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.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Serious Fraud Office is independent of the Government, but it is pursuing every avenue to see whether it can bring criminal prosecutions in this case. This is, however, a matter for the SFO, which is going to come back to us by the end of the month to tell us whether it can do so, and it will have heard what the House has said today. We also want to ensure that in future the regulators have the criminal sanctions that they need, and that is why we seek these investigations to change the law now, rather than waiting four or five years to do so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

How can it be right, and in line with the Government’s credibility on wanting to clean up the banking system, when those who were responsible and in management at the time of these criminal activities—both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have today accepted that criminal activities were going on—remain in post, such as Mr Bob Diamond?

[Mr Osborne]

As the Prime Minister said and I repeat, Mr Diamond has to account for himself before the Treasury Committee this week, and I congratulate the Committee on doing that. The chairman of Barclays has resigned, but it is not the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hire and fire the bank chiefs at this Dispatch Box. I am not sure that we want to go down that path; it is much better for the shareholders to do it, the board to do it, and they will have the appearance before the Committee of Mr Diamond to go on.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Where I would agree with the hon. Gentleman is that regulation cannot do everything and we need the right culture of management in the banks, but there is also a job for the regulators here. One of the purposes of the Financial Services Bill is to put the Bank of England in charge and allow the regulator to exercise more judgment. As I have said before in the House, the Royal Bank of Scotland ticked every single box when it came to its takeover of ABN AMRO, yet many people were asking at the end of 2007, “Is that a sensible transaction?” We need the regulators to be empowered to make judgment calls, not just to check whether every line of the regulation has been complied with.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I agree with everything that the Chancellor said in his statement, but following that, all he has done is try to heap responsibility on the Opposition Front-Bench team, rather than dealing with the bankers who are at the heart of the problem. We all know that lighter-touch regulation would have come in had he been Chancellor at the same time. That is not the point. The point is that people out there are angry. Those people are thieves and criminals, and they have made beggars of many of our constituents, who want to know what this Government are going to do about it. Can the Chancellor say whether the financial regulatory Bill before the House deals with all the issues that have been raised as a result of the report from the FSA yesterday? If not, what is he going to do about it?

[Mr Osborne]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what this Government are doing. First, we are getting rid of the tripartite system that failed. Secondly, we are changing—[Interruption.] I will tell hon. Members what failed—the regulation of financial services. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine and everyone else are paying a very heavy price for that, so we are changing the regulator, changing the structure of banks in order to have ring-fenced retail banks—

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

No. The right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing. It is business as usual.

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman voted for 13 years for a Government who failed this country. We are changing the regulation, changing the structure of banking—[Interruption.] and we are dealing with this latest abuse— [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have heard the question. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to listen to the answer, even if he does not like it. There is no need to get so excited—

[Clive Efford]

Plenty of people out there are excited.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman questioning me?

[Clive Efford]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The prices of many important international commodities are set in London, such as cocoa and robusta coffee, and tens of millions of smallholder farmers and poor people around the world depend on these. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the kind of problems that we have seen with LIBOR are not spreading to such markets, which are so important for people around the world?

Budget Leak Inquiry

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am interested to learn that this story was apparently briefed before any decision emerged. [Interruption.] I understand that that is incorrect and that it was not announced on Twitter before your decision, Mr Speaker. If it was, I am sure that there will be an internal Labour party inquiry.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The reference to Hugh Dalton in 1947 is of course wrong, because he resigned and the leak had been reported in an evening newspaper before he sat down. What we are talking about now is the ministerial code and the accurate and extensive reporting of what was in the Budget across the media the morning before the Budget statement. That is the difference, and that is what we want to be investigated. Are we going to have an investigation or not?

[Mr Gauke]

I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s first point. I should also reiterate that we have a coalition, which means that there are negotiations and discussions involving both sides. It also means that the Budget tends to be finalised some days in advance of the Budget speech. That is quite a contrast to previous years, when revisions were made, documents pulped and decisions taken at the last minute. I think that we have a much better process, thanks to the discussions within the coalition and the involvement of the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Amendment of the Law

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I think Mr Blanchard is very firmly on record as endorsing the strategy that we have adopted.

There is, of course, a fundamental dilemma, which any Government in this situation would face. If a deficit is cut very fast, it clearly has an impact on demand; and if it is cut too slowly, we lose the confidence of international creditors and markets. That is what we have not done. Unlike many eurozone countries that are now introducing budgets in panic and under pressure, we have introduced a politically and financially stable approach to deficit reduction. The underlying theme has to be one of financial discipline.

