Income Tax

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will not the hon. Lady be honest with this House and this country? This was a Trojan horse of a tax brought in at the very fag end of the Labour Government as part of a scorched-earth policy that has been shown to have cost the Exchequer almost £7 billion already—something else that the previous Government messed up and that this Government have to put right.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In using the word “honest”, it should be taken as read that Members are always honest in the Chamber.

[Rachel Reeves]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The increase in the top rate of tax from 40p to 50p was introduced to help to reduce the deficit because the last Labour Government thought that it was right that those with the broadest shoulders paid a little bit more towards achieving that. The fact that this Chancellor has reversed that and is reducing the top rate of tax shows that he thinks exactly the opposite—that his priorities are not with ordinary working people but with the richest 1%. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the Minister from the Treasury Bench, I remind the House that, on account of the time available and the number of hon. Members wishing to speak, I have imposed a limit of 10 minutes on each Back-Bench contribution.

Bank of England

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

I would like the House of Commons to be the first to know about the future leadership of the Bank of England, and the identity of its next Governor.

Sir Mervyn King has served as Governor with great distinction and unquestioned integrity for almost a decade, five years of which have been during the most difficult period of economic policy making of the modern age. He will continue to do his vital work until 30 June next year, and there will be opportunities then to thank him for his service to our country.

Today’s task is to appoint his successor in good time and in good order. We have, for the first time in the history of the Bank, advertised the post, invited applications and put together an experienced panel to interview potential candidates. I want to thank my permanent secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, and the chairman of the court of the Bank of England, Sir David Lees, for conducting this new, open process in a very professional way.

I also want to thank the many individuals who put themselves forward for the job. I have myself interviewed in London all the very distinguished candidates shortlisted by the panel for the job, any one of whom would have made a good Governor. I have made my recommendation to the Prime Minister, who in turn has made the same recommendation to the Queen, and she has today approved the appointment.

I can tell Parliament and the public that the next Governor of the Bank of England is to be Mark Carney. He is currently Governor of the central Bank of Canada and chair of the world’s Financial Stability Board. He is quite simply the best, most experienced and most qualified person in the world to be the next Governor of the Bank of England and to help steer Britain’s families and businesses through these difficult economic times.

Britain needs the very best at a time such as this, and in Mark Carney we have got him. Mr Carney is unique among the potential candidates in combining long experience of central banking, huge international credibility in economics, deep expertise in financial regulation and first-hand experience of private sector financial institutions. He is acknowledged as the outstanding central banker of his generation, and I believe he will bring the strong leadership and external experience that the Bank of England needs as it takes on its heavy new responsibilities for regulating our banking system.

In that respect, Mr Carney will bring a fresh new perspective. During his five years as the Bank of Canada Governor, Canada was acknowledged to have weathered the economic storm better than any other major western economy. Bank bail-outs have been avoided and sustained growth has returned, and it says something of Mark Carney’s abilities and the regard he is held in that he was chosen by his fellow central bank governors and regulators around the world to be the chair of the FSB—the body tasked with strengthening and co-ordinating global financial regulation. That gives him the experience to bring better regulation to the world’s largest global financial centre here in London and other financial centres across the UK.

Subject to the views of other members of the board, he could expect to remain chair of the FSB until 2018. While the appointment as Governor will be for eight years, Mark Carney has indicated that he intends to serve for five years and to stand down at the end of June 2018. That will align with the timing of his role at the FSB, and reflects the fact that by then he will have served for 10 years as a central bank governor. I have spoken to my opposite number in Canada, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and the Prime Minister has spoken to the Canadian Prime Minister. I am grateful for the constructive way they have handled this transition, as Members would expect from one of our closest friends and allies.

Mark Carney will continue as central Bank Governor of Canada until the end of May next year. My statement today is matched by a simultaneous announcement in Ottawa at a press conference currently being held by Mr Carney and the Canadian Finance Minister. Mr Carney will be answering questions about his decision to take this new job, but he has made it clear that he will not be commenting at length on British economic policy until he takes up his new post on 1 July 2013. There is one exception to that: Mr Carney has said to me that he would like to appear before the Treasury Select Committee at a mutually convenient time for a pre-commencement hearing, where he will of course expect rigorous questioning about British monetary and financial policy. This will be the first time ever that a new Governor has appeared before a Committee of this House before their term of office begins.

Mr Carney’s pay and benefits are a matter for the non-executive members of the court of the Bank of England. The chair of the court, Sir David Lees, has today confirmed that Mr Carney will be paid a total pay and pension package that is broadly equivalent to the current Governor’s salary and membership of the now closed pension scheme available to the current Governor and deputy governors. The package is also lower than that of other senior regulators, such as the recent chief executive of the Financial Services Authority—even though the Bank now takes on many of that organisation’s responsibilities—and is less than that of the current chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority. As Mr Carney is moving from Canada with his wife and four children, the non-executive members of the court of the Bank of England have said that they will consider in addition a relocation and accommodation package, which one would expect with such moves.

