European Summit

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend forgets that we have already agreed with our European partners that the European stability mechanism will replace the temporary structures that were put in place, and of course we should not forget that we are part of the EFSM as a consequence of decisions made by the previous Government, not this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Denis MacShane.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Obrigado, Mr Speaker.

The plain fact is that Portugal is our oldest ally. It is in trouble and we should help. When Margaret Thatcher brought the rebate back, she was questioned by a Eurosceptic on the Labour Benches who asked, “Why are you allowing more money to go from the British taxpayer to all these new countries?” She replied: “We should help Portugal”. We should do the same tonight. I hope that our Prime Minister will remember our longest, oldest friendship with any European country, and ignore the Eurosceptic waffle from those sitting behind the Front Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the previous Government introduced 12 duty rises during their time in office. As he pointed out, they also legislated for a further six rises, bringing in the fuel duty escalator, and these would have been on top of inflation rises. It was absolutely amazing to see the Labour party table a motion last week bemoaning the amount of tax that motorists are paying, when they legislated for all—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Minister, but we must concentrate on the policy of the Government.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I am sure that the Chancellor will respond to the concerns of the motorist tomorrow in a fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable way, but does the Minister agree that road fuel duty is a blunt instrument for taxing motoring, and that what we need in the long run is a more flexible, market-oriented mechanism for taxing road use?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I have seen that letter and, as a fellow highland MP, I am fully aware of the impact that high fuel prices have on families and individuals. We have already taken steps to deliver a 5p duty discount to island communities, and I hope that we will be able to do what we can tomorrow, but that will be a matter for the Chancellor to announce in the Budget statement.

[Mr Speaker]

Eric Joyce is not here. I call Andrew Stephenson.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

7. What fiscal measures he has taken to support economic growth in the manufacturing sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. The shadow Chancellor was reported as saying in Saturday’s The Daily Telegraph:

“The idea that Labour profligacy caused the crisis is utter tosh.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only tosh to be seen in that statement is the suggestion that Labour had not created the mess we are in? Is it not the case, as the CBI has said, that the previous Government’s target of balancing the budget by 2018 was set too far off to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are asking about current policy, and some of these questions are simply—[Interruption.] Order. We have got the gist.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and a number of organisations, both at home and abroad, have criticised the lack of ambition of the previous Chancellor’s plans. That is why the Obama Administration, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the CBI, the Governor of the Bank of England, 35 leaders of British businesses, the European Commission, the World Bank, three major credit rating agencies and the world’s biggest bond trader have been backing our plans—the only person the shadow Chancellor can find to back his is The Guardian.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of my freedom of information request from last September which found that the previous Government never carried out an equalities impact assessment—not in the March Budget, the December pre-Budget report or the March 2010 Budget? They never did it either.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry but I must repeat, and I hope that the message will be heeded, that questions must be about the policy of the current Government.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that raising the income tax threshold, protecting spending on the NHS and increasing spending on social care will definitely benefit women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In terms of the value for money of decisions taken by the Treasury, whether on road fuel tax or other things, does the Minister agree that one of the best value creations of this Government has been the increase in apprenticeships, which is widely appreciated around the country? Does he agree that apprenticeships are critical both to our growth strategy and to the reduction of youth—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but that question suffers from the disadvantage that it bears absolutely no relation whatever to the question on the Order Paper.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I suggest a much quicker way of changing the VAT rate without that being illegal—by pulling out of the European Union?

[Mr Speaker]

I have to say that that was not much better, but the Minister may have a go.

[Mr Gauke]

To be fair, if we wanted to reduce tax on fuel through the VAT rate that is exactly what we would have to do, so perhaps that is not the best way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, demand has exceeded supply, but I am afraid we must move on.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

‘(d) the Treasury’s objectives in relation to economic policy and policy for the advancement of jobs and growth in the UK economy.

(e) the means by which the Treasury’s objectives in relation to economic policy will be attained (“the growth mandate”).’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 20, at end insert

‘and the impact of Treasury policy on jobs and economic growth’.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

‘(c) an assessment of the extent to which the growth mandate has been, or is likely to be, achieved and the impact on employment and economic growth within all regions and nations of the United Kingdom.’.

