Finance (No. 4) Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

We should give the hon. Gentleman time to warm up, but if he wants to intervene to tell me where in the HMRC report we can find a definitive set of data on the impact on competitiveness of the various rates of tax, I will gladly sit down and wait for him to do so.

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

rose—

[Owen Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene on me on the point of competitiveness using evidence or anecdote?

[Mark Reckless]

The document says that all this is highly uncertain. That means that there is a significant possibility that the 50p rate was losing the Government revenue. Would the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome support for his amendment from the Government Benches at 4 o’clock?

[Owen Smith]

I am very pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention has exposed the fact that Conservative Members do not read the documentation, even though they listen to the flannel from their Front Bench. I repeat that page 39 of the document shows, under the heading “Adjusted impact on 2010-11 tax liabilities”, that the post-behavioural yield is £1.1 billion. It is there in black and white. That is how much money the 50p rate raised. No one is disputing that, and I presume that the Exchequer Secretary is not going to get to his feet and dispute what is written on page 39, or indeed, what is written on page 2, in the summary. I do not think that he is going to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I grateful for that intervention. I am not sure whether the pork pie was served at ambient temperature, but it was certainly a pork pie.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I hate to say it, but it is worse than that. What happened is that the Chancellor made up his mind, and then made the evidence fit his decision. [Interruption.] I am asked where is the evidence, but 32 times in the one exculpatory piece of evidence provided, the Treasury covered its behind by referring to uncertainty. I shall go through them in a minute, but that shows how often it was necessary to justify this damascene conversion.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that because the situation is uncertain, the 50p rate might have cost revenue, so the Government had less money for the least fortunate in society?

[Owen Smith]

I do not know how many times I need to keep telling the hon. Gentleman this, but the simple answer is no. He should turn to page 2 of the document, which clearly says that this rate raised £1 billion; he should turn to page 39, which says that it raised £1.1 billion; he should turn to page 51, which says that it will rise to £3.1 billion next year. These would be the static costs. It goes on to say—[Interruption.] No, £1.1 billion is the actual amount lost to the national accounts as a result of this change. That is a fact. It is not uncertain; it is a fact. The Treasury thinks that the money would have gone up to £3 billion, rising to £4 billion subsequently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the merits of a 40p top rate of tax. Will she therefore support the Opposition amendment?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am not quite sure whether their amendment expresses what they wanted it to express. As with the HMRC report, there may be some uncertainty about what exactly the Opposition intend to do.

First, the introduction of the 50p tax rate diverted resources from the productive economy at a very important time—just as we were heading into the worst recession, thanks to the dreadful economic policies of the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, if the Government want to take the country with them as they are taking through enormous cuts, it is important that they have a process in Parliament that people can understand. We simply do not have that, which is one reason why people are so angry about some of the cuts that are happening.

[Mark Reckless]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on what he says and associate myself fully with his remarks. May I ask whether the Opposition Front-Bench team would support amendments to Standing Orders to put our tax and spend process on the proper basis that he describes?

[Chris Bryant]

That is way above my pay grade. I am just speaking for myself in this regard, and I hope that hon. Members will take my comments in that sense, but I have made this argument for a very long time and tried to do the same when I was Deputy Leader of the House.

I just say to the hon. Member for South West Norfolk that my constituents do not particularly want very high rates of tax, either for themselves or for wealthy people. There is no sense of bitterness and a determination to grind the wealthy down among my constituents, many of whom have very noble aspirations to be wealthy themselves. They hope one day to be paying higher rates of tax, so the point for them today is not about whether a 50p rate of tax is ever the right thing; it is about whether that is the right thing now. I say to her that my constituents feel that the past few years have been very tough, not just the Conservative years, but the last two years of the Labour Government, because of the global financial crisis. People such as my constituents have suffered the most in that time and they do not see people in the City of London suffering—the sales of champagne have still been pretty good—but they do feel themselves suffering. In that situation, it is all the more incumbent on us to think very hard before lessening the tax rate for the wealthiest.

--- Later in debate ---

On Second Reading I gave some rough figures. The Government’s proposals would yield about £1.5 billion a year, but if instead there was a charge on all those earning more than £60,000 a year, the yield would be £2 billion. Not only would the yield be higher, but the costs of administration and collection would be much lower and the opportunities for confusion, fraud and evasion much reduced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will tell us that the Government will look into whether it is right that we should increase the complexity of the tax system when the Government’s avowed intent is to reduce it.

[Mark Reckless]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the estimates of administrative and staff costs the Government have given us for the higher income child benefit charge are actually somewhat higher than the entire revenue that they estimate, with some uncertainty, we will lose from reducing the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p?

