Budget Statement
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deighton
That this House takes note of the economy of the United Kingdom in the light of the Budget Statement.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s economic recovery has finally taken hold. No major advanced economy grew faster in the fourth quarter of 2013 than the UK’s. Employment is at record levels. Some 1.7 million private sector jobs have been created since early 2010 and over the same period more than four private sector jobs have been created for every public sector job lost. Inflation of 1.7% last month was the lowest for more than four years.
During this debate last year I argued that the Government’s focus on deficit reduction could go hand in hand with a successful strategy for growth. Some noble Lords disagreed. At that time the independent OBR had forecast growth of 1.8% for 2014. Last week the OBR forecast growth of 2.7% for 2014—nearly a whole percentage point higher. That is the biggest upward revision to growth between Budgets for at least 30 years. However, there is clearly more to do to ensure that our recovery is balanced and will protect us against future shocks, so today I will speak about how the Government are taking the difficult decisions to rectify the mistakes of the past so that everyone in the UK experiences the benefit of the recovery.
In the build up to the financial crisis the UK economy was characterised by severe imbalances and long-running structural weaknesses. In 2008, UK investment as a percentage of GDP had been the lowest in the G7 for a decade and our level of productivity was also lower than that of our peers. The economy had become increasingly reliant on the services sector. Manufacturing had fallen from 19% of the economy in 1997 to 11%—not helped by the long-run decline of North Sea oil. The UK financial system had become the most highly leveraged of any major economy, with a total balance sheet inflated to more than 200% of GDP. Total household debt had risen from around 100% of income at the start of the decade to more than 170% and the saving ratio had collapsed to just 0.2%.
Imbalances were also building up in the public finances. In 2005-06, public expenditure had already increased to 41% of GDP while revenues were at 38%. Despite the buoyant economy, we were spending more than we were earning. All of this meant that when the financial crisis hit, the UK economy was among the most vulnerable and it was for that reason we experienced the biggest recession of any major advanced economy apart from Japan. By 2009-10 we were running the highest structural deficit in the G7, borrowing one pound for every four we spent. The deficit had climbed to 11% of GDP and every year that deficit adds even more to the debt that has been accumulated. Faced with a challenge of these proportions, restoring balance between public expenditure and receipts was the only credible option.
Following the financial crisis our economy was hit by further shocks. Some 40% of UK goods exports go to the euro area and as the eurozone crisis intensified it weighed on UK export performance. Commodity prices rose steeply between 2009 and 2011, increasing costs for households and businesses. In addition, it became apparent that the financial crisis had had a deeper and more lasting effect than we previously anticipated. The UK economy shrank by 7.2% in the aftermath of the crisis. Of course a crisis of that scale would have an impact on millions of households.
In the face of such a daunting economic challenge, it is essential to have a clear and comprehensive plan. I remember that in the debate last year, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that there was not much to say about the Budget because the Government had a plan and they were sticking to it. I chose to take that as a compliment, and we have continued to stick to our plan. Our plan made it clear that we would: fix the economy and deal with the deficit; cut tax to encourage investment and entrepreneurialism; back businesses across both the sectors and the regions; reform welfare, the cost of which had spiralled out of control; and invest in schools and skills so that the youth of today could drive the economy of the future. We put that plan in place. We have adhered to it, and we are delivering results with it. I would like to spend my time with noble Lords this afternoon discussing just what that plan has achieved to date and what more needs to be done to embed this recovery for the long term.
The scale of the fiscal challenge we faced required urgent action. This meant not just committing to reducing the deficit but doing it in a way that gave markets faith that it would be delivered, and helped keep interest rates low. Such is the level of the UK’s accumulated debt that interest payments alone are forecast to be almost £60 billion in 2015-16, which is more than the annual budget of the Department for Education. Maintaining market confidence in the Government’s determination to restore sustainable public finances is critical. A one percentage point rise in gilt rates would add around £8.5 billion in interest payments by 2018-19, a risk my noble friend Lord Higgins has questioned me about before.
Again, this Government’s decision to deliver the majority of the consolidation through reduced spending was the only credible option. However, the severity of the financial crisis and its impact on the UK public finances mean that returning to a sustainable path will take time. The independent OBR predicts that in 2018-19 we will have a surplus for the first time in 18 years, but even then our work will not be complete. Accumulated debt will still be in a position to make the public finances vulnerable. Without maintaining a continuing grip on the public finances and running surpluses during good years, debt will not fall, and future Governments risk being hampered in their ability to support the economy at times of stress, which we are sure to have. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech last week, we aim to,
“fix the roof when the sun is shining”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/14; col. 784.]
This Government are committed to improving fiscal discipline. The creation of the independent OBR has given confidence to the reliability of the economic forecasts, and public pay restraint has been a tough but necessary action. The welfare cap announced at Budget, which was debated in the other place yesterday, will further tighten fiscal discipline and place the welfare system on a sustainable footing. Every other part of government spending is carefully managed, and welfare is too large an area of spending to be left without strong controls. As a result of all the measures laid out, public finances are now returning to a sustainable path.
Monetary policy formed the first line of defence following the crisis, supporting the economy and stimulating demand. By keeping the bank rate low and through quantitative easing, the Monetary Policy Committee has helped maintain low interest rates, reducing costs for households and businesses. Furthermore the Government have updated the remit of the MPC that ensures the committee provides greater transparency and certainty. Finally, the Government have created an entirely new macroprudential framework with the Financial Policy Committee at its heart. This fiscal and monetary action rescued the economy from crisis and provides a stable framework for us to continue to address some of the challenges which have impeded the UK’s economic performance.
At the heart of these challenges is the UK’s productivity challenge. This Government recognise productivity growth increases real earnings and improves the day-to-day lives of people around the UK. The future path of productivity growth is the most important judgment in the OBR’s economic forecast too and, by its own admission, the key uncertainty. Historically, the UK’s level of productivity was weak compared to many of our international peers and, despite some growth through the 1990s and early 2000s, when the financial crisis hit, UK productivity was still below the rest of the G7.
The causes of the UK’s weak productivity performance are hotly debated, and the implications are far reaching. While I am sure that in our debate this afternoon noble Lords will offer some excellent insight into possible areas for action, I shall address what I think are some of the key areas, namely, business investment, access to credit and skills and infrastructure.
Investment by businesses is a key driver of productivity growth. It improves their capital stock and enables them to produce more outputs with fewer inputs. More recently, business investment growth has returned, up 2.4% in the fourth quarter of 2013, and 8.5% compared to a year before. The OBR has forecast that investment will grow strongly in the coming years as uncertainty recedes and credit conditions improve. However, business investment is still considerably below its pre-crisis peak, and, as with productivity, UK investment over the longer term is weak compared to our international peers. There have been only five years since the late 1970s when we did not have the lowest investment in the G7.
The Government have a simple strategy for encouraging business investment: we want the UK to be the best place to set up and do business. We have already committed to reducing corporation tax to 20% by 2015, and last week the Chancellor announced that we would both extend and expand the annual investment allowance, which will give virtually all businesses a 100% allowance on new machinery or plant.
We also addressed the high energy costs that burden businesses, particularly manufacturers, by capping the carbon price support rate—a problem the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, anticipated in her eloquent contribution to this debate last year. To help address the historic problem of imports outweighing exports, we are expanding the reach and support provided by UKTI. The Budget also doubled the amount of lending that UK Export Finance can make and reduced the cost of those loans to exporters. That positive business environment not only supports our home grown success stories, such as Jaguar Land Rover, but also attracts overseas investment and jobs; recent examples are Hitachi with rail and Siemens with wind turbines. However, businesses cannot invest if they cannot access credit.
When the Government took office, bank lending had fallen to record lows as a result of the financial crisis. There is also evidence that innovative, new, high productivity firms—the drivers of growth—struggled to access the credit they needed to get off the ground, which further exacerbated the UK’s weak productivity performance. Opinions divide on whether that was a result of constrained supply by banks, or lower demand by businesses that were just not confident enough to borrow. However, either way the outcome was the same: existing businesses, SMEs in particular, were not accessing the credit that would enable them to invest and grow.
Action has been taken. The Funding for Lending scheme was introduced to provide incentives for banks and building societies to boost their lending to the real economy. In November 2013, as mortgage lending to households was recovering, the scheme was focused on SME lending. Credit availability for small businesses is now increasing at its fastest rate in almost four years, and gross lending to SMEs was 13% higher in 2013 than in 2012.
Further, the Government are supporting increased competition within the banking sector and are nurturing alternatives to the banks, such as peer-to-peer lending and initiatives with equity finance. Specifically, the Business Finance Partnership has already unlocked £1.5 billion of additional lending to small and medium-sized businesses exclusively through non-bank finance. However, for productivity to grow and UK businesses to succeed, both domestically and globally, takes more than just investment. The Government must remove supply-side blockages, too, which means investing in infrastructure and skills.
The quality of this country’s transport, energy, communications and water networks is vital to improving our productivity. That infrastructure enables the rest of our economy to work, and we have underinvested in it for decades. Our national infrastructure plan sets out how the UK’s infrastructure needs will be delivered over the long term. We have published a pipeline of projects and programmes worth more than £375 billion, and at last week’s Budget we published further analysis of how we expect that to be financed. That builds on the long-term funding we have already announced for sectors such as roads, rail and flood defences and the steps we have taken to support private sector investment. We are continuing to reform our planning system, and are focused on ensuring that these projects are delivered on time and on budget.
The final ingredient for a productive and competitive economy—many would argue the most important one—is an educated and skilled population. That is why the Government are boosting funding for apprenticeships, removing the cap on student numbers, and increasing investment in science and innovation. The changing nature of the labour market means that the economy demands higher skills. Investment in skills and education ensures that the UK is able to compete in the global economy. Equipping the country’s workforce with the skills businesses need will provide more opportunities for our young people to find employment and reach their full potential.
Building a resilient economy is the only way in which to improve and maintain living standards. Given the scale of the financial crisis that we have experienced, it is no surprise that earnings growth slowed. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, acknowledged that falls in real earnings are a direct but delayed result of the 2008 recession. But throughout our time in office, this Government have taken huge steps to make sure that our policies impact households fairly across the UK. The personal allowance will increase again to £10,500 from April next year, meaning that a typical basic rate taxpayer will be more than £800 a year better off in cash terms. Fuel duty has been frozen until the end of Parliament; we have helped local authorities to freeze council tax in every year of this Parliament; we have increased the tax-free childcare cost cap, against which parents can claim 20% support, to £10,000 per year for each child; and we have made it easier to save and for people to access their pensions—a change that has been well received, on an issue that is perhaps closer to the hearts of Members of this Chamber than to those in the other place.
The most important way of getting money into people’s pockets, and helping them to raise their living standards, is to make sure that as many people as possible are in employment. Those figures I referred to in my introduction—1.7 million new private sector jobs, with four private sector jobs created for every public sector job lost—are a real demonstration that this Government’s policies are working, and the recovery is happening. But let us be clear: increasing growth and productivity is the only way to ensure that people feel the recovery for the long term, because it is productivity which determines real earnings growth. As we see the recovery take hold, the OBR predicts that earnings will grow faster than inflation this year and throughout the forecast period. It expects real household disposable income per capita to grow at 0.5% in 2014 and 1.2% in 2015. That improvement will be supported by a continuing strong employment performance.
In conclusion, it is indisputable that we have an improving economic picture, with growth and jobs up, and inflation and the deficit down—but there are, of course, significant challenges remaining. The Government’s economic plan has bolstered stability in the markets, given confidence to businesses and provided security for households, but there is no doubt that the job is not done, and we must continue to boost productivity and address the challenges that face our economy head on. We are now taking the next steps in our long-term economic plan, and last week’s Budget provided the right mix of policies to address the challenges that remain. I believe, as does my right honourable friend the Chancellor, that with the help of the British people, this Government are securing this country’s economic future.
Lord Deighton
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I pay tribute to the very stimulating contributions from right around the House. The past five hours have simply flashed by. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I hope contributors will excuse me if I do not refer to them all individually. I think the most helpful way to sum up is for me to try to break down the discussion into the five or six key areas and go through what I think were the pertinent issues and the points that I should address.
I begin with pensions and savings because, as my noble friend Lord Bourne said, this was a transformational Budget precisely because of what we were able to do in terms of the pensions revolution. With one or two exceptions here today, it has been very broadly welcomed, particularly by my noble friends Lord Wakeham, Lord Higgins and Lord Stoneham, as well as by a number of other noble Lords. I absolutely accept that the provision of expert guidance is a critical part of making this transition work. The Government have laid out a clear plan and commitment to that, which we will follow through. I was very taken by the very thorough analysis offered by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, of some of the potential impacts which will flow from a change this radical. He is absolutely right to bring those to our attention, and the consultation that we have started will attend to them very directly.
My noble friend Lord James referred to the risk to the annuity companies. A similar change occurred in Ireland and the health of the annuity companies was just fine. My general attitude to the financial services business is that in the same way as we have given pensioners the flexibility to respond based on their own requirements, I think we will find that pensions and insurance companies will be able to respond very flexibly to the new environment. I will certainly take away the request from my noble friend Lord Flight to have a look at the NISA tax issue with respect to the tax treatment of the surviving wife.
We have had this discussion—I think we had it last year as well; in fact, I am sure we had it last year as well—about whether our debt and deficit are really going down fast enough, or whether they have gone down at all. I thought that I was quite clear about the process we are going through, and my noble friend Lord Higgins echoed the way in which I approached it. The situation is really not that complicated. We inherited a record deficit. Until you get that deficit to zero, of course debt will continue to go up. The OBR tells us that we will be back in surplus by 2018-19. It is only at that point that the accumulated debt can begin to go down. We expect the deficit as a proportion of GDP to hit its peak in 2015-16 and then begin to come down.
It is a difficult, long-term process. There are many more cuts that need to be made in order for us to be able to accomplish that. My right honourable friend the Chancellor could not have been clearer about that. I really do not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that this is driven by some ideological rage to reduce the size of the state. It is driven simply by what I regard as an extremely sensible approach of reducing the amount of debt because debt will eventually overwhelm you and leave you with absolutely no protection against future shocks. It is true in personal finances, it is true in company finances and, while there is more flexibility in sovereign finances, ultimately you have to deal with the same issue. We were overleveraged and we have to fix it. I absolutely agree with what I think was the most popular contribution of the day, from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the deficit just has to be eliminated, and we have stuck to the plan to do that. My noble friend Lord Horam pointed to the fact that there are still some risks out there, whether in China or Ukraine or deflation in the eurozone. It is by no means plain sailing even if we stick to the plan.
I will talk about the recovery. The debate we had last year was about there not being a recovery. We have moved on from that. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we were discussing whether or not we were having a triple-dip. We have moved the debate on. Now the debate is about whether it is the right kind of recovery, which is a higher class of problem for us to be addressing. It is interesting that the essence of the Opposition’s position on this is the risk of, “It might look as though there are some of the components of all the mistakes we made”. If that is the best criticism that can be levied, that tells you something about the potential strategy of an alternative Government.
The Chancellor has been quite clear—and I think I was quite clear in my opening comments—that this is a recovery that has some challenges. It is a partial recovery. There are some real issues in the imbalances. I was not trying to disguise that. The Chancellor has not disguised that. Investment has not yet come back as we would have hoped, although there are some signs. That is not unusual at this stage of a recovery so we should not be surprised. Exports are not performing as well as we had hoped.
