Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend should recognise the strong political consensus in the eurozone for the continuation of the euro. The actions of member states have sought to stabilise the situation in the eurozone, and that is why they have set up the European stability mechanism and boosted it with funds to strengthen the firewall. They are also looking at recapitalisation of banks and trying to stabilise the situation. The actions of eurozone countries are attempts to reinforce the stability of the eurozone, and they have also embarked on reforms to try to bring about closer fiscal integration, and the fiscal compact is part of that.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister accept that even though we are not members of the eurozone, this country is still teetering on the brink of another recession? Does he also accept that the euro will continue for many decades to come—probably ad infinitum—albeit without some current members?

[Mr Hoban]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that as a consequence of the actions taken in the Budget one of the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s, reaffirmed the UK’s triple A rating—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Nottingham East paid attention and read the newspapers—he accused me of not doing so—he would have seen that post-Budget one of the big rating agencies reaffirmed our credit rating with a stable outlook. Actions have been taken to stabilise the UK economy, and that is important.

This is not a debate about the future of the eurozone and whether individual members should be in or out, because that is a matter for the national Governments of those member states, not for us. What we cannot ignore is that the stability of the European economy is a vital factor in determining the level of economic growth in the UK. As I said, 40% of our trade is with Europe. We still export significant amounts to places such as Ireland and, historically, we have exported more to Ireland than we have to Brazil, Russia, India or China combined. It is important to recognise that jobs in all our constituencies are dependent on trade with the European Union and the strength of European economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed, I was here this time last year making a very similar, uncannily parallel speech, but I will point it out again. Underneath where it talks about Crown copyright, the ISBN number and where it says:

“Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre”,

it reads:

“The Budget report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s…fiscal outlook, constitutes the Government’s assessment under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993”.

That is relevant to today’s debate. It is written in very small font for those who might have difficulty reading it. It mentions the European Communities (Amendment) Act, which sounds like a very British piece of legislation, but, being eagle-eyed, hon. Members will have spotted that all that Act does is refer to the Maastricht treaty, article 2 of which states:

“The Community shall have as its task…a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth”.

Of course, it also relates to article 103, which talks about economic policies being a “matter of common concern” that should be co-ordinated within the Council. These are the sorts of words that some find difficult to stomach, but the article continues:

“For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy”.

In a sense, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was right to say that this is the homework that has been set by the European Commission, and we are completing our homework today.

[Mark Hendrick]

We will oppose the Government tonight, but we will do so not because we disagree with the European Union having a look at our Budget—these multilateral surveillance procedures have been going on for the best part of 20 years—but because we disagree with the measures in the Budget.

[Chris Leslie]

People will have their different reasons for opposing the motion, and my hon. Friend is right to state his reason for opposing it. My reason for opposing it is that, essentially, it asks the House to approve the Government’s assessment of the economy. That is the nub of the question. We are being asked to approve the Budget Red Book as their assessment of the economy. Sadly, we know that the Government are out of touch not only with the public but with economic reality. Their grip on what one might call the actuality of the real economy leaves a great deal to be desired.

This is an opportunity not only to take stock of the Government’s approach to the economy as a whole but to look at their analysis of what is happening. We know that they are pursuing failing policies on jobs, economic growth and deficit reduction. The Minister proudly defended the cut in the 50p top rate of income tax for the wealthiest 1% in society. The Government are giving a tax cut of about £40,000 to millionaires at the expense of pensioners and working people. Is it any wonder that their popularity is falling precipitously as a result? I am glad to have an opportunity, every time the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, to remind those watching these proceedings of the Government’s priorities. Living standards are being squeezed, and the VAT rise is hitting people hard, as are the cuts to tax credits and the cost of living generally. Independent experts say that a typical family will be worse off by £511 this year, but that is the Government’s choice; they want to give millionaires that advantage.

The motion relates to the Government’s assessment of the economy. Such a poor analysis as that presented in their Budget Red Book betrays either extreme wishful thinking on the part of the Treasury or, more likely, a dangerous detachment from the key decisions that Ministers need to confront. Their understanding of what is happening to business, employment and the cost of living is far removed from the experience of the vast majority of the public.

I urge all hon. Members to look at the facts and to examine the way in which the Budget Red Book is so detached from reality. On page 11, the Government claim that growth is

“strengthening over the forecast horizon”.

Growth was minus 0.2% in the last quarter for which we have figures, and the economy has been flatlining for a long time. It has performed very poorly since the spending review, while that of the United States has grown by more than 2%. The Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting growth of just 0.8% in 2012. Last year, in this very debate, we heard that the OBR was forecasting growth of 1.7% in 2012, and that was after several downgrades. There is clear evidence that the Government’s assessment of the economy is entirely out of touch with reality. The OECD is predicting good things for the United States, Germany and Japan, which are all predicted to grow faster than the United Kingdom this year.

