Loans to Ireland Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carswell
I wish to discuss amendment 6. It commands great interest across the House, although that may be difficult to believe given the swathe of green Benches that we can see, and I hope that we will have a chance to divide the House on it. It is right that we should be looking to help Ireland and debating how to do so, not simply because of this country’s economic self-interest, but because of the close cultural ties between Britain and Ireland. It is fair to say that there is not a street in any town in this country where there are not close kith and kin connections between our two countries.
The question is whether the Bill helps us to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) spoke eloquently, making the point that this deal is not tailored to help the Republic of Ireland, but has been imposed on it. It is not a case of our passing this to bail out Ireland, so much as our passing it to bail out the euro. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has said that, and he has blogged eloquently about how the European Central Bank triggered this crisis. It began when the ECB called into question Ireland’s ability to finance loans. Why did it do so? It did so because the ECB sacrificed Ireland to staunch the haemorrhaging of confidence in the euro and deal with the growing storm around it. The ECB put preserving a paper currency without a state ahead of the well-being of millions of Irish households.
Ireland is in debt because she is a victim of a credit bubble caused by euro membership, but when we consider amendment 6 we must ask how pushing a potentially high-interest loan on a friend reduces her debts. How does extending a debt as overdraft help that debtor to repay their debts? That will dig Ireland deeper into debt. Each of the eight tranches of this loan is yet another step towards debt. It is time that we stopped digging Ireland into deeper debt. The bail-out will not reduce the debt. People sometimes talk about the bail-out as though it were a solution to debt, but it is a deepening of debt. We need to make certain that the rate of interest and the terms of this extension of Ireland’s overdraft are in her interests and those of her people. To do that, we need to make sure that we in this House have the final say over the terms of the small print.
Amendment 6 seeks to ensure that the interest on this £3.2 billion overdraft extension is kept low. The small print is certainly not definitive on the subject. The summary of terms states:
“The rate of interest payable on a loan will be at a fixed rate per annum equal to the aggregate of:
(a) the Margin; and
(b) the Sterling 7.5 year swap rate at the date of disbursement.”
We are told by the Chancellor that, at the moment, that would be 5.9% and the document suggests that figure, but it is not definitive. We need to give the House of Commons the final say on the rate, and we need a formal means to allow the House to ratify the rate of interest.
Hon. Members will have heard some discussion about how Iceland got a significantly lower rate. Why is that? Is Iceland a better friend? It is for public debate, public concern and the legislature, not technocrats in the Treasury and watery eyed officials, to decide the rate of interest that we charge our friend.
The explanatory notes have, I think, been issued so that we believe that they are close to what amendment 6 suggests. We are asking for something that is not a million miles away from the explanatory notes, so why not formalise the arrangements? Why not require the approval of an order under the affirmative procedure in the House? We have only the explanatory notes to go on—[Interruption.] I am delighted that those on the Front Bench are paying such attention. We only have the explanatory notes to go on, so why not enshrine these arrangements by order? The last time that we left EU matters to Sir Humphrey’s explanatory notes, we were, bluntly, mugged. The explanatory notes to the Bill on sovereignty—the European Union Bill—were not even defended by the Minister in Committee. It is a cause of concern that we have only the explanatory notes. We must enshrine these arrangements in legislation to make certain that we in this House, who are accountable to the taxpayers who will ultimately have to stump up for this, are satisfied with the arrangements. That would be good for us and good for Ireland, too.
Over the past seven months, we have seen what happens when the House takes its eye off the small print. We have seen what happens when we leave it to Ministers, officials and Treasury negotiators to handle the small print. For example, we have seen how non-euro member countries, such as Britain, become liable through the small print for open-ended eurozone bail-outs until 2013. That is the price we pay as a House for taking our eyes off the small print. It would be quite wrong, incidentally, to blame the previous Government for that. The deal took effect after the coalition Government came to office.
When this House took its eye off the small print on Treasury negotiations on matters European, the Government managed somehow to sign us up to a European Council document that established a common legal framework for pan-EU economic governance. I suggest that this House should not form a habit of deferring the small print to the Treasury and its officials. It is prudent to require the Government to gain the approval of this House over the interest rate.
The amendment goes to the heart of why we are here and why we have a House of Commons in the first place. It is the purpose of us as MPs—and it has been for many hundreds of years—to oversee what Ministers do with our money. That should include the terms under which they lend our money and the terms under which they make taxpayers liable for debts incurred through such financial arrangements. The amendment is reasonable and in line with what the Government are seeking to do—or claim that they are seeking to do—in the explanatory notes drafted by officials.
The amendment would ensure that Ministers thought very carefully and wisely when they entered negotiations and finalised arrangements. It would also help to restore purpose to the House, which some of us would suggest has been in the past rather supine, submissive and spineless. Ultimately, it would ensure a fairer deal for our closest friend and our closest neighbour. I hope to press the amendment to a Division and to obtain the support of Members on both sides.
Mark Durkan
On amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the amendment of itself does not preclude the fear that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) have that at some point in the future there might be a loans to Spain Bill, a loans to Portugal Bill or something similar. The amendment would not preclude the possibility of any other such bilateral loans being arranged in future. I do not believe that the amendment, which is commended to us in those terms, will serve the purpose for which it was tabled.
