Breathing Space Scheme

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) for her initiative in bringing forward these proposals. She is clearly at the forefront of this worthwhile campaign, and she is ably supported by hon. Members from across the House, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who made a powerful speech.

Debt is a terrible problem among households. Like the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), I was a debt adviser in a citizens advice bureau some years ago. Far too many families in Kettering have their lives blighted by taking on too much household debt.

Part of the problem is the language we use to describe these issues. At its most fundamental, it comes down to the word “credit”. Everyone thinks that credit is a good thing, and creditors like to use that word because it attracts people to take out their products, but let us call it what it is—it is not credit; it is debt. They are not credit cards; they are indebtedness cards, or debt cards. People love to have a credit card but, for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, a credit card is a passport to a life of misery. They get themselves completely out of their depth when it comes to managing financial products and, as hon. Members so ably described, their lives and the lives of their children are blighted in so many ways as a result.

R3, which was mentioned, did a survey in February and found that just over two fifths—41%—of British adults are worried about their current debt and that 40% say that they often or sometimes struggle to get to payday. Those figures are true for people in the Kettering constituency, and the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood would really help to address that.

There is also a woeful lack of financial education at school. If we are struggling now to manage household budgets, things will be even worse for future generations.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I would like to encourage my hon. Friend with the information that the Church of England’s schools—even the primary schools—have rolled out a programme of teaching financial literacy so that the next generation of children will be better equipped to cope with money and the pressure that is put on them at a tender age to borrow money.

[Mr Hollobone]

Thank God for the Church of England—that’s all I can say. I hope that that scheme, which my right hon. Friend is right to highlight, is rolled out across the country into non-Church schools, too. We need to take advantage of best practice, and it sounds to me like the Church of England is doing that. There must be lenders out there that are examples of best practice and already give their customers breathing space, but we have not heard mention of them today. I would like to see their names up in lights as examples for others to follow. I close by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood for her sterling efforts on the issue.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

The first two Front-Bench speakers may now have an extra minute each. I call Kirsty Blackman.

Money Laundering: British Banks

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in this country we have not only a world-regarded financial regulation system but a rule of law that is both fair and effective. If there is any wrongdoing or impropriety, it is right and proper that those people face the full weight of the law.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many money launderers have been sent to prison in the past five years?

[Simon Kirby]

I am not aware of the exact answer to that question, but I will write to my hon. Friend with all the information I have. I am convinced that, across the world and in this country, money laundering is taken very seriously.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, we have considered the issue of women affected by the pension age changes and we have provided some transitional funding. I am aware that there are people who believe that that is not sufficient and who would like more. I understand that, but the role of Government is always to balance the claims of individuals against the interests of the taxpayer, who has to fund these things in the end, and we think we have got that balance right.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Away from the Chamber of the House of Commons, out there in the real world, there is an army of self-employed people who are working their socks off from dawn to dusk and often longer. They often take great personal risks. They are the heroes and heroines of wealth creation. Without their efforts, we simply would not be able to afford the public services that we all enjoy. On behalf of the self-employed people of Kettering, I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for thinking again.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I extend my sincere good wishes to all the people of Kettering—self-employed or otherwise—and everywhere else.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

On the level of NHS funding, the hon. Lady will find that expenditure has gone up more in England than it has in Scotland. Given that it is a devolved matter, she might want to raise her concerns with the Scottish Government.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Chief Secretary confirm that record amounts of money are being spent on the NHS, that record numbers of patients are being treated and that he will give clear incentives to local authorities and health services to join up the delivery of NHS and social care?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely correct about the resources that we are putting in, but if we want to improve the quality of healthcare, particularly in the context of social care, it is also important that there is greater integration. That is why we announced the better care fund, which is making an important contribution to supporting social care and improving integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Shortly.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T9. For many of my constituents in Kettering even a small amount of household debt can turn out to be unaffordable and can turn into a personal financial nightmare for them and their family. When will the Treasury respond to the excellent “Breathing Space” proposals to help people who are trying to get on top of their household debts by giving them statutory protection from unscrupulous, ruthless lenders?

