Public Service Pensions Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This debate will finish at 7 pm, so short contributions will allow more Members to get in.
Income Tax
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Please observe the convention of the maiden speech. Croeso, Stephen Doughty.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The debate will finish at about 4 pm. So that as many speakers as possible can be accommodated, the time limit is being reduced to five minutes.
Harriett Baldwin
I think that I have already taken two interventions, and I have only a minute and a half, unfortunately.
The Government have reduced the number of ways in which people on high incomes can reduce their taxable earnings. The Opposition opposed measures to reduce the amount people could put into their pension fund from more than £250,000 to £50,000. I also voted for the abolition of disguised remuneration, which was quite rampant under the previous Government. That also serves to limit the ways in which people on high incomes can reduce the amount of income tax that they pay.
The relationship between the rate of income tax and the amount of revenue raised by the Chancellor is non-linear. Between 0% and 100% there is a curve, and we need to agree about the optimal point on it—the point where the Treasury can get the most revenue from those at the highest end of the income spectrum. I suspect that 45p will be a lot closer to that optimal rate than 50p was.
The Government are focusing on tax cuts for those who are on the lowest incomes, lifting them out of income tax, and ending this tax cull on millionaires.
Mr Meacher
I believe that second or third homes—and all other non-primary homes—should incur a higher rate of tax. I never supported the discount given for second homes, which has now been raised to a level nearly equal to that for first homes, and there is a case for the rate for empty homes being raised above that.
As I was saying, HMRC’s report shows that the loss will be £3 billion a year, as opposed to the sum that the Exchequer Secretary kept on talking about today: the £100 million that Treasury Ministers signed off originally, on the basis of arcane taxable income elasticity calculations, about which the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility said there was huge uncertainty.
A table given in Hansard on 25 April this year, at column 898, is also interesting. It shows that 80% of those earning more than £1 million paid more than 40% in tax. In other words, tens of thousands of people were—and are—paying the 50p tax rate. They were unable to dodge it. That is an important point, because it serves to destroy the Government’s argument that the 50p rate is a very inefficient method of raising tax revenue and that its abolition will have a negligible effect. I think it will have a very significant effect.
The Exchequer Secretary’s other argument in support of cutting the 50p rate was the old Thatcherite canard—which he stated repeatedly in his speech—that we should not tax the wealthy more because we depend on them for our future. That is the old trickle-down theory. However, we know that the opposite is, in fact, the case. Over the past 30 years, there has been a steady trickle-up effect. There has been a ballooning of inequality, with most middle England incomes having stagnated. That would not be so bad if the trickle-up effect made us more competitive.
The fact is that since 1987, when the top rate went down from 83% to 40%, we have not had a surplus on our current account in the balance of payments for the past 35 years. Our share of world trade was 6.5% in 1970, but it has dropped by two thirds to just 2.3% and our deficit on traded goods last year was £100 billion. That is a monument of uncompetitiveness.
Not only did the Chancellor originally impose £18 billion cuts on the poorest families in the country, but he is now proposing a further £10 billion of cuts to fill the gap left by his failed deficit-cutting policies. The housing benefit cuts that are coming in next April will remove thousands of families across the country from their homes because they simply will not be able to pay the rent. The disability living allowance cuts will leave thousands of disabled people housebound. Atos is cutting a swathe through thousands on incapacity benefit who simply cannot get a job. The poor are being punished for what they did not do, and the rich, who have a great deal to answer for, are almost getting off unscathed.
The second reason for keeping the 50p rate is that the very rich are in a far better position at this time to contribute to meeting Britain’s needs. According to The Sunday Times rich list published this April, the richest 1,000 people—a tiny group who make up 0.003% of the adult population—racked up gains in the past three years of austerity of £155 billion. If those gains were charged to capital gains tax, about £40 billion would be raised. Perhaps the real figure would be less and only £20 billion or £30 billion would be raised, but if it were well invested, it would be enough to kick-start the economy and begin to reduce the deficit in a way that we need to do—by real growth.
The third reason for keeping the 50p rate is the real anger building up across the country about what rich individuals and rich multinationals are getting away with on tax avoidance. I return to the Exchequer Secretary’s table, because it shows that 9% of those earning more than £10 million, which is more than £200,000 a week, paid tax at a lower rate than their cleaning ladies—
Small Charitable Donations Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Post-legislative review—
‘The Government shall, within 24 months of this Act coming into force, undertake a review of the operation and administration of the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme and lay a report of the review before the House of Commons.’.
New clause 3—Complementary gift aid for small donations to small charities—
‘(1) Smaller charities, community amateur sports clubs or recently established charities, which do not meet the eligibility criteria in section (1) shall be eligible to apply to HM Revenue and Customs for complementary gift aid for small donations.
(2) “Small donations” for the purposes of complementary gift aid shall be as provided for in section 3 and the Schedule.
(3) That maximum donations limit for complementary gift aid shall be £5,000.
(4) The “connected charities” conditions in sections 4 and 5 shall also apply for charities making claims for complementary gift aid for small donations.
(5)
(a) HM Revenue and Customs may stipulate the supporting verification it may require from relevant agencies or authorities or designated persons in respect of any claims for complementary gift aid for small donations to small charities;
(b) such agencies, authorities or designated persons may include charity commissions, local government officers, police or police and crime commissioners, members of relevant professional bodies or others designated by devolved administrations in agreement with HM Revenue and Customs for these purposes.
