Points of Order
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Exceptionally, I will allow a point of order, for reasons that will be apparent.
Ed Balls
May I have your guidance, Mr Speaker? Is it in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pre-empting a written statement, to slip out news during topical questions about Northern Rock that could well have fiscal implications, including for Government borrowing, in a way that is designed to avoid any proper scrutiny or questioning from the Opposition? Is this not just another example of the Chancellor refusing to answer questions in this House? Would it not be in order for the Chancellor or another Treasury Minister to make an oral statement in this House today and be properly scrutinised, rather than once again playing fast and loose with the public finances and Parliament?
Mr Speaker
I will hear the Chancellor the Exchequer on this matter, and then I will give a verdict.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) is itching to raise a further point of order, but I ask him to hear what I have to say first. This cannot be a debate; there are a couple of points of order to which I am giving a reply. My response, whether Members like it or not, is as follows.
First, I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to be helpful to the House. It is not for me to impugn motives, and I do not do so. However, was it a good idea to handle this matter via the device of topical questions in the way that it was done? The answer is no, it could have been better done. I am sure that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) was doing his best, according to his own lights, but it was unwise to deal with it in that way.
Secondly, I simply make the point—[Interruption.] It may be topical, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be raised at topical questions. My understanding, which is very easily explained, is that although something is a topical matter, it does not mean that it should be the subject of a topical question if the Government have tabled a written—
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I am proud to be part of a coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who have delivered that policy and are delivering it. A very substantial increase next year will mean that individuals are £229 better off in real terms as a result just of the increase in April, so that is to be welcomed. As for when we get to £10,000, I have just announced the Budget date and we will have to wait for that Budget for tax decisions, but even if the £10,000 allowance were to increase with our current CPI forecasts from the OBR, it would hit £10,000 in 2015.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a real-terms cut in tax credits and benefits over the next three years and the Government say they will ask the House to vote on that, so can the Chancellor tell the House the answer to two questions? First, what percentage of families hit by these cuts to tax credits and benefit are in work? Secondly, as a result of the autumn statement tax and benefit changes, including the change to the personal allowance, will the average one-earner couple in work with children be better off or worse off?
Mr Osborne
It is good to see the shadow Chancellor back. Of course tax credits go to some people in work, but we are also helping those people with a personal allowance increase, and working households will be £125 better off. Perhaps he can answer a question, if that is allowed, Mr Speaker: how will Labour vote on the Bill?
Mr Speaker
It is very important that the public are not misled, however inadvertently, by a member of the Government. This is not an occasion for shadow Ministers to answer questions. In our system, they ask questions and Ministers are expected to answer them. That is the situation.
Ed Balls
I will answer, though, Mr Speaker, but before I do it is important that Members on both sides of the House know the answers to the questions I asked the Chancellor. First, 60% of families hit by his tax and benefit changes are in work. Secondly, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as a result of the autumn statement measures a working family—the average one-earner couple—will be £534 a year worse off by 2015. Those are the very families who pull up the blinds and go to work. Every Tory constituency has, on average, over 6,000 of those families who will lose out. In answer to his question, we will look at the legislation, but if he intends—[Interruption.] He asked me a question and I am going to answer it. If he intends to go ahead with such an unfair hit on middle and low-income working families while giving a £3 billion top-rate tax cut, we will oppose it. Why is he making striving working families pay the price for his economic failure?
Mr Osborne
As I have said, working households will be £125 better off. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has been very clear in its response to the autumn statement that people who are in work and paying the basic rate of tax will do better. The reason we are having to take these difficult decisions on public sector pay, on benefits and the like is because of the mess he created. When will he stand up and say, “I’m sorry we borrowed too much and spent too much. We’ll never do it again”?
Autumn Statement
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Today, after two and a half years, we can see, and people can feel in the country, the true scale of this Government’s economic failure. The economy this year is contracting. The Chancellor has confirmed that Government borrowing is revised up this year, next year and every year. The national deficit is not rising—[Interruption.] I will say it again. Our economy is contracting this year; Government borrowing and the deficit are revised up this year, next year and every year; and the national debt is rising, not falling. It is people who are already struggling to make ends meet, middle and lower-income families and pensioners, who are paying the price, while millionaires get a tax cut—a £3 billion welfare handout to the people who need it least.
Let me spell out the full facts to the House—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen. They might learn something. In June 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that our economy would grow by 2.8% this year. In March this year, it said there would still be growth, but revised it down to just 0.8%. Today, we learn that the Chancellor has not managed even that. Growth has not only been downgraded yet again, but he has confirmed, following the double-dip recession, that our economy is now forecast to actually contract inside this year, by 0.1%.
Let me remind the House what the Chancellor promised over two years ago in the June Budget. He said:
“We have provided the foundations for economic recovery in all parts of our nation”.
He said:
“We have set the course for a balanced budget and falling national debt by the end of this Parliament.”
And he said:
“The richest paying the most and the”
most
“vulnerable protected”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]
That was the promise, but far from the Chancellor securing our recovery, our economy has flatlined since the spending review in 2010. Over the past two years, he was expecting 4.6% growth, but he has actually achieved 0.6% growth, which compares with 1.7% in France, 3.6% in Germany and 4.1% in America. We are falling behind in the global race. We learn today that growth is being downgraded this year, next year, the year after, the year after, and the year after that too—the longest double-dip recession since the second world war now followed by the slowest recovery in the past 100 years.
The result of this stagnation—rising long-term unemployment and long-term damage to our economy, falling behind now as other countries move ahead—is that the Chancellor’s fiscal strategy has been completely derailed. The defining purpose of the Government, the cornerstone of the coalition, the one test they set themselves: to balance the books and get the debt falling by 2015, is now in tatters.
What we have learned today is that Government borrowing has been revised up this year, next year and the year after that. We now know that, compared with the Chancellor’s forecast two years ago, borrowing is now forecast to be well above the £150 billion of extra borrowing that he was forecasting in March—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen to this. The Chancellor has confirmed that the Prime Minister’s pledge to balance the books in 2015 is not met in 2015, it is not met in 2016 and it is not met in 2017. The fact is that there is more borrowing this year, next year and the year after.
The Opposition will look at the detail when we get the figures—it was disappointing that the Chancellor failed to give us the cash figures adjusted for borrowing this year, next year and the year after. The unusual thing is that, just a few weeks ago, the independent forecasters were saying that borrowing would be £6 billion higher this year. We will examine the detail of those figures to see whether there has been any dodgy dealing. We will find out in the coming hours. [Interruption.] I do not know because I have not seen the figures, but I do know that there is more borrowing this year, more borrowing next year and more borrowing the year after.
The result is that the OBR shows more borrowing and higher deficits means higher national debt. The national debt—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister should listen to this, even if it might be rather shocking to find out. National debt will be higher at the end of this Parliament than the level inherited; it will be higher at the end of this Parliament than forecast in the plans he inherited; and it is no longer falling as a percentage of GDP in 2015. It is rising in 2015 and rising again in 2016, breaking the fiscal rule for falling debt upon which the Chancellor said his entire credibility depended. In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor said,
“our deficit reduction plan is on course…we will not waiver”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 795.]
On course? Not waivering? He is not waivering, he is drowning.
The Chancellor is now trying to claim that his failure on growth, his failure on borrowing and the debt, and breaking his own fiscal rule, are not his fault—that no one could have foreseen it. What nonsense; he was warned. He was warned that a tough medium-term plan to cut the deficit, tax rises, spending cuts and pay restraint, which every country had to put in place, could work only if the Government first put in place a plan for jobs and growth. He was warned that it was a huge gamble to go too far, too fast, and to rely on exports to bail him out. He was warned that there was a hurricane brewing in the eurozone, and that it was not the time to rip out the foundations of the house here in Britain. Once again, the Chancellor is trying to blame high oil prices and the eurozone crisis for negative growth this year, but they affected all countries, so why, over the last—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting. Members must calm themselves. Mr Byles, I thought you were normally a model of restraint and civility. Good heavens man! I do not know what has come over you. Calm yourself—take a pill if necessary, but keep calm. Take up yoga.
Ed Balls
Growth down, borrowing up, debt up—they don’t like it, Mr Speaker, do they? They don’t like it at all.
Once again, the Chancellor is trying to blame high oil prices and the eurozone crisis, so let me ask him: why, over the past two years, has Britain grown at just one tenth of the average growth rate of the G20 countries? Why has growth here in Britain been even slower than in the eurozone? It is not the rest of the world’s fault—it is his policies that have failed. He claimed that rising VAT alongside accelerated spending cuts would boost confidence, secure recovery and get the deficit down, but they depressed confidence, choked off our recovery and borrowing has been revised up. Let me ask the Chancellor: whatever happened to his Treasury view—his theory of expansionary fiscal contraction? Expansionary fiscal contraction? It is the economy that has contracted and the borrowing and the debt that have expanded. That is the truth.
When the latest figures show business confidence falling, when the world economy is slowing, when the eurozone is in such chronic difficulty, and when on current plans the Chancellor’s fiscal straitjacket tightens further next year, it is simply reckless and deeply irresponsible of this Chancellor to plough on with a fiscal plan that we all know is failing on the terms he set. That is the truth.
What a wasted opportunity this statement was. Can the Chancellor confirm that the independent OBR looked at the measures he has announced today, and that its verdict is that growth is revised down this year, next year and the year after?
Let me congratulate the Chancellor on taking our advice and stopping January’s fuel duty rise, even though Government Members all voted against it just a month ago. We welcome the U-turns on flood defences, in part, on regional pay bargaining in the NHS, and on capital allowances. After churches, charities, pasties, skips, fuel and caravans, I think this U-turning is catching on, but whatever happened to the plans for the business investment bank? As for yesterday’s announcement on infrastructure spending, the extra money for schools is just a fraction of the cut from the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future.
We have been here before. A year ago, the Prime Minister boasted of a national infrastructure plan; 12 months on, not a single road scheme has even started. Why cannot he see that he will not get the deficit down without a plan for jobs and growth? Why is he not using the 4G money to get 100,000 new homes built? Why is he not offering a national insurance holiday for small firms? Why not have a temporary tax cut for families? Even the Mayor supports that. Why is the Chancellor not repeating the bank bonus tax? The Chancellor says he cannot do any of that because it would lead to higher borrowing. Even his political attacks are backfiring, because this Chancellor’s failed plan has given us more welfare spending, higher borrowing and higher debt too. That is the reality. The truth is that the Chancellor has failed on growth and the deficit, but what is his answer? More of the same.
Let me remind the Chancellor what he told the House in the Budget of 2011. He said that
“we have already asked the British people for what is needed, and…we do not need to ask for more.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 951.]
But 18 months on the Chancellor has come back for more, and who does he think should pay? Not the 8,000 millionaires set to get more than £100,000 each in April. I have to ask the Liberal Democrats: whatever happened to the mansion tax? Do they not realise that, even with the changes in the personal allowance, as a result of the other things they have supported the average family with children on £20,000 is worse off—and that is before the VAT rise?
The Chancellor claims that his decision to restrict pension tax relief will make the tax system fairer at the top. Can he confirm that the £1 billion he is raising is less than the £1.6 billion that he gave back in pension tax relief in June 2010? And it is just a fraction of the top-rate tax cut—a £3 billion top-rate tax cut at the same time as the Chancellor is cutting tax credits for working families, cutting child benefit for middle-income families, raising taxes on pensioners in April and cutting benefits for the unemployed.
We do need to reform and modernise our welfare state and reduce its cost. Those who can work should work—no ifs or buts. We support a benefit cap, done fairly, with a higher level in London, but let us be clear. The Chancellor claimed he would cut the welfare bill, but higher inflation and long-term unemployment mean that the benefits bill is forecast to be billions higher in this Parliament than he boasted. Let me help him: welfare to work—the clue is in the name. We cannot have a successful welfare to work programme without work, and we know that the Work programme has totally failed, with only two people in 100 going into permanent jobs.
We should require every young and long-term unemployed person to take a job—and make sure there is one there. Let me ask the Chancellor about a nurse, one of the thousands cut from the NHS in the past two years, who is now struggling to find a new job. For that nurse, he has announced today that he is cutting her jobseeker’s allowance for the next three years. How can that be fair when he is cutting the top rate of tax? How can it be fair when someone earning £228,000 a year will get a top-rate tax cut of £75 a week in April, which is more than the £71 the nurse gets to live on through JSA?
We learned today that the Chancellor is not just hitting those looking for work. The majority of people who lose from his cuts to tax credits are people in work—millions of families striving hard to do the right thing. What kind of Government believe that you can only make low-paid working people work harder by cutting their tax credits, but you only make millionaires work harder by cutting their taxes, Mr Speaker? I tell you: certainly not a one nation Government.
