Charter for Budget Responsibility

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker]

I am well aware of that, but it was necessary in the context of the hideous mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is always the same and this is the essence of the problem: there is no kindness whatsoever in making to those in need attractive promises that subsequently cannot be kept. That is not kind; it is cruel.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the chaos that could be brought about by a lack of fiscal discipline would result in huge uncertainty for public sector workers, who will not be able to rely on their jobs if balanced books are not maintained, because they will lose them? More importantly, for the thousands—possibly millions—of households across the country who were encouraged to pick up an extra £1 trillion-worth of household debt in the Brown bubble in the lead-up to the financial crisis, the uncertainty of unbalanced books could result in much higher interest rates and imported inflation as a result of reduced currency. An enormous amount of pressure would be put on those households as a result of chaos through ill-discipline.

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. He and I sit on the Treasury Committee and we have heard from the Debt Management Office about the factors propping up the current level of borrowing. Not only has borrowing been back-stopped by the Bank of England, but bond market traders are aware of the Chancellor’s and the Government’s intention to balance the books, have confidence in it and, therefore, will keep lending to us. The situation, however, is precarious and the Labour party would put it in danger.

VAT cannot really go up. If it went up further, it would hit the poorest hardest and that would be wrong. On income tax, perhaps Labour would reduce the personal allowance. The truth is that the top 1% already pay a quarter of income tax. How much further can we go? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that the 50p rate was pointless, I think—I will have to check whether that is what he said, but it is pointless. It is an act of spite to pretend that the rich will pay through their income tax; all they will do is adjust their behaviour. We put up capital gains tax and the revenues from it went down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has explained that in detail on his blog.

The truth is that the evidence shows that in this country there is a hard limit to how much the public will pay in taxation. Depending on how we measure GDP, it is somewhere between 35% and 40% of GDP. If we are committed to balancing the books, we have to take overall Government spending down to the level that people will pay in tax, and there is a historical limit.

Labour Members have been rather hysterical about the Government consumption chart, which shows us going back to the 1930s. This is about balancing the books. I believe that Labour Members want to put up capital spending, and debt interest is already forecast to overtake education spending. There is a really tough problem here. The truth is that hysterics on either side of the argument will not do. For example, wealth taxes will not work. Opposition Members seem to think we will get the rich to pay, but Denis Healey said of a wealth tax:

“I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.”

The truth is that there is very little chance of getting out of the mess we are in without taking extremely difficult decisions. Unlike turning around a commercial company, we cannot cut to the bone once and then build back up; reducing the deficit has to be taken gently, and we have done it at an appropriate pace. The Chancellor has the right plan, and I shall certainly back him tonight.

Financial Conduct Authority Redress Scheme

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There have been concerns throughout the process about the level of provision within banks. In view of some of the information provided by the KPMG whistleblower, RBS’s confidence in having a very low level of provision probably justifies its attitude to the review.

Another point about the lack of consistency relates again, unfortunately, to the behaviour of RBS. It has been argued that a good result for a business from the redress scheme is to have a full tear-up of the agreement or to implement a cap rather than a swap. Indeed, it has been argued that a cap would in many cases have been a much better original product. From the detail of many of the caps offered to RBS customers, it transpires that most of them are for 10 years. I do not claim to be an expert, but experts in the field of derivatives and interest rate protection tell me that there is no demand in the marketplace for a 10-year cap. They have challenged RBS to give one example of a 10-year cap that it has sold commercially in the past 10 years, but as yet RBS has not come back with such an example. Yet, time and again when businesses are offered a cap as an alternative product, the cap is for 10 years. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that a 10-year cap is significantly more expensive than a five-year one. That added cost comes out of the redress made available to the relevant businesses. There are therefore questions to be asked about the behaviour of some banks, including RBS, and those questions raise doubts about the consistency of the scheme.

On transparency, I am concerned that the agreement between the banks has not been disclosed. That means that it is very difficult to assess the success or otherwise of an outcome, because we do not know what to measure it against. The agreement has not been made available to the all-party group or the Treasury Committee, but I must ask why, because when the FCA says that it is robustly ensuring that the agreement is maintained, we cannot assess whether that is the case.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Guto Bebb]

I will of course give way to a member of the Treasury Committee.

[Mark Garnier]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done so far. Given that this is the first time that a voluntary scheme has been used, does he agree that full transparency of the whole system is absolutely crucial in ensuring that the scheme can safely be used again in future? Otherwise, there will be long-term fundamental doubt about whether it should ever be used again.

[Guto Bebb]

I could not agree more. I am concerned that some of the banks involved in the scheme now fear that they have played by the rules, while others have not. If there is no transparency on that issue, banks may go into future schemes with the same attitude as RBS’s attitude to this scheme.

We do not have bank-by-bank details on outcomes, so it is very difficult to measure whether they are appropriate. In the same way, there is real concern that the FCA has not fully shared its legal opinion on excluding businesses with embedded swaps from the whole review process. In the briefing that the FCA provided for this debate, it implies that it has fully shared its information on that with the Treasury Committee, but my understanding is that it was willing only to allow a QC acting on the Treasury Committee’s behalf, not its members, to see the information. I do not consider that to be full accountability to Parliament.

I said that I would call on the FCA to consider an appeal process. In view of the revelations about the possible activities of the KPMG reviewers of RBS, there is merit in a proposal made by the all-party group a year and a half ago. All the independent reviewers have been trained to the FCA’s satisfaction, so if an RBS client is unhappy with its outcome it would surely be appropriate to ask another independent reviewer—for example, Deloitte, which acts in relation to HSBC—to review the case. That would not unduly complicate the situation, because the reviewers have been trained by the FCA and have satisfied it as to their expertise. It would give clients a degree of independence if those unhappy with the redress outcome could have all the case notes reviewed by a third party that is independent of the original bank and of its independent reviewer. Will the Economic Secretary consider that request?

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

I agree entirely, and that is why we need a review of the current redress scheme.

