Finance Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The double taxation agreements are part of the international structure, but that is not the only element that determines whether the UK tax system is competitive. The point I am arguing is that our engagement and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor represent the right way to go about changing how multinationals are taxed. I would consider, for example, what came out of the Lough Erne summit and, more broadly, measures to ensure that people pay the right amount of tax, as well as the dramatic progress that has been made including, on tax evasion, the exchange of information between Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and indeed the creation of a new international norm based on the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. That is a big step forward, and we continue to take steps, leading the way in this multinational effort to give tax authorities new tools to deal with tax avoidance by providing more information about beneficial ownership. All those are steps that can help us to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion. I hope they will be welcomed by all Members of the House.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

May I say how pleased I am to hear that the Minister is a converted Blairite these days? In extolling the virtues of what he has done with the overseas territories, he has ignored the fact that none of us, including Treasury officials, knows who owns what company and what company structures are there, and therefore what moneys are around. That includes some of the big banks and state-owned banks.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who brings me on neatly to the next issue, which is registration of ownership. New clause 12(2) asks for a review of the effects of

“a global standard for public registration of ownership of companies and trusts via a convention on tax transparency”.

At the recent Lough Erne summit, the G8 leaders all committed to work internationally to ensure that tax collectors and law enforcers can easily obtain information about who really owns companies. That represents real progress in the UK’s aim to secure a substantial change in international tax transparency. That is an important point and something that we have been pressing. We have agreement from the overseas territories to develop their plans to ensure that there is access to information on beneficial ownership.

[John Mann]

I thank the Minister for generously giving way. We do not even know in this country about thousands of companies based here because inadequate returns are made to Companies House, which has neither the wherewithal nor, it would appear, the desire to do anything about that. How on earth is anyone meant to get on top of structures abroad when we are not even on top of corporate structures in this country?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area that I am very much looking forward to debating with him on Thursday afternoon. He has secured a debate on that very subject, so perhaps I shall keep some of my powder dry for that occasion. The point that I am making is that the Government are making substantial progress in this area and we also have an international agenda, ensuring that other countries move as well, so that there is much more information about beneficial ownership. That is not to say that the job is done and that there are not challenges that we face, but we have made a great deal of progress, particularly at the recent Lough Erne summit. That should be acknowledged.

Returning to new clause 12, the final element takes us back to an issue that we have debated previously, which is a requirement on the Government to assess how UK companies could report avoidance of tax in developing countries and how assistance could be offered in the recovery of that tax.

Under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime, UK companies are already obliged to report to HMRC their use of tax avoidance schemes carrying certain hallmarks. That applies to avoidance schemes that have an impact on developing countries, but only where UK taxes are affected.

The Opposition’s new clause 12 effectively suggests that Her Majesty’s Government should require UK companies to report their use of tax schemes, so that developing countries’ tax authorities can be notified of tax avoidance schemes, and that the Government should assist them in recovering any tax lost. It is unlikely that HMRC will have sufficient understanding of the details of developing countries’ tax systems to enable it to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I am not sure that we should use the term “UK-owned” as I am not sure that our friends in Jersey or Guernsey would appreciate that kind of description, although perhaps it is true in respect of the Crown. The hon. Lady is right that we should set an example of leadership, however, and try to ensure that the territories over which we have some influence have rules that comply with global standards. We heard some encouraging noises from the UK’s overseas territories when they agreed some issues with the Prime Minister before the G8 summit. Quite a few have taken pretty good steps in the direction of transparency by signing information exchange agreements, so we should not impugn them all with the same accusations, as some are clearly more a matter of concern than others.

Let me return to the proposal to require the publication of corporation tax returns. The requirements applying to UK company accounts include a requirement to publish a tax note that reconciles accounting profit with the tax charge and lists the key factors involved. It was intended to provide a summary of the tax return in some respects. If the tax charge is materially different from, say, 24% of the accounting profit, the reasons should be set out so that the user of the accounts can understand what is happening.

I have probably read more sets of accounts than most Members of Parliament. I am not sure that the tax note takes the user any further, because it is so brief, because there are so many ways of merging entries, and because of the impact of deferred tax. The note was designed to deal with the absence of complete transparency in regard to corporate tax affairs, but I think we could achieve that much more effectively by requiring the publication of actual tax returns. That would not reveal too many commercially sensitive data; indeed, I think that far more information is required in a set of statutory accounts than would ever be required in a corporation tax return.

We would probably not be acting unilaterally, given the disclosures that are required by many other stock exchanges around the world. The disclosures required by, for example, the Securities and Exchange Commission for its listed corporations are well in excess of those required in the UK. I do not think that this simple step would put us out of line with the rest of the world. Given requirements to disclose the tax amounts, taxable profits, how they were arrived at, and the details of overseas transactions with related parties, including amounts and charges, I do not consider it particularly onerous for a company to be required to declare “We have paid royalties of £5 million to our US parent.” In fact, many sets of accounts include such declarations. There are measures that we could take as a UK regime that would not harm our standing in the world.

I think that if there is one action that will damage prospects for UK investment, it is allowing a series of large multinational investors to be dragged through the newspapers, hauled over the coals and accused of engaging in abusive tax practices, especially when they are innocent. We do not want a regime that allows information relating to selected people to be leaked. Let us enable that information to be clearly, generally and widely published so that everyone can see who is responsible for bad behaviour, rather than trying to attack those who are innocently taking advantage of reliefs that we have sensibly introduced.

Although I agree with the intention behind most of new clause 12, I do not think that it will work. I have proposed a way of ensuring that the information we need is in the public domain year after year without imposing an unacceptable burden on UK corporate taxpayers. Perhaps the Opposition will back that proposal, which I shall continue to advance whenever we debate an issue that we have probably already debated half a dozen times this year.

[John Mann]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). I trust that Opposition Front Benchers were taking detailed notes, because the hon. Gentleman speaks common sense. It is no surprise that Ministers repeatedly ignore that common sense.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not volunteering to sit annually on the Finance Bill Committee. I was sadly not afforded the honour of participating this year, but the opportunity to participate in a debate on the Floor of the House could not be missed. I shall confine myself to expressing avid support for the excellent new clause 12 rather than straying into matters that would be better dealt with in the Backbench Business Committee’s debate on Thursday, in which I urge all Members to take part. I want to allow some of the adjuncts of matters raised in this debate—not least the issues of the role of Companies House, company structure and formation, and company records—to be discussed in appropriate detail, so that future Governments can be informed of what they should do, and the current coalition can be informed of what it has failed to do.

We know why the rhetoric from Government Front Benchers is as it is. They all now wish to become a bunch of pasty eaters and to be recognised in society and by the electorate for the way in which they are battling for the little man against the big multinationals. However, when it comes to the detail, the natural instincts of those on the Conservative Treasury Bench overwhelm the common sense of people such as the hon. Member for Amber Valley and other Back Benchers, who have pragmatic, practical, positive ideas that could be considered immediately. Some could be put into action.

What those Ministers fall back on is the perceived vested interest of the multinational. We have a charade, led by the Prime Minister and his sidekick the Chancellor —the Liberals are counted out of this; they are not important enough when it comes to economic matters—where the Government try to portray themselves as wishing to grab additional taxation. They have put up taxation such as VAT on the motorist, the consumer and the rest of society, so Conservative Front Benchers are a bunch of tax grabbers. Through the minimal changes that they are proposing and through the Prime Minister’s proposals to the G8, they wish to portray themselves as being the ones who are going to roll back against the multinationals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a powerful case. We see the mismatch between the rhetoric and the action of the Government on other issues such as climate change; they claim to be the greenest Government ever, yet they do not implement measures such as the decarbonisation targets. Is he aware that, after the Prime Minister spoke at the G8 saying that he would tackle the tax issue, the Finance Bill Committee refused to consider amendments on the issue? Enough Food IF said:

“It seems like Treasury ministers haven’t got the memo. The government is saying one thing while doing another.”

Is that not exactly what is happening?

[John Mann]

I do so wish I had been offered the chance to sit on the Finance Bill Committee in order, day after day, to be able to get into the details and hold the Government more to account, although sadly next year ends with a 4 and I am unable in any year that ends with a 4 to sit on a Finance Bill Committee.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Following the G8 summit, the Prime Minister said that the provisions of the summit would raise about £1 billion for the Exchequer, which leaves about £29 billion unaccounted for, according to HMRC. Has the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team informed him how much new clause 12 would raise for the Exchequer?

[John Mann]

I am sure that it will be a damn sight more than that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thought I would take this opportunity to say that we have thoroughly missed my hon. Friend on the Finance Bill Committee this year. In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I point out that the new clause asks for a review of how these aims can be achieved. The cost of HMRC undertaking the review would be the issue to consider.