(6) This section shall come into force on 6 April 2014.’.
This would provide for a separate scheme of supporting payments from HM Revenue and Customs, in the spirit of gift aid, to smaller or newer charities including those formed in response to a particular event.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
‘(6) The “specified amount” for a charity for a tax year is (subject to section 2(1))—
(a) £5,000 for a charity eligible for the full specified amount; or
(b) £2,000 for a charity eligible for the reduced specified amount.’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1) A charity is an eligible charity for a tax year if—
(a) it has made a successful gift aid exemption claim in at least three of the previous seven years. In such cases, a charity will be eligible for the full specified amount; or
(b) it has made successful gift aid exemption claim in the previous year. In such cases, a charity will be eligible for the reduced specified amount.
This amendment introduces a probationary period for charities that do not have the claims history required in subsection (1)(a) of this clause. It allows them to benefit from a reduced specified amount until a claims history has been established. This also removes the requirement for a start-up period.
Government amendment 24.
Amendment 32, page 2, line 14, at end insert ‘or
(c) the charity is a “small charity”;
(d) the charity has been established for a specific event or project which has concluded.’.
This amendment extends the meaning of eligible charity to small charities and those established for specific events or projects.
Government amendments 25 and 26.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 26, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Government amendment 27.
Amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) are eligible for the same rate of specified amount (subject to section 2(1)) for the tax year.’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 12, page 3, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a) the specified amount (subject to section 2(1)), divided by’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 13, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) if less, the specified amount (subject to section 2(1))’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 45, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) if less, the specified amount (subject to section 2(1))’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Government amendments 28 and 29.
Amendment 15, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
‘(a) two or more charities (“connected eligible charities”) are connected with one another in a tax year and are charities eligible for the same rate of the specified amount (subject to section 2(1)) for the tax year, and’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 16, page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) if less, the specified amount (subject to section 2(1))’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 21, page 7, line 10, at end add—
‘(8) The Treasury must, within 24 months of this Act coming into force, prepare a report assessing the impact of—
(a) the connected charities provisions; and
(b) the community buildings provisions
on the ability of charities to benefit from the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme and lay it before the House of Commons.’.
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 33, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
‘“small charity” means a charity whose gross income for a tax year is no more than £25,000.’.
This amendment defines a small charity as one whose gross income for a tax year is no more than £25,000. This figure is consistent with that given for lower-income charities in the Charities Act 2011 and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator’s Routine Monitoring Policy.
Cathy Jamieson
I look forward to further interesting debates on the proposals—we had interesting debates both on Second Reading and in Committee. This large group includes significant proposals, although a number are consequential on acceptance of the main amendments.
We discussed a number of the significant proposals on Second Reading and in Committee. They follow a pattern. I thank the Minister—it might be one of the few times I do so—for listening to some, but not all, of the concerns raised in Committee. At the time, it was not always clear that he would introduce amendments or deal with other things, but I thank him for listening. Crucially for the charities, if not for the Opposition, he has responded to points that the charitable sector raised with us.
Today we have once again heard concerns from the wider charity sector about the reported deficit of more than £300 million in 2011, which it has brought to public attention. That shows the current difficulty of getting donations and income into charities while at the same time they are facing increased burdens on the services they provide—not that the sector sees its services as burdens. Hopefully, more charities will benefit from the Bill now than would have benefited from it when we debated it in pre-legislative scrutiny, on Second Reading and in Committee.
We had long debates in Committee on some clauses and amendments. I am sure the House will be relieved to know that I have no wish to repeat them verbatim—that would be unhelpful—but it is worth noting that the same issues came up in Committee time and again, which suggested that further work needed to be done to amend the Bill. We also need to continue to scrutinise what the Bill will do in the light of subsequent amendments.
There is an extensive list of proposals in the group, and I want to refer to a number of them. It would be wise of me to put on record that we have tabled new clauses 1 and 2 because they would deal with a number of concerns that the Opposition and the charity sector have raised throughout the Bill’s progress. Perhaps the Government have acknowledged—in their amendments in Committee and on Report—that the original Bill was not drafted as tightly as it might have been, or in a way that ensured as much fairness and equity as possible.
It is therefore right and proper that we return to the issue of formally reviewing the Bill after a two-year period. The Minister said many times in Committee that he was willing to look again at the measures and acknowledged that he wished to amend the Bill—we will discuss that later. However, when the Chancellor first announced the scheme, he said he wanted it to deliver
“gift aid on the contents of the collecting tin and the street bucket”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 962.]
He also pledged that the reforms would be “bureaucracy-lite”. That theme has run throughout our discussions.
The Bill will doubtless benefit a number of charities and community amateur sports clubs, which is welcome, but the Government need to reassure charities that they are committed to making the Bill the best it can be. Given that many of the concerns that have been outlined will not result in changes to the Bill before Royal Assent, we can know how well the scheme is performing in practice only if there is a formal review. In any event, it would be good practice to review legislation after a period of its operation. That theme ran through a number of proposals that the Opposition tabled in Committee.
The Minister will note that we are trying in new clauses 1 and 2 to add extra detail to the report that we originally asked for in Committee. Let me say a few words about why a detailed report is so important. I do not want to go through all the arguments again, but we heard in Committee that anywhere between a third and a fifth of charities would benefit as a result of both the strict eligibility criteria and the community buildings and connected charities provisions, which we have debated extensively at various stages. The corollary to that is that a significant number of charities will be unable to benefit. The scheme could therefore be divisive, favouring some types of charities over others. That theme also ran through the debate.
