Finance (No. 2) Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

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

[John Mann]

Nothing is wrong with hairdressing, but it is wrong to have 80,000 apprentices who do not go into that industry because there are no vacancies. Instead, we should be spending money in areas where we need apprenticeships, such as manufacturing, and craft or building skills. That is more complex and difficult, and so we and the Government ducked it. That is why productivity fails to grow.

The third area is home ownership. That was regarded—this is an accurate historical comment—as the thing most associated with Margaret Thatcher, and it was fundamental to winning over Labour voters who shifted for a period of time and began voting Tory, particularly in ’79 and ’83, thanks to the concept that the Tory party was the party of home ownership. That concept has been destroyed over the past six years, and we should be taking up that mantle. We are in favour of home ownership. Of course young people in my area want rented accommodation temporarily, but their vision and aspiration is to own their own home. I do not know any people who do not want that, and the Government have repeatedly made that vision harder and more distant. We should be hammering home that core Labour value.

Fourthly, this Government have repeatedly accused the previous Labour Government of mortgaging the future and loading debt on to future generations, but this Chancellor, more than any other in British peacetime history, has loaded up the national debt, with his Back Benchers happily confusing deficit and debt every time it is debated. Under him, the national debt keeps going up dramatically. This year it is up dramatically, and the projections are for it to do that for the next five years. That is a fundamental economic failure of an unprecedented level by this Government.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I will certainly give way for confirmation of the facts from a member of the Treasury Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to represent Conservative Back Benchers and leap to the defence of the Chancellor. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rate of increase of the debt was £156 billion a year in 2010, and that the Chancellor has substantially reduced that? He cannot deny that the Chancellor has done a terrific job.

[John Mann]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another article says:

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

and that

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Many employer organisations and businesses have welcomed the national living wage, and many studies suggest that having a higher floor for wages drives up productivity, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is one of Britain’s great economic challenges.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

4. What progress has been made on implementing the charter for budget responsibility.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

As part of our long-term economic plan, the Government’s charter for budget responsibility was approved by Parliament on 15 October 2015. The charter sets a path to this country’s long-term financial health and to a surplus. Unlike other parties in this House, we will be strong and consistent in our support for the charter. The Budget is on 16 March.

[Mark Garnier]

In 2010, the budget deficit stood at 11.1% of GDP. This year, it is set to be down by two thirds at 3.9% of GDP, which is a remarkable achievement given the economic headwinds coming from outside the UK. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he is having with other parties, in particular those on the shadow Front Bench, about how to reduce the budget deficit and turn it into a surplus, and are they proving to be helpful?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our budget reduction efforts. I have had no such discussions so far, nor any submissions from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I have, however, received a submission from Ed Balls’s former head of policy, Karim Palant, who said of the shadow Chancellor’s changing position on the charter:

“This kind of chaos less than a month into the job is the kind of blow even significant political figures struggle to recover from.”

Financial Conduct Authority

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Some of my most entertaining afternoons on the Treasury Committee have been following him when he has been quizzing the Chancellor. Who can possibly forget that wonderful moment when he asked the Chancellor whether he had ever visited a Greggs bakery, starting off what then became known as the “omnishambles Budget”? He works very hard.

It is a great pleasure to speak in yet another debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). He has been a truly extraordinary campaigner in this particular area. Without a shadow of a doubt, he certainly deserved the honour he received in Wales for being the Welsh MP of the year in 2013. He has devoted a huge amount of forensic energy to looking into this subject. I have certainly enjoyed very much the privilege of working with him on the huge area of interest rate hedging products and Connaught, and trying to hold the regulator to account. Without his forensic help, we would have had very dull Treasury Committee meetings. It was he who managed to get hold of the smoking gun about how the regulator has turned its focus possibly to being more supportive of banks than the consumer.

When we consider the content of the speeches in this debate, it is fair to say that the evidence presented to us illustrates that the regulator is not necessarily always entirely fair to the consumer. The evidence supports the perception that the regulator has a pro-bank stance. We heard about the GRG report. If one wants to know what a long-delayed report looks like, look at the HBOS report. We see the guillotine of the PPI claims coming through in the not-too-distant future. We have seen the reverse of the reverse burden of proof for senior managers—we spent a lot of time debating that in the previous debate—and we have seen a change in the terms of the thematic review. I argued that this was a wasted opportunity to change the banking culture.

I completely agree that this is all good evidence for how the regulator is not necessarily standing up for the consumer, but when we look at the motion of no confidence in the regulator, it is fair that we need to take a slightly more rounded view. Have we perhaps, on occasion, been guilty of what sports commentators do when a poor goalkeeper successfully saves many, many shots, but, when he lets through one crucial goal, is criticised by everybody for not being up to the job?

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about honing in only on the bad news, but that is cold comfort to the many constituents of ours facing these difficult problems. My constituent Mr Lilley and his family own a small glass and DIY business in the village Marske. They were mis-sold an interest rate hedging product by HSBC and are still owed thousands of pounds because of the difference in the premium. Is that not a perfect example of how the FCA is failing to investigate? This issue is of huge personal significance to our constituents—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady speaks well, and should take as long as she can to make her point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will make that decision. I do not want us mentioning football either, as I watch Bolton Wanderers. I also ask the hon. Gentleman to talk to the Chair, not the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been here for five years, so I should know to take this much more seriously.

