1. Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of the effects of recapitalisation on the policies pursued by the recapitalised banks on providing credit to small businesses. 
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Alistair Darling): The measures that I announced on 8 and 13 October included agreements with the banks that use the bank reconstruction fund that they would maintain the availability and active marketing of competitively priced lending to small businesses at 2007 levels.
Mr. Touhig: As a former chairman of a county council finance committee, I once borrowed £37 million from the European Investment Bank; I also managed to pay it back. I welcome todays announcement that the bank is to make £4 billion-worth of credit available for small companies in this country. Many of them are faced with bully-boy tactics from British banks, which are simply cancelling their overdraft facilities and denying them vital capital to invest. What action can the Government take to ensure that British banks give small businesses the same support that our Government have given the banks?
I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important that we do everything we can to support small and medium-sized businesses in this country. They employ more than half the work force and account for an important part of the economy. In addition to the EIB making £4 billion available to British banks, we want to ensure that the banks that have used the bank reconstruction fund make funds available at the equivalent of 2007 levels, and that they make that EIB money available. That does not mean that everyone who comes through the front door of a bank will get what they want, on the terms that they want, but it is important that British banks play their part. We, on behalf of the taxpayer, have put a lot of money into the banking
system because we recognise its importance. In turn, banks have to recognise the importance, not just to the country but to the banks, of ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises get the support that they need.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): Will the Chancellor clear up the position that the newly appointed Government directors of the banks in question will take when considering such lending? Will they be required to act in the interests of the Government, the taxpayer, oras proper company directors dothe business?
Mr. Darling: I made it clear when I made my announcement in the middle of last month that even the banks in which we are taking significant shareholdings need to operate in a commercial manner. They will operate at arms length from the Government. All directors have one duty, and that is to represent the interests of their shareholders; of course, the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, will be a major shareholder in three of the banks. No doubt we will explore the issue further when I appear before the Treasury Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, on Monday afternoon.
John McFall (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): The Chancellor, along with the Governor of the Bank of England and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, has kindly agreed to come along to the Treasury Committees banking crisis inquiry on Monday. We asked the public what questions they would like to ask the Chancellor, the Governor and the chairman of the FSA, and more than 1,500 e-mails have been received. One big issue is that the banks do not play fair with savers and small businesses. The taxpayer is the lender of last resort, but today will the Chancellor and Lord Mandelson impress on the banks that the taxpayer will certainly not be the sucker of last resort?
Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has done a good job of providing a trailer for Monday afternoons performance. He rightly draws attention to the fact that today, many businesses find things difficult because of the prevailing economic conditions. We need to make sure that banks do not make a difficult situation worse. As I say, that does not mean that every business will get what it wants, on the terms that it wantsbecause although something might have been a good business prospect 12 months ago, the situation may be different today. It means that banks have got to play their part. Small businesses rely on banks for support more than large businesses do. The banks need to remember that although they go looking for customers in the good times, when times get more difficult their customers depend on them, so it is important that they play their part. My right hon. Friend Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, will meet small business representatives and banks regularly to ensure that if problems arise, we work through them, because it is important that we make sure that support gets through to where it is needed.
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con):
Is the Chancellor aware that some banks are changing small businesses overdraft facilities to loan facilities, with an even higher rate of interest, at a time of difficult commercial problems for small businesses? When the Chancellor and the noble Lord Mandelson hold the meetings just
mentioned, will the Chancellor bring to the attention of the bankers just how devastating the changes are to businesses cash flow and chances of survival?
Mr. Darling: Yes, and Lord Mandelson and I raised those cases when we met the chief executives of the major banks a week ago today. We will continue to raise those matters. If hon. Members come across such cases, they will obviously make inquiries about what exactly happened. If there appears to be no justification for what has happened to a business and put it in difficulties, my colleagues and I will be very pleased to hear about it from hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman included.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab): I congratulate the Chancellor on the recapitalisation of banks, which has been admired and copied throughout the world, but was that task helped by the leaking of confidential documents by the Bank of England and by the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench on The Andrew Marr Show? What does the Chancellor think of his opposite numbers judgment? [Interruption.]
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): The Chancellor has made a series of assertions to comfort small businesses, but may I now direct him back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)? The Chancellor knows perfectly that the duties of directors are laid down extremely clearly in law and are tightly and narrowly drawn. Does he plan to introduce an order to vary the legislation on that, or not?
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I can understand why the Chancellor would not want the request to the banks to lend at 2007 levels to be taken as a green light to repeat the mistakes of the past in terms of irresponsible lending, but does he agree that any analysis will show that there has been very little evidence of irresponsible lending by banks to small businesses? Therefore, will the Chancellor ensure that the banks maintain their focus on keeping credit lines open to small businesses?
Indeed, that is what I was saying just a few moments ago. The point that I was making was that there will be occasions when a business with a credit line or other facilities with a bank may have a perfectly good business, but for perfectly understandable reasons circumstances may have changed and the bank may then say, Look, well have to change the arrangements. I think that everyone understands that. What people do not understand is if a bank, especially one that has had the benefit of a substantial injection of public funds, has a blanket policy of saying to people, Actually, were not concerned about you at all, and well cut your credit and put you into difficulties. In any banking
operation, whether it is lending to individuals or to businesses, there must be discretion, and Opposition Members made the point that directors clearly have a duty to the banks shareholders. But at present, learning from what has gone wrong in the past, if we do not ensure adequate funds are available to small and medium-sized enterprises, we will exacerbate the situation. That is why, both in terms of capitalisation of the banks and the measures that we announced earlier this month, and todays announcement in relation to persuading the EIB to come forward with substantial sums, I hope that banks will play their part, because it is as much in their interests as it is in everybody elses that this works.