Mark Carney is not a British citizen, but he is a subject of the Queen. His wife is British, his four children have dual British citizenship and he has lived, worked and studied in Britain for a decade. Although not required of the role, he will apply for British citizenship in the normal way, with no special favours. Let me also say something about—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are very serious matters. I am pleased that the House is hearing about it first, but the House will hear only if it wishes to hear—and it should wish to hear. Let us hear what the Chancellor has to say.

[Mr Osborne]

Let me also say something about the deputy governor for monetary stability, Dr Charlie Bean, whose term in office expires at the same time as Mervyn King’s. Charlie Bean is a world-class macro-economist and a powerful voice on the Monetary Policy Committee. To ensure a smooth transition next year, he has agreed to my request that he serve for one more year as deputy governor. I am most grateful to Charlie Bean for his continuing service.

The role that the Bank of England plays in our economy cannot be overestimated. It is tasked with keeping prices under control; it sets interest rates, which affect what home owners pay for their mortgages and businesses for their loans; and, following this Government’s reforms, it plays a lead role in keeping our banking system safe. My job brings with it many responsibilities, but few are greater than ensuring that the next Governor of the Bank of England is a person of real quality. Mark Carney is a quality Governor. He is the outstanding central banker of his generation, with unparalleled expertise in financial regulation. He will bring a fresh perspective. He has got what it takes to help British families and businesses through these incredibly challenging economic times. My responsibility was to get the best for Britain, and with Mark Carney we have got that. I commend his appointment to the House and to the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I hope that my hon. Friend will contain her excitement when she has a chance to question Dr Carney, when he appears before her Select Committee. As she knows, from next year we will have full account-switching, which means that people will be able to switch their bank accounts, including direct debits and so on, within seven days. That will make switching much easier. My hon. Friend has advanced strong arguments for going further and introducing account portability, and we are studying that idea closely. There are pros and cons, which the Vickers commission considered, but she has put her case very powerfully.

[Mr Speaker]

The father of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) is a distinguished constituent of mine. I do not know what he would make of it if I allowed her to jump up and down in the Chamber. It scarcely warrants contemplation.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The present Governor has commented on the dire state of the economy. The new Governor has international commitments, will face European commitments, and new regulations going through the other House give him many other responsibilities. Will the Chancellor please genuinely reconsider the number of posts that the new Governor will be forced to hold under the new arrangements? The grimness of the economic situation demands his full attention, and the posts are far too many for one person.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not quite understand why the Minister is reluctant to be straight with the House on the facts, particularly given the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any Minister would be anything other than straight. He may want to deploy another word with reference to dealings with the House.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. Perhaps it was inadvertent—I would not in any way wish to imply that the Minister was deliberately obfuscating on the facts. I wanted to pick up on a specific question. As I understand it, public sector borrowing in the first six-month period of the last financial year was £62.4 billion. It was £65.1 billion in the first six months of this financial year, so will he confirm that that is £2.6 billion higher, that borrowing has risen, and that the deficit has gone up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

The facts are as I set out, but if the hon. Gentleman is implying that in some way he is against a deficit, that he wants to pay down the deficit, can he explain why he can hold that position and simultaneously be in favour of increasing borrowing? The shadow Chancellor is on the record as saying that his plans mean a short-term increase in borrowing. Let him say by how much and when.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am chairing these proceedings. Let me just make it abundantly obvious to the Minister: the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) gets two questions. He does not get a third and it is not the business of the Opposition to answer questions in this Chamber—that is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of Government policy. Let us be clear about that.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Notwithstanding what we have just heard, surely, given the still very high and worrying levels of public debt, is it not incumbent on all coalition Members, from whatever party, to continue to support the Chancellor in the very difficult decisions he may have to take in the coming months that may amount to further cuts to public spending?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of releasing public sector land for development for housing, including affordable housing. The Homes and Communities Agency is well ahead of its targets for releasing such land and for schools—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Are we referring to the proceeds of the auction?

[Danny Alexander]

I am answering the question, which relates to the proceeds of the auction. We are using other policies, rather than the proceeds of the auction, to support this objective.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Rather than spending money we do not yet have, would it not be better for the Department to continue to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government and others in unlocking major housing schemes which have become stuck in recent years, such as the proposed new town of Sherford in my constituency? Is that not a better way of building affordable homes and boosting the economy?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member. The question is about using the revenue from the auction —

[Mr Streeter]

I am talking about affordable housing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is the term of—[Interruption.] Order. No assistance is required from the hon. Gentleman. He will accept my ruling and he can like it or lump it.

[Danny Alexander]

Rather than the proposal to use revenues from the auction, there are other policies that we can use to support the objective highlighted in the question, including those highlighted by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter)—planning reform, releasing public sector land and other fiscal steps that the Government can take which do not involve committing to this policy now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Chancellor is perfectly free to decide not to speak when he is on his feet, but that does not mean that instead he can speak from his seat.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the news that the economy has returned to growth, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the success in the life sciences sector. Eli Lilly has announced a new early-stage neuroscience facility in the UK, Johnson and Johnson has made Britain the home of its new global innovation centre, and more than £1 billion has been raised this year in early stage funds. Is that not the only sustainable route to a really balanced recovery?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Andrew Bridgen.

Beer Duty Escalator

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) to move the motion, I remind the House that, on account of the level of interest, I have imposed an eight-minute limit on each Back-Bench speech. That limit will take effect after the motion has been moved.

