1. Eurozone crisis live: Greek leaders begin crucial meeting over state broadcaster
2. Stock markets slide as strike begins in Greece – eurozone crisis live
3. Eurozone crisis live: EU car sales hit 20-year low in May

David Cameron said Britain would use its G8 presidency to crack down on tax avoidance. What progress has been made so far?

How serious has David Cameron been in attempting to tackle tax abuses?

The prime minister has set out bold ambitions to "rewrite the rules on tax". He promised Britain would use its G8 presidency to crack down on big businesses and rich individuals using "an army of clever accountants" to avoid tax. "This is an issue whose time has come," he told the World Economic Forum in Davos in January. But seasoned tax experts heard in his words an of echo Gordon Brown's distinctly premature 2009 summit declaration of "the beginning of the end for tax havens".

Has the G8 made progress cracking down on multinationals playing off one regime against another to lower its tax bills?

The world leaders have called on the OECD, the body that draws up international guidelines on tax, to draft a template for multinationals to report the tax they pay to taxing authorities in each jurisdiction in which they operate. Cameron claims this will "identify where multinational companies are earning their profits and paying their taxes so we can track and expose those who aren't paying their fair share". Tax campaigners, however, suggest it does not go nearly far enough. There was no commitment for this information to be made public or for companies to provide greater disclosure on other economic activity on a country-by-country basis.

What about closing loopholes in international tax rules exploited by firms such as Google, Apple and Amazon?

Several issues around taxing multinationals are being worked on furiously by the OECD before a wider G20 meeting of finance minister next month. The G8 promised to "take the necessary individual and collective action" to back up any recommendations from recasting the rules. As a broad statement of intent the G8 leaders said: "Countries should change rules that let companies shift their profits across borders to avoid taxes".

Will companies and trusts be forced to disclose those who stand behind them as owners, or as trust settlors and beneficiaries?

Tax fairness campaigners fought hard on this issue and appeared to have won the support of Cameron who pushed for a commitment to registers of beneficial ownership to be set up. However, the prime minister appears to have been left isolated on the issue by his G8 peers. The final leaders' communique offered little more than support for an existing review being carried out by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), another international quango. The FATF believes a central register is just one way forward, with other proposals more akin to imposing tougher know-your-customer rules on company administrators. With little common ground on transparency thresholds the G8 declared that nations would each commit to their own "action plans" on this issue. The UK is to set up a central registry of beneficial owners, but will consult on whether this should be made publicly accessible. It will also review the role of nominee directors and bearer shares in corporate life. The US is to leave the decision to individual states, with Delaware – a well known secrecy haven – thought likely to resist.

Did the G8 achieve progress on tax information exchange between countries to help in the battle against evasion?

There have been a confusing blizzard of bilateral and multilateral tax information exchange agreements in the last four years, each of them building in significance. Before the G8 meeting, Cameron was able to claim a victory by corralling many British affiliated tax havens – crown dependencies and overseas territories – into signing up to some less onerous tax co-operation initiatives. The gold standard in this area is a US measure called FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), an aggressive unilateral initiative that comes into force later this year requiring financial firms to disclose details of all US citizens' assets held overseas or face punishing taxes. There are signs that Europe and others could follow with similar draconian measures, setting a common international standard. "We call on all jurisdictions to adopt and effectively implement this new single global standard at the earliest opportunity," the G8 communique said.

How will the summit be judged?

Cameron's verdict at the closing press conference was that he had secured a G8 declaration that "has the potential to rewrite the rules on tax and transparency for the benefit of countries across the world". New tools, he said, would now be forged that would help ensure "proper tax justice in our world". But most tax campaigners were last night expressing disappointment at a final communique long on talk and short on commitment. Some took heart that radical ideas had made it onto the table for discussion – even if they were not adopted. Murray Worthy, tax campaigner at the anti-poverty charity War on Want, said: "As always, the devil will be in the detail, and there is no detail here. Talk of stopping companies shifting profits to avoid taxes is a huge step forwards, but we have heard great promises from the world's heads of state before – it is what they do that counts."