[Chris Leslie]

It is fitting that we are discussing the Bill the day before the Budget. I understand that there are particular reasons, which the Minister will no doubt explain to the House, why the Bill needs to receive Royal Assent this evening, before we reach Budget day, so I am conscious that the ministerial clock is ticking. I pay tribute to the Public Bill Committee, whose members scrutinised the Bill in what I regard as sufficient detail.

Essentially, the first half of the Bill sets out the establishment of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the second half makes a series of changes to the National Audit Office governance arrangements. It is fair to say that the Committee spent less time on the second half of the Bill, as the House had previously scrutinised many of those measures, but for various reasons that legislation was not included in the wash-up before the last general election. Most of our attention today will focus on the OBR.

Clause 1 relates not specifically to the OBR, but to the creation of a charter for budget responsibility. As we know, the Government have their reasons and rationale for making this set of legislative proposals. It was notable in Committee that Members were quizzical about why the charter for budget responsibility has been quite narrowly defined and why the OBR’s duties are similarly quite controlled and slimline. My view is that any realistic definition of budget responsibility must take account of the impact on jobs and growth of the wider economy and Treasury decisions on fiscal policy, particularly in the current context.

We know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is currently grappling to acquire a growth strategy, some of which might have been left on a number of photocopiers around the building before Treasury questions, although I have not been party to the memo that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor picked up—I will try to get hold of him later to see what was in it. Clearly, the real economy has clashed with the Government’s plan A, which they have refused to depart from, which meant that in the fourth quarter of 2010, as GDP figures show, the economy went into reverse and shrank. The Chancellor blames the wrong kind of snow, but evidently the Government’s approach to fiscal policy has created circumstances that have not only put the brakes on economic growth, but unfortunately seem to have put it into reverse.

When we debated clauses 1 and 4 in Committee, Members felt that it was important to try to challenge the notion that we should somehow have an Office for Budget Responsibility that confines itself to fiscal, deficit and debt issues, to the exclusion of other equally important indices drawn from the wider economy.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The first of the two debates is on fuel prices and the cost of living. I inform the House that, in the first debate, I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

As colleagues will be aware, in the light of the level of interest in participating in the two debates, I have imposed a six-minute limit on Back Benchers’ speeches in each of the two debates. There is, of course, no formal time limit on Front Benchers’ speeches, but in view of the interest I appeal to Front Benchers to exercise a certain self-denying ordinance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not an orderly way in which to conduct the debate. An hon. Member should not stand up in the Chamber with an electronic device and read from an e-mail as a means of debating. That is the current position—such matters are always subject to review, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the position at the moment, and we will leave it there.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I apologise.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman,

[Ms Eagle]

That is nought out of two for the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the next time he tries to intervene, he will manage to be in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will confirm and clarify her party’s position on—I think—fuel duty. I am not sure because on ITV’s “Daybreak” the shadow Chancellor said: “We’re saying today, as well as the duty thing, which I’ll think you’ll freeze”—I presume that he was not saying that explicitly to Christine Bleakley—“I think you should reverse the VAT rise.” Specifically on the “duty thing”, is the shadow Chancellor talking about freezing the 1p rise, the RIP rise—[Hon. Members: “RIP?”] Sorry, I mean the RPI plus one rise. Which is it? [Interruption.] I might have made a slip, but I was thinking about the Opposition and their policy.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we continue, may I appeal to Members, including Ministers and other Front Benchers who are intervening, to do that economically? I remind the House that the Chair’s responsibility is to seek to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members who wish to speak. I put it to Front Benchers that Back Benchers will be not inconsiderably irritated if long speeches from the Front Bench stop them getting in.

[Ms Eagle]

I was trying to help hon. Members by giving way. Obviously, that extends the time that one’s remarks take, but I think that some exchange helps the debate.

I hoped that the Chief Secretary would be here today, but we have the Economic Secretary instead. Why will the Chief Secretary not turn up to one of his own debates? Where is he? Why has he not come to tell us about what he has been doing on all those issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I have given way to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.