Attempting to solve one problem often produced unintended consequences and difficulties—I am thinking of our debates on churches, and on large versus small charities—and that is why we ask in the new clauses for a breakdown and a review that gives more detail. That is important. New clause 1 mentions registered charities, exempt and excepted charities, and charities in different regions. That would mean that we can fully understand the impact of the scheme once it is in operation and redress any inequalities as soon as possible.
We spoke extensively in Committee about the complexity of the Bill. As we heard, it is estimated that 160 pages of guidance on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs website will be needed to explain it. There are 80 pages on registering for gift aid, so perhaps we can agree that the Bill is more complex than we would like it to be. Not just the Opposition and the charity sector understood that and raised such particulars; the Minister, in the sixth sitting of the Bill Committee on 23 October, admitted that the rules were complex in response to one of my hon. Friends. He said:
“I readily admit that this part of the Bill is complex and that we do not know exactly how it will work until it comes into practice.”––[Official Report, Small Charitable Donations Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2012; c. 207.]
In another Committee sitting, he said that
“the very nature of trying to capture issues such as connectivity—whether it is here where we are dealing with charity, or in other laws where we are dealing with trusts—is complex.”
He has also said that:
“Clearly HMRC is like any organisation; mistakes can always be found.”––[Official Report, Small Charitable Donations Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2012; c. 223-5.]
I make those points simply to reinforce the rationale for building into the process a formal review, because of the nature and complexity of the Bill and the amount of guidance that will be required. At one point in Committee, I said that if a charity had £1 for every word of guidance needed, there would be a fairly significant donation to good causes. It is important that the Bill requires a formal review, so that we can understand the provisions and ensure that we keep tabs on the costs of the scheme.
In the Minister’s deliberations in Committee, he often spoke of having to be a good guardian of the public purse. I would have thought that it would therefore be only right and proper for the Government to commit formally to reviewing the costs of the scheme after an appropriate period—reviewing the spending, because the Minister said that as many charities as were eligible would be able to take part in the scheme, and to ensure that the money was equitably distributed, identifying any problems in the regions of the different nations that make up the UK.
There are a number of concerns about the data on which we begin the process. The Minister was good enough to write to the Opposition to answer a number of the questions we raised in advance of the debate. He mentions in his letter amending the matching rate; amending the eligibility period to two years; introducing a power to amend the eligibility criteria in future; and changing the powers in some of the clauses. He goes on to give some information about organisations that can claim gift aid but are not covered by Charity Commission data. He gives figures, and that is helpful, although—as is often the case in these scenarios—the answers to questions immediately prompt a series of other questions. Some of the responses that we have subsequently had from the charity sector suggest confusion in some areas, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that up. He could also help us to establish that baseline from which the success or otherwise of the scheme could be judged in the future.
For example, in the Minister’s letter he suggests that 60% of the organisations claiming gift aid in 2009-10 were registered charities. I am not entirely sure what that 60% represents. Was that 60% of the 68,357 charities to which gift aid repayments were made in 2009-10? That figure comes from HMRC’s own release. If that is the case, it would suggest that just over 41,000 registered charities were claiming gift aid in that year, which of course means that some 40% of the total were claiming other types. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the point and reassure us.
The Minister also indicates in his letter that HMRC does not hold data on the number of charities making gift aid claims. That is a bit confusing because HMRC has been able to provide some statistics and figures, so it seems that it does hold some underlying data, if perhaps not all of the data that we have sought. It would be helpful to have some clarity on that point. Does HMRC not hold up-to-date data on the number of registered charities or have we somehow misunderstood the Minister’s letter? If so, the charitable sector is saying that it too could have misunderstood, and that does not bode well for good communications.
It would be helpful if we were able to ensure that we have such provision in the Bill. As we know, Ministers come and Ministers go. This Minister is relatively new in post and it is good to see that he is still here to reap the benefits and take the plaudits when the Bill passes—as it no doubt will—but another Minister may come along in due course who may not have paid quite so much attention to the Bill and perhaps has not fully appreciated the amount of attention to detail from this Minister and the commitments that he made in Committee. For that reason, it would be helpful to have something on the face of the Bill, as outlined in new clauses 1 and 2.
I fully appreciate the fact that the Minister has tabled some amendments, to which he will speak in due course. Depending on what he has to say, those amendments may make some of the amendments that we have tabled superfluous or redundant, but it is important to place on record our reasons for tabling them.
A whole series of consequential amendments flow from amendments 8 and 9, which provide for a sort of probationary period for charities before they qualify. The Minister will no doubt already be thinking that his amendments on the claims history would give more benefits to some charities than our amendments. That may well be the case, but the counter-argument would be that under our amendments charities would be able to benefit sooner.
The Minister will also remember that in Committee we tabled several amendments pushing him to reconsider various aspects of clause 2. We did that because the sector essentially felt that the three-year history of successful gift aid claims and the requirement that charities must have been in existence for at least three complete tax years before they could benefit from the scheme were overly onerous and out of proportion to any risk of fraud. The Government have tabled some amendments in this area and I take that as a sign that they have listened to our concerns and taken steps in the right direction.
