Jeremy Browne gets the [almost] last word on the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008

7.50.01pm GMT Fri 22nd Feb 2008

Lords amendment: No. 1. 7:45 pm: Yvette Cooper (Chief Secretary, HM Treasury): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker): With this it will be convenient to take [all the other] amendments . .

. . Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, No Department): It is not for me to rule that in or out; that is a question for our Front Bench. I have, however, been quietly asked to allow the Liberal spokesman to make an intervention, and I will be happy to do so . .

Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire, Conservative): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he has been asked to allow the Liberal Democrats to intervene in this debate, which is very good of the Government. Bearing in mind that it was the Deputy Leader of the House who did that, can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, enable us to have extra time so these matters can be discussed properly?

Michael Lord (Central Suffolk & North Ipswich, Deputy-Speaker): Unfortunately, the answer is no. I am bound by the rules of the House, and interventions such as this simply take up more time.

Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat): What a build up to what will be a great six-minute speech! The Chief Secretary to the Treasury accused the Liberal Democrats of playing opportunistic games with this Bill. That was a mistake, because if anything we have given the Government guidance throughout on the course of action that they should take. If only they had listened to us a bit earlier, the public purse would be in a lot better condition. As for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), he will have to learn to stand on his own two feet without the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative): What is the Liberal Democrats' forecast of the first year total cost to the taxpayer of the nationalisation that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) envisages?

Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat): Let me see whether I can get to that once I have concluded the two substantive points that I wish to discuss, the first of which is on the independent audit and the second of which is on freedom of information.

The Liberal Democrat position is that an independent audit is appropriate, and it is strengthened by the arguments that we have heard about Granite in this House and in the other place. There has been an extremely worrying development, because there still is no feasible alternative to nationalisation, but that does not mean that the Government can sweep the Granite issue under the carpet. Some £8 billion of unsecured loans are on Northern Rock's balance sheet, but none is on Granite's, so there is an imbalance that is potentially highly damaging to the taxpayer. We need a new valuation that gives taxpayers confidence that when we undertake to buy this company, we are buying a proposition that offers us a reasonable deal.

Commercial confidentiality is specifically excluded from the freedom of information provisions. The suspicion must be that the Government think that there is something to hide and that they would rather not be exposed by freedom of information. Northern Rock would have benefited from more rather than less scrutiny over the past few years. Some companies in the public sector that have commercial rivals are subject to freedom of information provisions. The Royal Mail is a case in point-it competes with independent, private courier companies-and National Savings and Investments is another example of the phenomenon.

Northern Rock is looking to engage very expensive consultants and it might well pay bonuses to staff, so it seems only reasonable that we are in a position to know the scale of the undertaking being made by its management. The Minister says that the problem is that as this is only a transitory condition and the company will be sold back to the private sector-she was not specific on the precise time scale-it would not be appropriate to subject these measures to freedom of information. Of course there is nothing to prevent the Government from reintroducing provisions to exclude Northern Rock from freedom of information measures when it is sold back into the private sector. We have no assurance of when that will be, and it is surely much better to act on the precautionary principle and for the Government to support the relevant amendment.

In conclusion, the Government are taking an extremely high-handed approach on this matter. The Liberal Democrats have sought to be a wise counsel and good friend to the Government throughout their difficulties over the past five months. That is entirely the spirit in which, in the other place, we supported the amendments before us this evening. We are not seeking to play opportunistic games. We seek to make the legislation, which is being introduced in short order, better than it would otherwise be. Rather than setting their face against good advice from my party and the Conservative party, the Government would do well to be less stubborn and to heed the warnings that we have given them in the past and are putting before the House this evening.

Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford & Woodford Green, Conservative): Very little time is left, so I just want to make one particular point. We ought to put the amendments in context. They probe the reality of what the Government are doing. This is not aimed simply at safeguarding commercial interests or the interests of the taxpayer. The main priority of all this secrecy and all this rush is to safeguard the political interests of this Government. They know very well that if freedom of information was allowed, we would find out exactly what had gone on over the past few months. We would know how incompetent and disgraceful their behaviour has been. We would learn something else over the next few months. The Government have set this so that it will go-

[9.15 pm]: It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [19 February]. The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 167.

. . 11:06 pm: Michael Martin (Speaker): I have to notify the House . . that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act: Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008. [www.theyworkforyou.com]