I cannot resist quoting an excellent statement of what this Government are about, and of what any Government should be about. It says that

“we must ensure we pass the test of fiscal credibility. If we don’t get this right, it doesn’t matter what we say about anything else.”

That was the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She is absolutely right and has brought fiscal rigour to the Opposition Front Bench for the first time. I just wonder what kind of response she has made privately to some of the commitments that the shadow Chancellor, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition, have been making in the last few weeks. They have been promising to get rid of the fuel duty changes, child benefit changes, child tax credit changes and the changes to public sector pay. I think the total volume of commitments is something in the order of £30 billion. Before we proceed any further with a debate on the Budget, we need to have absolute clarity about which of those measures the Opposition are committed to and to which they are not—and if they are committed, we need to know what else they are going to cut to make way for them.

Let me summarise where we as a Government are proceeding. Unlike many other countries in Europe, we have not introduced our Budget in an environment of panic or under pressure from financial markets. Unlike in the United States, we do not have political paralysis; we have stable government. This is our strategy: we have, and we will retain, fiscal discipline and we will stimulate the economy. There has to be demand—the shadow Chancellor is absolutely right about that—but this is coming through monetary policy. In order to have a monetary policy that stimulates the economy, we need the confidence of the central bank. The central bank has made it absolutely clear that the Government have to be fully committed to fiscal discipline in order to allow that to happen. Thus we have a combination of low interest rates, quantitative easing, now credit easing and a substantial devaluation. This is where the stimulus to demand comes from.

The third element is fundamental: we are dealing with a broken banking system—something we inherited. The banking system was massively expanded under the last Government, but collapsed with disastrous consequences. There is a continuing problem of credit supply. That is a very real problem—and every small and medium-sized enterprise would tell the same story. We have introduced a whole series of initiatives. The Chancellor has taken this forward with credit easing, while my Department has a new programme building on the Breeden report relating to non-bank finance. I have no doubt that we shall have to come back to this, because the banking system is still not functioning, but this is at the heart of the economic crisis that we are trying to manage. For the first time in our lifetimes, the financial system has collapsed—with disastrous consequences—and we are having to put that right.

The fourth and final element in the story is rebalancing the economy and putting it on a proper sustainable basis. That is why the Chancellor underlined in the Budget our commitment to the growth review and to improving infrastructure. We need to recognise that banks have to be properly regulated, which is why we have increased the bank levy, but in addition, we need to give backing to our successful industries, particularly our export industries—aerospace, creative industries, the oil and gas sector, and pharmaceuticals. Over the last few weeks and months, we have been correcting some of the long-standing errors of policy pursued by the Labour Government—the way in which, for example, public procurement took no account of supply chains; we are putting that right. We are beginning to see serious positive commitment by overseas investors—we are seeing it in the car industry and in pharmaceuticals—as a result of this industrial strategy.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

With all due respect, we have heard it all before. In May last year, the Business Secretary said:

“I will fight, and do fight…for manufacturing industry…It is leading this country out of recession”.—[Official Report, 24 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 793.]

Will he tell us what went wrong with manufacturing?

[Vince Cable]

Has the hon. Gentleman followed what is happening? The car industry, for example, has grown by approximately 20% over the last year, and all the major producers are investing in the UK.

Pay and Consultants (Public Sector)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This is the first time that I have participated in a debate under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, so I am pleased to be here today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on securing this important debate.

In response to concerns about the time, I will make just two quick points to add to the forensic examination by my hon. Friend regarding public sector pay and the use of consultants, and I would like the Minister to consider them.

When my hon. Friend opened the debate, he was intervened on several times, and Members pointed out that some of the problems had existed under the previous Government. I fully accept that. A lot was made of the issue around the time of the general election, and the then Opposition were right to do so. There were concerns in the public about the rates of pay that were paid through public funds—taxpayers’ money. That is a legitimate issue to raise. Having raised the issue, even going as far as to say in the coalition document that the Government would reduce public sector pay, that there would be a cap on pay and that a mechanism would be put in place for agreeing pay that is above the rate of the Prime Minister’s salary, it is legitimate to have a debate such as today’s to examine what progress is being made.