That statement shows that this Government are run by a Prime Minister who does not do detail and who appears to be at odds with his own Chief Secretary. The OBR has shown that a temporary rise in oil prices generates a £100 million surplus in the first year for the Treasury, but that that turns rapidly to a net revenue loss of £700 million the year after. What the Government gain from higher oil tax revenues, they lose from the effects of higher prices on consumption and the requirement to spend more on indexing pensions and benefits. A permanent rise causes permanent losses to the public finances. The Prime Minister has to stop pretending that there is a windfall in rising oil prices that he can share out, because it simply does not exist. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady. I say to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) that loud conversations in the middle of a speech are discourteous and must not happen. That is not a proper way to conduct debate. I am not having it, and that is the end of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman, who is hectoring from a sedentary position. When his party was in government, it knew all about raising taxes. In fact, it formed the ultimate tax-and-spend Government, who got us into such a situation that their final Chief Secretary wrote a note saying that there was no money left. I really do think that if the Labour party wants to be taken seriously on the economy, it must start living in the real world instead of the fantasy world that it currently finds itself in, particularly in relation to EU VAT directives.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I said to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) a few minutes ago that he was making an excessive noise—[Interruption.] That was my best effort at the pronunciation of his important constituency. However, my remonstrance extends more widely. The debate has been notably scratchy, and it needs to calm down a bit from now on.

[Justine Greening]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Government are taking steps to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. From April this year, we are raising the income tax personal threshold by £1,000, taking nearly 900,000 of the lowest-income workers in our country out of tax altogether.

Banking

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Given that this statement was not on the Order Paper, I thank the Chancellor for the eight minutes’ advance notice he gave me of it. Yesterday, he confirmed in his “Today” programme mini-Budget that he is cutting taxes for the banks this year, compared to last year. [Interruption.] Today we find out what the Chancellor has got in return from the banks, after weeks and months of negotiations with the UK banking industry, culminating in the complete shambles of the past 24 hours, and the result is: precious little. From a Chancellor who talked so tough in opposition and who even yesterday continued to promise much, this is a pitiful outcome and an embarrassing climbdown. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Earlier I made it clear that heckling and abuse of the Prime Minister when he was answering questions should not take place and that his answers would be heard. I say to hon. Members who are now heckling the shadow Chancellor, stop it. It is a disgrace. The public loathe it. Do not imagine for one moment that while screaming abuse you have the slightest prospect of being invited to ask a question. Behave and get the message.

[Ed Balls]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. They tend to heckle when they are worried.

A “damp squib” is defined in the dictionary as something potentially explosive but that fails to perform because it has got wet. That is this Chancellor all over. This negotiation has turned from Project Merlin into “The Wizard of Oz”: the curtain has been pulled back and there is nothing there. Of the leading players on the Government Front Bench, who is the one without courage, who is the one without a brain and who is the one without a heart?

Let us review what the Chancellor has achieved. On lending, he claims to have secured an agreement with the banks to lend £190 billion this year, but financial experts are clear that the deal he has announced is vague, toothless and unenforceable and not a proper substitute for proper competition. How will he be able to measure in detail whether the deal is delivered? Can he tell us the detail of how it will be enforced? Is there a sanction if the lending does not materialise? Was not a senior banker right when he told the Daily Mail on Monday that this lending agreement is “meaningless”? Is not the Financial Times right to say today:

“With much noisy showmanship, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is puffing demands that are little more than cosmetic”?

Is not that the truth?

On pay transparency, again we have a damp squib. The Chancellor claims that we will now have the most open regime in the world, but what does it actually add up to? The answer is transparency for pay and remuneration of only the seven most senior bank executives, whose anonymity is still fully protected. The Government are demanding that local authorities publish the salaries of anyone in local government earning more than £58,200, but he is allowing a taxpayer-owned bank and publically quoted companies in the financial sector to continue to pay staff millions of pounds in pay and bonuses with no transparency at all.

Why is the Chancellor not activating the legislation that we put on the statute book that would require the publication of the remuneration of any individual paid more than £1 million? It is there on the statute book and ready to go, so why not just sign the order and get on with it? Why has he failed so abjectly to make any progress in international negotiations with European and global Governments on transparency? There has been no progress because there is no sign that he has even tried.

