To ask the Secretary of State for Justice

(1) what the ethnicity is of each child awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicators in Ashfield Young Offender Institute in each month in the last two years;

(2) how many additional days of imprisonment were awarded to children in Ashfield Young Offender Institute by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month in the last two years;

(3) how many cases were referred to an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in Ashfield Young Offender Institute in each month in the last two years.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the coalition Government's acceptance of the reports put together by Graham Aaronson and his committee? He is the doyen of the tax Bar at which my hon. Friend used to practise, though probably not at the same rates as Mr Aaronson. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that the coalition Government are now going to consult for the next 12 months on introducing a general anti-abuse or anti-avoidance rule into the United Kingdom tax code?

I am sorry to disappoint him and for the benefit of the Government Whip, I will be brief. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was laughable to reduce capital gains tax from 40% to 18%, as happened under the Labour Government?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a notional increase in 2015-16, but is he forgetting anything that might happen in 2014-15?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned my earlier intervention on him, I think. The £450 may be true on average across all families in the UK, but the specific point that he and his colleagues were making was that the poorest in society, particularly people in his own constituency, would be worse off by £450 as a result of the rise in VAT, which, from memory, would mean that they had spent £18,000 on standard-rated, VATable items. I challenged him to say how many people in his constituency might actually spend £18,000 on VAT standard-rated items. I think he said, "Very few," so I do not think I was wrong.

At last, a Labour MP has given way on that point. The fact that people are £450 worse off because of the increase in VAT is often repeated. VAT has gone up by 2.5% on standard-rated items, so someone would have to spend £18,000 on standard-rated, VATable goods to be worse off by £450. Can the hon. Gentleman name any of his constituents who go out every year and spend £18,000 on standard-rated goods such as cars, fridges and so on?

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarkable candour. It is to be welcomed by all parties when politicians are candid about the mistakes that we make. I have made them, too. How long does she think it took the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath-I do not think that he ever admitted that he had made a mistake-

The hon. Lady talked about the philosophical differences between her party and mine. What insight can she offer us into the thought processes of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he doubled the tax on the lowest-paid in 2007?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Good afternoon, Mr Bone. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length this morning; it looks as if he is about to speak at length again this afternoon. I am not yet sure that I know what his position is. Is he against the provisions in the clause? He told us all about his views on clause 3, saying that he was not necessarily against the raising of the personal allowance. Is he against the compensation measure for raising the personal allowance that is in this clause?

I am sure we have all received letters from constituents over the years saying that they did not want their taxes spent on one thing and preferred them to be spent on something else. It is right in principle, therefore, that the Government cap the ability of the super-rich to allocate taxes to charities of their choice. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acknowledge, however, that universities and medical research charities have always depended on

philanthropic support? In reviewing the cap on tax relief, will he ensure that those institutions' interests are safeguarded?

Good morning, Mr Bone. It is still just about morning; time is moving very slowly today. If the hon. Gentleman welcomes the increase in the personal allowance-as I am pleased to hear from him and his colleagues-why does he think the current shadow Chancellor spent the entire general election rubbishing that Liberal Democrat policy and, in the coalition negotiations, said it was unworkable?

The central unifying purpose of this coalition Government is to bring stability and credibility to the management of the United Kingdom's economy and public finances. That, in turn, enables us to play a constructive role on the world stage. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as it is in the Swedish, Swiss, Australian, South Korean and Japanese national interest to give extra contributions to the IMF, it is in the British interest not just to help the eurozone, but to lend assistance wherever the IMF team's assistance is required?

The hon. Lady has twice said that pensioners are disproportionately affected by the collection of measures the Government are introducing to reduce the deficit. May I quote what Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said about this particular measure:

"Despite this morning's headlines, this looks like a relatively modest tax increase on a group hitherto well sheltered from tax and benefit changes. From this Budget we calculate that pensioners will lose on average one quarter of one per cent of their income in 2014"?

How does she square that-the Opposition often like quoting the IFS-with pensioners being disproportionately affected by what the Government are doing?

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend with his rhetorical question. Apart from Mr Williams in the Chair, the Minister and me, and the delightful Labour Whip, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), everyone in the Chamber happens to be from the 2010 intake and probably did not witness Members of the Labour Government cheering when they produced tax cuts for the super-rich-they reduced their capital gains and income taxes while at the same time raising tax for the poorest by abolishing the 10p rate. Therefore, in fact, the pressure was all in the opposite direction.

The hon. Lady just said that this group of people are on below-average incomes. That might be true across the broad span of the population, which includes people in work on enormous salaries, but for pensioners, surely they are on way-above-average incomes.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

The hon. Gentleman says that banks will all get a tax cut because of the reductions in corporation tax. That assumes that they have taxable profits. Many have accumulated losses and will not be paying corporation tax for quite some time, whatever the rate.