What will it mean for tax haven's linked to Britain?

Jersey and other crown dependencies were on Monday night claiming that they were already way ahead of the G8 economies themselves in meeting the standards set out in the communique. "We have been doing what is being commended for quite a long time," said Geoff Cook, chief executive of the islands financial lobby group Jersey Finance, "So my message to the G8 is... Level Up!" If Cook is right, and principles set out by the G8 leaders changes little in Jersey, many tax campaigners will regard the summit as a heavy defeat. The islands trust industry – and that of Guernsey and the Isle of Man – are viewed by critics as facilitating billions of founds of tax evasion. Campaigners claim sophisticated evaders use these offshore trusts, often in combination with companies and bank accounts in other secrecy jurisdictions, to hide assets from tax authorities.

1. The G8 could act radically to stop tax avoidance. Don’t bet on it | Andrew Rawnsley
2. David Cameron still awaits G8 tax breakthrough after summit’s first day
3. Tax secrecy to be swept away, says David Cameron

Supermarkets and some food producers agree to nutritional labels but critics call for refuseniks 'to be named and shamed'

Traffic light-coded food labels indicating how much fat, salt and sugar an item contains are to appear on most food that is eaten in Britain in a move hailed by health campaigners as ending shoppers' confusion over what to buy.

All the main supermarket chains and some of the biggest producers of snack foods, such as PepsiCo and Nestlé, have agreed with ministers to use front-of-pack nutritional labels coloured red, amber or green on some or all of their products in an effort to make it easier for consumers to choose healthier options.

The traffic-light labels, which many food campaigners and medical organisations have long called for, will be part of a new hybrid nutritional labelling scheme that combines them with guideline daily amounts (GDAs), which senior doctors have criticised as deceptive and utterly baffling to most consumers.

The new labels are intended to help shoppers know at a glance whether a product contains a low, medium or high amount of fat, saturated fat, salt, sugar and calories. Big supermarkets, including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose and the Co-op, will start using them "imminently", though some may take "a few months to rebrand their packaging", the Department of Health said.

"People will be able to use the colours to understand the level of nutrients in the food they are eating. The labels are not designed to demonise foods with lots of reds but to have people consider what they are eating and make sure it's part of a balanced diet.

"Businesses that have signed up to using the new label today already account for more than 60% of the food that is sold in the UK," a spokesman added.

The move follows research that found consumers are confused when more than one scheme is used, reducing their ability and inclination to use the information.

Health problems associated with being overweight or obese cost the NHS more than £5bn a year. A 2011 report found that 61% of the adult population in England is overweight or obese – higher than almost all other developed countries. It also found one third of 10- to 11-year-olds and almost a quarter of four- to five-year-olds are overweight or obese.

Mars UK, McCain Foods and Bernard Matthews are also among the food producers to have signed up to the scheme, though the multinationals Coca-Cola, Cadbury and United Biscuits have refused. Coca-Cola's decision has surprised some food campaigners, given its recent high-profile campaign intended to reinforce its pledge that "we want to be part of the solution" to the growing global obesity epidemic.

The widespread adoption of the hybrid labels represents a significant change because, until now, only a few supermarkets – including M&S, Waitrose and Sainsbury's – have used traffic lights. The Co-op began using them in 2006 before changing in 2011 to labels that incorporated both them and GDAs. McCain Foods is the only major producer to already use colour coding to help guide consumers' choices.

GDAs, which supermarkets such as Tesco have always used, purport to tell consumers what proportion of their recommended daily allowance of fat, salt or sugar the product contains, according to official government advice about the maximum amount of each that is good for health.

But they have come under fire for misleading shoppers by only giving the GDAs for one biscuit in a packet or one serving of a tin of soup, for example, rather than the entire product thus potentially letting shoppers underestimate what is in them.

The public health minister, Anna Soubry, said shoppers were confused by existing food labels: "Research shows that, of all the current schemes, people like this [hybrid] label the most and can use the information to make healthier choices." More manufacturers should adopt the labels, she said.