The Government must really believe that if taxes are cut at the top the wealth will trickle down. Let me remind the House what the Chancellor told the Conservative party conference in October 2009. He said that
“we could not even think of abolishing the 50p rate on the rich while at the same time I am asking many of our public sector workers to accept a pay freeze to protect their jobs.”
Those were the Chancellor’s words. He continued:
“I think we can all agree that would be grossly unfair.”
What has changed? Nothing has changed. It was all a con and the mask has slipped. We now know that this Chancellor cannot say, “We’re all in this together” without a smirk on his face. They wanted us to think they were compassionate Conservatives. Now we find out that they are the same old Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats have gone along with all of it yet again.
What a pity it is not to see the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) in her place, back from the jungle. She may not have succeeded in talking for the nation on many things but she did speak for the nation when she called the Prime Minister and the Chancellor
“two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk.”
It is no wonder the Prime Minister keeps losing his temper, because his worst nightmare is coming true—not snakes and spiders in the jungle, but the Government’s fiscal rule broken, their economic credibility in tatters, exposed as incompetent and unfair. Yes, he’s the Chancellor; can’t someone get him out of here? Growth down, borrowing revised up and the fiscal rules broken: on every target they have set themselves, they are failing, failing, failing. They are cutting the NHS, not the deficit; they are borrowing more than £212 billion more than they promised two years ago; and they are cutting taxes for the rich, while struggling families and pensioners pay the price—unfair, incompetent and completely out of touch.
Mr Osborne
There is only one person in the Chamber who is drowning, and it is the shadow Chancellor. That was the worst reply to an autumn statement I have ever heard in this House. If one thing changes as a result of this statement, it might be a shadow Cabinet reshuffle.
The shadow Chancellor said one thing that was true. He said it right at the beginning—he said that the national deficit was not rising. It was a Freudian slip, but it betrayed the fact that he had written his response before he heard my autumn statement and before he looked at the OBR forecast. Let me tell him that we do not fiddle the numbers in the Treasury any more—that is what happened when he was there. We have an independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility, and that is the problem he has. His whole policy was about complaining that borrowing and the deficit were going up, but that is not what the OBR forecasts show. Indeed, his prescription is to borrow even more. He complains about debt, but he wants to put it up. It is completely hopeless.
The shadow Chancellor talked about the substance of policies. Here are some simple questions that the Labour party will have to answer. If it is against the cut in the income tax rate from 50p to 45p, will it reverse it? It is the simplest possible question. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition says it has not come in yet. It is coming in—it has been legislated for—so, if he is so against it and thinks it a moral outrage, will he commit to reverse it? Yes or no? That is hopeless position No. 1.
The shadow Chancellor railed at welfare benefits. I have another simple question. Will the Opposition support us or vote against a welfare uprating Bill? What are they going to do? Will they vote for or against the Bill? It is a simple question. For the first time, we have spending plans for 2015-16. He said nothing about whether he supported those plans, even though he hopes to be Chancellor that year. Does he support those spending plans? He talked about 3G. [Interruption.] They are shouting at me.
Bank of England
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for notice of today’s statement—although not of its content. I join him in thanking the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, for his public service and I wish him a long and happy retirement. I commend the Chancellor on his choice of successor, Mr Mark Carney, to be the third Governor of the Bank of England since our decision to make it independent in 1997. We on this side of the House look forward to working with him closely in the coming months and years.
I have known Mark Carney for a number of years and have worked with him closely. He has a long and distinguished record of public service, great financial expertise and a track record of handling tough and complex challenges. He follows in a tradition established in 1997 when the first appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee included Willem Buiter and DeAnne Julius, neither of whom were British citizens at the time. In my view Mark Carney is a good choice and a good judgment, and his experience will be invaluable.
The Chancellor has made a short statement today, but this is a decision of great significance. With the leave of the House, I would like to ask a number of questions of the Chancellor concerning Mr Carney’s appointment and the role that the new Governor will step into.
At a time of economic stress, the new Governor will need to get to grips with a new and massively enlarged central bank that has new, onerous and complex responsibilities in prudential and consumer regulation as well as its role in monetary policy and financial stability. That is a near impossible job for one person, but in our view it is made harder by the way in which the Chancellor has drawn up the Financial Services Bill, which is still being considered in the other place. We remain disappointed that he is continuing to resist the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee and ourselves that would enable the complex new arrangements for the Bank of England to be properly scrutinised. In our view, the new Governor would be strengthened and enhanced, not weakened, by greater transparency. Will the Chancellor think again about that matter?
The Chancellor also needs to clear up the deep confusion at the heart of the new arrangements about who is responsible in a crisis, which he has not managed to clear up to our satisfaction under the current Governor. The Bill heaps far too much power on the new Governor, who, when dealing with the Chancellor, will be able to internalise and suppress the inevitable conflicts within the Bank of England between financial stability on the one hand and monetary stability, fiscal risk and moral hazard on the other. It makes no sense that the deputy governors, including the deputy governor who heads prudential stability, will have no undisputed right to put their views directly to the Chancellor, whether or not the Governor agrees. That is neither stable nor sensible. There is obfuscation in the Bill, and it is not good enough simply to have a memorandum of understanding with ad hoc committees. If the new Governor is to have a fair chance of success, the flaws in accountability and crisis management must be resolved. Will the Chancellor agree to sit down with the new Governor and sort this out?
The new Governor of the Bank of England also looks set to inherit a difficult external economic environment, a global economy that still has serious imbalances, the eurozone in continuing crisis, and, here in the UK, challenges to our banking system, to growth and to fiscal policy. So let me ask the Chancellor a further question about the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England that the new Governor will inherit.
Given the blurring of the relationship between monetary and fiscal policy following the recent decision to transfer £35 billion from the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme to the Treasury coffers—a move that is set to reduce short-term Government borrowing and increase the longer-term burden on the taxpayer—I very much hope that the new Governor and the Chancellor will agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has stated today that they should
“exclude the impact of this change from all figures when assessing compliance with the fiscal targets”.
Is that a matter that the Chancellor has discussed with the present Governor, the new Governor, the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Office for National Statistics? Can he reassure us that the IFS’s recommendations will be taken on board?
Writing in the Financial Times earlier this year, I began an article by saying:
“Wanted, a new governor of the Bank of England. Only superhumans need apply.”
Superhuman or not, the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Mark Carney, is well qualified to take on the role at what will be a very difficult time. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we wish him and his family well.
Mr Osborne
Given the many fierce exchanges that the shadow Chancellor and I have across the Dispatch Box, it is only right for me to acknowledge my real gratitude to him today for welcoming this appointment. He knows Mark Carney, and he knows that he is an outstanding candidate for the job. I shall certainly cherish the words “I commend the Chancellor”, because I will probably never hear them from the right hon. Gentleman again. I sincerely thank him for that.
One of the important things about the independence of the Bank of England, which the right hon. Gentleman helped to establish with the previous Prime Minister, is that it commands cross-party support—it did not at the time; it does now—and we must try to keep the appointment of the Governor out of the day-to-day partisan debate. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly played his role in doing that today. Let me answer specifically his questions about the new role of the Bank of England.
First, on the shadow Chancellor’s point about the new responsibilities, the Bank has heavy new responsibilities because, in our judgment, the tripartite system did not work and was not properly co-ordinated. Indeed, the Select Committee of the last Parliament, which was chaired by Lord McFall—John McFall as he was then—said that it was not clear who was in charge. By insisting that the Bank of England is in charge of macro-prudential and micro-prudential regulation, we bring those things together.
It is also important, secondly, that we recognise that the Government have an important role. When there is a material risk to public funds, there is a clear responsibility in the Bill for the Bank of England to inform the Treasury, without deluging it on a day-to-day basis with everything that is happening and not differentiating the things that are significant and really important. We have taken in the Bill the power of direction that did not previously exist. In the memoirs of my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), he made it clear that at one point he was considering using the almost nuclear power of direction in the Bank of England Act 1946, which no one had ever used, but that he backed away from it because he did not have a more targeted instrument. We now have that targeted power of direction, which the elected Government can use.
Thirdly, we have discussed the role of the deputy governors. Although it is incumbent on any good Governor and any good Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to make sure that views are heard, ultimately the Bank has to reconcile its internal differences rather than, as I have said, allowing the internal differences to be expressed externally without any attempt to resolve them internally. I make it my business in doing my job to see the deputy governors and to make sure that their views are heard.
Finally, let me deal with the asset purchase facility coupons. This was done with the support and acceptance of the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee, which discussed it and agreed that that was a more transparent way of accounting for the quantitative easing coupons and how they will affect the public finances through the coming years. I can confirm for the right hon. Gentleman that when the Office for Budget Responsibility produces its report next week for the autumn statement, it will clearly show the impact of the APF coupons on the public finances, both before and after.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
No, I do not. I think it would cost jobs in the British economy and hit prosperity. I hope that all Members of this House, whether they are sponsored by trade unions or not, would condemn all calls on the trade unions to take up a general strike.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary to their new posts? I wish them good luck in their new positions. May I also congratulate the Chancellor on somehow managing to keep his job in the reshuffle? Clearly, performance-related management has not yet made it to the Cabinet.
Since our last Treasury questions, the Office for National Statistics has published new figures for Government borrowing. We did not get clarity earlier, so let me ask the Chancellor this. What is the total figure for borrowing for the first four months of this financial year? How does that compare with the same period last year, and how does he explain what has happened?
Mr Osborne
It is good to welcome the Member for “Unite West” back from the TUC conference. As the Chief Secretary explained to the House, borrowing in the short term has been higher this year than in the first four months of last year, but he pointed to particular one-off factors, such as the shutdown of the Elgin oilfield. That is why the increase in borrowing comes from weaker corporation tax receipts. I am glad to report to the House that VAT, national insurance and income tax receipts have broadly held up, despite the weaker economic conditions here and around the world. However, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until 5 December to get the next economic forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—because we make these forecasts independently these days.
Ed Balls
I have to say, we are losing patience with the Chancellor’s schoolboy bluster. It is one thing to be heckled by a few trade union delegates at a conference this morning; it is another thing to be booed by 80,000 people—the whole of the Olympic stadium—when he only turned up to give out a medal.
Let me tell the Chancellor the answer. He is right that borrowing has gone up by a quarter compared with last year, but the reason is that our economy is in double-dip recession, tax revenues are down and spending on unemployment is going up. That is why borrowing is going up, on the watch of a Chancellor who said that he would secure the recovery and get borrowing down. So let me ask the Chancellor this. The International Monetary Fund, the British Chambers of Commerce, the TUC, the engineering employers and even Boris Johnson are now calling for action to kick-start the recovery. Is it not time the Chancellor did something the public might cheer: admit he has got it wrong, change course and finally get a plan for jobs and growth?
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman talks about unemployment; 900,000 private sector jobs have been created in this economy over the past two years, and we are rebalancing the economy away from the dependence on debt and the unaffordable public sector that he presided over when he was in the Treasury. [Interruption.] He says that borrowing has gone up, but we have cut the deficit by 25%. He has also said that Labour needs a credible deficit reduction plan. He has had all summer to think of one. Where is it?
Mr Osborne
Let me say this as politely as I can to the shadow Chancellor and former Treasury Minister. Not once in the 13 years during which Labour was in office did it propose guaranteeing large-scale infrastructure projects, but that is precisely what we are doing. We are breaching decades of Treasury orthodoxy to support the private sector, investing for our country’s future, and I hope that that commands all-party support—in the politest possible way.
Professional Standards in the Banking Industry
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should commission an independent, forensic, judge-led public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the culture and professional standards of the banking industry, to be completed within 12 months, to be paid for by the banks, and that any such inquiry should provide an interim report and recommendations, by the end of 2012, covering the lessons learnt from the scandal of manipulation of the LIBOR.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to debate the following motion:
“That, in the opinion of this House, a joint committee of the two Houses ought to be established into professional standards in the banking industry.”
Ed Balls
I rise to open this very important debate, and to support a motion that has been tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and in those of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for North Down (Lady Hermon). Five separate parties in the House—the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Green party—have all supported the case for an independent and judge-led public inquiry.
This is a vital moment for our banking and financial services industries, for our economy, and for the reputation of this Parliament. We must today decide how to respond to the massive public anger that has erupted over the past week throughout our country, families and businesses large and small following the revelations of lying and market manipulation which have been exposed at Barclays and which we expect to spread more widely, and of the mis-selling of interest rate derivatives to thousands of small businesses. Those revelations will have also deeply dismayed and angered ordinary bank employees in London and across the country who work hard every day and do vital jobs, and who now see the reputation of their profession undermined by the shocking irresponsibility of a few. There is anger and incomprehension at the fact that traders and executives should behave in such a self-interested and duplicitous way, seemingly without any reckoning or proper punishment.
Ed Balls
I will give way in a moment.