[Simon Kirby]

The “Breathing Space” proposals are being carefully considered by the Government and we will report on them shortly.

London Stock Exchange

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is due to finish at 5.30 pm. I need to call the Front-Bench Members no later than 5.07 pm. The recommended time limits for the Front-Bench speakers are: five minutes for the SNP; five minutes for Her Majesty’s official Opposition; and 10 minutes for the Minister. That allows two or three minutes for Sir William Cash to sum up at the end. Five Members wish to speak, so I am afraid there will have to be a three-minute limit. If there are too many interventions, somebody will not be able to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to this issue. I want to hear what the Minister has to say because, if we look at all of the recent mergers and acquisitions activity, whether between ARM Holdings and SoftBank, PSA and Vauxhall, Unilever and Kraft, or even Liberty House and Tata Steel, the Government are saying something. The Government have a view, so I think, as many hon. Members have said, it is appropriate to hear the Government’s updated view.

It is clear from other aspects of Government policy that there was no planning for post-Brexit circumstances for our country, so it is appropriate that they should have a new and fresh look at this. We need to know if our rules and regulations for competitive markets and a national interest test are suitable and up to what is needed in this new period of uncertainty in our economy. We have inherited those rules from the past, but should we rely on them as if we were part of the European Union and say they are fine and fit for purpose now, or is it appropriate for us to look at them anew?

It is also important to hear from the Government, because their crucial role at this time is to reduce uncertainty in our economy, so that people, companies and banks start investing in our country. It is fair to say that there is not a conspiracy—I do not think there is a conspiracy in the City—but when there are mergers and acquisitions involving a vast number of advisers, their interest will be focused on the deal and not necessarily on the impartiality of their advice to the Government. Without a clear review from the Government, there is a risk that the City will just let the merger through on the nod because so many people have vested interests.

Echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I would like to know the Government’s role in reducing uncertainty on three specific issues. First, he mentioned a significantly increased systemic risk for the Bank of England from linking the two clearing houses, therefore exposing the UK to systematic breakdown of the euro. What assessment have the Government made of the extent of that? Secondly, as has been mentioned, on exposing the stock exchange to political risk from political groups outside the UK, what is the Government’s policy for managing that increased political risk if the merger goes through?

Thirdly, the harmonisation of business models has been mentioned by both sides during the debate. That is a way forward, but it is not the only way forward. Do the Government view the City of London harmonising with the EU as a priority, or should it better be looking to independently frame arrangements with the world?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The five-minute guideline limit for speeches will be displayed on the clocks to help the opposition spokesmen to keep the debate on time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this extremely important debate at a critical time for the London Stock Exchange and for the many financial services companies in Europe and beyond that depend on its continued successful functioning. The hon. Gentleman could reasonably be regarded as the Archbishop of Brexit, so when he says that something might not be in the national interest as a result of the Brexit process, I for one certainly take heed of that.

The London Stock Exchange is a great British institution, with a history dating back to 1698. In the intervening centuries, the LSE has evolved far beyond a simple trading platform. Its services are now exported around the world and a variety of markets benefit from those services, which include clearing, indexing and technology. As policy makers, it must be our priority to provide an environment in which that can continue. However, the LSE sits at the convergence of a number of challenges as the UK seeks its departure from the European Union. We need to pay careful attention to how those challenges can be managed, not only for the future success of the LSE but to ensure that potential damage to the rest of the financial services sector is mitigated.

The first and most sensitive of those challenges is undoubtedly the proposed merger of the LSE and Deutsche Börse. Given the standing of the LSE, it is unsurprising that it has been courted by numerous merger partners over the years. Mergers were under discussion between these two particular organisations as long ago as 2000. The LSE last rejected an offer from Deutsche Börse in 2005. Today’s proposed merger has shareholder approval from both sides. The only barriers that remain are regulatory approval and the go-ahead from the relevant European and UK competition authorities.