The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) is absolutely right. Huge numbers of people have been badly let down by the redress scheme.

[Guto Bebb]

I am an Everton football supporter, and we have been patient with Tim Howard. It is not that he made one mistake and allowed one goal to be scored; he has conceded half a dozen such goals this season. It is the same with the regulator. It is not the one mistake that we complain about; it is a pattern of behaviour.

[Mark Garnier]

I am regretting using the footballing analogy. I am not actually a huge football fan myself.

We have to look across the piece. The FCA has undoubtedly got it completely wrong in many cases—on interest rate hedging products and other things—and it is right that Parliament holds it to account, including through bodies such as the Treasury Select Committee, as a member of which I have a different point of view. I do not share the frustrations of those needing these debates or trying to get appointments upheld by the regulator; I can go along and get stuck in, along with other Committee members. That is the right way to do it.

It is also important to consider the successes. The FCA has managed to bring substantial fines for foreign exchange and LIBOR rigging. It even managed to bring a case through the Serious Fraud Office that sadly resulted in no convictions last week, when six foreign exchangers, who allegedly tried to fiddle the fixings, were acquitted. None the less, to get it to court was quite a success. The FCA has taken over responsibility for consumer credit and debt management from the Office of Fair Trading. It has protected consumers by banning retail sales of contingent convertibles—a technical thing to do with the resolution of failing banks.

Last February, the regulator published a paper aimed at providing help for firms that wanted to look after vulnerable consumers. On encouraging competition in the banking industry, the regulator, along with the PRA, created a challenger bank unit in January to help challenger bank entrants by providing the best regulation and thereby encouraging competition in the banking market. It has also provided an innovation hub, specifically aimed at the “fin tech” area, to help new entrants into the financial services sector to navigate the authorisation process. The regulator is, therefore, trying to do a number of things, and we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

People worry about several issues. There is a big question about whether the Government are interfering with the regulator. Have they been interfering directly and explicitly? Are they taking it easy on the banks? I suspect that the cancellation of the thematic review might be a red herring. Most banks, given the 8% increase on their corporation tax rate, would argue that the Government are not being lenient on them. The Government are levying a bank levy that will help to repay taxpayers for all the money used to bail out the banks.

The reverse burden of proof has been reversed, but the implementation of ring fencing by 2019 will come at a fantastic cost to the banks of several billion pounds, in order to make sure that when the next financial crisis hits—there will definitely be another one—the collapsing banks do not take down other banks with them.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case for the role of the FCA in terms of systemic, high-level regulation, but does he think it is fit for purpose in protecting consumers, entrepreneurs and individuals who, from that high level, might not look so important?

[Mark Garnier]

That is obviously the whole point of the debate. The answer, overall, is yes, but I think the regulator gets it wrong on occasions, which is why we have the Treasury Committee and debates such as this—to hold its feet to the fire on specific issues, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy.

It is important to remember that this is a conduct regulator for a global business. It is worth bearing it in mind that 2.2 million people work in the industry. It represents about 12% of our GDP and generates about £65 billion a year in tax receipts. This industry is a global industry, and we should be careful about criticising it so vehemently by agreeing on a motion of no confidence. What message would it send to the rest of the world about our ability to regulate the huge amounts of international capital—running into trillions of pounds—that comes and finds a safe haven here in the UK with a regulator it can trust? If we say that the regulator is not fit for purpose, it will send a profound message to a significant part of our economy.

We need to cast an eye to the new chief executive. Andrew Bailey, who is coming from the PRA, has been in front of the Treasury Committee and the Banking Commission many times. I for one have found no reason not to think him an extraordinarily pragmatic, intelligent and wise regulator. Time will tell, and we will have to see how he gets on at the FCA, but it is important that he starts his career at the FCA with our good will, not with the feeling that the FCA is a problem to deal with.

Finally, I want to confront the big question about the possible interference of the Treasury. No matter how many times I ask people—either explicitly or by trying to get them drunk—I can find no evidence of any interference from the Treasury in the work of the regulator. There is possibly an implied interference, however, and one solution could be to give the Treasury Committee a power of veto over the hiring of the next chief executive.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that the FCA is set up completely differently. However, I stress that the similarity lies in the operational independence. When it comes to the FCA, the Treasury is obviously able to appoint the chief executive and the board, but the operational decisions are for the FCA board, as we have made clear in recent weeks.

Let me move on to the second element of the Bill, which will make changes to the senior managers and certification regime. As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to driving up standards of conduct across the financial sector, and to tackling the abuses and unacceptable behaviour of the past. That is why the Government are replacing the discredited approved persons regime with a much more robust new system, the senior managers regime, legislated for by the previous Government in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013.

I find it quite extraordinary that, in the amendment they have tabled, Opposition Members have seen fit to claim that

“the Bill reduces regulation of financial services”.

This Bill is a vital opportunity to remove what the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards described as the “complex and confused mess” of the approved persons regime for 60,000 financial services firms, all insurers, FCA-regulated investment firms and all consumer credit firms, and to replace it with the more targeted and robust senior managers and certification regime.

Let me set out the benefits of the new regime; perhaps the Opposition will then reconsider their position. The approved persons regime is a relatively broad, unfocused regime in which all individuals who were considered to hold significant influence functions in the firm, or who dealt with customers would be subject to the regulators’ pre-approval in a tick-box exercise. Crucially, clarity of responsibilities at the top of firms was woefully inadequate. Firms could pass the buck for ensuring the fitness and propriety of their staff to the regulators, and the regulators could take enforcement action only against the individuals they had pre-approved.

