bill as they stand would mean that the only parent undertakings that will be regulated under consolidated supervision are those that were deemed to be financial institutions, whereas those that were not deemed to be financial institutions would be immune.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I had not intended to speak in this debate so I shall keep my remarks brief. I do not have at my fingertips the comprehensive figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) gave; he made some cogent and powerful points. From my point of view it is always a very risky endeavour when a political idea is fleshed out to become a fiscal policy of any Government. The remarks made just after the general election at the Conservative party conference were really an aspiration that is now being turned into a policy. I believe that this policy is a fiscal time bomb that will blow up in the faces of this Government. I also believe that what we are doing—[Interruption.]

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking.

[Mr Jackson]

I defer to the parliamentary private secretary to the Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). [Interruption.] At least he is at the moment.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a very important point about crossing the Rubicon of undermining the universality of child benefit. The same point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Some time ago, the Child Poverty Action Group said this about child benefit:

“A benefit which goes to virtually all children is of course expensive. But it can also be argued that it is more likely that such a benefit will have ‘substantial and wide-ranging support’, and may be difficult to abolish; provision for the poorest children only, whilst cheaper, is often more precarious.”

Specifically, intergenerational redistribution and the value placed on children are universal values that we are seeking to undermine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely apposite point. If we really are all in this together, it beggars belief for my constituents and his that we are talking about looking after the interests of people on low or median incomes but are remitting abroad, within the European Union, anything between £40 million and £75 million in various benefits for people and families who do not even live in this country.

It would not be fair not to mention that the Chancellor has sought to ameliorate the concerns that various Members across the House have expressed about this policy and I give him due credit for that. Unfortunately, however, I think this policy will go badly wrong and will have a specific impact on aspirational, ambitious families and will breach the basic tenet of universality in child benefit. For that reason, I cannot and will not vote for it.

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

Order. I must call the Minister at 5.48.