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend’s excellent point shows the gravity of the complexity that the Government are introducing. The figure is more than £100 million in administration costs to take away child benefit from 1.2 million families, either in total or in part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Business Secretary is well known for having strong and principled positions from which he never resiles. The hon. Gentleman makes a fascinating point, although I do not know the detail of that quotation.

Let me turn to tax planning, and avoidance and evasion. As I have said, people set up personal service companies and, quite frankly, fiddle the system. To be honest, we need stronger anti-avoidance legislation to stop that kind of thing. However, the important point is that we need it if the rate is at a level at which people regard it as socially acceptable to pay, and do not feel that they are being completely fleeced.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend has substantial expertise as a tax lawyer. Does he think that a “look-through” anti-avoidance measure for personal service companies of that type would work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The central estimate, which the OBR has confirmed, is £700 million. We are reducing the rate to 45%, and the central estimate of the cost of that is £100 million. Were we to take it down to 40%, which would be the consequence of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the central cost would be £700 million.

[Mark Reckless]

I think the Minister is being rather too modest. On page 21, the report states that

“most of the studies…produce TIEs”—

taxable income elasticities—

“in the range of 0.4 to 0.7”.

Let us take a central estimate of 0.55 from within that range. If we look at page 51, we see a graph that suggests that a reduction in the additional tax rate—whether to 45% as proposed by the Government, or to 40% as proposed by the Opposition—would raise £600 million. Could the Minister use some of that money to enable him to accept our amendments on child benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have taken a cautious approach to this matter. Indeed, many estimates suggest that we are overstating the amount that the 50p rate is bringing in. He is right to cite those figures.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs McGuire]

I want to make some progress.

The test of a Budget is not the easy headlines on the day of the announcements, but how quickly and radically it unravels in the days and weeks after the initial statement. In the case of the 2012 Budget, we did not have to wait long. It was full of political symbolism but it had little substance. The Chancellor said:

“We will…consult on the introduction of a large annual charge on…£2 million residential properties”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 804.]

That was no doubt a sop to the Business Secretary, but the reality is that only 3,000 houses a year, at most, will be covered by the charge, and it will be easy to avoid. A property valued at £2,000,010 might be made available at a bargain price of £1,999,999.99. A gentleman such as the hon. Member for Dover could drive a coach and horses through such an arrangement. It was a policy that sounded good on the day but it will be no more than warm words when it comes to raising revenue or catching those who seek to avoid paying tax.

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

The right hon. Lady accuses Conservative Members of not saying anything about tax avoidance, yet I have been going on about the issue of high-value houses for several years. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also mentioned it before the election. Yes, perhaps we should go further than the figure of £2 million and, yes, perhaps the measures on capital gains should go further than just covering companies, but the Labour Government did absolutely nothing on those issues.

[Mrs McGuire]

The problem is that the measure was paraded as a bit of camouflage for the reduction in tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year. On the one hand, the Chancellor was reducing tax for the wealthiest, but he was also going to attempt to clobber them. This policy did not come from the heart; it was part of the camouflage being used in the Budget.

There has also been a general sleight of hand over taxation. The Chancellor recently stated that he was “shocked” by how little the wealthy paid in taxes, yet this Budget gives a tax cut to the 14,000 people who earn £1 million a year or more. That will give them about £40,000 each year, while the average family with children earning just £20,000 will lose £253 a year from this April. That is on top of the VAT rise, which is costing the average family £450 a year. Furthermore, another 678,000 people of all ages who are currently paying the basic rate of income tax might feel pretty aggrieved when they wake up to discover that they have been catapulted into the 40p income tax rate, not because they are earning massively more but because the Chancellor has not raised the threshold in line with inflation—[Interruption.] I do not know whether I am interrupting a kind of confab of the horizontal speaking to the vertical on the other side of the Chamber, but I will continue, having drawn attention to the significant noise coming from the other side.

The Treasury forecasts suggest that there will be 5.7 million higher rate taxpayers by the end of this Parliament. That is nearly double the 3.1 million at the time of the last general election and treble the number when Labour came to power in 1997. Of course the whole increase in personal allowance that has been paraded here today is outweighed by the VAT rises, the changes to tax credits and the higher petrol duties. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary demonstrated earlier, the average family with children will be worse off—not on the basis of our figures, but on the basis of those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Chief Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend was both evasive and complacent.