That sense of outrage comes on top of a deep and wide public discontent at the huge price that our economy and economies around the world have paid as a result of the gross banking irresponsibility in the run-up to the financial crisis. That price can be measured in billions of pounds in loans gone and debts written off, but it is also felt in the everyday lives of citizens in jobs lost, small businesses gone bankrupt, and living standards undermined. With our economy now back in recession and bank lending to small businesses still falling, it is being felt now—last week, this week, and in the months to come. Trust in our banks is in tatters.
Ed Balls
I will give way in a moment, when I have finished my introductory remarks.
The public rightly want answers and actions to prevent this from happening again, but above all they want reassurance that it is not one law for the many, one price paid by the many, and another, softer option for the rich and powerful.
Ed Balls
I will give way in a moment.
We need a change not just in laws and practices, but in ethics, culture and responsibility. We need a lasting consensus for the future. Today, in the House, we have a very serious task ahead of us: we have to decide how best that change can be achieved. The way in which we respond will have long-term consequences for the future of banking, for our economy, and also—I say this to Members on both sides of the House—for public trust in this Parliament. We all have a responsibility to get this right together.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the time when he was the City Minister in the last Government? What action did he take to review the regulatory situation, and did he take any action against the manipulation of LIBOR?
Ed Balls
As the hon. Gentleman will know—because I said this yesterday—at no point at any time when I was an adviser or City Minister was it suggested to me by the Financial Services Authority, the Treasury, the Bank of England, or anyone in the House that there was any reason to doubt the integrity of the LIBOR market. The facts came to light only subsequently, and they are now being properly investigated. I hope that that serves as a full answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
This is a very important point, which goes to the heart of the issue of trust. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as far as he knows, no other Minister at either No. 10 or the Treasury spoke to the Bank of England about LIBOR during his time in office?
Ed Balls
Here we go again, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reason we advocate an open public inquiry, judge-led, is precisely in order to get to the bottom of all these things.
Given the direction in which the debate is now going, before I set out the arguments before us today let me just say this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The cheap, partisan and desperate way in which he and his aides have conducted themselves in recent days does him no good; it demeans the office that he holds; and, most important, it makes it harder for us to achieve the lasting consensus that we need.
I have to say that what we have seen in the last few days makes the case more eloquently than any speech that I could deliver, or any speech that any of us could deliver, for an independent, arm’s length public inquiry to elevate this debate above the deeply partisan tone set by the Chancellor and his colleagues. As for the false personal accusations that the Chancellor has made against me, not on the basis of any evidence but purely in the hope of political advantage, he said yesterday—[Interruption.] Members should listen to this.
The Chancellor said yesterday that I was “clearly involved” in communicating with the Bank of England and Barclays in October 2008 concerning the LIBOR market, a claim that his aides repeat. He made that utterly baseless accusation before any proper investigation, before any witnesses had been called and before any papers had been examined. He did not say it to an inquiry; he said it yesterday to The Spectator. If he has any evidence, he should produce it now, in the House. [Interruption.] If he will not—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Please can we calm the debate? This is an important debate, and we do not need shouting across the Chamber in that fashion. [Interruption.] Order! Do you understand? Stop it. Let us take the heat out of the debate now, and stop the calling.
Ed Balls
The allegation made about me yesterday in The Spectator is utterly untrue. At no point did I have any communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr Paul Tucker, at any time when I was an adviser, a Minister, or subsequently a Cabinet Minister, and I had no discussion at any time with anyone about the LIBOR market and its operation. [Interruption.] It is not for me to provide the proof; it is for the Chancellor to prove his allegation. If he has any evidence, he should produce it now, in the House. I will take an intervention now. [Interruption.] If the Chancellor will not provide the evidence now, he needs to stand up at the Dispatch Box now, and withdraw this utterly false allegation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
In the last 48 hours we have discovered two things: first, there is the report commissioned by UBS that Baroness Vadera now says she saw and commented upon; secondly, we have learned from the personal account of Bob Diamond’s telephone call with Paul Tucker that senior figures in Whitehall contacted Paul Tucker, and Bob Diamond said in his evidence to the Treasury Committee that they were Ministers. In the last 24 hours, we have had the shadow Chancellor say it might have been Treasury Ministers at the time, and we have had the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer say they definitely were not from the Treasury, but maybe from elsewhere in Government. Will the shadow Chancellor explain what Labour’s involvement was? Who were the Ministers? Who had the conversation? Who were the senior figures? Let him answer for his time in office.
Ed Balls
The House and the public will judge the integrity of a Chancellor who cannot defend here what he whispers to The Spectator magazine. He has no evidence, and he knows it, because what he said is not true, and he knew that too.
Let me read out what he said to The Spectator. He said:
“They were clearly involved…That’s Ed Balls, by the way.”
That is the allegation; it is utterly false and untrue.
I say again to the Chancellor that he should either present the evidence or withdraw the allegation about me right now. I have to say that the sight of a Chancellor who says one thing to the press but cannot defend himself in Parliament is embarrassing to that office.
Mr Osborne
The former chief executive of Barclays said this yesterday to the Treasury Committee. He said what Paul Tucker
“was trying to tell me was, ‘Bob, there are Ministers in Whitehall who are hearing that Barclays is always high. That could lead to the impression that you are not funding yourself.’”
Does the shadow Chancellor know who those Ministers were?
Ed Balls
I am very sorry, but we cannot have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who behaves in this way. He made an utterly personal allegation about me. He said:
“They were clearly involved…That’s Ed Balls, by the way.”
I have said unequivocally that that is utterly untrue. The Chancellor should either provide the evidence or withdraw the allegation. We should not have to wait for an inquiry for the Chancellor to withdraw a false allegation made about me, which he has no evidence for, and which he knows is utterly untrue.
I have to say that the Chancellor’s behaviour will appal the public, who, rightly in my view, are unpersuaded that any of us—any of this generation of politicians, regulators and bankers—are currently rising to the challenge and putting right the wrongs for which they are paying a heavy price.
Ed Balls
I will not give way now.
The reality is that we must all admit that regulation should have been tougher, including those who argued for less regulation. I say to the Chancellor that I will await, and press for, his withdrawal and apology day after day until I get it. All of us on both sides of this House need to show a little more humility, including the Chancellor—and the Prime Minister, too.
I am more than willing to attend an inquiry and answer any questions. What the public will ask about this Chancellor and this Prime Minister as they listen to this debate is, why are they not prepared to do the same in the public interest? That is the question they will ask.
Let me turn to the motion. The Government have three declared objections to a judicial public inquiry: scope, speed and form. Let me take each in turn. First, on scope, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor argue that we have already had the Vickers commission on banking, which reported last September, and now the Financial Services Authority will report. They say we do not need to have a more broad-based inquiry that, in their view, will lead to more uncertainty. “Get on with it,” they say, and it is right that there are a number of important questions that need to be asked about the LIBOR scandal, not least why, when this market was investigated by the British Bankers Association in 2008, the then chair, now Lord Stephen Green, gave it a clean bill of health. We need to look at these issues, including, if the Treasury and the BBA urged tougher regulation when they discussed LIBOR on 5 March 2012, when the Financial Secretary was asked the next day in Committee whether we needed a change in law, why did he say no? These are important questions that need to be addressed.
The issues go much wider, however. A member of the Vickers commission said earlier this week that
“banks, as presently constituted and managed, cannot be trusted to perform any publicly important function, against the perceived interests of their staff. Today’s banks represent the incarnation of profit-seeking behaviour taken to its logical limits, in which the only question asked by senior staff is not what is their duty or their responsibility, but what can they get away with.”
That is what a Vickers commission member says.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Given all the banking scandals to which my right hon. Friend has alluded, how will the banks be able to play a fundamental and trustworthy role in the economic growth and future of this country without our having an independent judge-led inquiry?
Ed Balls
That is a very important point. Banks play a very important role in our economy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on our retail and global wholesale banking industry. It would be very dangerous to take risks with that industry and those jobs. It makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I say to the Chancellor, and those who use the importance of our financial services industry as an argument against a broad-based inquiry, that they badly under-estimate both public anger and what needs to be done, because banking is a profession which above all needs trust, and that trust is currently badly undermined.
The Chancellor said earlier this week:
“We know what went wrong”.—[Official Report, 2 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 613.]
When the public hear that, I do not think they believe him. That is the problem. In the light of recent events, when they find out that the Government have decided, against the recommendation of Sir John Vickers, to allow complex derivatives inside the retail bank ring fence, they think, “Well, could this allow the appalling mis-selling to happen again?”
Let me quote to the House the comments of Mr Martin Wolf, a member of the Vickers commission, who was asked last week whether he agreed that any sort of derivative should not be sold to a retail bank. He was asked whether they should be kept separate, and he replied:
“We wanted to separate them completely and the Government has gone back on that and we think that is really quite dangerous. It leads to the very serious risk of mis-selling which we have seen has been a constant theme of the relationship between retail banks and relatively inexperienced, uninformed clients.”
That is right, and that is why a LIBOR inquiry is not enough. We need to look at these Vickers issues as well.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor may know that a constituent of mine is a former Labour Treasury Minister whom I unseated at the last election. For her sake, if not for mine, will he tell us who were the Ministers Bob Diamond was referring to?
Ed Balls
We return to the smears of the Chancellor and his aides. We have had answers to that question from the City Minister at the time, the Chancellor and Shriti Vadera. I have asked the Chancellor to provide the evidence or withdraw and apologise, and he cannot. That says quite a lot about the Treasury team that he leads.
It is our view that a comprehensive review of the whole culture of banking must start with the conduct of bankers and traders, look at the institutions in which they operate, and cascade outwards into the rules, corporate governance, industry approaches and regulatory and legal frameworks in which banks have done business in past decades. There are many important, searching questions that we need to answer, and the only way to answer them—I have them here, but for reasons of time I will not go through them all—is through the broad-based inquiry that we need, not a narrow, LIBOR-based inquiry.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it was a mistake to set up the tripartite regulatory structure, in which everyone and no one seems to have been responsible? He does not seem to know which part of his Government was doing what.
Ed Balls
When the Conservatives gave reasons in Parliament at the time for opposing the establishment of the new regulator, did they talk about the tripartite system? The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was the lead on this issue at the time, said in 1999:
“Our concerns about the Bill may be said to fall into two general areas. The first is the very wide power still vested in the FSA and the danger that any concentrated executive power can lead to abuse.”
We know all about that from this Chancellor and his reforms.
“The second is the danger of over-regulation, with consequential damage to the United Kingdom’s position.” —[Official Report, 28 June 1999; Vol.334, c. 44.]
Perhaps the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) needs to go back and read the Hansard of the time.
The Government’s second objection to a full judicial inquiry is one of speed. As the Prime Minister said on Monday—
Ed Balls
I need to make some progress. This is a very important issue and others want to speak. I have taken a number of interventions. I have to say, I am still waiting for the intervention that I want—the apology from the Chancellor. [Interruption.]
The Government’s second objection to a full judicial inquiry is one of speed. On Monday, the Prime Minister said that we need to just get on with it. We agree. We need to move ahead as quickly as possible. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has proposed a two-stage process for a judge-led review. Stage one: an immediate review into LIBOR and derivatives. Start now, conclude by Christmas, establish it immediately, meet through the summer—five days a week, if necessary—and without any need to stop for the summer recess. Then, there is a second stage, to be finished within 12 months from now, looking into the wider issues of banking practice that we have identified. That is a timetable that past inquiries have shown can be delivered.
Ed Balls
I am not going to take an intervention from that hon. Gentleman.
While we need speed, we also need the inquiry to be thorough and genuinely cathartic, and to succeed in rebuilding public trust and confidence, or else we risk being back here again.
The third argument the Government employ is one of form: that, compared to a full judicial inquiry, a parliamentary inquiry can do the job just as well in less time, and with less cost. We do not believe that that argument holds water, but more important, it does not take on board the scale of the task ahead.
Ed Balls
The hon. Lady should listen before she concludes whether to support our motion later on.
First, all the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal suggests that only a judge-led inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005—[Interruption.] Every time that Members interrupt me mid-sentence, I just conclude that I am not going to take their interventions. Why do you not listen and have some respect for this House and our debates? Have some respect for the arguments being made.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Balls
I will make the point and then take the intervention.
First, all the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should listen—unless he is composing his apology. We should consider the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal and all the deliberations we see in, for example, the very important report on the details and reality of Select Committees and coercive powers, entitled “Select Committees and Coercive Powers—Clarity or Confusion?”, from the Constitution Society. All the experience shows that only a judge-led inquiry can have the necessary power to compel witnesses to attend and ensure the production—
Ed Balls
I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention, but I will make the point on powers first. I will do this in a proper way, Mr Deputy Speaker.