My final point, which the Government could respond to positively, concerns the decision by HMRC to tax redress received by businesses. HMRC has decided to treat any redress received as income generated in the year in question, which means that many small businesses will pay tax on that redress at their marginal tax rate. Has HMRC taken seriously the possibility of using extra statutory concession D33, paragraph 11, which states:

“A right of action may be acquired in a situation where it is not possible to identify a separate underlying asset. For example, where a professional adviser has given misleading advice on a tax or other financial matter, or in relation to private or domestic matters…Broadly, when we are looking at capital sums without an underlying asset which fall within paragraph 11 of ESC D33 we are looking at a financial loss, for example compensation for poor professional advice or for mis-selling of financial products.”?

In effect, that means that when the compensation is for bad financial advice or mis-selling a financial product, it should be treated not as income but as a gain for capital gains tax purposes, which would be a fairer resolution. Currently, banks are able to offset any redress paid for their tax purposes, although businesses end up paying tax on any redress they receive. It is unacceptable that the wrongdoers get tax relief while the wronged have to pay tax on their compensation, and I ask the Minister to consider that point.

I wanted to touch on businesses sold in embedded swaps. If the advice from the FCA is comprehensive, I appeal to it to make it public. Those businesses are in limbo. They believe they have a right to be in the redress scheme and are told that legal advice is clear. I call on the FCA to make that advice available so that those businesses know what possibilities they have when trying to resolve their situation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) seems to want to intervene.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful for that prompted intervention. My hon. Friend refers to legal advice given to the FCA, but it is clear that these are unregulated products and therefore the FCA is not addressing them. It could be argued that selling an unregulated product to a non-professional customer is a regulated activity and should be covered by regulated activity rules. There is a lot of confusion about that.

[Guto Bebb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

It is fair and right to acknowledge that the redress scheme has been better than no action whatsoever, but concerns clearly remain. Action is required on consequential losses, and there is no justification for refusing an internal appeals process within the review process. The lack of transparency allows people to make assumptions about the behaviour of banks and the FCA, which is damaging to the financial system, and more transparency would give greater confidence in the way the scheme works. HMRC needs to address the issue of taxing redress paid to businesses with a degree of sympathy that has not so far been shown.

Crucially, allegations about the behaviour of some banks in the scheme should be a cause for concern not just to Members of the House but to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches. The issue must be considered carefully, which is why the motion asks for consideration to be given to the establishment of a review of the current redress scheme. If the regulator is unable to regulate the scheme it has established and make right the wrongs committed by the banks, it is important for the Government to take responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the third of these debates. This is turning into a running series, although I hope that we shall not need a further debate on this matter in the next Parliament because we will have resolved the issue by that time.

Great progress has been made as a result of the huge amount of work that my hon. Friend has done, and it should be recognised that, in many cases, the banks have stepped up to the plate to handle the problems that they have created. However, we have been left with a cohort of claimants who feel that they are not getting the redress they deserve, and I want to concentrate on them today.

When I consider the plight of those businesses that have been mis-sold interest rate hedging products, I have yet to find a victim for whom I do not have enormous sympathy. This appalling scandal has destroyed many people’s lives, including those of people who have not been directly affected. For example, people have found themselves out of a job when their employer went bust as a result of the scandal. Other people have been creditors who could not suffer the cash flow shortfall resulting from banks taking too long to make redress payments, especially consequential loss payments, to the businesses that owed them money.

The scandal’s implications go far beyond the victims who were mis-sold swaps, and it is therefore right that we should consider the regulator’s response. The response of the Financial Conduct Authority is incredibly important, not least because this is one of the first full-blown scandals to which it has had to respond. How the new regulator behaves over this scandal will set a precedent for how it behaves in the future and tell us whether it is fit for purpose.

I want to raise a couple of issues, given that the regulator has opted for a voluntary redress scheme. That in itself is probably not unreasonable, and it gives the banks an opportunity to show how they have changed their culture and responded to the chaos they have caused. However, this is a brand new way of responding to such a crisis, and it must be looked at very carefully. The briefing note that the FCA prepared for this debate states, in the frequently asked questions section, that the voluntary approach is different from previous redress schemes, citing speed in compensation. Speedy outcomes have not been achieved in all cases, however.

It is noteworthy that the regulator cites part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 as a reason for not having to make public the arrangements between itself and the banks. Any new process needs to be fully transparent if there is to be confidence in that process. There is no confidence in this process, and the situation is fundamentally flawed.

[Bob Stewart]

How can anyone possibly think that there should not be full transparency in this sort of activity? I do not understand how the FCA can justify not being transparent about all its dealings.

[Mark Garnier]

I am not sure that the FCA can justify it. The FCA is answerable to Parliament and to the Treasury Committee, and until such time as we can conduct a proper investigation into what it has been up to, how can anyone believe that this is a good system?

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the eventual outcome of this complete lack of transparency is that the FCA will have to revisit this whole process, as it has done relatively recently with payment protection insurance, because so many people have had a very poor deal?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I shall return to that as I progress through my speech.

My first point is that there is little consistency between the banks in how they tackle the problems they have created. One of the FCA’s frequently asked questions is:

“Are the offers consistent between banks?”

Interestingly, its response reads:

“The independent reviewers report regularly to the FCA, both on the judgements they are making and how the banks are performing, and will regularly bring all the independent reviewers together to ensure consistency of approach. The FCA also collects data on the offers being made by each bank and we carefully consider any variances to ensure that the standards are being applied consistently.”

That in itself demonstrates that there is a huge amount of useful information that we are not getting a chance to see. It goes on:

“We also regularly select individual case studies to follow up with banks”.

The FCA is trying to be consistent, but cannot say that it is being consistent. We have heard on many occasions this afternoon about its not being consistent.

My example concerns not one of my constituents but someone else who came to see me and involves how the banks treat businesses that have gone into insolvency. Clearly, any insolvent business will have an insolvency practitioner winding up that business. It is a tragic time, but somebody has to come in and do it. In the event of an insolvency, the banks are involved both as a creditor, as they have lent money to the business in the first place, and as a debtor, as they owe redress and in many cases consequential losses to the business. Some banks behave quite well. HSBC is a reasonably good example and recognises that the insolvency practitioner is duty bound fairly to distribute the assets of an insolvent business to a wide range of creditors. To that end, HSBC will pay what is owed under the redress and consequential loss scheme into the insolvency practitioner’s funds and then put in a bid for what it is owed from the original bank loan. The insolvency practitioner therefore makes a correct and fair assessment of who is owed what, and in some cases HSBC will get back not just less than it lent but less than it would have got back had it done what RBS does.