There are good reasons why this deal could be in the best interests of industry more widely and the consumer, notwithstanding the outcome of in-depth scrutiny by anti-trust authorities. In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, regulators have made significant progress towards tackling a fragmented post-trade environment and mitigating systemic risk. It is arguable that the economies of scale provided by this merger may help those efforts, while creating a significant global player, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) outlined.

Consolidation has been a notable trend in recent years among trading venues, driven by a number of factors, but ultimately larger single entities have the potential to reduce costs for their stakeholders. This particular merger could also improve capital flows across the European Union, in the intended spirit of the capital markets union. I worry a little bit, listening to Conservative Members, about the degree of protectionism that seems to be slipping into centre-right parties around the world at the moment. Those advantages are perhaps being underestimated.

It is undeniable that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union has significantly altered the terms of reference for the deal. In my view, it will be extremely challenging for the relevant regulatory and anti-trust bodies to deliver a final verdict on the proposals while the detail around the conditions of our exit from the European Union remain so vague. Notably, there seems to be some debate over whether the headquarters of the new entity would be in London, which was treated as a given prior to the vote on 23 June, or in Frankfurt, which has now entered the discussion given the UK’s signalled departure from the single market. Clearly there are strong arguments for both sides, but the conversation must take place in the context of ensuring a future for clearing activities in the City of London.

London is one of the world’s leading centres for clearing, providing essential market infrastructure to global financial services. The revenue and jobs that the industry supports must be recognised in the Brexit negotiations. LSE’s subsidiary, LCH.Clearnet, which is 57% owned by the LSE, cleared over 90% of the world’s over-the-counter derivatives last year, amounting to a figure in excess of $655 trillion. That is especially pertinent given the ongoing efforts by certain parties to relocate euro-denominated clearing to the continent. In 2015, LCH cleared €327 trillion across different euro-denominated products, according to evidence submitted to the Treasury Committee by the LSE earlier this year. The scale of that activity is so significant that it could support up to 232,000 jobs throughout the UK, which would be lost if euro-denominated clearing went as part of the Brexit process.

Although efforts have so far failed on the continent, given some strong practical arguments against re-domiciling those transactions, the relevant authorities must give careful consideration to potentially creating a bridge between Frankfurt and London that includes LCH.Clearnet, to mitigate the risk of that gaining traction.

The LSE is one of the vital cogs that has helped to build the UK’s successful financial services sector. It is critical that we ensure it can continue to function effectively post-Brexit. A full and in-depth assessment of the proposed merger must take place in that context.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister would be kind enough to conclude his remarks no later than 5.27 pm, he would allow Sir William to sum up the debate.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this important and topical debate. He has made many thoughtful and detailed points, and I will do my very best to answer them in the brief time I have. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) also raised some interesting points, which I will attempt to answer as I work my way through my speech; he should bear with me.

What is clear today is that we share the same interest: the continued success of an important, and some would say iconic, British company. The London Stock Exchange Group has a proud history that goes back more than 200 years. While the group is most famous today for its equities exchange, it is in fact a much wider business that includes, notably, one of the world’s major clearing houses.

I well recognise that the proposed merger with Deutsche Börse is a significant development. Let me start by recalling some of its key terms. The merged company will be controlled by a newly created parent company, headquartered here in London. At the outset, it will be owned 54.4% by shareholders of Deutsche Börse and 45.6% by LSE Group shareholders. The board of directors of the merged group—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a Division has been called in the House. If there is just one Division, we will return in 15 minutes. If there are two Divisions, we will resume in 25 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We have 12 minutes left, of which the Minister can take up to nine.

[Simon Kirby]

It is a pleasure to be back under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I was talking about the shareholding of the company. The board of directors of the merged group will be drawn from both sides of the group and chaired by the current LSE chair, Donald Brydon. The deal on the terms has now been approved by both sets of shareholders, but official scrutiny of the merger remains outstanding. Let me address that point in response to questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked about the roles of the FCA and the Bank of England.

