Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know, as will other hon. Members, that last year inbound tourism hit a new record high of 33 million visitors spending a record amount of £21 billion in the UK. He rightly points out the importance of improving skills, and we are working with the Tourism Council on that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Despite recent sporting setbacks, our enthusiasm remains at fever pitch. Will the Minister, like me, be among the 3 million people it is anticipated will go to watch the start of the Tour de France this weekend? The Grand Départ will showcase some of Britain’s most beautiful countryside. Will he join me in wishing Yorkshire every success in hosting this event and wish every participant well, and, of course, success to our British riders? What is he doing to ensure that the event goes smoothly and that the region continues to benefit from the boost to tourism that it will get from hosting this event?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the Grand Départ taking place in Yorkshire. It is a very important sporting moment for the UK. I will be visiting on day one, on Saturday, and I look forward to seeing him there. The Prime Minister will also be visiting, and the sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), will be helping as well.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

It would be a bit unfair to ask Lord Eatwell, who has returned to academic life and is no longer on our Front Bench in the Lords, for ex-post agreement, although if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that he could join a strong consensus in this House that included a number of Conservative Members, as we have sort of heard today and read elsewhere.

Coalition is an important issue. Going into the last election there was no OBR, but there were costed proposals in manifestos, and, after the coalition was formed, costings for proposals put before this House through the Budget process were audited by the OBR. I do not think the OBR should be drawn into coalition negotiations after elections and manifestos, because it would probably be a mistake to draw it into the political process in that way. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think it is an obstacle to proceeding.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In his letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the chair of the OBR referred to this process facilitating coalition discussions, if needed, after an election.

[Ed Balls]

In that case, the head of the OBR is even more supportive of the proposal than I had thought. My hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who, as usual, talks complete economic sense, unlike the Labour party.

As academic evidence noted at the time of the OBR’s creation, it is vital that there should not

“even be a scintilla of doubt…about the OBR’s independence and impartiality, as negative perceptions may undermine the OBR’s reputation, requiring a major effort at changing such perceptions”.

Unfortunately, the Opposition’s proposal not only presents a risk to that impartiality, but raises several difficult practical questions, which I shall go through briefly.

[Clive Efford]

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the shadow Chancellor wrote to the Chancellor last October. How many meetings have Ministers had with the chair of the OBR to discuss this issue in the intervening period?

[Nicky Morgan]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, meetings held by Ministers are published in the normal way. I cannot give him a specific number, but a list of meetings is published in the usual way.

[Clive Efford]

In that case, the right hon. Lady is indicating that these discussions have taken place and that there have been meetings at which this issue has been discussed. If so, did the chair of the OBR indicate whether, if a consensus could be reached before the end of June, he could deliver these budget assessments before the general election?

[Nicky Morgan]

I certainly did not indicate that. It is to be expected that Treasury Ministers will meet the head of the OBR and that various matters will be discussed, and we received a clear letter from him about the motion and the proposals before us today.

I want about to talk about the practical questions that would require much greater scrutiny in the future. First, as I mentioned, the Opposition do not seem to have assessed how their proposal might compromise the OBR’s ability to avoid being drawn into political debate or the real danger that such a change could undermine its perceived independence and, by extension, the credibility of the UK’s official forecasts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have been listening to the debate and I really do wonder what the Government are afraid of. We are talking about the democratic process. The most important people in this debate are the general public: the people who vote. What can possibly be wrong with making them better informed about the economic policies of the parties that would be in government? Opposition Members hear a lot from the Government about economic policy and the “long-term economic plan”. The Minister mentioned it four times in her speech—she may be reprimanded for not mentioning it enough. That is more than a hint about what is going to be at the heart of the debate at the next general election; we know that the economy is going to feature prominently. We also know that many people find the economic arguments put forward during an election period very complex. Some people like bits from one side and bits from the other side of the argument. They may like the idea of tax cuts but prefer their public services to be kept intact. They may like the idea of a national insurance reduction but they love their national health service. So how do they decide who is telling the truth and whose sums add up?

The Tories have been making outrageous claims about Labour’s spending commitments. We say that they are misleading people, and to prove it we are prepared to put our proposals to an independent audit by the OBR in order to say whether or not the sums add up. That is the simple element of this argument. The crux of it is: are the Government prepared to put their economic policies to an independent audit so that they can be put before the public at an election and the public can be better informed when they make up their minds? The time has come for the major parties, particularly those that might wish to take part in television debates and be taken seriously, to have their proposals independently audited by the OBR.