Multiannual Financial Framework

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), from whom we will therefore hear in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

The shape of the budget needs to be negotiated—it has not been settled yet—but it is true to say that as a result of the giveaway of the rebate that the previous Government introduced we lose out from spending that goes to the new member states that previously would have been abated.

Let me address the three main differences between the motion and the amendment. First, the amendment would remove the condemnation of the previous Government for giving away part of our rebate. Despite the talk of fiscal responsibility, the aim is to conceal the loss to this country of £10 billion. That amount, coincidentally, is nearly equal to the whole of Britain’s share in the budget increase proposed by the Commission—an increase to which we are opposed. It is simply not credible to vote for restraint and then to remove from criticism the most wasteful surrender of the British taxpayer’s interest that any Prime Minister has made in Brussels.

The second effect of the amendment would be to delete references to new EU taxes. Yet the tax sovereignty of this country is, or should be, non-negotiable. In particular, this removal would send a signal that this House supports the introduction of a new financial transaction tax which could badly undermine Britain’s economy. By the Commission’s own analysis, the tax would lead to a fall in European GDP of up to 3.5% and nearly half a million job losses.

Thirdly and finally, there is the call simply to cut the EU budget and not, as the Government’s motion has it, to cut or, at the very least, to have a real-terms freeze. Let me address this aspect precisely, as it comes to the crux of the matter. I should like to say this not only to Labour Front Benchers but to all those Members present who are genuinely outraged by the budget proposal. Like them, I believe, very simply, that the EU should cut now, and keep on cutting. The Opposition call on the Government to persuade others and to build alliances with those who share our concerns. On the issue of budgetary restraint, that has been exactly our approach. In 2010, the Prime Minister achieved a historic breakthrough when he agreed with the leaders of Germany, France, Finland and the Netherlands that

“payment appropriations should increase at most, by no more that inflation over the next financial perspective.”

If this position were to be agreed to, then it would be the first time in the history of the EU that the seven-year budget has done anything other than accelerate. No one is pretending that this would represent all the long-term reform required—not a bit of it—but it would be a turning point. Having reached such an agreement, which has been scrutinised in this House in the two years since it was published, it is surely right for the Prime Minister to keep to his commitment rather than have to give backword at the last moment.

This Prime Minister has been clear, as neither of his two predecessors were, that the remorseless rise in spending in the EU has to stop, and it will stop. If there is no cut, or no real freeze, there is no deal: the framework will be vetoed. The Prime Minister has a formidable task in persuading other countries of this—many of them were looking forward to a seven-year pay-out—but he has made a strong start, and he deserves the support of this House as he goes in to bat for Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Opposition spokesman, I remind the House that there will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why the Government do not get it. They need a negotiating strategy to get the best deal for the taxpayer. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, and the Chancellor is next to him puppeting him along in his hilarity, but I say to the Chancellor that this is an incredibly serious issue. It is about taxpayers’ money, and incredibly large sums of it at that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Zahawi, I am sure that in your own way you mean well, but you are far too excitable. It is no good looking up and around, and at places outside the Chamber, and waving your hands in a bizarre manner. What you need to do is calm down. It will be good for you, good for the House and good for Stratford-on-Avon.

[Chris Leslie]

I am sure there is some Shakespearian reference about being calm in negotiations, and calm, persuasive diplomacy is the strategy that we need today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), it might help the House if I explain that, in accordance with normal practice in these situations, he will have an opportunity formally to move his amendment at the conclusion of the debate. His opportunity now is simply to speak in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

In my simple way, that is what I am trying to say. We are beginning to look really out of touch. It is beginning to look as though we are not interested in the people we were elected to represent. I believe that tonight is the night when we can make that difference and really change things.

I must make an apology. I am very lucky that my constituency is literally five minutes away and I agreed some time ago that at 6 o’clock I would light the bonfire on Hallowe’en night. I shall leave to light the bonfire and I shall come back to vote. I hope that on that bonfire there might be something to signify something about the European Union; it would be rather nice if there were. It is not likely, however.

Finally, I ask Members to realise that they should not worry about who is with them in the Lobby tonight. They should not worry about whether they are in the Lobby with people with whom they would rather not be in the Lobby. They should recognise that they are going into that Lobby to represent the people who elected them and should think about what they would want them to do.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has a hectic social schedule, to which we have all become privy, and I understand that she will have to leave at some point, but I know that she will want to hear the next speech.

[Kate Hoey]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to her. I call Mr Peter Bone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is reduced to four minutes with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

We should remind ourselves that just as there is a majority in the House, of which I am a part, in favour of a reduction in the EU budget, there is a much larger majority, of which I am also a part, that believes that our future lies at the heart of Europe and with our membership of the European Union.

We should therefore take care—more care than some Members have—with how we frame any debate on the EU budget. We should not frame it, as the Daily Express does, as if all EU spending is bad and that the only purpose of Brussels is to take money from us. I come from a region that has benefited enormously from European structural funds, and we should have spent more time in the debate considering how we can engage positively to shape negotiations on the priorities for the EU budget. I shall make several specific points about research and innovation, to which I hope that the Minister will respond.