Mark Durkan
I know that the hon. Gentleman made that point, too, and I want to turn to it. He carefully quoted and referred to a number of points in the loan agreement, which was made available at the start of the debate. The summary of key terms refers to a number of matters, and the hon. Member for Stone seemed to say that those references alone mean that the bilateral loan is being interweaved with the wider EU and IMF support packages to Ireland. However, hon. Members should bear in mind a point that the Chancellor made on Second Reading—that one advantage of the bilateral loan arrangement is the place that it gives the UK at the table when it comes to arranging and overseeing the restructuring plan that is to take place in relation to the Irish banking sector.
The key terms include, under the heading “Other Terms”, at paragraph 1(d):
“no amendments to the facilities provided by the IMF, European Financial Stability Mechanism, the European Financial Stability Fund or Sovereign bilateral lenders or to the Memoranda of Understanding that would have a material adverse effect on the Borrower’s ability to restore its capacity to access the capital markets.”
Given that the purpose of the loan arrangement is to make sure that Ireland can go to the bond markets on its own as soon as possible and get money at competitive rates, it is clearly in the House’s interests, as the UK will be providing this loan, to make sure that the loan terms are protected against any undue terms coming from the other loans being made available in this context.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the role of the European Central Bank. We can look at the history of this situation and question the role of the ECB on a number of occasions. First, it kept interest rates very low—at times against the express wish and request of the Irish Finance Minister—which helped to contribute to the problem. Secondly, as many hon. Members have mentioned, there is the open-ended nature of the Irish Government’s guarantee to the banks. Again, the ECB seems to have been the primary body urging a guarantee of that extent. Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the need for the bail-out and the creation of circumstances in which the Irish Government have had to seek it. Again, many people have questions about the precise role and performance of the European Central Bank in all that. Hon. Members have asked serious questions about the ECB, and we know that a much bigger loan facility is being granted through the EU and the IMF, so surely the House will want to know that the terms of the bilateral loan and its operation will not jeopardise the interests or purposes for which it is being made available. It therefore makes sense for the key terms that are summarised in the document to refer to the restructuring plan that is to be undertaken in relation to the banks.
The document makes it clear that “conditions precedent” will include “finalisation by the Borrower”—namely Ireland—
“after consultation with the Lender, of a restructuring plan in relation to its banking sector with the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank”.
That is not the interweaving that the hon. Member for Stone has discussed, but a sensible, diligent precaution on the part of the House in providing for money to be borrowed. The “Other Terms” also include at paragraph 1(c):
“no amendments to the Restructuring Plan that would have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland”.
Again, it makes absolute sense for the House and the Government, who are responsible to it, to make clear cross-reference to what else is happening under the restructuring plan and to what other lenders might urge in relation to other parts of the plan in terms of key interests that the House needs to protect, including those of the banking sector in Northern Ireland and the contribution of the Irish banks to the wider UK economy.
Mark Durkan
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I found clause 2(4) a bit tortuous. However, I can see the problem with amendment 2, because if paragraphs (a) and (b) were removed and the subsection read only
“No report is required to be prepared or laid in relation to a period if…no amount of principal or interest in respect of an Irish loan is outstanding at the end of the period”,
the point at which the loan is finally discharged—when a final payment is made—could be the one point when a report would not be necessary, whereas I would have thought that that was the one point where a report would have been relevant and necessary.
I therefore understand why subsection (4) is framed as it is and why there is a conjunctive that covers all three parts. It is only when no payment is made, no sum is received, and nothing outstanding is due at the end of the period, that no report is made. Otherwise, if all three conditions are not satisfied, there will be a report, as I understand it. Given what Members have said about the scrutiny and oversight that they want the House to have, although subsection (4) reads tortuously it seems to stand, so I would not be persuaded by amendment 2.
Mr Hoban
I think the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has a second career beckoning as a parliamentary draftsman. He has summed up the situation exceptionally well.
In subsection (4) all three paragraphs—(a), (b) and (c)—have to apply if no report is to be published. If amendment 2 were made, removing paragraphs (a) and (b), payments could have been made in the period but they would not be reported if there was no balance outstanding at the end. Therefore we must ensure that all three are true before we allow no report to be published. I hope that provides clarification.
I hope I am not seen by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) as someone who seeks to stonewall his inquiries, but having imposed a duty on the Treasury to report, it is right that that duty be extinguished when the loans are repaid; otherwise someone will say, “Yes, the loans have been repaid, but your Act requires you to make those reports.” It is right that the duty to report is extinguished when the loan has been repaid, and that is simply the purpose of—
Mark Durkan
I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the passage of this Bill, which is a sad necessity. It has been a sad necessity for this House, and for Oireachtas Eireann, too, to undertake these arrangements for the reasons that many hon. Members have touched on in the debate.
I acknowledge the spirit in which the Chancellor and the Minister have spoken, not only today but on previous occasions and in the statements leading up to this Bill. Although this is a fast-track Bill, we have known that it is coming and that it is afoot; although in procedural terms it has been microwaved through the House, we know, understand and appreciate the background. I hope that we can have some shared hopes and confidences about what will come from it.
It is important to acknowledge that the Bill has raised questions. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, on bonuses. This week, the Irish Minister for Finance has supervened—that was the word he used, which has been bandied about—to prevent bonuses being paid in Allied Irish bank just as it is about to benefit from this and the other loan measures. My amendment—I understand why it was not accepted—simply aimed to offer the House a chance to paravene in support of the supervention of the Irish Minister for Finance.
I am sure that, as we have been told, the Government will have a place at the table in some of the restructuring discussions. I hope that the Chancellor will ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland banking requirements will be held in due regard in the context of such restructuring. Although many of us, from all parties, have raised many issues about the banking of business in our constituencies, there is a fundamental question about the future of the business of banking in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is in the twilight zone between the British banking market and the Irish banking market. I hope that the Government will show due diligence and be protective of the needs of the Northern Ireland economy and the Northern Ireland banking sector as regards that restructuring.