The senior managers and certification regime tackles those problems head on. First, it focuses regulatory pre-approval on senior managers, the key decision makers at the top of firms. It enhances the accountability of these individuals through statements of responsibilities, documents that give clarity on which senior manager is responsible for each area of the firm’s business, and through the proposed statutory duty of responsibility that requires senior managers to take reasonable steps to prevent breaches of regulations in their areas of responsibility.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the senior managers regime will cut through the accountability far more, as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards discovered? The regulatory regime at the time had the effect of forcing senior managers to create ignorance of what was going on within their institutions. The Bill will now absolutely reverse that, so that senior managers must know what is going on within their institutions so that they can take responsibility for infringements of the rules.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend, who was a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, is right to say that the commission highlighted the fact that the approved persons regime made it very difficult to pin down responsibility. The new regime, with its duty of responsibility clearly articulated —every organisation will have that set out when managers are first appointed and on an annual basis thereafter—is a much stronger regime. It also delivers more flexibility in the regulators’ enforcement powers, enabling them to impose high standards of conduct through rules applying to individuals, including those whom they have not approved. The expansion of the new regime to all authorised financial services firms will enhance personal responsibility for senior managers, as well as providing a more effective and proportionate means of raising the standards of conduct of key staff more broadly.

Given the improvements that the senior managers and certification regime with the statutory duty of responsibility delivers in terms of senior accountability, the reverse burden of proof is simply not necessary. In extending the new regime to all authorised financial services firms, it is important to consider whether, under these new circumstances, the application of the reverse burden of proof to any or all firms is appropriate. Most of the firms to which the regime will now apply are small, and it simply would not be proportionate to apply it to those firms. By retaining it for the banking sector alone, we would raise serious questions of fairness and competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

It may be that others can explain to the Minister the real purpose of a reasoned amendment in these circumstances. I think our action is entirely right.

The presumption of responsibility is so reasonable and necessary that the policy was introduced with cross-party support. That should not be forgotten. It was originally proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, led by the Conservative right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and Labour’s Lord McFall of Alcluith, and it was the Liberal Democrat Lord Newby, a Minister in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, who moved its introduction into law. I have to echo a point previously made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), sitting on the SNP Front Bench, that it was passed as recently as December 2013, and the presumption of responsibility has yet to come into effect. It was meant to come into effect in March this year, and it remains untested. We must remember that this was a safeguard brought in by the very same Chancellor who is now seeking to scrap it.

[Mark Garnier]

The presumption of responsibility has not gone. The senior managers regime absolutely includes the presumption of responsibility for everybody in these institutions. The hon. Gentleman may have had a number of conversations with some of the banks being affected by this, as I have, and I served on the banking commission that brought in the reverse burden of proof. What is interesting is that the banks are now complaining bitterly that the reverse burden of proof has now been reversed, because that managed to be a tick-box operation and they now have a much more onerous responsibility for management than they ever had before. This is a far stronger measure for ensuring probity for the managers of banks than the reverse burden of proof.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in these matters, for his intervention, but every time we have received correspondence from, and listened to, bankers on this matter, they seem desperate for the reverse burden of proof to be scrapped. They say how dreadful it would be, how it was totally unjustified and that business as usual is fine—that we can just return to things with no risk of a repeat of the financial crisis of 2008. Unfortunately, I believe they were wrong, but we need to remember that this presumption of responsibility, or the reverse burden of proof, was a safeguard brought in by the very same Chancellor who is now seeking to scrap it.

In 2013 the Chancellor said he had

“called for a thorough and intensive investigation into how to improve standards in the banking system and the PCBS has delivered. I am pleased to say that the government will implement its main recommendations.”

Of course one of its main recommendations was this presumption of responsibility.

On that occasion, the Chancellor was not alone. This was his Bill and Conservative Members backed it. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, clearly explained that his Government were introducing new rules to promote higher standards for all bank staff and were reversing the burden of proof so that bank bosses are held accountable for breaches within their areas of responsibility.

The Conservative Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) was briefly on the Treasury Committee, and he said:

“It is critical to bringing about the individual accountability that many of us want to see across our financial services sector, with the tough senior persons regime, reversing the burden of proof and criminal sanctions for reckless misconduct. All those steps are vital”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 261.]

His party colleague, the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), said:

“I do not think there can be any doubt about the merits of reversing the burden of proof…The Government’s announcement that they will reverse the burden of proof is extremely welcome.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 119.]

I could go on, but instead I ask this question: what has changed? What, or who, has so dramatically changed the mind of the Chancellor? At the Treasury Committee in October the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) put the question many of us are thinking when he asked the Chancellor whether the proposed scrapping of the presumption of responsibility was “largely as a result of lobbying by the banks, which has the flavour of getting stronger.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend hits upon an important point. The role of a City Minister, a shadow City Minister and of the Government is not to represent the interests of the City to the population, but to fulfil their democratic function. A Government are not there to take orders from the City of London. Yes, we must listen to the City of London and value its contribution, but we are not its political representatives on earth.

On the Chancellor’s change of mind, the Chair of the Treasury Committee put it well when he asked his Chancellor a very reasonable question: “Why did you not wait for the regime to come into force to enable an assessment of it, how it works, before implementing this further change?” That was an extremely serious question. The change is based on no evidence, which is the worst kind of change.