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me remind the House that the debate is time-limited and will end at 6.29 pm. When the shadow Minister sits down, I will announce the time limit to ensure that all Members who have indicated that they wish to speak get in.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We will start with a six-minute limit, but it will have to be lowered. I call Mr Cash to move his amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit has been reduced to five minutes.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I remember well those long-gone days when we were told that monetary union would bring strength to the EU, be enduring and serve to bring our economies together. By golly, how time does fly, and how truth changes the vision. Recent experience has shown that political ambitions exceeded economic reality, and fault lines were built into the single currency from the start. Structures have been put to the test and, quite frankly, been found wanting.
The problems facing the euro might not have started in financial services, but the crisis has certainly highlighted those fundamental flaws. Sovereign debt might not be limited to the eurozone, but its constraints within the economic and monetary union exacerbated the crisis. Unless Europe gets to grips with those problems, the entire project could disintegrate before our very eyes. That is the situation we are facing. We are debating a desperate attempt to apply sticking plaster to a serious wound. The flaw is inherent; the mistake already made. Membership of the single currency was extended way beyond that initially envisaged, and therein lies the fault, which is not dealt with by any of the measures proposed today. Banking union may sound like a measured response, but the creation of a European banking union is a world away from a co-ordinated international response. President Barroso revealed his agenda in his “State of the Union” speech, raising the issue of banking union in the context of a push towards a federal European state. That is the truth of the matter.
Our first priority must be to resist any financial transaction tax. That is not a new idea; in 1984, Sweden introduced a 0.5% tax on the purchase or sale of shares. By 1990, 30% of all Swedish equity trading had moved offshore—more than half of it to London—and the volume of bond trading had declined by 85%. That is the damage that a financial transactions tax can do to this country. It is vital that the Government have the courage to resist it.
Will the Minister expand on the references to fiscal probity that allow for spending on social fairness? Is that a get-out clause for grossly indebted Governments who want to keep spending they do not have? It sounds very like it to me.
The report on EMU accepts that public opinion is key, but that is another way to justify spending taxpayers’ money on propaganda. Our Government have stopped the money-go-round in local government and quangos. It would be totally inconsistent to allow Eurocrats to deploy hard-earned taxpayers’ money to propagate grand visions that have already proved to be failures.
Earlier comments on the document made it clear that fiscal integration is about a continued movement to a federal Europe. I could quote page after page, but I will not bore the House. The truth of the matter is that we need to be sure that our Government’s promises to us are absolutely watertight, fast and hard-held. If they are not, the House will be doing a massive disservice to our children and grandchildren. That is what this measure is about.
I noticed a slight smile on the face of the Minister when I made a point about social well-being. If he looks into it a little more, he might begin to agree with me. If I had the time, I would explain.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, we need to take this opportunity as a base to renegotiate—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am calling the wind-up at 6.24 and we have two speakers left.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I call Mr John Baron, and I ask him to sit down no later than 6.24 pm.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Like many other Members, particularly on the Government Benches, I have a healthy respect for the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench this evening—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington)—but I believe that they are trying to defend the indefensible. I find it hard to understand how a Government who are prepared to use the veto, and who have used it in defence of City interests, can be prepared, by passing these regulations unamended, to enter negotiations without being able to assure the House that cast-iron guarantees are in place to ensure that qualified majority voting will not be allowed adversely to affect the City.
I have asked the Minister at the Dispatch Box where those concrete guarantees are. Unfortunately, I have not heard anything to convince me that they actually exist. The idea that the European Central Bank would not be allowed to overrule or override non-members of the eurozone is, I am afraid, not a strong enough guarantee. I do not see where that stands up, particularly given that the legal opinion that has been sought and confirmed brings that sort of red line very much into dispute. There is no guarantee there at all. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about what other concrete guarantees exist in defence of the City. Going into negotiations or allowing these regulations to pass without a clear idea of what the guarantees are could, I suggest, turn out to be a fool’s errand.
We all know how the eurozone has got into this mess. The eurozone went for monetary union, courtesy of the single currency, but we all know that there cannot be monetary union without fiscal union, so now it is playing catch-up. Easy credit and easy money have led to Governments borrowing too much, and the eurozone is trying to sort out this mess.
I have to say to the Minister, if he is listening, that having just returned from Germany with the Foreign Affairs Committee and having asked about the possible solution, I know that fiscal union or fiscal compact is definitely on the table—despite the fact that most members of the fiscal compact that is coming into effect next year have already broken the parameters of the financial limits set. The universal answer, whether one spoke to politicians of the left or the right or to trade unions, businesses or lobby groups, was more integration and more political union in order to make the fiscal compact work. We are on a collision course with the proposals that are now coming out of the eurozone.
My suggestion is that that is fine: let the eurozone members get on with it; we wish them well in their endeavour. I doubt whether it will succeed, because the economics do not stand up and time does not allow any further exploration. Let them proceed, but my concern as they do proceed along that journey is what damage they will do to our interests. My deep concern is that, if we are not careful, we are going to walk into negotiations without having the ability to call upon cast-iron guarantees if they are needed, and that our interests will be adversely affected as a result.
We all accept that in this country we perhaps need to rebalance the economy somewhat and to get manufacturing up. We cannot, however, ignore the importance of the City to our economy. We have been prepared to use the veto in the past, and it makes no sense for the Government’s proposals to proceed without those cast-iron guarantees in place. There is little doubt that if we enter into negotiations without those safeguards in place, we will stand a real risk of allowing others adversely to affect the City’s interests and, in the end, our prosperity as well.