We also need to recognise that there are clear UK interests at stake to do with the Irish economy and Irish banking in general. The Irish banks are not just significant players in Northern Ireland; they have significant lending in other parts of the United Kingdom, too. Of course, the UK banks lend £94 billion or more in the south of Ireland, too. For those reasons, this Bill and the debate about it reflect—to use an old phrase that was coined by Charlie Haughey in the days when he was creating Anglo-Irish engagement with Margaret Thatcher—the totality of relationships. In many ways, today’s debates and the arguments, justifications and explanations that have been given by the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers in recent weeks reflect the modern reality of the totality of relationships between these islands in economic and banking terms.
I understand the question asked earlier by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the Bill’s title. As an Irish nationalist, I regard Ireland as the island of Ireland. My constituency of Foyle demonstrates another naming issue. It is the city of Derry or Londonderry, and so it is instead called Foyle, after the river. The issues are similar with the title “Ireland”. When I was Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland, I had to present statements and agreements on EU funds that were agreements between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Those terms struck me as odd and I could not get away with saying “between Northern Ireland and the south” because the proper title of the Irish state is Ireland. I assume that that is the explanation for the title of the Bill, uncomfortable though some of us, as profound Irish nationalists, might be with that.
Loans to Ireland Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend asks a rhetorical question. The answer is that I am not sure where Ireland was at that time.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that we should allow the Irish to have their own domestic policy. That is why it would not be right for us to interfere with their low corporation tax policy—it should be for them to decide. However, the other side of the coin must be that we let the Irish take the consequences and accept the responsibility for what happens as a result. We cannot say, “We’re going to help pay for the consequences while not being able to influence the policy.” I find what is proposed very intellectually trying to deal with.
When we have a border—our hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have made their points about this—that low corporation tax policy makes things much more difficult. Indeed, it is possible to argue that we have lost the corporate headquarters of major international organisations from London to Dublin as a result of Ireland’s low corporation tax policy. Now we are subsidising that policy, the consequences of which are that the Irish have been unable to meet their financial obligations and are desperate for additional loans. I am not convinced that we should be getting involved with British taxpayers’ money. It would be different if we did not have an awful national debt crisis, but we do. One consequence of the Bill, if it goes through today, may be to send out a signal to our constituents that says, “Don’t worry, the debt crisis is not as bad as we’ve been telling you, because we can afford to add to that debt further by giving a soft loan to the Irish.” At the same time, we are having to argue to our constituents that we cannot put pressure on the banks to give more soft loans to businesses, even if those businesses go bust or cannot expand as a result, with all the damaging consequences for employment that that would have in our country, so I am not convinced.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the scale of the exposure of British banks in the Irish Republic’s economy or the key dependence of Northern Ireland’s economy on the role of some of the Irish banks?
Mr Chope
Of course I acknowledge that, because it is a fact. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) made the important point that, in negotiating a bilateral deal, we might have been able to deal with the debts owed to those banks and, in a sense, directed any money that we wanted to give into those British banks, rather than into the Irish coffers in general. We could have linked those things, if that was what was needed. However, I do not think that the difficulties of those banks are a justification for increasing our national debt further in the way that the Bill proposes.
Dr McDonnell
Some of us see the euro as a problem and some of us do not. Being in the euro has been an advantage to Ireland for many years. It has become a handicap at present because of the restrictions and constraints, but the eurozone works and has worked very well for many years. In the present crisis it has its handicaps and limitations. Some people are predicting that the eurozone will collapse shortly; I do not accept that, and that is not the view of everybody.
The point I am trying to make is that Ireland’s underlying economy is healthy. Its membership of and involvement in the eurozone is healthy, and in the long-term it will come round and sort itself out. Ireland has a financial crisis—a banking crisis—that was brought about largely by a property bubble and a lack of liquidity, rather than a flaw in the underlying economy. I want to assure people that the money will be paid, in my opinion and assessment, and that in due course—
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Lessons will have to be learned, not so much about the euro per se but about the performance of the European Central Bank. There is a serious question to be asked about its insistence on low interest rates for a sustained period. That helped to feed the property bubble in Ireland, despite the valiant efforts of the then Finance Minister to find other ways of getting out of the economy the money that was fuelling the property bubble, such as paying off the national debt, putting big money into the national pensions reserve fund and introducing special savings investment accounts.
Dr McDonnell
I thank my hon. Friend, who puts it better than I could have done.
I want to come on to why international intervention was needed. Ireland did its best at an internal level. It is a small country in a very tough global marketplace, and it did its best to resolve both the banking and the deficit situations internally. However, the interdependence of the modern world, Ireland’s membership of the eurozone and large market movements put some of the solutions beyond internal domestic management. Indeed, as we all know, both the European Union and the eurozone are themselves facing fundamental challenges in devising a fair and equitable response to the financial crisis in other countries.
However, although the domestic measures in Ireland did not prove sufficient, that does not mean they were not necessary. Ireland did its best to solve the situation internally, and only in the end, when nothing more could be done internally, did it resort to international help.
There are major north-south implications within the island of Ireland. All of us in the island of Ireland remain convinced that north-south co-operation is a central element of the push for economic recovery—not just within the Irish Republic but within the north. Indeed, the Prime Minister referred to such matters at Question Time. Despite the difficulties, the Irish Government have maintained some €110 million of investment in the north in various things, including major infrastructure projects of importance to both the north and the south. I am referring to roads and other aspects that are central. All that is important, and works. For the future prosperity of the island economy it is essential to build on the peace that we have achieved and to create the economic opportunities for a new generation.