What we have seems to be an approval of a mechanism for avoiding tax and paying higher salaries for the performance of tasks and roles that are paid for out of the public purse. There is a certain irony in that some of the mechanisms seem to allow payments that end up reducing the amount of tax that is available to pay for the services in the first place. We are talking about people who are recognised to be on the payroll, but whose salaries are paid through private companies. An article in The Guardian on 16 February states that many people who are being paid through private companies and who are avoiding paying tax at source

“are listed as full-time legal, IT or human resources consultants. The department said many of them had been employed for a long time, and appear on staff directories.”

Such people are, for all intents and purposes, full-time employees—of the national health service, in this particular case—and yet they are being paid through service companies that allow them to reduce their tax liabilities.

The article says that Departments are complicit in that. It states:

“The arrangement can be tax-efficient both for the individual and for the Whitehall department, including arm’s-length bodies, since the department may not need to pay national insurance in addition to fees.”

My concern here is that Departments, which are paid for by tax and whose revenues are collected by the Exchequer, seem to be colluding to reduce the amount of money paid to the Exchequer. Will the Minister respond to that, or at least look at the issue? When she conducts her review, will she specifically respond to that? Am I alone in thinking that there is something peculiar about a Whitehall Department seemingly colluding with the private sector to reduce the amount of tax payable? Is that practice acceptable? Should we be encouraging such practice?

[Stephen Pound]

My hon. Friend came into the House at the same time as I did. He will remember, as I do, the huge debate on IR35 at the time, which I thought had addressed the issue. Is he as shocked as I am to hear today, and to read in the sheets of that august organ, Private Eye, that a golden carousel fuelled by avarice is spinning chief executives from one fleshpot to another, letting them fill their boots on the public purse without even pausing for breath? Does he agree that that should have been sorted years ago? I thought that it had been by IR35.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is tempting me along a path that I do not wish to go down because I have limited time. However, he has made his point and put it on the record.

I will quote from another article in The Guardian dated 15 February to illustrate my point further. What is disturbing about that article is that the officers within the Department—whether inadvertently or not—have failed to give the full facts in answer to a Member asking questions specifically about the use of such vehicles for paying permanent members of staff in the NHS. The confusion seems to rest around whether those people are classified as civil servants, or whether they are private sector consultants.

The series of e-mails that The Guardian quotes from in the article suggests that there are attempts within the Department to facilitate that sort of arrangement. I find that alarming. The answer provided failed to give the full facts to the House. The article states:

“The emails handed to the Guardian also show senior civil servants at the department discussing the possible reputational damage to the department and seeking to avoid ways of revealing the nature of the payments sought in a written question last December by Gareth Thomas, the shadow Cabinet Office minister”.

The Guardian goes on to say that the answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) stated:

“It is not the department's policy to permit payments to civil servants by ways of limited companies.”

That led to the belief that no civil servant was being paid through such a mechanism. However, it transpires that there is an issue surrounding the definition of a civil servant. A civil servant is someone who is on pay-as-you-earn, rather than someone who is being paid through one of those mechanisms. Therefore, the answer was entirely misleading. Whether that was deliberate or not, we need to have some answers to that practice. Do the Government think that that is a satisfactory definition? Alternatively, does it need clarification so that when hon. Members seek answers in the future about how people are being paid, we get accurate answers? We can then be the scrutineers of what is going on with public sector pay and how much public sector money is being used. With that, I conclude my speech.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the level of taxation levied on the banking industry.

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

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published details of total pay-as-you-earn and corporation tax receipts from the banking sector for the first time on 31 August. The official statistics show that tax receipts from the sector increased from £17.3 billion in 2009-10 to £21 billion in 2010-11. A number of other taxes are incurred by the banking sector that the Office for National Statistics did not include in the figures, including the new bank levy introduced by this Government, which we expect will raise an additional £2.5 billion net each year, which is more in each and every year than the previous Government raised in their one-off payroll tax.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Chancellor for that answer, but the truth is that the High Pay Commission has just published a report demonstrating that high executive pay bears no relation to the performance of companies and that nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than in the banking sector. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is going up. Is it not time we made the banking sector pay its fair share in order to do something for the young unemployed in this country, as advocated by the Opposition?

[Mr Osborne]

That is why we introduced the bank levy, which Labour had 13 years to introduce but did not. It raises £2.5 billion. We are also taking action to clamp down on tax avoidance. We recently proposed a measure to tackle something called disguised remuneration, whereby high earners, often in the financial services sector, disguise their income to avoid tax, but the Labour party voted against the measure.