According to Citizens Advice, poorer families that get housing and council tax benefits will be just £33 a year better off when the tax threshold rises because as their income goes up, their benefits go down. For every person eligible to pay tax who also receives housing or council tax benefit, the Department for Work and Pensions will claw back some £187 of the £220 notional annual gain. The Citizens Advice chief executive, Gillian Guy, said:

“Raising the personal tax allowance is an empty gesture for struggling families on low wages who get housing and council tax benefits. For these families, the weekly gain is less than the price of a loaf of bread”.

In the name of simplification, the Chancellor launched his £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years. The freeze in the personal allowance for pensioners will see 4.4 million pensioners who pay income tax losing an average of £83 a year from next April. People who turn 65 after next year will, of course, lose most—up to £322 a year. The additional age allowance was introduced in the 1920s in recognition of the fact that those who have retired do not have the same capacity to increase their income. It is to the undying shame of the current Chief Secretary—a man for whom I once had some respect when he was a Liberal spokesperson on welfare issues—that he came forward today to try to justify taking money from those pensioners who have no other means of increasing their income, telling them that he was doing it in the interest of simplification.

Child Benefit

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

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

Given the need to target child benefit as well as possible, can the Minister tell us how much child benefit is being paid for children resident outside the United Kingdom—for instance, in Poland and Lithuania? Would it not be appropriate to tackle that issue before dealing with the 40% taxpayer?

[Mr Gauke]

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s concern. I may or may not be able to furnish him with the numbers that he has asked for. None the less, we have looked at that issue on several occasions. He will not be surprised to learn that we are constrained by European regulations relating to social security payments, which means that we are not able to address his concern in the way that he would like. European economic area nationals can claim child benefit and tax credits as long as they meet the relevant conditions. That is the constraint, I am afraid. There is not the easy choice that he seeks.

Remuneration of EU Staff

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Leader of the Labour party say on numerous occasions that he would not have walked out of the negotiations. There was no treaty on the table at that time.

I want to move on, because this point is important. As I have said, we need a mature and positive approach to Europe from the Government. When we get the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis, we should do so. We should engage in Europe and build alliances so that when important issues come up, such as those that we are debating, we have credibility and influence among our European neighbours.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I want to move on. We will no doubt continue to debate the other issues that I have raised on other occasions.

To return to the topic of this debate, it is clear that the view from all parts of the House is that the issue of EU salaries and the exception clause is important. It is also clear that the dispute between the Commission and the Council cannot continue as an annual tit-for-tat with serious financial consequences.

I once again thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending that such an important issue be debated on the Floor of the House. I look forward to hearing what members of the Scrutiny Committee and other Members have to say, and to hearing the Minister’s response to the questions that I have asked specifically about what action has been taken in the past year and how Ministers propose to ensure that we do not face a similar situation at any point in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is nodding vigorously, because it was simply staggering. There we were, faced with a huge European financial crisis, and all people were doing was getting up, one after another, and demanding more and more money.

There is so much common ground in the House that I am happy to be brief and allow my hon. Friends to explain their points of view and concerns. I am conscious of the fact that I have had quite a few opportunities to do so. However, I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently signed a joint letter with Mr Rajoy, the Prime Minister of Spain, and other EU leaders. It is also signed by the Prime Ministers of a number of Nordic and Baltic countries, together with the Polish Prime Minister. It is about building up a sense of alliance, and it is reported in today’s Financial Times under the headline, “Cameron steps up moves to rebuild links with Europe”. I trust that that is being done on an entirely realistic basis.

For example, to return to the point that I made to the Economic Secretary, I hope that the group getting a blocking minority and voting consistently against the measures in question will include a sufficient number of member states to ensure that the Commission cannot get away with what is no more or less than the manipulation of the rather arcane formulae contained in the regulations. The European Scrutiny Committee is deeply concerned about the situation, as other Members will be.

I entirely agree that the European Commission’s analysis is faulty, and it is also completely out of date, to say the very least. I am being rather generous in saying that, because it has fitted the facts to what it wants to hear. That is why the Committee describes what it has done as “self-serving”. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, there is also the problem that the Commission is the judge and jury in its own case.

We must also consider what we might expect to get from the European Court of Justice. Serious questions often arise about whether many of its decisions are taken on too much of a political basis rather than a strictly juridical one.

[Mark Reckless]

On a recent visit to Brussels, I had the pleasure of meeting the civil servant who negotiated the package in question. He was absolutely up front in saying to me that his role was to do the best for his colleagues. Having done that so successfully, he was promoted. What more do we need to know to see that the EU is run for the benefit not of its members but of its staff?