I wish simply to restate a number of points about the UK’s interest. The UK is strong and robust, as we have discussed in relation to trade and all the rest. Ireland, a small country, accounts for 5% of Britain’s total exports. We are told that the UK exports more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together. Allowing that to collapse would have an immediate impact on this country. The two economies are particularly linked in Northern Ireland, with two fifths of Northern Ireland’s economy dependent on the Irish Republic. Just as the two economies are linked, the two banking sectors are linked. As other hon. Members have said, the two main southern Irish banks are very active in the north, and to some extent in Britain; they also issue sterling banknotes, so that all has an implication for the whole banking sector. If this banking liquidity crisis had not been sorted out, we could have ended up with 25% or 30% unemployment, not just in southern Ireland, but in the north.
Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Given that Chancellor Merkel’s comments have caused such turbulence in the bond market in the past week, I welcome the measured and respectful terms in which the Financial Secretary and the Government have addressed the crisis in Ireland. Does the Financial Secretary accept the judgment of EU Commissioner Olli Rehn? He said:
“In the case of Ireland in particular, we need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working. It needs reform.”
The problem does not apply only in Ireland. I remind the Financial Secretary that, if the national pension reserve fund is counted, Ireland’s debt to GDP ratio is not that far wide of the UK’s currently.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The crisis is around the banking system in Ireland—it is not a fiscal crisis. Of course, we almost had to learn the lessons of failure to regulate the banking system. The Government therefore introduced radical reforms to strengthen the stability of the banking sector in the UK.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. What I would say is that, in contrast to the quotation from Winston Churchill earlier, my observation as a new boy to this House over the past six months is that the Treasury has behaved positively. We must remember that we will be administering public money. The Government have no money of their own; rather, we collect money on behalf of the people and then we administer it. It would be foolhardy and perhaps even foolish for us to say, “Let’s have somebody else administer public money.” At the end of the day, people have to have someone who is accountable, and we are accountable, as is the Treasury.
Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the Treasury takes into account a proper evaluation of the total relative losses when determining payments—that is, the figure should not be £4.3 billion, but could be much higher. I strongly disagree with that. Many EMAG members have written to me, lobbying me to see the matter differently, but I have to say that I disagree. Given the current economic hardship, we all face an incredibly difficult situation, in which we are all having to tighten our belts. To deliver compensation of £1.5 billion at this time is entirely fair.
Amendment 2 is in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all I would say to him is that I understand the thrust of his argument that we should consider what the ombudsman says about the behaviour and actions of the coalition Government in dealing with the issue. However, I would rather get things done and dusted, and have something delivered to the victims than procrastinate further and wait for longer.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I can fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) said about the Government’s proposals being clearly better than what was offered by the previous Government. Frankly, that is not a very hard test to pass. The real test for us in this Committee is surely not whether what we have from this Government is better than what we had from the previous Government. It clearly is better. Rather, we as a Committee have to see whether it is as good as what is set out in the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings and recommendations.
Nadhim Zahawi
Just to offer some explanation, what the Government have delivered is not just better than what the previous Government were thinking about—or dithering about—trying to deliver. I also believe that there was a point in this Parliament when the coalition Government were seriously considering implementing only what Chadwick had recommended, but we have moved away from that. We have buried that, and we are now in a much better place for the victims of Equitable Life.
Mark Durkan
My point still stands: the test is a fairly easy one. The Chadwick report was so grossly inadequate as not to be a credible starting point for any Government. Many of us said that to the previous Government, including the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton)—very bravely, loudly and consistently—and many of us have said it to this Government as well.
For us as Members of the Houses of Parliament, the test that many people will apply is: what regard do we have to the findings and recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman? As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) stressed earlier, the public understand the parliamentary ombudsman to be a creature of Parliament and to have some weight and merit in Parliament’s considerations. However, the previous Government acted pretty dismissively towards the ombudsman. What we have in some of the amendments before us is an attempt to show clearly that this House will give proper weight to what the parliamentary ombudsman is saying.
We all received a letter from the parliamentary ombudsman about some of the Government’s proposals. Given that, is it wrong that we should reference the judgment of the parliamentary ombudsman—as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is suggesting we do with amendment 2—perhaps as a way of moving on from the scandal and confusion that many feel surrounds the fact that the ombudsman was largely ignored by the Government and, in effect, by Parliament for so long?
Jonathan Evans
I am anxious to ensure that the hon. Gentleman does not undersell what the Minister has done. The hon. Gentleman will recall that every aspect of the parliamentary ombudsman’s report has been accepted by the Government and that, furthermore, the report said that whatever the overall compensation package should be, it had to take account of the impact on the public purse. Many of us on the Government Benches think that those are the two crucial tests.
Mark Durkan
That is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing. However, given that the money that we are talking about has been capped according to the Treasury’s judgment of what it believes is available—that means that the overall sum to be offered by way of remedy and redress will be a long way short of what all the other assessments say—I believe that it would useful for the Committee to accept an amendment that would allow us to ensure that the parliamentary ombudsman has some say in overseeing the measures. Under the circumstances, that is fair and reasonable, but if the hon. Gentleman is so content that the scheme as it stands meets everything that the ombudsman has said, he should see such an amendment as adding no particular stress or difficulty for the scheme. Such an amendment would be a way of offering public assurance after all the doubts that have been raised about how Government and Parliament have dealt with the issue.
