PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

39 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
40
Mr Dodds: Absolutely, but the adjudicator must have
teeth. We look forward to hearing the details as they
come forward. However, if that and other measures we
have talked about are implemented, they will receive
broad welcome.
Having said that, I want to come to several areas on
which I disagree with the Government. Some relate to
issues that were in the Queen’s Speech, but some relate
to matters that were not. The verdict on the Gracious
Speech must be that, although it contains useful measures
that we will support, overall it lacks substance in heavyweight
measures to deal with the big issue confronting
us. There is to be a measure on House of Lords reform.
Many people call me or come to my constituency office,
but few, if any, have ever raised that issue with me. Even
in these days of e-mails, Twitter and Facebook, very
little of our correspondence relates to the matter.
There are, however, many issues on which I get a large
amount of e-mails and other correspondence. People
are concerned about our net contribution to the European
Union, for example. They are worried about the cost of
implementing regulations from Brussels. They are angry
about our inability to reject unwanted EU law, and they
want Parliament to be able to decide on behalf of the
people of the United Kingdom what our laws should be,
who we should have in our country and who we should
be able to deport. Those are the issues that people raise
with Members of Parliament all the time. They might
not be the issues that Members want to face up to, but
unless we face up to the concerns that people raise on a
daily basis, we shall become ever more disconnected
from the people we are supposed to represent.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab): A couple of weeks
ago, some small business owners from my constituency
came down to see me. They talked about the difficulties
relating to bank lending and to the high rate of VAT.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they will take
little comfort from what has been said in today’s Queen’s
Speech?
Mr Dodds: I agree with the hon. Lady. I shall come to
the issue of VAT shortly, as people have raised that with
me. VAT and fuel costs are of real concern to them. The
hon. Lady also mentioned banking. It is clear that a real
problem for economic growth in this country is that
many viable businesses that have a future and an order
book and that can trade are having to deal with banks
that are moving the goalposts on lending conditions
and what they require businesses to pay. They often do
that at short notice, having agreed on a programme of
repayments and interest rates only a few months previously.
Suddenly, the goalposts are moved and the businesses
are bereft of any means of continuing. They are forced
into liquidation and into laying people off. Much more
needs to be done about the lack of bank lending to
businesses, because that is strangling a great deal of the
potential growth in our economy.
Meg Hillier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree
that the fact that banks have become so far removed
from the communities that they serve is causing some of
these challenges? There is agreement across the House
on the need for reform of the banking system. Would he
welcome more mutualisation in the banking sector, and
does he share my regret that that does not appear in the
Gracious Speech?
Mr Dodds: The hon. Lady puts forward an important
issue for our consideration. Many of the banks are
largely owned by the public at the moment. One leading
business man in Northern Ireland told me recently that
he regretted that we had not gone the whole way and
taken complete control of the banks, to ensure that all
the necessary lending could take place. Members of
the public, taxpayers, ordinary hard-working families,
individuals and businesses are pumping billions of pounds
into the banking system, yet the banks are not doing
what needs to be done to ease credit and lend in the way
that they should.
I was talking about House of Lords reform, and
other Members have rightly raised issues that are of real
concern to the people and the communities that they
represent. Before we get on to the reform of the House
of Lords, I would like to see this House deal with an
issue relating to the House of Commons. The Prime
Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
said on record during the last Session that they believe
that it is wrong that Members who do not take their
seats in the House of Commons are still able to receive
full expenses, allowances and representational moneys,
which puts them in a much more advantageous position
than those of us who do take our seats. Sinn Fein, for
instance, gets the equivalent of parliamentary Short
money—what is called representative money—and is
free to spend it, not on parliamentary activities, of
course, because they do not engage in any parliamentary
activities, but on party political activities. Whereas we
as right hon. and hon. Members would rightly be called
to account by the authorities for any spending—even a
penny’s worth—for party political purposes, a group of
Members who do not take their seats are quite free to
spend that money to the disadvantage of their political
opponents. Let us be frank: it does not particularly
affect our votes, but it affects those of others in the
House who are not here today and no doubt can speak
for themselves in due course. The fact is that Members
who do not take their seats are given an enormous
advantage.
We know that back in 2001, Betty Boothroyd, the
former great Speaker of the House, resisted all this for a
long time. Ultimately, the decision was taken to proceed
with the concessions because the then Labour Government
said—it was bitterly opposed by Conservative Members—
that it was important to bring people into the peace
process and the political process. Whatever the arguments
at that time, the fact of the matter is that there is no
longer any need for this special category of expenditure
on the basis of encouraging people to be part of the
peace process. It is clear that people are involved in the
Executive and in the Assembly at Stormont. I welcome
that, and think it enormously to the credit of parties in
this House and in Northern Ireland that progress has
been made, but it would not make the slightest difference
to the political process—nobody believes that it would—if
these special arrangements were withdrawn in line with
what was promised before the election and in the last
parliamentary Session.
Bob Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for
giving way. I want entirely to endorse every single point
he has made on the matter of Short money for people
who do not take their seats in this House. Those days
are over; let us get this sorted out.