[John Mann]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In this matter, as in many matters, my approach is to beef up my own Front Bench, as well as expose the fallacies, weakness and hypocrisy of the Conservative Front Bench and the absence of anything from the Liberal Front Bench. Therefore, the stronger the Opposition Front Bench is in the practical detail, and in saying to the British public that it is unfair and unjust that these large companies pay so little tax that a company such as Starbucks pays less than a café in the centre of Worksop, the better. How can that in any way be just?

This is not just about justice, however. Those of us on the Opposition Benches must articulate the fact that this is about economic efficiency. Let us consider the small entrepreneur or the new company, the company looking to grow, or the company that has reached its place in society, such as a small family café that is providing an excellent service to the community and that pays its taxes and is being undercut by multinationals. How can they compete with large multinationals avoiding their taxes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I should start by saying that I have been remiss in respect of reading the Worksop Guardian, but I will wager that it is full of comments from people who are concerned about value for money in our taxation system and those who are desperately concerned about the impact of cuts on local services. Those cuts have been driven by the fact that we do not get the tax-take in this country that we seek. This new clause and new clause 12 seek to help the Government to be better at collecting tax. Does my hon. Friend think that that would go down well with the readers of the Worksop Guardian?

[John Mann]

I think the readers of the Worksop Guardian will hear my hon. Friend’s comments. Those such as your good self, Mr Speaker, who are expert at using the internet can read those pearls of wisdom without having to go all the way to Worksop or order a copy at this difficult time for the parliamentary budget. I recommend it to all.

Although I failed to be selected to serve on the Finance Bill Committee, I am prepared to volunteer for a new task, if it is not too late to do so. This relates directly to new clause 4 and the Minister’s speech, and I should make it abundantly clear that I am prepared to accept the task for no additional salary, directly or indirectly. It is to do with the advisory panel on the GAAR. If its members have not yet been selected, surely the Minister would love the opportunity to select an Opposition Member who is prepared to ask some questions that the public would perhaps want asked. I would be prepared to sit on this body without additional remuneration, should the Minister, the Government and the House wish that to happen. The Minister is not intervening, so perhaps I will have to put in a written application as well.

The question of the overseas territories is very important. Hansard will record precisely what the Minister said some minutes ago, but I shall paraphrase his comments as I did not have the opportunity to take down his exact words verbatim. In essence he said that we are the leaders in the world in dealing with tax avoiders, we are showing the way, and we are going to ensure that this all happens, yet we should not do more than anybody else. But the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not German, French or American, and they rely on the British armed services to protect them in times of crisis or against the threat of invasion or assault. They rely on the British legal system and on the British royal family as part of their very essence, as democracies. Therefore, our relationship with these territories is a symbiotic one, in which we should expect absolute transparency in all matters relating to taxation and to companies and individuals from here.

The banks are the worst examples of complex structures that they themselves do not understand. They allow money laundering from Mexican gangsters—the worst kind—as proven by many successful US court proceedings. Big banks at the top are happy to tell us that they do not understand their own structures because they are so complex, but the structures are established in order to maximise profit—in other words, to minimise taxation—in territories that rely on our armed services, on our legal system and our democracy to underpin and oversee them. That is a cost to us that we rightly bear, yet corporates and individuals can hide things behind the opaqueness of structures there, so that these days my constituents cannot even discover who owns their football club and what moneys are there. This applies to even the most simple of examples, never mind the biggest and most complex of banks, financial institutions and other multinationals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I wish to give one example. The Cayman Islands have a population of about 57,000, yet 92,000 companies are based there and it is estimated by the Bank for International Settlements that $1.4 trillion of bank assets and liabilities are there. My hon. Friend has raised an important question: how on earth can a country that is so small govern what Professor Jeffrey Sachs describes as a financial “time bomb” in its own territory?

[John Mann]

Somebody is making money, because my own football club would appear to have been part-based in the Cayman Islands, in a structure that then took it into the British Virgin Islands and into Monaco and who knows where else. There are intricate webs criss-crossing these so-called “tax-efficient countries”—these tax havens for tax dodgers, corporate and individual. This Bill follows the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, with working people losing real income year by year, unemployment rising, a worldwide recession, and people less well-off than they were five years ago. The Bill, however, contains no constructive, detailed, productive proposals on how we are going to deal with these territories. We spend taxpayers’ money providing the armed services to guarantee them and then we turn around and claim that we are the world leaders. I say poppycock to us being the world leaders. This is an excuse of a policy. This is an excuse of an attempt in a Finance Bill. This is an embarrassment to the coalition partners, who would love, if they could come up with some ideas, a robustness to put behind it.

The big dividing point in British politics at the moment is this unwillingness to deal with the tax dodgers. These little clauses—new clause 4 and new clause 12—in their own small way encompass the problem in front of us and in front of the British people.

[Mr Newmark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has recently entered the Chamber.

[Mr Newmark]

I felt that the hon. Gentleman might need to refuel a little, as he was running out of breath. I am curious—given that many of the unions and pension funds invest in funds that invest in offshore places such as the Cayman Islands, making a lot of money for ex-union members and pensioners, will he suggest that the Labour party recommends that those unions and pension funds no longer use fund managers who invest in those offshore entities?

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. In his shy, retiring and meek way he is making some interesting points. I sometimes wish he would come out of his shell a bit more and tell us what he actually thinks. He weakens his case, does he not, when he tries to say that this is a party political matter? Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) highlighted how little money water companies and utilities were paying in tax in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has a website with a record of what corporate taxes are being paid by major corporates in this country. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and across the parties on the Committee there has been a big push in this area. Is it not better for us to work together to try to sort it out?

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—the fruit and veg man, a successful small business man—and I commend him. He is another on the Tory Back Benches like the hon. Member for Amber Valley, whom I specifically itemised in precise praise, as I did in last year’s Bill Committee, encouraging him to press to a vote his sensible and modest proposals to simplify the tax system. He would have had my support in that. In this House, there are times when we need to work across the parties to deal with an incompetent Treasury Front-Bench team. I would welcome further discussions beyond this Chamber with the hon. Gentlemen and others on the Conservative Benches about how best those of us who fully understand—be it a café in Worksop, or the fruit and veg man in Daventry or the accountant in Amber Valley—the economic inefficiency of this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this immoral Treasury Front Bench’s failure to deal with tax dodgers, tax avoiders, corporate structures and the opaqueness of the overseas territories.

As a country, through this Government, we are unwilling to give the international lead that our position in providing defence and other support to the Cayman Islands and many others requires. That economic efficiency, that justice and that morality would liberate good British companies who are prepared to do the decent thing and to pay modest, small amounts of taxation rather than avoiding their appropriate duty to do so. That is what competition in the market is about and what those of us on the Opposition Benches are about. It is also what some—I am happy to give them plaudits—on the Conservative and Liberal Back Benches are about, but it is absent from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Treasury Front-Benchers, who are devoid of it. They do not get the real world, have not come from it and will never understand it. They do not get what the public and small businesses are saying. I would suggest that they do not really care about that, because they are interested in their paymasters and in ensuring that the status quo remains. They are failing to challenge vested interests.

[Stella Creasy]

I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend mid-flow because he is making a powerful case not only for the readership of the Worksop Guardian, but for being on a Bill Committee with him, especially when it comes to finance measures. That would clearly be a unique experience. Does he agree that new clause 12 would be beneficial because it offers an opportunity to gather the evidence on the tax take that would show whether the Prime Minister’s warm words about tackling tax avoidance were being put into practice? I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who talked about Members on both sides of the House being interested in the matter, but one thing we all need is the information. The new clause offers precisely that opportunity.

[John Mann]

The new clause is so modest and so moderate. How could any reasonable and rational Member of the House possibly not vote for it? I would go much further and give more robustness, including a great wealth of powers to ensure that those overseas territories and Crown dependencies were forced to give economic efficiency, justice and morality in return for the defence and everything else that they get from this country, but I recognise that one needs a majority in the House to do such things. Therefore, I appeal to those decent, sensible, smiling Back Benchers to join us in an historic vote tonight—vote with the Opposition.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I understand the real passion that the hon. Gentleman brings to the debate, as he often does, but I have some concerns. It is great to see a politician put his body on the line, wanting to ensure that he serves on the GAAR board, but is this now a bid for him better to represent the British overseas territories in Parliament as well? Has he consulted the residents of Retford and of Worksop to check whether they can spare him, given all the hard work that he is doing in the constituency?

[John Mann]

I fear that due to our expedition next year with injured British soldiers, which I expect to take place via the parliamentary mountaineering group, I will perhaps be too busy to make a big commitment of time other than to that great cause, which the hon. Gentleman and I hope to push forward with other mountaineers and injured servicemen.