On bonuses, I am afraid that the country will conclude that the Chancellor has thrown in the towel in the face of extensive lobbying by people with whom he and his Conservative colleagues have just become too close and too cosy. Does he remember what the Prime Minister said just two years ago—when Leader of the Opposition—when attacking the previous Government? He said:

“Because of this dithering we could see bonuses paid out for a second year to executives in taxpayer owned banks, which is unacceptable.”

After months of dithering from this Chancellor, what will we see over the next fortnight? We will see exactly that: bonuses running into millions of pounds, in cash and shares, paid to executives in taxpayer-owned banks. What he should be doing today is announcing proper reform of corporate governance and taking up our proposal to repeat last year’s £3.5 billion bank bonus tax, in addition to his levy, and use the money to support jobs and growth to kick-start his stalled recovery.

I have told the Chancellor that I will support him on long-term banking reform, enforceable lending agreements and proper statutory action on transparency and pay. Our economy badly needs a reformed, transformed, vibrant and globally competitive financial services industry for the future. He is right that hundreds of thousands of jobs depend upon it. However, this is not an agreement to secure the long-term future of our economy, but a short-term and shabby political deal. There have been talks that dragged on for weeks, a mini-Budget on the “Today” programme, crisis conference calls with the banks yesterday afternoon, a hasty compromise cooked up overnight and a Chancellor finally coming to the House with little to offer in return for his tax cuts for the banks.

I have to say that this is a Chancellor who, as the former CBI head has said, puts politics before economics. He talked tough in opposition, but in government he looks increasingly out of his depth and out of touch. We have rising VAT, rising fuel prices, rising unemployment and deep spending cuts hitting living standards of families, and yet his first priority is a tax cut for the banks. Millions of families up and down the country will now be asking, whose side is this Government on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is clearly a great deal of interest. May I gently remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the statement began should not expect to be called? The position on this is very clear and long established, and it must be adhered to.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“If the City is doing well, the country is doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper”.

They are not my words but those of the shadow Chancellor. Did my right hon. Friend take any advice from him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

In the light of his statement and what he has heard from the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend give any further consideration to the warning offered by a certain soi-disant financial journalist who said that nothing must be done to endanger a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must just say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that I do not know what he has for breakfast, but I think I am going to avoid it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Two things: first, I want to hear both questions and answers; secondly, can I—[Interruption.] Order. Can I just ask Members on both sides of the House to give some thought to how our proceedings are regarded by the people whose support we were busily seeking less than a year ago?

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary first confirm that public sector debt was 42.5% in 1997 and 36.5% in 2008, the second-lowest debt of any G7 country? Will he secondly accept that investment during the last two years of the Labour Government was designed to keep people in their jobs and homes, expenditure that he supported at the time? Given the disastrous economic figures and the CBI’s comments before Christmas, will he just admit that what he is missing is a growth strategy, not the cuts that he opposed during the election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the question, and I certainly support the work that the MOD is doing. We are actively encouraging Departments and local authorities to scrutinise their PFI contracts for savings. As my hon. Friend knows, the Treasury has published draft guidance to help contract managers identify PFI savings, and a pilot will test the savings measures in the contracts, which will help to scope out possible savings and ensure that other Departments can make the same progress as the MOD.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would be grateful if the Chief Secretary could look at the House as he addresses us.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

What will the right hon. Gentleman do about the scandal of bunching private finance initiative contracts together and selling them on in the private sector, with no benefit to the public sector? Is he going to take action, and if so, when?

Fuel Costs

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for your ruling earlier this afternoon that the phrase “rank hypocrisy” is unparliamentary language. I should therefore like to withdraw the phrase, which I used earlier today, and apologise to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who may have felt that it was directed at him. Under no circumstances would I wish to accuse him of any activity that was in any way covered by the use of unparliamentary language.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and thank him, on behalf of the House, for the apology he has given. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rumours are rife in the Press Gallery, and more widely, that the Government are planning to announce the result of their talks with the banks on bonuses and lending, otherwise known as Project Merlin, to TV stations and via a press release this evening. Do you agree with me that if the Government are doing private deals with the banks, they should have the courage to come to the House, that the House should be the first to hear about it and that announcing the outcome behind the backs of Members of this House would be totally unacceptable?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for both her point of order and her advance notice of it. The Procedure Committee published its report on ministerial statements only last week, reaffirming the principle that important statements should be made first to this House. As a former Minister, and indeed an experienced parliamentarian, she will be aware of her options for taking up the matter. The Table Office will be open until the rising of the House, and it will not have escaped her notice that the Leader of the House is in his place and has heard what she has said.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 2, line 20, clause 4, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2012’.