All the recent experience is that only a judge-led inquiry can have the necessary power to compel witnesses to attend and to ensure the production of documents, with powers of enforcement that make it a criminal offence to fail to comply—under section 35 of the relevant legislation, the penalty is 51 weeks or a £1,000 fine—or High Court powers of enforcement for contempt of court, under section 36. The problem is that Select Committees, in the modern legal world, just do not have the same powers in law to force witnesses to attend or to give evidence on oath, and nor do they have the necessary sanctions. The last time Parliament—
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Balls
No. I will take the intervention from the Attorney-General next, thank you.
The last time Parliament imposed a fine for contempt of court was before the great fire of London in 1666. The last time a member of the public was imprisoned for contempt was before the Boer war. Select Committees do not have these powers.
The Attorney-General
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I intervene on one key point. It is clear from what he says that he desires that the preliminary part of his judicially led inquiry should produce recommendations on the lessons to be learned from the scandal of the manipulation of LIBOR as quickly as possible and by the end of the year. The question whether there is to be a criminal investigation is not in my hands or, indeed, those of anybody in this House. The idea that such an inquiry can be run in tandem with a criminal investigation is, I am afraid, impossible.
Ed Balls
We know that this proposal was cobbled together over the course of Monday. I wonder whether the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had the opportunity to consult the Attorney-General before they made this proposal. If we cannot have a judge-led inquiry until the criminal prosecution has been done, how can we possibly have a parliamentary inquiry? Exactly the same argument was made—
Ed Balls
In a second. I am still waiting for the Chancellor to make his intervention.
The second point is that exactly the same argument was made in the case of phone hacking—that we could not have the inquiry until the criminal prosecutions had been done. But that is not what has happened with the Leveson report.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not the whole point about having a judge-led inquiry that judges are perfectly used to circumventing—making sure they go round the corners, so that they do not prejudice any criminal investigation? For that matter, all the serious evidence that has appeared in the public domain from phone hacking has come from the civil courts, through the Norwich pharmacal process, or from the judge requiring a statement of truth from all those providing evidence.
Ed Balls
My hon. Friend is right, and I fear that the Attorney-General has just completely destroyed the basis of his own Government’s parliamentary inquiry. We know from experience that when the subject of a public inquiry overlaps with the prospect of criminal charges and trials, only a judge has the legal skills and credibility to conduct that inquiry without crossing the line of what is acceptable. That is what Lord Leveson showed and that is what parliamentary inquiries have been unable to do on phone hacking.
The Attorney-General
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. So far as the Leveson inquiry is concerned, that question was recognised at the time that it was set up. It is for that reason that it was split in two. Lord Justice Leveson has been at great pains to avoid interfering with the process, but the process contemplated in the motion tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and others envisages, as I read it, that the part of the inquiry dealing with the scandal of manipulation should take place at once. I have made the point as to why I think that that is extremely difficult.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised a second point, which was that that argument could also apply to referring the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If I may say so, he is correct in that. It could present such a difficulty, but I note that there is no prescriptive timetable laid down for the working of the Joint Committee and I have no doubt—[Interruption.] I am sure that despite parliamentary privilege the Joint Committee will have to adapt to any criminal investigation or inquiry that takes place. However, that makes no difference to the fact that, as drafted, the right hon. Gentleman’s motion appears to me to have a fundamental problem associated with it.
Ed Balls
I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points and I only wish the Prime Minister would talk to his own legal adviser. As far as I can see, the Attorney-General has entirely torpedoed the inquiry, which we were told yesterday would conclude by Christmas. If he is saying that the inquiry can take longer in order to deal with the issue of criminal charges, what does that make of the Prime Minister’s argument that the only reason for doing it this way was to do it faster? It is utterly incoherent. I am not saying in any way that the Attorney-General is being incoherent—it is just the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who have completely lost their grip on this whole process.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legal advice that we seem to have heard on the hoof just now casts a whole new light on the debate? The Government’s argument all week for a Joint Committee of both Houses has been that it could proceed with its work quickly, whereas we have just heard an argument suggesting that precisely the same objections as the Attorney-General made to our proposals could be made to the Government’s proposals.
Ed Balls
It is no surprise that the Chancellor has gone completely white as he sits on the Front Bench. Let us be honest: he did not consult the Culture Secretary on a tax on churches; he did not consult the Transport Secretary on a U-turn on fuel; and he did not consult the Law Officers on the inquiry—
Ed Balls
I have to say that there would be no point taking an intervention from the part-time Chancellor on this point, as he clearly does not have a clue what is going on. The confusion is that the timetable that we have set down for our first-stage judicial inquiry is exactly the same as that which the Government announced for their parliamentary inquiry. If it is too short for one, how can it be the right length for the other? More than that, my argument was that when we are discussing complex issues that require fine legal judgment, the idea that judges would make that fine legal judgment in a worse way than a parliamentary Committee is nonsensical. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done a very great service to this House. I had four objections to the form of the inquiry, but it has been torpedoed while I am only halfway through.
I have a feeling that the Attorney-General’s interventions might have completely killed off the parliamentary inquiry, but there are two more reasons why it is a bad idea.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I point out that this is a time-limited debate and a substantial number of Members wish to contribute. All the noise and the number of interventions will mean that several Members will be disappointed. May we please hear Ed Balls in silence?
Mr Cash
I am extremely grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way. On the question of the alternatives of a Select Committee and a judicial inquiry, it is perfectly clear that we can make any necessary adjustments through our Standing Orders on such issues as taking evidence on oath, for example. I will seek to explain that in more detail if I get the opportunity to make a speech.
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman has proposed that a QC could advise the Committee; perhaps he will make that proposal later. Those important points take us down the road towards the judicial inquiry. The problem is—and this is my third objection—that experience shows that only a judge-led inquiry can ensure the necessary forensic cross-examination of witnesses, prevent witnesses from avoiding answering key questions that are important for establishing the truth and, in particular, avoid blanket refusals to answer questions on grounds of legal advice. I would be happy to take an intervention from the Attorney-General on this point, because we have seen it happen in parliamentary hearings.
The argument is that a witness before a parliamentary inquiry can say on legal advice that they will not answer a question, but in a judge-led inquiry the judge has the ability to explain to the witness why answering the question in the particular form set by him according to his legal judgment will not cross the line. Unless a judge is properly testing the boundary between self-incrimination and the answers that must be given for a proper inquiry, we cannot make progress. That would be doubly the case with the prospect of criminal investigations, which might take some years down the track. On the question of witnesses not incriminating themselves, it seems to me that the evidence shows—perhaps the Attorney-General will correct me—that it is impossible for a parliamentary inquiry to call any witness who might be implicated in the LIBOR scandal without the witness saying, “On legal advice, I will say nothing.” The inquiry cannot work like that. Only a judge can sort this out.
Damian Collins
Does the shadow Chancellor accept that a Select Committee can ask a witness to release information covered by client-attorney privilege, as the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport did in the phone hacking inquiry? That information cannot be requested by a public inquiry because it is covered by the same remit as a civil court. A parliamentary inquiry can request and receive information that a public inquiry cannot and, in the case of the phone hacking inquiry, that led to the production of the most significant information of the entire inquiry.
Ed Balls
All my experience—and there are many Members on both sides of the House who have more detailed experience than I have—is that Select Committees find it much harder than a judge-led inquiry to secure the release of necessary and essential documents and, more importantly, to find out which documents they should ask for in the first place.
Finally, and above all in our view—and I note that the Attorney-General did not correct me on the calling of witnesses, but perhaps he will advise the Chancellor for his speech—only a judge-led inquiry can truly persuade the public that the inquiry is properly independent and objective and, given the Chancellor’s behaviour, non-partisan.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Is it not clear that the Government, stacked with bankers and payrolled by the bankers, are frightened of a judge-led inquiry because they want to cover up the scandal?
Ed Balls
My hon. Friend makes his point in his own particular way. I was saying that the inquiry needed to be independent, objective and non-partisan, so I understand his concerns. I would probably also understand his bafflement about why the Chancellor and Prime Minister seem to be unwilling to appear before a public inquiry looking at wider issues of culture.
Simon Hughes
My constituents—like, I think, the right hon. Gentleman’s—want this mess in the banking industry to be cleared up as quickly as possible. They want laws to be changed—and there are two chances this year—they want people to be taken to court and, if necessary, sent to prison; and they want it now, not some time in future. Why can we not get on with it, rather than delay the action that has been delayed for too long?
The Attorney-General
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I put to him earlier. He says he wishes to have a judge-led inquiry, and he gives some perfectly good reasons—[Interruption.] These are matters of debate. He has been quite unable to explain how, in the light of the fact that at the same time there is a desire for a criminal investigation, those two can be reconciled. He has come to the Dispatch Box to criticise the Government for their approach, so that is a question he ought to be capable of answering, or receiving legal advice on how to answer it. It is a real problem, not an artificial or concocted one, and he has not provided that answer at all.
Ed Balls
It is a pity not only that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not consulted before the inquiry was announced but that he is not leading for the Government today instead of the part-time Chancellor, as that would probably be a more enlightening debate. Let me repeat exactly what I said in my speech. When the subject—[Interruption.] I am going to answer the question, but it does not help if the Treasury Whip shouts from a sedentary position. If he wants to join the Chancellor and withdraw his allegations he can do so.
Let me repeat my answer to the question. When the subject of the public inquiry overlaps with the prospect of criminal charges and trials, it is our judgment that only a judge, as we have seen in the Leveson inquiry, has the legal skills and credibility to conduct that wider inquiry without crossing the acceptable line. A parliamentary Committee will never be able to do so. The reality is that there will be stalemate—witnesses not answering questions, documents not revealed—and we will not make progress. We adopted the Government’s timetable for the first stage of the inquiry, because we thought they had thought it through, but it turns out that they had not done so.
Ed Balls
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment—[Interruption.] There is no need for any favours like that to get me to—[Laughter.]
Let me summarise the case for a public inquiry as simply as I can by quoting from a higher authority. Let me quote from a call for an independent public inquiry on banking:
“Is not the truth that in Britain people are losing their homes, small businesses are closing, unemployment is rising and manufacturing output is falling again and that, by refusing to hold a public inquiry, the Prime Minister is yet again demonstrating that he cannot provide the change people want?”—[Official Report, 5 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 247.]
I could not have put it better myself. But those are not my words. They are directly from the right hon. Member for Witney—Cameron direct. I checked this morning and the quote is still on the Conservative party website, under the headline, “Why won’t the Prime Minister hold a public enquiry?” It even has a photo of the current Prime Minister there for us all to see. He said we need an independent inquiry. That was on 5 November 2008. How things have changed, for all of us. I know that the Prime Minister makes such a virtue of consistency, so I hope he will join us in the Lobby tonight for another Treasury U-turn—they just keep coming for this Chancellor.
Let me turn to the votes. I have set out three concerns—scope, speed and form—which we are told are the reasons the Government object to our proposal for an independent judge-led inquiry. I have explained why we do not believe that any of these arguments stack up—to be honest, the Attorney-General has been very helpful in this regard. We urge hon. Members to think hard. I said I would take an intervention from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), so I will take that first.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor, a fine Nottingham boy, and I am enjoying his contribution. We all agree that this is an outrageous scandal and we need to get to the bottom of it, but does he not also agree that out there in the real world people want to hear a little acceptance of responsibility and a little contrition from him, because he was a member of the Government when this scandal happened and it was on his watch?
Ed Balls
Despite trying to intervene, the hon. Lady has been listening to my speech and so will have heard me say that mistakes were made and humility is needed from Members on both sides of the House. As a former barrister, she will also know, as will many Members on both sides of the House who have worked in the law, accounting or financial services, that the highest standards of integrity not only are necessary, but need to be seen if they are to command public confidence. That is the argument for our inquiry. I ask her and hon. Members on both sides of the House to think hard and support our motion today to put the banking industry on a sound footing.
We hope to win the argument this afternoon. We aim to persuade hon. Members to vote with us and support our motion. We recognise that the Government have a majority and intend to whip the vote tonight. If our motion is unsuccessful and the Government railroad through a parliamentary inquiry—they may be reconsidering now—we will continue to make the case for a full judicial inquiry. If further banking scandals emerge, as I fear they will, people will look back at this moment and conclude that the Government failed to grasp the opportunity.
Gordon Banks
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, perhaps, the activity and findings of the Leveson commission are the grounds for the Government’s reluctance to join the Opposition in the Lobby this afternoon to vote for a full, judge-led, public inquiry?
Ed Balls
I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend’s question; I do know that the open process of the Leveson inquiry has been challenging to Members on both sides of the House—but rightly so. If questions are raised, in an open judicial inquiry, about past regulatory decisions, that is right and proper; if they are raised about decisions made in the mid-1980s, that is right and proper; and if questions are raised about the financing of political parties and where donations comes from, that is right and proper as well.