The OBR scrutinises Government tax policies and expenditure policies on behalf of the public, so why would we not do this for would-be Governments when there is a general election? Surely the public have a right to be as well informed as possible. The chair of the OBR agrees with that. In his letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, he said:

“As we have discussed, I believe that independent scrutiny of pre-election policy proposals could contribute to better policy making, to a more informed public debate, and could help facilitate coalition formation when party programmes need to be reconciled.”

So he is clear that considerable benefits would come from going through this process.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would mislead the House—I know he would not. He has had discussions with the chair—

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

No, I am trying to be disciplined because I have been in here too many times when people have taken loads of interventions and others have not had a chance to speak.

The Government have had plenty of time to have meetings about this issue over a long period of time. We have challenged Ministers about this, asking whether they have discussed it during any meetings. They have said in the past that they are committed to audits, so it is extraordinary that the Government cannot refer to any meeting where they have discussed this issue with the chairman of the OBR. That is an absolute disgrace; this is about having a better informed debate at a general election and they should be ashamed of themselves. Clearly, they have completely ignored this issue because they do not want to go through the process. As for the arguments about specialist skills, the chairman of the OBR is saying that he can deliver on this if we can get an agreement in principle now and if we can start to go through the details by the end of the summer. He is the first person we would go to if we were trying to set this up, so if he is saying—

[David Rutley]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

I will not give way, and I have explained why. If the chair of the OBR is saying, “I can do this if you make this decision now”, who is to question that? It should not be the Government, who have an ulterior motive in not having their economic policies and, more importantly, the misinformation they put out about their opponents scrutinised. If the Opposition’s budgets were examined, the Government would no longer be able to misinform people about those budgets. That is the truth of why the Government are ducking out of this. It is incredible for the Minister to stand there as an elected Member in this House and question the veracity of evidence that has been given to the Select Committee. The chairman of the OBR has been before the Select Committee and clearly indicated that he is favour of the proposal, and that has been questioned in this House. I find that absolutely incredible. It just shows us how much the Tory Government are wriggling on a hook to try to weasel out of this proposal.

The public will make up their own minds from a better informed position if we were to take this proposal forward. Only a Government who are up to no good could oppose the proposal. The time has come for this proposal to be taken forward, the OBR should be given the legal power to audit our plans, and the Government should get out of the way and allow it to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I would suggest that it is not clear what Labour’s economic policy is. The shadow Chancellor wants to tax, borrow and spend more, but he is keeping his head down because he can see the car crash—he has experience of those—looming with the Labour leader, while the Labour leader is talking about prices and incomes policies and an anti-business agenda. It is totally muddled and means that if Labour ever got the chance again, it would put Britain back into crisis.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor talks about credibility in economic policy, yet he consistently sets his face against having his economic policies, along with those of the other major parties—certainly those that would take part in television debates before the next general election—put before the Office for Budget Responsibility so that the electorate can understand what parties are saying about economic policy and be better informed when they vote.

[Mr Osborne]

As Robert Chote has set out, there would be very serious implications if the OBR, a new institution which, of course, the Labour party did not support when in government—[Interruption.] I remember proposing it time and again as shadow Chancellor and hearing Ministers say at this Dispatch Box that it was not a good idea. The proposal would make big changes to the role of the civil service as well as that of the OBR. Robert Chote is right to say that, while we can consider it in the next Parliament:

“To embark on this exercise in a rush, or with insufficient resources, could be…very damaging to the OBR.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The proposals put forward yesterday were a very sensible response from a responsible Government who want to assist local communities and protect highly vulnerable people. I believe that nothing more nor less would have been appropriate.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Minister carried out a U-turn on online gambling and FOBT machines. She has accepted our call for councils to be given planning powers to restrict the clustering of betting shops, but she has done nothing for those who want to respond to local concerns about the numbers of FOBT machines they already have. We welcome the fact that after more than two years of refusing to act, the Government have finally accepted our proposals. She also announced a £50 limit on stakes on FOBT machines, which she relies on the betting industry to impose. What evidence has she seen that convinces her that a £50 limit will deal with problem gambling? She is aware of research being conducted by NatCen. If that says that the £50 limit should be lowered, will she act?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Gentleman raises a lot of issues and I will do my best to deal with them in the time available. The measures will certainly put an end to unsupervised easy cash-based staking above £50, allowing continued use of machines while ensuring greater opportunities for supervision and protection. The measures are targeted, reasonable and proportionate, and completely justified on a precautionary basis. We have made no change to the stake and prize. The U-turn is absolute nonsense. The shadow Minister knows that I have declared continually that there is no green light for FOBTs, and our package of reforms has been carefully considered. In my opinion, our proposals are targeted and proportionate; his proposals were knee-jerk and impractical.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