Banks are having to put significant effort into identifying and establishing new procedures to meet the requirements of the 2013 Act, which received cross-party support in Parliament. The issues were already abundantly clear then, but now the Conservative Government have performed a dramatic U-turn and are not willing even to test the procedures that they initially supported. It is rare for an important measure to be abolished before it has even been introduced.

How will the public feel when they learn that the Chancellor is scrapping a duty on senior managers in banks—a duty that was welcomed as necessary on a cross-party basis—before it has even been implemented? The public’s deep concern about the behaviour of some senior bankers should extend to the Chancellor, who, it appears, is doing the bankers’ bidding, not the bidding of the British people. Do not the Chancellor and the Government understand the widespread anger of the public and their mistrust of the banking system? The public are right to remember that, because of the bankers’ behaviour, people whom this House is meant to represent lost their homes and their jobs. We should never forget that it was the bankers’ crisis that caused the deficit that this Government have relied upon as their justification for their political choice to cut our public services, cut funding to our local authorities, cut the incomes of working people and cut support for the most vulnerable people in our communities.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am sorry to be a pedant, but in 2005 there was a £43 billion budget deficit. There was a deficit long before the banking crisis, and there was a structural deficit that the banking crisis brought out.

[Richard Burgon]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s pedantry. With respect, he makes a point that does not bear too much political scrutiny. The global financial crash caused the huge increase in the deficit and stalled the economy. It also gave the Government the opportunity to carry out their long-harboured ideological desire, decades old, to cut public services and wither away the state.

The Bill comes to us from the other place, where there was considerable debate at every stage. The Bill has changed, following a number of amendments proposed by the Government. In our reasoned amendment, we recognise those changes as improvements, and they are welcome, but the Bill has not changed significantly enough. As I mentioned, the Bill is in two parts, and on the first part—on the Bank of England’s structures—we recognise that the Government have made some positive movement, although it is insufficient. We recognise that they have moved on aspects of the oversight powers of the Bank’s court of directors, but the directors’ forum for discussion—the oversight committee—remains abolished.

We also recognise that the Government have moved on the proposed power of veto for the Bank’s court of directors over National Audit Office investigations, but the memorandum of understanding referred to in the Bill remains under negotiation and unpublished. On other aspects, in the House of Lords, there was no agreement. I wrote to the Chancellor asking that the memorandum of understanding be presented to this House during the passage of the Bill. I am glad to say that the Economic Secretary responded, explaining that it is not yet complete and is subject to ongoing discussions between the Bank and the National Audit Office. She explained that she will write to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office to see whether they will be in a position to share the draft memorandum of understanding during the passage of the Bill. In such an important matter, it can only be right for the House to have sight of that crucial memorandum of understanding. Any other approach would be a cause for concern.

The Bill replaces the Prudential Regulation Authority with a new Prudential Regulation Committee. Peers on both sides—including Government peers—expressed concern that that represented a downgrading and threatened a loss of independence.

As I have discussed at length, the Bill also replaces the presumption of responsibility with a duty of responsibility. Opposition peers challenged that on Report, and the Government’s measure scraped through by only 200 votes to 198. If I believe what I am told by the Minister, scrapping the presumption of responsibility is entirely uncontroversial and entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the issue gives us particular cause for concern in the wider context of the Chancellor’s new settlement with financial services.

We need a healthy and effective banking sector that is appropriately regulated, that serves the interests of the whole economy, that does not hurt ordinary people or small and medium-sized businesses, and that delivers the vital investment our country needs for long-term growth. The Conservative Government climbdown on the presumption of responsibility, which they previously supported, will hinder, not help, the fulfilment of those ambitions. Personal responsibility is vital for the operation of our regulatory systems. The Chancellor’s policy U-turn reduces exactly the personal responsibility that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended in its 500-page report. Scrapping a key measure before it has even had the chance to be tested makes no sense—unless, of course, the Chancellor is just following bankers’ orders. The startling and precipitous scrapping of a widely welcomed measure shows that there is a very real risk of failing to learn the lessons of the bankers’ crisis.

Our concerns go much wider than the presumption of responsibility, to the role of the Governor, the work of the FCA and the programme of selling off, for example, Royal Bank of Scotland shares at a loss to the taxpayer. The Chancellor’s whole approach says, “Let’s get back to business as usual.” However, it was the bankers’ business as usual that brought Britain to the brink; it was the bankers’ business as usual that caused the deficit. Returning to business as usual will make another financial crisis even more likely, with disastrous consequences for those we are meant to represent in this place, and that—to clear up any confusion on the part of the Minister—is why we are asking the Government in our reasoned amendment to think again today.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

Absolutely.

As the right hon. Member for Chichester pointed out, time after time when there have been regulatory failures, the regulators have been implicated. I therefore do not want to return to a situation in which it is up to the regulators to prove that something has gone wrong in the new regulatory regime, when they are partly responsible for it. I want the onus to fall on the bankers themselves.

It is worth looking more forensically at the reasons against the presumption of the reverse burden of proof. Andrew Bailey has argued that there is a worry that when the next crisis comes along, senior bankers will rush off to the European Court and claim that their rights under the European convention on human rights are being taken away because of the reverse burden of proof. That is rubbish.