The deal must be cleared by numerous regulators worldwide, including in Germany and the UK. In the UK, the Bank of England and the FCA have a statutory role in assessing and approving changes in the control of central counterparties and stock exchanges respectively. On CCPs, the Bank must be satisfied of the reputation and financial soundness of the acquirer, the reputation and experience of any person who will direct the CCP following acquisition, the CCP’s ongoing capacity to continue to comply with relevant regulations, and any money laundering or terrorist financing concerns. On exchanges, the FCA is empowered to intervene if it considers that the change of control would pose a threat to the sound and prudent management of the regulated market. Those assessments remain outstanding and the regulators are in ongoing discussions with the companies.

Of course, the merger is of such a size that it must face rigorous scrutiny from the European Commission on competition grounds. Its investigation is also ongoing and includes the engagement of the UK Competition and Markets Authority in a consultative capacity. It is due to reach its conclusion in early April. That is a complex and sensitive inquiry, which I will not attempt to prejudge.

My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s position. The Government do not have a formal role in scrutinising the merger, and it would not be appropriate for us to take a position either way on the deal, but we are following it closely and are in touch with the regulators.

Another area of concern that was raised pertains to the migration of businesses to Frankfurt if the merger goes ahead—particularly clearing businesses. The merger is subject to ongoing regulatory assessments. These are commercial matters, but for hon. Members’ benefit, let me read out what the LSE Group said on 16 January in relation to speculation about the merger. It stated that

“such action is not contemplated and any statements suggesting otherwise are inaccurate and misguided…LSEG and Deutsche Börse are committed to maintaining the strengths and capabilities of their respective operations in London and Frankfurt. Further, the existing regulatory framework of all regulated entities will remain unchanged and, in particular, there is no intention to move the locations of Eurex or Clearstream from Frankfurt, LCH from London and the US, Monte Titoli from Milan or CC&G from Rome following completion.”

That is what the company said, but let me emphasise that we are not complacent about the position of UK financial services companies, and we will continue to ensure that we support and enable their ongoing success.

On the implications of Brexit, we are in regular contact with not just the LSE but many financial services firms to understand the implications of Brexit for their varied areas of business and their priorities for the new trading relationship as we negotiate with the EU. Our aim is clear: to ensure the continued success of British financial services and the millions of jobs that they bring to people across the UK.

Moving on to specific points raised during the debate, I welcome the thoughtful contributions made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and for Stalybridge and Hyde. I want particularly to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who asked whether the deal could be postponed. In the long term, this business, like so many others, will need to meet the challenges and opportunities of Brexit. I assure Members that the Government take our role seriously. We will continue to engage with the LSE and other firms across the financial services sector to ensure that we understand their plans and what they consider they need from the arrangements that we are negotiating with the EU.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) asked what was to stop TopCo moving to Germany. The deal has been voted on by shareholders in its current terms with the London headquarters. It is clearly part of a balanced structure designed to secure the approval of both sets of shareholders. Ultimately, the long-term location of the headquarters is a matter for the board and shareholders, in common with other companies, but importantly, it is worth noting that in this case, the articles of association of the combined company will contain a safeguard that the location of the company cannot change without the approval of 75% of the directors. Also, of course, under the Companies Act 2006, the removal of that safeguard from the articles of association could take place only with the agreement of 75% of the combined group’s shareholders. That is a significant point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) asked whether the companies would merge their central counterparties and whether that would create a systemic risk. The European market infrastructure regulation establishes a strict supervisory framework for CCPs, and in the UK they are regulated by the Bank of England. He was also keen to know more about the Government’s view on takeovers. I have said and will repeat that there is a formal and regular scrutiny system for takeovers of exchanges and CCPs, operated by the Bank and the Financial Conduct Authority. There is also a competition scrutiny process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked about TopCo moving to Germany. I reiterate my previous comments: the deal has been voted on by shareholders in its current terms with the London headquarters. There will be 50% of directors from each side, and the shareholders’ agreement provides additional and clear reassurance. He asked about the Treasury’s power to direct the Bank of England. It is true that the Bank of England Act 1946 includes that power, but the factors that the Bank can take into account are set at European level in EMIR, and the Bank would still be subject to those constraints in a scenario where the Treasury sought to exercise its power of direction. We can direct it only if we act lawfully, and we cannot direct it to act beyond the scope of its regulatory powers as set out in EMIR.