1. What comparative assessment he has made of trends in the annual rates of inflation and growth in average earnings since May 2010.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of average earnings.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

Real average weekly earnings have fallen since 2010, owing to the previous Government’s financial legacy left to us. However, last year real household disposable income grew at its fastest pace since 2009. In its latest forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the growth of real household disposable income to accelerate in every year of the forecast period, reaching 2.6% in 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

If the hon. Lady wants to talk about the largest anything, perhaps she would agree with Paul Johnson, who said that wages have increased much less quickly than inflation. As I say, that is not surprising. We have had a great big recession. We had the biggest recession in 100 years. It would be astonishing if household incomes and earnings had not fallen.

[Clive Efford]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs liabilities table published in May shows that the number of people earning more than £1 million jumped from 13,000 in January to 18,000 after the Budget. Their combined income rose from £27 billion to more than £47 billion. Is that why April was the only month in which earnings rose above inflation?

[Nicky Morgan]

That is a very interesting question. The hon. Gentleman will know that the OBR last week said that the only thing that would raise wages was increased productivity in the economy. That means more people creating more jobs and more growth in our economy. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman welcomed the fact that 2.7 million people have been taken out of income tax completely as a result of our changes and 25 million people are paying less income tax.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Natascha Engel]

Indeed, and I am going to finish on both those points.

One way to make sure the banks cannot drag their feet in the way that they have is to impose a moratorium on the payments. That would really focus their minds. If the money is not coming in, I am sure they would try to settle this matter once and for all much more quickly. The number of suspensions of payments—and only in those cases where people are suffering significant hardship—is an absolute scandal. The fact that 30,000 businesses or individuals are waiting for some kind of redress and only 32 have had redress is also an absolute scandal. Something must be done.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My constituency also has a business that has been affected by this. When we wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority, the response was really an apology for the banks, as though this is just some sort of error that has been made. Does that not underline the fact that there has been a lack of urgency by the regulators, on whom we rely to act on behalf of our constituents when they are wronged in this way? We need more urgency from the regulators; they must get on with their job.

[Natascha Engel]

That is right and this whole scandal has shown how it has been possible to pass the blame between banks, the FCA and the Treasury, and nobody will take any responsibility for what has been an absolute scandal.

I have seen this in my casework. Mr and Mrs Chadwick buy and sell homes and their business has been very successful. These small and medium-sized companies are not just viable; they are successful. It is only because of this mis-selling scandal that they are going bust. I cannot understand the logic of this: what interest does a bank have in a business going bust and losing all its money? The logic of that is beyond me.

I am also concerned about banks that have taxpayer funding, such as RBS, which has a lot of these cases. We must look much more carefully at the link between the regulator, the banks and the Treasury.

I agree that proper criminal penalties must be imposed on those banks, individuals and organisations that have been proven to have been part of this injustice, and I also agree with the call for a moratorium.

Economic Growth

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

That was certainly an odd speech from the shadow Chancellor. He called me a tactical genius, but those on his side are going around calling him a busted flush, and after the extraordinary 40 minutes of comments we have just heard from him, we can see why. The contrast is with a Government who are building an economy where those who want to work hard and get on are rewarded. The contrast is with a tax system that is being changed to support effort, with the largest ever increase in the personal allowance. The contrast is with a welfare system that is being changed so it always pays to work and benefit bills are being capped so no family gets more from being on benefits and out of work than the average family gets from being in work.

In this Queen’s Speech we have measures to help those who want to set up a small business and employ people through our employment allowance—which was not mentioned by the shadow Chancellor, but I assume the Labour party will not vote against it. We have measures to help families who dream of home ownership and to help them with their mortgage costs. We have measures for savers, with a Pensions Bill that will provide a generous single-tier pension, and we have measures to help those who want to stay in their homes and avoid the lottery of care costs, with our Care Bill. The only reason we can do all these things is because we are clearing up the mess and the things that went so badly wrong in our economy.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On the issue of fairness, the 13,000 people who earn more than £1 million a year share a combined income of £27.4 billion, and they are going to share in a £1.2 billion payout. How can that be justified and fair?