On investment, the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, made the case strongly for innovation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Eccles. I think that there was a lot of agreement about our need to tackle the productivity question and, looking at our science and research capability, the intangibles in the economy which do not get measured in the productivity numbers quite as we would like. I take all that on board.
On the balance of the recovery, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield implied that all the employment growth was in London. That is not consistent with the ONS statistics, which show that it is much more broadly based than that. My noble friend Lord Holmes made an excellent point in saying how crucial the employment recovery is, because those are real jobs for real people. At the beginning of the recovery, there was perhaps a greater proportion of temporary work, but if you look at the employment improvement over the past 12 months, you see that it is fundamentally in good, solid, long-term jobs. The sector which has seen the most benefit in terms of employment growth has been professional science and technical research, so there has been a lot more substance to the employment recovery in the past 12 months.
My noble friends Lord Sheikh and Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about exports. There are a number of combinations. It is clear that we need to switch over time from the EU towards the BRICS and the MINTs. I am joining the Chancellor in two weeks’ time on a visit to Brazil, where we hope to address what my noble friend Lord Holmes pointed to as our underperformance relative to the Italians. I think that everybody welcomed the extra support for UKTI and UKEF, so that funding can be provided to exporters at the most competitive rates. We now want to support our exports in the most aggressive way rather than try to make available a facility which made us the good guys in terms of complying with OECD rules in the most gold-plated way. I am very much in favour of a much more aggressive approach.
It was inevitable in a discussion on the balance of recovery that mention should be made of house prices and the housing market. I think we all accept that we have a long-term challenge to build the supply of houses that this economy needs. We tried to attend to this challenge at this Budget as we have in previous fiscal events. The initiatives at Ebbsfleet, Barking Riverside and Brent Cross, together with the expansion of the Help to Buy equity loans scheme, which is available solely to new house purchases, should all add up to improving the pipeline by about 200,000 houses. This year, we have seen more housing starts than in any time since 2007, so a degree of normalisation is going on in terms of the recovery from the financial crisis.
On the argument that house prices have been inflated by the Help to Buy scheme, I think that the scheme has been much maligned. If you look at the data behind it, you see that 75% of the houses supported are outside London and the south-east. I do not think that anybody regards us as having anything close to a housing bubble outside London and the south-east. Appearing in front of the Treasury Select Committee this morning, the OBR described the higher inflation in London house prices simply as a function of excess demand over supply. The problem was a lack of supply of houses; it was not a bubble. I think that one defines a bubble in terms of people speculating and buying houses on the basis that prices will go up and up, but that is not what is driving house price behaviour in London.
There was a lot of discussion about infrastructure, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who asked whether we should have borrowed more to be able to accelerate development. From my experience over the past 15 months in trying to tackle this problem for the country, it is clear to me that you do not turn infrastructure on and off like a tap. The political debate about it mildly amuses me, because we spend all our time trying to take credit for the things that are being built on our watch whereas, of course, those are all things that other people did all the hard work on to get them to that stage by the time you are in government.
The work I am doing is really to make the next one, two or three Governments look really good by having a stable pipeline of terrific projects which will come through. Those are things such as HS2, which we are trying to do in a first-class way. That will also bring growth back to the north, which we have talked about. That is why we spent so long trying to get Hinkley Point right. There was misinformation about the Hinkley Point investment. It is of no surprise to anyone that it is currently going through state aid; something of that scale was always going to go through state aid; we accepted that. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that this was a bad deal for the British. The basis of the deal is that the French will construct at their risk a nuclear power station, and it is their problem if they cannot build it on time and on budget. I am very happy to have signed a 35-year contract with them on the basis that they can do that, because that was a risk that I did not want our taxpayers to bear.
More broadly on energy, which both the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, addressed, the focus on energy in the Budget was about ensuring that our manufacturing businesses remain competitive. A number of things have happened in the short term. This morning, Ofgem referred the supply side of the industry to the Competition and Markets Authority for review, which is a good thing. We need a good, evidence-based review so that we can look at the facts to decide what we need to do with the supply side of the industry. That is the right outcome given the noise around it and the shortage of facts and evidence.
On generation, I think we are in good shape in our nuclear plan. The new energy policy has enabled us to write contracts for difference which can support that investment. We have a series of wind and other renewables projects under way based on the same CFD process, and we will see at the end of the year how the new capacity market auction works to trigger gas investment. It is extremely tricky to get the right combination of securing supply, making prices affordable and decarbonising at a rate which balances all the different interests, but we have a plan and it will work.
We had a little discussion about quantitative easing. There were questions from the noble Lord, Lord Myners, and a response from my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Flight. I shall not give a point of view about that because I think it undermines the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, whose job that is, but I accept that exit from quantitative easing is an economic issue that will need to be addressed intelligently.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that there is really nothing in the Budget for young people. I really could not disagree more. This Budget is all about shaping an economy which will provide the jobs and opportunities that our young people can succeed in. For me, it is completely the other way round.
There was a very interesting contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on social mobility. For me, there is no better measure of a successful society than whether that is working. I know that Terry Leahy was certainly a product of that; as was I. For me, education is absolutely at the heart of that, which underlies all the work that this Government are doing in that area.
There was some discussion of tax policy. There were very interesting suggestions from my noble friend Lord Wakeham about the longer-term plan to remove anomalies from some of the other taxes in place. Of course, stamp duty is a very profitable source of revenue for the Exchequer. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, mentioned increasing the personal allowance and bringing down tax rates. I would just point him towards the Chancellor’s comments that he is, ultimately, a believer in low taxes.
I should say as a coda that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, mentioned the Economic Affairs Committee’s recommendations. We will carefully consider and address those as part of the Second Reading. We decided not to address them today.
In short, and as noble Lords can tell, I believe that we have a plan that deals effectively with the extraordinary challenges and very high debt levels that we inherited from the financial crisis. As I have acknowledged and noble Lords have discussed, the economy faces many longer-term structural challenges that, crucially, we must address consistently over time. I think of our economic management as stemming and managing down the consequences of the crisis while at the same time putting in place structural reforms to position us to be a winner in the global economic race.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The debate has been extremely stimulating. I apologise to those to whom I have not referred or answered in person but, as always, my door is open.
Pre-emption of Parliament: Constitution Committee Report
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and in particular the members of the Select Committee on the Constitution for their extremely thorough report and the airing that it has brought to these very important issues. I have found the discussion that we have just had extremely interesting. I learnt a lot. I am not a lawyer; I had never heard of the Ram doctrine or Sir Greville Ram before I was briefed for this opportunity to take the short straw and respond on behalf of the Government. I am a lot smarter now than I was 45 minutes ago.
For reasons of time, I may not be able to respond to all the individual issues that have been raised but I will try to cover the key aspects of the Government’s response, answer some of the broad concerns raised today and lay out the steps that the Government are taking to address them. I start by stressing that the pre-emption of parliamentary assent is an area that the Government take seriously, and Her Majesty’s Treasury polices it strongly. We were pleased to note, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for pointing this out, that the inquiry revealed no widespread use of pre-emption that went against constitutional principles. As the report says, the Treasury does not allow expenditure on new policies until after Second Reading in another place, and then only in very limited circumstances, including there being an urgent public interest to do so. The Treasury has strict criteria to determine whether an area of proposed expenditure is urgent and in the public interest. Although value for money is important, regularity, propriety and Parliament’s wishes are key and fully respected.
Many noble Lords will have seen the written government response. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is right that it is terse, but it is positive. I will be a little more expansive, but my experience of watching Ministers being too expansive gives me some warning. Several of the recommendations in the report that have been mentioned have already been taken on board, and I shall run through a few to illustrate this because it is important to look at the changes that we have made. For me, the most critical thing about what the committee’s findings bring to light is the importance of transparency and codification. Those two go together because the codification is part of what allows for the transparency, and of course it is the transparency—the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, referred to the dialogue—that allows us all to determine whether the judgments being made are appropriate, given all the circumstances. So although our response is terse, it accepts the need for that codification and transparency, and everything else follows from that.
To list some of the things that we have done, we accept that Ministers should always make clear when pre-emption is intended—where possible, orally at Second Reading but, failing that, in a Written Ministerial Statement; Written Ministerial Statements are always made before a contingency fund advance is permitted, which, as noble Lords know, is how pre-emption is funded; and the Government will publish an annual summary at the end of the parliamentary Session of when pre-emption has taken place during the period. I can tell the Committee that in the current parliamentary Session there have been three instances where spend was permitted in advance of Royal Assent. Two of those were in advance of the Energy Act that received Royal Asset on 18 December 2013, and one advance relates to the Pension Bill, where Royal Assent is planned for April 2014.
The main guidance to departments on the pre-emption of Parliament—or “new services”, in the Treasury’s parlance—is a publication that has been referred to, called Managing Public Money. I can say from my own 14-month experience in the Treasury that there is no duty or activity that is taken more seriously than the control that the Treasury imposes on individual departments. That is a very strongly exercised function. That publication, as has been referred to, was updated in July 2013 in line with the recommendations in the report. We removed the references to the Second Reading conventions—we have stopped calling things conventions that, as noble Lords have pointed out, actually are not—and, to the relief of many noble Lords here, we have also taken out any reference to the Ram doctrine.
The Cabinet Manual also uses these terms but again, consistent with the report’s recommendations, the Cabinet Office will take those views on board when it next reviews the guidance. The Treasury is also going to issue an update to the detailed annexe on new services in the near future to be clearer about the very limited scope for pre-empting Parliament.
The only specific recommendation that the Government are not intending to act on is the proposal that there should be a Written Ministerial Statement at the end of each parliamentary Session listing all ministerial directions made across Government. That is because this information is already published in all departments’ annual accounts and further publication is not considered necessary. However, by way of information, there have been no ministerial directions during the life of the current Government. The Government appreciate that the accounting officer of a department could potentially seek a direction from the Minister if pushed to pre-empt Parliament. However, this is really a signal that further discussion is needed to find a practical and appropriate way through. As noble Lords will be aware, directions are always a last resort.
I shall dip a little further into the detail of some of the issues that noble Lords referred to. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Andrews, referred to the disquiet caused in the cases of both the Health and Social Care Act and the Public Bodies Act. I did my research on these because I understood that that was what had prompted the committee to have a look at this issue. The essence of the Government’s position was that they already had the powers to effect the changes that were put in place. That is why there was no need to call on the contingency fund. The Government were essentially relying on their existing powers to cause those reorganisations.
In the case of the Health and Social Care Act, the Secretary of State for Health has broad duties and wide powers under existing legislation, including the National Health Service Act 2006, which confers a duty to promote a comprehensive health service and allows public expenditure to do so. That enabled the Department of Health to put in place the transition programme, which included setting up clinical commissioning groups, closing down primary care trusts and so on. The savings that the programme is designed to deliver would have been wanted irrespective of the organisation of the NHS to meet the requirements of the spending review.
In the case of the Public Bodies Act, to which a number of noble Lords referred—clearly this was a controversial subject at the time, so I understand their reaction—each of the bodies involved had a bespoke set of duties and responsibilities appropriate to its functions. The powers that they already had left considerable discretion about exactly how the functions should be discharged, which allowed for some reorganisation ahead of Royal Assent. That was the basis on which those actions took place.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about commencement orders. This is not my particular area of expertise but, as I understand it, it is a timing question, because commencement orders cannot be put until Royal Assent has been given, so it does not help with anticipation.
For clarification, it may be worth my running through the criteria that the Treasury applies to determine whether an action is urgent and in the public interest. The reason why the test would be met is that otherwise there would be an increase in implementation costs, efficiency savings would be lost or it would be detrimental to the public. Ministerial or policy imperative is not a relevant criterion in securing a contingencies fund advance.
A lot of the discussion was around pre-emptive action rather than pre-emptive expenditure. I agree that this is a difficult issue, which is why transparency and scrutiny are so important. In the vast majority of cases, though, pre-emptive actions will require a financial element, which is why Managing Public Money and the Treasury’s watchdog approach are a substantial defence, although I agree that that cannot work in absolutely every case.
The noble Lord, Lord Hart, was far more eloquent about the Ram doctrine than I could possibly be. I can tell the Committee that we have removed reference to it. The Treasury and the Government absolutely accept that the actions of a Minister are constrained by public law, human rights law and so on, as the noble Lord pointed out. It is the balance that really counts.
To sum up, the Government take controlling the pre-emption of Parliament extremely seriously. We are grateful that noble Lords have shown such an interest in this area and shed such light on it. I think that the changes that will result will make us a better Government. We have looked again at our guidance and modified it, and we are satisfied that we are operating a robust system.
Employment
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fookes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the outlook for both the number of people in employment and the claimant count in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest central economic forecast.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, in its latest forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised employment upwards in every year. It now forecasts that the number of people in employment will reach 30.2 million next year—a record—and 31.2 million by the end of the forecast period in 2018. Furthermore, it expects the claimant count to fall from 1.43 million this year to 1.27 million next year, and to 1.1 million in 2018.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, that is excellent and encouraging news. However, I remind my noble friend that youth unemployment is still worryingly high, although I believe that even that is falling. Can I encourage him, on behalf of the Government, to endorse the work of the non-profit-making organisations that do such effective work in getting young people into work, particularly Tomorrow’s People and the Prince’s Trust—both of which have been endorsed by an unlikely source, a journalist at the Guardian newspaper?
Lord Deighton
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the good news on employment leaves us no room for complacency. Of all the segments of unemployment, youth unemployment remains just a little under 1 million, even though it has been coming down in the past quarter. Remember that about one-third of young people who are classified as unemployed are in full-time education. However, I absolutely endorse the point that my noble friend makes that the work done by the voluntary sector—supporting not just the unemployed youth back into jobs but, frankly, anyone for whom it is difficult to get back into the workforce, such as prisoners needing rehabilitation—is enormously valued and will get this Government’s support.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
What amount of money has been put in to ensure that apprenticeships provide a way for the employment figures to reduce and for meaningful employment to be the way forward? The current Government’s commitment to apprenticeships is good but the continuation of payment is a real issue for us. Can he assure the House that that will continue?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I will apply that question to youth unemployment. In particular, we have tried to get young people into apprenticeships. The youth contract did that by providing additional support for up to 500,000 young people. Jobcentre Plus will provide support for 16 and 17 year-olds who want to find an apprenticeship or traineeship scheme. That is being phased in from this April. We are doing good work on apprenticeships. I spent yesterday in Liverpool talking about how we can use the HS2 project as a way of defining future work opportunities and to line up training and apprenticeship schemes in anticipation of the work that will flow. I absolutely accept the noble Baroness’s points.
Lord Flight (Con)
Will the Minister give full support to my noble friend Lord Baker’s university technical colleges, which are succeeding in getting young people adequately skilled to get into apprenticeships? In Westminster, something like two-thirds of young people so far have not been skilled enough to qualify for apprenticeships, so it is crucial to get them to that stage.