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which quite properly brings me to amendment 1.
Jonathan Evans
I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in giving way, but if he waits until Third Reading, he will hear what I have to say about the totality of the package.
Mark Durkan
What a trailer for Third Reading! We will all be waiting.
On amendment 1, the hon. Member for Leeds North East set out a compelling case for why it is not just the cap, but the cut-off that we need to be seen to address. We have seen in the past how dates set for various reasons have ended up creating unfair and unforeseen consequences that Parliament did not truly intend. That certainly happened with dates for schemes in previous pension Bills, for reasons that seemed reasonable and understandable to the House at the time. We are now struggling with the consequences that were never intended. We must be wary about such cut-offs.
Mr Hoban
When people made the decision on the information available to them, the relevant information was not in the public domain, and would not have affected their investment decision until September 1992. That is a clear, logical, sensible starting point, based on principles and on the ombudsman’s findings, for the maladministration, and that is the point from which we should calculate relative loss for policyholders.
Mark Durkan
The Minister is in danger of asking the Committee to accept the notion that customer ignorance can be a legislator’s excuse. That cannot be so. If the Minister is trying to say that what they did not know did them no harm, that is preposterous. They did not know, and they have suffered harm.
Mr Hoban
I was trying to make two points. First, those policyholders were excluded from the calculation of relative loss as a consequence of the ombudsman’s findings and her view on when maladministration had taken place. According to the example that I have given, they would not have suffered loss in any event. I am merely saying that, in my opinion, there is a strong case in principle for the exclusion of those policyholders, and in practical terms they have not suffered loss.
Mr Hoban
I want to make some more progress.
The fact that with-profits annuitants who bought their annuities before 1 September 1992 have seen a reduction in the level of payments that they currently receive from their annuities is a result of poor investment market performance and the fact that their earlier annuity payments were artificially high. That was because of the structure of the policies that they bought, or because they received too much in the earlier years, as Equitable Life paid out more on a discretionary basis than it should have. Unlike the value of conventional annuities, the value of a with-profits annuity varies according to investment return. Although the reductions are regrettable, they are not instances of Government maladministration, and therefore Government should not be providing compensation for that group of policyholders.
Mark Durkan
Obviously we are waiting to hear what the Government will say about their amendment, but the other amendments—including the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—are in essence an attempt to ensure that there is a sense of competent independence in how the scheme is administered and payments made. In terms of making appeals available and ensuring that the design and administration of the scheme are independent of Government, the new clause offers a reasonable construct of what a clearly independent scheme would be.
In the debate on the previous group of amendments, there were plenty of references to pledges that many of us signed and how far the Government’s measures will mean that we have discharged those pledges, but I do not think that any of us signed pledges that said we would do the whole thing just according to Treasury lights and nothing else. The amendments are an attempt to ensure that it will be not only Treasury lights that govern the terms of the scheme and its performance.
Mark Durkan
Yes, I do. There is no escaping the constraints that the cap will create. In the last group of amendments, we considered the questions that arise when the cap comes together with the cut-off. That conspires to create a pretty selective injustice for a group of people who are then left with very marginal compensation.
Even a very independent process, such as that proposed in the amendments, will be constrained by the cap. However, people would trust a credible independent process applying that cap with due consideration for all the concerns, rights and needs of policyholders more than they would trust the Treasury. In the last debate some Government Members said confidently how impressed they had been with the Treasury since they came into the House. That might well be—we are in the early stages of this Parliament and this Government and the first few pages of the exercise book are lovely, neat, impressive and perfect—but degeneration creeps in later on and even the Treasury will revert to its traditional roots and habits.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I have confidence in the Treasury trying to sort this out—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that. However, I am concerned about anything that pushes this matter into the long grass. We do not need any more delays caused by trying to set up other bodies. That is why I would like to say, “Get on with it and get the Treasury doing it.”
Mark Durkan
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Harrow East, for example, is trying to sow or fertilise long grass. This is about getting something that is credible, competent and reliable and the Committee should try to help in that regard. That is the spirit of these amendments.
There has been much criticism of the underperformance, to put it mildly, of the previous Government on this issue over more than one Parliament. Let us remember that those Ministers were not deliberately ignoring the plight of their own constituents who were coming to them or the problems highlighted by many of us from constituencies across the United Kingdom. They were constrained by the advice that they were getting from the same Treasury that people are now so happy with. The Treasury was advising that serious precedents and problems would be created.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but Ministers are there to take decisions. They listen to advice but it is up to them to make things happen. He and I, as former Ministers, know that only too well, so why is he making an excuse for the inaction of the previous Government and their failure to respond to the needs of Equitable Life policyholders?
Mark Durkan
If the right hon. Gentleman had been here for the debates on earlier amendments, he would know that I made no such excuses then. Indeed, in all previous debates, I have been very critical of the performance of previous Governments. We have both been the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, as he says. When I held that position, I used the line, “I’m the Minister of Finance; I don’t suffer from depression but I am a carrier.” That is the effect: Treasury Ministers are put in that sort of position. They become aware of constraints and difficulties that they then have to put before everyone else and impose on them as well.
My point is not that Ministers were right or wrong to listen to the advice but that we, as a Committee, must choose whether to go along with the Bill and say that the scheme will proceed only according to Treasury lights or whether to say instead that it should go according to wider lights and be informed by the sort of considerations reflected in the various amendments that hon. Members have tabled and by the many good observations made by Members on both sides of the Committee. Either we want to trust the Treasury and leave the scheme entirely in its hands, with its considerations and constraints alone, or we want to honour the spirit of what we have all pledged to those who have lost out with Equitable Life and to act in the light of the sad experiences that we have heard about.
