Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, on the matter of plumbing and pensions, Mr John Mann.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

18. What recent discussions she has had with representatives from the plumbing industry on section 75 pension liabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This is very interesting, but what is the question?

[John Mann]

The question, Mr Speaker, is this: does the Minister agree that such a partnership would be in the national interest?

Child Sexual Exploitation Victims: Criminal Records

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last, but not least, and never forgotten, Mr John Mann.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

There is a handful of people whose views should be forgotten, and that is that increasing number of commentators and politicians who suggest that this is a waste of money. I have dealt pretty much every week, and certainly every month over the past five years, with those who have survived this abuse, and that includes this week. I can tell the Minister that this question of criminality, with its impact in respect of custody, housing and employment, but also in respect of ongoing reputation for those who have managed to move on in their lives, is fundamental to why the vast majority of people affected have not come forward, despite the fact that I represented more than 30 during the three weeks of the Nottinghamshire inquiry. As all these issues have been aired during the inquiry in huge detail, will the Minister give a guarantee that the recommendations, when they come forward from this inquiry, will be implemented lock, stock and barrel by the Government?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will sturdily resist any temptation to intervene further in that exchange. This private squabble may continue for a little while, albeit with good nature, I hope.

[John Mann]

(Bassetlaw) (Lab) rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of good-natured points of order, I say more in hope than in expectation, I call Mr John Mann.

[John Mann]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After a debate on anti-Semitism a week ago today, I have received very many kind remarks from parliamentarians, their staff and, indeed, members of House staff, for which me and my family are very grateful. There is an exception to that: one member of the Press Lobby chose to put out on social media, without any communication whatsoever with me, the suggestion that I had misled Parliament in relation to a criminal act of violence against my wife. May I repeat, on the record, that I have not misled Parliament and that my wife, who was the victim of this crime, has written to the media outlet concerned today clarifying this in some detail? This outrageous commentary has led to a wave of additional abuse against me, against my wife and against my daughter, including a threat of violence from a Labour party member from Sefton that is being referred to the police. Can you confirm my understanding that members of the Press Lobby have a privileged status within here? They have computers, telephones and lists of MPs, and if they are struggling to get hold of anybody they have the ability to wait outside this Chamber after a debate to speak to us. This member of the Press Lobby chose to use none of those things, and I just wanted your confirmation that the Press Lobby has the full ability to contact any of us, should they wish to do so, before putting out such scurrilous material.

[Mr Speaker]

I can confirm that. Any journalist can contact any Member if said journalist is minded to do so. I think it is as simple as that; I have no responsibility for what has been said, and the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I do. To be candid, I have no knowledge of which individual or outlet he has in mind. In a way, that is an advantage; he is asking me a straightforward question and I can offer him a straightforward confirmation by way of reply.

Needless to say, I am very sorry to hear about the torrent of abuse that the hon. Gentleman, his wife and his daughter have experienced—that is very sad. Nothing is going to stop the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for more than 30 years, from speaking his mind, and it is right that that should be so. But it is a pity when people feel it necessary not to play the ball but to play the man or the woman, indulging in ad hominem abuse of a frequently loathsome kind, and sometimes of a kind that would be of interest to the police. This is a very worrying development in our democracy, about which I have spoken before, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and I hope my reply offers him some reassurance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, no. The hon. Lady is not greedy; she is just keen.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

9. How many local authorities have had their local plans signed off by his Department in the last two years.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Forgive me, but I think it is extremely clear that I have dealt with a serious matter raised in a very measured way by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South and given clear advice. If there are people who are unclear on the basis of what I have said, I am frankly surprised by that, but it is open to them to approach me for further guidance. What they should not seek to do—I am sure that the hon. Lady would not knowingly seek to do this for one moment—is to abuse the procedures of the House. I have tried to help the hon. Lady, and we will leave the matter for now.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where an MP is elected by Parliament to represent us on a foreign delegation and is subsequently sent home from that delegation for inappropriate behaviour, will such cases always be reported back to the body that elected them—that is, to Parliament—and have they been in the past?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. He has raised an extremely important matter, and, again for the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider or treat it lightly. That said, the House will note that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue in extremely broad terms—I do not knock him for doing that, but I say it by way of factual response.