The hon. Gentleman gives us a timely reminder of priorities. I give that reminder to those on the Treasury Bench. This is about priorities: their priorities in government, which are the wrong priorities, the failed priorities, letting down the small businesses and the honest taxpayers of Britain. That is who they are letting down tonight and who they have been letting down for three years. Here is a modest opportunity for those who wish to save their seats: join the Opposition, do the right thing—the modest, the moderate thing—and support new clause 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

It is good to see the Minister popping up in the debates on the Finance Bill for the first time, at the eleventh hour. [Interruption.] That is not true; I apologise. He took part in Committee of the whole House, although he did not do the heavy lifting in Committee upstairs. Perhaps it seems now as though it never happened.

This is an interesting little Government new clause. Because of the hour, it would not be surprising if hon. Members’ eyes glazed over and they did not necessarily spot what is going on, but this is an admission from the Government that their bank levy has not been successful. In fact, they are having retrospectively to adjust the rules around the bank levy to make sure that they can net in the supposed £2.5 billion of revenue that the Prime Minister, no less, promised it would yield.

Let us recall the facts about the bank levy. In the last financial year, 2012-13, the bank levy did not bring in £2.5 billion, it did not even bring in £2 billion—it brought in a pathetic £1.6 billion. We should not forget that that does not include the cut in corporation tax that the Chief Secretary and others collaborating in the coalition gave away to the banks at that time. In other words, it raised a net £1.4 billion—a shortfall of over £1 billion on the amount that the Government said that it was supposed to produce. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and others in the Chamber, could certainly think of ways in which £1 billion of revenue could be put to good use. That was the giveaway that the design of the bank levy set in train for the banks. It raised not £2.5 billion but just £1.4 billion in the last financial year.

It is worse than that, because in the previous financial year, 2011-12, the bank levy raised just £1.8 billion. Deducting from that the £100 million in corporation tax, it raised a net £1.7 billion. The levy has not brought in the money it should have. The Government said that it would raise £2.5 billion, but in total it has brought in £1.9 billion—nearly £2 billion—which is less than they said it would raise.

If any other Department promised to bring in £5 billion over those two financial years but raised only £3 billion, there should and would be outrage. However, given that the Treasury hide a lot of these issues in the complex lexicon of bank taxation, many would be forgiven for not spotting that this is an absolute scandal.

[John Mann]

I thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to suggest what this money could be spent on. The infrastructure projects of Serlby Park school and Elkesley bridge—not started in three years under this Government—are shovel-ready and could immediately be commenced. I have launched a campaign today to send a postcard a day to the Chancellor until he gets his shovel out and starts work on them.

[Chris Leslie]

That is the point. The Government like to say that they are trying their best to bring in revenues, but when it comes to the banks and the wealthy they have a blind spot. Is that any wonder when nearly £2 billion of bank levy money has gone uncollected over the past two financial years?

Will the Minister give us an absolute, cast-iron commitment that the £2.5 billion from both 2011-12 and 2012-13 will retrospectively be brought into the Treasury? That, as a basic minimum, should be the intention of this new clause, although I do not necessarily think that it is the only tweak that will have to be made to the bank levy. Can we be sure that the lost £2 billion will be brought into the Treasury?

Will the Minister confirm that, by making this change, he is in effect ceding the bank levy policy to the regulators? If tax deductibility for liquid asset buffers is to be set by the regulators, does that not mean that bank levy policy will henceforth be in the hands of the Financial Policy Committee and the Prudential Regulation Authority? Will the Minister explain the consequences of last week’s decision by the Financial Policy Committee to relax the liquidity buffer rules for many of the banks? That big change will reduce significantly the amount of liquidity that banks are required to hold. That could be good news, because it may mean that there will be less tax deductibility for bank levy purposes. Will the bank levy be allowed to rise above £2.5 billion—that would be welcome—or will the Minister adjust the revenue available back down to £2.5 billion for each financial year even though the liquidity deductibility is not relevant in this particular case?

Will the Minister also explain whether the regulators will be given the right in statute to define equity or other liabilities? Other aspects of the bank levy that are enshrined in legislation could nevertheless be affected by the regulators, such as the definition of capital requirement.

I want a sense of what the new clause will do. We know that the Government are soft on the bankers because they do not want to repeat the bonus levy, which will result in a big tax cut for those bankers who did very well on their bonuses—they went up 64% in one month—in April. We also know that the millionaires’ tax cut has handed 643 bankers in this country a tax cut of at least £54,000 a year, so they are doing very well. We want to hear commitments on the bank levy. Will the Minister bring in the full £2.5 billion for financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

I always strive to do the right things; I am sure all hon. Members do. In the Opposition day debate five or six weeks ago, the Government amendment was so beautifully crafted by the people in the Liberal Democrat Whips Office and the Conservative Whips Office that I was able to vote for it. It said that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition support the principle of a mansion tax, but acknowledged the fact that the Conservatives in the coalition do not. When I voted for that motion, therefore, I was indeed voting to endorse the Liberal Democrat policy of a mansion tax.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I am little perplexed. Is this not the first opportunity for the Liberals to have one of their policies adopted by a major party? It has not happened in the past two and a half years. Should he not be thinking that his best bet is to throw more things the Labour way, because the way things are going, that will be his only chance in the future?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman, whom I quite like and respect—a feeling not shared universally among his colleagues—tempts me to comment on what might happen in the 2015 general election, on what discussions might take place in its aftermath and on what we might say during it. In 2015, the Liberal Democrats will say that we favour a mansion tax, with all the details we have already put on the table. I intend to publish a short paper that might help—it might do the Treasury’s job for it, making the new clause unnecessary—and which will flesh out what I am talking about. He said that Labour might benefit from taking more policies from the Liberal Democrats. We are all in politics to see our ideals, principles and policies put into practice, and if Labour wants to adopt more Liberal Democrat positions, instead of always saying we are wrong, the public might welcome that more grown-up attempt at consensus politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I thank all Members for their contributions. This has been a thoughtful and engaging debate.

Both new clauses are about housing. New clause 1 would require the Government, within three months of Royal Assent, to provide a report to Parliament on how the tax system supports those seeking to purchase a second new home and how the Government plan to prevent it. New clause 5 suggests introducing a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, with a view to using the revenue to fund a tax cut for those on low or middle incomes.

The Government oppose both new clauses. I will elaborate on the reasons, but first allow me to make a few points about the significant steps the Government have already taken and about our overall housing strategy, as many issues relating to it were raised this afternoon. I shall also respond to some of the other issues that were raised.

The new clauses centre on the housing measures in the Budget. The Government announced a major new package to support new development and affordable housing, alongside reforms to the planning system. The measures included the Help to Buy equity loan scheme and the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme. They will give a much needed boost to housing supply, and equip those who aspire to own their home with the tools to do so.

[John Mann]

Would the Minister accept that, with the affordable housing levy the Government have brought in on single properties, those who build their own home now face a minimum £40,000 tax per property? In Hertfordshire, it is £187,000. That will kill off aspiration for those who wish to build their own home.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will find that he will be perfectly satisfied with the degree of scrutiny that the recommendations, which have not yet been made, will receive. I have made that commitment and he will see it in time, even if he is not very trusting at this stage. I hope he will change his view.

One of the parliamentary commission’s policy recommendations was for a general reserve power to split up the entire banking system if it were considered to be appropriate in future. The Chancellor, the chairman of the commission—my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester—and, indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury had a learned and erudite discussion about the origin of the sword of Damocles metaphor. The Government’s view is that such a power would, in effect, introduce a different policy—one that was considered and rejected by the Independent Commission on Banking, which concluded that full separation would have higher costs for a gain

“that might not even be positive”—

without anything like the three-year period of scrutiny and analysis that this policy has enjoyed.

The proposal would, in effect, legislate for two policies at the same time—ring-fencing and full separation. We must legislate for the policy that the Vickers commission proposed. If a future Government were to consider that ring-fencing was no longer the right solution—which they would be perfectly entitled to do—they should conduct a full analysis of the case for alternative reforms and, in the light of that analysis, introduce new legislation to Parliament.

In addition, the parliamentary commission has proposed that the exercise of the reverse power by the Prudential Regulation Authority should include safeguards, including a Treasury veto, to ensure that the regulator behaves in a non-discriminatory way. The Government agree that there should be such a veto and will table an amendment to provide for a firm-specific power to require separation while the Bill is before the House. In addition, a further safeguard is available for any bank that believes it has been treated unfairly—namely, recourse to the courts.

One very important point that both the Vickers commission and the parliamentary commission agreed is that, in addition to the enhanced capital requirements on ring-fenced banks, there should be a minimum leverage ratio and that it should apply to unweighted assets of 4.06%, rather than the Basel III standard of 3%.

Let me be clear: this Government support the introduction of a minimum leverage ratio. It provides a simpler measure than risk-weighted assets, the calculation of which can be complex and disputed. Furthermore, it has been established empirically that a rise in the leverage ratio often preceded credit booms in this country and overseas.