What is worse is that on page 15, the Red Book states that we will experience

“positive growth, consistent with experience from past financial crises”.

Last year’s Treasury Red Book said that we were expecting a recovery that was

“in line with previous recoveries”.

I know that my hon. Friends who are students of these matters will be familiar with the charts and analysis produced by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and others that compare the progress of recessions and recoveries across the decades, from the great depression to the recessions in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. When we consider our present position, we see that we are still 4% off the pre-recession peak. We have not yet clambered out of the hole. This is proving to be one of the longest and deepest financial crises, and the Government have failed to make any headway in ensuring our recovery. Their claims that we are in a parallel situation to previous recessions and financial crises prove that they are not in touch with reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with the Minister in this debate, which is about colossal issues, such as the future of economic prosperity throughout the European Union and its impact on our own economy, yet it is also a rather absurd debate. Successive Governments have felt that they have to table documentation and figures to the European Union, but they are embarrassed by that fact because they know that many of us feel that it is this Parliament, which answers to the British people, that should debate and settle these issues, and that what we are doing is none of the EU’s business. If we do a good job, we will stay in office; if we do a bad job, we will be thrown out of office, and the British people will rightly choose another group of people as they decided to do in 2010 as this crisis developed. We think that that is the right approach.

I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that if the Opposition had tabled a motion suggesting that the House should tell Brussels that we would no longer send it these documents, I would probably vote with the Opposition, because I would consider that a sensible way of trying to send an obvious message to Brussels. However, we are being invited to spend more time debating the crucial topic of what kind of economic policy would best promote growth and stability in our own country, and what contribution wider economic policies can make to stability and growth in the European Union as a whole.

The description of the pact that we are debating as a stability and growth pact is a grotesque bad-taste joke at the expense of the European peoples. It is clear from the way in which it now operates in the euroland countries that it is actually an instability and recession pact. It is a pact for mutually assured deflation. It is intended to do more damage at the very point in an economic cycle when an economy is performing very badly, to withdraw spending power from both the private and the public sector in an economy with too little demand, and to take jobs away in an economy with a problem of mass youth unemployment.

[Mark Hendrick]

I accept that the policies of many euro area member states are deflationary, but it is ridiculous to deride them simply because those countries are members of the eurozone when our own Government’s policies are equally deflationary.

[Mr Redwood]

As I shall make clear shortly, our policies are rather different. For one thing, the coalition Government decided to increase current public spending, which is running at £64 billion a year more this year than in the last year of Labour government. The Red Book shows that real current public spending has risen in each of the two years of the coalition Government, although not by very much. The Government are clearly not trying to deflate the economy by introducing massive current spending cuts, given that overall current spending has been rising.

[Mr Redwood]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Red Book intelligently. The 80:20 statistic on which Members seem to rely relates to changes compared with much bigger growth in public spending that was in inherited programmes. It is not the reality. The reality of the Government’s strategy is a massive increase in taxes over the planned five years of the present Parliament to pay for rather modest increases in current public spending over the life of the Parliament, and to get the deficit down. The 2010 strategy suggested that tax revenues would be £171 billion a year more in year 5 than they had been in the last Labour year. The Government have now had to reduce that figure a bit because—as other Members have pointed out—the expected growth has not been forthcoming, for a variety of reasons.

We need to promote growth vigorously and actively, which is common ground between the Government, coalition Back Benchers and many Opposition Members. The argument, surely, concerns what measures are most likely to bring that about. It appears that over the last four years both Governments have operated policies involving actively increasing public spending, with the exception of capital spend—certainly overall spending has risen—and actively promoting massive borrowing, while at the same time the economy has bombed very badly. I am not suggesting that that is causal, but it should lead Opposition Members to ask why that fiscal injection—massive borrowing and an increase in current public spending—has not done the job. There seems to be some disconnection between the remedy that they recommend and the reality of what is happening.

When we look at the way in which other countries have pulled out of crises of this kind, and, indeed, the way in which Britain has pulled out of similar but, perhaps, less aggressively damaging crises than the one that we inherited, we see that there is nearly always a period during which public spending must be reduced or controlled quite strongly to make room for a private sector recovery, and that a series of measures to promote that recovery will then be necessary. As I have explained at length in the past, banking reform and competitive banking are crucial. The Government’s theory favours a tight fiscal policy and a loose monetary policy. They want to allow more money to circulate through the private sector through credit and through the banking system, and they want to lower the deficit gradually in the public sector so that the fiscal policy becomes a bit tighter.

[Mark Hendrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of tax revenues. We all know where they come from—they come from those who can least afford to provide them—but given that only one private sector job is coming along to replace every 10 jobs that are being lost in the economy, where will they come from in future?

[Mr Redwood]

So far the strategy has generated quite a lot of new private sector jobs, which is very welcome, but it is obvious that it needs to generate many, many more over the next three years if it is to secure the savings on welfare benefits that I am sure all Members wish to see.