I look to hear from the Minister what those concrete guarantees are. If, as I believe, they are not forthcoming, I will have no hesitation, having put my name to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in supporting him in the Lobby—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to cut back his winding-up speech to just five minutes so that every Back Bencher who wanted to could participate in the debate.
Air Passenger Duty
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is being reduced to seven minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To accommodate the remaining Members, I am shaving a minute more off the time. The limit is now six minutes.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I am pleased to participate in today’s debate. I am a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which has spent some considerable time considering this issue, and I am sure that more of my Committee colleagues would have been here today had they not been in Dublin on an official visit. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House.
I am committed to rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy from its current over-reliance on the public sector, but I believe that that must primarily be achieved by growing the private sector rather than cutting the public sector, and the current APD regime is a significant obstacle to that agenda. APD is a commercial challenge to Northern Ireland business and it conflicts with the positive measures being taken to boost tourism and related employment, and to encourage foreign direct investment. It adds to the cost of indigenous businesses, particularly those seeking to grow their export market. The Committee received evidence of that just last week from a large fish processor in Northern Ireland now exporting to the far east but finding APD a huge burden on business. At best, it adds to cost; at worst, it could jeopardise connectivity between Northern Ireland and other UK and international markets.
Although APD was originally relatively affordable, it has increased significantly, particularly on long-haul flights. The increases have been very steep since 2007—up to 260% for short-haul flights—and between 2008 and 2011, for example, the number of passengers carried by Virgin Atlantic decreased by 7.7%, but the amount of APD paid by its passengers increased by more than 45.5%.
Members will be aware that this is an issue I have raised frequently in the House. I apologise if what I say today has been heard before, but until it is fully acknowledged and acted on, it bears repeating. I concur with a lot of what other hon. and right hon. Members have already said, but I want to focus on the impact on Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is unique, but it offers an effective demonstration in microcosm of the impact that APD can have more widely in the UK. The last time I raised the issue with Treasury Ministers, I was mildly scolded for not first acknowledging the work that the Treasury had done on APD for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland. In an attempt to be more charming and to heal those wounds, I will therefore refer to that first on this occasion.
The United Continental flight was hugely important, as our only long-haul direct route, for a number of reasons. First, of the 600,000 passengers it carried in the last six years or so, 40% were in-bound tourists and business visitors. Furthermore, the route’s success is a demonstration to others of the viability of Northern Ireland as a tourism and business destination for direct long-haul flights, and provides a base on which we can build. APD placed the flight in jeopardy because the rates are so much lower in Dublin, which is less than two hours away. I give credit to the Treasury for responding to lobbying by MPs, the Northern Ireland Assembly and businesses and to the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry into air passenger duty by reducing APD for long-haul flights from Northern Ireland and indicating recently in the Budget that it would be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Having I trust paid due regard to the progress made, I still have to acknowledge that the change does not assist with the unfair burden placed on Northern Ireland by air passenger duty on necessary regional flights or the double duty that is paid, as our access to the UK hubs often requires separate flights owing to the small number of through carriers. UK economic policy remains to focus development on the south-east;, so other regions need to access that market to develop. In addition, the main hub airports in the UK for international travel are based in the south-east. Connectivity to and through the south-east is therefore vital, yet for those of us living on an island off an island it can only be achieved by flying.
The case for a review of APD is strong across the UK. We are island nations and aviation is crucial. However, in Northern Ireland the situation is more acute, as we are the only region with a land border with another EU member. Price-sensitive advantage in the Republic has directly affected Northern Ireland, which is something we need to be conscious of. I have mentioned the Irish Government’s intention to abolish the tax. We should note that, despite the huge economic pressure on them to reduce their deficit, low rates of corporation tax and APD are two things on which the Irish Government refuse to budge because they recognise them as key economic drivers.
APD also has a detrimental effect on tourism in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, if people fly to Dublin, they stay in the Republic of Ireland and spend there. We are lucky in Belfast if we can extract a day trip out of their visit. We need people to come and have bed nights in Northern Ireland. We need them to spend their money in Northern Ireland, which is best achieved by getting people to fly there.
I recognise that APD is lower on regional flights, but it is also paid on both legs of a journey. When combined with passenger landing charges for those on regional flights for which Heathrow or Gatwick is the destination airport, APD significantly increases costs for travellers. There is a disproportionately negative effect on those travelling from Northern Ireland, and there are few practical travel alternatives for us.
I want briefly to reflect on two other key issues: the environmental impact of aviation and the financial impact of change. APD was introduced as a means of taxing aviation to reflect the environment impact. I have no objection to aviation paying its fair share in that regard, but APD has long since parted company with that objective and is now merely a revenue raiser for the Treasury. That may sound dismissive, but it is not intended to be. Raising revenue is hugely important, given the context of the deficit, but the international evidence suggests that taxation on aviation is such a constraint on other revenue that it outweighs its benefits. I am therefore pleased to be able to support the motion today, which seeks a proper review of the situation.