EU research and innovation funding contributes 10% of our national science budget, and the budget negotiations give us an important opportunity to shape investment priorities for the benefit of the UK economy. The more the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits, because the quality, breadth and depth of UK research puts us in a position whereby we gain disproportionately from European research programmes. Nearly 15% of the EU’s funding from the FP7 framework programme for research has gone to UK researchers, and the total FP7 contribution to UK research is expected to reach €7 billion over the life of the programme. The UK is involved in more successful FP7 projects than either France or Germany, accounting for 40% of all grants to date. We also benefit extensively from the collaboration and research networks that the EU facilitates. Of the 5,105 research projects that have been funded under FP7, 43% include UK partners.

Only about 8% of the proposed budget is allocated to Horizon 2020, which is the replacement for the FP7 programme. That has been presented as an increase, because there are several new projects within Horizon 2020. I think that the Government would support those projects, but on the basis of past negotiations, there is concern among businesses and universities that the research budget is especially vulnerable to cuts. We know that innovation plays an important role in producing growth in the UK, and 54% of the jobs grown between 2000 and 2005 were in innovative companies. However, such companies account for only 6% of UK businesses, and are particularly involved in pharmaceuticals and biotechnical research.

We know that future growth will rely on knowledge-based industries, so I look to the Government to make two commitments: first, that the additional projects in Horizon 2020, which I am sure they would support, will be considered outside the framework; and, secondly, that they will argue the case for protecting the research and innovation budget in the overall negotiations.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister will be called at 6.55 pm, but until then we will hear from Conor Burns.

--- Later in debate ---

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16844/11, No. 16845/11, No. 16846/11, No. 16847/11, No. 16848/11, No. 6708/12 and Addenda 1–3, No. 9007/12, No. 12356/12, and No. 13620/12, relating to the Commission’s proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2014–2020; agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial spending increases compared with current spend is unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control; and so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should be most grateful if Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly, so that we can proceed with the remaining business.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Act 2012

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012

Local Government Finance Act 2012

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I sympathise greatly with families up and down the country who face the problem that he describes. That is why we have made decisions on fuel duty that mean that the price of petrol is roughly 10p a litre less than it would have been had we followed through the Labour party’s plans. The Office of Fair Trading has recently announced a call for information on the problem, and I urge him and Members in all parts of the House to pass on any information that they have. Having spoken to Clive Maxwell of the OFT, I know that it is committed to ensuring—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am greatly obliged to the Chief Secretary, but from now on we need rather shorter exchanges if I am to maximise the number of Back-Bench contributors.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary will know that one thing that is really hitting people at the moment is the rising cost of food. A huge number of people, even those in work, are having to resort to going to food banks. What action are the Government taking to address that situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The Government have an excellent record on women in government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Bryant, you are trying to become a statesman. Calm yourself, man.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No, I’m not.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think he has to try. Anyway, the Minister must be heard.

[Sajid Javid]

The Government’s policies, including those of the Treasury, are helping women. The change I mentioned previously—to the personal tax credits—will take 1.1 million people out of income taxation altogether, which will disproportionately benefit women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint colleagues. Demand was extremely high on this occasion, and they could not all be satisfied.

Finance Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Sixth form colleges (exemption from VAT)—

‘In Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Exemptions), in Group 6 (Education), the following shall be added at the end of Note (1) (description of eligible body)—

“(g) a sixth form college”.’.

New clause 10—VAT: review—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fully reviewed the impact of any such Order on jobs, living standards and businesses, making reference to the HMRC Consultation “VAT: Addressing Borderline Anomalies”, and placed a copy of the review in the Library of the House of Commons.’.

New clause 12—Rate of VAT—

‘(1) In section 2(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Rate of VAT) for “20 per cent.” substitute “17.5 per cent.”.

(2) Subsection (1) shall have effect from Royal Assent and shall expire at such time as the Government presents to Parliament a report stating that the UK economy has returned to strong growth.’.

Government amendment 17.

Government new schedule 1—‘Categorisation of supplies.

Government amendments 18 to 20.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Clearly there is a substantial difference between 20% VAT and 5% VAT. We set out our estimates in relation to the 20% rate, and some of the concerns that people took from what HMRC set out were, I think, somewhat greater than the reality warranted, because the impact set out and the assumption regarding the reduction in demand related solely to that element to which the change from zero-rated to standard-rated applied. On many caravans that are sold, the VAT is recovered—VAT already applies to an element of the price of a static caravan: that of the fixtures and fittings.

We do not think the impact of the 5% rate is likely to be substantial. In the usual course of business there are tax changes—national insurance contributions and rates are the subject of regular fluctuations—and in many cases the VAT change may well be absorbed. In addition, we have given industry much more time by deciding not to implement the change until April next year. Caravan manufacturers will have the opportunity to sell more caravans in advance of next year’s summer season—the information we have is that spring tends to be the busiest period. The overall impact on the industry is therefore unlikely to be significant.