Lord Deighton
I absolutely endorse the work of the technical colleges and my noble friend Lord Baker. If we are looking at how to continue to improve the employment situation, on the one hand the recovery of the economy is providing the demand to support it; on the other hand, there are longer-term, structural things that we need to do, which are essentially about investing in people so that the skills they have match the jobs that will be created in the competitive economy that we are developing.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, although the OBR’s estimate for future employment is clearly very welcome, it slightly exaggerates the picture. I ask the Minister to check why the Government no longer produce employment statistics on a full-time-equivalent basis, which would show some improvement but by no means so much. In that context, can he explain how we rate the employment take of the many young people who are on zero-hours or near-zero-hours contracts? The figures are seriously distorted, particularly at that end of the market.
Lord Deighton
Employment statistics are not as simple as the headline numbers. I absolutely accept that point. There has clearly been a discussion about how much of the increase in employment is taken up by temporary jobs and how much is taken up by part-time jobs. The simple fact is that the majority is taken up by an improvement in the full-time picture. In the past year, the proportion of full-time jobs making up the increase has substantially increased, and that tells us that the quality of the recovery in the past 12 months is stronger.
Lord Northbourne (CB)
My Lords, will the Government consider doing more to encourage schools to develop in pupils the soft skills or interpersonal skills that are so important in many walks of employment, including the retail and leisure industries?
Lord Deighton
The noble Lord makes an excellent point. A lot of the schemes that we have put in place are focused on helping people to develop basic skills in maths and literacy, which have often been found lacking. However, on a practical level, I could not agree more that in many cases the softer skills make a huge difference, as do the skills involved in what it takes to go to work every day—how to get into a routine and how to behave in the workplace.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister, who has obviously punctiliously studied the ratio between those who are and those who are not in full-time employment, please write to me with the details and the numbers involved, and place a copy of his letter in the Library?
Lord Deighton
I shall be happy to do that. I could go through the list of numbers now but I know that it is probably something that the noble Baroness will want to look at rather than have me just spout, so I will make sure that we provide that detail.
Thames Garden Bridge
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as a resident of the Inner Temple.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, the Treasury will provide £30 million to support the Garden Bridge. This recognises the benefit that the new transport connections will bring to the UK by stimulating development on both sides of the river while reinforcing London’s position as a global visitor destination and creative hub. However, the support will be provided only once the Government have received a business case produced in line with standard guidance to demonstrate that the investment represents value for money for the taxpayer.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer and would ask simply three supplementary questions—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
—is the noble Lord aware that there are gardens all along the Embankment, from the Inner Temple garden to Westminster, where trees are growing perfectly well? Why try to plant trees on a bridge, where they will be exposed to all the elements, will be a hazard to river craft once they are fully grown and will, in my view at any rate, look completely ridiculous?
Lord Deighton
In keeping with the spirit of the House, I will try to give one answer to those three important questions. The key to the Garden Bridge is that it will be two things for the price of one; it will be a garden and a bridge, and will combine the benefits of both.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, there seems no obvious regular source of ongoing income for this imaginative project, and gardens can be high maintenance. Will the Minister expand on his previous comment by saying what security the Garden Bridge Trust is providing to ensure that it can prune and weed the bridge in perpetuity? Should there be a shortfall, whose responsibility would it be to pick that up?
Lord Deighton
The issue with a garden bridge is that it is more about gardening than it is about painting, which is the case with the Forth Bridge. The initial plan for maintenance is that it will be assumed by Transport for London along with its ongoing maintenance responsibilities around London. Of course, if, as part of the capital fundraising campaign, the Garden Bridge Trust can also persuade somebody to take on the ongoing maintenance responsibilities, that would be particularly welcome.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the House will have noticed that the Treasury is answering this Question because the bridge can scarcely be defined as a means of transport. It is a very expensive piece of public art, a vanity project of the mayor—and we know where his vanity projects have gone and what they have cost the country. The cycle hire scheme is in trouble, his Emirates gondola crossing down at Greenwich carries so few passengers that it is risible, and, of course, the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill. It is true that the Chancellor has committed only £30 million at present. The question is: with a deficit, still, of £60 million, is the Treasury still in the game?
Lord Deighton
I am not sure what the deficit of £60 million refers to. I will run through, very quickly, the benefits of the project and how its value for money will be assessed. First, there is the pedestrian connectivity that it will give. It will switch people out of cars and on to their feet and make a very important connection. Secondly, it will increase London visitor numbers, which is very important. It will be a great visitor attraction. Thirdly, it will have significant development value, connecting the South Bank and its creative centre to the Aldwych and Covent Garden. The development it will bring on each side will have significant value. Finally, it will be a great showcase for UK expertise. Our brilliant designer, Thomas Heatherwick, is designing it, Arup is engineering it and Dan Pearson is landscaping the garden, so it will generate other future business for London through that showcase.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how many people’s entire income tax paid over the whole of their working life would be needed in order to fund this £30 million?
Lord Deighton
That depends which people you choose. Obviously I take the point of the question. That is why, before we commit the £30 million, we will ensure that it passes a strong business case and why, before we go ahead with the project, the Garden Bridge Trust, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, will have to raise £90 million so that there will be no further call on the Treasury.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, will the Heritage Lottery Fund match the £30 million and will we provide new berthing and facilities for all the shipping currently berthed under the footprint of the bridge?
Lord Deighton
With respect to the Heritage Lottery Fund, the fundraising programme has not yet begun. That is the job of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and his team at the Garden Bridge Trust, and I am sure that they will approach every possible potential supply of money. With respect to replacing anything that is displaced by the bridge, I understand that that does not represent a logistical problem—but I do not have a specific answer, frankly, to the berthing question.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Can the Minister assure me that, if this sort of money is available for this project, money will also be available, through one fund or another, to assist with the renovation of places such as Aberystwyth promenade that have been damaged so severely in the past few weeks by the winds, gales and flooding?
Lord Deighton
The general answer to that question has to be along the same lines. Just as this project still needs to pass the business case to be allocated the £30 million that is pencilled in, similarly we will do our work on other projects in a sensible way and respond to priority needs as they occur. I should just point out that the reason that the Treasury is putting in £30 million is that it is the sensible way to kick-start a fundraising effort. It is much easier to fundraise when people can see that the Government are behind a project and that it the first part of the funding has already been raised.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Bernard Shaw was right when he said, nearly a century ago, that on the whole the British never want anything? They particularly did not want, for example, the National Theatre. They got it and are now very proud of it. The same thing is true of the London Eye. Does he not agree that the same thing, in time, may be true of the Garden Bridge?
Lord Deighton
I sympathise with that very insightful point. As someone who has worked on both the Olympics and HS2, I suspect that the Garden Bridge may get a welcome rather sooner than either of those projects did.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deighton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41A.
“PART 4
CONDUCT OF PERSONS WORKING IN FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR
Amendments of FSMA 2000
Professional standards After section 65 of FSMA 2000 insert—
“65A Professional standards
(1) The regulator will raise standards of professionalism in financial services by mandating a licensing regime based on training and competence.
(2) This licensing regime must—
(a) apply to all approved persons exercising controlled functions, regardless of financial sector;
(b) specify minimum thresholds of competence including integrity, professional qualifications, continuous professional development and adherence to a recognised code of conduct and revised Banking Standards Rules;
(c) make provisions in connection with—
(i) the granting of a licence;
(ii) the refusal of a licence;
(iii) the withdrawal of a licence; and
(iv) the revalidation of a licensed person of a prescribed description whenever the appropriate regulator sees fit, either as a condition of the person continuing to hold a licence or of the person’s licence being restored;
(d) be evidenced by individuals holding an annual validation of competence;
(e) include specific provision for a Senior Persons Regime in relation to activities involving the exercise of a significant influence over a controlled function under section 59 of the Act.
(3) In section 59, for “authorised” substitute “licensed” throughout the section.””
Commons Disagreement and Reason
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 41 for the following reason—
41A Because Lords Amendments Nos. 42 to 57 make more appropriate provision about the standards of those working in the financial services sector, and Lords Amendment No. 41 is incompatible with the provision made by those Lords Amendments.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, I am recommending that your Lordships do not insist on this amendment and I of course support the reason the other place has put forward. I hope that I will be able to convince your Lordships, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the amendments the Government put forward in this House address the concerns of the noble Lord and the Official Opposition.
In essence, the Opposition are seeking to bring in a regime of annual licensing for bankers operated by the regulators, which would be supported by requirements about professional qualifications and minimum levels of competence. They also seek a code of conduct for bankers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive and thoughtful contribution to the debate on these professional training standards. First, I will set out how the amendments tabled by the Government, following the PCBS recommendations, already deliver the improved professionalism and higher standards of conduct that Amendment 41 seeks. Then I will explain the ways in which Amendment 41 is incompatible with the PCBS proposals, which had at their heart the need for banks to take responsibility for standards in their organisations, which is essential if the culture of banking is to improve.
First, on the code of conduct, Lords Amendment 54, tabled in Committee, already provides for the regulators to make rules of conduct for all bank staff. The regulators will be able to create a set of banking standards rules for people working in banks, just as the PCBS recommended. These banking standards rules will be able to do everything that a code of conduct would do.
Secondly, on ensuring a minimum standard of professionalism and qualifications, Lords Amendment 45 provides for banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to check that candidates for regulatory pre-approval to perform a specified function are fit and proper before they submit an application to the regulator for that approval. As part of this process, they will have to have regard to whether the candidate has obtained a qualification, has been trained or is undergoing training, or possesses a level of competence set out in the regulator’s rules. The regulator will of course have to confirm that those candidates are fit and proper, including by virtue of having the appropriate qualifications, before approving candidates to specified functions.
Thirdly, Lords Amendment 53, which provides for the new certification regime recommended by the parliamentary commission, requires banks and PRA-regulated investment firms to certify that candidates for significant-harm functions are fit and proper, including by having regard to whether the employee has obtained the qualifications, training or competence set out in a regulator’s rules. This certification will have to happen each year, so there will be an ongoing requirement to consider the training and competence of their staff.
In sum, the government amendments provide for a code of conduct, emphasis on ensuring that candidates for working in functions that could significantly harm the bank have minimum qualifications and annual certification. Those are the three central elements of Lords Amendment 41.
I will explain briefly why Amendment 41 is incompatible with, not complementary to, the PCBS proposals. Lords Amendment 41 would impose the requirement for annual validation and checking on the regulator, not the banks. The whole thrust of the PCBS recommendations was that primary responsibility for maintaining standards should reside with the banks themselves. The PCBS said:
“Banks should not be able to offload their duties and responsibilities for monitoring and enforcing individual behaviour on to the regulator or on to professional bodies. The tools at their disposal have the potential to be much more usable, effective and proportionate for the majority of cases than external enforcement”.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deighton
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, this amendment brings forward the timetable of the independent review to be held of ring-fencing. As the House will recall, the Government previously amended the Bill to provide for an independent review of ring-fencing, once the ring-fence has come into force. Following the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, our original amendment provided that the review be conducted no later than four years after the ring-fence had come into effect. This was to allow the ring-fence time to bed down before being reviewed.
The Government have, however, listened to arguments from the Opposition that the review should be held sooner. Two years is a long enough period over which to observe the operation of the ring-fence, and assess its effects. The knowledge that ring-fencing will soon be reviewed may also be a further encouragement to banks to comply faithfully with the ring-fence.
This amendment therefore requires that the independent review of the ring-fence be held within two years of the ring-fencing taking effect, rather than four years. This is a sensible change and one that we hope illustrates the Government’s constructive approach to reasonable suggestions from all sides.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, everyone in the House has from time to time expressed the view that this is a great experiment. We are not quite sure how the ring-fence will work and therefore it is appropriate that that it be monitored promptly and on a regular basis. I think this is a very sensible amendment—I would do, since I moved a version of it earlier—and I urge the House to support the Government.
Lord Deighton
“PRA review of proprietary trading
(1) The PRA must carry out a review of proprietary trading engaged in (whether or not as a regulated activity) by relevant authorised persons, for the purpose of considering whether further restrictions on any kind of proprietary trading ought to be imposed.
(2) The review must begin before the end of the 12 months beginning with the first day on which section 142G of FSMA 2000 is fully in force.
(3) On completion of the review, the PRA must make a written report to the Treasury on—
(a) the extent to which relevant authorised persons engage in proprietary trading;(b) whether proprietary trading engaged in by relevant authorised persons gives rise to any risks to their safety and soundness;(c) whether any kinds of proprietary trading are particularly likely to give rise to such risks;(d) anything done by the PRA to minimise risks to the safety and soundness of relevant authorised persons arising from proprietary trading engaged in by them;(e) any difficulties encountered by the PRA in seeking to minimise such risks.(4) The report must include an assessment by the PRA of each of the following—
(a) whether the PRA’s powers under FSMA 2000 are, and might be expected to continue to be, sufficient to enable it to advance its objectives in relation to relevant authorised persons who engage in proprietary trading;(b) the effectiveness of restrictions imposed in countries or territories outside the United Kingdom on proprietary trading by banks (so far as experience in those countries or territories appears to the PRA to be of relevance to the United Kingdom). (5) The report must be made within 9 months of the beginning of the review.
(6) The Treasury must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(7) The PRA must publish the report in such manner as it thinks fit.
(8) The functions of the PRA under this section are to be taken for the purposes of FSMA 2000 to be functions under that Act.
(9) This section is to be read with the interpretative provisions in section (Reviews of proprietary trading: interpretation).”
Lord Deighton
My Lords, these amendments require the PRA to review proprietary trading by UK banks and PRA-regulated investment companies and prepare a report to the Treasury. That will be followed by an independent review of the issue. The PRA must consider in its report the extent to which regulated firms engage in proprietary trading. It will then have to assess whether that risks their safety and soundness.
As the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards showed, proprietary trading can take many forms. That is why we are requiring the PRA to look into what particular risks different forms of proprietary trading can pose to the safety of the firm.
To help to give a full picture to the Treasury and to Parliament, the PRA must also report on steps it has taken to deal with risks from proprietary trading and whether it encountered any difficulties when it tried to tackle those risks. Building on that, the PRA must then give an assessment of whether it believes the tools it has to tackle proprietary trading are appropriate, given the risks that may exist at that time and in future. It must also consider whether restrictions imposed on proprietary trading in other countries have been effective. The experience of the United States in relation to the Volcker rule, which banned proprietary trading by banks, will be particularly relevant.
That review will take place within a year of the ring-fence coming into force. The Government have committed to ring-fencing being implemented in 2019, so this will take place in 2020. In Committee, there was some discussion about the appropriate timing of the review. The Government returned to the original PCBS recommendation, which said that the review must include,
“an assessment of the impact of the ring-fencing rules on proprietary trading by banks”.
To do that, the ring-fence must be in place for at least some time to consider such issues. While the ring-fence and proprietary trading are in many ways distinct issues, they will of course interact. Therefore we think it is right to allow the PRA to consider the impact of risks from proprietary trading on ring-fenced banks and whether the safeguards in place are sufficient for the particular requirements for the safety of ring-fenced banks. I know that members of the PCBS have been very concerned about that in the past, and I want to make sure that this review looks at this important area.