RBS is a frequent flyer in this debate, so I shall have a go at it, too. I am told that RBS will offset what it owes by way of redress and consequential loss against what it is owed by way of repayment of the loan. Therefore, although it is still owed money by the bankrupt business, it is owed less than it otherwise would have been, and when RBS seeks to limit its losses at the expense of other creditors’ owed money, those creditors will lose money as a result of RBS’s mis-selling. That is just plain wrong.

It is also wrong that some loans have been left outside the redress scheme. Those who took on tailored business loans, otherwise known as hidden or embedded swaps, have had exactly the same financial problem but for a technical reason are outside the regulated arena. Under article 85 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, due to some pretty technical reasoning, if a loan looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks, it is in fact a donkey. Some pretty smart lawyers have looked at that and the inescapable fact is that the legislation was written in a way that allowed many businesses to be mis-sold swaps in an area that is unregulated.

The FCA’s frequently asked questions talk about these so-called commercial loans, stating:

“Commercial loans generally fall outside the regulatory remit of the FCA and we therefore cannot direct the banks to set up a review of these products”.

That might possibly be so, but is not the act of an FCA member’s selling any product to an unsophisticated customer a regulated activity that therefore falls under the FCA’s remit?

[Mr Bellingham]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Many of these businesses are not large concerns—some are SMEs and some are micro-businesses—and one could not describe some of the proprietors as highly sophisticated business people. As far as they were concerned, they were mis-sold these fixed-rate tailored business loans with the hidden swaps attached to them. Some have been dealt with very quickly by the banks, but others have not and the banks have just ignored them completely.

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The point of the regulator, the FCA, is to protect unsophisticated consumers, but it has manifestly let down the consumers who subscribed.

The paragraph in the FCA briefing note continues:

“The FCA has received legal advice supporting this view”—

about article 85. It goes on to say that the Treasury Committee has carried out scrutiny of that advice. I am a member of the Treasury Committee and I think it is worth putting on the record just what that constitutes.

The Treasury Committee asked the regulator on many occasions for sight of the legal advice on these embedded swaps and on many occasions it said no. We asked whether we could send our legal advisers around to have a look at the advice on our behalf, but it continued to say no. We had a public evidence session with the chief executive officer and chairman recently and questioned them about the issue again. The answer they gave was that they were not prepared to let us see the advice as it was confidential. We pressed them on whether we could send our legal team to have a look at it and they answered that they needed space from Parliament to conduct their activities.

The regulator is answerable to Parliament. Although I am sympathetic to the submission that the regulator cannot have every confidential document shown to all hon. Members, who may well then tell the press, the CEO and chairman simply cannot say that they need to be excused one of their most fundamental duties—that of answering to us here in this place. In the end, we pressured them to relent and our legal adviser looked at the advice they had been given, and in fact they were right. But this is a sorry story of the regulator not understanding its duties and its constitutional place as answerable to Parliament.

In any sort of resolution scheme, it is inevitable that some people will feel well treated and others hard done by. One of my constituents was entitled to redress but felt that he did not need it, because he had bought exactly the product that he wanted and expected and he thinks it unfair on other people that he should seek redress when he took what he thinks was a fair deal. But he is unusual. I have constituents who have been completely and totally rolled over by the banks. Consequential loss offers are derisory for businesses that have taken a lifetime to establish and just a few telephone calls by mis-incentivised relationship managers to destroy. There are no consequential loss payments for reputations destroyed, or for goodwill wasted and track records smashed.

I was a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. We looked hard at how the regulator could drive better standards in the banking industry. There should be incentives for better behaviour, and banks are working on making their staff perform to higher ethical standards, but for every carrot there must be some sort of stick. If it is possible for banks to be fined for fixing LIBOR and forex benchmarks and for mis-selling insurance products, why have those banks who have destroyed so many businesses been allowed to choose their own form of redress with no further financial penalty?

I am baffled why the regulator has set up a redress scheme that is voluntary, has just one opportunity for appeal and is not being reviewed or assessed. Surely, it is right that people who are unsatisfied can have an independent appeal assessed by the Financial Ombudsman Service. A special unit could easily be set up at the FOS, funded by the banks, to give one last chance of appeal to those small businesses that fall outside the FOS’s remit but inside the redress scheme. I am also baffled why the regulator will not publish the terms of reference and the agreements between the regulator and the banks on how the scheme is managed and run and what is expected of it all. That lack of transparency can only lead to mistrust in the system and the regulator. I am also concerned that the regulator is so reluctant to share with agents of the Treasury Committee legal advice on whether embedded swaps are regulated.

With so many people left destitute and impoverished by what has happened, it is wrong that no one has been brought to account over this. Until such time as fines are levied and front-line staff guilty of mis-selling brought to book, confidence in the banking sector and the regulator will struggle to improve and standards may languish at an unacceptable level.

The last sentence of the motion before us calls respectfully for the Government to consider a review of this whole process and the conduct of the regulator. I urge my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to look carefully at whether to hold an independent review of this whole regrettable scheme.

The Economy

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The Prime Minister likes to say—the Tories have said it in party political broadcasts and keep repeating it—that the national debt is somehow falling. The national debt has got larger and larger—[Interruption.] No, let me correct the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—there is a difference between the national debt and the deficit. The national debt has got higher and higher and higher. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) was right to say that it now stands at more than £1.4 trillion. He knows that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have added more to the national debt in their four and a half years in power than the previous Administration did in 13 years.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly struggling a little with the definitions of how we run the public finances. The reason why the national debt is going up is that in 2010 this Government inherited a deficit, which is the difference between income and outgoings, of £156 billion. That had been set in place some time before. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the deficit in 2005—fully two or three years before the financial crisis—was already around £50 billion a year. The previous Government, then, were increasing the national debt. It is going up because the only way to account for the deficit is by putting it on the national debt. The hon. Gentleman must understand the most basic facts of fiscal policy.