The question remaining is about the precise level of the leverage ratio. I referred earlier to the British dilemma of how to maintain an internationally competitive financial sector without imposing risks on domestic taxpayers. This is a case in which that dilemma is, to be frank, most acute. When it comes to capital requirements, international agreements have already established that different countries will have different requirements. The European Union capital requirements directive, CRD4, provides for member states to have discretion to go beyond agreed capital requirements.

In the case of the leverage ratio, the 3% Basel III recommendation was for the requirement to be binding only from 2018, and it is not clear yet whether there will be the flexibility in European law to increase it as Vickers and the parliamentary commission recommend. The Vickers commission did not recommend that the higher leverage ratio should apply before 2019, in order, for reasons that I think we all understand, to minimise the impact on lending in the short term while the economy is still recovering.

Furthermore, during our repeated consultations, concerns have been raised by institutions such as building societies that they could be caught by a 4% leverage ratio despite having a relatively low-risk portfolio of assets, thereby restricting lending to home owners. Moreover, it would lead to assets in Spanish property, for example, being viewed as equal to US Government bonds for the purposes of the calculation. Our view, therefore, is that at this time we should follow the international approach and press for countries to have power to set a higher ratio from 2018, following a review in 2017.

Having said that, in the interests of transparency, we agree with the recommendation of the Financial Policy Committee that banks should disclose their leverage ratios from 2013. I confirm that they will do so from this year.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does the Minister perceive there to be a problem for very small building societies, because they are more disadvantaged than large institutions and could be swallowed up, thereby reducing competition in the market rather than increasing it?

[Greg Clark]

I have taken to heart the need to allow into the market smaller players, whether they be building societies or banks. I will say something about that shortly which I hope will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of that, and I think that what I will say about it will please her. I hope that she will be able to contribute to the debates on it in the weeks ahead.

The Government intend to go further on the matter of competition than was suggested in the reports of the two commissions. I strongly believe that the concentrated nature of the UK banking industry is unacceptable. I want to see far greater possibility, and indeed reality, of entry into the market by new banks and building societies. One of the barriers to that has been access to the UK payments system. Potential challengers have to win the permission of incumbents to be able to use the system. The Government will therefore shortly consult on a proposal to make access to the payments system regulated, to ensure that it is available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Subject to the findings of the consultation, the Government will consider tabling amendments to the Bill to give the regulator the necessary powers. I think that would address my hon. Friend’s ambitions.

[John Mann]

I welcome the Minister’s comments. Will he also table an amendment to recreate the Halifax building society out of the state-owned Lloyds-TSB bank? That would immediately create a major competitor on the high street that would be hugely popular, as it was before it was bought out.

[Greg Clark]

We want to see greater competition and more entrants. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the case of the banks in which we were in the unfortunate position of having to take a shareholding, the arrangements that govern that shareholding require us to operate at arm’s length of the interests of other shareholders. No doubt he will be able to make his points throughout the passage of the Bill.

[John Mann]

This is a Bill, and it can become an Act, so the Minister could table a Government amendment to do precisely what I said. Why is he not taking the opportunity to recreate the Halifax building society, which hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of consumers across the country would greatly welcome?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

We have to learn the lessons of that global financial crisis, one of which is that leverage has come to the fore as a way of illustrating the over-extended nature of the banking system. I am glad that consensus is breaking out across the Chamber on this point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he and I have almost been in concert in voting on a variety of amendments, some of which have been inspired by his very own articles. I therefore look forward to him joining us in the Division Lobby—if it comes to that—on the question of the leverage ratio.

[John Mann]

Before too much consensus breaks out, may I ask my hon. Friend to say a little more about how he envisages the problem of small building societies being addressed? They are saying unambiguously—although privately, of course, for commercial reasons—that their future is imperilled. Is a one-size-fits-all approach the right one? Is that the approach that my hon. Friend would take if he were in power?

[Chris Leslie]

Of course there are ways of ensuring that the building society sector can be accommodated in the leverage ratio framework. Building societies have a totally different equity structure, as my hon. Friend knows; they do not have the same equity as a plc structure. There are therefore important differences in that sector. In my view, however, it is important that all institutions, large and small, should be subject to safety requirements regarding capital loss absorbency and protection against over-extension in certain risk areas. There are ways and means of dealing with that, but I am annoyed that the Government have not seen fit to put any provisions on the leverage ratio in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House and to agree with many of the sentiments he expressed.

I look at the Bill and at the Ministers and my reaction is to ask, “Is this it?” Considering what we have been through and the problems in British and world banking, is this Bill the best that we, as legislators, can do? If that is the case, it is no surprise that we are increasingly derided outside this place.

The Minister should have set the context. I offer him my file detailing the top 50 banks in the world by assets. What unifies those top 50 banks is that every single one, without exception, either has been subject to major convictions for criminal fraud recently or is being investigated for criminal fraud. The Americans have been very good at portraying this as a British problem. They have, perfectly properly, exposed problems and illegalities in British banks. However, their banks are doing the same and worse, as are banks the world over. That sums up the problem. What other industry could have all 50 of its top players committing criminal fraud at the same time while the world’s legislators are happy to do just a bit of poking, a little juggling and a few bits and pieces?

I do not disagree with the bits and pieces, especially if there is strengthening and improvement, but is that all we are going to do? I heard reference to the 1930s and I have heard that time used before as a comparison. We are doing the same thing with the same boldness, but it did not work in the 1930s because 1931 turned into 1933 and into 1939 to 1945. That was the consequence. We therefore need to be significantly bolder in what we are doing. This Parliament, like other legislatures, remains cowed by the bluster and power of investment banking.

There are models that are different from the British model of investment banking. The Chinese have a very different model. We seem to be forgetting how successful that model is. While we are sellotaping our banking system together, they are building a competitive base that will dominate the world economy for generations. It is as if we are the fools at the Chinese emperor’s ball. By using a model of cheap finance, concentrating on raw materials and technological transfer, investing in skills and infrastructure, and planning for the medium term, China is showing how ruthless simplicity creates permanent competitive advantage. That contrasts with the short-term monetary advantage that our investment banking model offers. We play with paper while the Chinese build with concrete. Worse than that, they are developing tomorrow’s building materials, designs and visions.

A simpler, democratic model that similarly contrasts with the British investment banking model is the German model. An example is KfW, which was formed in 1948. Its lending to business in 2011, the last year for which I could find figures, was €70 billion out of a loan portfolio of nearly €500 billion. That is a less risky and less speculative model than our money market, casino model. Just like the Chinese model, which I do not recommend but do admire, the German model is beating ours. The danger is that we are playing yesterday’s games, whereas those countries are playing tomorrow’s games. That is a bit like the 1930s.

We must not be fearful of investment bankers. We should not just create an electric ring fence between retail and investment banking, but should consider whether the model that we have is fit for purpose. One thing that it certainly is not is competitive. We have allowed a model that does not create competition, and the Bill does nothing about that. There is the hope of the challenger banks, but they have not been very successful and there is more that we could do to help them. Over the past 20 years in this country, we have stripped out competition.

I would like to be able to follow the advice that I was given when I first got a bank account: “Put your money somewhere safe. You won’t get a great deal of interest on it compared with other places, but it’ll be reliable and it’ll help you get a mortgage and buy a house in the future.” It was called a building society. That was only one part of the model, but there were a lot of them all over the country not many years ago. The problem with the Bill is that there could end up being even fewer of them and a greater concentration of the tiny number that there are. Building societies are only one part of the financial services market that I want to see, but they should be a significant part—at least 30%, if that is what consumers want, but consumers have not been given the choice.

There is no real competition. Where is the national interest test for takeovers and mergers? The vast majority of investment banking’s speculative profits over the past 20 years have come from the mania for takeovers and mergers. Germany has such a test, and would anyone try to merge or take over a major conglomerate in China? I do not think so. A national interest test should be in place.

The two state banks should be broken up, and the Halifax building society should be recreated out of them, but we need far more than that. Competition should be created in the marketplace and enforced. If that were to happen, consumers would flock to that model in large numbers. I would like to see a model of tiered risk. I do not believe the idea that we can guarantee every type of saving for ever up to a certain limit—£85,000, or whatever it ends up being in the future—is rational. I would like a real choice between low interest rates and total security for my money, and medium or higher risk. We should give the consumer the choice rather than have the pretence that the state will always be able to provide a bail-out. From the moment such a pretence is created—we have essentially had it since the war in this country—there will by definition always be banks that are too big to fail. The fundamental logic of that cannot be broken.

There are many other bits and pieces that I would like to see. One of the Treasury Ministers ought to be in Europe full time. Whether or not I agree with what the coalition argues, one Minister ought to be negotiating, pre-warning and advising on and helping to create what comes out of Europe. I would like to have the bonus cap and the Government disagree, but the point is that we have not been there at the table, which is where we need to be. That is a fundamental weakness, as it was under the last Government. It would be wise politics to make that change.