[Mr Osborne]

In every single year under this Government the rich will pay more in tax than in any single year of the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman consistently supported, and the top rate of tax will be higher than in any single year of the Labour Government he supported. We put up capital gains tax so we avoided the scandal that they presided over—indeed, that the shadow Chancellor presided over—of cleaners paying higher rates of tax than the hedge fund managers they work for. That is what we have done to ensure fairness in our tax system, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

amendment of the law

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

Of course they do, and it is a matter of regret that the number of affordable houses fell by 420,000-odd during Labour’s period in office, and we see a way in which we can achieve a number of affordable houses. As I said, we are well on track to deliver 170,000 and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased about that. I wish to make this contrast for him, because we have the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks on Labour’s housing plans. He says:

“We didn’t do enough... I don’t have a solution for this, but in the end government has to invest in housing, and...it’s a massive challenge”.

I think we can all agree with that—we can all unite behind those principles—so where the last Administration wrung their hands, this Government are stepping in. In the past couple of years, we have made sure that first-time buyers and those looking to buy a brand-new property have been given a helping hand. We also reinvigorated the right to buy, building mixed communities, more affordable homes and giving social tenants a chance to move up the housing ladder. This Government believe in extending opportunity to everyone who works hard and wants to do so.

The Home Builders Federation has said:

“If people can’t buy, builders can’t build”.

It has also said that “people’s inability to buy” has been the biggest “constraint” on house building. That is why in the Budget we announced our help to buy scheme. It is here to help in two ways: it is offering an equitable loan and a mortgage guarantee.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Given that 60% of homes built in central London are being sold to overseas buyers, how does the Secretary of State think that the help to buy scheme will affect the prices of those properties and people’s ability to enter the housing market if he does not deal with that problem?

[Mr Pickles]

This scheme will not be available for foreign buyers; this is a scheme to help people from this country. That situation did not happen overnight, and the hon. Gentleman’s own Government signally failed to do anything about it. It is perhaps apposite for me to raise the issues to do with social housing.

As well as rewarding those who want to get on, we are taking tough action to tackle those who want a free ride and who are abusing the housing system. We are announcing today new measures to stop rogue landlords cashing in from renting homes to illegal migrants and we are also ensuring fair play in the allocation of taxpayer-funded social housing. We are tackling the widespread perception that the way social housing is allocated is unfair and favours foreign migrants over local people and members of the armed services.

It is true that one in 10 of all the new social housing tenancies in England go to a foreign migrant whereas in London one in five social housing tenancies belong to a foreign migrant. That is not fair to people who have worked hard and paid their taxes in Britain, so new rules will ensure that councils give priority to local people and to the armed forces when allocating social housing. That tough action will tackle the pull factors that led to unsustainable immigration under Labour and it will help community cohesion by ensuring fair play and removing the perception of unfairness that extremists exploit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if he cares to look at the record of the Labour Government, he will see that 2 million more homes were built during those 13 years, 500,000 of which were affordable homes that we provided, and 1 million more families were able to buy their own home. That stands in comparison to the Government’s miserable record over the past two years.

[Clive Efford]

In response to the previous intervention, I remind Members that this Government inherited the biggest council house building programme for 20 years, but one of their first decisions was to scrap it, which is why we have so few social housing starts.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is correct. That is a consequence of the 60% cut.

The number of people on housing benefit has gone up by 300,000, almost entirely accounted for by people in work. When the Prime Minister launched NewBuy, the previous scheme, in March last year, we were told that it would help 100,000 people to get a mortgage. A year on, how many people has it actually helped? The answer is 1,500. Firstbuy, which was slightly more successful, has helped 6,000 people against a target of 16,500.

Then there is the strange case of the remarkably reclusive infrastructure guarantee. It was launched by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. He said that he would set aside £10 billion for investment in housing. It sounded good and we supported it, but we now know that not a single penny of it has yet been used to support house building. The facts are clear: lots of promises, precious little delivered, and not a lot for the Secretary of State to crow about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister say why there are fewer people in the offshore investigation and affluence investigation units in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs than there are working on cutting child benefit for families?

[Mr Gauke]

I should point out that those units were not in existence under the previous Government and were introduced as a consequence of our reinvestment programme. On enforcement and compliance more generally, I also point out that if we are looking only at numbers, under the previous Government the number of people working in HMRC’s enforcement and compliance department fell by 10,000. Under this Government it will increase by 2,500.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The tone of this debate has been regrettable. It was, in effect, set by the article written in The Spectator by the Chancellor. It is clear that that article was written before Bob Diamond appeared before the Select Committee yesterday, so the evidence the Chancellor uses to back up what he says in it was given after it was published. He cannot produce any proof or evidence backing up the unfortunate accusation he has made.