Before discussing each of the anomalies and saying more about static caravans, I would like to give the House a little bit of history about the VAT system. As I am sure all hon. Members know, the VAT system was introduced in 1973 and amendments and adjustments were being made as early as 1974. The then Labour Government added confectionary, soft drinks, ice cream, potato crisps and certain other savoury snacks—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. My ears pricked up when the Minister suggested he might furnish the House with what he gently described as “a little bit” of information about VAT. In offering to the House—in a public-spirited fashion, I am sure—a potted history of the value added tax system, I am sure that he will have regard to the new clause that he is presenting.

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly will, Mr Speaker. I did say I would give a little history and, following your guidance, I will focus on the little.

I hope it helps the House if I explain that, in the almost 40 years in which we have had VAT, there have been changes from time to time. There were changes in the VAT on building alterations in 1982 and 1984, on hot takeaway food in 1984 and on newspaper and magazine advertising in 1985—I could go on, Mr Speaker, but let me move on.

--- Later in debate ---

I have spoken for over an hour—doesn’t time fly when one’s having fun, Mr Speaker! I hope I have given a helpful introduction to the debate, setting out some of the details to the House, and I hope these proposed provisions will be added to the Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure we are all indebted to the Minister for the informative character of his contribution —and, of course, for his oratory.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will speak to new clauses 10 and 12, as well as the Government amendments that the Minister has already set out for us in quite some detail today.

The Opposition’s new clause 10 seeks to put a stop to the chaotic farce of ill-thought-through VAT changes being slapped on items from the pasty to the caravan, from haircuts to church alterations—imposed, defended, downgraded and then, in some cases, eventually quietly removed by Ministers during the parliamentary recess, once they realised quite how ridiculous the changes were to begin with, particularly given the current economic climate. We simply ask the Government not to meddle with VAT exemptions until they have carried out a proper assessment and worked out exactly what the impact of any change would be on jobs, living standards and businesses.

We assume that, before imposing a 20% tax, the Government will do their sums, work out who would be affected, consult them and think long and hard about whether such a change was a good idea. Our new clause 12 seeks to reverse the VAT bombshell, which, as I am sure many Members will recall, the Liberal Democrats shouted so loudly about before the election, and before they all subsequently discovered that they actually supported raising the 20% rate after all. That was a surprise all around, even to themselves, I think. In fact, everyone’s surprise about that was surpassed only by the discovery that the Liberal Democrats had also been in favour of £9,000 tuition fees all along.

Labour is clear that higher VAT hits the poor harder than the rich. It drives up the cost of living at a time when people are already feeling the squeeze, and it takes money out of people’s pockets and off the high street at a time when businesses are crying out for spending to drive growth. Our five-point plan for jobs and growth calls for VAT to return to 17.5% on a temporary basis until the economy is strong enough to cope with a rise. That would give £450 a year back to couples with children, to give the economy a boost and to drive growth.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

The systematic lying—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Everything will be slowed up, the more noise there is. I do not care what the exhortation is for people to create a wall of noise. That should not and must not happen in this Chamber. If we end up being much slower because people are mindlessly bawling their heads off from either side of the House, we will be slower. I do not think the public will be much impressed by that sort of behaviour from either side of the House.

[Ed Balls]

The systematic lying, concealment and arrogant abuse of power revealed by the FSA report into LIBOR market fixing at Barclays bank is truly shocking. As one member of the Vickers commission said this morning:

“Today’s banks represent the incarnation of profit-seeking behaviour taken to its logical limits, in which the only question asked by senior staff is not what is their duty or their responsibility, but what they can get away with.”

Set against the depths of that malpractice, which has now been revealed, and the scale of the challenge we face in reforming and rebuilding trust in British banking, I am afraid that the Government’s decision to reject Labour’s call for an independent and judge-led public inquiry into the culture and practice of banking in our country just will not do. Just as in phone hacking or the Iraq war, so in banking: only with an independent, forensic and open public inquiry—not politicians investigating bankers—can we rebuild trust for the future.

Banks play a vital role in our economy—they lend to businesses, small and large; they help people to save and borrow for mortgages; and many hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK are dependent on our retail and our global wholesale banking industries—but banking is a profession that depends on trust, and that trust is currently in tatters. The public are rightly baffled and angry about what they learned was happening at Barclays. We have learned that senior bank executives knew about and covered up deliberate market fixing and manipulation of key interest rates. When ordinary people break the law and defraud the taxpayer or the benefit system, they face criminal penalties and jail sentences; the same should apply to bank executives. The public are now rightly asking who they can trust to clear up this mess and sort this industry out.

First, on the issue of criminal penalties, the Chancellor says he will bring forward amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords—amendments that he did not introduce in the House of Commons. Will he confirm that the powers he needs for an FSA investigation to be followed by a criminal investigation are actually on the statute book and that it is the job of the Serious Fraud Office to take forward those investigations, using the powers in the Fraud Act 2006? Will he confirm that section 2 of the 2006 Act already makes it a criminal offence to make “false representation” for personal gain and that it is an offence under section 4 to “abuse” a position of trust for financial gain? Will the Chancellor explain whether such investigations are already under way, and whether it is true that the Serious Fraud Office initially refused to act because of inadequate resources? There is now a real suspicion that the Chancellor’s new conversion to law making is just a smokescreen for the failure of prosecutors to get a grip.