It is nonsensical for Opposition Members to say that the poor will be paying the taxes. We have just seen a big increase in thresholds which takes many people out of income tax altogether at the lower end of the income scale. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Red Book, he will see that there will be a sharp acceleration in self-assessment income tax—the income tax that is paid mainly by the rich—once we get the rate down. I know that Opposition Members do not like reading the figures in the Red Book, but it provides a much better case than Ministers ever provide for why we need to get back closer to Labour’s rates of income tax.

One of the things that I most admired about the former Prime Minister and last Chancellor of the Exchequer but one was his insistence that 40% was the highest rate of income tax that could be charged to optimise the amount of money obtained from the rich. He stuck to that view throughout his time as Chancellor and most of his time as Prime Minister. We all know that he only put it in as a political trap at the end of his period in office when he could see the writing on the wall, but it is obvious from the Red Book figures that he was right: 40% is about as high as we can go to optimise the revenue.

According to the forecast in the Red Book, the revenue will stream in after the rate falls to 45p. If Opposition Members look at the Red Book, they will see that last year, under the 50p regime, self-assessment income tax fell by an amazing 9%. That was because rich people who have a lot of freedom and ability to decide how much to pay themselves—I know that Opposition Members do not like that, but it happens to be the state of play—decided to pay themselves a great deal less. Both the outgoing and the incoming Governments had said that the tax was temporary, so they decided that they would hold back their income. It was obvious that they would do that.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Budget was an opportunity to give hope to those who have seen their household budgets squeezed and their livelihoods destroyed by the Government’s economic policies. On Wednesday, however, we saw the Government’s priorities. They were to help the few, not the many; to help the millionaires, not the millions. The Government chose ideology, not fairness. The impact of the Tory-led Government’s austerity measures is plain to see: with rising prices, squeezed living standards and soaring unemployment, this is a return to the Thatcher years of the 1980s.

In Preston, unemployment has risen month by month. In February 2012, 3,733 people were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, which is double the figure under the Labour Government. We have seen an increase of 439 from February 2011—a 13% increase in a year—and an increase of 169 since January 2012, which represents a 5% increase in just one month. The most striking figure is the increase in long-term youth unemployment, and I fear that that will be the hallmark of this Government. Long-term youth unemployment in Preston has tripled in the last year.

This problem is not unique to my constituency; it is endemic across the country. Young people and families are the victims of the Government’s reckless austerity measures, which I fear will lead to a lost generation of young people. I ask the Minister and other Government Members how it can be fair that 14,000 people earning £1 million or more are getting a tax cut of over £40,000 a year when a family with children earning just £20,000 will lose £253 a year from this April. That is on top of the VAT rise, which is costing families an average of £450 per year. The Government’s priorities are clear: tax cuts for the few while others wallow in the mess created by the Government. To repeat a comment picked up on by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers): these are the same old Tories.

This Budget is a tax raid on pensioners. In Preston, there are 5,894 people aged between 60 and 64. A large proportion of them will be the victims of the Chancellor’s decision to freeze personal allowance for pensioners, with those turning 65 next year set to lose up to £322. There are currently 16,622 pensioners in Preston, and a considerable percentage of them will have to pay this granny tax, along with 480,000 other income tax paying pensioners in the north-west of England. The economy in the north-west is already suffering.

The Budget also does nothing to help manufacturing. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that they envisage the rebalancing of our economy through manufacturing. For Preston and Lancashire, manufacturing is not only our heritage but our future. As a Lancashire MP, I am proud of the work that BAE Systems and the BAE work force have done over the generations. As we know, however, BAE has lost the contest for preferred partner with the Indian Government owing to the lack of activism on the part of this Government. In January, it was announced that French defence firm Dassault would be the Indian Government’s preferred partner for the building of their fighter jets, instead of BAE Systems with its Typhoon. In the White Paper “National Security Through Technology”, the Government have made it clear that they will no longer give British companies preferred status. If the British Government will not give that preferred status, why should the Indian Government give it to companies such as BAE? It beggars belief that the Government do not support British industry, but the Budget illustrates that fact.

The Budget shows no plans to support the nuclear industry. I hope the Government will look again at providing support to ensure that the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor is secured at Wylfa in Anglesey. This project would not only generate jobs in Anglesey, but create a Westinghouse service-based business with more than 200 jobs located in central Lancashire. This should have been the Budget for jobs and growth. Instead, it was a battle of pure politics between the coalition partners, with the winners being the millionaires and the victims the ordinary hard-working people. If this Government were to have any credibility on jobs and growth, they should have used the Budget to support companies such as BAE Systems and Westinghouse at the Springfields plant near my constituency.