The consumer group Which? welcomed a "big step forward" and the British Heart Foundation said the "first-class scheme … will make it easier for shoppers to scan the shelves and make more informed choices about what's going in their trolley".

But Diane Abbott, shadow public health minister, and the Children's Food Campaign (CFC), an alliance of health, education and children's groups, called on ministers to "name and shame" firms that shunned the scheme.

"It isn't tenable for any food company, which claims to be socially responsible, to refuse to adopt the scheme," said Charlie Powell, CFC director..

1. Junk food still marketed to children as companies bypass rules
2. KT Tunstall: ‘I spent my first music pay cheque on M&S food’
3. Surgeons can opt out of NHS tables rating their performance

Commission claims senior individuals at failed and unscrupulous banks escaped punishment via 'accountability firewall'

Lock up the banksters. Or, as the Banking Commission put it, create a new criminal offence of "reckless misconduct in the management of a bank". This is an excellent idea.

It flows from the key insight in today's report: that senior individuals at failed and unscrupulous banks have escaped punishment via an "accountability firewall". The top brass was able to plead that it couldn't be held responsible because, like Macavity, it wasn't there – responsibilities had been delegated and decisions made collectively. That must change, says the commission. About time, too. "Don't blame me, I was only the boss" has become the failed bankers' anthem.

It is true the banking crisis had multiple causes, not least central banks' bubble-blowing policies. But lack of accountability in boardrooms was clearly a major factor behind shabby behaviour, which was the commission's remit. Obliging senior bankers to show they acted responsibly is a sensible reform.

The threat of jail would apply only in extreme cases. For practical purposes, the commission's more important proposal is to abolish the feeble "approved persons regime" the Financial Services Authority operated ineffectually for a decade. This became little more than a box-ticking exercise and, once an individual was through the door, it was hard to be expelled.

In its place would come a "senior persons regime". The title is hardly snappy, but the principles are sound. It would apply to fewer people – just senior management – and individuals would have to assume specific responsibilities. So no more bleating that everybody everywhere was mis-selling payment protection insurance, for example. In future, if PPI was your responsibility at your bank, your pension may evaporate, the commission suggests. That would concentrate minds.

In lower ranks a licensing regime– broader than in the past – would operate and ought to be better equipped to deal with cases like Libor-rigging. The practice, we now know, was widespread but only a few alleged ringleaders will face prosecution.

The banks, inevitably, will hate licensing. They had proposed a professional body to uphold standards. The commission's response to their self-serving idea is suitably robust: have your professional body if you wish, but don't pretend it is a solution to anything.

Actually, the banks will hate large chunks of this report, which is fair indication that Andrew Tyrie's commission has understood how the industry ticks. Account portability --– which would enable customers to switch banks more easily – is too expensive, the industry argues. Really? Let's have a panel of expects take a look, says the commission, because portability might stir greater competition, which is half the battle in encouraging better behaviour.

On Royal Bank of Scotland, the commission could be said to have pulled its punches. It has not backed a good bank/bad bank split – just demanded to see the detail of the Treasury's study. But that's a reasonable stance as this is a technical question. There would clearly be a cost and hassle to restructuring RBS, but there could also be a gain from having a healthier "good" bank provide stiffer competition in lending. We need to see the Treasury's calculations.

Most of all, though, it's vital that the commission's proposals are implemented. The quickest way is to table amendments in the Lords to the current Banking Reform Bill. The chancellor should give his blessing.

1. Singapore is focus for latest rate-rigging scandal
2. Prime minister should appoint top civil servants, report recommends
3. Eight questions the Co-operative Bank needs to answer

One third of the new wealthiest are from Asia, according to Royal Bank of Canada research

A million more people joined the ranks of the global super-rich last year, almost a third of them in Asia, as soaring stock markets helped bolster the fortunes of wealthy investors.

The number of "high net worth individuals" climbed by 10% in 2012, taking the total worldwide to 12m, according to research by Royal Bank of Canada and consultancy Capgemini.

Between them, these twelve million people owned assets worth $46.2tn (£29.5tn) – more than three times the entire annual output from the US economy, and a 10% increase on 2011.