Following the PRA’s report to the Treasury and to Parliament, the Treasury will set up an independent review panel. The first task for that panel will be to consider the evidence that the PRA gathered and come to a view on its findings. It will then have to make recommendations about whether future measures to deal with risks from proprietary trading are necessary. The independent review will be able to make any recommendations in relation to proprietary trading that it considers appropriate. It will not be constrained, and like the PRA review, will be able to consider the experience other countries have had with restrictions on proprietary trading, such as in the US with the Volcker rule. By the time of the review, I imagine that a wealth of information and views will be available to help the independent panel come to its conclusions. The independent review panel must make its recommendations in a report to the Treasury and to Parliament.
As I have said previously, the PCBS heard in evidence that proprietary trading does not currently pose a large risk for the UK financial system, but it can do little harm to keep this area under review, should risks emerge in the future.
As noble Lords have seen when we debated other parts of the Bill, and, indeed, through this Government’s willingness to set up and listen to the ICB in the first place, we are in favour of independent reviews. Therefore we are persuaded that proprietary trading is an area where an independent review in future can add value. These reports will give a future Parliament all the information it needs to assess whether future safeguards are necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, once again I would like to thank the Government and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Deighton, for moving this amendment. It is in response to a strong recommendation that was encapsulated in a specific report on this subject among the five reports from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.
Just as in the previous amendment, which concerned the review of the ring-fence, initially the Government were prepared to look at it only from the point of view of whether an individual banking institution had been gaming the ring-fence. They have now agreed to look at the system as a whole, and I am grateful for that. Again, initially the Government said, “No way should there by a review of proprietary trading”, but they have now come round to saying, “Yes, the parliamentary commission was right and there should be a review”. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that. He said that there is no risk at the moment. That is because proprietary trading has, for the time being, stopped to all intents and purposes. Yet at its peak it was for many banks up to 30% of their total business. One must imagine that that is quite likely to occur again in future. I do not know whether it will but it is clearly possible. But if I might say so to my noble friend, it is not simply a question of risk—although risk is obviously an important factor.
There was an important debate on Thursday last week on the five reports of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend but I read the Hansard report. It was introduced by a magisterial speech by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and there were a number of good speeches—it read very well. In particular, I was impressed by the speech by my noble friend Lord Deighton, in which he gave us a little autobiographical counter. He spoke a little bit about his own experience as a banker. One thing I noted in particular. He said he was always conscious of the importance in banking of, “putting the customer first”. That is a very important aspect of banking culture. Indeed, banking culture was one of the most important things that the parliamentary commission was set up to look into.
However, in proprietary trading there is of course no question of putting the customer first—because there is no customer. It is the bank trading on its own behalf. That involves a totally different culture and mindset. If you want to preserve in banking—as I think we should—the culture that my noble friend believes in, as he said on Thursday, then you should ban proprietary trading by banks altogether. It is fine for hedge funds. It is an excellent activity for them and they can do it very well. I am not suggesting that it should be made an illegal activity, but banks should not do it. Most of us on the commission—though clearly not all—came to that conclusion. We called for a review because we were unsure about the practicalities. There is some difficulty in defining the sort of proprietary trading that should be banned for banks because there is a need for market-making. The line between market-making and proprietary trading is very clear in the minds of those doing it, but whether it is clear in law is another matter. We thought it useful to look at the American experience.
Finally on this, I say to my noble friend that we should look at the American experience but not too much at the American legislation. The complexity and detail of the American legislation was simply appalling. It is a problem across the legislative system that they have in the United States. My noble friend quite rightly referred to the Volcker rule because Paul Volcker insists that there should be a ban—for cultural reasons, above all. He also told us, when he gave evidence to the commission, that the legislation introduced in Congress was certainly not the sort he had in mind.
Having said that, I wish the Government well in this. It will be an important review, for the reasons that I have outlined. I commend the Government for repenting, if slightly belatedly—but as the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops’ Benches will know, better “the sinner that repenteth”, et cetera. Thank you very much.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I ask whether the independent review under Amendment 3 is on the same basis as the review carried out by the PRA under Amendment 2. Amendment 2 specifically refers to the risk factors that proprietary trading embraces, but there is no reference to that in Amendment 3 with regard to the independent review of proprietary trading. Is the second, independent review to be undertaken on a wider basis than the PRA review? Will it be able to look at some of the broader cultural aspects of proprietary trading by banks? I hope that question is not too late in the day for the Minister.
Lord Deighton
I thank noble Lords for those questions. In response to my noble friend Lord Higgins, with respect to proprietary trading and international collaboration and co-operation, that is the approach that we shall be espousing. On consolidation, this is structured so as to be integrated into existing legislation, thereby ending up with a consolidated result.
With respect to the question of my noble friend Lord Phillips, I confirm that the independent review of proprietary trading will not be constrained in what it can examine.
Lord Deighton
“Independent review of proprietary trading
(1) The Treasury must, after receiving the report of the PRA under section (PRA review of proprietary trading) but before the end of the initial period, appoint one or more persons (“the review panel”) to carry out a review of proprietary trading engaged in (whether or not as a regulated activity) by relevant authorised persons.
(2) The initial period is the period of 2 years beginning with the first day on which section 142G of FSMA 2000 is fully in force.
(3) The members of the review panel must be persons—
(a) who appear to the Treasury to be independent of the PRA, the FCA, the Bank of England and the Treasury, and (b) who do not appear to the Treasury to have any financial or other interests that could reasonably be regarded as affecting their suitability to serve as members of the review panel.(4) In appointing the members of the review panel, the Treasury must have regard to the need to ensure that the review panel (considered as a whole) has the necessary experience to undertake the review.
(5) Before appointing the members of the review panel, the Treasury must consult the chair of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.
(6) The reference in subsection (5) to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is a reference to that Committee by its new name, and(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable;and any question arising under paragraph (a) or (b) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.(7) If the review panel consists of two or more members, the Treasury must appoint one of them to be the chair of the panel.
(8) The review panel must, within a reasonable time after the end of the initial period, make a written report to the Treasury—
(a) stating whether the panel agrees with the conclusions reached by the PRA in its report under section (PRA review of proprietary trading),(b) stating whether the panel recommends any further restrictions on any kind of proprietary trading in relation to relevant authorised persons, and(c) making such other recommendations as the panel thinks fit.(9) The Treasury must—
(a) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, and(b) publish the report in such manner as they think fit.(10) Any expenses reasonably incurred in the conduct of the review are to be paid by the Treasury out of money provided by Parliament.
(11) This section is to be read with the interpretative provisions in section (Reviews of proprietary trading: interpretation).”
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
“(a) enable the Bank of England, for the purpose of enabling it to exercise in relation to the business of a building society any of the powers exercisable as a result of the amendments made by this Part—(i) to convert the building society into a company, or(ii) to transfer the business of the building society to a company which immediately before the transfer is owned by the Bank or by a person of a description specified in the order;(b) enable the Bank of England, in connection with the exercise of a power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a), to cancel membership rights or shares in the building society;(c) provide for any power exercisable as a result of the amendments made by this Part to be exercisable in relation to the company—(i) into which the building society is converted, or(ii) to which the business of the building society is transferred;(d) enable the Bank of England, in a case where it has transferred the business of a building society by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii), to dissolve the building society at any time after the transfer;(e) confer functions on the Treasury, the Bank of England, the FCA, the PRA or a bail-in administrator;(f) make further amendments of Part 1 of the Banking Act 2009;(g) amend or modify the effect of the Building Societies Act 1986 or”
Lord Deighton
My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor and technical amendments to Clause 14 and Schedule 2 that will help to ensure that the bail-in powers can be used as intended in order to deal effectively with the failure of a financial institution.
First, they clarify the scope of the Treasury’s power to make an order applying the bail-in provisions to building societies. Since introducing this clause, we have had the opportunity to consider further what provisions may be necessary and are therefore in a position to specify this in the Bill.
Moving to Schedule 2, minor amendments are made to new Section 44B. They permit supplemental property transfer instruments to make special bail-in provision. This is consistent with the situation for resolution instruments and will further assist in combining bail-in with the bridge bank stabilisation option. They amend new Section 48R which, without this amendment, applies only to resolution instruments that do not transfer securities. As special bail-in provision may relate to things that are not transferred, it is appropriate that the new Section 48R power applies irrespective of whether securities are transferred. By broadening the Section 48R power in this way, we can then remove the amendment to Section 21, which makes similar provision, as no longer necessary.
Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 is amended to address situations where a resolution instrument does not transfer securities, such as shares. Paragraph 15 amends the power to make continuity provision conferred by Section 18 of the Banking Act. This change will allow, for example, supplemental resolution instruments which do not transfer securities to make ancillary provision relating to an earlier transfer of securities. There are also some minor amendments to the compensation provisions.
Where bail-in is combined with the bridge bank stabilisation option, the Treasury needs to make a resolution fund order. Some minor amendments are made to Section 52 and new Section 60A to ensure that the compensation arrangements for special bail-in provision will work with full effect in this context. Minor amendments are also made to Section 53 to ensure that the Treasury may make compensation orders under Section 53 whenever any form of supplemental order or instrument is made to effect a stabilisation option. Finally, we have brought the compensation provisions for bail-in further into line with the other stabilisation options by making it optional for the Treasury to make a further compensation order following a supplemental resolution instrument. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Deighton
““bail-in administrator” is to be read in accordance with section 12B of the Banking Act 2009 (as inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2);”
Lord Deighton
“Determination of applications for approval
In section 61 of FSMA 2000 (determination of applications), in subsection (2)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) after paragraph (c) insert “or(d) has the personal characteristics,”.”
Lord Deighton
“64B Rules of conduct: responsibilities of relevant authorised persons
(1) This section applies where a regulator makes rules under section 64A (“conduct rules”).
(2) Every relevant authorised person must—
(a) notify all relevant persons of the conduct rules that apply in relation to them, and(b) take all reasonable steps to secure that those persons understand how those rules apply in relation to them.(3) The steps which a relevant authorised person must take to comply with subsection (2)(b) include, in particular, the provision of suitable training.
(4) In this section “relevant person”, in relation to an authorised person, means—
(a) any person in relation to whom an approval is given under section 59 on the application of the authorised person, and(b) any employee of the authorised person.(5) If a relevant authorised person knows or suspects that a relevant person has failed to comply with any conduct rules, the authorised person must notify the regulator of that fact.
(6) In this section “employee”, in relation to an authorised person, has the same meaning as in section 64A.
(7) For the meaning of “relevant authorised person”, see section 71A.””
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
“(3A) The Treasury may by order provide that authorised persons falling within any of the following descriptions are “relevant authorised persons” for the purposes of this Part—
(a) non-UK institutions (or non-UK institutions of a specified description) that are credit institutions;(b) non-UK institutions that are investment firms of a specified description.“Specified” means specified in the order.(3B) If the Treasury propose to make an order under subsection (3A) they must consult—
(a) the FCA,(b) the PRA, (c) any organisations that appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals, and(d) any other persons that they consider appropriate.”
Lord Flight
My Lords, perhaps I may make the point that I made last time this matter came up for debate—a point that is staring at us. The problem is with parts of the world where corruption, drugs and political corruption are rife. Much more demanding anti-money-laundering requirements are needed when accounts are opened for individuals or organisations from such parts of the world.
We already have a factfile that grades different countries around the world according to the extent of their corruption—so there is, if you like, a textbook. If those standards were required, it would, apart from anything else, discourage banks from potentially getting involved. Also, rather than imposing greater demands on everybody—I do not think anyone is suggesting that the average Mr and Mrs Brown from Dorking is engaged in money-laundering—much more demanding standards would be applied when dealing with organisations and individuals from parts of the world where there are the real money-laundering problems.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I think that I can safely say that every Member of this House will agree with the noble Lords, Lord Brennan, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord McFall of Alcluith, about the importance of the fight against money-laundering and other financial crime and about the importance of ensuring that the banks discharge their responsibilities in this area properly—absolutely no question. I hope therefore that the statement that I am making now will reassure them, more than my letters have done, that anti-money-laundering compliance in banks will be fully covered in the new senior managers regime. I can assure noble Lords that anti-money-laundering compliance in a bank will always ultimately fall within the responsibilities of a senior manager in that bank. The FCA will also have extensive powers to ensure that banks are clear about where these responsibilities lie.
First, under the new senior managers regime, the regulator will specify senior management functions in its rules. These will cover such roles as the chief executive and the finance director and may extend to any function that involves an individual managing aspects of a firm’s business that could have serious consequences for the firm or the wider economy. The total number of individuals covered by the new regime is likely to be smaller than those currently performing functions of significant influence in banks. In line with the recommendations of the PCBS, all the senior decision-takers—the most senior people in banks who take important decisions—will be covered by the senior managers regime.
Secondly, under the senior managers regime provisions that are now in the Bill, there will have to be statements of responsibility in respect of each senior manager. The banks will have to supply a statement with each application to the regulator for approval of the appointment of a new senior manager. The bank will have to update a statement whenever there is a significant change in a senior manager’s responsibilities. The regulators will also have the power to set out the form that the statements should take. They will also be able to require banks to verify the information in the statements in a way that they direct. As a result, the regulators will be able to tell who is responsible for anti-money-laundering compliance in a bank. They will also be able to detect any gaps in the responsibilities by comparing the statements of the senior managers in a bank. Senior management is always ultimately responsible for ensuring that the bank complies with all applicable legal requirements, including anti-money-laundering law. It is inconceivable that a senior manager will not be responsible in this area. Beneath senior management level there will, of course, be other staff involved in anti-money-laundering compliance work and these will include money-laundering reporting officers. In addition, the Government have deliberately retained the power for the regulator to pre-approve individuals performing key roles below senior management level, such as money-laundering reporting officers, even if those roles are not senior management functions. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is a sensible measure.
We are also introducing, in line with the recommendations of the parliamentary commission, a certification and banking standards regime, applying to all employees of banks. As a result of those changes, the FCA will be able to set standards of conduct for all bank employees who may come into contact with money-laundering or other financial crime. Banks will have to certify annually that people performing particular functions are fit and proper to do them. These are roles in which an individual could do significant harm to the bank or its customers, such as trading or compliance roles or, of course, roles that involve preventing financial crime. The Government’s measures will ensure that senior managers in banks can be held to account for discharging their responsibilities in relation to anti-money-laundering compliance. The regulators will know who has those responsibilities and what those responsibilities are.
No one doubts the importance of the fight against money-laundering and financial crime. The Government’s reforms will ensure that banks and their senior managers will take their responsibilities in this area seriously and will start to discharge them properly. I hope therefore that, in the light of the assurances that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clearly considered response and I note what he says. Certainly there is great value in having clearly on the record in Hansard that it will be very senior people who are required to be responsible. That is all to the good and I welcome that, but I am still disappointed that the Minister has not gone a bit further. He talked about the regulator having powers. That is fine, but the regulator may or may not choose to exercise those powers in a particular way. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, if the word “must” can be used in other amendments to the Bill, why cannot it be used in this one?
Lord Deighton
“Duty to meet auditors of certain institutions
(1) Part 22 of FSMA 2000 (auditors and actuaries) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 339A insert—
“339B Duty to meet auditors of certain institutions
(1) The FCA must make arrangements for meetings to take place at least once a year between—
(a) the FCA, and(b) the auditor of any PRA-authorised person to which section 339C applies.(2) The PRA must make arrangements for meetings to take place at least once a year between—
(a) the PRA, and(b) the auditor of any PRA-authorised person to which section 339C applies.(3) The annual report of each regulator must include the number of meetings that have taken place during the period to which the report relates between the regulator and auditors of PRA-authorised persons to which section 339C applies.