[Chris Leslie]

We have an admission there—that the national debt is rising and has risen more in the past four and a half years than it did in the 13 years of the previous Administration.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, we worked with the other member states to achieve the deal at ECOFIN. We needed the agreement of the other member states on the delay, paying no interest and the permanent change in the rules. It is always good to get lectures from Labour Members about working with and supporting colleagues, so we look forward to the shadow Chancellor’s speech supporting his leader in the next couple of weeks. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods, and I know that he is a man true to his word.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Much of this discussion has centred on the rebate, but has my right hon. Friend done any calculations of the value of the forgone interest that would be paid as a result of the extension of the date for this payment from 1 December to the middle of next year?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, the shadow Chancellor estimated that it would cost £114,000 a year, which is the EU penal rate on £1.7 billion. If interest had been charged even on the rebateable amount, it would of course have been about half that figure.

Income Tax

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

I do not want to say anything rude about David Beckham. Tony Blair was obviously a very successful Prime Minister, and as I have already pointed out, he increased the size of the British economy by 40%. If we were not sitting here after four years of the Tories borrowing more than Labour did in 13 years and with the debt going up and up, we would not have to think of measures to raise more money. It is because of the economic incompetence and failure of this Government that we need to raise more tax at this point.

I have pointed out that there are people who already pay marginal tax rates of 62p—national insurance plus income tax. They are doing that and they are not suddenly leaving the country. This is a sustainable tax that can be borne at this point in the economic calendar, and we need to do it to protect the very poorest. As I have already pointed out, we are ripping £400 million—incidentally, the area most affected by the bedroom tax is Wales, where 42% of council households face it—away from people who have virtually no money. It is simply unfair that those judgments are made.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has said on a couple of occasions that under Labour the economy grew by 40%. He is absolutely right: it did grow by 40% under Labour in the years leading up to the 2008 crisis. However, that came from a massive asset bubble that was fuelled by a colossal rise in household debt. One of the greatest crimes of the Labour Government in the lead-up to the financial catastrophe was that it allowed household debt to increase by £1 trillion. It went from £450 billion to £1.45 trillion, an increase of household leverage from 100% to 175%. That debt is still with millions and millions of people.

[Geraint Davies]

I am very grateful indeed for that intervention. The reality is that less than a third of the deficit inherited in 2010 was due to the Government. The Government were spending more than they were earning to gear us out of recession, which was the right thing to do to stop a world depression. We had growth at that time, but thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), suddenly announcing in May 2010 that he was going to sack 500,000 people, everyone stopped spending money in the public sector and demand flatlined. We have had no growth so we do not have the tax receipts.

On debt, what is happening now, as I mentioned earlier, is that banks are lending 30% less to businesses to invest in productivity, entrepreneurship and growth, and they are giving the same amount as they did in 2008 to household debt to buy houses. That is not to build new houses, but to inflate houses in the south-east. There are no new houses, and it is ratcheting up the debt the hon. Gentleman rightly refers to. That is being inspired by the Government’s right-to-buy schemes and so on. That is completely irresponsible, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point about how irresponsible and poor the Government’s financial strategy is.

On infrastructure, a disproportionate sum is being spent in London and the south-east, when it should be spread across the country. Finally, if we want to get away from a low wage, low tax receipt economy, we need to invest in productivity. We need to think again about our strategy for tuition fees versus Germany and elsewhere. Ultimately—I am coming to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—we find ourselves in a situation where the poor are getting so poor that eventually they turn to parties like UKIP and worse. They start to blame immigration and all the rest of it, and we have social fracturing that will only continue unless we bring about a more equal, robust, fairer and stronger economy. This measure is a step towards that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Let me start by confessing—it is no secret to hon. Members—that before I came to this House I was an investment banker and a hedge fund manager. Now that I am a politician, I have had the three most unpopular jobs known to humanity! As a result of my previous life, I happen to know a great many people who were paying the 50p tax rate when it applied and the 45p tax rate now. At risk of having myself excluded once and for all from the dinner party circuit of all my friends, I have to say that when I hear their bleating and complaining about the higher rate of tax I have absolutely no sympathy for them whatever. I feel that everybody with the broadest shoulders should absolutely pay their fair share of taxation—and I do not think that any Member of any party would disagree with that fundamental premise.

There is no doubt that a very low earner, earning barely above a subsistence level, has no freedom or choices to make, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said. It is right that the Government raised the tax-free threshold to £10,000, and they have every intention of raising it to £12,500 in the next Parliament. It is absolutely right, too, that this Government have recognised that the 40p tax rate at £41,000 to £42,000 is cutting in at an earlier point than was ever intended when it was first introduced. It is right for the better-paid nurses and the better-paid police officers to have their higher tax threshold raised to £50,000 by the end of the next Parliament.

What I think is crucial to this debate—I do not want to take up a huge amount of time talking about it—is to recognise that the way to address youth unemployment, mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), and to get those 800,000 people back into work is to create jobs. Crucial to creating jobs and repairing our economy is seeking inward investment in this country. It is vital that we become internationally competitive. That is why we have seen a relentless cutting of the corporation tax rate, resulting in a great amount of inward investment. That is why the personal taxation rates are so important, because entrepreneurs from overseas will look to see what is going to happen here.

I represent a constituency in which the average household income is about £23,000 a year—about a 10th of the earnings of the people I used to work with as an investment banker, which is why I have no sympathy for them. In common with every Member, I care passionately about the constituents I serve and want to ensure that better opportunities are available to them.

I am incredibly lucky because in the last three weeks it was announced that the international automotive supply chain manufacturer Amtek—an Indian company—will be making a significant investment in Wyre Forest, creating 500 skilled jobs in the automotive supply chain. There are reasons why the company came here: we are part of the European Union; we have a substantial and strong automotive and aerospace industry; we have good skills, good rule of law and competitive taxes; and we have competitive personal taxation rates.