Auditing has been mentioned, and another minor point that ought to be in the Bill, on the micro level, concerns compliance officers in banks. They are the office boys—there is no qualification for them and no basis of standards. It would be pretty easy to sort that out and ensure that there is a qualification to be a compliance officer. We should raise their grade and standard. We should not make a fetish of degrees, but it ought to be a graduate-quality job, which it has not been. That is a fundamental weakness in how banks see themselves and compliance.

A major change that I would like to see concerns tax loopholes. There has been a lot of talk about them, but when it comes to banking the biggest loophole involves the UK Crown dependencies. We have a significant degree of influence over them and they rely on us for their legal system and their defence, but we allow them opaqueness in finance, whether banking, commercial, personal or a combination. No wonder my file is full of cases of money laundering and other criminal corruption that have been found out, and those are only the ones that people have been able to see. That opaqueness should go, and we have the power to do it. Those are the big issues that have not been addressed in the Bill. I implore my party to get on the case and get it amended.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

This has been a thoughtful and considered debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and his colleagues on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his leadership of the parliamentary commission and to thank all the Members of the House and in the other place who have made contributions to that commission.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) on an excellent maiden speech, and I welcome him to the House. I, too, spent quite a bit of time in Eastleigh over the past few weeks. I do not think I helped him get to the House, but now that he is here I congratulate him and wish him the very best. From what I heard today, I think he will make a fantastic contribution. Thank you.

We heard a number of pertinent and considered contributions from both sides of the Chamber, and I am pleased to see widespread support throughout the House for the measures that the Government have put forward in the Bill. The support from the Opposition Benches for so many measures is an admission, at least from some Opposition Members, that they got it wrong during their time in office, and that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, when the fire alarm was ringing, nobody was listening. That was a point well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay).

Nearly six years ago, we experienced the first run on a high street bank in over 100 years. Five years ago, the previous Government were forced to bail out both RBS and Lloyds, as well as to provide billions in support to the financial system. It was the worst financial crisis in a generation. It happened on their watch and it left this Government with a huge mess to clear up and with the task of restoring trust in the banking system and ensuring that taxpayers are unlikely ever again to have to step in to bail out banks. That is exactly what the Bill is designed to achieve. Ring-fencing will ensure that core services continue to be provided if a bank gets into trouble, and it will ensure that it is those who lend to banks and benefit in the good times who take losses when there are bad times.

This is a crucial Bill for the future of banking in this country, and its seriousness has been reflected today by the Members who contributed—15 right hon. and hon. Members, and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who made a superb contribution. I will attempt to respond to as many of the issues they raised as possible.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has stated before, we have built a strong consensus around ring-fencing as the right structural reform, and others are following our lead. The proposals of Governor Liikanen and the high-level expert group draw heavily on this Government’s proposals and are entirely compatible with the Bill put forward by this Government. A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and the right hon. Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), raised the issue of the “electrification” of the ring-fence, as proposed by the parliamentary commission and accepted by the Government.

It seems clear that the House is in broad agreement with this important addition to the Bill. The Government agree that a power to require an individual group to separate could be a powerful deterrent against attempts to game the ring fence. This power would strengthen the ring fence. The Government will therefore table an amendment while the Bill is before this House to provide for the regulator to have the power, subject to Treasury approval, to require a group to separate.

On a related issue, several hon. Members have raised the proposal of the parliamentary commission that the Bill provide for sector-wide separation to be triggered at some, as yet undetermined, point in the future. The Government do not accept that proposal. The parliamentary commission is, in effect, asking the House to legislate two parallel policies: ring-fencing and full separation. That is despite the conclusion of the ICB, which rejected full separation in favour of ring-fencing, and despite the parliamentary commission producing no evidence in favour of sector-wide separation as an alternative. Indeed, the parliamentary commission accepts that there is no compelling case at present for full separation. That is why it recommends an independent review at some point in the future to consider whether full separation should be implemented.

However, ring-fencing has already been endorsed by a thorough independent review, which undertook public consultation, extensive scrutiny and cost-benefit analysis lasting nearly three years before rejecting full separation. The parliamentary commission’s proposal to legislate for an alternative policy in case we change our view would, in the Government’s opinion, be bad law-making. If in the future a Government were to believe that ring-fencing was no longer appropriate, which they would be perfectly entitled to do, they should conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence, consider the arguments for and against, including perhaps by commissioning an independent review. If they concluded that a different approach was necessary, they should bring forward legislation for Parliament to consider in the light of all the facts.

Several Members referred to the Volcker rule, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). While some may support such a measure, after 18 months of consideration, Sir John Vickers did not recommend that the ring fence be supplemented by a ban on proprietary trading. When the parliamentary commission asked him whether a Volcker rule should be introduced on top of his ring fence, he warned that the complexity of such a rule could, by distracting regulators’ focus, actually undermine the ring fence. On top of that, in Europe, Governor Liikanen and his high- level expert group noted how difficult it could be to distinguish between market making and proprietary trading. They also worried about pushing proprietary trading into the shadow banking sector, instead choosing to keep it within the regulated banking sphere. This Government are minded to agree with such an appraisal, and do not therefore see the benefit of a Volcker rule on top of ring-fencing.

We have heard some interesting views on the leverage ratio. Let me be clear. The Government strongly support a robust leverage ratio and are pushing hard for full implementation of the Basel III leverage ratio in the EU via the capital requirements directive. The ICB and the parliamentary commission have both proposed that we increase the minimum leverage ratio above the 3% international standard set out in Basel III. The Government strongly support the idea of a minimum leverage ratio as a backstop to risk-weighted capital requirements. But a higher leverage ratio would become a front-stop, the primary capital constraint on low-risk institutions, including building societies—a point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—and one that could reduce essential lending to households. A front-stop leverage ratio would also create perverse incentives for these institutions to risk-up, because a leverage ratio does not distinguish between the safest assets, such as UK gilts, and the most risky assets. I do not think any hon. Member would like to see policies encouraging our safest banks and building societies, including those that weathered the last crisis quite well, to become more risky. So the Government are not persuaded by the arguments for a higher leverage ratio.

We have also had a number of interesting interventions on primary loss absorbing capacity requirements, not least from the Chairman of the parliamentary commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that banks have the means to absorb losses should they get into trouble, and that those losses fall on those best able to assess the risk that they are taking. The Government agree that the ICB recommendation that ring-fenced banks, and UK-headquartered globally systemically important banks, should be subject to new PLAC standards. That will be 17% of risk-weighted assets for the largest banks. That extra capacity to absorb losses will improve resilience against shocks and mean that, if a bank does fail, it can be resolved without recourse to bank bail-outs.

Some Members questioned who would decide whether banks should issue primary loss absorbing capacity against their overseas activities. The parliamentary commission recognised that the Treasury should have a role in shaping how the regulator applies primary loss absorbing requirements. That is because such decisions will be inextricably bound to the key Treasury objectives of protecting public finances and supporting long-term growth. The Government therefore believe that there is strong merit in the FSA’s suggestion that PLAC instruments and decisions should be made in the context of a firm’s resolution strategy. We will therefore make provision during the passage of the Bill to give effect to that.

Members have also mentioned bail-ins, which were discussed at some length by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East. Bail-in is an important statutory tool that helps to ensure that creditors, rather than taxpayers, expect to bear the costs in the event of bank failure. It is a particularly important tool for systemically important banks, where the impact of insolvency on the wider economy is large.

To ensure that UK banks are not disadvantaged relative to international competitors, and because the task of resolving large cross-border banks is complex and requires close co-operation, it is important that the UK works with other countries to design a consistent bank bail-in tool that can work in relation to the resolution of cross-border institutions. We are therefore working closely with our European partners to develop a credible and effective bail-in tool as part of the European recovery and resolution directive. We are pleased that the Irish presidency has set out its intention to make rapid progress towards conclusion of the RRD. However, if agreement cannot be reached—we expect that it can—we will consider tabling amendments at a later stage in the Bill’s passage to allow the UK to act alone.

We heard many thoughtful interventions on competition matters. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest, for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). The Government are committed to making changes to encourage greater competition in the banking sector. Many of those do not require legislation to take effect, and we have already acted in a number of ways. The FCA is now tasked, through the Financial Services Act 2012, with a competition objective, as Sir John Vickers, the former head of the Office of Fair Trading, recommended.

While discussing competition, we also heard from a number of Members on what might be called alternative structures for banking. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggested that we move to the Chinese model, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) suggested that we nationalise the entire banking sector. However well intentioned those proposals, I think that they are wholly misguided.

[John Mann]

It ill befits the Minister, when an hon. Member makes a point on three occasions, not to manage to listen to it. Perhaps he would care to consider the point I made: I dismissed the Chinese model and recommended the German model.