The Parliamentary Commission was perhaps a little unwise to use the phrase “the reverse burden of proof”, even though we all use it and I use it. We are not talking about criminal law and making people guilty until proven innocent. We are talking about infractions in banking if, say, a banking crisis takes place. The legislation that the Government are trying to change would make it an infraction to be responsible for an activity in which wrongdoing took place, rather than for committing the wrongdoing itself. To give a flippant example, if it is a criminal offence to be in charge of a bawdy house, the prosecution needs to prove only that somebody was in charge of that house of ill repute, not that they were selling their own body. It would be no defence that they thought the bawdy house was a nunnery.

The reverse burden of proof regime makes managers responsible for the activity in their banks. When a disaster takes place, it is up to them to prove that they failed to stop it happening, rather than, as has always been the case, it being up to the regulators to find the solution and explain what happened, which means that everyone hides behind collective responsibility.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is making an extraordinarily intelligent speech, but he has just hit on the key point. It is possible for bankers to provide a tick-box operation, which their lawyers have advised them on, to prove that they have undertaken every possible measure to prevent such action. It is therefore very easy for them to get around the reverse burden of proof legislation. The point behind reversing that legislation, which was given by Andrew Bailey and by the Governor of the Bank of England and some of the Bank’s lawyers, is that there cannot be a tick-box operation to show that they have complied with the rules because they involve a much more esoteric way of running the bank. It is therefore much more difficult for bankers to escape the rules if something does go wrong.

[George Kerevan]

I respect the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Sadly, we will never get a chance to see the legislation that he voted for in the last Parliament put into practice and to watch it fail. I look forward to his contribution—he will have time to make it if I hurry up—and to finding out why he has changed his mind.

I am interested in Mr Bailey’s tick-box argument, which is that if we reverse the burden of proof, senior bank officials will hold endless seminars with those on the trading floor, explaining to them why doing the sort of things that happened in the LIBOR scandal is wrong. When the inevitable crisis happens, they will come with list of who they spoke to—they told the traders that this should not happen, but it did.

It is not enough to have lots of meetings; we must change the culture of the banks. It is also important to remember—I hope the Minister remembers this—the title of the Parliamentary Commission’s report on banking standards: “Changing banking for good”. There are a lot of good things in the Bill, but it does not change banking for good. It is half a loaf, and I am afraid that another half loaf will lead us more quickly to yet another banking crisis for which nobody is responsible. Ultimately, we need responsibility.

In conclusion, we are being offered a duty of responsibility versus a presumption of responsibility. Once upon a time, there was a convention: when a ship sank, the captain went down with the ship, whether it was his fault or not. It was presumed that it was his fault no matter what happened, because he was in charge of the ship. What happens these days is that the ship goes down, the captain gets into the first lifeboat, and he turns up at the inquiry to say—to use a Scottish term—“It wisnae me; I did my best”. Once upon a time Ministers also resigned when something went wrong. We should return to a situation where if there is a banking crisis the captain goes down with the ship, and we assume that he will do that, whether it was his fault or not, because he or she was in charge and leading the bank. If we do not change that culture, we will go on having banking crises ad nauseam.

HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I want to address this point and engage seriously with Members on the calculations that we have seen in the press, suggesting some of these very large numbers. As far as I can see, those calculations are based on looking at the profits attributed to the sales in the United Kingdom, and there is a very important distinction between profits attributed to sales versus profits attributed to economic activity and assets. The UK is a country that is very creative. We have a very strong scientific base. As a country, much economic activity goes on here that is involved in then exporting goods and services, and the profits from those exports should, I believe, be taxed in the UK where the economic activity occurs, not in the countries where the sales may occur. If we accept that principle, it does, I have to say, rather discredit the claims of a 3% tax rate.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Although we fully appreciate in the House that the international rules are ferociously complex and that there can sometimes be variations in how they can be interpreted, will my hon. Friend please assure the House one way or the other whether Google has actually broken any laws that were in place between 2005 and 2011—or is this just an outcome of negotiations?

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I cannot comment on that—in large part because I am not privy to information that is not in the public domain—but I can say that an inquiry has been in place for some years and that it has now reached a conclusion. The consequence of the conclusion of that inquiry is, as Google has stated, that an additional £130 million is being paid to the Exchequer. Google has also made it clear that it has made changes in how it structures some of its arrangements, and that will obviously have an implication for future tax liabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to see the highest levels of conduct from the banking sector. We also need to continue to take steps in terms of our long-term economic plan to secure access to funding for small businesses. That is why we have taken steps to back peer-to-peer lending and extended funding for lending for another two years. We continue to benefit from record low interest rates thanks to our prudent economic management.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

There has been speculation that the Treasury has influenced the decision by the Financial Conduct Authority. While I think that such speculation is certainly fanciful, it is important to remind the House that the FCA was set up in 2012 as an independent organisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that one way we could underpin the independence of the FCA would be to adopt a similar process to the one we have with the Office for Budget Responsibility, whereby the Treasury Committee can have power of veto over the appointment of the chief executive?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend, who is a very constructive and engaged member of the Treasury Committee, will have the opportunity to ask questions of the acting chief executive and the chair of the FCA on Wednesday. I agree that it is very useful for such a Committee to have pre-appointment hearings with any executive of the FCA.