An important point behind this has, I think, been missed. It is one thing for us to be able to go out and make an international case that we have the most competitive internal taxation regime in the G20 and that we have the best economy in the G7, but it is vital that we also send a clear and coherent message to the international world when it is considering whether to invest in this country. That message must be, at the very least, some type of tax certainty and must provide some assurance. Companies need to know that if they invest in this country there will not be any political tomfoolery, mucking around with taxation rates at the last minute of a Parliament.

I can remember having conversations—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) might have been in them, too—with the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer prior to the financial crisis. We asked him whether he thought the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) would do anything stupid—laying Trojan horses or elephant traps—in the run-up to the election. He said, “No, no, no; even he would not be that stupid”, yet to our utter dismay the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath brought in the 50p tax rate at the last minute.

[Rushanara Ali]

I understand that the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said on “ConservativeHome” that the 50p tax rate would make the Conservatives look like they were looking after vested interests.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady will have to ask my hon. Friend about that. I was referring to the shadow Chancellor and saying that if my hon. Friend was at the conversation he would know what was said. In any case, my hon. Friend has a career in front of him.

We need inward investment. We have talked about the 1970s when we had exchange controls in a very different type of economy. Now we need to set a direction of travel to provide absolute certainty to any company looking to invest in this country. It can never, ever be the case that the message coming out from this place is one where politics overrides the interest of investors coming into the country. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talks about vested interests, but if we are referring to the vested interests of someone who is going to invest in this country, I would do everything I could to support those vested interests, because it means bringing jobs for my constituents. The more jobs they bring, the higher the salaries, the better the standard of living. It will work.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is bringing his knowledge of taxation to the Chamber. Does he agree with me and with Lord Digby Jones, who was the Trade and Industry Minister under the last Labour Government, when he said recently on the BBC of the 50p tax rate:

“It’s great politics but it’s lousy economics…Are we talking politics or are we talking what’s right to create wealth and jobs in the nation?”?

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend makes a fine point. Digby Jones is a wise and sensible—[Interruption.] He was a Minister in the former Labour Government, although he was the only Minister ever not to be aligned with a political party—I concede that point.

The key point about the direction of travel is that we must make every effort to give certainty to those investors coming into the country. Mucking around with the tax rates and providing a confused message about the top level of tax is bad economics. I hope that the Minister—although now may not be the right time—will give us some indication that, should the economic recovery and the recovery of the public finances continue, there will ultimately be a 40p tax rate as a target. I suspect she may not want to commit herself at this point. As I say, mucking around with tax rates is detrimental to our economic recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Frank Dobson]

No, I will not, because others wish to speak.

Let me make it clear that the Labour Government did not bring down the top rate of income tax to benefit the richest and at the same time freeze the pay of nurses, freeze the pay of doctors and freeze the pay of teachers, while at the same time the bankers got their bonuses. At HSBC, which lost £27 billion in the credit crash, Barclays, which lost £8 billion, and Lloyds, which lost £5 billion, bankers’ bonuses have risen, in 2012 and since then. At HSBC, 239 people are currently receiving £1 million or more a year. The worst off received a £40,000 tax benefit, and most will have received £100,000. For example, Mr Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, apparently receives £32,000 a week in what are described as “special allowances”. I do not even know whether he pays tax on those special allowances, but that means that he receives, each week, an amount that is close to the national average annual income that is over and above his pay, yet Members on the Government Benches object to the idea that he should pay 50p in the pound tax on that. All I can say is that, following his and his predecessor’s efforts, he obviously has to spend a lot of time trying to minimise the amount of money he has to set aside to pay off for swindling exchange rates and to pay off for the consequences of money laundering and what happened with LIBOR and, generally speaking, in organising an outfit that might be described as the tax avoiders’ alliance.

We have heard talk of behavioural change reducing the possible income from a 50p rate of tax, but these bankers are really good at behavioural change. They do nothing else. They organise all the way around the world, helping people to avoid tax. With the exception of Lloyds, more than 30% of the subsidiary companies of these banks—in some cases these companies exceed more than 1,000 in number—are located in tax havens, and they are not located in tax havens just because the weather is better; it is because they are involved in promoting tax avoidance.

Bankers also say that their pay is a compensation package. I have checked the Oxford dictionary and compensation means recompense for loss, injury or suffering. What have any of these bankers experienced in the way of loss, injury or suffering? It is the rest of us who have had to experience loss, injury or suffering as a result of their stupidity leading up to the financial crisis. Their incompetence and greed inflicted loss, injury or suffering on the rest of us. I thought at one point that it was a perversion of language to use the word compensation in such circumstances, but I actually believe it is a perversion of mindset. They have obviously concluded that they should be compensated for inflicting loss, injury and suffering on the rest of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I will do, and thank you for your guidance. I will move on to my practical and philosophical points.

My practical point echoes much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The basics of being a globally successful, wealth-creating economy are not that difficult to grasp. What we have to do is make sure that businesses can start up, expand and create jobs. I was struck by the fact that quite a few contributors to this debate said that they do not have many people in their constituency who earn over £150,000. However, that is not a source for celebration: we want to have more people who are starting companies successfully and are able to earn more than £150,000 because they are employing hundreds of people, exporting around the world and meeting demand in markets. The idea that these people should be reviled is utterly perverse. We want more of these people in every constituency.

[Mark Garnier]

Was my hon. Friend not struck, as I was, by the previous speech, which ended up being an endless rant against the bankers and did not take into account any of the wealth creators in this country such as the entrepreneurs my hon. Friend has just described, or the risk-takers who mortgage their houses to invest in creating jobs? These are the people, who have taken huge risks, who are being punished by this tax. The bankers are irrelevant in this argument.

[Mr Browne]

I do not understand why so many Members of Parliament have such an antagonistic attitude towards people who start up businesses, create wealth and employ people.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I have not given up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am hoping that if the Chancellor turns up he may end up welcoming this proposal, overwhelmed by the clarity and objectivity of the analysis that I am about to put before the House. Let us wait and see.