(4) In subsection (3) “the annual report” means—
(a) in relation to the FCA, every report which it is required by paragraph 11 of Schedule 1ZA to make to the Treasury, and(b) in relation to the PRA, every report which it is required by paragraph 19 of Schedule 1ZB to make to the Treasury.(5) In this section “auditor” means an auditor appointed under or as a result of a statutory provision.
339C PRA-authorised persons to which this section applies
(1) This section applies to a PRA-authorised person which—
(a) is a UK institution,(b) meets condition A or B,(c) is not an insurer or a credit union, and(d) is, in the opinion of the PRA, important to the stability of the UK financial system.(2) Condition A is that the person has permission under Part 4A to carry on the regulated activity of accepting deposits.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) the person is an investment firm that has permission under Part 4A to carry on the regulated activity of dealing in investments as principal, and (b) when carried on by the person, that activity is a PRA-regulated activity.(4) In this section—
(a) “UK institution” means an institution which is incorporated in, or formed under the law of any part of, the United Kingdom;(b) “insurer” means an institution which is authorised under this Act to carry on the regulated activity of effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance as principal;(c) “credit union” means a credit union as defined by section 31 of the Credit Unions Act 1979 or a credit union as defined by Article 2(2) of the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.(5) Subsections (2), (3) and (4)(b) are to be read in accordance with Schedule 2, taken together with any order under section 22.”
(3) The italic cross-heading before section 339A becomes “General duties of regulator”.”
Lord Deighton
We now turn to the proposal to put in the Bill new requirements on regulators to meet the auditors of banks. This issue has been subject to extensive debate. The Government have been clear throughout that the regulators should carry the full responsibility for managing an effective relationship with the auditors of banks they supervise, and be held to account for how well they deliver it.
The reasons for this are strong. Before the crisis, regulators neglected their engagement with auditors while the auditors themselves signed off on the accounts of banks which we now know were, in some cases, in dire straits. The Government took action. There is now a requirement in the Financial Services and Markets Act for the PRA to lay its code of practice on auditor engagement before Parliament, meaning that the regulators will be held accountable for how well they deliver on the requirement to engage with the auditors of banks.
However, it has become clear how strongly the PCBS valued the opportunity to go further and specify the number of meetings in statute, to ensure auditors’ insights are used. For those reasons the PCBS is clear that, over time, this dialogue between auditors and regulators must not be allowed to lapse. The proposed amendment therefore includes two provisions to ensure that this crucial dialogue is preserved.
First, the regulators must disclose in their annual report the number of meetings they have held with the auditors. This allows Parliament to hold the regulators to account for the frequency of meetings. Secondly, the regulators must meet at least once per year with the auditors of firms that the PRA, the leading prudential regulator, considers to be important to the stability of the United Kingdom economy. This is a minimum requirement. The Government believe that it is right to place the duty on the regulator to determine how many more meetings are required with the auditors of firms of particular types, consistent with its risk-based, judgment-led approach. This allows the regulators to focus their resources where the risks are highest.
Some noble Lords may argue that the minimum requirement should be higher. The Government do not agree. The Government have said that the regulators must meet with any firm that may be important to the financial system at least once per year, but within this group, there will be firms of major and firms of minor significance.
For firms of major significance, once may be too little; for firms of minor significance, once may be sufficient. For example, under the PRA’s current code, for banks that could have the most significant impact on financial stability, the PRA code mandates at least three meetings a year. For other firms whose failure could still materially impact the UK financial system, the PRA code mandates at least one bilateral a year. The FCA meets at least twice per year with the auditors of the most significant banks and at least once per year with those in the next largest category.
The Government believe that it is right that Parliament does not seek to specify this level of detail in legislation. To do so would risk misaligning the PRA’s resources with the risks the financial system faces. The Government therefore believe that this amendment arrives at a suitable compromise between the desire to specify in the Bill a minimum number of meetings, to prevent meetings between auditors and regulators from lapsing entirely, and an approach that requires regulators to take responsibility for pursuing proportionate and high-quality engagement, and enhanced mechanisms for accountability. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, once again, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Deighton and his colleagues in the Treasury for agreeing to bring forward this amendment. As he pointed out, it is in response to a recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Hitherto the Treasury has been reluctant to accept this, but it has now done so and it is in the Bill. Incidentally, this was also a recommendation of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, in its report on the auditors a little while back. This provision is needed in the Bill because we have been here before. The Banking Act 1987—I introduced the Bill that led to that—enabled these meetings to take place, and for a number of years they did. However, in the run-up to the great banking crisis and meltdown they had ceased. That is why we on the commission felt that this time it was necessary to have this provision in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for that.
I know that the hour is getting late but I should mention another matter that relates to a recommendation of the commission. There was lamentable failure of these meetings to take place and the fact that the auditors were in front of the crisis—the dog that never barked—was partly because of the lack of meetings and was largely the fault of the regulators at the time. It was their responsibility above all to seek such meetings. However, there was also the lamentable inadequacy of the accounting system at the time, IFRS. It is probably an inadequate system in general but it is particularly flawed when it comes to the auditing of banks. That is increasingly recognised within the accountancy profession. It is too late for me to go into the details, and I have explained the specific failings in previous debates and I will not go over the ground again.
When the commission addressed this issue it said that since we cannot change IFRS because the “I” represents an international agreement—although it is, in fact, a European agreement because the Americans have made it clear that they do not want to have any part of it—the PRA must require the major systemic banks to produce a second set of accounts that satisfies the needs of prudential regulation and supervision. That involves a small extra cost to achieve a considerable objective.
When this matter was discussed in Committee, my noble friend Lord Deighton said that there was no need to put such a provision in the Bill because the PRA had the power to do so—and I very much hope that it will do so. It is up to the Treasury Committee in another place to keep the PRA up to the mark. I hope that the present chairman of that committee will do that. Andrew Tyrie, the Member of Parliament for Chichester, outstandingly chaired the work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and he secured its important and unanimous report. However, I was slightly alarmed in Committee when the Minister said that the regulators already have power,
“to make rules requiring banks to prepare additional accounts, to the extent that this is permissible under EU law”.—[Official Report, 23/10/13; col. 1022.]
While I thank him for the amendment, I must ask him: if the PRA wishes a systemically important bank to present a set of accounts in a way that it feels is necessary for proper prudential supervision, what will it be prevented from doing under EU law? The House needs to know that.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, I will be very brief in supporting the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I have been interested in the relationship between the auditors and the regulator ever since Northern Rock went down in 2007. The question that the regulator should be keeping in mind in discussions with auditors on a yearly basis is, what is the point of an audit? The auditors tell us that it is to have a backward look at what has happened in a company, but there is a need to have a forward look at the risks that are happening, to issues like low risk and low probability, low risk and high probability, high risk and low probability, or high risk and high probability. These scenarios need to be included, because the auditors came to all the committees, the Treasury Committee in the past and the Treasury Committee now, and said that it was their business to look at the audit at that particular time. That is insufficient and there needs to be a greater engagement between the regulator and the auditors.
I reminded the Minister that previously the regulator did not look at the business models of companies. They had nothing to do with them. Thankfully, the new chief executive, Martin Wheatley, has said that the business models are very appropriate for regulators to look at because the business models that were ignored let the PPI mis-selling scandal go for 18 years. There is a lot of work to do between the auditor and the regulator—and the question that I repeat again is for the regulator to say, what is the point of an audit? Auditors can come up to the mark and not just have a backward look or even a present look at the business model of a company but can ensure that there is also a forward look.
Lord Deighton
With respect to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lawson about what constraints the EU law would put on the PRA getting the information in the form that it requests, this is merely tying it into what comes out of the capital requirement directive IV, just to make sure that it is consistent. I am not aware of a particular constraint, but I am aware that there will be additional disclosure responsibilities that come along with that. We really just want to integrate it, but I do not believe that it is a constraint; it should actually help with disclosure.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I am most grateful, but will my noble friend agree to look further into this and, if there is a constraint, to write to me?
Lord Deighton
Of course, I would happy with that undertaking. I fully accept the observation from the noble Lord, Lord McFall, that an audit needs to have the context of the business model behind it to have a proper understanding of where the business is going. We will certainly encourage the regulator to ensure that the dialogue with the auditor takes into account what is really happening in the business and does not just look at the numbers in isolation.
Lord Deighton
(a) after “55C,” insert “71A(3A),”, and(b) ”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 26, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, and of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. She is very sorry she cannot be in her place this evening to say this herself, but she is very grateful to the Government not only for accepting the essence of her amendment, moved at Report, but also for turning in some far better drafting than she could have done. This was done under some tight time pressures, for which we are grateful to both of the Ministers concerned and to their staff. My noble friend cannot be here to thank the Government herself because she is at a Labour Party fundraising event to help fund the campaign to expel the Government from office, but in the mean time she does sincerely want her appreciation for the help to be recorded.
The impact of the amendment is that, in future, consumers with complaints against claims management companies will be able to take these to the Legal Services Ombudsman to be resolved. They will therefore get redress when there is judgment in their favour. This will also help to drive up standards. By reporting repeat offenders to the regulator, it will help to get some of the CMC sharks out of the business. So congratulations to both to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and to the Government for accepting the essence of her amendment.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I know it is getting late, but as this group of amendments draws to a close, I hope you will permit me to spend a few moments reflecting on the changes that this Bill has undergone since it first arrived in this House, and to thank all those who have contributed to it in that time. On Second Reading in July, my noble friend Lord Newby remarked that the great strength of this legislation was due in no small part to the intense degree of scrutiny that it had undergone on its journey to this House, and the constructive spirit in which those of all political colours had contributed to it. This is surely even more true of the Bill that leaves this House today.
My first thanks must go to the members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, represented in this House by the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull, Lord McFall and Lord Lawson, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The central role that they have played in shaping this legislation is one of the things that has made this Bill so unique; indeed, the great majority of the amendments that it has undergone in this House directly implement the recommendations of the Commission’s final report on professional standards and culture in the banking industry. These measures are not only the crowning achievements of this piece of legislation, but the final piece in this Government’s ambitious four-stage programme of reform for the banking sector.
Many of the noble Lords in this Chamber today will have contributed to the first stage of that reform, the Financial Services Act 2012, which recast the regulatory architecture for financial services. This Bill, as it was introduced in another place, made provision for the second stage of that reform, the implementation of Sir John Vickers’s recommendations on structural reform of the banking sector, and the Bill that leaves this House today puts in place the two final pillars of that legislative programme, overhauling the culture of the banking industry, and driving out competition to improve outcomes for consumers. Of course, the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission’s final report through this Bill has meant that the task of scrutinising these incredibly important measures has fallen largely to this House.
I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. As I understand it the explanatory notes have already been written for the amendments, and they will be published tomorrow. As always, my officials are a little bit ahead of the game, but we absolutely take on board the need to communicate this effectively, both to the other place and more broadly to the City.
All these changes are a challenge to which this House has ably risen, but I must thank all noble Lords for their patience in giving such careful consideration to this wide-ranging and important set of provisions, particularly with the number of amendments that have been introduced, the speed with which drafts have been turned around, and the speed with which noble Lords have been asked to absorb so much information. In particular I must thank the opposition Front Bench, led by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for its thoughtful and constructive contributions to the debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Newby for his support, without which it would not have been possible to provide the House with the level of response that it deserves, and my officials for their consistent hard work. Special thanks must go to parliamentary counsel for their heroic efforts in drafting amendments with such speed and precision.
The Bill that leaves this House today is completely transformed from the one that arrived here five months ago, and it is hard to imagine how it could have reached its present state without the contribution of those that I have but briefly mentioned. It is a vital addition to the statute book, whose importance is hard to overstate. I beg to move.
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
“This is subject to subsection (2).
(2) The amendments made by the following sections have the same extent as the enactments amended—
(a) section 10 (preferential debts: Great Britain),(b) section 129 (power to impose penalties on persons providing claims management services), and(c) section (Recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints) (recovery of expenditure incurred by Office for Legal Complaints).”
Lord Deighton
section (Duty of FCA to make rules restricting charges for high-cost short-term credit), and”
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, it is incumbent on us to respond to the very kind words of my noble friend Lord Deighton. As he said, the Bill has been completely transformed. I have been a Member of this House for a very long time now but I cannot recall a Bill—let alone a Bill as important as this one—to have been so totally transformed for the better. It is not only a great deal bigger but also a great deal better as a result of its passage through your Lordships’ House. I am extremely grateful and the nation will be extremely grateful.
There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the excessive size of the banking sector in this country. Some people have been even as foolish as to talk about a monocrop economy. The fact of the matter is that banking accounts for a little over 5% of this country’s GDP; it is nothing like a monocrop economy. However, it is a supremely important sector and one in which we are world class.
There is a size problem—I have not got time to go into it now and it would not be proper to do so—with individual institutions. As the former Governor of the Bank of England said, if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big. The size of the sector is a great strength of this country. As the present governor, Mr Carney, said recently, it is a great strength of the United Kingdom that we are prominent and world class in this growing and supremely important industry. We want it to grow further, which I hope it will. It is our great strength. It is what economists call the law of comparative advantage—you should do what you are best at—and this is a sector in which we are very good. However, if it is going to get bigger and bigger, which I think it will and should, it has to be both clean and robust. The purpose of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was to try to ensure that it would be both clean and robust. That is what the Bill is about.
I say again how grateful I am to the Government, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Deighton, for having implemented so many of the recommendations of the parliamentary commission to ensure that the Bill leaves this House in an infinitely better state than when it arrived here.
Banking: Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, this has been a very constructive and timely debate. I felt that I was getting one of my exams marked there, for a minute; that was the feedback I used to get 38 years ago. It is the right time to be talking about this, given where we are with the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which has been extensively amended in response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Of course, as a number of noble Lords pointed out, we are moving toward the end of that Bill’s progress through the House. That marks the final stage of the Government’s programme of legislative action to reform banking.
We are all aware of the serious problems that have come to light in recent years. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, gave us the best exposition of all the individual incidents and the questions that we should be asking. We are absolutely right this evening to be focusing on the culture within banking.
Step 1, from the Government’s point of view, was to fix the regulatory system. As well as giving the Bank of England responsibility for financial stability, therefore, the Financial Services Act established the Financial Conduct Authority as a tough new conduct regulator, focused on making sure that conduct issues get the serious attention they need and deserve.
I welcome the insightful comments in the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington. He enumerated far more concisely than I could the merits of the new judgment-led approach that the regulators will apply to supervision, and the disappointing failure of what we describe as the tick-box approach. I am in tune with that analysis. I was also quite taken by my noble friend’s discussion of Islamic banking, which is values-based. There are probably some lessons for the rest of the banking sector there.
The Government supported the establishment of the PCBS under the chairmanship of the honourable Member for Chichester, Andrew Tyrie, and the work of that commission has played an absolutely vital role in shaping the future approach to conduct and standards in the UK’s financial services sector. Of course, its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft banking reform Bill, which has been referred to, also led to a strengthening of the ring-fence, with its electrification.