In the few seconds I have left, I would like to reflect on the need for us also to consider the impact on outbound travel—
Multiannual Financial Framework
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To accommodate more Members in the debate, the time limit is being reduced to five minutes, with the usual injury time for interventions.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the flow of the debate, but I need to raise an important matter. It will be recorded in tomorrow’s Hansard that the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), told Members that the Government’s commitment to introducing a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses was confirmed by the fact that such a commitment was made by Her Majesty in the Queen’s Speech to Parliament. You will, I know, agree that that is a powerful riposte to those of us who had dared to doubt the Government’s good faith on this issue. However, a subsequent inspection of the two most recent Queen’s Speeches of this Parliament finds no mention whatever of such a commitment. Is it in order for any Minister to pray in aid of his argument a part of Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech that turns out to be wholly fictitious? Has the Minister in question contacted you or Mr Speaker to schedule an apology to the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not been notified that any Minister wishes to make a statement on this matter or any other matter from the Dispatch Box this evening. As for whether the Minister was in order to give the response that he did, Ministers and, indeed, all right hon. and hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches.
John McDonnell
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a serious matter such as this where a Minister has inadvertently misled the House, it is the norm for him to be asked to return to the House as soon as possible to correct the record and explain his position. May we now express the view on the Floor of the House that the Minister has time now to come back to the Chamber to explain the situation?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I am sure those on the Treasury Bench will have heard. Should a request be made to make a statement or to raise a point of order, the Chair will be notified and I will make sure that the House is informed in the usual way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 9.30 pm.
Tax Avoidance and Evasion
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Pugh
Yes, and that indicates clearly that legal uncertainty and endless litigation are not central and natural features of a GAAR. They do not happen in other countries.
We cannot excuse a poorly drafted GAAR, so we have to get it right. We cannot console ourselves with the thought that the only victims of a poor GAAR are corporate bodies, high net worth individuals and so on. However, a GAAR is a very important tool, and there remains no convincing general argument against it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call the Front Benchers, I remind them that it would be appropriate to give Mr Meacher a couple of minutes at the end to wind up the debate.
Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Hancock
I supported yesterday’s decision, because one thing we are dealing with now is the consequence of money being too loose, which is the deleveraging in the banking system, which is causing a huge drag on the economy. Therefore, the mitigation of that deleveraging, through loose monetary policy—low interest rates and in a quantitative sense—is something that I support. However, more strongly than I support the Bank’s decision, I support its ability to make it in a way that is unconstrained by political considerations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Any chance of mentioning the Bill from time to time?
Matthew Hancock
Absolutely; this argument is vital to the Bill. It is a question of whether the Governor’s appointment should be in the gift of the Government or should be capable of being vetoed by people who are not necessarily the Government’s appointees. I apologise if I did not make it clear why this is precisely and closely related to the Bill.
In considering the Bill’s impact, it is important to remember that the Governor is only one member of the Monetary Policy Committee and of the Financial Policy Committee. As we saw last month, the Governor voted in favour of quantitative easing a month before the Committee had a majority for it. In that light, it is slightly odd that the Bill considers only the Governor when the body that determines our monetary policy is the whole membership of the Monetary Policy Committee. There are nine members, five of whom are executives of the Bank of England and four are so-called external members. While the Treasury Committee has oversight of, and the ability to scrutinise, all the others, there is no proposal for the other eight Committee members or the other members of the Financial Policy Committee to be subject to a veto by the Treasury Committee. In that sense, those who support the arguments in this Bill—I do not—should support a veto over the appointment of the other members of the Committee.
The Bill makes it clear from line 20 onwards that the deputy governors are not subject to the oversight of the Treasury Committee. Given that the deputy governors have one vote each and the Governor has only one vote, too, although he does by convention vote last, the argument does not change with respect to the deputy governors and the Governor. There is thus a confusion at the heart of the Bill.
The proposed appointment process by the Treasury Committee ignores the measures in the Financial Services Bill, which I think removes the motivation for bringing this Bill forward now. The structure of the Bank of England will change from having an imperial Governor to having one who is the head of a committee—the Financial Policy Committee—on the financial stability side of the Bank.
The need for a common strategy between the Bank and the Government is more important now than it has been for a long time. The financial crisis laid bare the importance of co-ordinating monetary and fiscal policy. For a while, it was wrongly believed in this country that those two policies could be separate. Indeed, financial policy was separated again, so we had a tripartite system, with financial policy vested in the Financial Services Authority, monetary policy in the Bank of England and fiscal policy in the Treasury. It is not the case that they were separable. It is clear from how the world is having to manage the current difficult situation that these are not discrete entities, but aspects of one another.
The banks themselves are part of the transmission mechanism, too. I like to say that they stand in relation to the Monetary Policy Committee as the Higgs boson particle stands to matter: they give substance to the Committee’s decisions because they transmit interest rates and monetary policy into the real economy. Similarly, the level of debt in the economy is symbiotically connected to banking regulation because regulation of the leverage of banks has a direct impact on the amount of debt, and the removal of the regulation over leverage and the amount of debt in the economy was one of the main drivers of the over-leverage and vast expansion of the money supply that led to the grave difficulties we face in managing the current economy. That explains why it is so important for the broad strategy of the Government of the day to be supported by the Governor of the Bank of England.
What we do not want to see are more asset bubbles, and we might see those if we had a Governor who did not agree with the strategy of the day. Fiscal policy could work against monetary policy, rather than the two broadly working together both to deal with an over-indebted economy and to enable the decisive action that is necessary to stimulate the economy and prevent a banking crisis from turning into a slump. This is not, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, a matter that has no impact on our postbags. Although few people write to me about the appointment process of the Bank of England, an error in that process could have a profound impact on our economy, and would doubtless hit our postbags very hard.