[Sajid Javid]

Well, let us talk about the German model. As someone who worked for a German bank for 10 years, I think I might know a little more about the German model than the hon. Gentleman does. The German model was the one that had to nationalise Commerzbank and other banks in the regional sector, and the largest bank in Germany was not without its own problems, such as the LIBOR scandal. He suggests the German model, but I do not really understand what the difference is.

[John Mann]

The difference between the German model and the model the Minister has at the moment is that the German model is lending to business.

[Sajid Javid]

I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to do some homework on the German model.

Let me turn to switching. The Vickers commission made a number of recommendations on competition, one of which was for a seven-day switching service. That will go live in September this year. It will be free to use and will come with a guarantee to protect customers against financial loss in the event of any errors occurring during the switching process. A number of Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, made interesting points on full account number portability. The Government have always kept an open mind in that debate, arguing that the seven-day switching service should be allowed a good run. If it does not deliver the expected consumer benefits, more radical options will of course be looked at, including full account number portability.

The structural reforms proposed in the Bill will of course aid competition. As the Bank of England’s executive director for financial stability, Anthony Haldane, said to the parliamentary commission, one of the biggest challenges we face on competition concerns is that banks are perceived as being too big to fail. The banking sector reforms made through the measures in this Bill are designed to address precisely that issue.

Economic Policy

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right about the credit default swap rate. As I have said, the credibility of our policies is tested every week when we have to borrow all this money to pay for Labour’s deficit, and we are borrowing it at record low rates.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Would not the honourable course be for the Chancellor to say at the next Cabinet meeting, “I’m going outside and I may be some time”?

[Mr Osborne]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that he is pretty free with his calls for people to go. The last person he called on to go was the shadow Chancellor.

HM Revenue and Customs

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

That is an excellent proposal. The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head regarding transparency and openness. It is not only the directors; the shareholders have a responsibility as well. The veil of secrecy over tax avoidance, and the advice given on it, undermines the opportunity for shareholders to hold directors and companies to account. Many shareholders are institutional ones, and they have a commitment to their companies behaving morally as well as legally.

It is not just avoidance though. On January 7, I read —in The Daily Telegraph, so it must be true:

“Tax fraud has reached its highest level since the onset of the financial crisis, as VAT evasion has exploded, costing Britain more than £3bn a year…The size of the so-called ‘VAT gap’ due to fraud, the difference between the amount of tax HMRC expects to receive and what it actually collects, is reckoned to have reached £3.3bn, or enough to fund a 1p reduction in the tax of every UK taxpayer.”

So it is not just evasion and avoidance; it is VAT fraud as well. It is no wonder there are problems. I again quote from The Daily Telegraph—I am going to have to give up reading it:

“taxman embroiled in 20,000 tribunal cases”.

According to the article, HMRC estimates that because of the lack of staff the backlog of cases will take “38 years to clear.” That is how bad it has got.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants briefing states simply that, in the view of independent accountants, the system is not working. Why not? One reason is the scale of the cuts. HMRC has been charged with finding a 25% reduction in expenditure. I accept that that was under the previous Government, but I was critical then also. Under this Government, it is expected to find another 15%. What does that mean? The Minister and I were involved in a discussion about this in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. That scale of reduction would be startling for any organisation. In 2005, HMRC employed 97,000; by 2015 it is planned that the total staff numbers will be 55,000—almost half the staff cut. Since this Government were elected, 7,000 HMRC jobs have gone. The objective in all this is to save what? Some £1 billion. That makes no economic sense when there is a tax gap—tax that remains uncollected—of, according to Government figures, £40 billion or, according to other people, potentially £120 billion.

To be frank, HMRC is woefully under-resourced to tackle the tax gap, and fraud and evasion, and the view of professionals in the field is that the staff cuts seriously hinder the department’s effectiveness. The Government have claimed that they have recently overseen a rise in staff levels, and that is true. There have been some additional staff, and I congratulate the Minister on that. Overall, however, staff numbers have dropped by 7,000 since the Government were elected.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just about the numbers of staff but about their morale? Has he read the repeated surveys, over a number of years, that demonstrate that HMRC staff are the most demoralised anywhere in Government?

[John McDonnell]

I will come on to that in due course. The expression that has been used by non-HMRC staff—observers—is that staff morale is “at rock bottom.” That was demonstrated by a recent internal Government survey, which reported that fewer than one in five staff thought that HMRC was well managed. That is how bad it has got.

I want to get back to the important issue of staff numbers. The Minister claimed in a previous debate that there had been an increase in the numbers of tax inspectors, with 100 new ones having been or being recruited, but that fails to appreciate the role of other front-line staff in dealing with tax inquiries and chasing up payments. Those essential back-room staff, who are not respected in the role they play, seem to be the ones who are vulnerable to losing their jobs. The Government have partially recognised some of the staff resource issues, providing £900 million to secure an extra £7 billion in tax revenue, and announcing a further £77 million in December to expand HMRC’s anti-avoidance and evasion activities, which they predict will secure another £2 billion. That small investment over the coming years will secure a total of £22 billion of additional taxation, demonstrating that investing in the staff and the professionals will have an economic success in tackling the tax collection problems.

Although limited, the additional funding is welcome, but it fails to appreciate the impact of previous job cuts and the threat to staff of another 10,000 jobs going between now and 2015. It is not just PCS members who urge the Government to think again about the cuts; accountants, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants, have expressed their concern in public. One of them described the cuts as happening “wildly”, with little planning, resulting in the loss of highly skilled professional staff.

I urge Members to read the Commons Library briefing note, which cites a number of independent accountants who have gone public with their worries about the impact of staffing cuts on HMRC, including Ken Frost, the accountant blogger, and Mike Warburton. The running theme is that the cuts are causing difficulties and leading to lost experience, and that staff are overwhelmed at a time when more demands are being placed upon them. According to the briefing by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the recent child benefit changes are predicted to bring an extra 500,000 taxpayers into self-assessment, stretching the already overstretched system.

HMRC staff have expressed their concerns that under-resourcing is leading to mistakes. In an article in the Institute of Chartered Accountants journal, one staff member states:

“The pressure we’re under to hit targets and get post turned round leads to errors because we’re having to do it that fast…The emphasis is placed on getting rid of the stuff whether it’s right or wrong.”

It cannot be right that that is happening in our system. To deal with the work load with fewer staff, HMRC management has introduced a working system based on what have been described as manufacturing principles. The pacesetter system is a rigid, time-limited process with specific targets, which leaves little room for professional judgments, resulting in further errors and failures to resolve problems.

It is not just accountants and other professionals who are complaining about the impact of cuts on services; members of the public, individual taxpayers and small businesses are complaining about the often nightmare problems of accessing HMRC services. The closure of local offices has meant that virtually all contact for some taxpayers is now by telephone.

The National Audit Office reported in December that, in 2011-12, HMRC answered 74% of phone calls. The NAO acknowledges that, despite exceeding an interim target of 58%, the level of service is low. For example, 20 million calls, including calls where customers rang back because they did not get through the first time, were not answered. Customers who got through to HMRC in 2011-12 had to wait on average 282 seconds to speak to an adviser. Between April and September 2011, 6.5 million customers waited more than 10 minutes to have their call answered. Depending on the tariff they pay their phone company, customers are charged from when their call is connected, even if they are held in a queue. The NAO estimates that being in a queue cost customers £33 million in call charges; the estimated value of customers’ time while they were in a queue is £103 million, which cannot be right.

I am pleased that the Government have announced that, from the end of the summer, people who phone for advice will no longer use the costly 0845 number. They are also setting a new target from April for 80% of people to wait no longer than five minutes to speak to a real person, including recorded messages. I am grateful to the Government, because there have been improvements and HMRC has hired an extra 2,500 staff. Those staff, however, are employed only on temporary contracts, and the union and others feel that the Government need to allow HMRC to employ properly trained, permanent staff who will benefit the organisation, rather than the reactive, quick-fix recruitment policy that many people feel will not bring about sustained improvement in service delivery.

There is anxiety about over-reliance on phone services. The reason for high caller demand and over-reliance on caller services is because 200 local HMRC offices have closed over the past six years, and there are more to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is both frustrating for the person who is trying to identify what they should properly pay and counter-productive given the lost revenue to the HMRC.

[John Mann]

Has my hon. Friend considered the disproportionate impact of tax office closures on traditional market towns such as Retford? Where a significant number of staff are moved out and the offices are not re-let, the consequence is that other small businesses, newsagents, cafés and so on get into difficulties because part of their core lunch-time business disappears.

[John McDonnell]

It flies in the face of all the statements by this Government and previous Governments about moving staff out of London into the regions to boost regional economies. We now have a hokey-cokey, with staff being brought in as other staff are taken out. The result is not only instability but, through overall cuts in staff numbers, a depressing effect on local economies, as evidenced across the country where there have been closures.