I say to the hon. Gentleman, on advice, that raising a point of order in the House is not necessarily an effective way, or even necessarily a proper way, of pursuing an allegation of impropriety against anybody, whether a Member of the House or anybody else. If the hon. Gentleman has grounds for supposing that there has been impropriety by an hon. or right hon. Member, falling short of possible criminality, which would obviously be considered elsewhere, I ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me, because I am sure he is interested in the issue, rather than in, for example, securing parliamentary attention—I know that would not motivate the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] No, no, I have known the hon. Gentleman for over 30 years, and I know that would not motivate him in any way. If he is concerned about the issue—and I respect that—and he has a particular point that he wants to raise with me in writing, I assure him, and, more widely, I assure the House, that I will give the matter my urgent attention. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

[John Mann]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. No, my motivation is to clarify what is the policy and procedure of the House in a circumstance where a Member has been elected at any stage by this Parliament. Will these things be reported back?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I have just been advised—and it would seem to me fairly clear—where a question is hypothetical, it is actually quite difficult to provide a concrete answer. I would certainly expect that if a suspected abuse had taken place, that would be reported, in all likelihood, to the political party of which the suspect was a member. Depending upon the nature of the visit—that is to say, whether it was a visit organised by, or with sponsorship in some way from, a parliamentary body—it might well also be reported elsewhere. I would certainly hope and expect that such occurrences, or alleged occurrences or abuses, would be reported, and if they are reported, those who are reporting them can expect them to be investigated.

I hope the House can see that, far from brushing aside the hon. Gentleman’s concern, or that of any other Member, I am keen that those matters should be properly explored, but they are not necessarily best explored via the point of order procedure on the Floor of the Chamber. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South sought my guidance. I gave him very clear and practical guidance, which I have every expectation he will follow. If practical guidance is what people want, that is what I am seeking to provide.

If there are any further points of order that are unrelated, I am happy to take them; if not, we should proceed to the ten-minute rule motion.

Money Laundering: British Banks

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

To counter the impression that he has been promoted beyond his competence, can the Minister tell us which British banks have been convicted of money laundering over the past five years? What specific, individual thing has he learned from reading those judgments? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was discourteous, but it was not disorderly—there is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman has been practising that technique in all sorts of different forums in all the 30 years that I have known him. The question was not one of the more extreme variants on the theme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We now need to make progress as there are a lot of questions. Progress thus far has been slow, so we can be speeded up by Mr John Mann.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of her Department’s contribution to tackling online hate crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear the views of Mr Mann on the matter of toilets.

[John Mann]

Mr Speaker, imagine that you came to visit the historic Scrooby church to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrim Fathers, and, as a modern man, drank tea or coffee on the way, which people did not do when these historic churches were built. It would be easy to be caught short. Many of these great historic churches lack toilets. Should not a fund be created somewhere to allow visitors the comfort break that may be required, given that we live in a modern coffee and tea-drinking era?

[Mr Speaker]

The House is very expectant. We really want to hear this answer.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Carry-over motion: House of Commons
Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

So the losses are not as big as they were but they are still losses. Imagine if I had put that argument in 2009 or 2010—I do not have the references with me so I will not waste time by quoting from them, but they are in Hansard because the then shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition, and many Back Benchers, were happy to make precisely that point. That is a fundamental economic weakness, and it is putting this country at a huge, long-term economic disadvantage compared with our competitors.

My proposal about city regions and broadband was not a shopping list issue; it is fundamental to making this country economically competitive again. How can we have new growth industries in those areas when villages like mine cannot even get simple broadband most of the time and people struggle to get a mobile phone signal? This is not where the world is at any more, and this represents a fundamental economic failure for this country.

There is one more failure. I will end—this is a slightly long ending, Mr Speaker—on what I am sure all Members will agree is an incredibly important point, namely the failure of this Government to tackle tax avoidance and offshoring. We have heard a lot of the theory, but let me tell the House what the people who do the advising on tax avoidance say. They are the best source on this, rather than politicians of any party or persuasion. They are the ones competing for the business of the very people who want to minimise their taxes by offshoring because they are wealthy enough to do so.

Those tax advisers are eulogising the fact that the agreements reached with the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands and Montserrat are non-reciprocal. According to HSBC, that means that UK financial institutions will not have any reporting obligations under the terms of the agreements. That is a fundamental weakness in comparison with what the Americans have done. We are not the leaders in this; we are well behind what the United States has done to enforce transparency.

The British overseas territories that I have just mentioned rely on us for their defence. We pay for their defence, so we have proper leverage. Those territories might be anachronistic quirks of history, but if they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, they will need to play by our rules and, if you like, speak our language. I am a strong supporter of defending those territories, be it the Falkland Islands, Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, but it is unacceptable to have non-reciprocal agreements for residents of the Caribbean tax havens. There is nothing to address that in the so-called advanced and world-leading proposals in this Government’s previous Budgets that have already been implemented, and there is nothing in this Budget or in today’s announcements that will deal with the matter.

I also want to talk about the Liechtenstein disclosure facility. What does that have to do with those territories and tax havens? I thought that it probably did not have a lot to do with them because someone would have to set up an interest in Liechtenstein in order to qualify for the disclosure facility, but then I read about where we are with financial compliance obligations. Those who advise people who want to avoid paying taxes are absolutely clear about this. Let me quote from an article on a website called taxation.co.uk:

“It may be better to come forward under the LDF now, and clients who could benefit need to be identified.”