The Budget included announcements on transport. Preston is a major hub for Lancashire, connecting Lancashire to Scotland, London, Liverpool and Manchester. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking to add to the trans-Pennine rail route by upgrading and electrifying the Manchester to Preston line. Why, however, are the HS2 plans so timid? The Transport Secretary and her team should not be so timid in pushing forward HS2, which would provide greater capacity and reduce journey times between major cities. Instead of legislating for the first phase of the new high-speed line from London to Birmingham, taking forward HS2 as one project, beginning construction in the north as well as the south, would have been the answer to solving the nation’s rail problems—instead of just looking after the south.

Labour Members remember the famous phrase, “We’re all in this together.” With youth unemployment at record highs and pensioners having had their money snatched by the Chancellor, there is nothing to excuse the callous and scandalous closure of the Remploy factory in Preston and others across the country. Where were the measures in this Budget to help the disabled? The systematic attacks on disabled people—whether it be through the removal of benefits or the closure of the Remploy factories—show that this Government have no shame about victimising the most vulnerable in our society.

This Budget provided a chance for a stimulus to jobs and growth in our country, and a chance to show the British people that the Government were on the side of ordinary hard-working families. Yet again, the country has been let down. This Budget will be celebrated by the few, but it will hurt the many.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I compliment UKTI on the turnaround it is undergoing under Lord Green, the exceptional new trade Minister, who has vast experience and extensive contacts across the world. I commend the work he is doing both in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and with the Foreign Office, which is putting resources into the effort to increase our trade with the rest of the world, which has languished for so long.

I shall focus now on certain measures that I believe should be taken. Some of them might be controversial in the short term, but in the long term they will all prove to be beneficial and will change views. We must better inform people about the taxes they pay and the effects of those taxes. We also need a simpler and more attractive tax regime, to ensure that people want to create jobs in our country and international companies want to expand here.

We also need an active industrial policy. That is considered a controversial proposal by some of my party colleagues, but my argument is that the Government already put their imprint on the different sectors of the economy. Our financial services regulations are different from our pharmaceutical regulations, for instance. Also, Government decisions on where to put the roads that Opposition Members are happy to welcome has an impact on the rates of development in different parts of our country, and the development of High Speed 2 will, we hope, reduce the north-south divide. The Government have a sector-by-sector stamp, therefore, so we should use the power of Government where it can be a positive force, rather than simply say, “Government must get out of the way.”

[Mark Hendrick]

The last Labour Government produced a defence industrial strategy, drafted by Lord Drayson, which included a development strategy for the industry. The current “National Security through Technology” paper says British companies should not necessarily be given priority in defence procurement, however. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?

[Matthew Hancock]

Lord Drayson was an unusually good Labour Minister—I would favourably compare him with almost all the others. The defence strategy does, indeed, recognise the need to take into account the interests of our defence industries. That is an important part of the strategy, but not necessarily always the decisive factor.

Returning to the issue of tax, the Government should give a receipt to taxpayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer)—another great Suffolk man—has pioneered that approach. We as individuals would not spend much money without asking for a receipt in return. For most people, their tax bill is the biggest item of expenditure, so such a receipt would be very important. It would also educate the public on the impact of their taxes.

We also need to know the impact of our taxes for policy making. It is extraordinary that the Labour party ignores the behavioural impact of high taxes. It is hardly surprising that it managed to mess up the public finances so comprehensively if it denies, as the shadow Chancellor does, the impact of high taxes on incentives and the amount of future tax money the Exchequer receives.

Secondly, we need a simple and attractive tax system, especially on corporation tax. All taxes are, eventually, paid by individuals, but it is companies that make so many decisions about where to locate jobs. So although a high corporation tax still falls on individuals, it puts companies off expanding or coming to Britain. By having an attractive corporation tax rate, we can attract companies to this country. Ultimately, the corporation tax would still be paid by UK residents, whether it was paid indirectly involving the companies or in any other way the tax is raised.

Taxation Freedom Day Bill

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

Are Government Members to assume that the hon. Lady has absolutely no support from her party, as the Opposition Benches are completely empty?

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I’m here.

[Mr Bone]

Well, they were empty.

Summer Adjournment

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is increasing evidence that the number of people taking part in shisha smoking is on the rise. Hookah pipes have become a regular sight on university campuses, and shisha cafés or bars are springing up across the country. I have seen evidence of this in my own constituency of Preston, and it is particularly true of young people from ethnic minority Asian communities, as shisha smoking is seen as a legitimate social activity compared with drinking alcohol. This is creating a number of issues for both the Government and local authorities. Chief among them is how best to educate smokers about the health risks associated with shisha.

First, what is shisha? To avoid confusion, let us be clear that shisha is the process of smoking tobacco through an ornate water pipe. Tobacco is mixed with fruit or syrup and then wrapped in aluminium foil before being heated by charcoal. The smoker then uses a pipe to breathe in, forcing the smoke through the water, producing bubbles, before it is inhaled. Shisha is also referred to as hookah, hubble-bubble, goza and narghile and is a common pastime in parts of Asia and Africa, where it dates back around four centuries.