We should have no fear of answering those questions, but, from what we have heard from Government Front Benchers, we know that the Government have no intention of holding such a full, open, public inquiry; they want an inquiry on the shortest timetable and in the narrowest way. The Attorney-General has told us why one cannot be held on a timetable for completion by Christmas, but let me remind him what the Prime Minister said on Monday:
“The Vickers Bill—the banking Bill—will be introduced in the House of Commons in January, and I want an inquiry to be completed by then so that we can take the best of that inquiry and put it in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 590.]
But if that inquiry cannot do the job, how will we end up with the best? We will end up with the worst of all worlds.
The Attorney-General
It would help if the right hon. Gentleman listened, rather than getting carried away with his own rhetoric. There is nothing to prevent this House, if it wishes, from setting up a joint inquiry of both Houses into—[Interruption.] The “banking industry” is the way it was described, and that is what is in the motion—[Interruption.] Yes, to incorporate LIBOR—I make that quite clear.
Obviously, and this point applies as much to the right hon. Gentleman’s motion as to any other step, if there are criminal investigations or inquiries, any inquiry by this House will have to be managed in the light of that process—[Interruption.] Yes, it will have to be managed, because it must not interfere with that process. But, for the Government to support a motion for a judicial inquiry that cannot even get off the ground if criminal inquiries and investigations are taking place would be a rather odd thing for the Government to do, because such an inquiry could not happen.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake in relation to the motion—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order, Mr Balls.
Order means order for Front Benchers on the Government side as well. I understand that the Attorney-General is trying to be helpful to the House, but he has made several interventions, they have all been too long and I hope that we can move on now with the debate.
Chris Bryant
The Attorney-General is not right on that issue. It is far more dangerous to have a parliamentary inquiry, because article 9 of the Bill of Rights says that no court can impeach a proceeding in Parliament. Some witnesses who might want to evade justice might, therefore, choose to come to a parliamentary Committee to say things, so that they do not then get sued in court.
Ed Balls
I understand the points made by Members on both sides of the House.
Before I summarise, let me say to the Attorney-General that I have tried to listen very carefully to his contributions. There have been many of them, all have been helpful and constructive and they have helped us to understand the challenges that we face rather better than we had done on the basis of the Chancellor’s contributions in recent days.
Let me say also that, if at any point I misrepresent the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I will always in an honourable way correct the record in this House—not, as we now know, a standard of behaviour that we can expect from the Chancellor in this House.
To summarise, the argument goes as follows. Point one is that the Attorney-General does not believe that it is possible to have a proper, thorough investigation into all the details of the LIBOR market by the end of the year. I understand that; I hear his argument. Our argument is that a judge-led inquiry gives us a better chance of having an investigation into something legally sensitive than a parliamentary inquiry. If one is true and two is true, that means that the Government’s proposal for a parliamentary inquiry by the end of this year is defunct—dead, torpedoed, gone.
That is why, rather than intervening again, the Attorney-General should speak to the Chancellor, call the Prime Minister—wherever he is—and say that they should withdraw these motions, get to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is baked rather than half baked. [Hon. Members: “Plan B!”] Plan B.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that even if the House votes for establishing a Joint Committee, Her Majesty’s official Opposition will continue to press for a judicial inquiry. Will he clarify that? Does that mean that he will be discouraging Members from the Labour party, be they in either House, from co-operating with and taking part in a Joint Committee? Is he going to wreck it?
Ed Balls
I was going to come to the votes at this point. I have said that we will vote for our motion. I have said that if that fails, we will continue to press for a full public inquiry because we think that that is the only way to do this properly. The Attorney-General probably agrees with us on that matter now.
Tonight, the Leader of the Opposition and I will vote against the Government’s proposal for a limited parliamentary inquiry, for the reasons I have set out, as currently proposed. On the basis of the contributions we have now heard from the Government Front Bench, the inquiry is not even remotely up to the task ahead.
In answer to the question, put by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), about what we would do if we lost the second motion, on the basis of the debate so far and the Attorney-General’s comments, I say to all Members of the House, including the Liberal Democrats, that they should think hard, do the right thing, ignore the Whips and vote for the inquiry that will work.
Ed Balls
I am not going to give way because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I have.
We want to win this vote for the British people. Set against the depths of malpractice that have now been revealed and the scale of the challenge that we face, our strong belief is that the Government’s decision to reject our call for an independent and judge-led public inquiry is a grave mistake. Only an independent and open public inquiry—not politicians investigating bankers—can rebuild trust. That is our view, and the view of many Opposition Members. The doubters have been persuaded by the Attorney-General. Members on the Government Benches should change their mind—withdraw the motion, do the right thing and let us sort this out once and for all.
Mr Osborne
Can I just say this before I give way to anyone? Let us bring the argument to an end today. Let us decide. To enable that decision to happen—and this is why, in Government time, the shadow Chancellor opened this debate—we have adopted a procedure without precedent, which is to allow two motions, one from the Opposition and one from the Government, to be debated today. I hope that although the argument has been a fierce one, and I have no doubt that the partisan attacks will continue—
Mr Osborne
I will give way to the shadow Chancellor if he answers this question for me: if the House votes for a joint parliamentary inquiry, will the Labour party take part in it? If not, he will be blocking any inquiry into this banking scandal.
Ed Balls
My advice to the Chancellor, on the basis of the Attorney-General’s comments, is to stop the speech, withdraw the motion, and come back next week when he has done the homework. But my intervention is on the partisan tone. Let me ask him this: will he provide the evidence to substantiate the allegations—false allegations—that he made about me yesterday, or will he now withdraw and apologise for those false and untrue allegations? Has he the integrity to do so?
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman was the City Minister during the LIBOR scandal. We know, as I said in my interventions on him earlier, that, first, Baroness Vadera admits that she saw the report that was commissioned on the LIBOR rate; and secondly, that Bob Diamond said that Ministers in Whitehall were putting the bank under pressure through the Bank of England. If he is able to tell me—[Interruption.] I am answering his question. I have said that he has questions to answer. [Interruption.] That is precisely what I have said. I want to know the answer to this question: which Labour Ministers were involved?
Mr Osborne
Let me say exactly what I said, and then the right hon. Gentleman can answer my question. I said, “They were clearly involved”, and we now have that from two sources—[Interruption.]
Mr Osborne
I have never seen Labour Members and the shadow Chancellor so rattled about their time in office. We had one hour of an attempt by the former City Minister to defend his conduct when he was in office and these scandals happened, and we have still not had from him a simple apology for what he did—his failure of regulation. He should get up and say not, “We were all involved in this; there were Governments all over the world doing it”, but “I was the City Minister and I am sorry.”
Ed Balls
The Chancellor knows what I have said in the past. I have said that people from all parts of the House regret what happened. I have apologised to this House before. I have apologised to the House for the failures of regulation. I am asking the Chancellor to apologise now. He has impugned my integrity. He made the allegation in The Spectator and all over the newspapers that:
“They were clearly involved”
in the 2008 LIBOR scandal. He said:
“That’s Ed Balls, by the way.”
I was named. He has made an allegation, but he has no evidence because there is not any, because it is untrue. He knew that there was no evidence because he knew that it was untrue, and he said it anyway because that is the character of the man. I am saying to him that if he has any integrity, on this narrow point of his allegation, he should stand up now, withdraw the allegation and apologise. And he won’t.
Mr Osborne
The idea that I am going to take lessons in integrity from a man who smeared his way through 13 years of Labour government and who half the people who served with him think was a disgrace in his post is another thing entirely. Let him redeem himself today by not blocking an inquiry into what happened under the last Government. Take part in the inquiry. You are not prepared to do that.
Ed Balls
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have won their vote. The Chair of the Treasury Committee will now chair a narrow inquiry based on the remit that he set out in the House this afternoon. The Opposition respect the hon. Gentleman and will work with him, but we have some real concerns about the membership and secretariat of the Joint Committee, which we hope he will address.
This afternoon’s debate, and particularly the devastating interventions of the Attorney-General, exposed serious questions about the scope of the inquiry—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The House must listen to this point of order in silence.
Ed Balls
It is clear that there is a wider set of questions, on matters from mis-selling to small businesses to the wider culture and practices of the banking industry, that are outside the scope of the inquiry set out by the Chair of the Treasury Committee and, in our view, cannot be properly addressed by any parliamentary Committee. In our view, the case for a full, open, judge-led public inquiry is stronger at the end of this afternoon, and we will continue to press that case.
It is our view that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made a grave error of judgment, and any time future scandals emerge, people will ask why we in this country are not having the full, independent public inquiry that our country needs.
Mr George Osborne
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Opposition’s agreement in principle, as I take it, to take part in a joint parliamentary inquiry into what has happened. I suggest that the usual channels now work on the membership of that inquiry and that the Front-Bench teams and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) discuss any concerns that Opposition Front Benchers have about resourcing, the secretariat and so on. What everyone now wants to do is get a resolution that all parties can agree on, which we can bring to the House before it rises, so that we can get the Joint Committee up and running, get to the bottom of what went wrong in our banking industry and with the LIBOR scandal, and make the changes needed to legislation to ensure that it never happens again. I would welcome the Opposition’s support in doing that.
LIBOR (FSA Investigation)
Ed Balls Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Everything will be slowed up, the more noise there is. I do not care what the exhortation is for people to create a wall of noise. That should not and must not happen in this Chamber. If we end up being much slower because people are mindlessly bawling their heads off from either side of the House, we will be slower. I do not think the public will be much impressed by that sort of behaviour from either side of the House.
Ed Balls
The systematic lying, concealment and arrogant abuse of power revealed by the FSA report into LIBOR market fixing at Barclays bank is truly shocking. As one member of the Vickers commission said this morning:
“Today’s banks represent the incarnation of profit-seeking behaviour taken to its logical limits, in which the only question asked by senior staff is not what is their duty or their responsibility, but what they can get away with.”
Set against the depths of that malpractice, which has now been revealed, and the scale of the challenge we face in reforming and rebuilding trust in British banking, I am afraid that the Government’s decision to reject Labour’s call for an independent and judge-led public inquiry into the culture and practice of banking in our country just will not do. Just as in phone hacking or the Iraq war, so in banking: only with an independent, forensic and open public inquiry—not politicians investigating bankers—can we rebuild trust for the future.
Banks play a vital role in our economy—they lend to businesses, small and large; they help people to save and borrow for mortgages; and many hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK are dependent on our retail and our global wholesale banking industries—but banking is a profession that depends on trust, and that trust is currently in tatters. The public are rightly baffled and angry about what they learned was happening at Barclays. We have learned that senior bank executives knew about and covered up deliberate market fixing and manipulation of key interest rates. When ordinary people break the law and defraud the taxpayer or the benefit system, they face criminal penalties and jail sentences; the same should apply to bank executives. The public are now rightly asking who they can trust to clear up this mess and sort this industry out.
First, on the issue of criminal penalties, the Chancellor says he will bring forward amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords—amendments that he did not introduce in the House of Commons. Will he confirm that the powers he needs for an FSA investigation to be followed by a criminal investigation are actually on the statute book and that it is the job of the Serious Fraud Office to take forward those investigations, using the powers in the Fraud Act 2006? Will he confirm that section 2 of the 2006 Act already makes it a criminal offence to make “false representation” for personal gain and that it is an offence under section 4 to “abuse” a position of trust for financial gain? Will the Chancellor explain whether such investigations are already under way, and whether it is true that the Serious Fraud Office initially refused to act because of inadequate resources? There is now a real suspicion that the Chancellor’s new conversion to law making is just a smokescreen for the failure of prosecutors to get a grip.
Secondly, on the LIBOR market, we welcome the limited investigation that the Chancellor rather belatedly announced at the weekend. Self-regulation of this market goes back to the 1980s, but will the Chancellor explain why in March, as this scandal started to emerge, the Financial Secretary denied there was an issue and dismissed our calls for investigation and tougher regulation? When he was asked in the Committee whether he had a view on what needed to be done, he replied with one word: “No.” Given how much the Chancellor is now placing his faith in the Bank of England as the leading financial regulator in the future, will he assure us that the Bank did not turn a blind eye to the manipulation of the LIBOR survey?
However, the problems of culture and ethics that have now been uncovered are wider than the LIBOR market. The public are angry, and they rightly ask whether this generation of politicians, regulators and banks can put right the wrongs for which they are paying a heavy price. I say “this generation of politicians” because we must all admit that regulation should have been tougher, and we should all learn the lessons of an open and independent judicial inquiry. For my part—[Interruption.] For my part, I regret—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. What we cannot have are individual Members who feel that their contributions from a sedentary position are somehow in a different category from the sedentary interventions of other Members. We do not need them. What we need is a bit of respectful listening to what is said by the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor.
Ed Balls
For my part, I regret—as do Ministers and central bankers around the world—that we did not see the financial crisis building and take action, but let me ask the Chancellor this question: do he and the Prime Minister regret consistently attacking us in the Labour Government for being too tough in our approach to regulation, saying that it would undermine City effectiveness? That is what they said.