Another article says:

“Although there are several ways to make voluntary disclosures to HMRC, the LDF continues to offer extremely beneficial terms, despite the new restrictions on eligibility, and remains one of the most direct routes of disclosing to HMRC”,

and that

“participants…will…achieve immunity from prosecution…There is no need to have held an offshore asset at all in order to access the LDF.”

The only people who cannot do so are those who have already been criminally investigated by HMRC.

There are many examples of this, and that article explained in huge detail how, for example, a self-employed person could theoretically go for a Liechtenstein disclosure facility and—this has been widely advertised across the Caribbean and in other tax havens—why people should shift to it, because for the last three years, until 5 April this year, people could minimise their tax cheaply and beneficially through early disclosure. That is what the tax experts say, what they have advised people to do and what has been going on for the last three years. When the figures finally come out, which they will, we will see the vast numbers who have used that loophole, which was deliberately set up and advertised as such.

When it comes to dealing with tax avoidance, the Government talk tough but play soft. They give the nod, officially, allowing people to circumvent the system. As long as people pay for the right lawyers in countries such as Panama, they get that advice, and because they are competing, it is one of the few things that is publicly available. My advice to the House is this: let us remove these potential and actual loopholes forever. That is why this Bill is wholly insufficient and why the Government are failing on debt and the deficit. The tax is there; people are avoiding it legally. We have a duty to turn that around—a duty to the British economy and the future innovators and entrepreneurs who are being squeezed by the recession. They are the biggest losers of all in this, because they are the ones with brilliant ideas who cannot compete with those using tax loopholes and squeezing them out.

I will end on this, Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I know that Tory Members don’t like it up ’em, but they are failing the British economy, failing innovators and failing entrepreneurs, crowding them out and allowing tax avoidance on a massive scale. They have been caught and had their fingers burnt. There is a minimising—[Interruption.] I hear advice from a sedentary position. The Government have not delivered on tax avoidance, and that is why this Bill must be opposed.

[Mr Speaker]

The last speaker in the debate before the Front Benchers—not that I am hinting at anything in any way, of course—is Mr George Kerevan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to ask Question 4, it might be helpful to new Members if I remind the House that, to avoid any possibility of compromising our security, we do not discuss operational security matters on the Floor of the House. The question is perfectly in order, but hon. Members should take account of this constraint in their further exchanges.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

4. Which House staff or persons authorised by House staff have the ability and authority to view or authorise others to view hon. Members’ emails.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This question is about Holocaust memorial day and the scourge of anti-Semitism. The House should listen to the question and to the answer.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Jewish community across the whole of the United Kingdom is feeling under increasing threat. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the part of the United Kingdom that he is responsible for is as vigilant and as supported as every other part of the United Kingdom, so that his Jewish community can feel that it has our support?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for me to offer guidance on that matter. Procedural matters relating to Bills which have been committed to Public Bill Committees are matters exclusively within the competence of the Chair of the said Committee. Moreover, as I rather imagine that he knows, but I emphasise for the awareness of Members of the House more widely, money resolutions are exclusively a matter for the Government. Those are waters in which the Speaker does not tread.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will take the point of order from Mr Andrew George first, and then I will come to him.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but it is not for the Chair either to be subject to, or the purveyor of, a history lesson on these matters. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who is nothing if not an eager beaver, that he should consult the Journal Office, and I think that he will go away, as a result of so doing, significantly better informed.

[John Mann]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the most violent and vitriolic abuse, using Twitter, of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), an individual was jailed for four weeks. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the abuse has worsened and deepened on precisely the same issue in the same violent way. If the medium used were a newspaper, I am quite certain that the House would demand that the editor be dragged to the Bar of the House and forced to explain himself or herself. What advice would you give, Mr Speaker, on how to handle the internet, and specifically Twitter, which is the medium by which this abuse against one of the Members of this House is continuing on a most violent and daily basis?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My immediate reaction is twofold. First, where a crime has been committed—he referenced at the outset of his point of order the fact of a crime and, indeed, of a conviction—that is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities. Secondly, and more widely, in so far as the hon. Gentleman has referenced an outrageous instance, or series of instances, of anti-Semitic abuse, I think that the whole House would be united in concluding that that behaviour was both despicable and beneath contempt. Although I would not ordinarily seek to personalise such matters, as the hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) being on the receiving end of this abuse, I think that decent people throughout the House and across the country would empathise entirely with the hon. Lady and share my own assessment of the people responsible for that gratuitous abuse. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[John Mann]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that there is much further, but I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

[John Mann]