Capital Markets Union

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

Hon. Members now have until 12.34 pm at the latest to ask questions, subject to my discretion.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her statement and I welcome the initiatives that are coming with the capital markets union action plan, but I would like her to reassure the Committee on a number of issues. Clearly what we are discussing is a very good thing, but is there any risk that it might expose us to negative factors, such as a financial transaction tax, which we might have to levy as part of a capital markets union across the whole EU? In addition, there are issues such as the location of clearing houses. Other important factors also need to be considered, such as how this issue relates to our proposals to secure our interest outside, not inside the eurozone and what effect the initiative might have on negotiations ahead of the referendum next year.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Let me take those points in turn. As a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, my hon. Friend knows that the UK does not object in principle to financial transaction taxes. The UK has a financial transaction tax on stocks that are bought in the UK. However, the Government are concerned about the application of a financial transaction tax on instruments that could be traded elsewhere in the world, because if it were applied to something that is easily mobile and can be moved quickly to another jurisdiction, that is what would happen. There are no proposals in the capital markets union steps outlined today to harmonise taxation in any way. The Government stand strongly on our belief that taxation is a matter for member states and we continue to argue that case.

On the more general points about renegotiation and the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk, it is clear that the European Union needs to address the fact that nine countries continue to have their own currencies and 19 have chosen to adopt the euro. There is absolutely no prospect of the UK ever joining the euro, so as part of the renegotiation we need to make it clear across the 28 EU countries that positive initiatives such as this on capital markets must reflect the fact that this is a multi-currency single market for capital. We will fight vigorously against any proposals that threaten that. That is a key part of the renegotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on my first European Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am pleased to serve opposite the Minister.

On this occasion, my remarks will be brief, but I note the late arrival of two letters from the Minister to the European Scrutiny Committee and to members of this Committee. I understand that the letters were sent to the European Scrutiny Committee on Monday evening, and I believe that I should have received them yesterday, although I have no record of doing so. I therefore had sight of them only this morning, which means that I have not had time to seek advice. I defer to the member of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, and I will raise a few issues that the Minister may be able to respond to. Why were the documents provided so late and what opportunity there is for further consideration of them?

The motion references a number of documents from the European Commission relating to the capital markets union and the action plan to deliver the CMU’s objectives, which the commissioner, Lord Hill, set out on 30 September. There is much technical detail in the paperwork for this debate, but I will make some general points. The CMU is being driven forward at a rapid pace by Commissioner Hill and is part of a process of the economic recovery of the European Union as a whole and a contribution to supporting jobs and growth. The initiative’s intention, as Commissioner Hill and the Minister have said, is to build a single capital market across the European Union.

The central goal of the proposals, as set out by the Minister, is to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to access funding in a period when finance has dried up from banks. Delivering finance where it is needed is, of course, vital for economic activity to deliver the necessary investment for future growth, which Opposition Members set out as our priority at the recent autumn statement. The Opposition naturally wish to support measures that generate finance for investment, and to support jobs and growth, as would be expected. We want accessible finance to be delivered across the economy, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that they deliver the dynamic and innovative economic activity that our economy needs.

I note that we are discussing this in the week of the recent Bank of England stress test results, when, despite the fact that two banks have to take action to boost their capital reserves, the Governor of the Bank of England stated that the post-crisis period is over. We should recognise the wariness and the real concerns with regards to the CMU and the return to securitisation in the wake of the financial crisis.

The Minister has said that this needs to be done in a

“simple, transparent and standardised way”,

but I am sure that she will understand those who urge caution. The recent statement by Finance Watch, supported by a number of non-governmental organisations, states that

“the CMU revives pre-crisis trends without adequately integrating the lessons from the crisis.”

It has expressed concern that there is a risk in the CMU agenda of favouring short-term growth and competitiveness over long-term, sustainable development.

To quote two academics, Daniela Gabor from the University of the West of England and Jakob Vestergaard, from the Danish Institute for International Studies,

“if the CMU is to make a substantial and lasting contribution to investment and job creation in Europe, it must be accompanied by reforms that address systemic risk in securities-based financial systems and enhance pan-European supervision of securitization”.

The Minister said in October that we need to turn our attention from financial services reform

“to reform that boosts our economies, and increases competitiveness.”

Our belief is that, although we wish to boost our economies, we should not consider financial reform to be done and dusted. Indeed, there is the potential for further reform to deliver that boost to our economy. There is a real need to discuss the role of securitisation, particularly as banks have increased their capital and cleaned up their balance sheets and can now lend more, not less. There is no overall shortage of credit supply. Opposition Members—I know that all Members would agree with me—do not wish to see a return to the securitisation that facilitated the US sub-prime mortgage crash, from which the global economic crisis originated. It will be necessary to demonstrate what lessons have been learned as the action plan is developed.

To do that, I hope that the Minister can address a number of points. Will she ensure that the key principles of good securitisation are not watered down through pressure from large, international banks? Will she set out how the CMU will deal with a lack of convergence or consistency in existing supervisory regimes? Do the Government support a new single regulatory or supervisory body for capital markets across Europe?

The Opposition believe that we should be open to a wider range of measures to deliver finance for business and investment, as we recently discussed in the debate on the RBS share sale, including: encouraging increased lending by the private banking sector and using our influence where we have direct interest in banks, such as RBS; the establishment of a dedicated national investment bank; and the development of regional banking. Capital markets might be an area for future development in Europe, but UK business remains largely reliant on bank lending. We need to ensure that we do not take our eye off the issues raised in the Lawrence Tomlinson and Andrew Large reports, or overlook the difficulty businesses have had in accessing bank finance following the economic crisis and the bank bail-outs.