I accept that this reform, which I first proposed last September and has been widely discussed and debated since, is a radical change. This is the first time that any political party in Britain has said that it wants this kind of independent audit of its manifesto, but it is not without precedent. Countries that have adopted a version of this approach include the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the United States. For the UK, while it is a radical change from what has gone before, we believe that it is the right thing to do to help restore trust in politics.

When whoever wins the next election is set to inherit not a balanced Budget, as the Chancellor promised in 2010, but on current forecasts a debt set to be £75 billion, it will be important for my party and for all parties to show that all our manifesto policies and commitments are properly costed and funded and independently audited.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am pleased that the shadow Chancellor is trying to build a consensus, and of course he did write his letter in September last year. However, Robert Chote wrote to the Treasury Committee on 15 January this year saying:

“If Parliament wished us to play this role in the 2015 election, we would need a very clear steer in the very near future to have any hope of putting the necessary practical arrangements in place to deliver a smooth process.”

Why has the shadow Chancellor waited for fully six months before doing anything about it?

[Ed Balls]

I spoke to the head of the OBR last Friday, and I will come to my conversation in a moment. I appreciate the serious way in which the hon. Gentleman is engaging in the debate, and timing is one important issue that we need to discuss today. It is important to understand that if we choose not to go ahead we do so in a full understanding of the choices we have, the steps we would need to take and the actions that would be required on the relevant timetable. If we choose not to go ahead, it is important to understand why we are not going ahead. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.

Owing to its importance, I have set out from the outset to forge cross-party agreement on this important reform. The House will know that the Chair of the Treasury Committee has been a long-standing advocate of this reform, as is the current head of the OBR, Mr Chote, who said at the beginning of this year:

“I believe that independent scrutiny of pre-election policy proposals could contribute to better policy making, to a more informed public debate.”

It is true that when the OBR was initially established there was caution on both sides of the House about this proposal. In the early days, when the OBR was establishing its reputation—I think it has established its reputation now for independence and objectivity—to be fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked about this in October 2010, he said that this was

“a legitimate matter for the House to debate and decide”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 142.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

We are trying to have a discussion about an important reform for the future. There have been moments in the life of this House when consensuses have been formed. The Conservatives voted against Bank of England independence in 1998, but in the end they joined the consensus. They voted against the move from self-regulation to statutory regulation in our financial services, but in the end they joined the consensus. I think that there is now a consensus that we should not join the euro, but I wish there was a consensus that we should stay in the European Union, which would be a good thing. On this matter, however, we should be able to form a consensus.

I can agree that regulation of financial services under the previous Government was not tough enough, but I also say that, if he were here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree that he criticised me at every stage, as did the Exchequer Secretary, for being much too tough on financial regulation, rather than too soft. The issue is whether we can form a consensus for the future.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for giving way; he is being very indulgent. First, has Lord Eatwell joined his consensus or is he still opposed to it? Secondly—this is more relevant to the issue of party manifestos—the reality is that had we done this for the last election it would have been irrelevant, because we ended up with a coalition Government. Elections can have different outcomes, so has the shadow Chancellor thought through how the OBR would be able to make estimates in the event of a coalition Government?

[Ed Balls]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I will make some progress, because I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman twice.

Secondly, the Opposition do not seem to have acknowledged that think-tanks such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research already have a long and distinguished track record in providing costings to parties in the run-up to elections. This, then, is another example of the Opposition asking the public—hard-working taxpayers—to stump up for something that already works effectively.

[Mark Garnier]

The Minister raises an important point about the cost, and it is worth bearing it in mind that the Dutch Central Planning Bureau, which does this for nine political parties in Holland, has about 350 members of staff. Has the Treasury estimated how much it would cost to resource it properly?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not aware that we have done any estimates, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the Dutch Central Planning Bureau—the figure I have is 170, but he says 350—and the American Congressional Budget Office has 250 members of staff. The point is that the Opposition are asking hard-working taxpayers to pay more money to staff up the OBR quickly so that it can certify and sign off their economic plan, such as it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

Nothing in politics surprises me any more, so I am not surprised that the shadow Chancellor has done that. I am just surprised that he thinks that the House is going to buy it.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again; she is giving up a great deal of her time. Robert Chote appeared before the Treasury Committee, and, while he did say that if he were pressured to an unbelievable extent the work would be possible, he made it very clear that he was not happy with the idea of having to press it too quickly. Moreover, the resources required would be astronomical, and it would be made up of temporary members of staff—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions are not opportunities for speeches. They are supposed to be brief, and Members in all parts of the House should adhere to that convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). It will be a surprise for the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) to know that I found a Conservative on a Select Committee who was actually in favour of Labour’s proposals. I refer to the Treasury Select Committee of 2010, which said in its fourth report of the Session:

“Legislation should leave the OBR able to conduct work on fiscal policies of political parties along the lines proposed by Robert Chote in evidence on 16^th September”.

At that time, then, there was a different viewpoint in the House. It is interesting that the shadow Chancellor has managed to develop a political consensus that now includes, but did not at the time, the viewpoint of the shadow Business Secretary when he was a member of the Treasury Select Committee. At the time, the Shadow Chancellor and other Labour Members were opposed to this idea—for reasons I cannot possibly imagine, but I am sure they can speculate on that.

I would like to pose one or two questions suggesting why I think this proposition is completely unworkable at this stage of the Parliament, and why I think that if we are to have a serious debate about this topic, we should have it in the next Parliament. My first question is: who will qualify for appraisal by this type of process? The shadow Chancellor has said that it would include the main political parties and those that have more than 5% of the seats in the House of Commons—not a completely unreasonable proposition. As we know in connection with the debate we hope to have in the run-up to the general election, other parties, including some who polled reasonably well in the European elections, feel that they should be involved in those debates. They would come forward and argue—probably quite powerfully—that they should be allowed to do so. I do not necessarily think they should, but they may well do. What, too, about the nationalist parties? The Scottish National party would probably not want its budget proposals debated ahead of the Scottish referendum, but perhaps we would like to have a close look at that and assess what would happen with Scotland. That is my first point—who is involved? It will be much more complex than suggested.