I commend the amendments to the Committee. I shall wait to hear what the Government say about their amendment, but it seems to reinforce the Treasury’s whip hand over the whole scheme.
Mr Hoban
I take the same view as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on the responsibility of Ministers. Civil servants provide advice but Ministers decide and act and we cannot ignore that responsibility. We have taken this matter very seriously and have sought, over the past six months, to drive through a speedy resolution to the problem. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on tackling this matter.
On the amendments before us, the purpose of amendment 3 is to make the design and operational mechanism of the scheme “independent of government”. I understand the need for independence in the design of the payment scheme, which is why I established the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments. The commission’s advice will necessarily form the basis of the scheme’s design. It will advise on how best fairly to allocate payments among policyholders, with the exception of with-profits annuitants, and it will consider which groups, if any, should be prioritised. It is right that that process should be independent, so the scheme will be independently designed.
The Government have considered whether the scheme should also be operated independently of the Government, as amendment 3 proposes, and have concluded that that would not be appropriate for three key reasons. First, it would delay the commencement of payments. Our ambition is to start making payments in the middle of next year using our preferred delivery partner National Savings and Investment. I shall say more about that on amendment 6. If amendment 3 were accepted, NS&I, which is an Executive agency of the Treasury, could not be used as the delivery partner as it would not be operating independently of the Treasury, which would therefore have to establish a new, independent body or identify an existing such body that could operate the scheme. It is also likely that legislation would be required to task the independent body with the design and operation of the scheme, which would delay significantly the making of payments to policyholders.
Secondly, the Government have established an independent commission to advise on the allocation of payments. This function is independent of the Government and is key in determining a fair allocation of payments. Making the operational delivery provider, whose job is largely about sending out the payments and making sure that cheques get to the people who are entitled to receive them, independent of the Treasury would not add significant value to that task.
Finally, it is important to ensure that value for money is considered when deciding on a delivery partner. The Treasury has satisfied itself that NS&I has the capacity and the capability to deliver the scheme, while at the same time providing value for money. The Government consider that by establishing the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments on 22 July, we achieved the aim that is at the heart of the amendment.
I turn to amendment 4 and what policyholders should do if they consider that they are not being treated fairly under the scheme. The Government are committed to treating policyholders fairly. In line with that, there will certainly be a means by which policyholders can raise concerns about the incorrect application of scheme rules to individual cases. We have given much thought to how best to deal with complaints and have made a great deal of progress in putting together a process that is fair and thorough. Full details of this process will be included in the document that sets out the scheme design in full.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is vital that we are able to operationalise, as it were, the scheme design. That is why I have encouraged the payments commission to engage with NS&I to ensure that the scheme that the commission designs can be delivered. That is an important part of the process, and I expect the commission to do that during the course of its work. I think that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Let me turn finally to new clause 1 and the status of the independent commission. I have already spoken about the importance of the work of the commission, and I am not sure that the new clause, which would give it statutory footing, would add value to its work.
Mark Durkan
Returning to amendment 6, can the Minister assure us that it is there only to provide proper statutory cover to the director of savings and NS&I in relation to the scheme, and not to extend Treasury control or constraints in relation to it?
Mr Hoban
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We could not use NS&I if we did not include this power in the Bill. Its purpose is to enable NS&I to act as a delivery partner, not to give the Treasury some way of reaching back into the payments scheme. I reassure him, and others, that the power is there merely to deliver the outcome of the scheme.
The role of the payments commission will be key. It will advise on the distribution of payments to those other than WPAs, and I will take its advice extremely seriously. The new clause would introduce a requirement for the commission to consult key bodies in the development of its advice, but let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it would need no statutory encouragement to do so. The commission has already met Equitable Life and EMAG, and it has published a discussion paper asking for more views on the guiding principles for determining fairness in allocating and prioritising the funding. I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill would make it any more consultative and thorough in its task. My hon. Friend is aware that I have made the commitment to go along to the all-party group with the chairman of the commission to engage with parliamentarians on this matter. That is a very clear sign of the way in which we want to engage, or the commission wants to engage, with stakeholders to come up with the best design for the scheme. I encourage people to read and engage with the commission’s discussion paper, too.
The new clause would also introduce a statutory duty for the Government to lay the design of the scheme before Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument in order to allow full scrutiny. I entirely understand the thinking behind this, and transparency has been at the heart of our approach to developing the payments scheme. However, as I have said, I will publish and lay before Parliament a document setting out the scheme design in detail, which may then be debated as Parliament chooses. Again, I do not think that a statutory requirement will make my commitment to full transparency any stronger. The Government therefore resist the new clause.
Furthermore, including provision in the Bill as to the status and operation of the independent commission would pose a very serious risk to the timetable of the commission. The commission is already in operation and has been since July, and it is due to report at the end of January. Notwithstanding the speed with which the House is dealing with the Bill, it will still take several weeks for it to finish its passage through this House and the other place. If the commission had to be reformed after the Bill received Royal Assent, to restart its deliberations so as to comply with the provisions of the new clause, there would be a real risk of delay to its advice. This would, in turn, delay the making of payments to policyholders—something that I am sure none of us would want to happen. In the light of this, and given the comfort that I hope I have provided on the operation of the commission, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Mark Durkan
This is a Third Reading debate, and I do not believe that the House should, or will, divide on the Bill at this stage.