There are a number of myths surrounding shisha, the most prevalent of which is the belief that it is either not a danger to your health, or much less serious than smoking cigarettes. This is simply not the case. There is of course variety in what is smoked, but in the majority of cases it is tobacco. The fact that it is flavoured or described as herbal hides the impact it can have. I stress this because reports have suggested that some people do not realise that tobacco is involved and many do not regard the activity to be the same as smoking cigarettes.

In addition, there is a belief that the process of passing the smoke through water filters out many of the harmful chemicals that are released by burning tobacco, but it does not. Shisha smokers expose themselves to nicotine, carbon monoxide, heavy metals and other cancer-causing chemicals, and they do so in much greater quantities than those smoking a cigarette. Research carried out by the World Health Organisation found that the average cigarette involves eight to 12 intakes and produces a total of between 0.5 and 0.6 litres of smoke over a five to seven-minute period. When looking at shisha, it was found that the average smoking session involves between 50 and 200 intakes, producing between 0.15 and 1 litre of smoke per intake, over a 20 to 80-minute period.

The health dangers associated with smoking tobacco are now well established. Shisha smokers expose themselves to the same risks as those who smoke cigarettes. Increased risks of heart disease, cancer and gum disease are all direct consequences of smoking tobacco. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the increasing popularity of shisha smoking as a social activity is resulting in a number of challenges. How can we effectively regulate shisha cafes and bars to ensure that they comply with the Health Act 2006? How can we ensure that safety is maintained and risks minimised?

In short, Britain is witnessing the emergence of a shisha culture. Young people from a range of backgrounds, but especially those from ethnic minority communities, are taking up shisha smoking. We need to do more to dispel the dangerous myths out there relating to shisha smoking. Today I call upon the Government to instigate a nationwide campaign, similar to that instigated by the Labour Government, to talk about the dangers of this type of smoking.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. If we do not get it right today, this coalition Government and future Governments will use the same trick again and again.

What I am doing is not a wrecking manoeuvre; nor is it about stopping the Bill from making progress. All we need to do is defeat the guillotine motion now, and then there will be a full Second Reading debate, followed by the Committee stage and Third Reading. The current situation is an abuse of Parliament and its democracy. Normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod. Surely I am not mistaken that the only possible reason for proceeding today would be if the Minister had written a cheque for £3.25 billion last night and handed it to the Irish Government. Then I might be inclined to agree that we should get on with things today. However, the Minister does not seem to be leaping to the Dispatch Box to confirm that.

One argument for pushing the Bill through could be the lack of space in the parliamentary calendar and an inability to spare any more time to debate it, but we all know that that is not true. Even with recess upon us, we could have abandoned the Backbench Business Committee debate tomorrow—Thursday—and had the Committee stage and Third Reading instead. However, if that was not the flavour of the will of the House, we could have used Monday, for which a general debate is listed. If the general debate were abandoned, Government business would not be lost, and the debate could be rescheduled for another time. Alternatively, if there really is an emergency and the Bill really does need to be progressed now, let the House sit this Friday until the business is complete.

Parliament could be allowed a full day on Second Reading, which would occur after the allocation of time motion were defeated, and the Government could then choose Thursday, Friday or Monday for Committee and Third Reading. That would in no way hold up progress; nor could it be interpreted as letting our friends in Europe down. Indeed, the idea that they do not take our word for it that the Government are serious is also, I have to say, not believable. If the Government say that they are going to give £3.25 billion to Ireland in a loan, they know that that is what will happen, so that argument is just an excuse to push the Bill through in one day.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Clearly the issue at hand is not whether the Government will give £3.25 billion to Ireland. However, the Minister did not necessarily make it clear in his response to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) whether money would be going just to Ireland, or to Portugal or Spain in future too. Could the hon. Gentleman give us his views on that?

[Mr Bone]

Mr Speaker, you would rightly tick me off if I answered that question. That is a matter for the Second Reading debate, because it is to do with the issues in the Bill. I am expressing no view on that at the moment. However, unless we have adequate time to discuss those issues, the hon. Gentleman’s point might not be clarified.

Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion. The advantage of splitting the debate over two days is that it would allow a proper debate on Second Reading today. I believe that many Members would like to take part in such a debate. It would also allow amendments to be tabled in the normal way, and enable us to have a proper debate in Committee, with time for a debate and votes on each of the amendments. There would also be time for a Third Reading debate.

I understand that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment today, although I have not seen it. That amendment has been tabled without allowing Members the time to consider it. That just shows the weakness of this procedure. If the allocation of time motion were defeated, we would have a full Second Reading debate and the Government would have to rearrange their business to provide for the Committee stage and Third Reading. The loan would still go through, but the Bill would have been properly debated and, if necessary, amended. Defeating the allocation of time motion would not wreck the Bill; it would simply give more time for proper scrutiny so that the Bill could be improved. We have already seen that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment. What will happen if, during the 15 minutes of the Second Reading debate, a Member decides that they want to table an amendment? They just will not have time to do it.