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and that is far too much of an endemic problem throughout the EU. We know about the case of Marta Andreasen, who was one of the chief accounting officers in the EU some time ago and had the temerity to challenge the basis on which its administration in the Court of Auditors was being run. She was sacked. Before that, there was Bernard Connolly. I am given to understand today that in Greece the chief representative for EUROSTAT, who has to operate within its regulations, is under siege and under incredible personal pressure, and may even be taken to court because he has taken unpopular decisions.

The problem lies in the idea of acting as judge and jury and being self-serving when the whole of Europe is in a state of complete crisis. People are, frankly, lining their own pockets at public expense at a time when we know, because we have just had our letters from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that we are not going to be given an increase, any more than are the civil servants and so forth. The disparity between what is going on in the European Union and what is going on in the domestic administration of this country is so glaringly obvious that we have every reason as a Parliament not only to debate the issue but really to put our foot down.

How are the Government approaching the negotiations on annex 11 of the staff regulations, which deals with annual salary adjustments? It strikes our Committee that the procedure by which the exception clause is invoked is tantamount to a breach of natural justice, as the Commission, in effect, decides whether it should freeze the salaries of its own staff. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how she would like this procedure to be amended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ruffley]

It gets even better: the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which has a population of around 200,000, will have six European civil servants to look after British interests, and there will be thousands more at EEAS headquarters in Brussels, and in Paris, Vienna, Rome and—let us not forget our old friend—Strasbourg.

[Mark Reckless]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Ruffley]

I am coming to the end of my remarks.

We have had an interesting debate today, and I am delighted to hear from the Economic Secretary about the hard line that the Government are taking. However, I shall close my remarks by asking her to explain precisely what the next step in this story will be. We know that there is a court case. We await the details from her of when it will take place and what the likely options are if for some reason the European Court of Justice does not find in favour of the Council, which, with all its faults, is—I repeat—composed of democratically elected politicians.

Connecting Europe Facility

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I will set out the Government’s position on the financial framework in my own sweet time.

Continuing financial instability in the eurozone owing to unsustainable levels of public debt makes the case for restraint stronger: the EU budget must be part of fiscal consolidation, not immune to it. As the Prime Minister has stated, alongside leaders from France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, the maximum acceptable increase in EU budget size until 2020 is a freeze in current payment terms.

Since November’s debate on the financial framework, we have made significant steps towards achieving that goal. In the face of a Commission proposal to increase the 2012 budget by 4.9%, the UK led the European Council in demanding, and achieving, a restriction of the 2012 budget to a real freeze to 2011 payments. In pursuit of a real freeze in payments, the UK’s position must, and will, be consistent and clear in annual budget negotiations, financial framework negotiations and negotiations on the individual spending programmes that make up the framework, of which the connecting Europe facility is one.

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

When the Minister refers to seeking to achieve a real-terms freeze, what deflator or measure of inflation is he using?

[Mr Hoban]

The measure that is used in these discussions is the forecast of inflation provided by the EU, which is currently 2%.

The nature and size of these spending programmes are negotiated in parallel with the negotiations on the overall financial framework. That means that the eventual size and shape of the financial framework are influenced by negotiations on those individual programmes. Given our call for a real freeze, any increase in the size of individual programmes means a corresponding decrease in other programmes.

Eurozone Crisis

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Good morning to you, Mr Caton. In raising concerns about the UK’s liability to the eurozone bail-out via its contributions to the International Monetary Fund, I will ask various questions of the Minister. I will question the assumption that we always get our money back, whether the IMF’s policy will work and why the IMF should be getting involved at all.

That we are talking about large sums of money cannot be denied. Our liability through the European financial stabilisation mechanism totals some £6.5 billion. Our liability through the bilateral loan to Ireland exceeds £3 billion. Despite Government assurances to the contrary, it does not stop there. Our IMF liability to the Greek, Portuguese and Irish bail-out packages announced before May 2011 totals some £3.5 billion, and that does not include the latest Greek bail-out. Adding in our additional contributions, which are almost doubling—from some £10 billion to nearly £20 billion—it is obvious to all that we are soon talking some big figures. I do not think the Minister can deny—I shall welcome his intervention if he thinks otherwise—that some of the additional IMF money will be routed through to the eurozone crisis. Therefore, the Government’s claim that our liability stops with the EFSM and our bilateral loan to Ireland simply does not wash.

Let me be clear: I support the IMF’s work. IMF programmes can and do work under certain conditions. However, there are real risks to those IMF contributions routed through to the eurozone crisis.