Secondly, on the LIBOR market, we welcome the limited investigation that the Chancellor rather belatedly announced at the weekend. Self-regulation of this market goes back to the 1980s, but will the Chancellor explain why in March, as this scandal started to emerge, the Financial Secretary denied there was an issue and dismissed our calls for investigation and tougher regulation? When he was asked in the Committee whether he had a view on what needed to be done, he replied with one word: “No.” Given how much the Chancellor is now placing his faith in the Bank of England as the leading financial regulator in the future, will he assure us that the Bank did not turn a blind eye to the manipulation of the LIBOR survey?

However, the problems of culture and ethics that have now been uncovered are wider than the LIBOR market. The public are angry, and they rightly ask whether this generation of politicians, regulators and banks can put right the wrongs for which they are paying a heavy price. I say “this generation of politicians” because we must all admit that regulation should have been tougher, and we should all learn the lessons of an open and independent judicial inquiry. For my part—[Interruption.] For my part, I regret—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. What we cannot have are individual Members who feel that their contributions from a sedentary position are somehow in a different category from the sedentary interventions of other Members. We do not need them. What we need is a bit of respectful listening to what is said by the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor.

[Ed Balls]

For my part, I regret—as do Ministers and central bankers around the world—that we did not see the financial crisis building and take action, but let me ask the Chancellor this question: do he and the Prime Minister regret consistently attacking us in the Labour Government for being too tough in our approach to regulation, saying that it would undermine City effectiveness? That is what they said.

As for the future of regulation more widely, let me ask the Chancellor another question. Having rightly commissioned the Vickers report, does he now regret coming to the House a few weeks ago and saying that he was watering down its recommendations and weakening leverage ratios, and arguing, shockingly in the light of recent events, that complex derivatives—the very derivatives that led to the appalling mis-selling of interest rate swaps to small firms—should be inside the retail bank ring fence, contrary to the recommendation of Sir John Vickers? Surely that is one U-turn that we need from the Chancellor.

We all have a responsibility to do better in future, to reform our banking industry and to rebuild trust, but we do not believe that another parliamentary inquiry can do the job, just as we rejected that approach in relation to phone-hacking. The Chancellor said today that we did not need more “navel-gazing when we know what has gone wrong.”

How complacent is that? If the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so confident that their approach is right, why do they not put two options to a vote, and let the House decide? Labour Members will vote for an independent and open public inquiry, not an inadequate and weak plan cobbled together over the course of this morning. The independent inquiry is what our constituents want, and it is the only way to achieve a lasting consensus on reforms for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of interest but not much time. I am keen to accommodate as many as possible, but extreme brevity is required. So questions, please, without preamble.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorise Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to examine the personal taxation position of all the people involved in this scandal, because if they are willing to swindle everybody, the chances are that they are trying to swindle the Revenue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I repeat that we need brief questions and although I know—[Interruption.] Order. Although I know that the Chancellor is seeking to assist the House, pithy replies would also help.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor find it odd that the Opposition are calling for Barclays to face a criminal investigation, given that when they were in office they set up a regime that did not make this abuse a criminal offence?

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

I would like to update the House on the Financial Services Authority’s investigation into the manipulation of the setting of the LIBOR and EURIBOR interest rates and the Government’s response. The London interbank offered rate, or LIBOR, and the Euro interbank offered rate, or EURIBOR, are the benchmark reference rates that are fundamental to the workings of the UK, European and international financial markets, including markets in interest rate derivatives contracts. Those contracts might sound exotic but they are the bread and butter of our financial system and are used by businesses and public authorities every day, and they affect the mortgage payments and loan rates of millions of families and hundreds of thousands of firms, large and small.

LIBOR and EURIBOR are by far the most prevalent benchmark reference rates used in euro, US dollar and sterling interest rate derivatives contracts. The outstanding interest rate contracts alone are estimated to be worth $554 trillion. Yesterday, the FSA published notice that Barclays had on numerous occasions acted inappropriately and breached principles 2, 3 and 5 of the FSA’s principles for businesses. As a result, the FSA has imposed a financial penalty of £59.5 million on Barclays. In other words, the FSA reports that this bank, on numerous occasions, did not conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence, that this bank did not take reasonable care to organise its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems, and that this bank did not observe proper standards of market conduct. As the FSA puts it:

“Barclays’ misconduct…created the risk that the integrity of LIBOR and EURIBOR would be called into question and that confidence in or the stability of the UK financial system would be threatened.”

Barclays are not alone in this. The FSA is continuing to investigate the conduct of a number of other banks in relation to LIBOR, to commit significant resources to its investigations into potential attempts to manipulate LIBOR and to work with its counterparts overseas and with other authorities in the UK.

The investigations concern a number of institutions based both in the UK and overseas, but it is already clear that the FSA’s investigation demonstrates systemic failures at the heart of the financial system at the time. I want to thank Adair Turner and the team at the FSA for a very thorough piece of work, but it prompts three vital questions. First, how were such failures allowed to continue undetected and unchecked, particularly in the two years before the financial crisis, which is when the FSA is clear that the most serious breaches occurred, for which the only motive was greed? Secondly, what changes are needed to our regulatory system in the future to prevent such abuse from occurring again and to make sure that the authorities have every power they need to hold those responsible fully to account? Thirdly, what further investigations are required into the activities at Barclays, what sanctions are available and what questions must the chief executive answer?