How does the motion fit in with the principles behind parliamentary sittings? The present timetabling of our sittings is broadly based on the Jopling reforms and encompasses three principles. It is against those three principles that we should judge the Bill today. The first is that the Government must be able to get their business through, and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to improve or oppose legislation as they think fit. Thirdly—this is of more interest to me—Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern from their constituents. A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about this Bill.

A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact—I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree with this—that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. It is also a major role of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive to hold the Executive to account, whichever party or parties make up that Executive. That is one of the most important roles we have as Members of Parliament. This motion removes that role. It is appalling that the coalition Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament. I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of parliamentary power to scrutinise legislation has been a long-adopted approach by successive Governments. This motion, I am afraid, is a step too far. Individual Members of Parliament attach a great deal of importance to scrutiny and accountability, and problems arise when the Executive try to deny us that right.

The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. They ask MPs to table amendments before we have had a chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can MPs properly table amendments when they have not heard the details and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 11 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a three-page document—I have it with me—of amendments, and another five-page document on their justification for rushing the Bill through. These documents were produced only in the last few days. How can they, and the amendments, realistically be scrutinised if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.

The House of Lords got rather fed up with the Commons bouncing it, so it has now come up with a procedure whereby the Government have to answer a number of questions—I think it is eight—before they can get a Bill such as this through. Those questions are printed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Let us look at some of them for a minute, and see whether the answers hold up to scrutiny.

The first question is: “Why is fast-tracking necessary?” The notes go on to explain that the proposal is for a bilateral loan, and that the timing of the UK’s proposed loan is currently unclear. They state:

“It is necessary to fast-track the Bill so that the UK’s international partners can be confident that the bilateral loan will be implemented.”

That is an absolutely hopeless answer to the question. It does not tell us why the Bill is being fast-tracked. It is ridiculous to suggest that our international partners would think that, because we had not taken another day or two to debate the Bill, the Government were not going to proceed with the loan.

The next question is:

“What is the justification for fast-tracking each element of the Bill?”

Again, there does not seem to be an answer. The notes state:

“The Bill is a short Bill, with few substantive provisions other than to provide for sums required by the Treasury”.

Yes, the Bill is short because many of the provisions deal with statutory instruments and affirmative resolutions. It is an important Bill, but it is short because many of the provisions do not go into detail. That is exactly why we need a proper Second Reading debate. I do not think that the Government have answered that question either.

The next question is a good one:

“What efforts have been made to ensure the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised?”

The answer is:

“The Bill is being published on the same day it is introduced and arrangements are being made for amendments to be accepted in advance of second reading in the House of Commons.”

How on earth does that answer the question about making time available for parliamentary scrutiny? It is like the Prime Minister being asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions and giving an answer to a completely different one. It might be a good answer, but it is not the answer to the question that was asked.

The next thing that the Lords want to know is this:

“To what extent have interested parties and outside groups been given an opportunity to influence the policy proposal?”

The answer talks about our European Union colleagues, but the key is in the last sentence, which states that

“there has been limited opportunity to give interested parties and outside groups an opportunity to influence.”

By the Government’s own admission, they have failed in regard to that question.

The next question asks whether the Bill includes a sunset clause. The Government can argue, with some justification, that it does, because it stipulates a period of five years. It does not tell us when the loans are to be repaid, but it places a five-year limit on the period in which they can be made. That is not what is normally understood by a sunset clause, however. Sunset clauses normally stipulate that in, say, a year’s time, Parliament will look again at the legislation to see whether it is correct.

The next question is:

“Are mechanisms for effective post legislative scrutiny and review in place? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?”

The answer states:

“The Bill provides for regular reports”.

On that one, I will give the Government a tick. So far, they have passed one of the six tests. The next question is:

“Has an assessment been made as to whether existing legislation is sufficient to deal with any or all the issues in question?”

The Government do not really answer that one. They say:

“Statutory authority for such expenditure is required in accordance with the Concordat of 1932 between the Government and the Public Accounts Committee.”

I am unclear as to what that means, but it does not seem to answer the question that has been asked. The final question is:

“Has the relevant Parliamentary committees been given to opportunity to scrutinise the legislation?”

The explanatory notes were drawn up in such haste that the spelling of the question was incorrect, but the simple answer to it, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) might confirm, is that no such scrutiny has taken place.

In concluding my opening remarks, I want to say a few words about what I think is wrong. Let me state to the House how this mother of Parliaments should work in relation to timings of debates. The driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power—from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the Government of the day to account. The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for Governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it and send it back, get it back, look at it again and improve it some more—Bill by Bill, clause by clause, line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?