A high net worth individual is defined as anyone with $1m (£641,000) or more in "investable assets". The definition excludes the value of a main home and of any "consumer durables" such as cars.

World markets were volatile in the first half of 2012, as the eurozone crisis deepened; but after ECB president Mario Draghi promised to do "whatever it takes" to protect the single currency in July, and the Federal Reserve unleashed a drastic third round of quantitative easing in September, share prices recovered strongly, boosting the wealth of those with investments.

The findings are likely to increase concerns that the benefits of central banks' radical policies to rekindle economic growth have accrued overwhelmingly to those at the top of society, while unemployment remains stubbornly high in many countries and incomes have been under severe pressure.

Britain is home to the fifth-largest group of super-wealthy individuals, according to the report, with 465,000 super-rich individuals, up from 441,000 in 2011.

The wealth report came as the latest UK inflation figures showed that with the consumer price index running at 2.7% in May wages for average British workers have now failed to keep up with prices for more than three years.

Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said, "economic stagnation has caused incomes to fall for most ordinary families but the wealth of the super-rich just keeps on growing. Unless this inequality is tackled Britain could experience a pretty joyless recovery, with the majority of the population seeing little or no benefit when economic growth returns."

The US regained its place at the top of the league table in the report, as the home to 3.73m high net worth individuals, up by more than 11.5% on 2011, as the recovering property market helped repair the damage to wealthy investors' housing portfolios inflicted by the downturn of the past five years.

The Asia-Pacific region was just behind the US, with a population of 3.68m super-rich investors – up by more than 9% on the year.

Europe, where the economy of the single currency zone has now been in recession for 18 months, was home to 3.4m high net worth individuals, but saw a smaller rise in their number, of 7.5%, in 2012.

The researchers also sub-divide the millionaires according to their wealth. There was an increase of 11% in 2012 in the number of people classified as "ultra high net worth individuals", the creme de la creme of the super-rich. These 110,000 people are worth $30m or more, and hold assets worth more than $16tn between them.

A middle group of just over a million people, the "mid-tier millionaires", held $10tn-worth of assets between them; and a much larger group of 10.8m people, which the report refers to as the "millionaires next door", held assets worth $1m-$3m.

The data also underlines the stark geographical divide in the distribution of wealth across the world, with just 140,000 of the 12m super-rich living across the entire continent of Africa. That was an increase of almost 10% from 2011; but still fewer than in Italy, Australia or Brazil.

RBC and Capgemini's analysts forecast that the super-rich will continue getting richer, with the total wealth held by this group expected to expand by 6.5% a year over the next three years.

The super-rich emerge from the survey conducted as part of the research as a relatively conservative group. They managed their assets cautiously in 2012, while fewer than half of them said they trusted financial markets; and fewer than 40% trusted regulators.

The authors said the super-rich respondents to the survey, "exhibited a clear bias toward safety and wealth preservation, allocating nearly 30% of their financial wealth into cash and deposits." This careful approach applied to millionaires of, "all ages and wealth levels, suggesting that the overall lower level of trust in the financial markets may be playing a role."

1. E3: Nintendo showcases updated ‘Super Smash,’ ‘Mario,’ and ‘Zelda’
2. Clear political commitment by the G8 can benefit rich and poor countries
3. Global stock markets fall after World Bank cuts growth forecasts

1. G8 summit: Politics live blog
2. Nick Clegg faces questions over Rennard report: Politics live blog
3. Cameron and Miliband at PMQs: Politics live blog

Chief executive António Horta-Osório tells MPs that Lloyds shared its doubts over the bank's financial position with the City regulator and began to look into a 'Plan B'

Lloyds Bank discovered an alarming shortfall in Co-operative Bank's capital position – which made it unlikely the Co-op would ever be able to complete the purchase of 632 Lloyds branches – in December 2012, a full five months before the shock Moody's report that downgraded the mutual's bonds and the £1.5bn rescue package unveiled earlier this week.

In evidence to the Treasury select committee, Lloyds chief executive António Horta-Osório revealed that in December 2012 Co-op Bank privately handed Lloyds a revised projection of its future with the business it was planning to buy from Lloyds, and it became apparent that it did not have sufficient capital.