The commissioner has said that securitisation under CMU will

“free up bank lending for the wider economy.”

Will the Minister say how CMU will affect the steps being taken by the Government to ensure that SMEs can access the finance they require from UK banks?

[Mark Garnier]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Reducing the requirement for large businesses to borrow money from banks by going to the securities markets would leave more capital in the banks that could then be passed down to smaller businesses. That would shift the big requirement on banks’ assets away from big businesses to concentrate on smaller businesses.

[Richard Burgon]

I welcome that clarification of the Government’s position.

Finance Watch has argued that CMU

“is also likely to undermine important financial reforms processes such as the long-awaited separation of risky capital markets activities from basic banking”.

Will the Minister respond to that concern and set out what impact CMU will have on bank ring-fencing and the separation of retail and investment banking?

CMU is an opportunity for European finance, but we must maintain the goal of having finance act for the UK and European economies and for the general public as a whole. With Europe rising up the agenda, it would certainly help to be able to highlight the positive benefits to the finance sector that EU membership and the CMU will deliver, but many questions about the proposals still need to be addressed. I will seek to increase my discussions of these matters with members of both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Treasury Committee.

We do not wish to raise any controversy about the information the Minister has given. I am grateful for being allowed to address these issues.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West has given his usual detailed and forensic objections to the clause. Mine are a little bit more about the Minister’s tone and presentation. First, I associate myself with his comments about those who seek to evade their taxes. I have no time for such people. If people are able to pay their taxes, they should do so. That is the price that we pay for a having a stable society that is paid for by taxation. I have no time for people who are, frankly, freeloading on the hard work of others. The hon. Gentleman was correct on that.

My concern with the Minister’s presentation is the tone compared with the tone of the previous discussion about compliance for those who seek to hold their assets offshore. In the discussion on that clause, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that enforcement action would be very much a last resort—a route that HMRC would not necessarily want to go down. With this measure, the enforcement action seems to be a whole lot tougher. If I am doing the hon. Gentleman a disservice, I apologise; this is a genuine point. The impression I get is that once again it seems easier, and the Government seem more ready, to go after, shall we say, the little man, rather than those who have substantial assets elsewhere. However unacceptable individual tax evasion is, I cannot help but wonder whether the real issue we face is large-scale corporate avoidance of tax. I realise that is not part of the clause, Sir Roger, but I hope you will allow me a little latitude. The Government are focusing on small individuals rather than tackling the big issues of corporate taxation. If I am doing the Minister a disservice, I apologise, but I felt that the tone of his presentation focused too much on smaller-scale enforcement.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I sympathise with some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but his party surely cannot be advocating that just because someone is a small person, they can avoid paying taxes. The Government are bringing in measures to tackle every level of tax avoidance. Clearly, some cases will be more obvious than others, but where someone has blindingly obviously not paid tax and has a cash asset, rather than go to the huge trouble and cost of taking them to court, seizing their assets and selling those assets, why is this the wrong thing to do? Surely we must collect tax from everybody who owes it.

[Christian Matheson]

I certainly do not think we should not take enforcement action against people who can but do not pay their taxes. That is not the issue. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said about enforcement for non-payers. I was slightly concerned that in the tone of what the Minister said, there was much more zeal for enforcement action at the lower end of the market than at the higher end. If that is a mistaken impression, I apologise, but there has to be more focus on large-scale corporate taxation, which may of course be covered in other parts of the Bill.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Harriett Baldwin]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by agreeing that clause 18, given the way it is worded, applies only to banks. Clearly, it was introduced in response to the fact that the scale of bank compensation, to which I referred in my opening remarks, has been so significant. More than £25 billion has already been paid out, which has had a material and meaningful impact on the corporation tax receipts of Her Majesty’s Treasury. We have always been clear that we want banks to make a fair contribution to their historic costs and their potential impact on future risks to the economy.

The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation relating to the Volkswagen emissions scandal, which, as he is right to highlight, is a complete scandal. There is currently no intention to extend this measure. It is obviously early days in terms of the full scale of potential actions regarding Volkswagen, in particular Volkswagen in the UK and where the company pays corporation tax. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government reserve the right to act decisively through legislation such as Finance Bills when they need to take steps to protect the public finances.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, the Minister mentioned that the costs of expenses incurred in addition to fines would also not be tax deductible. As she knows, under a section 166 agreement, the Financial Conduct Authority can ask a bank, at its own expense, to investigate an alleged misdemeanour. As I understand it from what she is saying, if that results in a fine, the section 166 cost is not tax deductible, but what would happen if it did not result in a fine and came off with a negative result? Would the section 166 undertaking be recoverable under tax?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend speaks with great insight and authority from his position on the Select Committee on the Treasury. I can explain to him that these measures are designed to tackle the material costs of compensation that are reflected, or provisioned for, in a bank’s accounts. In addition to that, a further 10% for the general costs of administration is attached. Were the costs that my hon. Friend refers to significant enough to require provision in the company’s accounts, they would be captured by this measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Banks established under Savings Bank (Scotland) Act 1819: loss allowance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

The amendments, as far as I can tell, are technical measures to smooth things out. As ever, these things come out in the wash, whether it is Mrs Gauke or someone else who spots them.