The second question is: how do we achieve this? Let us stay with the two main parties and the Liberal Democrats—I am sorry for not including the Liberals as one of the main parties. The reality is that only two parties are seeking exclusively to govern this country. The Liberal Democrats have said, quite fairly, that they will act in coalition with one or other of the main parties. That is a reasonable proposition, but their proposals are not “govern-alone budget policies”; they are “modification of other parties’ policies in coalition”. Are we proposing that the OBR should reassess the costs of the policies in the Conservative and Labour manifestos as if they were in a coalition? It gets very complicated.

Finally, on a practical level, how on earth can the OBR be expected to do this? We know that manifestos come out incredibly close to the election, so there will be very little time for the OBR to carry this out. It would need to have advance sight of the manifestos, and possibly publish the figures at the time of their publication. If the parties involved then felt uncomfortable, they would simply say “Actually, that was a bit of work in progress, so please ignore it. We did not really mean to give away huge amounts of money to your pet charity.”

My point is that too many impracticalities need to be solved, and that they need to be solved at a much more leisurely rate. Let me return to my starting point. In 2010, when the Treasury Committee was considering setting up the OBR, it was perfectly happy to recommend this action. However, there was more or less a consensus in the House of Lords that it should absolutely not be taken, and Labour members of the Select Committee were very reluctant to put their name to our report.

The position is difficult. There is too much to be done. I am convinced that the time to do this properly is the beginning of the next Parliament, when we have plenty of time to think about it in a clear, measured and cool-headed way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I find it extraordinary that the Labour party is against Help to Buy, which is assisting those who are on low and middle incomes to get into the housing market. The great majority of those homes are outside London and the south-east. Almost none of them has been bought at £500,000 or £600,000, as the hon. Gentleman says, and what we are actually seeing is that the homes that are being built and bought are below the national average. So instead of carping about Help to Buy, Labour should get behind it.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

A key component of the financial crisis was a debt-fuelled housing bubble. The Governor of the Bank of England confirmed to the Treasury Committee this morning that a failure of regulation and macro-prudential policy was instrumental in that crisis. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the measures that he has introduced, including the new regulatory framework as well as the Financial Policy Committee, will succeed in heading off any future housing bubble-inspired crisis?

[Mr Osborne]

The Bank of England now has very powerful tools to deal with the kind of risks that we saw develop in 2006 and 2007, with such catastrophic consequences for our banking system and for our economy. The new powers that it will receive—subject, of course, to parliamentary approval—on being able to limit loan-to-income ratios and loan-to-value ratios for every mortgage or, indeed, as a percentage of mortgage portfolios, are very powerful tools. It is up to the Bank of England to make independent judgments about when to deploy them, because, as we have learnt with such monetary and macro-prudential policies, it is better that the politicians stay out of it.

Amendment of the Law

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I do not think he will either. May I ask the Financial Secretary how it is going since his comments on women and the Monetary Policy Committee? Is he still revelling in that? If things were done on merit, he would be out on his ear.

I hope that the Chancellor will think again and join me, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in supporting reforms to allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to audit independently the spending and tax commitments in the manifestos of the main political parties before the next election. We know from the head of the OBR that that can be done. Let us be honest: it is all a matter of political will. The problem with the Chancellor is that he wants to set traps, but he cannot be transparent on the matter of OBR audits. Why does he not think again, join the cross-party consensus and do the right thing?

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Why was the right hon. Gentleman formerly so keen that the OBR should not do that? Why did Labour members of the Treasury Committee argue in 2010 that it should not happen?

[Ed Balls]

The irony is that back in 2011 the Chancellor was in favour of it, and now he has changed his mind. The OBR, which we supported from the outset in this Parliament, has established a good track record, and we are happy for our manifesto to be audited. What is it about the Conservative Front Benchers that means that they are scared of independent OBR audit of their manifesto? Who knows?

I return to the welfare cap, and I will give a bit more detail for Government Members. We have had a lot of tough and divisive talk from the Chancellor on welfare over the past three years, but it cannot hide the fact that social security is up by £13 billion compared with his plans, particularly because of his failure on housing benefit. We have called for a cap on social security spending, and we will support the welfare cap next Wednesday, but we will make different and fairer choices to keep the social security bill down. We will introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee to get young people back to work. We will scrap the bedroom tax, which is not only unfair but could end up costing more money, not less. We will also scrap the winter fuel allowance for the richest 5% of pensioners, get more houses built and tackle the low wages that have pushed up spending on housing benefit. That is the fair way to ensure we get people back to work and get welfare costs under control.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown). I want to start by welcoming the Budget and reflecting on the legacy the Chancellor inherited before bringing us to where we are today. Let us not forget that we had a deficit of £156 billion a year, which has now gone down by a third to £109 billion a year. There was a structural deficit from 2002 onwards, and throughout the Labour years there was a total failure to regulate the banks and our banking system, which left it massively exposed, and unemployment rocketed.

The Chancellor had the most difficult inheritance in this country’s history in many ways. He has turned things around these past four years so that this country is now on the path to recovery. The economy is growing, jobs are up and the future looks promising for Britain. In the past, the roof was not fixed while the sun was shining, but while it has been raining we have been furiously fixing the roof and doing so with some success.

Areas such as my constituency of Dover and Deal do not have enormous amounts of money and there is a lot of deprivation. The rise in the personal allowance to £10,500—it was £6,475 when I was elected—will make a real difference to those constituents of mine who are not well paid. It will make an enormous difference for people without a lot of money.

The freeze in fuel duty will make a massive difference for the many people in my constituency who have to travel by car. It is now 20p lower than it would have been under the previous Government’s plans. A freeze in council tax year after year makes a massive difference to my constituents, after it had doubled in previous times. Moreover, given that unemployment in Dover and Deal rose by 50% in the previous Parliament, it makes a massive difference to my constituents that it has fallen by 20% in the past year alone: more jobs, more money, more aspiration and more success. Aspiration matters, too: the number of apprenticeships has risen from 440 when I was elected to 880 today, so there are more chances for our young people.