The issue of criminality is well understood and is a matter for the police, not the House, but this is about the medium of communication. If it were a newspaper, then the newspaper would not be committing criminality by allowing itself to be used as the vehicle, and the House would want to have a view on how that newspaper should be held to account. There is precedent from 1956, with John Junor, on how that was done. How can the House hold Twitter to account for its failure to act to stop its platform being used for this abuse?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the House can debate whatever the House wants to debate, and hon. Members can seek opportunities to air matters in the usual way. I have a hunch—it is reinforced by the wry grin emerging on the hon. Gentleman’s face—that the idea will by now have occurred to him, if it had not already done so, that he could seek to raise these matters in an Adjournment debate. I just have the sense, although I am of course not psychic, that his application will be winging its way to the appropriate quarter before the close of the day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Michael Connarty. Not here.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T5. Has the Secretary of State given specific advice to prisons, probation services and magistrates about historic sex abuse? If so, what is it?

Deregulation Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Certainly the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) does wave eccentrically. There is not necessarily anything disorderly about it, but it may offend the sensibilities of some right hon. and hon. Members, a point to which I am sure, as always, the hon. Gentleman will be sensitive.

[John Mann]

I certainly would not wish to offend the Minister; I merely want an answer. He said “many”; he said “many, many”; and I think he said “excessive”. How many regulations—he has been through them all—has he not been able to deal with in the Bill because of European legislation? Is it 10, 20, 50, 100 or 1,000?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. About 90 minutes ago, I raised a question with the Prime Minister about the situation of police officers patrolling by public transport in Bassetlaw, and the Prime Minister responded by saying that crime had gone down 27%—a fact that he miraculously repeated within seconds on Twitter, putting it out to the outside world. I have the statistics with me, and crime in Bassetlaw has not gone down by 27%; it has gone up by 2%, including in respect of all the serious categories. What advice do you have, Mr Speaker, about getting the Prime Minister to correct the record in relation to the objectively available facts about the change in crime in Bassetlaw?

[Mr Speaker]

My advice is twofold. First, all Members are responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of what they say. If a mistake has been made, it should be corrected. The procedure for making a correction will be well known to any and all hon. Members. Secondly, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, with due affection, that I first met him when we served on the Lambeth borough council together in 1986, so we have known each other for 27 years. He always struck me as an extraordinarily persistent blighter then, and nothing in the intervening period has caused me to revise that judgment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q15. Is it not the case that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is something of an exotic creature in the House and I think that that excites interest on Government Benches, but I do wish to hear what he has to say and he must be heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It would be a bit worrying if the Second Church Estates Commissioner, of all people, were other than a responsible owner.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effects of UK policy on the protection of endangered species worldwide.

Finance Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have known the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for 27 years and I can think of a long list of adjectives that could, in various scenarios, be applied to him, but breathless is not one of them.

[John Mann]

But on this occasion, Mr Speaker—one scratches one’s head at some interventions, which are so inaccurate, so irrelevant and so unconnected to the clause. I will not rise to the bait, Mr Speaker, and risk your ire by explaining to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) exactly how the unions invest their money, interesting though that subject would be. I fear your wrath, Mr Speaker, if I did so. Instead, I shall return to the key core theme of the clauses, which is morality—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot to get through, so we need to speed up from now on.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T3. As the man with his finger on the pulse of the nation, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House the level of the new CIL tax—community infrastructure levy—that is currently being introduced in his own Sheffield city region?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that there is no protected time for a ministerial response. I would like the Minister to be able to respond to a number of points raised by hon. Members, but we are working to the Government’s timetable, approved by the House. Therefore, if the Minister is to reply, a certain self-discipline will hereafter be required.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I am Mr Self-Discipline, but someone needs to break this ridiculous, cosy consensus over the tax grab that is being proposed, and I suggest that the House should get into the real world. I live in a listed building and deal with local authorities, and week by week, across the country, pre-planning advice from those local authorities is being charged for.

At the moment, if I want to splice one little piece of wood in one window in my house, I require planning permission costing £400. The Government’s new clause means that, if I want to splice one little bit of rotten wood, I will be charged £400 for pre-planning advice by my authority. That is happening with authorities all over the country. It is total nonsense.

Authorities are finding new ways of making money and new taxes. It might not be the Government’s intention, but that is what happening. Authorities are finding new ways that they never bothered about before to say, “You’d better seek some advice before doing things.” My neighbour has been told that a slight change in the colour of his paint requires planning consent. My house is 400 years old and I have a brick wall that is 30-years-old. I was told this week that if I want to add a brick to it, I will need planning consent. Where is the heritage in a 30-year-old 1970s brick wall in a 400-year-old house? There is none.