As for the future of regulation more widely, let me ask the Chancellor another question. Having rightly commissioned the Vickers report, does he now regret coming to the House a few weeks ago and saying that he was watering down its recommendations and weakening leverage ratios, and arguing, shockingly in the light of recent events, that complex derivatives—the very derivatives that led to the appalling mis-selling of interest rate swaps to small firms—should be inside the retail bank ring fence, contrary to the recommendation of Sir John Vickers? Surely that is one U-turn that we need from the Chancellor.
We all have a responsibility to do better in future, to reform our banking industry and to rebuild trust, but we do not believe that another parliamentary inquiry can do the job, just as we rejected that approach in relation to phone-hacking. The Chancellor said today that we did not need more “navel-gazing when we know what has gone wrong.”
How complacent is that? If the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so confident that their approach is right, why do they not put two options to a vote, and let the House decide? Labour Members will vote for an independent and open public inquiry, not an inadequate and weak plan cobbled together over the course of this morning. The independent inquiry is what our constituents want, and it is the only way to achieve a lasting consensus on reforms for the future.
Mr Osborne
There was one question that dared not speak its name: who was the City Minister when the LIBOR scandal happened? Who? Put your hand up if you were the City Minister when the LIBOR scandal happened.
The shadow Chancellor was not here on Thursday, so he has had days to think about it, but there was not one word of apology for what happened when he was in charge of regulating the City. He blamed central bankers around the world and he blamed the Opposition of the day, but he did not take personal responsibility for the time he was regulating the City when the LIBOR scandal started, and that is why he will not be listened to seriously until he does. Indeed, we need to know whether he knew anything of what was going on. Did he express any concern about the LIBOR rate? When he was in the Cabinet and Gordon Brown, the right hon. Member for wherever it is, was Prime Minister, was he concerned about the LIBOR rate and Barclays? We shall find out in due course.
Let me now deal with the specific questions asked by the shadow Chancellor. He said that the criminal penalties exist in legislation. As I said, the Serious Fraud Office—which is totally independent of politicians, and rightly so—is looking at the law and seeing what it can do, but Lord Turner himself has said that the Financial Services Authority does not have adequate criminal powers. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, but let me read to them something a member of their own Front-Bench team has said. Lord Tunnicliffe said this:
“Criminal sanctions are extraordinarily difficult to bring about because of the burden of criminal law. It is fair to say though that you can’t find them in the current legislation. And, yes, OK, it’s our fault. I hope my leaders don’t hear me say that.”
That is a member of the Labour Front-Bench team clearly placing the blame on the late Labour Government, of which the shadow Chancellor was the principal economic adviser. That is the problem with the current law, and we are seeking an urgent review in order to amend it and make sure we can deal with the problem.
The shadow Chancellor talks about our acting belatedly in respect of regulation. He had 13 years in which to regulate properly, yet in the space of two years we are changing the entire system of regulation by getting rid of the FSA and introducing a change to the structure of banking. That is happening because of the recommendations from the committee that we set up under John Vickers, and we have still not heard from the shadow Chancellor whether he supports John Vickers’ proposals. He often gets up and says what is wrong with them—[Interruption.] Well, if he has just welcomed them for the first time, that is very welcome, but he goes out of his way not to do so on other occasions.
The shadow Chancellor then said that, somehow, a parliamentary inquiry would be wrong and that I was complacent to say we knew what had gone wrong. This is what my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said at the weekend, however:
“We know what went wrong and we don’t need a costly inquiry to tell us”,
so that is not just the view of the current Chancellor.
I hope the shadow Chancellor reconsiders his position. We will have good people from both sides of this House and the House of Lords to consider the matter. We will put the motion to the House. Let us have a serious inquiry, but let us have an inquiry that comes to a conclusion within a measurably short period so that we can amend the law that will be going before the House next year. That is the sensible step to take. In the meantime, the shadow Chancellor should reflect on his role and his responsibility, as the City Minister who let Northern Rock sell those dodgy mortgages, as the City Minister who let RBS explode, and as the City Minister who presided when the LIBOR scandal began.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Balls Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is very welcome news that inflation is now falling. That will help families. The Government want to help families further by keeping those mortgage costs very low, and the only way we can do that is by having a credible plan for the public finances. We have also frozen the council tax, increased the personal allowance, with another big increase next year, and as my hon. Friend has just heard, frozen fuel duty for the second year running, so that his constituents in Lancashire and people across the whole country can be helped at this difficult economic time.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor told the “Today” programme a few weeks ago that the only thing worse than listening is not listening. Well, he certainly listened to the “Today” programme this morning. We have now had U-turns on pasties, churches, charities, caravans and skips, and today a U-turn on fuel, which we welcome. It would be interesting to know at what point this morning the decision was made, and whether the Transport Secretary was even told. Now that the Chancellor is on a roll, will he also do a U-turn on the millionaires’ tax cut and rescind the granny tax rise? There is a vote next week. Will he join us in the Lobby or will he do the U-turn first?
Mr Osborne
It is quite difficult for a Conservative Chancellor to do a U-turn on a Labour policy. I am not sure the Opposition is entirely joined up—or maybe it is because the right hon. Gentleman waited half an hour to come in. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), sitting directly behind him, who is a Labour Whip, has just tweeted on the fuel duty announcement that it is a deferred rise and cannot improve the economy. If the Labour Whip thinks it will not improve the economy, what does the shadow Chancellor think it will do?
Ed Balls
It is about time this part-time, U-turning Chancellor took some responsibility for his own decisions. What is the reality? A double-dip recession, borrowing rising, family budgets under pressure—his plan has failed. Is it not time he listened to the Opposition and admitted that austerity has failed? Is it not time he did another U-time and adopted Labour’s five-point plan for growth and jobs?
Mr Osborne
We enjoyed reading recently that the right hon. Gentleman has been spending thousands of pounds on commissioning private opinion research about why his economic message is not getting through. It was leaked to the papers, saying that he was seen as “uninspiring” and “untrustworthy”. He had no need to spend thousands of pounds on that. He can ask Labour MPs and get that opinion of the shadow Chancellor. He has had two years to come up with a credible economic policy, and two years to apologise for his part in putting Britain into the economic mess that we are taking Britain out of.
Banking Reform
Ed Balls Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by thanking the Minister for notice of today’s Treasury statement on the vital issue of banking reform. The reforms are so important that—we read in the newspapers—they are to be the subject of the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech tonight.
The Minister said the statement was serious, and I am sure Opposition Members and Government Members will all be thinking: “Why is the Chancellor not making it?” Should I call him the part-time Chancellor? He was able to spend the afternoon on the Government Bench yesterday to support the embattled Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, but he is seemingly unwilling, despite media trails, to come to the House today. What is the Chancellor running scared of? Is he too busy this week on his other duties to be the Chancellor, or is the truth that he is ducking answering the questions because—once again—he is not on top of the details of his brief?
There are questions to answer. Last September, the Opposition welcomed the report by Sir John Vickers and the Independent Commission on Banking, which sets out radically to reshape our banking industry. We urged the Government to implement the reforms without foot-dragging or watering them down, but I fear that watering down is where we are heading. Is not the truth that, having failed to secure international agreement in Brussels and Basel on tougher international banking standards, the Chancellor is now being forced to water down and fudge the Vickers reforms?
That is one area in which the Opposition would not welcome a U-turn from the Chancellor. The Minister will say in his response that I am wrong, and that there is no U-turn, just as Ministers said we were wrong to spot U-turns on pasties, caravans, churches, charities and skips, but a pattern is emerging with this Chancellor. He declares, “This Chancellor is not for turning,” and then sends along a hapless junior Minister to do the job for him. We can ask the Exchequer Secretary all about that.
If the Chancellor is not watering down Vickers, why will he not agree to the Opposition’s request to ask the Vickers commission to come back this autumn and publish an independent report on progress in implementing its reforms in the past 12 months? The Chancellor could publish that report alongside the autumn statement, when he will have to come to the House to explain why his failing economic plan has plunged our economy back into recession. That is one area where a U-turn would be warmly welcome.
On progress against the three tests for banking reform, first, to protect taxpayers, the Opposition support the Vickers conclusion that banking services should be safeguarded and ring-fenced. In November 2006, the Minister told the House that
“light-touch…regulation is in the interests of the”
financial
“sector globally.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 995.]
May I ask this champion of light-touch regulation to explain why, contrary to Vickers, it is right to allow retail banks inside the ring fence to trade in derivatives and hedging products, which are among the controversial interest rate swap products that many small firms complain they were mis-sold in recent years? I have said many times that the previous Government got bank regulation wrong. Those on the Government Front Bench also got it wrong, but they are getting it wrong again. The Chancellor should be careful about leaving the door too wide open.
The Opposition agree with the Vickers view that we need a minimum leverage ratio and higher equity requirements for larger ring-fenced banks, but will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor is setting a lower minimum leverage ratio than the Vickers commission recommended, and that he is departing from the recommendation that larger banks should have tougher rules?
The Chancellor implied in December that he would mandate those services specifically within the ring fence to provide clarity and certainty. Can the Minister explain why the Chancellor is now delegating that detailed task to the Bank of England—the regulator—and not putting it in primary legislation? Will the Chancellor—or, on his behalf, the Minister—commit to inserting in the Bill the requirement that large UK retail banks should have equity capital of at least 10%? Is not the real problem that the Chancellor is not in the driving seat on this agenda?
That takes me to our second test, on international agreements. In December, I asked the Chancellor whether he was confident that he would get the necessary international and EU-wide agreements to implement Vickers. The answer is that he has not succeeded in delivering that. The Chancellor himself said at last month’s ECOFIN, when he refused to agree to an EU statement on capital requirements, that they would
“make me look like an idiot”—
a muttering idiot perhaps! Two weeks later, though, he signed up to exactly the same deal. The problem is that there remains the risk that he will be overruled by the EU.
There is a wider problem. We agree with the Chancellor that the UK should not contribute to a eurozone-wide deposit insurance scheme, but the Commission’s proposals go much wider and are said to be intended to apply to the 27. The Chancellor gives the impression that he has a veto on the plans, so that they would apply only to the 17. Will the Minister tell us, then, whether the proposals for Europe-wide banking supervision will be subject to qualified majority voting under existing treaties, and will he tell us how the Chancellor is doing in building alliances across the EU to ensure that British interests are properly protected and that Vickers is implemented?
That brings me to my final test: the impact on growth and the wider economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I hope that the shadow Chancellor will be brief, given how much of the time allocation he has already taken.
Ed Balls
I shall put my questions briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only regret that I cannot put these questions to the Chancellor because he has not turned up.
We have consistently urged the Chancellor to take a swifter approach to competition and to have a growth objective for the new Financial Policy Committee. We and the CBI agree on that, but the Chancellor will not listen. The problem is that in those circumstances Vickers implementation could lead to a continuing impact on business lending at the expense of small businesses.
To conclude, we set three tests for Vickers, but on each one the Government are failing, causing uncertainty where we need confidence, lending and growth. They are failing to take the lead on reforms in the EU, and fudging and watering down proper taxpayer protection. We need a Chancellor who can do the economics, grip the detail and work full time on the job—someone who at least turns up in the House and answers questions on this vital issue.
Mr Hoban
The shadow Chancellor was the Minister who stood by when bank balance sheets ballooned and banks took on these risks. He did nothing to tackle that problem. As the Governor of the Bank of England said in May:
“With the benefit of hindsight, we should have shouted from the rooftops that a system had been built in which banks were too important to fail, that banks had grown too quickly and borrowed too much, and that so-called ‘light-touch’ regulation hadn't prevented any of this.”
Only two politicians were quoted in the FSA’s report on the failure of RBS as champions of light-touch regulation—the shadow Chancellor and the former Prime Minister, the architects and cheerleaders of light-touch regulation at home and abroad. They should recognise the costs that the British Government and economy have borne as a consequence of banking failure— £140 billion between 2007 and 2009. We must recognise the need for a stable banking system to ensure stable and sustainable growth in the UK economy.
As Sir John Vickers proposed, we are ring-fencing retail banking, imposing the higher capital standards required by him and introducing a binding minimum leverage ratio on banks. The shadow Chancellor asked some questions in the mix of his lengthy contribution, but he did not apologise for his role in the banking crisis. However, I shall respond to his tests. First, we have achieved international agreement with our European partners to implement Vickers through capital requirements directive 4 and capital requirements regulation. We have achieved that goal and are working to introduce a binding leverage ratio with international partners. Vickers can, therefore, be implemented through the existing international regulatory framework.
The shadow Chancellor talked about a banking union. Banking union is a product of the requirement for fiscal union and will be needed to promote stability in the eurozone, but that will not flow through to non-eurozone EU member states—an important distinction to make. Banking union is about the sustainability of the eurozone, not the EU.