Not everyone in my constituency is extremely badly off; there are areas where people have more money and are trying to find somewhere to save it in order to get a return. I greatly welcome the fact that we are incentivising ISA saving with a £15,000 limit. It is really important that we encourage a savings culture in this country. Let’s face it: it was destroyed by the pensions tax and everything that followed in previous times. We have to rebuild that savings culture, the idea of a rainy day fund and the ability of our constituents to take more responsibility.

What this Government have done is not just about practical help in terms of more jobs, more money, more prosperity and fewer taxes. In my constituency they have made a much bigger difference in terms of infrastructure and investment. When I was elected, the port of Dover was about to be sold off, having been stuffed in a car boot sale by the previous Prime Minister in a desperate bid to raise some cash. It was going to be sold off to the French or whoever—we did not know who. Our hospital had been decimated over the past decade and was not fit for purpose. A new hospital was needed and had been talked about for years. There were stalled construction sites all over Dover and Deal. I ran a campaign against “coming soon” signs, because they had said “coming soon” for so long—for the past decade—that one of them had rotted away and had to be replaced.

Fast-forward to 2014 and the port has been saved: we are now talking about a community-led port that can get the investment that the port of Dover has needed for so many years. A new hospital is being built, which will make a practical difference to people in their daily lives and will open its doors next year. More jobs have made an enormous difference to people. A compulsory purchase order has been served on Burlington house, which scars the seafront of Dover. That is making a difference and giving people more confidence and hope and a greater sense of belief in the town’s future. A fast train now rolls up at Deal—which was previously considered a village—and shortly will do so all day long. That kind of infrastructure makes a massive difference to people’s prosperity, success and aspiration.

Whereas in previous times the regional South East England Development Agency spent £20 million building a business park near Deal without anything on it—there were not even any buildings—now the coastal communities fund and the Homes and Communities Agency are supporting the Hadlow college project at the former pit site of Betteshanger, which promises to create 1,000 new jobs. That sort of practical help on the ground, which goes beyond high-level policy discussions, makes such a very big difference to people in their daily lives.

That is why I regret hearing the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. He reminded me of Marshal Foch saying, “My centre is collapsing, my left is in retreat and my right has gone altogether”—because all the Blairites have been chased away, sacked and discredited or have resigned. The Labour party’s lurch to the left has done it no good whatever. In its centre, Labour Members have no economic policy, except for more spending, more welfare, more debt and more taxes. Those discredited policies of the past will not take this country forward. To try by sleight of hand to say that they will have a current surplus—thinking that people will not notice a 25 billion quid bit of wriggle room and that he will get away with it—is not the right way to do it. The Leader of the Opposition should have come to the Dispatch Box today with a plan and a positive case, but all he did was rage against iniquities largely created by his party in past times or during the previous Parliament.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will also have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition referred to nothing having been done to reform the banks. He seems to have been asleep for the past four years, during which banking reform and financial services legislation has gone through and a huge amount has been done to reform the banks. Does my hon. Friend think that the Leader of the Opposition has been asleep or has just ignored what has happened?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend asks a very important question about what the Leader of the Opposition has been doing for the past four years. He has certainly not been preparing a high-quality response to this Budget, that is for sure.

Even though the Leader of the Opposition wants to say, “Situation excellent; I am advancing”, not only is there a complete hole or collapse in the centre of the Labour party, with the Opposition having no long-term economic plans, but on its left flank, which is in retreat, Labour Members are talking about the cost of living. What will they say if wages rise above inflation in a few months’ time? It little behoves them to talk in that way, because people will start to see through everything they say. They are now saying that long-term unemployment is terribly high and all that sort of thing. However, when they talked about high unemployment, it started falling, and when they then talked about the lack of full-time jobs, people started getting such jobs. The risk is that the number of long-term unemployed will start to fall in a few months’ time, and they will have to look for another selective statistic to cite. Such talk will not do them any good, because people will see through it.

It is therefore time for the Labour party to think more carefully and more long-term about what it can offer this country, because right now it can offer very little indeed. This Government can and rightly do now say that we cannot give back the keys to the people who crashed the car, particularly when they are still drunk, still will not listen and still have not learned anything, but will carry on and do it all again.

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s point. I looked at the Scottish Government White Paper, and it states that

“a monetary framework will require a fiscal sustainability agreement between Scotland and the rest of the UK”—

that is, if independence goes ahead—

“which will apply to both governments and cover overall net borrowing and debt. Given Scotland’s healthier financial position”,

after independence, presumably,

“we anticipate that Scotland will be in a strong position to deliver this.”

With respect, that is complete comedy.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is raising some important points. Does he agree that trust in the institutions that used the currency in an independent Scotland would be a necessary part of currency union? That raises significant questions about the regulation imposed in Scotland. Is the SNP proposing that the Financial Conduct Authority continue to be the prime regulator for such institutions? If so, how does it propose that the regulator will have proper oversight so that we can trust such institutions not to fail?

[Guy Opperman]

The arguments on fiscal regulation might appear dry and unexciting, particularly when addressed in the press, but they are utterly key to the future prosperity not only of the whole existing United Kingdom, but especially of Scotland if it were to become independent. Such aspects of fiscal regulation as my hon. Friend mentioned—how a bank would function; how a currency would be managed; what sort of interest rates would be managed; who is in charge of such matters—are totally unaddressed by the SNP. Frankly, they must be addressed if anyone is to have any faith in the SNP’s fiscal approach to the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I do not have time. So where would independence while keeping sterling leave us? It would not imply a foreign currency controlling our economy, because the central bank does not control the economy. It works to a single 2% inflation target, which we think is sensible.

[Mark Garnier]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I do not have time. It would effectively leave us in Scotland in the same place as the rest of the UK, accepting the discipline of an independent Monetary Policy Committee, while leaving Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, in complete control of the rest of its social and economic levers. We would have parity.

[Mark Garnier]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

I do not have time. I have barely a few seconds left. I do not even have time to comment on the Chancellor’s supposed intervention tomorrow. However, if a Tory toff Chancellor goes to Scotland to bully and to scaremonger, it will be looked on very badly indeed by the Scottish people.