This is a tax grab by local authorities. Added to the affordable housing tax grab and the community infrastructure levy tax grab, it means that those who live in listed properties will not be able to afford to do anything with them. It is about time someone spoke up against the additional taxes that this evil coalition is bringing in.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It appears that this Commission, which was originally described as a very narrow one, is broadening so that, as the Leader of the House said, it can now look at particular matters with sub-committees of one, and there are suggestions that it should broaden into criminal prosecutions.

The issues remain as they were, but the evidence is changing and will continue to change. That is the problem with setting up ad hoc committees. Just in the past hour, further e-mails have come from the Bank of England that have some significance for matters that have already been looked at, looked at again and looked at a third time. Those e-mails are significant to what the Treasury Committee looked at the first time, and doubtless information will continue to emerge.

This is a moving feast, and the problem with a moving feast is that setting a time limit when one does not know what will happen next can lead to a certain momentum, which can be in the wrong direction. The problem is not that it is an arbitrary time limit—any time limit is arbitrary—but that it could be an irrational one.

Tomorrow in the United States, a new court action is being initiated not on LIBOR but on other market manipulation by banks, and specifically a British bank. We will see what happens as that court action proceeds, but simply examining LIBOR, and especially only the one bank in which what has gone on has been partially exposed, rather misses the point about market manipulation by investment banks over the past 10 years.

Even within the context of LIBOR, we have only just reached the stage of seeing some of the market manipulation that happened, and only in one bank, Barclays, which has received bad publicity. There is far more to be revealed about that, and I am certain that there will be more surprises to come in the next day, week or two weeks. Those surprises may well continue to flow.

Even in the case of Barclays, the manipulation of LIBOR is one tiny part of the allegations of market manipulation and anti-competitive work. A swathe of evidence is beginning to emerge, and more people are now prepared to speak out about how a range of markets have been manipulated in a range of ways. Derivatives have been used as the basis of that manipulation, but in fact it is much more complex than that. At its heart, as Barclays has said, was the making of a quick profit. In the past two weeks, courts in Canada have specified in a non-LIBOR-related case where the judge has pronounced that it was manipulation for short-term profit on an anti-competitive basis.

That is just one bank. No one can answer—the question was not answered by the Financial Services Authority today; perhaps it is not in its remit to do so—what the contingent liability is for Barclays. That is a small concern, and of significance to people working for the bank, people who have shares in it, and the wider economy, but it is clear that the largely state-owned banks, not least the Royal Bank of Scotland but also Lloyds TSB, have been doing the same thing. The problem that we will face is not just the issues of criminality that may or may not emerge. Proving a criminal case in any of that is fiendishly difficult—both finding the person who has committed an act and finding a victim so that a case can be taken. If law suits, beginning in the United States but spreading elsewhere, start to succeed, the amounts of money that have been fiddled are so great—because of the instruments that were used—that the British taxpayer may face a huge, unquantified bill, and we do not know when it will arrive. The future of Barclays is somewhat in question.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in scene setting—offering the House the context—but I would politely suggest that he will wish to turn to the proceedings and composition of the intended Committee. If it is helpful to him, I gently remind him, in relation to the motion, that he has 15 paragraphs from which to choose when deciding how to focus his remarks.

[John Mann]

I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. My initial remarks related to the remit of the Committee, rather than its composition, which is frankly an irrelevance compared with the problems of the moving feast of its remit.

The remit has been set so vaguely that it can incorporate anything and everything. We will face the economic consequences when the partially state-owned banks are hit in the same way. These issues are entirely out of our control—indeed, they are entirely out of British control. The American authorities are two years ahead of the British authorities, and have taken a lead, so they will dictate the time scale for what comes next. Whether the considerations are legal or political—there are elections coming up, so there may well be more of a political imperative to be seen to be doing things—they will have grave consequences for these financial institutions and the British taxpayer.

That is why although it may well come up with worthy and credible recommendations, the investigation cannot match the task that it has been set. Because of the course of events and the changes that will happen, arbitrary time limits are, by definition, self-defeating. There is another problem that goes alongside that, and it concerns the other options available to look at those matters. I am pleased that the Leader of the House appears to have given a commitment, and I urge him to clarify it, that no staffing resource will be removed from the Treasury Committee in that period of time. If that is the case, that is a significant step forward. If the Treasury Committee were mothballed at precisely this time, the ability of the House to respond to fast-moving events would worsen significantly.