The banks, of course, should act responsibly to help small businesses as the economy deteriorates, but does the Chancellor agree that the Government should act responsibly as well? Can he confirm that he is still [Interruption.]
Does the Chancellor still plan to increase the small companies tax rate next April? Does he agree that even if this was a good idea two years agoand I did not agree that it wasit is certainly not a good idea when we are in recession? Will he now abandon this tax rise? If he does not do it now, he will certainly have to before the Budget in April.
Mr. Darling: I agree that the Government have to play their part in supporting businesses and in supporting individuals. For example, the fact that we have reduced the amount of tax paid by basic rate taxpayers is an extremely useful step. We have frozen fuel duty, and if I may say soif the hon. Gentleman does not take this as an attackthat is a much better policy than the fuel duty escalator that he announced in July, which would have resulted in fuel duty having to go up now, at the very time when businesses want tax to come down. We will continue to do everything that we can to help businesses, because that is very important.
Mr. Osborne: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is planning to increase the small companies tax rate next April. If he wants to talk about cars, I should say that he is still planning the big increase in family car tax next April as well. Surely the thing that would most help small businessesthis is a simple statement of factis a sustained reduction in interest rates.
The Chancellor and I agree that the Monetary Policy Committee must make its own decisions, but the Government should do nothing that gets in the way of that. Will we have an end to all this irresponsible spinning about Keynesian spending splurges and all this irresponsible nonsense about borrowing without limit, which have spooked the international markets? Can we instead have from the Chancellor a clear plan to get the public finances back under control? Is it not the case that on the current path, this Labour Government are set to leave behind them the biggest budget deficit of
any Labour Government in the entire history of this country? Again, the Conservatives will have to clear up the mess.
Mr. Darling: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would say a little bit less about spinning. Let me deal with the points that he has raised. Firstand this perhaps goes to the heart of what is now emerging as a difference between the two partiesat this time in the economic cycle, and in the face of the extraordinary conditions that we face just now, it is right that we support the economy. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman said in The Daily Telegraph that he was against borrowing. That would have a profound consequence for the economy. He might want to have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who in the space of one single interview said:
Increasing borrowing is not a strategy for dealing with the recession,
To increase borrowing to deal with an economic downturnthats a perfectly sensible thing to do.
The Conservative party is all over the place on the issue. In relation to interest rates, during one of the last debates that we had here I made it clear that the Bank of England has a remit sufficiently wide to enable it to take into account the wider economy. I also have to say to the shadow Chancellor that he said in the House on 14 October that he made it a practice not to comment on interest rates. Yet yesterday he was calling on the Bank of England to cut interest rates.
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not a clue about how to deal with this problem. What the public want is a clear course of action, and decisive action being taken. That is what we are doing. It is obvious now that the Conservative party and the hon. Gentleman are completely incapable of sticking to a decision and seeing it through.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Yvette Cooper): The Government have agreed a range of commitments with the banks supported by the recapitalisation scheme. They include arrangements to make available affordable mortgage products over the next three years and to help individuals who are struggling with their mortgage payments to stay in their homes.
Mary Creagh: I spoke to Wakefield citizens advice bureau representatives yesterday and they told me that there is a three-week waiting list for people in our district who wish to be referred for help, particularly in respect of mortgages given out by Northern Rock and HBOS. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that she ignores a recent paper from the Conservative party that saw no need to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as that would be truly catastrophic for this countrys economy?
My hon. Friend is right. I am aware of the concerns about people wanting more debt support and advice in our district, too, and that is the case right across the country. That is why we have substantially
increased the investment in providing debt advice in the past 10 years. We are looking into what more we can do, because people need more support. My hon. Friend is also right to say that, at the heart of this, it would have been utterly irresponsible to cut the regulation of mortgage provision, as some in the Opposition seem to advocate.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Do the Chief Secretary and her right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that with the recapitalisation of our banks it was urgently needed that, as in America, there should be substantial cuts in interest rates, yet the current position is that our interest rates are 3Â1/2 per cent. higher than those in America? The present state of apparent paralysis of the Monetary Policy Committeewhich I may say that I predicted in 1997 would be the case whenever there was a crisisis adding to the problems facing mortgage holders.
Yvette Cooper: I know that Opposition Members opposed and voted against the independence of the Bank of England at the beginning, but after time they said that they supported it. Clearly, they have now changed their position again.
Yvette Cooper: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think it is right to have an independent Bank of England. That is why interest rates are 4.5 per cent. instead of the 15 per cent. that they reached at the end of the 80s and in the early 90s. It is right that the Bank should take these decisions, not only to ensure that it has the inflation target in mind but to support the economy in the way that its remit allows it to do.
Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) (Lab): Lloyds TSB was bailed out with £5.5 billion of Government money. Since then, it has refused to pass on the recent interest rate cut and has increased the rate for its tracker mortgages. In the past couple of days, it has stopped existing customers moving from repayment mortgages to interest-only mortgages, which is a first step in easing peoples mortgage payments. As we are one of the biggest shareholders in this bank, does the Minister agree that at the next meeting we should ask our managers to review those destructive lending policies?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to raise questions about what is being done by the lenders who have help from the recapitalisation scheme. They have agreed to make available lending at 2007 levels, and we will put in place procedures to monitor how they are maintaining availability of mortgage lending. As hon. Members have said, it is right, given that the Government are taking action to support the banks, that the banks should take action to support mortgage holders and home owners across the country.