As we have rehearsed in debates not only today but on other occasions, this is a can that was kicked in front of the Government for a very long time, to the frustration and disgust of very many people. I am glad that although not everyone who has lost out will be doing handstands, we no longer have the degree of hand-wringing from Government that we had for too many years.
In the earlier debates, I, like others, had some questions and criticisms. Those criticisms were because of the inadequacies and arbitrary limits in the provisions that have been put in place. Some of us have genuine concerns that, notwithstanding how much better the provisions are than those the previous Government were going to make, we as a Parliament should be careful about creating a situation in which we have a cap one on hand and a cut-off on the other, which together will conspire to create a selective injustice against some people.
When the Financial Secretary responded to debates on amendments, he made it clear that assessments of pre-1992 annuitants could be made to allow cases to be identified in which people had benefited from the inadequate regulation rather than losing out. In those cases, we should better provide for a scheme that will deal with everyone on a case-by-case basis, rather than risk class exclusion by assumption, which is what the cut-off provides for. I ask the Government to consider that further as they take the scheme forward.
I appreciate the Financial Secretary’s indications that added consideration has been given to tax treatment and tax credits, and to the social care implications complications that could arise. I give the Government credit for that sensitivity and responsiveness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) rightly warned the Liberal Democrats to be careful not to make promises that they cannot keep. As a friend of the Labour party, but someone who was frustrated sitting on the Benches with Labour Members during the last Parliament, may I say that I hope Labour’s Front Benchers also learn to be careful about making arguments that they cannot sustain? He has unfortunately been left in a position of trying to criticise the Bill, but he could not even afford to divide the Committee on straightforward, pure amendments. I feel sorry for him that the last Government’s record put him in that position, and that he was left to make arguments that ended up, with all due respect, veering towards cynicism while the rest of us were trying to keep our arguments within the realms of legitimate criticism. However, I accept fully that he is not responsible for that position.
It is important to remember that this is not just a matter of what one Government or another did. The debates have shown that many Members of all parties have met constituents and carried their concerns. People have suffered compound distress, and that is what cannot be quantified. Someone might quantify what amount of money should be due to people and how much we can afford to give them, but we cannot calculate the compound distress caused to people not just by their loss but by the long indifference and inertia.
I acknowledged earlier the work in the previous Parliament done by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), and we all acknowledge the work in this Parliament of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has served notice that he will continue it. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the huge role played in the previous Parliament by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Perhaps it is right that a Member from one of the smaller parties says so; as he is currently a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he may not be in a position to participate in the active, vocal way that he so often did.
Many of us have criticised Sir John Chadwick today and at other times. I remember the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham reminding me of a line that I used to hear about Fanny Craddock. Apparently she used to offer some chicken recipe, and the first line of the recipe was, “First, catch your chicken.” The hon. Gentleman and the all-party Equitable Life group had that difficulty with Sir John Chadwick, in trying to get him in and ensure that he and the Government properly engaged with them. Although many people will see shortcomings in the provisions, the fact is they represent huge and welcome progress. Some redress will now be given to people, and the quicker that that can happen the better.
None the less, we need to iron out any inconsistencies. Some of us are worried about something the Minister said earlier and the sort of precedence that it might create. He said that because people did not know about the maladministration, they can be deemed not to have suffered the same loss as those who did know. That is not an argument that I would ever want to become a rule of thumb for any such scheme again.
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a sorry day on which we are debating this Bill on the Floor of the House. It is a sorry day too, when we realise that the people whom the Bill will hurt are those whom we have always had concerns about. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said that he could not see the real benefits of the schemes. As the elected representative for Strangford, I can quite clearly see the benefits for the people who come to my office—the people I help, the people I see every day. The attacks and the changes for children and pregnant women are wrong. The policy and the strategy that the Government have put forward will unduly hurt those who can ill afford it, and who will feel the impact more than most. I understand the need for the coalition—indeed, the need for us all—to look at how we can best save moneys, but the question has to be asked: is this Bill the best way forward? Is the best way forward to deprive those who can least afford it, and who will feel the impact more than most?
I did some research on Strangford—with the help of the staff in this place, of course. The number of parents or guardians in my constituency who have taken advantage of child trust fund vouchers totalled just shy of 6,800, with some 5,000 being for accounts opened by the parents or guardians and just under 2,000 for accounts opened by HMRC. The figures for Northern Ireland are clear, and they send a message. Northern Ireland has taken advantage of the scheme, and the area that I represent is part of that. Some 123,000 vouchers were issued before April 2008. My constituency has the third highest take-up of vouchers by percentage. For me, and for where I work and live, that clearly shows that the child trust fund puts money into the pockets of those who will need it in the time to come. It also enables young children eventually—when they turn 18—to be presented with a tax-free fund. I believe that the child trust fund should and could have done that, if it had been given the opportunity.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman will recall, from his time in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the strong campaign that was fought there to ensure that credit unions in Northern Ireland could become providers of child trust funds. That campaign was fought in this House too, such was the demand to ensure that child trust funds were used in Northern Ireland and to improve direct take-up, with more choices being made by parents. That campaign was backed by all parties and all communities in Northern Ireland. That is how popular child trust funds were.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The credit unions facilitated that role for child trust funds, as other Members have mentioned. The scheme was extremely popular in the area that I represent and in Northern Ireland as a whole. The figures that have been released clearly show that.