First, the FSA report is a shocking indictment of the culture at banks such as Barclays in the run up to the financial crisis. The e-mail exchanges between derivative traders and the LIBOR submitters read like an epitaph to an age of irresponsibility. Through 2005, 2006, and early 2007 we see evidence of systematic greed at the expense of financial integrity and stability. They knew what they were doing:

“Keep it a secret”,

one trader told another in February 2007,

“If you breathe a word of this I’m not telling you anything else”.

Yet no one at Barclays prevents them, no one in the tripartite regulatory system knows anything about it and the Government of the day are literally clueless about what is going on.

The FSA is clear that the most serious breaches of its principles for businesses occurred in the years leading up to the financial crisis. Once the crisis is under way, Barclays’ concern switches from the greed of traders to concern from the management about the reputational risk to the firm. To be fair, Barclays itself raised concerns about LIBOR with the FSA in late 2007 and in 2008. Yes, the financial system was experiencing a severe stress and markets were frozen, but it is clear that Barclays—and potentially other banks—were still in flagrant breach of their duty to observe proper standards of market conduct and give citizens and businesses in this country and elsewhere proper transparent information about the true price of money.

Britain’s tripartite system of regulation failed us in war and in peace and the country has paid a very heavy price for that. That brings me to the second question of how we prevent this from happening again. The Government are getting rid of the whole tripartite system. The Financial Services Bill now before Parliament will create a new and far tougher regulatory system. A new Financial Conduct Authority will focus razor-like on market abuse and protecting consumers. We have been reviewing with the FSA and the Bank of England the operation of the LIBOR regime, which was not regulated under the previous Government’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The market is already changing and the role of LIBOR is changing with it. As part of our review into LIBOR and the strength of the financial regulatory—[Interruption.] May I just say to the Opposition that I think a little more silence would do, and perhaps an apology for the mess that this Government are trying to clean up? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Rather more silence is needed on both sides; the Chancellor is quite justified in making his point. I gently remind the junior Whip on the Treasury Bench that although his oratorical talents might be deployed in the future—we look forward to that with eager anticipation and beads of sweat on our brows—for now his role is to fetch and carry notes and to nod in the appropriate places. Silence is required.

[Mr Osborne]

Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) does far more than that and he is very good at it.

Let me get back to the serious matter in hand. As part of our review into LIBOR and the strength of the financial regulatory architecture, we will examine if there are any gaps in the criminal regime inherited by this Government and we will take the necessary steps to address them. I cannot comment today on possible criminal investigations into individuals involved in this activity. The authorities are exploring every avenue open to them but, shockingly, the scope of the FSA’s criminal powers, granted by the previous Government, does not extend to being able to impose criminal sanctions for manipulation of LIBOR. As part of our review into LIBOR and the strength of the financial regulatory architecture, we are examining whether strengthening the criminal sanctions regime for market abuse and market manipulation is warranted, and if so, we will provide for these powers quickly.

Next week, the Government will be publishing a consultation in response to the report on the failure of RBS and will consider the possibility of criminal sanctions for directors of failed banks when there is proven criminal negligence. Under the previous Government’s regime, fines paid to the FSA are used to reduce the annual levy other financial institutions are asked to pay. I am far from convinced that in all cases that is the best use of the money and we are considering amendments to the Financial Services Bill that ensure that fines of this nature go to help the tax-paying public, not the financial industry.

I have also asked my officials to investigate urgently whether that legislation could be applied to the fine imposed on Barclays bank. It is clear that what happened in Barclays, and potentially in other banks, was completely unacceptable and was symptomatic of a financial system that elevated greed above all other concerns and brought our economy to its knees.

That brings me to my final point. As I have said, a number of individuals are under formal investigation by the FSA, and that number is expected to increase as the investigations continue. The Serious Fraud Office is aware of the matters under investigation and there are ongoing discussions between the FSA and the Serious Fraud Office about the evidence as it develops. The chief executive of Barclays has some very serious questions to answer today. What did he know and when did he know it? Who in Barclays’ management was involved and who therefore should pay the price? It is quite right that the Treasury Committee has asked him to appear urgently to account for himself and his bank, and I congratulate the Chair of the Committee on doing that. We all want to hear his answers. The story of irresponsibility is not over yet.

Our financial services should be a source of economic strength and national pride for this country, but failures in our banks and financial system have cost the country billions and put thousands out of work. Those responsible should be held responsible. We want our financial services to support the creation of jobs and prosperity for millions. This Government are sweeping away the regulatory system that failed. We will protect taxpayers, punish wrongdoing and put right the wrongs of an age of irresponsibility.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Chancellor for advance notice of his statement, which was handed to me at 12.19 pm—two minutes before he delivered it. [Hon. Members: “Where’s Balls?”] As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor is addressing the Local Government Association’s annual conference in Birmingham, I am responding for the Opposition.

Nine months ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about “irresponsible, predatory capitalism”, of which this is one of the worst cases yet. The public had been assured that the banks had cleaned up their act. Ordinary borrowers and savers were told they could trust the banks again, but these unfolding revelations shine a new light on shocking practices in one of Britain’s most important banks. What should have been an impartial process of reporting independent interest rate statistics became an exercise in cooking the books, cheating the system and fixing the market.