The commission’s impressive final report, Changing Banking for Good, which was published in June, made some key recommendations, ranging across individual accountability, corporate governance, competition and long-term financial stability. In July the Government published our response to those recommendations. We endorsed the main findings of the commission’s report and committed to implementing its principal recommendations, using the Bill where legislation was the right way forward. I would like to think that the Government have delivered on that commitment. The debates we had in this House were extremely helpful to the Government—and, I hope, refined some of the commissioners’ thinking—and we have ended up in what I think is a very good place. I hope that next week, at the next stage, it will all come to fruition.
We tabled amendments to establish the new senior managers regime, which is the critical control system to ensure that the culture is right, and are going to implement the commission’s recommendation to introduce what is in effect a licensing regime to cover more junior banking staff. For the first time, regulators will be able to make conduct rules applying to all employees of a bank, and these changes form the basis of a much more robust focus on conduct and standards within these banks, both by giving the regulators new and important powers with regard to senior managers, such as time-limited and conditional approvals, and by placing firm obligations on banks themselves to take responsibility for the conduct of more junior staff. The Government have put in place a new offence of criminal recklessness in the management of a bank so that in future those who bring down their bank by making thoroughly unreasonable decisions can go to jail for their actions.
All these changes have improved the Bill significantly, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates so far. I particularly express my gratitude to the former members of the commission for their continued constructive engagement throughout, which has enabled the Government to realise their vision comprehensively.
Of course, to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail, and there is sometimes a risk that to a parliamentarian every problem looks like it needs legislation, but this debate is a timely reminder that legislation is just one weapon in our armoury towards building the highest standards within the industry. As the most reverend Primate said, you cannot solve problems by changing law, and you cannot make people good through law. I absolutely agree with that.
The commission’s recommendations about the regulation of individuals in banks rely heavily on rules that the regulators will make underneath the legislative provisions, and the way in which those rules are applied. We have to work all this through to see how it works in practice.
The Bank of England and the FCA published their responses to the commission’s report in October, and set out their positions on each of the recommendations. They continue to make progress. I hope that the regulators will take note of the points that have been raised this evening—I know many of them are here witnessing this—as they go ahead to implement the commission’s recommendations through their rules. They will be launching public consultations on these rules next year. I urge all those who have spoken this evening to reiterate their views to the regulators through this process.
I return to the issue of creating culture change. One of the most reverend Primate’s questions was, “What will drive this cultural change?”. Regulatory rules are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for creating a profound change in the culture of banking. It is clearly an area where banks themselves must take significant responsibility. They have committed to the establishment of a professional standards body, which represents some progress; but I also hope that the industry’s leaders will take notice of this debate and continue to work to rebuild the fundamental trust which the public need to have in them if this is going to improve over time. That trust will only grow through a relatively long healing process.
Perhaps I may take a couple of minutes to refer to my own experience and what I learnt in the business. I was in the banking business for 27 years. What attracted me to it in the first place resonates with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about the quality of finance and those of the most reverend Primate about what banks are for and what contribution they make to local and national economies. The thing that made me want to go into banking was the opportunity to work with so many different businesses; to work with so many other different kind of financial institutions; to work with different countries around the world; and to use finance to make things happen, to build things and to see development. For me, it was the best possible opportunity to make an enormous difference to so many businesses around the world.
I never lost the sense of magic that the position you get at the centre of things gives you. My career divided into two halves. In the first half, my responsibility was to manage and build a group of clients and, frankly, to maximise the market share for my firm from those clients by winning as much business from them as we possibly could. I learnt one very simple thing: the most important rule for success was to put the customer’s interests first. There was nothing worse than an unhappy client. My most profitable long-term client relationships were with those people whom I had initially advised not to do transactions. We have heard a lot of discussion about taking care of the customer and putting the customer first. My own experience tells me not only is this the right thing to do, it is also in the bank’s long-term financial interest to behave in precisely that way too. The essence of effective leadership of a bank is to bring those things together.
In the second half of my career, when I was in much more of a leadership role, I spent an enormous amount of time building and managing the systems of controls and compensation to try to align that kind of long-term profit maximisation with taking care of clients and doing the right thing in a regulatory environment. I understand the enormous challenges of sitting near the top of these big organisations; wanting to do the right thing, yet never quite being sure whether there was a so-called rogue trader out there and whether you had the capacity to spot them and deal with them early enough.
A number of noble Lords have pointed to the importance of competition as a way of keeping everybody honest on a number of respects. I absolutely support competition as a healthy and stimulating part of this dialogue.
My final comment about the culture of banks is that it comes from the top—the tone is set at the top. You absolutely need systems, controls and management structures to ensure that it is effectively deployed throughout the organisation, but, for me, culture is ultimately about leadership. It is about leadership of the financial institutions, in the regulators and in government. That triumvirate needs to continue to display the right kind of leadership if we are effectively to change backing for good, as the commission has recommended.
Finally, I thank noble Lords who have spoken this evening, and thank the most reverend Primate for presenting us with this important opportunity to discuss these matters.
Autumn Statement
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to the Autumn Statement made by my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons, copies of which have been made available in the Printed Paper Office, and the text of which will be printed in full in the Official Report.
The following Statement was made earlier in the House of Commons.
“Britain’s economic plan is working, but the job is not done. We need to secure the economy for the long term, and the biggest risk to that comes from those who would abandon the plan. We seek a responsible recovery, one in which we do not squander the gains we have made, but go on taking the difficult decisions, and one in which we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, but this time spot the debt bubbles before they threaten financial stability. We seek a responsible recovery, in which we do not pretend we can make this nation better off by writing cheques to ourselves, and instead make the hard choices. We need a Government who live within their means, in a country that pays its way in the world.
Three and a half years ago, I set out our long-term economic plan in the emergency Budget. That plan restored stability in a fiscal crisis, but it was also designed to address the deep-seated problems of unsustainable spending, uncompetitive taxes and unreformed public services for which there are no quick fixes. Over the last three years we have stuck to our guns and worked through the plan. We have done so in the face of a sovereign debt crisis abroad, and at home in the face of opposition from those who got Britain into this mess in the first place and have resisted every cut, every reform and every effort to get us out of that mess. We have held our nerve while those who predicted there would be no growth until we turned the spending taps back on have been proved comprehensively wrong.
Thanks to the sacrifice and endeavour of the British people, I can today report the hard evidence that shows our economic plan is working, but I also report the hard truth that the job is not yet done. Yes, the deficit is down, but it is still far too high, and today we take more difficult decisions. Yes, the forecasts show that growth is up, but the same forecasts show growth in productivity is still too low, and today we set out further economic reforms. Yes, jobs are up and unemployment is down, but too many of our young people lack the skills to fill those jobs and the opportunities to acquire them, so now we take bold steps to remove that cap on aspiration. Yes, businesses are expanding, but business taxes are still too high and exports are too low and we must address that. And yes, real household disposable income is rising, but the effects of the financial crash on family budgets and the cost of living are still being felt. So where we can afford to help hard-working families, we will continue to do so. The hard work of the British people is paying off, and we will not squander their efforts. We will secure the economy for the long term, and this Statement sets out how.
Let me turn to the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Again, I thank Robert Chote and his team for their rigorous and independent work. The OBR report notes that the Office for National Statistics has reassessed the depth of the great recession. The fall in GDP from peak to trough between 2008 and 2009 was not 6.3% as previously thought, but was instead an even more staggering 7.2%; £112 billion was wiped off our economy—about £3,000 for every household in this country—in one of the sharpest falls in the national income of any economy in the world. That is a reminder of the economic calamity that befell Britain and of the simple fact that our country remains poorer as a result of it. A lot of work still remains to be done to put that right. The data revisions also showed something else: there was no double-dip recession.
Let me turn to the future. At the time of the Budget in March, the OBR forecast that growth this year would be 0.6%. Today, it more than doubles that forecast and the estimate for growth will be 1.4%. Next year, instead of growth of 1.8%, it is now forecasting 2.4%. Faster growth now means that it has revised the following four years to 2.2%, 2.6%, 2.7% and 2.7%, so growth over the forecast period is significantly up. It is still not as strong as we would like it to be, but this is the largest improvement to current year economic forecasts at any Budget or autumn Statement for 14 years. I can report that Britain is currently growing faster than any other major advanced economy: faster than France, which is contracting; faster than Germany; and faster even than America. That contrast itself points to the risks that remain for the UK from abroad, and the weakness of many of our main trading partners.
The first risk the OBR identified to our economic recovery is a recurrence of the damaging instability in the eurozone. Even with the relative calm of recent months, the OBR still forecasts that the euro area as a whole will shrink by 0.4% this year. Its growth forecasts for the US and emerging markets have also been revised down, and world trade has been weaker than it expected in March. While our exports are growing, they are not growing as fast as we would like. That is because we are too dependent on markets in Europe and North America. The Prime Minister’s visit to China this week is the latest step in the Government’s determined plan to increase British exports to the faster growing emerging markets, something our country should have done many years ago. Today, I am doubling to £50 billion the export finance capacity available to support British businesses, expanding the help available to firms in these emerging markets and ensuring that our excellent new Trade Minister, Lord Livingston, has all the firepower he needs.
Let me turn to the forecast for employment. Today in Britain, employment is at an all-time high and the OBR has revised up its forecast for the future. It was expecting jobs to stay flat over the year, but it now expects the total number of jobs to rise by 400,000 this year. This is being felt right across the country. Since 2010, the number of jobs in Carlisle and on the Wirral, and from Selby to south Tyneside, have all grown faster than in London. Meanwhile, the number of people claiming unemployment benefit has fallen by more than 200,000 in the past six months—the largest such fall for 16 years. Unemployment is also lower than in 2010, and is forecast to fall further from 7.6% this year to 7% in 2015, before falling even further to 5.6% by 2018. We have the lowest proportion of workless households for 17 years.
There were those who said it was a ‘fantasy’ to believe that businesses could create jobs more quickly than the public sector would have to lose them. What they should have said was that it would be fantastic if it happened. So I have good news for them. Businesses have already created three jobs for every one lost in the public sector, and the OBR report today forecasts that this will continue, with 3.1 million more jobs being created by businesses by 2019, which, in its words, ‘more than offsets’ the million or so reduction in the public sector headcount. Far from the mass unemployment predicted, we have a record number of people in work, hundreds of thousands fewer on welfare, and unemployment lower than when we came to office, and we will have 2 million more jobs than in 2010—an economic plan that is working and a Government who are seeking a job-rich recovery for all.
Let me turn now to the forecasts for government borrowing and debt. When this Government came into office, the deficit was 11% of GDP. That was the highest level in our peacetime history. One pound in every four was being borrowed, and a former Chancellor and a former Prime Minister have now joined the consensus that spending was too high. The borrowing posed a huge risk to the economic stability and credibility of the United Kingdom, and we have taken many difficult decisions to bring that deficit down—every one contested and opposed.
I can report today, however, that the effort is paying off. The OBR uses a measure of what it calls ‘underlying public sector net borrowing’, which excludes the impact of the Royal Mail pension scheme and asset purchase facility transfers. I can tell the House that this underlying measure of the deficit, like the other deficit measure, has been revised down substantially since March. From the 11% back in 2010, the underlying deficit now falls to 6.8% this year, instead of the 7.5% the OBR forecast back in March. It then falls to 5.6% next year, then 4.4%, 2.7% and, in 2017-18, 1.2%. By 2018-19, on this measure, the OBR does not expect a deficit at all. Instead, it expects Britain to run a small surplus. These numbers mean that the Government will meet their fiscal mandate to bring the structural current budget into balance and meet it one year early.
Let me turn to the forecasts for cash borrowing on this same underlying basis. At the autumn Statement last year, there were repeated predictions that borrowing would go up. Instead, borrowing is down—and down significantly more than was forecast. In their last year in office, the previous Government borrowed £158 billion. This year, we will borrow £111 billion, which is £9 billion less than was feared in March. That falls next year to £96 billion, then down to £79 billion in 2015-16, £51 billion the year after and £23 billion the year after that. So we are set to borrow £73 billion less over the period than was forecast in March. That means that we are borrowing the equivalent of £2,500 less for every household in this country.
In 2018-19, on this cash measure too, the OBR forecasts that the Government will not have to borrow anything at all. Instead, we will run a small cash surplus. Of course, this will only happen if we go on working through our long-term plan, delivering the reductions in the deficit we plan this year, next year and in the three years after. If we gave up on the plan now, we would be saddled with a deficit still among the highest in Europe, and the government side of the House is not prepared to take that risk.
While the deficit remains, it adds to our national debt every year. The OBR today expects debt this year to come in at 75.5% of GDP, which is £18 billion lower than was forecast in March. It rises to 78.3% next year, before peaking at 80% the next year—5% lower than forecast at the Budget. In 2016-17, it then falls, albeit slightly, to 79.9%; then falls again to 78.4% and then to 75.9%. By 2017-18, debt is over £80 billion lower than forecast in March. The supplementary debt target is for debt to be falling in 2015-16. At the Budget, the OBR forecast debt to be falling in 2017-18. It is now forecast to fall in 2016-17, which is one year earlier.
But let me enter this note of caution. The OBR is clear that this is a cyclical improvement. The forecast for the continuing fall in the structural deficit has not improved. The structural deficit is the borrowing that stays behind even when the economy improves. Thanks to our actions, it has fallen from the 8.7% we inherited to 4.4% today—more than in any other major advanced economy. It goes on falling, but no faster than was previously expected because, as we have always argued, the central task of reforming government and controlling spending does not simply dissolve when growth returns. It supports the case we have made all along that economic growth alone was never going to be enough to repair Britain’s broken public finances. An improving economy does not let us off the hook for taking the difficult decisions to make sure that the Government live within their means.
The single most important economic judgment I make today is this: we will not let up in dealing with our country’s debts; we will not spend the money from lower borrowing; we will not squander the hard-earned gains of the British people. The stability and low mortgage rates, the lower deficit and falling borrowing have been hard won by this country, but let us be clear that they could easily be lost. That is why we must work through our plan to secure the British economy for the long term.
So this autumn Statement is fiscally neutral across the period. Indeed, I can announce today that we will take three new steps to entrench Britain’s commitment to sound public finances. First, we will bring forward next year an updated charter for budget responsibility and ask Parliament to support it. I can say today that both parties of the coalition have agreed that we must ensure that debt continues to fall as a percentage of GDP, including using surpluses in good years, for this purpose. In other words, this time we will fix the roof when the sun is shining.
We will look to see whether the five-year time horizon of the fiscal mandate could be shorter and even more binding now that the public finances are closer to balance, and we will see how fiscal credibility could be further enhanced by a stronger parliamentary commitment to the path of consolidation already agreed for 2016-17 and 2017-18. The answers will be written into an updated charter for budget responsibility, which will be presented to Parliament a year from now and voted upon.
The second step we take today to entrench Britain’s commitment to sound public finances is this: we will cap overall welfare spending. Welfare budgets were completely out of control when we came to office and the number of households where no one had ever worked nearly doubled. We have taken very difficult decisions to bring benefit bills down; we have saved £19 billion a year for the taxpayer. We need to maintain that discipline. The percentage of spending in the UK subject to fixed spending controls is very low by international standards—at just 50%. So from next year, we will introduce a new cap on total welfare spending.