The Government take great comfort from the fact that no country that has lent money to the IMF has ever lost that money. However, this recession is very different. Having been a fund manager in the City of London, running pension funds, charity money and funds for private clients, I know that it is always dangerous to say, “This time it is different,” but economic history makes that clear. Recessions since the great depression have always been de-stocking events, where the problem has been a fall in demand. In response to that, the Keynesian approach of stimulating the economy through additional demand—if necessary, by borrowing—has by and large done the trick. This recession, however, is a deleveraging recession, which has been built on excessive debt. Governments and consumers have taken on too much debt. Demand is not the issue; excessive debt is. The only remedies for this recession are to pare down the debt and attain greater growth through increased competitiveness.

I worry that the Government are underestimating the scale of the debt. There is £300 billion-worth of Italian debt to be rolled over in the coming 12 to 18 months. The eurozone went to the Chinese, who have massive reserves, but the Chinese did not want to know. The fact that the IMF wants an additional £10 billion from us clearly suggests that it does not have our original £10 billion. The Government would be foolish to ignore the omens. Does the Minister accept that there is at least some risk that the UK could lose some of the money routed through the IMF to the eurozone crisis? Again, he is welcome to intervene if he so wishes.

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

My hon. Friend refers to £10 billion and another £10 billion. I understand that when the issue was discussed in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Minister said that, broadly speaking, our liability to the IMF would be £20 billion. However, I understand that another funding source exists that may mean that our liability is already £40 billion. Can my hon. Friend enlighten us?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. There is an additional liability that we know relatively little about, because the Government have not come to the House to explain it. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in this debate to address that concern. Is that true? What is the extent of the liability? How would it be called upon in the event of certain contingencies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on his good sense in calling for it. It is fantastically well attended, and it is a pity that it is not longer.

At business questions on Thursday, I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the loan to Ireland. He said that he would tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of my interest in the subject, and that my hon. Friend would come to this debate with the answers to my questions. I hope that he has had due warning.

The loan to Ireland goes to the heart of the issue of trust, to which my hon. Friends have referred. The people in this country do not understand what is happening in their name. The Chancellor announced that we would give a £3 billion loan to Ireland. That is £50 a head for every member of the UK population. He announced that the rate of interest would be about 6%, in round figures, and that that would give the British taxpayer a healthy profit.

It then emerged in late July that the interest rate was likely to be lower, but had not yet been decided. The first tranche of the loan was paid to Ireland on 14 October. Even as we speak, the rate of interest on that loan has not been agreed. It is still being negotiated downwards. At the same time, the Irish bond rate has remained pretty constant, at more than 8%. Why are we negotiating the rate downwards? Why, indeed, are we lending all that money to Ireland when our own small businesses are crying out for money?

[Mark Reckless]

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just the interest rate that is uncertain but the priority of the loan? When addressing the Committee considering the Ireland and Portugal bail-outs and loans, the Financial Secretary stated that the loan to Ireland ranked broadly the same as those of the IMF and other international institutions, when actually it ranks below the IMF and the EFSF.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We were told that the IMF would help Ireland and that we could help Ireland and influence its economic policy through the IMF. We were also told that we needed to give Ireland a £3 billion loan so that we could have even more influence, but I do not think that it is written in any agreement that to have yet more influence we need to reduce the interest below the rate agreed at the outset. The fact that the Irish have drawn down on the loan shows that they do not look a gift horse in the mouth. They realise that this is a great opportunity.

Let us consider the opportunities in Ireland. I got my assistant to research the interest rates available to small businesses in Ireland at the moment, so this information is from yesterday. Allied Irish Banks is offering loans of up to €100,000 to small businesses at a “competitive rate” of 4.4% variable. New and early-stage businesses under three years old can get that money. Now, I do not know what it is like for my hon. Friends, but in my constituency it is almost impossible for businesses to get a loan from the bank at a rate of 4.4%, if they can get one at all. We know that Allied Irish Banks is the beneficiary of a £3.5 billion bail-out. We are giving Ireland money that it is using to subsidise its banks, which in turn are subsidising its small businesses to compete unfavourably against ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I am saying that I accept that the IMF will make a bail-out to the eurozone. On that basis, one of the best solutions for the eurozone is for a number of countries to be allowed to leave the euro. The IMF will therefore need to fund the cost of the dislocation of those countries leaving the euro to give them any hope, attendant with their devaluation, of an economically sustainable future.

[Mark Reckless]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Hammond]

I notice that I have gone on rather longer than my five and a half minutes. I had a number of other points, but thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning, Mr Caton.