It is likely that I will ask my hon. Friends to support the clause but I want to probe the Government on it. As the Minister knows, this is one of the higher profile clauses in the Bill and has attracted a rather large postbag. Some landlords—not all—are concerned.

I appreciate that any landlord among the one in five paying more tax under the provision has almost two years from 8 July to April 2017 to sell the property if they wish to do so, so that they are not boxed in with de facto retrospective action, which can happen if there is only three months in which to sell. I salute the Government for giving that transition time.

I am surprised to hear that only one in five landlords will be affected, but the Government and the OBR have done their research. I am concerned that the measure will do nothing for house prices, which is perhaps a debate for another day. Would that it would bring down house prices, which are far too high around the country. Those prices might well get higher when pensioners, under the Government’s freedoms, buy not Lamborghinis but houses with the money freed from their pension funds.

[Mark Garnier]

I have a small amount of sympathy with the view that house prices are too high, but is the hon. Gentleman genuinely advocating that the principal method of saving for most people in this country should be reduced in value? The effect on households would be astronomically catastrophic if one were to start reducing house prices. Is that part of his policy?

[Rob Marris]

Yes, I would like house prices to come down; they are far too high. For most people, property is not an asset that is any good to them until they die—in which case, of course, it is no good to them. The house I live in is worth roughly eight times what we paid for it 30 years ago. That is almost entirely a windfall, though some of it is due to improvements we have made. I will not take long on this, Sir Roger, because I know you do not want us to be too diverted, but were my wife and I to move, we would have to pay an equivalent sum for something else. Yes, house prices are far too high but they will come down when the Government do their bit by increasing the supply of houses.

Meanwhile, returning to clause 24, this is the issue on which I wish to probe the Minister. I may have misunderstood these technical matters because I am not an accountant, but I believe the buy-to-let income accruing to the landlord is counted as income for income tax purposes. There will therefore be some landlords—perhaps the Government have figures—who, before this change, when their non-buy-to-let income, perhaps from a job, was added to their buy-to-let income were standard rate taxpayers, but who will become higher rate taxpayers after the change is made. Therefore, that group may end up paying considerably more tax.

It is not simply a question of landlords who are already 40% taxpayers because of other income being levelled, as it were, to 20%, which is what I understand the clause is designed to do. That is understandable. However, it would actually be promoting people—pushing them into a higher rate tax bracket—and therefore they would be losers. Does the Minister have any figures on that “in between” group—a rather maladroit phrase, but the Minister will understand what I mean—who will be pushed up. I hope that, now he has the piece of paper, he will be able to elucidate that point for the Committee. As I say, my inclination is to support the measure, but I am concerned about that cohort who may be suddenly treated in a slightly different way, which may mean that the figure of one in five the Minister quoted is somewhat low.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has referred to specific personal changes that help, but is it not also the case that the Government have done a great deal to support very small businesses, of which many are microbusinesses or sole traders? The reduction in corporation tax and the non-domestic rate relief for those very small businesses will also help households, particularly those who are self-employed and who run small businesses.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to ensure that we have rising living standards is to have strong economy, which ensures that we encourage businesses, attract investment to the UK and reward entrepreneurship. That is the Government’s approach, but whether it is that of the official Opposition remains to be seen.

As we are talking about income tax, it is worth pointing out that 3.8 million individuals have been removed from income tax altogether since 2010 as a consequence of increases in the personal allowance. The Government are committed to continuing to make work pay and have pledged to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. The Government also believe that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we are introducing a change so that the personal allowance will automatically increase to ensure that it does not fall below the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage.

This will be the first time in history that the personal allowance has not been indexed on the basis of price inflation, instead ensuring that individuals who earn up to 30 hours on the national minimum wage will not pay income tax in the future. Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to ensure that it is always set at a level at least equivalent to 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The change will take effect once the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Individuals working 30 hours a week or fewer on the national minimum wage will therefore be taken out of income tax altogether.

Clause 4 sets out that, until the personal allowance reaches £12,500, the Chancellor will have a legal duty to consider the impact of any proposed increase to the personal allowance on an individual working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The clause also sets out the requirement for the Chancellor to make a statement on the impact that this will have on those individuals when an increase to the personal allowance is made at a future fiscal event.

The changes to income tax thresholds in the Bill will mean that an individual can work at least 30 hours a week without paying income tax both in 2015-16 and next year. In 2010, an individual could work only 21 hours on the national minimum wage without paying income tax. In time, an individual working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will be brought back into income tax.

On clause 5, it is worth pointing out how much the personal allowance has increased in recent years. In 2010-11, it was just £6,475; now, it is £10,600. Following on from that record, in this Parliament, we have committed to delivering a high wage, low tax, low welfare society. That includes reducing taxes for the lower paid, and that is why we have committed to increasing the personal allowance from its current level of £10,600 to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. Clause 5 increases the personal allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18.

In total, 570,000 individuals will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2016-17. That will increase to more than 660,000 by 2017-18. The changes represent a tax cut for 29 million taxpayers who will see their typical income tax bill reduced by £905 by 2016-17. Taxpayers who are over 65 will also benefit. From 2016-17 onwards, the tax system will be simplified so that all taxpayers will be entitled to the same personal allowance; the remaining age-related allowance of £10,660 will be merged with the higher personal allowance of £11,000.

The clauses allow us to support those in work by enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. We are helping the lowest paid by taking them out of income tax altogether and we are moving towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.