The offices set to close by 2014-15 are: City Gate house in Leicester, where there are 124 staff; Pentland house, Livingston, with 220 staff; Crownhill court, Plymouth, with 76 staff; Wingfield house, Portsmouth, with 510 staff; Merrywalks house, Stroud, with 53 staff; Gilbridge and Shackleton houses, Sunderland, with 213 and 103 staff respectively; Truro with 49 staff; Weardale house, Washington, with 181 staff; Valiant house, Wembley, with 40 staff; and Lingate house, Wigan, with 69 staff. Those are enormous figures within a particular local economy. HMRC has also confirmed plans to shut nine offices in 2013-14 that were threatened with closure in September 2011, including one in Wick in northern Scotland that won a reprieve after a previous union campaign. Those offices are: Norfolk house, Bristol, with 213 staff; Norwich with 72 staff; St John’s house, Poole, with 67 staff; Somerset house, London, with 265 staff; Slough with 101 staff; Stockport with 415 staff; Twickenham with 51 staff; Quorum contact centre, Newcastle, with 647 staff; and Government buildings, Wick, with 17 staff.

More than 100 staff in Stockport have recently been offered voluntary redundancy as the office prepares to close, which means the loss of many staff with many years’ experience of administering the system and delivering customer services. We are losing staff with years of knowledge and experience. That is local knowledge of local tax collection policies and of where the local tax gap may be addressed.

I will not delay the Chamber too long, but I have an example of the contradictory nature of the whole affair, which is the closure of the Wick office. All 15 staff based at the office work in local compliance, or local tax collection. The total cost of commercial rent and staff comes to £494,475—I will offer the Minister my detailed brief afterwards if he so wishes. The total tax yield for the same period is £14 million. Each member of staff is responsible for bringing in close to £1 million in one tax year. The office, which we think has a realistic target of £20 million a year, is to close. To save £500,000, therefore, we lose £20 million as a result of the staff cuts. The Wick staff are all experienced and have used that experience gained over the years to be successful in their work. The loss of 15 jobs in Wick is equivalent, per head of population, to the loss of 17,000 jobs in London. There is a significant impact on the local economy, and that is repeated in area after area. The problem is that local office closures will mean new demands on call centres.

The transition to universal credit will bring added problems. The Government expect 80% of universal credit claimants to use online services, but it is likely that many of those people will not have internet access. In the absence of local offices, the next port of call will be the telephone service, on which the cost burden will fall ever more greatly as people are called on to fill out more detailed information in order to access benefits such as tax credits and employment and support allowance. That demonstrates the digital divide in our country and the divide between those who can access a local office and those who cannot. That is worrying.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned staff morale. Any manager would say that an organisation that deals with the general public, provides a public service and works in such a complex field needs committed, dedicated, well-trained and professional staff, which HMRC has built up over the years, and which both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise had before HMRC was formed from their merger. I still believe that HMRC staff want to work in an organisation that values them for that.

I warn the Minister and others here that staff morale in the organisation, as the media have described, is at rock bottom. Recent evidence in documents leaked from the department has confirmed that, and I have mentioned the recent survey in which only 18%—fewer than one in five—of staff felt that the organisation was well managed. Any manager in such an organisation will tell you that there are problems if staff morale is that low.

Industrial action has taken place in HMRC in recent years; in some areas, for the first time in the history of tax collection and administration arrangements in this country. Staff morale is low because of the continuing threat to jobs and terms and conditions, and of privatisation. It is wearing people down and undermining morale. Insecurity is ever present. Staff have suffered a pay freeze, pension cuts, job cuts and office closures, and now, as a result of Cabinet Office procedures, the department is reviewing all terms and conditions, including hours of work, leave, parental and special leave, child care, job sharing, flexitime and part-time working, all of which affect HMRC staff, many of whom are women with caring responsibilities whose arrangements are being destabilised as a result of the review.

The handling of the HMRC nursery closures was brutal and incompetent. HMRC announced on 23 August 2012 that it was to close eight workplace nurseries by November. The nurseries were in Blackburn, Cardiff, East Kilbride, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham, Salford and Wolverhampton. Parents were given just 12 weeks’ notice, and the decision was taken without any consultation with the trade unions. PCS led a campaign with the support of numerous Members, whom I thank, and one of my hon. Friends secured an Adjournment debate on the topic. HMRC agreed to keep the two biggest nurseries open until October 2015 and provide financial compensation for the carers and parents affected.

HMRC’s rationale for closing the nurseries was that it would be fairer to everyone to have the same level of child care provision, so it introduced a child care voucher scheme, taking no account of the financial or personal impact of the decision on staff. It raised serious concerns among staff about HMRC’s commitment to family-friendly policies. The organisation’s management have admitted that it was not their finest hour. It has certainly hit morale badly within the department.

The threat of privatisation is ongoing. All jobs are up for sale. What is most galling to HMRC staff and to us is that contracts are being handed out to corporations involved in large-scale tax avoidance. It is extraordinary. I raised the issue in the House some weeks ago, but I will run through the examples. Capgemini and Accenture, two IT companies with HMRC contracts, were both identified recently as having avoided paying tax. Capgemini, the lead contractor on the £8 billion Aspire contract, paid only £308,000—or less than 1%—in corporation tax last year on £38 million in profits. There is no justification for that happening in the first place, and certainly no justification for us feeding a tax avoider with Government contracts. Accenture, which has a £9.6 million contract with HMRC to supply technical support, managed to reduce its tax bill to 3.5%, paying only £2.8 million in tax on nearly £82 million in profits in Britain last year, yet we awarded it another contract.

To be fair, the last Government were to blame as well, and under them I raised the issue of the selling-off of the HMRC estate to Mapeley. HMRC now leases the buildings back. In 2010, NAO findings showed that if Mapeley, which is now part of the US offshore group Fortress Management Services, were based in Britain, the Treasury could expect to receive around £184 million in tax revenues. In fact, the company is expected to pay only £14 million on its lucrative HMRC contract. We have to learn some lessons. If nothing else, we must ensure that we do not provide tax avoiders with incentives by giving them Government contracts.

Many staff members and independent advisers have expressed the view that the general tax avoidance mechanisms that the Government are introducing will not give them the tools that they need to tackle tax avoidance. That needs a much wider debate than we have had so far in the House and elsewhere about the parameters, role and remit of the tax avoidance measures that the Government are introducing. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said, that also includes simplification of the system.

Cut after cut has been made. Staffing cuts are undermining professionalism, reducing the number of local offices and creating low morale among staff. It all points to a key department labouring under intense pressure without the resources to cope. HMRC has been on the edge of a crisis for some time. I believe that Ministers have begun to become aware of it in recent months, but there are public fears about tax justice, and the Ministers responsible for HMRC must recognise that the department needs to be re-resourced. Staffing levels must be brought back up. A new sense of purpose and a new direction must be injected into the department. Staff must be re-motivated, and the threats of privatisation must end, as well as the cutbacks to terms and conditions that are impeding staff in undertaking their professional work.

All staff want is the chance to make their contribution by collecting taxes, enforcing legislation and advising us how to create a system that is fair, efficient and effective. They are professionals, and they should be treated as such. I hope that as a result of this debate, the Government will open a wider dialogue, particularly through the trade unions, especially PCS, about how HMRC will go forward, working with the grain of its staff’s professionalism and with their good will to turn the department around so that it can implement a fair and effective tax collection system.

Banking Reform

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend and I completely agree about the need for more competition in the banking sector. It is one of the features of the banking crisis that it has resulted in a concentration in the number of banks. Frankly, there were never enough in the first place, and we need urgently to see more new entrant banks of all types coming in. We are working with the existing regulatory authorities and, through amendments to the Bill, we will transform the state of competition in the banking sector. I very much hope to see an infusion of new energy and talent into the banking system in this country.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Given that we have the highest high street lending rates in the European Union, along with the lowest high street saving rates, why is not the Minister proposing the break-up of Lloyds TSB in addition to that of RBS? That would immediately create proper competition in the banking sector.

[Greg Clark]

As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, the Government have promoted the sale of Northern Rock to Virgin, for example, to try to encourage new entrants, and he will see more of that in the future. On interest rates, those that are being paid on mortgages and small business loans at the moment are very much lower than they would have been had we not taken the necessary action on the economy to keep them competitive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will not get into individual cases. As I have said, the OECD, at the urging of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is looking at these issues. We want to ensure that there is an international tax system whereby economic activity is taxed where it occurs. That has been overlooked for too long and we are determined to address it.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in calling on all political parties in this country to refuse or return any donations from tax avoiders?