Finance Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is fascinating that in this debate, we have seen for the first time who the real deficit deniers are in this House. I appreciate that the parliamentary resources unit, which so ably serves the Conservative Benches, is very good at putting out lines to Conservative colleagues about my hon. Friends being deficit deniers. We have seen this afternoon that the real deficit deniers are sitting on the back row of the Conservative Benches. At a time when there is a real-terms cut in NHS spending—I must correct the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—because the promised increase in funding under this Conservative-led Government is lower than inflation, whether using the consumer prices index or the retail prices index, these Conservative Members propose that we should take money, which Government Front Benchers often tell us we do not have as a nation, and use it to assist with private health care. We have seen yet again today, as my hon. Friend points out, that they are the real deficit deniers. I look forward to seeing whether they have the courage to push the new clause to a Division, and I look forward to going through the No Lobby later this evening.

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

On that issue, there is clearly a very large deficit, which we inherited from the hon. Gentleman’s Government. On funding for this proposal, we have seen a 74% increase in our net contribution to the EU, which many Government Members would not like to see paid. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made very substantial savings by keeping us out of the Greek bail-out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that we will be tempted down that route. We will stick to insurance.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

That was a flight of fancy by the hon. Gentleman. I would say to him and his hon. Friends that it was this Government who scrapped the euro preparation unit, which the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer set up in the Treasury.

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

It is only six weeks since £26 billion of European financial stabilisation mechanism funding was nodded through for Portugal. May I congratulate the Minister on the change we have seen in those six weeks, on his statement now that there is no question of any further EFSM funding, and in particular on what we read in the weekend press—that this is a red-line issue for the Treasury and that any further use of the EFSM is unacceptable? Long may it continue.

[Mr Hoban]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it very clear in his discussions with the Finance Ministers of EU member states that we do not want the EFSM to be used in this bail-out—a statement that Madame Lagarde confirmed on British television only a few weeks ago. I welcome my hon. Friend’s congratulations.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless]

So the Treasury agrees that this is unlawful, but it is not going to do anything about it.

In the debate, it was suggested that these bail-outs were a rounding error. My constituents do not believe that £500 per household is a rounding error. It was also suggested that perhaps these moneys are going to be paid back and there will not be defaults. Well, if Members believe that, why do they not invest their own money rather than that of their constituents? My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said that it would be possible to get a return of 50% or 100%. Does not that suggest that we will not be getting our money back?

Today Members face a choice. If they believe that it is sufficient to urge the Government to raise the issue, then vote yes to the amendment regrettably tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). If they believe that we need to put a stop to these bail-outs and say, “Enough is enough, it is our money, we did not join your currency, and we want our money back”, then vote no to the amendment. I am disappointed to hear that Opposition Members will not be joining us in the Lobby on this occasion. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) put his position honourably; perhaps one day he will have a leader who will lead. For now, however, the position is that these bail-outs continue and our constituents’ money is being thrown away—good money after bad.

This is an opportunity for Members of this House to stand up, to look our constituents in the eye, and to say that we voted no to the bail-outs. Please vote no to the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend has a deep knowledge and experience of issues in Northern Ireland, and indeed the Republic, and I know that his Select Committee will be interested in what is happening with those economies. Let me reassure him that there would be a vote by all Members of the House if I, or any successor of mine—should there be one before 8 December 2015—ever sought to increase the loan. A vote in Parliament would be required, so the effect is exactly the same as asking Parliament to pass another piece of primary legislation. It would involve a vote of the House, which means the legislature exercising its control over and acting as a check on the Executive.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding previous assurances, this loan will not rank pari passu with the EU funds extended under the mechanism, but will be subordinated to them?

[Mr Osborne]

There is a convention that multilateral loans, such as those involving the mechanism and the IMF, rank senior in any loan agreement. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that I have examined this with great care and interest. The convention is pretty clear and long-established in international law that multilateral loans are senior. That means principally the loan from the IMF, but also the loan from the European mechanism, which we stand behind, so it is also in our interest that it is repaid. However, our loan will rank pari passu with the eurozone and the other bilateral loans. That has partly shaped our judgment about the interest rate we will charge and the point at which we will start to disburse our loan. I shall come back to that.

We expect full repayment to be made over the term of the loan. Clause 1(8) sets out that repayments of both the principal and the interest will go into the Consolidated Fund. We want the whole process to be as transparent as possible, so clause 2 creates a requirement for the Treasury to prepare and lay before Parliament every six months a report on any payments made by the Treasury by way of a loan to Ireland, any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest or repayment of such loans, and the amounts outstanding, in the period to which the report refers.