"We had doubts about Co-op's capability in December 2012 when we were given the revised plan for the Co-operative Group. From the combined plan for Co-op and TSB, our analysis was clear that there was a shortfall of capital. And that was when we had our first concerns about their ability to close the deal."

On Monday Co-op Bank unveiled a £1.5bn rescue deal to plug a hole in its capital and stave off a taxpayer-funded bailout, which will see the bank's bondholders suffer deep losses. The recapitalisation came after Co-op Bank said in April that it was pulling out of the deal to buy 632 Lloyds branches, which was swiftly followed by a six-notch downgrade of Co-op's bonds by ratings agency Moody's. Moody's downgraded Co-op again on Tuesday, warning that "further burden sharing" may be required if the restructuring of the bank proves unsuccesful, and said bondholders may get as little as 35% of their initial investment back.

It has also emerged that NBNK, the failed rival bidder for the 632 branches of Lloyds, warned the board of Lloyds in a letter in January 2012 that Co-op would not be able to finance a deal and that the 'overstretch' would put Co-op's financial security and mutuality in jeopardy.

Horta-Osório told MPs that Lloyds shared its concern about Co-op Bank with the regulator, then the Financial Services Authority, and demanded assurances from the mutual that it was still in a position to go ahead. "We were told that Co-op Bank had several options that were meaningful, such as selling its asset management business. But we were concerned and we had doubts. We were reassured that they had options, but we were not totally reassured."

From December Lloyds began to focus on 'Plan B' – the separate flotation of TSB as an independent bank – but the bank did not go public with its doubts about Co-op or pull out of the deal at that stage.

Horta-Osório said Lloyds, as it was mandated by the EU to break up the bank, had in any case to press ahead with establishing a separate TSB entity, so gave Co-op the benefit of the doubt. "We were surprised to see that there was suddenly a shortfall in capital [at Co-op]. But we had to go ahead and build a [separate] bank in any case."

Lloyds insists that at no time did it face political pressure to forge a deal with Co-op to boost the mutual sector. But Horta-Osório and Lloyds' chairman Sir Win Bischoff were repeatedly pressed by MPs why it turned down the NBNK bid, which was worth £630m upfront compared with the £450m that Co-op was prepared to pay, plus a further £250m over time. Bischoff said: "The Co-op Bank was an established bank, it had a relationship with the FSA, staff, and ratings from two agencies. NBNK had none of these ... we gave them five opportunities to bid, we couldn't have done any more. Overall, the NBNK bid was slightly lower in capital terms."

The letter that NBNK sent to Lloyds board in January 2012 warned that Co-op could "overgear itself and leave it financially vulnerable," if it tried to buy the TSB business from Lloyds. It detailed concerns that IT systems in Co-op were "in disarray", that there were "continued delays" integrating Britannia building society and that the bank had a "weak capital structure." Bischoff confirmed that Lloyds received the letter but still felt at the time that Co-op represented the better bid.

But the failure of the Co-op deal may actually benefit the taxpayer-owners of Lloyds, said Horta-Osório. The separate flotation of TSB will cost Lloyds £1.6bn, he said, but the improvement in equity markets since the deal was first struck with Co-op means the prospect for the flotation is now much better. "The taxpayer might come out ahead."

1. Eight questions the Co-operative Bank needs to answer
2. Care firm under investigation over treatment of 83-year-old
3. Birmingham mosque stabbings: police question 32-year-old man

1. Stock markets slide as strike begins in Greece – eurozone crisis live
2. Eurozone crisis live: Greek leaders begin crucial meeting over state broadcaster

Costa Coffee benefits from cold spring – but Beefeater and Brewers Fayre suffer

Sales at Whitbread, the parent company of Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, rose in the first quarter as the coldest spring since 1962 hit its restaurant business but drove customers into its coffee shops.

The FTSE 100 company reported a 13.8% rise in total sales in the 13 weeks to 30 May, with like-for-like sales up 3.1%.