Parents did channel moneys and savings through for their children, but with respect I feel that the coalition—our Government—has stopped a worthwhile scheme, which will hurt the pockets of those who need help most. The ripples of that will come through in the next few months.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I can assure my hon. Friend that I am planning a long-term relationship with Prudence.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Can the Chancellor assure us that the green investment bank will be active and accessible to all regions, including Northern Ireland, and that relevant projects will not be disqualified by virtue of having a cross-border character? That would be entirely appropriate, given our market and environmental context.
Mr Osborne
In my statement, I set aside £1 billion of direct Government funding for the green investment bank. That will, I hope, be the minimum sum. I also want to dispose of certain Government assets and put the money from those sales into the bank, but I wanted to provide a minimum of £1 billion in case those asset sales took longer to realise than we hoped. I also want to lever in private sector investment so that the bank is a very successful vehicle for helping all parts of the United Kingdom invest in green energy. I am very happy to consider the case for cross-border projects because, obviously, the economies of Ireland and Northern Ireland are very closely linked, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
When it was said in the Bible that the stone that the builders rejected had become the cornerstone, that was intended to be a positive statement. In this instance, however, although parties and Members on both sides of the House agreed that Sir John Chadwick’s proposals were wrong, flawed and grossly inadequate, those very proposals have become what the Government are telling us is a building block on the basis of which these matters can be resolved.
We should bear in mind that, according to what we have been told by the parliamentary ombudsman, that building block is unsafe and unsound. We as a House have a duty to have regard to the various pledges that we, as parties and as individuals, made in the course of the election, and also to what the parliamentary ombudsman has said—and we should bear in mind that this is a parliamentary ombudsman.
Not only have the Equitable Life policyholders been left suffocating with frustration, but their problem continues, and they are increasingly seething with cynicism. Rather than a Parliament that will clearly fix the problem, we still have parties that are simply in the business of fixing the blame, but people want to see a real resolution. I am pleased that we have a Bill before us, but it provides the bare chassis of the vehicle that will be needed to solve this problem. Other Members have said that they do not disagree with much of it, but that is because there is not much in it: it is basic enabling legislation.
If the Bill were on offer from a pension company or indeed from anyone else, we would be asking, “Where is the prospectus? Where are the key details? What have we to rely on? What does any of this signify, other than a vague, general promise in a very slim brochure?” That is all that we have here. I acknowledge that following the long indifference that we received from those on the Treasury Bench for so many years we at least have something—which is welcome—but the move from long indifference to inadequacy is not something for Equitable Life policyholders to celebrate when they are still languishing in injustice and uncertainty.
Let us, here in the House, have fewer party-political spats about what one Government did and what another Government are doing, and stop patting each other on the back. Let us remember that the collective political process is indicted by our failure to resolve this problem. The policyholders have seen one Parliament after another. Are we able to act on the basis of the clear recommendations and findings of a parliamentary ombudsman? The policyholders saw a Parliament and Government with the ability to bail out banks, call people in quickly, merge banks, find all sorts of taxpayers’ money and go to the markets for money to solve the problem, because we did not want systemic failure in the financial system.
We need to ensure not just that there is confidence in the financial system, but that we underpin confidence in the future of the pensions system and regimes that will also have to be revised. Members on both sides of the House must make certain that we underpin that confidence by resolving the Equitable Life issue in the terms in which we all promised to resolve it, and to which the ombudsman has drawn attention. Yes, there will be issues about pressure on the public purse, which is why we must consider what the profile of the relief will be over time; but let us not pretend that offering a mere fraction or token of compensation accords in any way with fairness, transparency or justice.
Let us stop babbling about the reputation of this Government and that Government, and do something to restore the reputation of politics and the House by using the Bill to demand further commitments from the Government. Let us establish that they intend to follow it up with clear, detailed provisions that will be not just credible to us, but honest to victims of the ongoing crisis.
PAYE Contributions
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I apologise to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock); he is unmistakable.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
May I ask the Minister whether these circumstances have given the Government any further thought about plans to cut the future capacity of the Revenue and Customs? If he is giving positive consideration to the very good suggestion that there be a helpline for MPs, may I suggest, since many of the people affected will not have accountants to hand or be able to go to them, that it be available also to citizens advice bureaux, which will get an awful lot of inquiries?
Mr Gauke
That is an operational matter that HMRC will need to consider, but I will discuss it with senior management. As far as staffing is concerned, there will be a spending review announcement on 20 October, and any announcements on HMRC’s budgets will be made at that time.
Office of Tax Simplification
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
For how long will we have to watch this space to see an end to the quicksand of complexity that is IR35? Will the experts appointed to assist the OTS include people who understand the difficulties caused for families and firms who work and live on a cross-border basis in Northern Ireland? Those people are caught in an utter matrix of tax complications.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Durkan Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I can tell my hon. Friend that he is right; this decision was necessary and unavoidable. The intention is to get the public finances under control over the course of this Parliament. We will debate what we do at the end of that process nearer the time, when we will work out what we will do with the proceeds of growth.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In a speech last night to the bankers, the Financial Secretary referred to the Government’s proposals on a financial activities tax. Is it the Government’s intention that that sort of proposed legislation is just in reserve in case the bankers are too generous with themselves with bonuses, or are the Government determined to introduce such a tax? Why not go further, with a full financial transactions tax?
Mr Hoban
The Government are committed to tackling unacceptable bonuses in the financial sector, and we have put forward a series of proposals on that. We have talked about increasing the disclosure of remuneration, we have asked the Financial Services Authority to examine ways in which the link between risk and remuneration can be investigated, and we are taking forward work on the financial activities tax. Also, we have today published a consultation on a bank levy, which will raise an extra £2.5 billion in revenue from the banks.