As I have said, I welcome the agreement across many parts of the House about the need to make this loan, which is in our national interest. I thank the Opposition in particular for their support, and to reciprocate their co-operation I thought we should look favourably on their amendments. I therefore propose to accept in principle the Opposition’s amendment 1, which would modify the Government’s reporting requirements in relation to the bilateral loans. We have today tabled a more appropriately worded version of the amendment which achieves exactly the effect that the Opposition intended. May I explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that this is why there is a manuscript amendment? I am trying not to tempt him, because I am sure that he could speak for even longer, but I want to explain this point because he has raised his concern about it. The manuscript amendment has been drafted by the Government’s parliamentary draftsmen in relation to an Opposition amendment that we propose to accept and it has exactly the effect that the Opposition sought.

Let me update the House on the terms of the bilateral loan that we have now agreed in principle with the Irish authorities. I apologise that this information was not made available much further in advance, but the terms were agreed only this morning with the Irish Government and I wanted all Members of the House to have this information available to them. The loan will be drawn in eight tranches, each with a 7.5-year term. The length of the loan is in line with the terms of both the European and IMF loans. The first tranche of our loan will be available to be disbursed in September 2011, which is later than for some of the other tranches that are being drawn down from partners such as the IMF and the European Union.

The interest rate charged on each tranche of the loan will be fixed specifically for that tranche. It will be set by adding a fixed margin of 2.29 percentage points to the appropriate market-determined interest rate—the sterling 7.5-year swap rate—at the time of disbursement. For example, at the present time, the estimated—I stress estimated—interest rate on the first tranche of the UK loan would be the sterling 7.5-year swap rate in September 2011, which on Monday stood at 3.65 percentage points, plus 2.29 percentage points. That would mean a hypothetical interest rate of 5.9% for the first tranche of the loan. The rate on our bilateral loan will be slightly higher than the estimated rate of 5.7% for the first tranche of the IMF and European mechanism funds, so we are charging a slightly higher rate of interest, but it is lower than the estimated 6.1% rate that the eurozone facility will charge on its first tranche of lending. That reflects the different costs of funding and is a measure of international confidence in the UK’s public finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

The interest rate to Iceland is substantially lower because, frankly, needs must: I am seeking to recover money from Iceland. I am dealing with a situation that I have inherited—obviously the Iceland loan relates to events that happened under the previous Government—and I need the support of the Icelandic Parliament. The rate of interest we are charging is slightly higher than the Dutch, who have also entered into an agreement with the Icelandic Government, are seeking. People might remember the circumstances at the relevant time—there was a pretty acrimonious dispute between Iceland and the previous UK Government—and we have sought to repair broken bridges. The terms of the loan that we have come to with Iceland mean that this country will get its money back. My judgment was that other terms might have meant our not getting our money back at all and that would not have been very sensible.

[Mark Reckless]

It is enormously welcome that this country is working with Iceland and Ireland to support them in these very difficult times. The Chancellor has mentioned the current 7.5-year swap rate; can he tell us how much higher it is than when he first announced our participation in this bail-out?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think it has materially changed. I have been quite focused on trying to land it at the 5.9% rate, because that sits between the 6.1% and 5.7% rates of the other international parts of the package. That rate reflects some of the circumstances that relate to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention.

The IMF will charge a floating rate, with a margin above its funding costs, in line with its pre-existing loan terms for an extended fund facility. The European loans, like ours, will charge a fixed rate on each tranche set using a margin above their own cost of funds. We will charge interest every six months and there will be a repayment of the principal at the end of the 7.5-year term of each tranche.

In common with the IMF, we will also charge a commitment fee for making the loan. We will charge half a percentage point on the total amounts that may be drawn on under the loan agreement for the forthcoming 12-month period. If the loan is drawn on, the fee will be waived and effectively replaced with the interest charged on the loan.

There are two conditions, which are set out in terms to which I draw the House’s particular attention. The first is that the IMF, as well as the EU, must be satisfied that Ireland is complying with the agreed restructuring plan. I think that that is a very important safeguard for British taxpayers. The second, crucial, condition is that there must be

“no amendments to the Restructuring Plan that would have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland”.

Given the scale of those banks’ operations in the UK, that second condition is significant, and it shows in a practical way why I believe it was right for us to provide the loan. It allows us to have a say in a restructuring plan that could otherwise have had a major impact on the UK and its banking system, and could potentially have cost the British taxpayer considerable sums of money without our voice even being heard. Making the loan has enabled us to set that condition, and to be part of the discussion about the restructuring plan and its impact on the UK subsidiaries of banks which have significant presences in Northern Ireland. I know that there is concern about the potential impact of the plan on jobs and the availability of credit in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, about its potential impact throughout the UK, given that Bank of Ireland owns the Post Office card account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I hope that the former Chancellor’s message to Germany is well received by the German people, because the fact that a price of eurozone membership was making transfer payments to sustain the currency in countries that are not so competitive was never sufficiently spelled out to them. This is essentially a eurozone problem and an Irish problem, and I do not think that we should put British taxpayers’ money into it other than to meet our obligations under our membership of the IMF. It is perfectly reasonable to contribute through that mechanism. As the Chancellor has said, in so doing, we get more security for our loan than we would from a bilateral agreement.