Financial stability and the effective regulation of our banking and wider financial services industry are vital for stability, for consumers to save and for businesses to invest. Getting the balance of regulation right is an important task for the Government, especially when hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on the industry and when all of us and small businesses in all our constituencies rely so much on the financial services sector.

There are three areas in which I have questions for the Chancellor, the first of which is dealing with the people who are responsible. Are those responsible in the banks being held—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely serious matter which warrants serious consideration. Let it be absolutely clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they want to shout out, they will not be called to ask a question on the statement. They should not shout, but if they think they are going to shout and then be called to ask a question, I am afraid they are rather deluded.

[Rachel Reeves]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could not agree more with you about the importance of this issue.

On dealing with those who are responsible, are those responsible in the banks being held accountable, or will this whole thing just return to business as usual? Are criminal investigations progressing, and which law authorities will be leading the conspiracy and fraud cases that might arise? Has the Chancellor reflected on the consequences for competition and has he considered involving the Office of Fair Trading, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police? We need to know who knew what and when, and criminal prosecutions should and must follow against anyone who might have broken the law.

Millions of home owners with variable rate mortgages, small businesses with floating loans and consumers who depend on affordable credit could have lost money because of what amounts to a price-fixing scandal. What support will be available for individuals and small businesses who have potentially lost out because of the market fixing and who contact the Financial Ombudsman Service or the bank directly? Is the FSA also investigating the role of the bank’s auditors in tracking and reporting the manipulation of the figures between the rate submitters and the traders involved? What is happening to ensure that other banks that have manipulated markets in a similar way are brought to justice?

Secondly, what is being done to prevent anything like this from happening again? We raised our concerns with Treasury Ministers about the regulation of LIBOR recently. On 6 March, during a debate on the Financial Services Bill about the set of unregulated financial activities that the Chancellor evidently felt should remain unregulated, the shadow Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), asked the Financial Secretary directly about the

“billions of pounds of trades that are subject to the LIBOR rating”––[Official Report, Financial Services Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2012; c. 359.]—

and why that might need to be regulated. When asked whether he had a view—any view at all—about ending self-regulation, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had a one word answer: “No.”

The Chancellor made a conscious decision to exclude LIBOR from the Financial Services Bill in its current form, even when he must have known that a massive FSA investigation into precisely that matter was under way. The reputation of the City of London and our financial services sector is at stake. Instead of Ministers’ saying that the Treasury has no view, surely we need swift action to prevent the market abuse? Will the Chancellor urgently revisit his decision not to regulate LIBOR arrangements and instead amend the Financial Services Bill, which is still before Parliament?

Thirdly, a much wider issue is the culture in the City of London. As Bob Diamond said only last year, culture is about

“how people behave when no one is watching,”

but people in his organisation thought they could do anything they liked, just to make a fast buck. They thought they would never be held to account and that they were effectively above the law. We cannot allow Britain to become a place where the privileged and the powerful act according to their own set of moral standards. That is why we are calling for the strongest punishment for those who have broken trust and broken the law, tough regulation to prevent such practices in future and a culture change in our banking industry. We must get our economy working for the majority, not just a few at the top. The Government must act.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is significantly subscribed business to follow, under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee; therefore, I must appeal for short questions and short answers.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

What is now left of trust between Parliament and the banks? Barclays and probably other banks were profiting by lying and rigging the markets at a crucial time in the last crisis, when the Government had a right to expect that they would supply the then Chancellor with reliable information on the basis of which to conduct policy. The Treasury Committee will now investigate properly. Under the current legislation, as the Chancellor has pointed out, the Financial Services Authority has no power to bring a criminal prosecution in relation to not only LIBOR, but derivatives. Will the Chancellor undertake now to amend the Financial Services Bill to include derivatives and LIBOR in the legislation before Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Britain is the only G20 country in a double-dip recession, youth unemployment is at record levels, poverty is on the increase, public services are in meltdown, and the Government are borrowing around £4 billion more this year than they did last year. The lessons of the 1930s demonstrate that the austerity programme that the Chancellor is pursuing will not work. Will he learn the lessons of history—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful, but I am afraid that we do not have time to go back to the 1930s now. We have the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Mr Osborne]

I suggest that tonight and tomorrow the hon. Gentleman turns on the television and watches the evening news, because he will see that there are problems facing many economies around the world. The Labour idea that somehow Britain alone faces these challenges because the Government are trying to deal with the debt is absolutely ridiculous. There are all these European economies in recession, the US economy had disappointing jobs data, and the Chinese economy is slowing. These are difficult times, but we are doing everything we can to help the British economy deal with the problems we inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

In correspondence with the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee, I have articulated that there is no precedent in the records that we can find for a Minister from one Department to assist in the scrutiny of another Department’s legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, the House—and the nation—can hear from Mr Simon Hughes.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Following the exchanges about tax avoidance and the Government’s very robust position, can one of the Treasury team tell us how soon we will have in place a system that targets not just celebrity individuals but all high-worth individuals, so that they all pay a decent share of tax to the nation?