The Treasury Committee has a heavy workload. Today, Commissioner Barnier was supposed to appear before the Committee in relation to the 17 EU directives and draft directives relating to financial services on the books at the moment. It is essential that this House properly scrutinises and takes a view on what happens with those directives, but that has not been happening—it is a key role that the Treasury Committee needs to fulfil.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I agree with him, but I do not intend to go through all the previous debate on this issue—interesting though it would be to do so—because I am sticking to the detail of what is in front of us, however badly worded it is. There is, however, clearly a case for saying that if the Treasury Committee had been allowed to carry on this work, it could have done so as effectively as this Joint Committee. I am sure that the five Members from the House of Lords who are as yet unknown and unnamed will bring great wisdom to this Joint Committee, but if the House of Lords wants to look into matters, it can look into them. This is the elected Chamber, and for this elected Chamber to hand over some of these powers of scrutiny to an unelected Chamber seems a retrograde step, which will come back to haunt us in future.

Once a precedent has been established and it suits the Government, it is likely to happen again—and this was a Government initiative. I am rather surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench team, perhaps looking forward to being in government themselves, have been seduced into accepting this way of undermining the historic, developed and improving role of this House to scrutinise. That, I think, is partly what is at stake here, if this becomes the way of doing business in this House.

I do not see how a Select Committee, denuded of half its members, can in any way work as effectively as a Select Committee operating with all its members. That is the reality of what will happen, and we need to be aware of the unintended consequences that might come from a potential eurozone crisis and other problems emanating from Europe that conflict across the work of this Joint Committee—and are wrongly not referred to within it—because proposals from Brussels are, rightly or wrongly, a fundamental part of the equation, affecting decisions made by this House and by the banking industry in this country and across the world. That aspect has been ducked by the creation of the Commission, which will create unhealthy confusion in the debate.

What should have happened? The remit given to the investigation, which should have been carried out by the Treasury Committee, should have been far broader—[Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman says “Boring” from a sedentary position, but this is not boring. For example, seven investment banks colluded to rig the price of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s. That is the real scandal that underpins the profits in investment banking. In some areas, there is ferocious competition, but in the vast majority of investment banking, there is no competition whatever. That is the scandal that created the culture that led to the LIBOR rigging. An investment bank called in by a company to advise on a sale or takeover has so much knowledge of the workings of the company that it has the ability to manipulate the market to determine how things will go. That is the fundamental weakness in the system of investment banking. The implications for British manufacturing and manufacturing elsewhere in the world—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s references to investment banking, but I fear—very considerably—that he is now going to proceed to discuss the state of British manufacturing and any relationship between the banking and manufacturing sectors. He is gyrating between referring to the terms of reference of the Commission and matters of composition, and then talking about matters that are quite outwith the terms of the motion, which ought to afford him adequate scope. I feel cautiously hopeful that he may be nearer to the end of his remarks than to the beginning.

[John Mann]

I have so far got to paragraph (1)(b) of the motion, which I shall quote, so that you are assured, Mr Speaker, that my remarks are directly pertinent. Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy”.

That is precisely what I was talking about in relation to how investment banks operate. The lack of transparency, conflicts of interests and the narrow remit—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is public spirited and trying to be helpful, but he should not misunderstand the terms of the motion. The paragraph to which he refers underlines the importance of the inquiry in learning those lessons. It is not necessary or feasible for the House to do so tonight. It would be a triumph of optimism over reality for him to suppose that the House would do so courtesy of his speech, no matter how compelling it is.

[John Mann]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I am merely outlining my objections to the lack of breadth in the remit given to the Commission.

My final questions on paragraph (1)(b)—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am surprised hon. Members are so keen to stay and hear the debate, given some of their sedentary comments. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House confirmed unambiguously that the principles behind the setting up of the Commission will in no way—practically and in reality—undermine the ability of the Treasury Committee to meet as often as it has over the past year to discuss subjects that it chooses to investigate. It would help if he confirmed that it can call the witnesses it chooses and that it will have the access to the staffing resource and expertise that it currently has. If he can give those assurances, I will not seek to divide the House on the motion. I look forward to hearing from him.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, can you believe it? I do not mean the fact that the price of my petrol is going up and the price of my pasty is going up. No, I am asking whether you can believe how many or how few are here. Of course, SNP Members are not here yet again. We have a Budget only once a year and there are two Tory Back Benchers and two Liberal Back Benchers. They have probably come in a taxi. Looking at them, you might see Tories and Liberals, but I see Lincoln, Burnley, Redcar and Stafford—I see four Labour gains. Those four hon. Members are enjoying their last days on those green Benches. Why are the rest of them hidden away? I will tell you. It is because there are only two things that resonate in this Budget, and the first is growth.

Last year the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor told us that growth this year would be 2.5%, but they have reduced it to 0.8% in a year. Something tells me, therefore, that the policies are not working. They said last year that the national debt would come down—all the cuts were to bring the national debt down—but this year they say the national debt will go up next year, the year after and the year after that. That is the policy that they have put forward. It does not need any more complication. Growth is virtually not happening.