Amendment 6, line 20, at end insert

‘The Treasury will carry out a review of the Regional Secondary Contributions Holiday before 5 December 2011 and may extend the relevant period until 5 September 2013.’.

[Mr Hanson]

The clue to the proposed changes before us is in the words that the Clerk read out, “not amended in the Public Bill Committee”. The proposals were reflected on and discussed in Committee, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has had time, with a good break behind him over Christmas, to reflect on the common sense in them.

I would find it amazing if the Minister were not able to accept new clause 1, because it simply asks for information that, if he looks carefully, he knows I could table questions—with probably more work for him and his officials—to secure in due course. It is important that he assesses the scheme to ensure that we have a national insurance holiday, which, under the current Bill, includes the whole United Kingdom minus three regions—London, the east and the south-east.

The Opposition support, welcome and recognise the Government’s objectives in seeking to use the mechanism of forgoing national insurance income to encourage businesses, but it is important that the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, the House, who endorse that proposal, know its impact over the relevant period.

New clause 1 asks the House to ensure that, following Royal Assent, there is an annual report to Parliament on the outcomes of the scheme, meaning that between now and 2013 we would potentially have three annual reports with the information outlined in the new clause. Essentially, that would include the total sum of national insurance expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme by constituency, but, if the Minister wanted to reflect on the proposal and have it brought back in another place, I would be happy for the information to be listed by sub-region or by region. The information would also include the number of businesses availing themselves of the secondary contributions holidays, the number of employees in each business and the total expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme.

I tabled new clause 1 for several reasons. It is important that we know the facts. The Minister said in Committee that he expects about 400,000 businesses to take part in the scheme during its operation. That figure is a valuable indication and a good benchmark by which we can judge the success of the scheme. When the Committee sat before Christmas, we were already effectively five to six months into the operation of the scheme and about 1,100 businesses had applied for it. An annual review to Parliament would not only have provided an indication of whether Parliament should pass the Bill but would have ensured that we know exactly the take-up of the scheme. New clause 1 refers to the fact that we would also know the take-up by constituency and by businesses.

That is important for two reasons. We need to know the trajectory of the take-up. Is the figure of 1,100 to date what was expected? What will the trajectory be for those businesses in 2011 and 2012? If we have our first annual report in, let us say, December 2011—when the scheme will have been operating for 18 months—what will the take-up of the scheme be? Is the trajectory for the remaining two years likely to mean we get to the 400,000 figure that the Minister has mentioned? An annual report would provide transparency and openness, to which the Government are committed, on those issues and those take-ups. There would be nothing in the report that I could not ask the Minister in a parliamentary question in December this year, next year or the year after. It would simply be good business for the Government to supply that information as a whole.

It is important to consider the number of businesses in each constituency, and we will return to the exclusion of London, the south-east and the east region when we discuss other amendments. Given the deprivation in many of the London constituencies represented by my hon. Friends in the Chamber this afternoon, we feel particularly strongly about that matter. The Bill will have a significant impact on 400,000 businesses across the remainder of the United Kingdom, but will it and the proposed holiday impact on areas that have the highest public sector employment, which is the Minister’s primary objective, and areas of high deprivation and unemployment?

We discussed unemployment and deprivation in areas of the United Kingdom a number of times in Committee. For the purposes of explanation, I shall randomly look at constituencies that currently benefit from the national holiday under the scheme and will benefit if the scheme goes ahead. The annual report is important because unemployment in the Tatton constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about 2.1%, in the Richmond constituency of the Foreign Secretary it is about 1.8% and in the Rushcliffe constituency of the Justice Secretary it is about 2%.