Costa benefited from the unseasonably chilly weather, with total sales jumping 23% to £281.8m, and like-for-like sales up 8%.

Whitbread said the restaurants division struggled in the early part of the quarter because of the chill. Total sales in the division rose 2.6%, with like-for-like sales flat.

Andy Harrison, chief executive, said: "We have seen a substantial improvement in our restaurants in recent weeks as the weather returns to something like normality."

Premier Inn, its budget hotel chain, managed a 12.7% increase in total sales and a 2.7% increase in like-for-like sales, despite being set against strong comparatives in London last year.

Harrison said: "Whitbread had a good start to the new financial year. We see no change to market conditions. Our plans for profitable organic growth are well established which, combined with our strong focus on returns, should create further substantial shareholder value," he said.

In April the group unveiled ambitious plans for growth over the next five years, targeting a 45% increase in the number of Premier Inn rooms to around 75,000, and a doubling of the size of Costa sales to £2bn.

It compared with a previous target of 65,000 rooms and Costa sales of £1.3bn.

Whitbread opened 39 new Costa shops in the UK in the first quarter, and a further 21 overseas, including 18 in China. There are a total of 271 Costa stores in China.

The group said it planned to open 300 net new Costa stores in the full year.

Whitbread, whose brands include Beefeater and Brewers Fayre, employs more than 40,000 people and serves over 22 million customers every month.

"Whitbread has delivered its almost customary breath of fresh air in the midst of a tepid economic backdrop," said Richard Hunter, head of equities at Hargreaves Lansdown stockbrokers.

1. Majestic Wine hopes for a lift from British bubbles
2. Weather experts to discuss unusual UK seasons
3. US retail sales exceed expectations as automobiles surge

Labour calls on party to work towards consensus on financial transaction tax after 11 EU members vote in favour

The Liberal Democrats will on Tuesday face pressure to break ranks with their coalition partners by voting in favour of the principle of a financial transaction tax.

Labour, which is to press for a Commons vote on the issue, called on the Lib Dems to help create a consensus on the so-called Robin Hood tax which would in turn encourage the US to support the measure.

Chris Leslie, the shadow Treasury minister, will seek to embarrass the Lib Dems when he tables an amendment to a European Union document which will be presented to MPs after the decision of 11 EU member states to introduce the tax. The document notes that the government is mounting a challenge in the European court of justice against the EU proposal for an FTT which could involve a 0.01% levy on bond and share transactions.

The Labour amendment has been worded carefully to make it more difficult for the Lib Dems to refuse to support it. The amendment calls on the government to support the principle of an FTT and to work with other global financial centres, including the US, to reach consensus on a "modest rate without creating negative economic consequences".

Leslie said: "If Liberal Democrats agree with the concept of a financial transaction tax, then this is the moment for them to show their support. There should be cross-party agreement to get negotiations under way and find a consensus especially with the United States government.

"The time has come for George Osborne to get serious about a financial transaction tax. The chancellor's begrudging acceptance of the principle after that 2009 G20 in Pittsburg has not just withered away into general antipathy – he has done whatever he can to put a spanner in the works.

"Yet at a time when deficits are persistently high because of rock-bottom growth, leading economies including Britain and the United States need alternative revenue measures from continuing financial market speculation to relieve pressures on lower and middle income households and the public services they use. There are many lessons from the banking crisis, the most obvious of which is that the sheer globalised might of financial trading can overpower the plans and defences of individual nation states. Governments shouldn't just shrug and accept this fate – which is why George Osborne should champion a reform agenda to harness international financial markets so that they serve our societies and economies."

Britain opted out of a scheme to introduce the FTT in the EU when 11 member states – Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia – announced earlier this year they had formed a "coalition of the willing". Their scheme would impose a levy on all euro transactions anywhere in the world.

The chancellor announced in April that Britain is to take the case to the European court of justice because of fears of the "extra-territorial aspects of the European commission's proposals". The City of London has the largest amount of euro-denominated transactions in the world even though Britain is not a member of the single currency.

1. Coalitions and austerity: Britain better get used to them | Martin Kettle