Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Ed Balls and Damian Collins

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I think it is a little unfair to tease this Chancellor about what goes on late at night in massage parlours. Perhaps he will correct me and tell me that it was not a massage parlour. I will take an intervention if he would like to clarify it; I cannot remember that chapter in the biography.

According to House of Commons Library figures, a one-earner family—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should listen to the reality of his plans and their impact on hard-working families in our country. According to the Library, a one-earner family on £20,000 a year with two children will be £381 a year worse off in 2013 compared with 2010, even with the personal allowance, because that is outweighed by the hit to tax credits for a working family. This is without taking into account the rise in VAT. By 2015, that family on £20,000 will be £600 a year worse off.

It is not just a case of being worse off under the Tories, but worse off under the Liberal Democrats too. In 16 days’ time, as the Chancellor, with the support of the Business Secretary, rams through the granny tax, the strivers tax and the bedroom tax, he is pressing ahead with a £3 billion tax cut for the very richest people in our country. In two weeks’ time, 13,000 millionaires will get an average tax cut of £100,000 each. Millions are paying more while millionaires get a tax cut.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor is on record as saying that his solution is that we should be borrowing more now. How much more would he borrow on top of what the Chancellor is already borrowing?

[Ed Balls]

I will quote the Business Secretary. Asked on the “Today” programme, “Won’t that mean more borrowing?”, he replied, “But we are borrowing more.” The Government are borrowing more—it is all here in the OBR document. If they had listened to our plan two years ago, the borrowing would be coming down, and it is not.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Debate between Ed Balls and Damian Collins

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.