The Government take a close interest in the developments on the proposed merger and the assessments of the various regulatory bodies involved. Financial services represent an immensely important industry for the UK, and we have been clear that we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement involving the freest possible trade in goods and services, including in that sector. That is in not only our interests but those of member states across the EU. I thank hon. Members from throughout the House for being here today and sharing the commitment that we all have to the future success of the London Stock Exchange and the sector more broadly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

What we have said is that where EU funding is awarded to projects involving universities, businesses, external research institutes and farmers between now and the point of our departure from the European Union, provided those awards meet our value-for-money criteria and have the support of the UK or devolved Administration Department responsible, the Treasury will underwrite those awards. We expect that in any settlement with the European Union, the Commission will go on paying those awards after we have left, but if it does not we will stand behind them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Many small businesses in Kettering are supplied by other British firms and sell their goods and services to British consumers, yet all are affected by often unnecessary EU regulation. Will the Chancellor join efforts post-Brexit to reduce this burden as quickly as possible?

[Mr Hammond]

The remedy to the problem my hon. Friend sets out will lie in the hands of this Parliament once we repatriate the acquis in the great repeal Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are taking action to ensure that we build more homes. There is a need for flexibility in terms of tenure, which was at the heart of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), but last week’s autumn statement included a series of measures that will help to ensure that we are building more homes in this country, which is what we need.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Why is there such a large gap between the number of planning permissions and the number of housing starts, and what specifically can the Government do to close that gap?

[Mr Gauke]

There has consistently been a gap. What is important is that there is certainty of supply. We need to ensure that we have the right planning system in place and the right fiscal support, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now come to an important half-hour debate on the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. I call Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for, I believe, the first time, Mr Hollobone. The office of independent adviser is now 10 years old. The story is one either of Ministers all behaving as saintly paragons of perfection or of the system not working, and I fear it is the latter. Since the office was set up, it has achieved virtually nothing and I would like to point out the way things have gone.

When the office was set up, the case of Shahid Malik was referred to it. He resigned from ministerial office when there were complaints about his behaviour. He was then found to be free of blame and restored to ministerial office. Since then we have had only one case, involving Baroness Warsi. She had already confessed to a venial sin: she had gone on an official trip to India and had taken with her a relative and a work partner. She agreed that there was a perception of impropriety in that, as did the adviser on Ministers’ interests. There was a mild reprimand but no action was taken. However, that was a tiny offence compared with other cases that have passed by without being referred to the adviser.

Possibly the least defensible one was in 2011 involving the then Secretary of State for Defence, who was accused of misconduct. There were well-publicised accusations of relationships with a Mr Werritty, and an extraordinary thing happened: in this case the then chief civil servant, on the advice of the then Prime Minister, decided to investigate the matter himself. That was against the ministerial code and the civil service code—the investigation was expressly forbidden by them—but it was the Prime Minister’s decision. The then holder of the office of independent adviser, Sir Philip Mawer, gave evidence to a Select Committee and said he should have been investigating the Member concerned, who promptly resigned from his post.