[Mr Gauke]

I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to have a word with those on the Opposition Front Bench before he ventures into that territory.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In quoting the proceedings of the Treasury Committee, the Chancellor failed to quote accurately. I happen to have the transcript of yesterday’s sitting here, and it is unambiguous. The Tory vice-Chairman, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), asked Mr Diamond the final question on this point. He said:

“I understand all that, but the effect of what you have written down here is that Ministers or officials were in effect asking you to fiddle your submission.”

Mr Diamond replied, in his final comment on this point:

“I didn’t believe that, no.”

He also said something that is of even more significance than the Chancellor’s smears, when it comes to the decision that has to be made. Diamond confirmed what we knew already from what the Financial Services Authority had said: he said that other banks were involved. One bank that has had to sack people is the largely state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland—the one that the Chancellor is primarily responsible for via a Government agency. There is no question but that what went on in Barclays was going on in—it has been suggested—at least 20 other investment banks, including the one that the Chancellor is predominantly responsible for: the Royal Bank of Scotland.

This scandal is therefore not restricted to Barclays. We know what a scandal Barclays is. I asked Mr Diamond 13 questions yesterday, and got no answers, other than his confirming that, as the man in charge of an investment bank, he asked no questions and carried out no analysis whatever of why the rates were different or whether there were any oddities in the rates that were being presented to the British Bankers Association by his bankers. He says he knew nothing, which is a little incongruous, but he did confirm that there were inter-bank issues here, as bankers from other banks were ringing Barclays and asking for favours—with the now infamous bottle of Bollinger being offered as a present in recompense.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is the Chancellor’s responsibility. Unfortunately, he failed to take interventions, including from myself; if he had allowed me to intervene I would have asked him directly what questions he has been asking about what has been happening over the last few months with the fiddling of the LIBOR rate within RBS—the bank for which, I repeat, he is predominantly responsible. In particular, I would have asked what the FSA is now telling the Chancellor about its inquiries. That is important because it will impact hugely on the nature of the investigation to be carried out. To suggest, as did the Chancellor—and the Prime Minister previously alluded to it—that this investigation could be confined solely to Barclays bank is clearly nonsense. What we are going to see, which we have not yet seen, is what the FSA has to say about these other banks—up to 20 of them. We are also going to see what comes out in the United States over the next six months—precisely while the inquiry, whether judicial or parliamentary, is ongoing.

The only thing of which we can be certain is that this is a moving feast. That creates a major dilemma for us, whichever way we choose to go. A judicial inquiry cannot be limited to a short period of a few months and guaranteed. If it comes out that what happened at RBS is comparable to Barclays, that presents an even bigger issue for us and for the Government to address. RBS is a huge British bank—one that the taxpayer has had to bail out and one largely owned by the taxpayer. The consequences for the Exchequer and the taxpayer will undoubtedly be even larger for RBS than for Barclays.

We do not know where the civil actions in the US are going to go or how quickly they will be carried out. That problem would afflict a judicial inquiry, however independent it was—and it would be independent—but it would afflict a parliamentary inquiry even more so. Who is going to sit on it, and for how long? That might sound like a small question to the outside world, but it is a major question. If the Chairman of the Treasury Committee or its members participate in the parliamentary inquiry, which would make some sense, it would effectively put the Treasury Committee out of action—perhaps for six months, but potentially for a year or 18 months—at a time when all these other major issues are before it.

That is the biggest reason why the joint inquiry will not work. It is simply not feasible for the Chair of the Treasury Committee to be effectively seconded for that period of time. However well resourced the Treasury Committee, its members will have to do two jobs simultaneously. The RBS question has not been answered in this context. I urge the House to consider it, because the issues are even bigger than for Barclays.

Finance Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

If our policy turns the trajectory of the economy around from one of recession to one of growth, then clearly it will pay for itself and bring down the benefits bill, which is currently going up.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I would like clarity on what the Opposition’s policy is. [Interruption.] I can hardly hear myself think. Is it our policy that VAT will be permanently reduced to 17.5% or that the reduction will last for 12 months and then it will go back up to 20%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her characteristically rational contribution. I would add that the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report estimated that the Government’s tax and benefit reforms will make a couple with children £511 worse off in this financial year and £1,250 a year worse off by 2015. It does not take an economic genius to work out what that does to demand in the economy.

The Prime Minister admits that a 2.5% increase in VAT hits the poorest hardest, so what happened to, “We’re all in this together”? I would like to hear an answer on that. As well as hitting poor people the hardest, higher VAT is hitting the economy at a time when we can least afford it. As we have discussed, the Chancellor unveiled a fuel duty cut last week, using mystery funding sources. Dropping VAT could have taken 3p a litre off petrol immediately. Across the board, a temporary cut in VAT would stimulate growth and get the economy moving again. Putting money back into people’s pockets is the only way to support businesses and create jobs—the very things that the Chancellor left out of his mangled Budget. That is why a temporary return to 17.5% is part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth.

[John Mann]

Is not another way to stimulate the economy to spend the money on employing the police officers who have been sacked and on reversing the ambulance cuts, the fire service cuts, the Army cuts and other cuts? We could use the £50 billion that a VAT cut would equate to over a Parliament to employ public servants, rather than to cut taxes.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Since June 2011 we have lost more than 100,000 public sector jobs, which means that there have been redundancies at a rate of one a minute since the Government took office. Yet the private sector, which the Prime Minister anticipated would flood in to create jobs, has simply not delivered. It has created only half that number of jobs, leaving the other half of those people on the dole and claiming benefits. That is pushing Government borrowing up, not down.

The measures that we suggest would boost the economy and people’s spending power and ensure that we are not saddled with taxes that no one can afford. We want to see the economy moving into growth again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This affects master bakers, whether of pork pies, sausage rolls, steak pies or chicken pies, the length and breadth of the country. Those self-employed, highly skilled master craftsmen can carry on producing their much-loved regional foods, which we enjoy all over the country and which make our country so distinct, as we celebrate our rich and varied food heritage. I hope that that addresses any misapprehensions among Labour Members about the benefits of the pasty tax.

Much has been made of the Government’s U-turns. I welcome having a Government who, when they launch a consultation, as they did after the Budget, actually listen to representations on a range of measures, and I am pleased that the Chancellor is driving our economy in the right direction. We have to reduce our deficit and get our expenditure under control. The hard-working families and small businesses in my constituency understand that, and frankly will feel let down by this retread idea of a 2.5% reduction in VAT—the only proposal we hear from Opposition Members. But, of course, we do not know whether that will be their proposal tomorrow, next week or next month, because the shadow Minister could only say that it was the proposal today. If that is their only proposal and if it is only for today, how can families in my constituency have any confidence that they would drive the economy in a better direction? I am confident that the Chancellor is on the right road, and I am certain that focusing on the Budget, making sensible changes along the way, is the right way to go.

[John Mann]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is good news that the Chancellor listened to me on pasties, on caravans—after I invited him on holiday with the Prime Minister and me in a caravan—and on petrol? Does she also agree that it would be even better news if he also listened to me on churches and VAT on listed buildings?

[Sarah Newton]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that intervention, because I was going to talk about that issue. First, however, I would like to make a little more progress on the analogy I was drawing to the House’s attention. We all get behind the wheel of a car from time to time—sadly, at the moment, I cannot, but I hope to be back there before too long—and when on a journey we are often certain of our destination, but sometimes we are not as good navigators as we would like and have to put on our sat-nav to help us, and sometimes we get an instruction from that irritating person on the sat-nav saying, “As soon as the road ahead is safe and permits, please do a U-turn.” At that point, do we throw up our hands in horror and say, “Oh, it’s just appalling to have to make a U-turn”, or do we think, sensibly, that to reach our destination in a safe and timely way it is appropriate to make the occasional U-turn? I have no problem with the Government making U-turns if it gets us to our destination in a timely and safe way.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the changes to listed buildings. Having the beautiful Truro cathedral in my constituency, I was concerned about the proposals and immediately consulted the diocese and a wide range of churches in my constituency about their implications. I brought all that information to the Chancellor’s attention, as, I am sure, did Members across the House, and I was satisfied with his response. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), is to be congratulated on how he co-ordinated all our efforts and on the work he has done with the Church Commissioners and the Treasury. Their solution is both practical and actionable, and has met with the perfect satisfaction of churches in my constituency.

I know that many Members wish to join in the debate, so I shall conclude. It is immensely important that we have a Government who listen, who consult on proposals and who then act on them. Whether on fuel duty, pasty taxes, caravan taxes or fuel taxes, my constituents are immensely pleased and relieved that the Government have listened and helped hard-working people and small businesses during these difficult times.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

If tomorrow morning the elected Treasury Committee comes up with its own terms of reference, as it is appointed by Parliament to do, will the Chancellor accept them or ride roughshod over them?

[Mr Osborne]

It is for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass a motion, so ultimately it is a matter for the House.