But there is something far worse for our communities. The cuts that we have heard about, the cuts that we have fought against, have hardly begun. The real cuts come next year. This is the Government’s Achilles heel, but it is also ours because it will hurt people across the country, including in my constituency. It will be the market towns, the traditional Tory areas, that take the brunt of the cuts because what that lot are doing, like most Governments, is make cuts and centralise. They are removing jobs from towns such as Retford in my constituency. For the first time those small market towns are taking a disproportionate number of the cuts, with jobs going and the relocation of people in order, allegedly, to save money by putting them in one office. Who is going to spend to support the small businesses that are trying to make a living, or for the potential new small businesses, in those market towns?

That is one Achilles heel, but the Government have another that they have hidden and that has not been exposed: draw-down pensions. Most of the 300,000 pensioners who will be affected do not realise that, because of quantitative easing and the failure to put a counterbalance in the Budget, and because gilts are at an all-time low, draw-down pensions are being hugely cut. Let me give an example from my constituency.

A fairly well-to-do couple who have worked hard over the years have been retired for 14 years on a good pension. Their private pension of £30,000 a year between them has been cut overnight in the past month to £13,000 by the Government Actuary’s Department. That is a 60% cut in their pension. That is what the Government have done, but they have failed to address the problem in the Budget. It is a nightmare for pensioners such as those. Most of the 300,000 draw-down pensioners do not know that this reduction is coming because they are informed of changes on a three-year cycle. I challenge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on this point. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to sort it out, or are those people going to lose 60% of their pension because of your being in power this year?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not in power. I call Michael Meacher.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will pursue these matters through the Order Paper and in other ways if she is dissatisfied with the position as it stands.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answering a series of questions printed in Hansard on 19 January on 18 separate and current EU proposals on financial services, the Treasury Minister responded:

“When EU legislation is being reviewed or prepared, responses by the UK authorities to a public consultation will be made available on the Commission website.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 948W.]

When a Member of the House asks questions of the British Government, is it sufficient for them to be answered by reference to potential statements being put up on the European Commission’s website? Is it not the responsibility of the Minister to give an answer to the Member of Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There has been no breach of order in the method that the Minister chose for his reply to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman’s point of order will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, however, and I hope that, when framing answers, Ministers will take account of the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members in being able to access information. I recall from my own experience as a Back Bencher that it was exceptionally irritating when a series of carefully crafted written questions was responded to in a desultory and, some might have thought, a discourteous manner. To do so to the hon. Gentleman is certainly a hazardous enterprise, because he is bound to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, as he has just eloquently demonstrated.

Currency and Banknotes (Amendment)

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I rise to speak because I think it is appropriate that someone from the Labour Benches should oppose this true bastion of Conservatism. History demonstrates to us that, given the opportunity and power, the Conservative party will always attempt to undermine, whittle away and eventually destroy the great institutions of this country. We are seeing it with the police service and the NHS. But Conservative Back Benchers want to go much further. Here we have them proposing a motion, which they wish to become legislation backed by their Front Bench, to take on, challenge and destroy sterling. I think that we on the Labour Benches want to defend the great currency of sterling against such an imposition of Euro-fanaticism—for that is what we have grown to expect from the Conservative party, although it is never up front, never to the public.

One recalls of course that, after Harold Wilson, Denis Healey and others blocked European adventurism, it was the Conservative party, inspired by Sir Keith Joseph, that resolutely took us into the European Union. Who was it who introduced all these new employment laws—maternity leave, paternity leave, a range of rights at work? Indeed, we backed them on that, rightly. It was none other than Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative party, who signed Maastricht. That was the fundamental—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been listening to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in a variety of forums for 25 years, and I see no reason to cease doing so now. However, I gently remind him that the matter under discussion is the proposed amendment to the Currency and Banknotes Act 1954.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

I shall give way in a minute.

There is an important point about who should be a Back Bencher and who should remain a Back Bencher, because within the House, some will always be fated to be Back Benchers, often at the behest of their party leader. In power, party leaders love to exercise the power to choose who will be in ministerial positions or sit on Committees and the rest. However, on occasion there is perhaps a democratic requirement that some people should choose to be Back Benchers, or be chosen to be Back Benchers, for the length of a Parliament. It can be quite cathartic, as a politician, to spend one’s time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman either to dilate or to rhapsodise about the merits of Back-Bench life. Anybody would think that he was seeking to imitate his hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and to pen a book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”. He is welcome to do that, but if he wishes to do so, he must do so outside the Chamber.

[John Mann]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for redirecting me following my aberration after that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is not, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has been around for longer than he ought to have been. [Interruption.] I am not wishing his untimely end, notwithstanding the sedentary dissent of the Patronage Secretary.