This was an extraordinary situation. We know that whatever that Member did was serious, because that is what the head of the civil service said. They said that it was so serious that he should resign. However, no information was given to the public about what he had done, how serious the offence was and whether he was fit for future office. He gained absolution by resignation and the public are in the dark. That is more serious now, given that that Member has been returned to office as one of three Brexiteers. We have no idea whether he is fit for office or if his past conduct suggests he is not fit for office. The first thing one would ask anybody seeking a new job is, “Why did you leave your last job?” We do not know. This case involves the sin of omission. The then Prime Minister should certainly have referred that matter to the adviser and he did not.

There have been further cases since. One involved the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who was accused of not being impartial in a BSkyB takeover. That case had a great deal of attention and certainly caused a considerable amount of public concern, yet it was not referred by the Prime Minister to the adviser.

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—the present Prime Minister—was alleged to have leaked ministerial correspondence on Islamic extremism in Birmingham schools. Again, that is a matter of great concern, yet the case was not referred to the adviser.

There were minor cases, too. A Minister had a meal—not a cheap one—at the Savoy, allegedly provided partly by a group that was seeking favours from his Department. Again, that is a matter of some seriousness and if it was true, it would have been a breach of the ministerial code. That Minister explained that he was there eating as a private person, not as a Minister—so his private stomach, not his ministerial stomach was digesting that day. That was accepted by the then Prime Minister and there was no investigation.

The most recent case is possibly the most telling. Two Ministers in the Cabinet Office—the right hon. Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—decided to give £3 million to Kids Company, which was run by Ms Batmanghelidjh. The brave civil servants in the Department put out a letter saying that that was a mistake and that it should not have been done. That was a courageous thing for the civil servants to do. Civil servants give their advice, and that is it, but they went public and said, “This is the wrong thing to do,” putting in peril their future careers, because they would be regarded as troublemakers. They did the right thing but the Government did not. What happened to the £3 million? It was given to Ms Batmanghelidjh at Kids Company and the company collapsed four days later.

There is a possible explanation. The charge against the Government is that Ms Batmanghelidjh was the poster girl of the big society. She attended a meeting in the Cabinet Office to launch the big society. A huge amount of political credibility was given to her company when the Prime Minister was promoting the big society—he was the first and probably the last fan, now he has left office, of that concept. Why were those two Ministers not reported to the adviser for losing £3 million of public money? The temptation is to believe that the Prime Minister was acting for party-political advantage to protect the reputation of the big society. However, the public lost £3 million.

There is no redress in this situation. Nobody holds the Prime Minister to account on this. I have raised these matters many times in the past few years, and it is said that we have a chance to raise these matters at Prime Minister’s questions, but we do not have a hope of raising them in any detail there. The Liaison Committee could raise them but they never have, because whether they do so depends on the disposition of the members of that Committee.

This reform was intended to restore confidence in public life, because we went through the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal and our reputation was at rock bottom. I believe that now it is even worse than that—it is subterranean. We have not improved our standing with the public. It has probably gone down and we know what happens: if politics falls into disrepute, we end up with an obscenity like Trump, or something even worse; people look for alternatives.

Let me turn to another matter of considerable interest. An application was made to serve on the Committee for Standards in Public Life by Tony Wright. One could hardly imagine a better candidate for that than the man who gave his name to the Wright reforms. He was interviewed by the Chair of the Committee and found to be a splendid candidate. A decision then had to be taken about whether Tony Wright should be on that Committee, but he was turned down by the right hon. Member for West Suffolk. Why on earth should a matter like that be a ministerial decision? That was very interesting. The decision should certainly be taken by people who are independent and outside this place. It just so happens, of course, that that Member might be seen to have had a vested interest as someone likely to be accused by the person responsible—the adviser himself. It is rather like a defendant in a court case being able to choose his own judge. The last person who should have been allowed to blackball Tony Wright was the right hon. Member for West Suffolk. That is the highly unsatisfactory situation we have now.