The Government must understand that the public are very angry about what banks have been getting up to, and they are not going to be satisfied if a Select Committee or a Joint Committee is set up to investigate the matter. That is just not going to get to the bottom of the issues that have made the public extremely angry.

Mr Diamond was deputy chief executive of corporate investment and banking until 2010, and he had been in that role for three years. That is the division of banking that deals with this area of investment. The idea that when he became the chief executive of Barclays he had no understanding of how LIBOR is set, the negotiations between banks and some of the sharp practices employed, and that he would remain completely ignorant of them, is beyond belief. In my opinion, it is clear that he attempted to cover up his knowledge of that when he appeared before the Select Committee yesterday. That just goes to show that there is a great deal of background that needs to be investigated. A Select Committee or Joint Committee would not be able to do that.

When hybrid Committees investigate a planning issue, it takes an enormous amount of effort and time to trawl through all the evidence and come to a balanced judgment. I have some knowledge of the Crossrail hybrid Committee, as that project affected my constituency. The Committee took up an enormous amount of its members’ time and effort. In respect of this banking issue, in-depth investigations of the allegations and counter-allegations are required, and I am not sure whether a Committee of Members of this House, supported by House of Commons staff, will be able to undertake them with sufficient thoroughness to meet the level of public anger and concern.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right. Does he agree that the partisan nature of the debate demonstrates why a parliamentary inquiry of any kind cannot do this job properly?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend anticipates another part of my speech. The processes in this House to set up Committees of this nature—with Government Whips selecting Committee members—will undermine the independence of any investigation. Unless this Committee is independent and the Government take their grubby little hands off it, its investigations will not satisfy the public at all.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a Government majority on such a Committee prevents any chance of equality or objectivity? Does he also agree that before the wind-up speeches, the Chancellor should be asked whether he will agree with the Whips that, as a minimum, there will be equality of representation on the Committee, in order to secure public support?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend has made the point, and in the interests of brevity I will leave it there for the Government to comment on.

The Attorney-General is wrong to say that we cannot set up an inquiry such as the one the Opposition are calling for today while a criminal investigation is taking place. At least two criminal investigations are going on while the Leveson inquiry is taking place.

We have been here before. On 4 September 2010, the News of the World issued the following statement:

“We reject absolutely any suggestion there was a widespread culture of wrongdoing at the News of the World.”

We all know what that meant. The then editor of the News of the World, Colin Myler, told the Press Complaints Commission in August 2009 that

“Our internal inquiries have found no evidence of involvement by News of the World staff other than Clive Goodman in phone-message interception”.

Let us compare that with Mr Diamond’s comment in his letter accepting the invitation to appear before the Treasury Committee:

“This inappropriate conduct was limited to a small number of people relative to the size of Barclays trading operations, and the authorities found no evidence that anyone more senior than the immediate desk supervisors was aware of the requests by traders, at the time that they were made.”

We heard exactly the same sort of defences being made against the Leveson inquiry being set up, suggesting that this was a small matter that needed to be investigated. This is too deep an issue to investigate through a Joint Committee of this House or a Select Committee.

I am instinctively supportive of the idea that we should set up such Committees, but fundamental reform of this House of Commons would be required for us to carry out such an inquiry. Back Benchers would need to be able to conduct business independently of the Executive. We do not have the structures to deal with an issue such as this. We would also have to change the culture of this place. Back Benchers would have to have a duty to the public, rather than to our respective Front Benchers.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I have given way twice and I will not give way any more because of lack of time.

Fundamental change in this House would be required of the type that simply has not taken place. It is such fundamental reform that we need, rather than the messing about that we have with the House of Lords, which will go absolutely nowhere.

The inquiry that the Opposition are calling for today could establish what we need to do in order to legislate to clean up the setting of the LIBOR rate. That could be dealt with and expedited, but when it comes to the underlying issues and the people involved, we are talking about criminal activity. Let us remember that, at a time when taxpayers’ money was being poured into the banking system to prop it up, these people were acting in their own personal interest and to profit Barclays and other banks, and against the interests of the country. In fact, it could even be called treason. These people belong behind bars, and the inquiry that needs to take place here—[Interruption.] Millionaires’ row over there are giggling at that, but I can tell them that the public out there do not think it is funny. We need to have a proper investigation, independent of this House, that will satisfy the public.