[John Mann]

As I was saying, equality is a fundamental issue in respect of Treasury matters. The make-up of this Committee reinforces and exemplifies an historical bias on equality that is a significant bar to effective decision making cross-party and over many generations. One only needs to look at the fact that Chancellors of the Exchequer have been male throughout the centuries. Therefore, in the modern era when all parties rightly, and with increasing success, are bringing women forward into Parliament, this Committee’s membership demonstrates an old-fashionedness and backdatedness that this House should not endorse tonight.

This gets to the nub of the gentleman’s club and the way in which decisions are being made and have been made. I suspect that no such discussions on equality took place as the names were put forward, and that, in fact, the different parties put forward their names in accordance with the usual time-honoured, historical tradition, and nobody then took an overview. I suspect that the bias against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland came about in exactly the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was listening intently and I was about to say, which I shall now do, that we are concerning ourselves in this debate with the establishment, composition and remit of the draft Financial Services Bill Joint Committee, upon which subject the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is tabling and, I think, speaking to an amendment relating to a narrow part of the matter—namely, a particular member of the Committee. A wider dilation about possible future transfers of power, which might haunt the hon. Gentleman, are not subject matter for this evening’s debate, to which I know he will now return.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice. I seek your clarification on one important matter. It was my intention, as demonstrated by my previous remarks, to confine myself to one contribution, looking at the substantive motion as well as the amendment. I may be in error in so doing and may require a second speech. It was my intention to restrict myself to a single speech, and I seek your guidance in relation to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should proceed with his speech according to his own lights. It is not the normal practice of the Chair to conduct a running commentary on the speech of any hon. Member or to advise an hon. Member in advance of when he might inadvertently be about to slip beyond order. The hon. Gentleman can protect himself.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that helpful guidance.

The final point that I wish to make in relation to the amendment is that the randomness of selection of an individual member to remove can have many motives and be for many reasons. This important proposal by the Government is fundamentally flawed in its make-up, as I have outlined, being English only and male only, with the Committee meeting as a priority during the summer and being a Joint Committee with the House of Lords.

The weakness of the usual channels, inspired by Government and the Government’s timetabling, has meant that we have not been able to have this debate without amendment. I therefore urge that in future when such matters are before the House, they should not be tabled to be nodded through at 10 pm with no debate or require objections from individual Members or groups of Members in order to stop that process, requiring an amendment to allow a debate both on the amendment and on the issues underlying the make-up of the Committee and the flawed and biased decision of Government in that regard. That is the Government’s responsibility. We as a House have a responsibility to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they do not get away with such sloppiness in their programming of legislation that they put legislation—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend seems to be coming to the end of his speech, which I am enjoying so much. Does he agree that there are far too many tight programme motions in the Chamber and that we should have more thorough debates to make sure that every point can be thoroughly discussed, as my hon. Friend is doing?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a most interesting intervention, but sadly it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment, composition or remit of the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill.

[John Mann]

I shall therefore humbly ignore my hon. Friend’s intervention and conclude my remarks. As guardians of our democracy, albeit within the confines of the gentlemen’s club and the usual channels, and despite the weaknesses imposed upon us by the lack of modernisation, it is our responsibility and duty to expose flawed proposals, such as how the Government have unnaturally put together this unrepresentative and biased group without allowing us a debate that is timetabled in a proper and normal way. It is the Government’s responsibility to get that right, and I implore them to do so in future to save us having to object repeatedly at 10 o’clock at night to the flawed logic and bad politics that they have had to use—we all appreciate that it is a difficult time for the coalition—in order to try to hold these two ramshackle coalition partners together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have got the general gist.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

9. What recent estimate she has made of the number of people who are addicted to a class A drug.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise and far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T5. Which Cabinet Office conferencing, translation and interpreting services have not been put out to tender for small businesses to win, and why not?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Lord Mann

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a statement given to this House in December, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), circulated a list of courts to be closed which stated that the county court services in Worksop would transfer to Worksop magistrates court. To clarify that that was the case, I asked him a question from these Benches, and he confirmed to the House that it was so. It has subsequently come to light not only that that information provided orally to the House and in writing was inaccurate, but that exactly the opposite is happening, and that the county court services are to transfer away from Worksop court. I am sure that this was not an attempt to mislead the House but a bureaucratic cock-up of some kind by civil servants. Will you advise me,Mr Speaker, on how the Minister can best rectify this situation whereby his civil servants have clearly not carried out his instructions as outlined to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his giving me notice of it. From that notice—the letter that he sent to me before Christmas—I am well aware of his concern on this matter, which he has reiterated forcefully this afternoon. There is a mechanism for the correction of ministerial replies where necessary. That observation will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and, I trust, in the relevant Department. The hon. Gentleman can seek advice from the Table Office on how to pursue this matter, and I rather imagine that he will. I note that Ministry of Justice Ministers are answering oral questions tomorrow. I hope that that response is helpful.