Matthew Hancock
That would be an example of where monetary policy and the wider economic policies of the Government were not working in tandem. The Minister explained the procedures for the removal of a Governor, and they require the proposal of the court—I think the strengthening of the court is important. There are procedures in place, therefore. It might be thought that a wider discussion of this point would not be in order, but the Bill is about getting rid of the Governor as well as the appointment of the Governor. My hon. Friend might therefore want to touch on that point in more detail later. I had not considered it, but it is important and it should be scrutinised properly and at length by somebody who has considered it more closely than I have.
As for the counter-factual, or what happens when the views of the central bank are at variance with those of the Government, the problem in the years running up to the crisis was not that the leadership of the Bank was too close to the Government, but that the voice of the Bank was being ignored by the Government for political reasons, hence the fact that the growth of the money supply was too fast and the subsequent difficulties in handling the crisis. This was pointed out by the Bank, and Sir Andrew Large made a speech making clear the problems of over-rapid growth of the money supply in 2004. He pointed to the dangers of supposedly benevolent innovations such as the rise of securitisation, and he asked whether that was causing problems that our Government should be addressing. There was no response from the Government of the day.
In May 2006, the current Governor warned that
“a potentially large social problem, with many households getting into difficulty with their debts, is materialising.”
He was in a position to know, because he had received in the post a piece of junk mail—a credit card application from a bank—and the literature said:
“We have the solution, Mervyn, for your bankruptcy.”
The bank in question did not realise that Sir Mervyn King was not bankrupt—and I certainly hope he would never be bankrupt. Indeed, there was a worse problem: one bank—RBS—sent a credit card to a—
Matthew Hancock
It is important that the Governor of the day has the same broad strategy as the Government—but I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We have one further, and chilling, example.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think that it is up to any hon. Member to use whatever communicating devices are at their disposal, quite frankly. The House is clearly here for the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) to come to and speak, if he so wishes; if he does not wish to do so, it is up to him.
Matthew Hancock
Hear, hear, I say. I think that all sorts of communication are very useful in this modern age. I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) a great deal—and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith)—but I have a very simple response. As I said at the start of my speech, I think that this proposal would mark a significant constitutional departure. It is about the distinction between the legislature and the Executive and about blurring that distinction. The idea that we should pass the Bill after only five hours of debate on a Friday lunchtime, compared with the 10 days of debate in Committee of the whole House proposed by the Government on House of Lords reform, which merely changes the architecture within that legislative branch, is absurd. If we want to make a change of such importance, we should be able to debate it fully and frankly. Going through some of the historical and international comparisons is vital to a significant change.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Whatever Members might think of the Bill, I think that it is worth putting on the record the abundant criticism on Twitter and elsewhere about what is happening in the House today. In normal circumstances there would be an opportunity to claim to move that the question be now put—a closure motion—but that is not possible today because many Members have returned to their constituencies because of the flooding. It is completely understandable that they should do so to look after their constituents’ interests, but it is worth putting it on the record that that is one of the procedural issues we have had to face today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I do not think I really need to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s statement.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is completely proper parliamentary procedure. Otherwise, you and your predecessors in the Chair would have ruled it out of order. It is absolutely proper that things are debated and it is up to Members to decide whether to be here or in their constituencies on any day of the week. It is quite wrong to criticise Members for debating things fully; that is what we are here for.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Rees-Mogg, for doing my job and responding to the point of order that I had decided not to respond to.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us not have a debate about the debate. Let us please just move on to the Bill.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I want to make a remark about the Bill, and not of a partisan nature. I am very grateful to be able to speak fully, and I will not be intimidated or bullied into truncating my remarks to make them shorter than I had anticipated—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. May I now gently bully the hon. Gentleman into moving on to the Bill?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am suitably bullied and shall proceed as I intended.
The Bill raises important constitutional issues. We have a Parliament, we have the honour of sitting in the House of Commons, and we all know the struggles the House had in order to assert its primary function and its principal character as the legislature and main law-making organ of government. I am afraid that the Bill represents a further encroachment of the powers of the House of Commons. I am a Conservative. I happen to think that there should be a balance and distinction between the Executive and the legislature. As someone who has read a little of the history of this place, I also recognise that the position of the House of Commons in the constitution should be guarded, but this new development—this assertion that the Treasury Committee should have a power of veto or even a power of appointment over the Governor of the Bank of England— represents an unprecedented extension of the powers of this House.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
As it is fairly obvious that we are running into the sands of procrastination and filibustering—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Pound, resume your seat. If I heard a filibuster taking place, clearly I would have ruled it out of order. Mr Kwarteng, after his initial little problem, has been in order.
Stephen Pound
I profoundly apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker; I abase myself before you.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he might just as logically say that dictators dictate. Surely there can be no greater or more magnificent ornament of the constitution than the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, to whom I listened last week as he interviewed a preferred nominee for the post of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary. A little bit of democracy is not that painful; it is rather a healthy thing.
Professional Standards in the Banking Industry
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should commission an independent, forensic, judge-led public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the culture and professional standards of the banking industry, to be completed within 12 months, to be paid for by the banks, and that any such inquiry should provide an interim report and recommendations, by the end of 2012, covering the lessons learnt from the scandal of manipulation of the LIBOR.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to debate the following motion:
“That, in the opinion of this House, a joint committee of the two Houses ought to be established into professional standards in the banking industry.”
Ed Balls
I rise to open this very important debate, and to support a motion that has been tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and in those of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for North Down (Lady Hermon). Five separate parties in the House—the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Green party—have all supported the case for an independent and judge-led public inquiry.