It is important that we look at where the scheme ultimately is taken up and who will benefit. If businesses are opening in Tatton, Rushcliffe, Richmond and, indeed, other constituencies with low unemployment, that is all well and good, but it will not tackle deprivation in Manchester Central, Liverpool, Riverside or Newcastle upon Tyne East, which ultimately also might benefit from the scheme. For transparency, it is important that the Minister produces an annual report showing not only how many people and businesses have taken up the scheme, but in which constituencies it was taken up outside London, the south-east and the east region.

Bank Bonuses

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is, understandably, enormous interest in this subject, but I remind the House that what is being discussed is an urgent question rather than a full-length statement. If I am to accommodate a reasonable number of Members, brevity from Back Benches and Front Benches alike is vital.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Voluntary organisations and community groups face cuts of at least £3 billion this year. If we are really all in this together, would it not be better for the banks to use their profits to support those community groups, rather than paying themselves up to £7 billion in massive personal bonuses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has said several times that nothing is off the table if the banks do not conform to the code of practice. Can you explain to me and to people here today what exactly is on the table, and what you will do if they do not conform?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will do nothing at all, but I think the Chancellor might.

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, what is on the table at the moment is the discussion that we are having to increase lending in a material way—in other words, more than would otherwise have been the case—and to reduce bonuses more than would otherwise have been the case. I have made it very clear to the banks that nothing is off the table if we do not agree this settlement, and we will look at all the options available to us.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Chancellor and all colleagues for their succinctness, which has enabled every Member who wanted to ask a question to do so, and to secure an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), I remind him and the rest of the House that the supplementary question must be about the policy of the Government.

[Mike Weatherley]

A graduate tax would be less progressive and less fair than the proposals that the Government have brought forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we scrapped our proposals and introduced a graduate tax, it would be a costly disaster for those entering higher education in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

No!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Chancellor does not need to bear that in mind. He has explained his position very clearly, and we are grateful to him. I now call Tobias Ellwood, as his question is also in this group. He is not here. Oh, dear. I call Mr David Hanson.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor confirm that in adopting his policy on tuition fees he has raised the Government borrowing requirement to £10.7 billion by 2015—a rise of £5.6 billion—in addition to cutting at least £800 million from the university budget and tripling fees, which will deter poorer students? Will he now for once confirm to the House that his choice on tuition fees is about ideology, not deficit reduction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

May I remind the House that no hospital PFI contract was signed under the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is to resume his seat. He has come in on the wrong question I am afraid; we are talking about bank bonuses.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

While the Minister reviews the undoubtedly well-stuffed stockings of certain bankers to determine whether they have been naughty or nice, will he acknowledge the significant amount of tax that they pay, and the institutions that choose London as their domain? Will he recognise that, as far as their choice of domain is concerned, the airports of this country will not always be closed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me, and my constituents in Dover and Deal, that the council tax freeze is very welcome, and stands in sharp contrast to the massive rises that have hit the poor, elderly and vulnerable in recent years?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question is about the comprehensive spending review.

[Mr Gauke]

With reference to the comprehensive spending review, the council tax freeze and the other measures that we have announced demonstrate that we are making every effort to ensure that the difficult decisions that we have to make because of the deficit are reached in a way that is fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I see on my copy of the Liberal Democrat “Whip” for this week that all Lib Dem Ministers have been instructed to visit Oldham East and Saddleworth three times before 13 January. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell me on what days he intends to visit, and will he take the Business Secretary with him, so that they can outline their “Maoist revolution”?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is requesting a visit in which the Minister will talk about the policies of the Government.

[Danny Alexander]

I am certainly not going to let the hon. Gentleman know of my intentions in advance, but it is characteristic of the attitude on his side of the House that Opposition Members do not have a single question to ask that offers a proposal for dealing with the economic problems that they caused. It is economic common sense on the Government side of the House; just nonsense on the Opposition side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

With relevance to Treasury matters, Chancellor—that is, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to respond. He is not under an obligation.

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure that there is anything that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, except that I wish him a happy Christmas and I hope that he approaches retirement soon.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that, as usual, demand has exceeded supply, and there are points of order sprouting up all over the place.