Let us compare that with today. Let me take Members on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It is likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of No. 10. A Bill is drafted and it is sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bells ring, the whips are cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all the Members turn up to vote. More often than not, they do not even know what they are voting for. The Bill limps through. Then it goes into Committee. The Committee’s duty is to look at the detail clause by clause, but it is packed full of people that the Whips have put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely lose a vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny. Then it is back to the House to do it all again—debate, bell and then vote to wave the legislation through.

Every Bill now has a programme motion setting out how much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. There are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the time, to an audience of dozing Back Benchers—that is not accountability. How can the mother of all Parliaments turn itself into such a pliant child?

Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for that last section of my speech. It was in fact from a speech on fixing broken promises delivered on 26 May 2009 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). I do not think that Ministers on the Front Bench today want to upset the Prime Minister. So they have an opportunity, before the conclusion of the debate, to say that they will withdraw the allocation of time motion, and that we will have proper debate.

For many years I have sat on the Back Benches imploring others to give more time for Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I believe that to be the fundamental role, not only of the Back Bencher, but of Parliament itself.

European Union Economic Governance

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I should like to make a bit more progress on this point.

It is right that we should co-operate with this process, but our co-operation should be consistent with the fiscal sovereignty of the UK. The information that we provide to assist with the surveillance will always be information that has been made available to this House before it is passed to the Commission. Everything that the Commission gets will have been in the public domain, to the extent that a member of the public will have been able to unearth the same data using Google, albeit with less efficiency.

[Mark Hendrick]

The information might be available elsewhere, but the Minister will know that, as a result of the proposed new regulation Com. (2010)526, there will be an obligation for the UK to provide far more information than it has done in the past. There may not be penalties involved, and we may well run up budget deficits or levels of debt that were unacceptable to the Commission—I am sure we can do that—but the point is that this country will be obliged to provide far more information formally to the Commission than it has in the past. In my view, that constitutes a degree of transfer of power to the Commission.

[Mr Hoban]

Let me repeat that this involves information that is already out there in the public domain. It is information that will already have been made available through, for example, the House of Commons Library, the Budget documents, the Red Book or the Green Book. It is information that is already out there, so I do not believe that supplying it will be a problem.

[Mark Hendrick]

The point is not that the information will have been made available elsewhere; it is that there will be an obligation on the Government themselves to make it available. If the Commission wanted to go out and find it elsewhere, I am sure that it would do so, but there will now be a new obligation on the Government, as a result of a new treaty, to give it information that they were not previously required to give.

[Mr Hoban]

I simply do not take the view that giving the Commission more information is going to be a problem. This goes back to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who asked whether there is to be an increase in EU jurisdiction as a result of this measure. No, there is not. All that the EU will do is make recommendations, but they will not bind us or be imposed on us. We can simply ignore them. There will be no increase in EU jurisdiction as a consequence of this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Well, my point is that it may or may not be a sensible move—as a pro-European I think benefit could come from it—but what is important is that we get clarity from the Government about what exactly is on the table. If there are to be treaty changes and other new regulations, the Minister has to be straight about that with the country and the House. The latest sanctions in the framework—in terms of interest bearing deposits, non-interest bearing deposits and eventual fines—may not apply to the UK, but there is a first phase to that process which is the application of standards and assessments of our economic and fiscal position, and that will apply to the UK. The motion seeks approval for the Government’s position that any sanctions should not apply to the UK because of our euro opt-out, but there are developments here that strengthen the role of the EU in respect of our economic policy, and while that may be a good thing, some Members of this House would be wary of it.

There are also wider implications for our economy and our growth trajectory. For example, I am particularly intrigued by the German argument that bondholders should have greater liability—such as in the form of interest payment holidays, or bond value haircuts, as they are known—for potential future eurozone bail-outs. The implications for UK banks and bondholders could be significant if they are embroiled to a larger extent in the crisis management mechanism. UK banks hold particularly high proportions of Irish and Spanish liabilities. A recent Bank for International Settlements report found that 22% of Irish bonds and 11% of Spanish bonds are in UK hands. There has been much discussion of whether City investors are therefore subject to higher risk, or whether the markets have already priced that in. Either way, there are indirect implications for British investors. Moreover, the new suite of policy changes affecting eurozone economic governance will not just be on paper; the changes will bite in the real economies in each of the eurozone countries and could have a bearing on their own internal growth and investment plans.

[Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. While the UK may not be signed up to the stability and growth pact and we may not be subject to EU deficit procedures, stability and growth in the eurozone are very important to the British economy. Moreover, the way in which the Government are dealing with our deficit will put British growth at risk, and that is part and parcel of how we interact with the other economies in Europe.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. If fiscal policies across the eurozone are simultaneously shifted towards a marginally more deflationary stance as a result of the new policy framework that we are debating tonight, the resulting contraction in economic activity and consumer spending could impact on the sale of British goods and services in those countries. In other words, the eurozone—which, as we know, is by far the UK’s largest trading partner, accounting for more than 50% of our exports—could face economic challenges and, in turn, it is likely that UK companies will face problems exporting to those markets. Add to that the G20 discussions on international currency issues and an influx of capital to the eurozone following worries over the dollar and the Chinese renminbi and we can imagine a relative appreciation of the euro afflicting our exporters still further. We will have to see how that latter issue pans out in particular, but this is of significance to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

As I see it, it is difficult to know yet what propositions are before us. I want to hear the Minister’s answers to our questions and we will make up our minds then. The substance of the regulations and the eventual treaty changes might be beneficial, but we also have to wait and see what President Van Rompuy proposes in his eventual treaty amendment and what emerges from the December Council meeting. We are not at the end of a process; we are in it. There are further propositions to be put on the table.