The shadow Chancellor asked about hedging. Sir John Vickers recognised the need to ensure that retail customers and small businesses could access the hedging products necessary to manage risk on their balance sheets. However, we have gone beyond Vickers in imposing higher and tighter standards on how derivatives can be managed by a ring-fenced bank.
I have set out a clear programme of reform that responds to the mistakes of the previous Government and ensures a stable and sustainable banking system that underpins, not undermines, economic growth.
Jobs and Growth
Ed Balls Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
‘but regrets that whilst the UK economy is in recession, long-term unemployment is at its highest level since 1996 and one million young people are out of work the Gracious Speech contains no measures to address this crisis; notes that Britain will pay a long-term price for a prolonged period of slow growth and high unemployment; further notes that France, Germany and the Eurozone as a whole are not in recession while in the USA, where the Government has to date taken a more balanced approach to support economic recovery, the economy is now one per cent bigger than before the global financial crisis, while the UK economy is now 4.3 per cent smaller; recognises the criticism expressed by business leaders that your Government has not come forward with an adequate plan to boost economic growth; believes that cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast is self-defeating as slow growth and higher unemployment means that your Government is now set to borrow £150 billion more than planned; and calls on your Government to introduce a fair and balanced deficit plan, with measures to stimulate economic growth and job creation which are essential to get the deficit down, including a tax on bank bonuses to fund a guaranteed job for every young person out of work for more than a year, a temporary cut in VAT, a national insurance holiday for small firms taking on extra workers, and bringing forward infrastructure investment to strengthen the economy for the long-term.’.
It is a great honour to open the final day of this Queen’s Speech debate, and to do so in this very special diamond jubilee year. But I have to say how disappointing it is, with our economy now pushed into recession, the eurozone crisis deepening, and businesses and families up and down the country crying out for a plan for jobs and growth, that we are today debating what is widely regarded to be a disappointing and directionless Queen’s Speech programme from a Tory-led coalition that has, frankly, lost its way.
What a change this is from two years ago. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in the debate on the Government’s first Queen’s Speech, four weeks after the general election and two weeks before his first Budget, he was bursting with hubris. He was so sure of himself that, when the then shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), and many other hon. Members on this side of the House asked whether the Chancellor planned to bring forward immediate and deep tax rises and said that spending cuts might choke off the recovery, the Chancellor dismissed those concerns out of hand. He was confident that his plan would
“deal with our debts, set our country on a brighter economic course and show that we are all in this together.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 206.]
What a difference two years makes.
“We are all in this together”: we do not hear that line any more—not from a Chancellor whose Budget decisions have hit middle and lower-income families harder than those on the highest incomes. His Budget decisions have hit women harder than men and families with children harder still. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms that his Budgets have been regressive and will see child poverty rise. Last month’s omnishambles of a Budget included decisions to raise taxes on caravans, charity donations, church repairs, pensioners, pasties and petrol, but to have a top-rate tax cut only for the richest—a £3 billion tax cut, which will give 14,000 of the richest people in our society earning over £1 million an average tax cut of £40,000 a year. Millions are paying more in tax to pay for a tax cut for millionaires. No wonder the Chancellor and the Prime Minister can no longer bring themselves to say that “We are all in this together”.
Let me remind the Chancellor of what the chair of the Conservative Association in Harlow said last week:
“The voters are disillusioned with Cameron himself. They don’t like the fact that he did not keep the 50p tax. People feel he is not working for them.”
Apparently, the Chancellor was advised precisely not to cut the top rate by his own Downing street pollster, Mr Andrew Cooper. Let me say to the Chancellor that, in my experience, disregarding the wise advice of someone called Cooper can be a very dangerous course to take.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s closeness to the new French President Mr Hollande and given that the shadow Chancellor mentioned the top rate of tax, does he think that the dash for growth will be enhanced or hindered by the introduction of a 75p top rate?
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I am listening with some perplexity to how the shadow Chancellor referred to the Budget as one for rich people, because I have calculated that in my Watford constituency, nearly 4,000 people have been taken completely out of tax by the increase in the personal allowance. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the Chancellor on such an excellent measure.
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman might need to go back to the drawing board because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that last month’s measures will, as a result of cuts to tax credits, mean tax rises for the average family with children in his constituency—and that is even before taking the rise in VAT into account and it does take the personal allowance rises into account. The fact is that taxes have gone up for low-income families, they are going up for the middle classes, and it is only the highest earners in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that are getting the tax cuts.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Is it not true—the shadow Chancellor is a straightforward man—that the previous Government set out a trap for this Government, not really wishing for a rise to 50%, but carrying it out just before the last election in a crude attempt to catch this Government out?
Ed Balls
I am always a close student of the hon. Gentleman, and I noted that he did not advocate the reversal of the 50p rate as the right thing to do, so I am not sure what his constituents thought about that. I recently read some of his other remarks. In March, for example, the hon. Gentleman said:
“The Chancellor has been consistently advised of the importance of macro-measures to stimulate growth in the private sector. So why are these not being implemented?”
Why, indeed? He continued by saying that the Prime Minister
“needs to wake up and smell the coffee. This is a major setback for the Conservative party.”
That is quite right.
Ed Balls
The right thing to do after the financial crisis was to do things in a fair way. That is why the 50p tax rate was right at the time. The reason why the Budget has gone down so badly is that lowering the 50p rate was seen as so unfair. The hon. Gentleman was right just a few days ago when he said in his blog that the Government have a communication problem and are over-confident. He said:
“The manner in which Downing Street fires out policies and expects us to agree and applaud without question certainly smacks of a sense of superiority.”
Quite right again—a very interesting remark.
Ed Balls
Let me make some more progress; I will allow more interventions in a few moments.
As for the Chancellor’s promise of “a brighter economic future”, it is not just that his economic plan has been so unfair, but that it has failed completely. On the recovery being secured, our economy has not only flatlined for 18 months, but has contracted. As to a private sector-led recovery, confidence is down, business investment has been revised down and since June last year, we have lost more than 100,000 public sector jobs, but the private sector has created only half that number of private sector jobs. As for the Chancellor’s absurd claim that Britain is a safe haven, we are in recession. What kind of safe haven is that?
The Chancellor will try to claim today that it is the eurozone crisis that has blown him so badly off course. I will return to the eurozone crisis in a moment, but trying to blame that crisis for the UK recession flies in the face of the facts. This is what the Chancellor said in his autumn statement:
“if the rest of Europe heads into recession, it may prove hard to avoid one here in the UK.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 799.]
But it is the eurozone that has avoided recession and the UK that has plunged back into it. [Interruption.] Even The Sun—not known as a big supporter of Labour, but a big supporter of the Chancellor over the last few years—wrote only yesterday—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Government Front-Bench Members can do a little better by listening to what is being said. I am sure that they will want to listen to the shadow Chancellor in the same way that they will want Members to listen to the Chancellor later.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
While the shadow Chancellor is busy doing down the British economy, will he not equally recognise the fact that in areas like Great Yarmouth, which Labour left as one of the most deprived in the country, we are seeing hundreds of millions of pounds of investment from and in local companies, put in by organisations and countries like Japan, so that the jobs are growing in the enterprise zones?
Ed Balls
In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, youth long-term unemployment is rising, long-term unemployment generally is rising, families’ taxes are rising and only the top-rate taxpayers are seeing a tax cut. Investment was revised down last year and the year before that, and our economy is in recession because of the policies that the hon. Gentleman continues to support. I think he owes his constituents an apology.
What should we make of setting our economy on a brighter economic course and the observation that “We are all in this together.” Even on his claim that he would “deal with our debts”, the Chancellor is failing that test, too. No growth since the spending review and rising long-term unemployment mean that he is now borrowing £150 billion more than he planned. This is more borrowing than in the plans he inherited, and his pledge to balance the books by 2015 is in tatters. At the end of this Parliament, our national debt will not be lower than the level he inherited, but higher than the level he inherited.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor has used many quotes in his opening speech, so let us see whether he agrees with this one from Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, whom Labour appointed. He said that this Government demonstrated a
“textbook response to the situation”—
the economic mess we inherited from the previous Government.
Ed Balls
The Governor of the Bank of England was confident two years ago that the Chancellor was making the right calls on the pace of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, it has turned out that the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have both got that wrong. We had gone back into recession even before the eurozone crisis. Let us consider recent entries from the website of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). They show him “criticising cuts” to “local health centres”, and reveal his wish to “Save Moira Fire Station” and for the “replacement” of local bus services. I am not sure that all that is entirely on message. Yet the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are still clinging to the view that they are right and everyone else is wrong. In his speech today, the Prime Minister seemed to be trying to claim that the choice between austerity and growth was a myth. [Interruption.] I think that the Chancellor should listen to this, because I am about to explain why he has got it so badly wrong. He should listen and learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, listen and learn.
If the Prime Minister meant that we should not choose between policies for growth and policies for deficit reduction, he was right. I agree. In fact, that is exactly what Lord Mandelson and I argued in our joint article in Monday’s Guardian. We argued for action now to boost jobs and growth, alongside tough medium-term deficit reduction plans. But that is not what the Prime Minister was saying today. He and his Chancellor are still clinging to the mistaken and, now, increasingly discredited view that cutting spending and raising taxes faster to cut the deficit is the route to economic growth, when all the evidence is to the contrary. Trying to cut the deficit faster has not boosted growth in recession; it has choked off confidence, unemployment is up, and we are borrowing more than he planned, not less. If the Prime Minister is really claiming that he is on the right course, he is even more complacent and out of touch than I thought.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that economic policy is about credibility? Would he not have more credibility if he told us how he would cost his so-called plan for jobs and growth?
Ed Balls
Credibility is about getting things right, not about getting them wrong. We were told that we were out of the danger zone and that the recovery had been secured, but what has happened? Plan A failed in Britain and in the eurozone too, and it is the very plan that the Chancellor has been urging on us. What did he say to The Daily Telegraph in August last year? He said:
“Britain is leading the way out of this crisis”,
and
“The eurozone must follow our lead and act decisively”.
The Prime Minister is off to the G8 summit this weekend. The only countries in recession that will be represented there are Italy and Britain. How are we leading the way? The fact is that the austerity policies that are failing in Europe are the very same policies that have failed in Britain, and which the British Government have been urging the German Government to urge the eurozone to stick with. That is the reality.
Opposition Members have consistently argued that it will not work for all countries to try to reduce their deficits at the same time, that tough medium-term plans to cut the deficit will work only if Governments also put in place a plan for jobs and growth, and that a time when a global hurricane is brewing is precisely not the time at which to rip out the foundations of the house here in Britain.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate the compliment from the right hon. Gentleman, who has often demonstrated that he does not have a sound grip on economics. He is continuing to say something that I do not think is correct: he is continuing to compare austerity policies with growth policies. Does he not accept that growth is an outcome, which all policies are intended to achieve, and will he have the honesty to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and cost his plans?
Ed Balls
The right course is to take a balanced approach that combines medium-term deficit reduction with getting jobs and growth moving. The problem with austerity is that it chokes off jobs and growth and ends up costing more in spending, more in unemployment and more in borrowing. We have set out a clear alternative. We have said “Repeat the bank bonus tax, and use the money to create jobs.” We have said “Rip up the failed national insurance cut introduced by the Chancellor, and use the money for a tax cut for small businesses.” We have said “Yes, cut VAT by £12 billion for a year to get the economy moving.” We have not said how many shovel-ready infrastructure projects can be launched, because we do not have the details.
The Prime Minister says that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis, but unless you grow, your debts get bigger and your deficits get worse. That is what the Chancellor has proved over the last two years. It is not only the Labour party that is advancing that argument. Only last week, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund said:
“We know that fiscal austerity holds back growth and the effects are worse in downturns... so the right pace is essential”.
Even the head of the European Central Bank is now pressing for a jobs and growth plan.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor must wake up to the fact that our economy has not grown on their watch for a year and a half. Instead of trying to divert the blame for their failure and using the eurozone as an excuse for Britain's problems, they must admit that they got it wrong—that they gave the eurozone the wrong advice—and start pushing for the right solution to the eurozone crisis. I agree that there should be a proper role for the European Central Bank and a greater emphasis on fiscal burden-sharing, but there should also be a change of course on austerity, because only a balanced plan that puts jobs and growth first will succeed in getting the deficit down. When the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and even the United States are urging policies for jobs and growth, this Chancellor and this Prime Minister are looking increasingly isolated and out on a limb.
Penny Mordaunt
Since April 2010, in my constituency the number of job vacancies has risen by 316%, the number of apprenticeships has doubled, the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants has fallen by 12%, and the number of claimants aged between 18 and 24 has fallen by 15%. Those are the facts. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give Ministers any credit for that, but will he stop talking down the businesses and entrepreneurs in Portsmouth who have made it possible?