The proposed loan to Ireland is relatively soft. Interestingly, the Chancellor says that the proposed interest rate will probably be slightly less than that of the eurozone facility, and that that demonstrates the competitiveness of our economy. I see things differently. If we have such a competitive economy, why not make a profit on the interest rate and charge the same rate as the eurozone and get the benefit for the British taxpayer?

[Mark Reckless]

All we are doing is passing on to Ireland the quarter per cent. or so of benefit that we gain by being a better creditor than the eurozone. Most hon. Members feel that we should help Ireland, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not necessarily helpful to Ireland to have a huge amount of extra debt on top of the great debt it already has. On that basis, I understand his point.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The package is described as a bail-out of Ireland, but it is important that we recognise that Ireland has not asked for the bail-out and that it is not the package that the Irish would have wished. Ireland and the IMF proposed to write down bank senior debt—that is, default on an element of that debt—because they recognised that it would be very difficult, although not impossible, for Ireland to pay back its vast amount of debt. It is not clear to me that adding another €67.5 billion to those debts and subordinating the previous debts to that will help Ireland out of this crisis.

Let us consider why Ireland was pushed into the crisis. The European Central Bank threatened to withdraw finance for the Irish banks. The ECB had extended €130 billion at a 1% interest rate in temporary liquidity support to the Irish banking sector—a courageous and rather risky thing for it to have done. It would prefer that credit to be refinanced on a longer term basis and at a higher interest rate. If the eurozone wishes to do that, that is a matter for it to agree.

What is not clear is what interest we, or indeed Ireland, have in refinancing that eurozone debt into an EU-wide debt. We must consider the funding costs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has the proud achievement, for which he deserves significant credit, of reducing the long-term costs of borrowing in the UK. Unfortunately, that has gone into reverse over the last three weeks or so. When he came in, we did not give money to the Greek bail-out. We had a rescue package with €440 billion loans and only €60 billion of the dubious EU facility. Unfortunately, that is now being confused.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) recognised back in May that this was the beginning of a European debt union, but it was only when I saw how the package was denominated that I began to share that view. Unfortunately, it is rebounding on our credit. The EU puts in €22.5 billion, the eurozone puts in €17 billion and we put in €3.5 billion or so. Rather than this appearing to be a bilateral arrangement that we have properly agreed, because it is in the interests of these islands, and that has been negotiated between the UK and the Republic, we give the markets the impression that we are being sucked into a wider EU package and those markets worry that we will do the same for Portugal or Spain. We have seen the back-up in interest rates in the past few weeks, but I ask the Treasury Front-Bench team to make it as clear as they can that this is a one-off involving Ireland. By doing that, we could at least potentially protect our credit from some of the assumptions that the market has built up in the past few weeks.

On Europe, I commissioned an opinion poll last month of 1,000 representative people in the Republic, and more than a third of that sample said that they would like to leave the euro and return to sterling. The Chancellor says that “I told you so” is not a policy and of course he is right, but he needs to recognise that there is a policy implication that we should not make the same mistake again. I shared with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, back in 1998, analysis of what had been happening in Ireland—how bank lending was out of control and how there was going to be a most extraordinary boom and bust that would serve as a vivid lesson to this country. I also shared that analysis with Bertie Ahern, prior to his becoming Taoiseach. Like the Chancellor, he said he understood the analysis and that we might be right, but he wanted to join the euro for political reasons. We saw the impact of that decision in Donegal three weeks ago, where the successor seat of my grandfather, who was the Fianna Fail Member for that area, has now been taken by Sinn Fein.

This is Ireland’s decision, but I hope, in its interests and ours, that we will work together much more closely than we have been. There have been improvements in relations since the Prime Minister’s comments about the Bloody Sunday inquiry and, given what the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has said and given his very positive and supportive attitude, I believe we should work with Ireland on a bilateral basis to try to put things right and get a long-term sustainable solution for it and us that is better than the Carolingian settlement that is being imposed by the eurozone and the European Union on an Ireland that deserves better.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has three minutes, as we must finish at 4 o’clock.