[Mark Hendrick]

One regulation that might well be on the table is for any member state of the European Union, within or outside the eurozone, that has a debt level of greater than 60% of GDP to reduce that debt at a rate of at least 5% per annum. That could well be a regulation that the Government sign up to, even though they might not be subject to penalties if they do not keep to it.

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed. There could be significant direct policy changes as regards transfers of policy and also indirect economic impacts on the UK. We have to see more detail about what will emerge from those who are in the driving seat—unfortunately, that does not seem to be either our Chancellor or our Prime Minister.

Finance Bill

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We do not believe the rise will have a noticeable effect on the number of people taking out insurance, but I know that hon. Members are concerned about the impact of the IPT rises on households. I have already set out the average impact on households. Specifically in the case of the insurance covered by amendments 18 and 19, the IPT rate increase will add only about £6 a year to the average motor insurance premium, and for those who buy private medical insurance the rise will cost less than £10 a year on average. Consequently, it is difficult to make the case that the increase will prove much of a deterrent to people taking out motor insurance or private medical insurance. Consumers are well used to insurance premiums fluctuating, and the modest effects of the rise will not act as any significant deterrent.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Exchequer Secretary says that the rise will not be a deterrent, but it will certainly provide an incentive to people who pass the tax on to the consumer to increase charges over and above the amount in question and then blame the Government for it, as we have seen with so many other taxes.

[Mr Gauke]

Let us see what happens. I am not sure that the evidence necessarily supports that concern, but I am sure that if it happens the hon. Gentleman will come back to the House to highlight it. Many within the insurance industry have themselves acknowledged that the rises are very modest and will not have a significant impact on households or on the take-up of insurance.

Amendment 15 would make the IPT rise announced in Budget contingent on the publication of an assessment of the effect of the rate rise on consumers and the insurance industry. We believe it is unnecessary. I have set out fairly comprehensively in this debate the expected impact on households and businesses—in broad terms, that impact will be minimal.

I should also point out to hon. Members the considerable amount of information on the impact of the Budget that we have already put in the public domain. In particular, for the first time the Government have set out their analysis of the distributional impact on households of the Budget measures, including the IPT rate changes, in annex A of the Red Book. Separately, other organisations such as the Association of British Insurers have given estimates of the impact of the rise on households, which are very much in line with our own estimates. Naturally, the industry and consumers do not like the rises, and we do not like having to introduce them, but the industry accepts that they are going to happen and is preparing accordingly.

Finally, I wish to address amendment 48 which, as the shadow Chief Secretary said, is a probing amendment aimed at exploring the reasons for the rise and its impacts. He asked a specific question about the balance between the standard and higher rates. For 2010-11—Members should remember that the rate increases will occur in January 2011—the revenue raised will be £110 million from the standard rate and £5 million from the higher rate. For the following years, the higher rate will raise £25 million each year, with the balance made up from the standard rate, which in most years raises £450 million.

The shadow Chief Secretary also asked about the reason for the increase in the higher rate from 17.5% to 20%. As he correctly surmised, it is to do with value shifting and the fact that travel insurance is often sold with other products on which VAT is payable. A discrepancy between the IPT on travel insurance and other rates may create dangers of value shifting, and that is the reason for the proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the private health system is not independent? It is actually dependent on the national health service, and the vast majority of private health staff were trained and qualified in the NHS. The 6% we are talking about is quite small when it comes to disincentives for people to use the private health system.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his old socialist credentials and his prejudice. I shall not get into a full debate about the NHS, as I hope that we will have an opportunity to do so when the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—which I support—is debated on a Friday in February. Let us not forget that many of our top clinicians stay in this country because they can supply their services to the NHS—[Interruption.] Yes, they do so for money, but they can also top up their income by getting money for providing their services to private patients. That mixed market in health care provision, including the providers of health care, is healthy for our country and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not support it. That is a philosophical divide, but I think that we need the best health practitioners in this country. The private health insurance companies make a significant contribution to the health of the nation.

I shall not go through all the contributions that were made in this debate, but I wish to touch on the motor insurance issue, which found most common cause across the Committee. Because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did not seem to be committed to the idea of protecting motorists—especially young motorists and those from areas with high insurance premiums—and did not say that he would support my amendment, he has created a slight difficulty for me.