Ed Balls
I am sure that the hon. Lady and I can agree on one thing. There has been a 130% rise in long-term youth unemployment—unemployment lasting more than six months—in her constituency over the last year. [Interruption.] It is up by 129% in her constituency, and that is really worrying. Constituencies of Members on both sides of the House saw the damage done by long-term youth unemployment in the 1980s, and we should act to prevent a repeat of that rather than being complacent.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Twice so far in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the problems in the UK are nothing to do with the eurozone. Will he therefore disown the remarks of the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who said last week that the eurozone was having a major impact on British businesses and British families?
Ed Balls
Calm down. Calm down, or we will start a debate about Remploy.
Of course the eurozone crisis is very serious and very dangerous for our economy and for all economies. That is why our Prime Minister and Chancellor should be at the table leading debates about the solution rather than carping on the sidelines, sitting like a teenager in the front of the car with headphones on while the crisis happens around them.
These are the facts. Last year, eurozone growth was faster than British growth and was revised up. Our growth was slower and was revised down. Last year, it was only the eurozone that prevented the British economy from going into recession earlier. Our domestic economy, excluding exports, was actually in recession for pretty much all of last year. The eurozone economy was growing when the British economy went into recession. Even today, the eurozone is not in recession and the British economy is. [Interruption.] The welfare Secretary has made a career of blaming Europe for everything that goes wrong in Britain, but I am afraid that this is a recession made in Downing street.
The Chancellor will also try to claim today—[Interruption.] Calm down. The Chancellor will also try to claim today that all this pain will be worth it in the end. However, we are paying a long-term price for the failures that we now see around us—the national debt higher; living standards down; long-term youth unemployment becoming entrenched; more than 24,000 companies out of business since he became Chancellor; investment plans cancelled or diverted overseas; our economy weaker; and capacity lost. I very much fear that when the economy finally recovers, as it eventually will, it will be more prone to inflationary pressures than otherwise, because of the failures of this Chancellor.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned exports. Does he not welcome the growth in exports and the new jobs being created at Jaguar Land Rover, Vauxhall, Nissan and Toyota, to mention but a few? Is he not sorry, and should he not say sorry to the British public, that 1.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost in this country on his party’s watch? Companies such as LDV, Peugeot and Rover closed down manufacturing while he was in government.
Ed Balls
Of course I welcome the improvements that we have seen in manufacturing, and I think we could have a cross-party consensus that the previous Government’s decision to set up the Automotive Council and provide long-term strategic leadership has made a huge difference to the prospects for car investment in our country. Nissan; Rover—we made great progress. That progress is being continued, and we should all welcome that. However, I have to say, for all the complacency that we just heard in that intervention, is it any wonder that business organisations—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Would my right hon. Friend include the car scrappage scheme as well?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You have done very well so far, Mr Jones. Don’t overstep it.
Ed Balls
The economy is in recession and they hate it, and so do business organisations up and down the country. Is it any wonder that businesses have been so disappointed and upset by the Queen’s Speech of just two weeks ago? Let me quote the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce:
“There is a big black hole when it comes to aiding business to create enterprise, generate wealth and grow.”
Quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There will be some parts of the Queen’s Speech dealing with Treasury matters which we will support. On banking reform, we will look forward to supporting legislation to strengthen capital ratios and promote competition, although it is now nine months since the final report of the Vickers commission, and we are still waiting for a response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, after 18 months of flatlining, with our economy now in recession and business investment depressed, the question I ask—it is the question British business is asking too—is this. Where is the plan in the Queen’s Speech to restore confidence and promote business investment and jobs in Britain?
With net lending falling month on month—according to the Bank of England it has been down every month for over two years now—where is the action in the Queen’s Speech to promote small business lending? With youth unemployment now at a record high, and with yesterday’s figures confirming that long-term unemployment among young people is still rising, where is the legislation in the Queen’s Speech to get our young people back to work? Where is the legislation to repeat the bank bonus tax to fund a jobs guarantee for young people—or, for that matter, to cut taxes for small businesses hiring new workers, or to help the construction sector with a temporary cut in VAT? Our economy has ground to a halt and our construction sector is in great distress. Where is the plan to support jobs and growth by bringing forward new infrastructure projects? Where is the legislation to make our economy stronger and fairer for the future? Stronger corporate governance; a business investment bank; progress on high-speed rail; reforms in our universities to promote innovation—all are completely absent from this Queen’s Speech.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that young people in Scotland are facing the double whammy of a coalition Government who are complacent and a Scottish National party Government who are cutting further education funding?
Ed Balls
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns at the lack of a youth jobs plan in Scotland. We can understand that from the Conservatives, because they abolished the future jobs fund, but people will find it hard to understand why the Scottish National party Administration in Scotland have failed so woefully to do anything to tackle the challenge of youth unemployment.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman referred to investment in this country in manufacturing. Does he agree with General Motors, which has specifically thanked the Government for making the UK a great place to invest in manufacturing and business? Indeed, General Motors has announced today that it will be manufacturing the new Vauxhall Astra at Ellesmere Port, very close to my constituency, providing 700 new jobs and securing thousands of jobs in the supply line. Does he welcome that?
Ed Balls
I will make some progress.
Is it not the reality that we have an economy in recession and a Queen’s Speech that entirely failed to deliver on growth, jobs and investment? The Chancellor’s economic strategy is now in tatters, but have we had any admission in recent weeks that he got it wrong? We have had none. The Foreign Secretary says that British business needs to work harder, but it is this Chancellor who needs to work harder to get things right.
Ed Balls
I will not give way.
Let me say this to the Chancellor. We all know why he has wanted to be a part-time Chancellor: in order to make room for his other role as the Conservative party’s part-time political strategist. But with the Budget botched, the Queen’s Speech a flop, the local elections a disaster for his party, and the economy back in recession, it is now dawning on all of us—I think it is dawning on many Conservative Members too—that he is not a very good Chancellor and not a very good political strategist either. Although should we really be surprised? This is the Chancellor who claimed to his colleagues that hiring Andy Coulson would be a triumph; that taking away child benefit from middle-incomes families would be a masterstroke; that saying that the economy was “out of the danger zone” was smart forecasting; and that cutting the top rate of tax in this Budget would wrong-foot Labour, and outfox his leadership rival Boris Johnson too. With judgment like that, perhaps the Conservative party does not need just a new political strategist; perhaps it needs a new Chancellor too.
Ed Balls
No, I will not.
What an eight weeks it has been! The transformation has been startling, with the Chancellor’s long-held dreams turning to dust. He dreamed that his brilliant economic plan would bring unprecedented growth and finally deliver a Tory majority in 2015, and that a grateful Prime Minister would then stand aside, as he was finally cheered into 10 Downing street. How far away those dreams seem now!
Ed Balls
I will not.
Last month YouGov asked 1,800 people whether they thought the Chancellor was very well suited to the job of Prime Minister. How many said yes? Just 1% did—18 people only. The question we must ask is this: who on earth were those 18 people? After that Budget, they must be vegan, health freak, cyclist millionaires who passionately hate cars, pasties and caravan holidays, and think that pensioners get a cushy deal. So, other than Steve Hilton, who are the other 17? Is this not the truth: that the Chancellor’s plan has failed, and he has been exposed not simply as unfair and out of touch, but as incompetent? This part-time Chancellor needs a new economic plan for jobs and growth. This part-time political strategist urgently needs a relaunch for him and for the Prime Minister. This Queen’s Speech delivers neither a new economic plan, nor an urgent relaunch. He and the Prime Minister should go back to the drawing board and think again.
Mr Osborne
Of course we want to help people who are working part time to work full time, if that is what they wish, but four fifths of the people who have taken part-time jobs wanted to work part time. We absolutely must help the fifth who want to turn them into full-time jobs, but I would hope that the hon. Lady, too, welcomes the good news that unemployment has fallen.
Mr Osborne
As I was explaining, four fifths of those who work part-time are getting the part-time work they want. The right hon. Gentleman should celebrate the fact that 400,000 more people are employed than was the case two years ago. Why not get up and welcome that?
If the Opposition’s argument is that we need to do even more, I agree. In the past six weeks alone, we have opened 24 enterprise zones around the country, cut businesses tax to one of the lowest rates in the world, increased support for small business research and development, reformed employment law in the teeth of Labour opposition to double the period before unfair dismissal claims can be made, reinvigorated the right to buy, launched NewBuy mortgage schemes, awarded ultra-fast broadband grants to 10 of our largest cities, frozen council tax across England, launched a £20 billion national loan guarantee scheme that is already delivering cheaper loans to hundreds and thousands of businesses, and increased the personal allowance to cut tax for 20 million working people and lift 1 million of the lowest paid out of tax altogether, with another 1 million to come. That is just in the past six weeks.
Yes, the Government must work harder and do more. The world does not owe this country a living. We will do that, but we have done a great deal already.
Mr Osborne
This is what we have done for small businesses: we have cut the small companies tax rate, which was going to go up under the plans that we inherited and which the Labour party voted for in the previous Parliament; we have got rid of Labour’s jobs tax; and we have frozen the business rates. We will check the record carefully, of course, but I think that in his speech the shadow Chancellor was advocating an increase in national insurance.
Mr Osborne
When my hon. Friends pressed him to explain how he would pay for his package, he said, “We wanted to see national insurance go up.” If he wants to correct the record, he can tell us whether he wants national insurance to go up to pay for his package.
Ed Balls
The Chancellor allocated £500 million for a national insurance tax cut for new firms that were taking on new workers. It has totally flopped and failed, with very little take-up. I said that we should use that £500 million to help existing small firms to take on new employees—a plan that would work, rather than a plan from this Chancellor that is failing. That says it all.
Mr Osborne
So the short answer is yes, he wants higher national insurance for businesses. How on earth will that help companies in the current economic environment? As I have said, we need to do more. We need to help to get more credit to businesses and to housing and infrastructure. We are going to use Britain’s low interest rates to work for us all and we are going to do more to reform our banking system—the epicentre of what went wrong when he was the City Minister.
Mr Osborne
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that 15,000 businesses have been helped by that scheme. The economic policies that he has drawn up would hurt millions of businesses. What the Labour party wanted and what he campaigned for was an increase in national insurance for all firms and we stopped that.
Mr Osborne
As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is already VAT on caravans towed by cars, but there is a consultation on the change. It finishes tomorrow. It is partly due to the good work of my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who urged longer consultation, that the period was extended. I propose to allow it to finish and then we will set out our response.
Mr Osborne
I will give way once more, but then I want to say something about the eurozone.
Mr Osborne
I have spent the last 35 minutes explaining how I am digging the country out of the hole that the right hon. Gentleman put us into.
Let me say something about the eurozone crisis. When eurozone central bank governors and Finance Ministers openly speculate on the possibility of Greek exit, the genie is out of the bottle. That and the Greek elections make this a perilous time. We are clear about the three steps the eurozone needs to take if its currency is to function properly.
First, countries in the periphery with high deficits and uncompetitive economies need to confront their problems head-on, as Governments in Ireland, Spain and Italy are. We are doing it in Britain too, but the adjustment our country must go through is made easier by loose monetary policy and a flexible exchange rate. The countries of the eurozone do not have that to help them, so the core of the eurozone, and the European Central Bank, need to do more to support demand and share the burden of adjustment.
Of course, ideas such as the project bonds put forward by the new French Government are worthy of serious consideration, but, fundamentally, the German Finance Minister is right when he says that rising wages in his country and increased domestic demand there can play a substantial role.
Secondly, the eurozone needs to follow what I described a year ago as “the remorseless logic” of monetary union that leads to greater fiscal union. As I said in the same interview, forms of collective support and responsibility must be developed. I echoed the view in many eurozone countries when I spoke of the possibility of eurobonds.
Thirdly, all of us in Europe, including the United Kingdom, need to address our continent’s lack of competitiveness. That involves structural reform to welfare, pensions and labour laws, and completing single markets in services and digital. It means all Europeans, including Britons, rediscovering the ambition and the ethic that made our continent the dynamo of the world economy for so many centuries. It is not that dynamo today. As the Prime Minister says in his speech today:
“The eurozone is at a cross-roads. It either has to make up or it is looking at potential break up.”
No one should underestimate the huge risks of the latter, but Britain will be prepared for whatever comes. We are making the necessary contingency plans. We will take the steps needed to secure our economic stability and protect our financial system. Above all, we will go on with the progress we have made in the last two years on reducing the structural deficit, keeping our credibility in the bond markets and keeping our interest rates low.
Mr Osborne
It is over the last two years. But this points to a greater truth: the right hon. Gentleman had 13 years to prove to the country that he had the right policies to run the British economy, and he delivered the greatest economic disaster in this country’s modern history.