This is a vital moment for our banking and financial services industries, for our economy, and for the reputation of this Parliament. We must today decide how to respond to the massive public anger that has erupted over the past week throughout our country, families and businesses large and small following the revelations of lying and market manipulation which have been exposed at Barclays and which we expect to spread more widely, and of the mis-selling of interest rate derivatives to thousands of small businesses. Those revelations will have also deeply dismayed and angered ordinary bank employees in London and across the country who work hard every day and do vital jobs, and who now see the reputation of their profession undermined by the shocking irresponsibility of a few. There is anger and incomprehension at the fact that traders and executives should behave in such a self-interested and duplicitous way, seemingly without any reckoning or proper punishment.
Ed Balls
Here we go again, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reason we advocate an open public inquiry, judge-led, is precisely in order to get to the bottom of all these things.
Given the direction in which the debate is now going, before I set out the arguments before us today let me just say this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The cheap, partisan and desperate way in which he and his aides have conducted themselves in recent days does him no good; it demeans the office that he holds; and, most important, it makes it harder for us to achieve the lasting consensus that we need.
I have to say that what we have seen in the last few days makes the case more eloquently than any speech that I could deliver, or any speech that any of us could deliver, for an independent, arm’s length public inquiry to elevate this debate above the deeply partisan tone set by the Chancellor and his colleagues. As for the false personal accusations that the Chancellor has made against me, not on the basis of any evidence but purely in the hope of political advantage, he said yesterday—[Interruption.] Members should listen to this.
The Chancellor said yesterday that I was “clearly involved” in communicating with the Bank of England and Barclays in October 2008 concerning the LIBOR market, a claim that his aides repeat. He made that utterly baseless accusation before any proper investigation, before any witnesses had been called and before any papers had been examined. He did not say it to an inquiry; he said it yesterday to The Spectator. If he has any evidence, he should produce it now, in the House. [Interruption.] If he will not—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Please can we calm the debate? This is an important debate, and we do not need shouting across the Chamber in that fashion. [Interruption.] Order! Do you understand? Stop it. Let us take the heat out of the debate now, and stop the calling.
Ed Balls
The allegation made about me yesterday in The Spectator is utterly untrue. At no point did I have any communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr Paul Tucker, at any time when I was an adviser, a Minister, or subsequently a Cabinet Minister, and I had no discussion at any time with anyone about the LIBOR market and its operation. [Interruption.] It is not for me to provide the proof; it is for the Chancellor to prove his allegation. If he has any evidence, he should produce it now, in the House. I will take an intervention now. [Interruption.] If the Chancellor will not provide the evidence now, he needs to stand up at the Dispatch Box now, and withdraw this utterly false allegation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Just to help the debate, Mr Bridgen, save your energy. Mr Balls is not going to allow you to intervene, so please, no more while Mr Balls is speaking, Mr Bridgen.
The Attorney-General
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is being so obtuse about what seems to me to be a fairly clear issue. The motion he has tabled is, for the reasons I have given to him, unlikely to be feasible if there is a criminal investigation. He then conflated that with the suggestion that there could not be any kind of inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. That is simply not the case. Of course there can be, provided that it bears in mind the need to respect comity with any other court or proceedings that might be taking place. It is the structure that the—
Ed Balls
I have to say that there would be no point taking an intervention from the part-time Chancellor on this point, as he clearly does not have a clue what is going on. The confusion is that the timetable that we have set down for our first-stage judicial inquiry is exactly the same as that which the Government announced for their parliamentary inquiry. If it is too short for one, how can it be the right length for the other? More than that, my argument was that when we are discussing complex issues that require fine legal judgment, the idea that judges would make that fine legal judgment in a worse way than a parliamentary Committee is nonsensical. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done a very great service to this House. I had four objections to the form of the inquiry, but it has been torpedoed while I am only halfway through.
I have a feeling that the Attorney-General’s interventions might have completely killed off the parliamentary inquiry, but there are two more reasons why it is a bad idea.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I point out that this is a time-limited debate and a substantial number of Members wish to contribute. All the noise and the number of interventions will mean that several Members will be disappointed. May we please hear Ed Balls in silence?
Ed Balls
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government have won their vote. The Chair of the Treasury Committee will now chair a narrow inquiry based on the remit that he set out in the House this afternoon. The Opposition respect the hon. Gentleman and will work with him, but we have some real concerns about the membership and secretariat of the Joint Committee, which we hope he will address.
This afternoon’s debate, and particularly the devastating interventions of the Attorney-General, exposed serious questions about the scope of the inquiry—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The House must listen to this point of order in silence.
Ed Balls
It is clear that there is a wider set of questions, on matters from mis-selling to small businesses to the wider culture and practices of the banking industry, that are outside the scope of the inquiry set out by the Chair of the Treasury Committee and, in our view, cannot be properly addressed by any parliamentary Committee. In our view, the case for a full, open, judge-led public inquiry is stronger at the end of this afternoon, and we will continue to press that case.
It is our view that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made a grave error of judgment, and any time future scandals emerge, people will ask why we in this country are not having the full, independent public inquiry that our country needs.
Mr Tyrie
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the whole House, and actually the whole country, will welcome the engagement that appears to be taking place across the Dispatch Boxes. I reiterate that I will do whatever the House asks me to do, but I believe it is worth my trying to chair the Committee only if it has the full support of all the major parties in the House of Commons.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for all three points of order, and the Chair has nothing to add.