I have had representations that the basic state pension should be included within that cap, but that would mean cutting pensions for those who have worked hard all their lives because the costs on, say, housing benefit for young people had got out of control. That is not fair, so we will not include the state pension, which is better controlled over a longer period. We will also exclude from the cap the most cyclical of benefits for jobseekers. All other benefits—from tax credits to income support to the vast majority of housing benefit—will be included in the cap.
At the beginning of each Parliament, the Chancellor of the day will set the welfare cap for the coming years, and will ask the House of Commons for its support. If the cap is breached, the Chancellor will have to explain why, and hold a vote in the House. The principle is clear: the Government have a responsibility to taxpayers to control their spending on welfare, and Parliament has a responsibility to the country to hold the Government to account for it.
That brings me to our third step. Ultimately, the test of fiscal credibility is whether you are prepared actually to make the difficult decisions that will keep spending under control. Tight discipline means that most departments are now living well within their set budgets. This year they are expected to underspend by £7 billion, which is testimony to good financial management. We can therefore be confident in reducing the contingency reserve by £1 billion this year, and reducing departmental budgets by a similar amount in the next two years. That will save a further £3 billion in total. The protections for the NHS and schools will apply, and the security and intelligence agencies and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be exempt. The Barnett formula means that over the next two years, the budgets for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will see a net increase. We will not apply those additional savings to local authorities, because we expect them to freeze council tax next year.
This year, Britain becomes the first G8 country to meet our promise to the poorest in the world to spend 0.7% of our national income on development, but we do not have to increase the budget of the Department for International Development further in order to do that. The effectiveness of the British Government’s aid effort in the Philippines, matched by the generosity of the British public, is a reminder of what marks us out as a nation, and we in this country can be very proud of it.
We are also immeasurably proud of the work of Britain’s Armed Forces. As they wind down their operations in Afghanistan, the budget that we spend there is also falling fast, so we can reduce the military special reserve by a further £900 million this year while still funding all operational costs. To reflect our society’s debt of gratitude to our service men and women and their families, I want to make a further £100 million of LIBOR fines available to our brilliant military charities, and to extend that support to those who care for the work of our police, fire and ambulance services. I think the whole House will agree that the terrible events in Glasgow this weekend, and the work that those services are doing right now to cope with the adverse weather conditions, remind us how much we owe to them.
Discipline with the public finances means more than just words. It means making difficult decisions, and being prepared to stick to them. It means using surpluses in good years to keep debt falling, so that we fix that roof when the sun is shining. It means capping welfare to keep it under control, and, when we do want to spend more money, it means finding extra ways in which to pay for it. One of the biggest single items of government spending is the basic state pension. I am proud to be in a Government who have introduced a triple lock that ensures a fair and generous increase in the state pension every year for those who have worked hard all their lives. I can confirm that next April the state pension will rise by a further £2.95 a week. That increase, and the other increases that have been made under this Government, mean that pensioners will be more than £800 better off every year. I can announce that we are also going to offer current pensioners an opportunity to make voluntary national insurance contributions to boost their income in retirement, and that we will extend that opportunity to those who reach pension age before the introduction of the single-tier pension. That will help those who have not built up much entitlement to the additional state pension, especially women and the self-employed.
However, we must also guarantee that the basic state pension is affordable in the future, even as people live longer and our society grows older, and the only way in which to do that is to ensure that the pension age keeps pace with life expectancy. The Pensions Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, puts in place reviews of the pension age every five years. We have set the principle that will underpin those reviews. We think that a fair principle is that, as now, people should expect to spend up to a third of their adult lives in retirement. Based on the latest life expectancy figures, applying that principle would mean an increase in the state pension age to 68 in the mid-2030s and to 69 in the late 2040s. The exact dates will be set by the future statutory reviews and in line with the most up-to-date demographic data, of which the next update is published next week. This is one of those difficult decisions that Governments have to take if they are serious about controlling the public finances. Future taxpayers will be saved around £500 billion. Young people will know that our country can afford to give them a proper pension when they retire. That is this generation fulfilling its obligations for fiscal responsibility to the next generation, not saddling them with the debts and the decisions we were not prepared to deal with ourselves.
Having sound public finances also means making sure that we collect the taxes that are due. Most wealthy people pay their taxes and make a huge contribution to funding our public services; the latest figures show that 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of taxpayers. We have given incentives to enterprise and cut punitive tax rates, and this year the rich pay a greater share of the nation’s income taxes than was the case in any year under the last Labour Government. But alongside those paying the most tax are those who try to avoid paying their fair share of tax. So today we set out in detail the largest package of measures to tackle tax avoidance, tax evasion, fraud and error so far this Parliament. Together it will raise over £9 billion over the next five years.
We are going to tackle the growth of intermediaries disguising employment as false self-employment, depriving workforces of basic employment rights such as the minimum wage in a bid to avoid employer national insurance. We will halve the final period exemption for capital gains tax private residence relief. We will end the abuse of dual contracts, offshore oil and gas contracting, derivatives linked to profits and share buy-backs. And we will ensure the tax advantages of partnerships are not abused either. We are introducing a new, limited power that requires people to pay up front their taxes where the scheme they used has already been struck down by the courts. We are going to strengthen Whitehall’s capacity to prevent error and tackle fraud in the benefit and tax credit systems, and expand its efforts to recover money that is owed.
There is one personal tax change we make today which is not about avoidance, but is about fairness. Britain is an open country that welcomes investment from all over the world, including investment in our residential property. But it is not right that those who live in this country pay capital gains tax when they sell a home that is not their primary residence while those who do not live here do not—that is unfair. So from April 2015, we will introduce capital gains tax on future gains made by non-residents who sell residential property here in the UK.
I can also announce that from 1 January next year the rate of the bank levy will rise to 0.156% and its base will be broadened in ways we have consulted on. The levy will raise £2.7 billion in 2014-15 and £2.9 billion each year from 2015-16. The country stood behind the banks in the crisis, and now it is right that they support the country in recovery.
Having a Government who live within their means is essential to secure the economy for the long term, but it is not sufficient. Britain has to earn its way in the world. Our infrastructure needs to be overhauled. We have to help our businesses compete. Above all, our young people need the skills to succeed in the modern world. This autumn Statement takes the next big steps in all these areas.
Let me start with infrastructure. We are going to be spending more on capital as a proportion of national income on average over this decade than over the whole period of the last Government. That has involved making tough choices about priorities in spending and sticking to them. But that is not the most difficult decision in this area. We have to decide whether we are serious as a country about competing in the modern world and say to people that we need the new roads and the new railways, including the northern hub and High Speed 2. We have to say that we are prepared to push the boundaries of scientific endeavour, including in controversial areas, because Britain has always been a pioneer.
We should say that the country that was the first to extract oil and gas from deep under the sea should not turn its back on new sources of energy such as shale gas because it is all too difficult, and the country with the world’s first civil nuclear programme should not be a country that says we can do this no longer.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary and Lord Deighton published the update to the national infrastructure plan. That includes a co-operation agreement with Hitachi on the next nuclear power station in Anglesey and a deal with the insurance industry to invest at least £25 billion in UK infrastructure. We published the strike prices that support long-term investment in offshore wind and prioritise it over onshore wind. Today we go further, with a commitment to invest in quantum technology, and a new tax allowance to encourage investment in shale gas that halves tax rates on early profits. In the week in which Professor Peter Higgs travels to Stockholm to collect his Nobel prize for physics, we commit to build a new centre in his name at Edinburgh University, because science is a personal priority of mine.
Some of the most important infrastructure for British families is housing and we must confront this simple truth: if we want more people to own a home, we have to build more homes. The Office for Budget Responsibility is absolutely right today to draw attention to the weakness of housing supply in this country. The good news is that the latest survey data showed residential construction growing at its fastest rate for a decade. Our hard-won planning reforms are delivering a 35% increase in approvals for new homes, but we need to do more.
This week, we are announcing £1 billion of loans to unblock large housing developments on sites in Manchester and Leeds and across the country. We will increase the housing revenue account borrowing limit by £300 million. Aspiration is not only for people who can afford their own home. We want to regenerate some of our most run-down urban housing estates. Councils will sell off the most expensive social housing, so they can house many more families for the same money. We are going to give working people in social housing a priority right to move if they need to for a job.
Right-to-buy applications have doubled under this Government, and we will expand it more. The very same spirit of aspiration that underpins right to buy is what drives this Government with Help to Buy. It is not enough to build more houses if families who can afford mortgages do not have the large deposits that the banks have demanded. Help to Buy is now helping thousands to own their own home. I can today announce that Aldermore and Virgin, two challenger banks, expect to join the scheme this month. Help to aspiring families and building more homes: that is what we stand for.
We must also avoid the mistakes of the past decade. We want a responsible recovery. That is why I am the first Chancellor to give the Bank of England the responsibility and the power not only to monitor overall debt levels, but to take action to deal with asset bubbles if they threaten our stability.
We want a functioning, stable housing market. The OBR’s latest house price forecast today, while higher, still has real house prices 3.1% lower in 2018 than at their peak in 2007. Together with Governor Carney, I acted last week to focus the funding for lending scheme away from mortgages on to small business lending, where its support is still needed. It is precisely because the authorities can act in this targeted and pre-emptive way, and because our public finances are under control, that the Bank can keep overall interest rates lower for longer and support the rest of the economy.
Investing in the physical infrastructure of our country is critical to our future. But in this global economy, it is better education and skills that hold the key to long-term national success. This week’s programme for international student assessment—PISA—scores show how much ground this country has to make up. My right honourable friend the Education Secretary is doing more to transform school standards and raise the aspirations of pupils from the poorest families than anyone who has done that job before him. His expansion of free schools and academies has the full backing of this Chancellor.
We also know that children do better at school when they have a proper meal inside them. This autumn Statement has found the financial resources to fund the expansion of free school meals to all schoolchildren in reception, year 1 and year 2, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and supported by me.
But today we also focus on what happens when our young people leave school—and we do more to help them. First, we will not abandon those who leave school with few or no qualifications. At present, Jobcentre Plus does almost nothing to help 16 and 17 year-olds who are not in work or education. We will change that and will now fund the jobcentres to support these very young adults to find an apprenticeship or a traineeship.
Without basic maths or English, there is a limited chance any young person will be able to stay off welfare, so we are taking a new approach. Starting in some areas at first, anyone aged 18 to 21 signing on without those basic skills will be required to undertake training from day one or lose their benefits. If they are still unemployed after six months, they will have to start a traineeship, take work experience or do a community work placement—and if they do not turn up, they will lose their benefits.
A culture of worklessness becomes entrenched when young people can leave school and go straight on to the dole with nothing expected in return. That option is coming to an end in our welfare system.
The second reform is to apprenticeships. We have doubled the number of apprenticeships and now we will transform the way they are provided by funding employers directly through HMRC. I can tell the House there will now be an additional 20,000 higher apprenticeships over the next two years. I can also announce a big expansion of start-up loans, through which a new generation of entrepreneurs is being created: 50,000 more people will be helped to fulfil their aspiration to start their own business. We are extending the new enterprise allowance, too.
This year is also the 50th anniversary of the Robbins report, which challenged the nonsense that university was suitable only for a small few. In 1963, Robbins said:
‘Courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so’.
That was true then, and I believe it should remain true today. Our reforms to student loans, difficult as they were, have put our universities on a secure footing. Some predicted that applications from students from poor backgrounds would fall. Instead, I can report that this year we have had the highest ever proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds applying to university.
But there is still a cap on aspiration. Each year, about 60,000 young people who have worked hard at school, got the results, want to go on learning and want to take out a loan to pay for it are prevented from doing so because of an arbitrary cap. That makes no sense when we have a lower proportion of people going to university than even the United States, let alone countries such as South Korea. Access to higher education is a basic tenet of economic success in the global race, so today I can announce that next year we will provide 30,000 more student places, and the year after we will abolish the cap on student numbers altogether.
Extra funding will be provided to science, technology, and engineering courses. The new loans will be financed by selling the old student loan book, allowing thousands more to achieve their potential.
Education underpins opportunity. It is business that provides those opportunities and the best way to help business is by lowering the burden of tax. KPMG’s report last week confirmed for the second year running that Britain has the most competitive business tax system in the world. Some in this House suggest that our response to this good news should be to increase corporation tax from 20%. Today, we publish the first of our studies into the dynamic effects of tax changes that shows that our corporation tax cuts increase investment and raise productivity—so much so that more than half the cost of the tax cut to the Treasury will be recovered because of higher growth. Putting up corporation tax hits investment, cuts productivity, costs jobs and raises much less. We thank the honourable Members for their submission, but we think it would be economic madness to pursue it.
Quite the reverse, today we take further steps to make our business taxes yet more competitive. The Budget announcement that we would abolish stamp duty on AIM shares was applauded around the world. Today, we also abolish stamp duty for shares purchased in exchange traded funds to encourage those funds to locate in the UK. We are making our successful film tax relief even more generous, and looking to extend the principle, including to regional theatre. We set out major reforms to encourage employee ownership of the kind that makes John Lewis such a success. And from April, we will be one of the first countries in the world to introduce a new tax relief for investment in social enterprises and new social impact bonds. I want to thank Sir Ronnie Cohen and my honourable friend the Charities Minister for all their help in putting this innovative scheme together.
Business rates impose a heavy burden on businesses of all sizes. Today, we will help ease that burden—and here is how. The last Government wanted to halve small business rates relief—a relief that helps cut rates bills for half a million companies and means a third of a million of the smallest businesses pay no rates at all. If we had followed that plan, small businesses would have faced a rate increase of up to £3,375. So we have rejected that plan. Instead, we have extended that rate relief scheme year after year. It was due to expire next April. We will now extend it for another whole year. We have also listened to the small business groups and will relax the rules that discourage these firms from expanding and opening extra premises.
But that does not go far enough. All businesses are expecting rates to rise by 3.2% next year. Instead, I will cap the inflation increase in business rates for all premises at 2% from next April. We will also allow businesses to pay their rates in 12 monthly instalments. We will clear almost all the backlog of valuation appeals by July 2015, with reform of business rates on the agenda for 2017 revaluation.
There is one group of businesses that has found the recession especially hard, as it has coincided with a rising challenge from the internet that is only getting stronger. These are our local retailers—the shops, the pubs and the cafés that make up our high streets across Britain. With Small Business Saturday this weekend, I want the Government to do all we can to help them. We are already changing the planning rules to help town centres compete. To get the vacant shops that blight too many town centres to open again, I am introducing a new reoccupation relief that will halve the rates for new occupants.
But we can do more, and I want to thank my honourable friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West, Nuneaton, Hastings and Rye and many others for their campaign. Like them, I also want to help those who have struggled hard on our high streets—often working long hours for not enough in return. So I can announce today that for the next two years every retail premise in England with a rateable value of up to £50,000 will get a discount on their business rates. This discount will be worth £1,000 off their bills.
This is what we offer: business rates capped; for the smallest firms, no rates at all; and help for the high street, with £1,000 off for small shops, pubs, cafés and restaurants across our country. The people in these businesses epitomise the hard-working values this Government support, and we are backing British businesses all the way.