For all these years, the adviser has been there doing his job, getting paid a considerable salary, but with virtually nothing to do. On any basis, it is a waste of public money to continue to keep him in office. When the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs had a pre-appointment hearing, we were unanimous in saying that the present holder of the office was not the right one to take on the job because he has had a lifetime of public service, saying, “Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir” as a civil servant. Was he the right man to provide that independence of thought and decision making? As a cross-party Committee with a Conservative majority, we decided that he was not, but that recommendation was ignored and overruled by the then Prime Minister. The whole idea of reform, which was a good one—that there must be some kind of surveillance of ministerial behaviour—was a waste and a failure. We are in a position to drive the public’s knowledge of politics, but their appreciation, and their trust in this place and in politics generally is gravely damaged.

There are problems in other areas, too, including with the completely futile group, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which has absolutely no power. Abuses take place through the revolving door, whereby people who leave Parliament are prepared to hawk around, and to prostitute their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. There is no way that can be stopped, as we have no mechanism for interfering with it. When people breach the few rules that do exist, there is no way of bringing them to book. We are in a position, in public life, that is extremely dangerous, and I would like the Minister to explain why the cases I have mentioned were not referred to the independent adviser. What plans do the Government have to ensure that the neglect of the office by a Prime Minister over the past five years is not allowed to continue?

In March 2010, David Cameron made a rousing speech about how he was going to clean up politics and get rid of lobbying, but he came into office and things now are worse than they were then. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 ignored the corporate lobbyists but made life a bit uncomfortable for charities and trade unions. He was dabbling with the minnows in the shallows while the great fat salmon swam by unhindered.

We look with some trepidation to our future and the future of politics. The great debate going on at the moment is very much along the lines of the political class having been brought into disrepute. The Government should look seriously at our own reputations, and ensure that we have mechanisms here that work and are not subject to the bias and political interests of Prime Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I press the case for the continued electrification of the midland main line and that there be no further delays to this excellent project?

[Simon Kirby]

Yes, he can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T6. Under what circumstances would my right hon. Friend the Chancellor authorise another round of quantitative easing if requested by the Governor of the Bank of England?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has asked me a very important question. He knows that the operation of monetary policy in the UK is independent of Government. Monetary policy, including measures such as quantitative easing, has been highly effective in supporting the economy. Because of the fiscal implications of an indemnity for the Bank, packages have to be formally agreed by the Chancellor. Although I cannot prejudge any hypothetical request, no request for quantitative easing has ever been refused, and I see no reason why circumstances would be different in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evennett]

I totally endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I will have a word with the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, as the responsible authorities, but I would certainly back such a debate.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the first world war is commemorated, too much emphasis is not placed on the set-piece battles. On average, every day during the first world war, 450 servicemen lost their lives, which is equivalent to all the losses in Afghanistan. It was not just a few set battles; it was every day for four years.

[Mr Evennett]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is funding for communities to explore local first world war history, through the Heritage Lottery Fund, as well as through the War Memorials Trust for the repair and conservation of local war memorials. Local communities should be commemorating every aspect of their local communities to highlight what happened and remember those who served and gave their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman has made an estimate based on the information I have just given him, but a lot of Members value the opportunity to see each other in the Lobbies. I recognise what he says about SNP Members often being in a different Lobby from the Government, but perhaps he should learn from his more experienced neighbours on the Labour Benches, who certainly use the voting process to grab Ministers when they leave the Lobby. Frankly, this Parliament spends more time scrutinising legislation than any other Parliament in the world, and I genuinely believe that our voting system is appropriate for that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House for changing the list of initials under which we go through the Lobbies to vote. Moving the Gs to the left-hand column has speeded up the voting process, and as an H, it is now bliss to vote. I might add that I know from personal experience that it is very easy to vote against the Government and then to nip to the other Lobby to wait for the Minister to come out and ask them a relevant question.

[Dr Coffey]

I was trying to suggest that that was what Opposition Members tend to do, but I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. As a C, getting the Gs in with us has seemed—apart from the fact that I now vote in the same queue as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is a G—to increase the time it takes for us to vote. Nevertheless, we are all happy together in our Division Lobby.