And we are backing British families. Next April, the personal allowance will reach £10,000. This Government are delivering an income tax cut worth up to £700 a year to over 25 million hard-working people. Under the last Government, council tax doubled. We are now helping councils freeze it for the whole of this Parliament. Tax-free childcare is being introduced and free school meals are on their way. But there is more we are doing to help.
This autumn Statement confirms that from April 2015 we will introduce a new transferable tax allowance for married couples. Available to all basic rate taxpayers, it enables people to transfer £1,000 of their personal allowance to their wife, husband or civil partner. It is just a start. And I confirm today that we will introduce a new uprating mechanism that ensures the new married couples tax allowance is automatically increased in proportion to the personal allowance. Four million families will benefit, many of them among the poorest working families in our country. This measure, along with the others we take today, ensures that across this Parliament our policies are progressive, showing that we are all in this together, with the very rich paying the most.
We are also helping families with their energy bills, not with a transparent con by pretending that we can control the world oil price, but instead by focusing on the thing that Government can and should control—the levies and charges that previous Energy Secretaries piled on bills. This week we deliver on the promise made by the Prime Minister to roll back those levies. The result: an average of £50 off family bills. We are doing this in a way that supports the lowest income families, reduces carbon, supports investment in our energy infrastructure and, as the document shows, does not add a penny to the tax bills that families pay. My political philosophy is clear: instead of penalising people with more taxes and more regulation, give them incentives by reducing their taxes and their bills. As I have often said, going green does not have to cost the earth.
That brings me on to fuel duty. We inherited from the previous Government the hated fuel duty escalator that would have inflicted hardship on families and small firms alike. Instead of those rises, we abolished the escalator, and we have cut and then frozen fuel duty. I have had further representations from many honourable friends, from the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, to the Member for Argyll and Bute, and of course the Member for Harlow, who is a champion of the people he represents.
I said earlier this autumn that if we could find the money, I would like to go on freezing duty. Today I can report that because we have taken difficult decisions to control the public finances, I can deliver on that promise. Next year’s fuel duty rise will be cancelled. Instead of petrol taxes going up by 2p a litre, they will stay frozen. That means that, compared with the previous Government’s plans, petrol will be 20p a litre less. That is £11 less every time you fill up—a saving for drivers over this Parliament of £680, and double that for a small business with a van.
Cancelling fuel duty rises has been a major priority of the Government—a £22 billion demonstration that we are on the side of hard-working people in this country. A married couples allowance; £50 off energy bills. We are helping those who drive a car and we are helping those who get the train, too. Fares next January were going to go up by 1% above inflation. We are going to keep average fares flat in real terms.
We on the government Benches know that there is one thing more than any other that has supported families through these difficult times, and that is being in work. At the heart of our economic plan is support for the creation of more jobs. That is why we opposed the last Government’s plan to increase the jobs tax. That is why we reversed the most damaging part of that increase in the very first Budget after we came to office. That is also why in the last Budget I introduced the employment allowance, which eliminates the jobs tax for half a million small businesses. And that is why we will go further still. We are going to abolish the jobs tax on young people under the age of 21. Employer national insurance contributions will be removed altogether on a million and a half jobs for young people. We are not going to leave young people behind as the economy grows. We are going to have a responsible recovery for all.
The cost for a business of employing a young person on a salary of £12,000 will fall by over £500. For someone on £16,000, that is over £1,000 off. I want to commend my honourable friends for Braintree and Carlisle and the Million Jobs campaign for highlighting this issue. The change requires legislation. It will come into force in April 2015, and it will not apply beyond the upper earnings limit.
This country is working through its long-term plan: bringing down the deficit and dealing with the debt; spending less on welfare and making the big decisions on infrastructure; living within our means and cutting tax on business; making work pay and letting people keep more of what they earn; and with confidence in the next generation, as they make their way in education and in the workplace. This Statement shows that the plan is working. It is a long-term plan for a grown-up country. But the job is not done. By doing the right thing, we are heading in the right direction. Britain is moving again. Let us keep going.”
Lord Deighton
I will. My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his measured response and forensic questioning, which I shall do my very best to address in an entirely constructive fashion.
However, I want to set a bit of reality and context to the discussion about the economy. Clearly, there was lots of good news to report and we as a nation, across the parties, should welcome the recovery of the economy that we have seen in recent months. Growth is up: the OBR has just restated that the growth forecast for 2013 is up from 0.6% to 1.4%. For 2014 the forecast has been increased from 1.8% to 2.4%. The deficit is down. As a percentage of GDP in 2010 it was 11%; it will be 6.8% this year and will be at a small surplus in 2018-19.
The noble Lord makes much of the fact that some of the original projections in 2010 envisaged those targets being reached earlier. Of course, the two principal reasons that they were not were, first, that the depth of the crisis in 2008-10 proved to be much, much greater, with over 7% taken out of GDP, as we have just discovered. Secondly, the external circumstances surrounding the economy in the past three years, in particular the fact that the euro region was on the verge of having its currency broken up, put a damper on the economy. To find ourselves in this economic situation today, despite those prevailing winds, is a testimony to the strength of this Government’s economic strategy.
Surprise, surprise, there was no mention of employment, which sits at record levels, with the lowest proportion of workless households for the past 17 years and the creation of 1.4 million new private sector jobs. There were some interesting announcements in the Autumn Statement today, particularly around trying to help young people into those job opportunities: namely, the scrapping of national insurance contributions for under-21s and specific measures for Jobcentre Plus to deal with 16 and 17 year-olds, which are addressing something absolutely critical for the nation.
On inflation, let us talk a little about real wages. Of course, the reason that people are feeling the squeeze is the result of the significant collapse in the economy in 2008-10, from which we are trying to recover. That is the problem; that is why real wages fell sharply. Above-target inflation occurred through 2011-12 because of external influences, principally commodity prices and the oil price.
The good news is that inflation is now slowing down. It was at 2.2% in the previous quarter. The OBR says that we will hit our 2% target by 2016. So we see inflation coming down and earnings recovering. But earnings do not tell the whole story. Total, real household disposable incomes have increased by 3.9% since the crisis, and that has been supported by government policy—for example, the increase in the personal allowance to £10,000, which will be coming through next year—as well as those strong employment levels.
Of course, the critical thing in this argument is that the only way to improve living standards is to grow the economy. There cannot be a cost-of-living strategy without an economic strategy. We have heard nothing from the Opposition about an economic strategy, which is not surprising because the one they were professing has been demonstrated to be a complete failure. The numbers I have just gone through show very clearly that you can have both a reduction in the deficit and a recovery in economic growth. It was the axiom of the opposition strategy that that just was not possible. The facts have demonstrated that it is.
I absolutely accept that there is still a lot to do. We are not at all complacent about the situation. It was a very deep recession. We are recovering from it effectively but still relatively slowly. Although on an international basis we are one of the strongest performing economies at the moment, there is still an enormous amount to do. Our deficit level is still far too high. Of course, the level of debt created by the accumulation of borrowing in order to finance the deficit leaves us in an exposed and unsustainable position unless we continue to bring it down. That is why the overall message in this Autumn Statement is the commitment to fiscal neutrality, even though the temptation to indulge in giveaways could, at the political level, be strong.
I admire the Chancellor’s discipline. Taking a grip of the long-term risks around pension costs is absolutely the right thing to do, to match pensions to longevity. Putting a constraint on the absolute size of the welfare bill—the part of our spending that was most out of control, among the many out-of-control elements of the previous regime—so that the Chancellor will have to come back to Parliament to be scrutinised if that significant part of our spending gets out of whack, is a very disciplined part of the equation. We will also continue to see a reduction in government spending at the margin—continuing to capture the underspends that we will see this year, which are a function of prudent financial management, but ensuring that year after year we continue with that efficiency drive to ensure that the state delivers its services in a reformed and efficient way.
The noble Lord said that the Chancellor mentioned neither productivity nor exports. With respect, that is not correct. He did refer to productivity and said that it is expected to increase in 2014-15 and 2015-16 as the economy recovers, which is in the OBR independent report, and that this will drive the cost-of-living recovery. He also talked about exports. If one looks at the balance of the recovery, it is consumer-led. Everybody accepts that. It is not surprising that it is consumer-led. Consumption is by far the biggest part of the economy. The OBR’s estimate is that business investment will recover strongly next year and the year after. Of course, everything that the Government are doing on the supply side of the economy is focused on supporting that.
The Chancellor absolutely said that exports were disappointing. The reason they are disappointing is that the markets into which we export, predominantly the European Union and the US, have been relatively weak through the period, which is why our efforts have been so focused on developing export markets in the faster-growing developing economies; hence the Prime Minister’s recent trip to China, for example. We are absolutely in tune with the requirement to improve the net trade balance.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that at the heart of living standards recovery is the improvement in productivity that will come with the growth in the economy, but in the mean time this Government have been very attentive to supporting hard-working individuals, whether it is through the £50 improvement to energy bills, the freeze on fuel duty, the married couple’s allowance, free school meals for the up-to-seven year-olds and freezing rail fares in real terms. Those are just some of the examples of the measures.
There have been very targeted efforts to ease the burden on those who are feeling it most, including the most consistent and effective attack on tax avoidance that this country has ever seen, which is yielding considerable savings to the Exchequer that can be deployed against some of these targeted cost-of-living measures.
On the question of free markets, I am proud of the work that we did all together in this House to come up with the right answer on payday loans. I make no apologies for that. It was a really good example of the work that this House can do on a collaborative basis, and a specific example of the general work we are doing on banking reform.
It is hard to know where to start on the 2007-08 banking crisis. It was the regulatory regime that was the great revolutionary change of the previous Government; taking control away from the Bank of England, which meant that the regulatory system was quite unable to cope with what was happening. This of course led us, with the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, to completely change the regulatory framework.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome many aspects of the very imaginative Autumn Statement. Regretfully, I have to deplore once again the fact that many aspects of it were leaked in advance. I would have thought that the Treasury would have learnt the lesson from a previous Budget experience that this is not a good way of handling public relations—and is very discourteous indeed to Parliament. Parliament has the right to hear these matters first.
The good news, certainly, as my noble friend has just said, is that the economy is recovering faster than expected. Perhaps I might comment on why this has happened. There are, I think, two particular aspects. The first is that the deficit has not been cut as fast as we hoped and that consequently, the economy has picked up a little more, because of the effect on aggregate demand. None the less, I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has now set out a very firm timetable for getting down not only the underlying cyclical deficit but also the structural deficit. This is something to be welcomed. Up to now, we have rejoiced in the fact that we have cut the deficit by a third, but we are still continuing to borrow at two-thirds of the appalling rate that we inherited from the previous Government. It is very important that my noble friend agrees that that should be tackled.
The second reason, which gives more cause for concern, is the substantial reduction in saving—apparently the biggest fall in saving for 40 years. People have been using their savings, which has accelerated the growth of the economy, which may lead to concern. Given his particular responsibility for infrastructure, does my noble friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that we get savings up? The finance has to be provided for the infrastructure that the Government envisage.
In that context, I will ask one particular point. We seem to have got away from financing infrastructure in the usual way: that is, by allowing capital to be provided by whoever is launching the operation and then working it up in the usual way. Instead of that, we have been allowing monopolistic enterprises in particular to increase the prices on existing consumers. That has been the way in which we have been financing, for example, the railways and energy. Will he look particularly at whether this is the right way to proceed—because we are also then depending very largely on foreign investment rather than our own domestic savings and ownership?
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for those incisive observations. He is absolutely right to say that the deficit was reduced in a measured fashion, which is part of the reason why the economy has been able to recover so quickly. He is also absolutely right that there is still a structural deficit, so we cannot simply allow for the natural recovery through the economic cycle to take care of our borrowing problem; we must continue to drive savings through the system. On the fall in consumer savings, again, my noble friend is absolutely right that it is a sign of a healthy economy to have a strong savings rate. On consumer behaviour, it is not surprising that, after a few years of belt-tightening, there has been a desire to begin spending again.
On the overall economy, as I mentioned, the recovery in business investment is the single most important change in the recovery of the economy over the next year. We anticipate that the recovery in consumer demand will give business the confidence it needs to increase its level of investment, which is what should sustain the recovery.
On infrastructure, my noble friend is correct. Essentially, there are two ways to finance it: directly from taxpayers or indirectly through the private sector and into the utilities, which then recover the investment through consumers paying. Of course, that is governed by independent regulators, who set the prices in those industries. It is absolutely part of our national infrastructure plan continually to assess the balance between the interests of the investing institutions and consumers’ affordability over the longer term.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding the verbal fisticuffs in another place, I am sure that no one in your Lordships’ House thinks that the Autumn Statement does not contain a lot of good news. Perhaps I could ask the Minister one or two, or three or four questions.
I assume that the Minister will agree that our two parties going into coalition government in 2010 was essential to restore the economy to the point where we could have the Autumn Statement today, and that, without that coalition being formed, that would not have happened. Touching on the coalition, I am well aware, as are all noble Lords, that coalitions mean trade-offs. One of them is the married tax allowance. It is obviously above the Minister’s pay grade to say whether it is time to change it, but if the object is to save marriages, would it not have been better to spend the money on organisations that help them, rather than to introduce that to satisfy the Tory right-wing?
Has there been any progress on the tax fairness proposals that David Cameron announced at the G8, with negotiations on international co-operation? The Minister touched on tax avoidance. How much have tax evasion and aggressive avoidance been affected? How much is currently raised annually from the Government’s measures? Does he agree that, although the plan announced yesterday indicates that only 1% of our GDP will be spent on infrastructure—much less than our colleagues—there is an opportunity to increase that as the economy recovers?
Finally, on a cheekier point to which I think I know the answer, bearing in mind that, as the Minister rightly says, more jobs have been created here in this country than before, have he or his colleagues had an apology from the Labour Party for saying that this would not work?
Lord Deighton
On the effectiveness of the coalition partnership, I launched the national infrastructure plan yesterday with my right honourable friend Danny Alexander, and I can say that the harmony in the Treasury could not be stronger. My noble friend is correct to say that the marriage tax allowance question is way beyond my pay grade. On the G8, I can confirm that the initiatives outlined by the Prime Minister, where we have taken global leadership to address issues of tax information exchange and publicising beneficial ownership, continued to be followed through very effectively, with us setting an example.
On the national infrastructure plan, it is clear to me that infrastructure is a very important driver of growth, and the bigger proportion of public spending we can devote to it, the healthier the long-term outcome. The measure, therefore, that my honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put in place to keep the proportion of capital expenditure to national income at a constant level is absolutely to be welcomed as a protection in that respect.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, these are time-limited questions, so the briefer individual Lords can be in making their contributions, the more Members of your Lordships’ House will be able to participate.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, whenever a bishop speaks on economics I must emphasise that we preface it with St Paul’s statement: “I speak as a fool”. I fundamentally support the Government’s strategy of getting the deficit down. My question is about the cap and how that is going to operate. Somewhere in the Statement it says that 30% of tax is now collected from 1% of taxpayers. That is a signal of how disparities of wealth have grown in our society. It really behoves us to protect the weakest. My worry is that I see a sort of American scenario of a cap being introduced and benefits not being paid because the cap is there. How will this work, when social security benefits can rise and fall with events which nobody can control? It worries me that introducing another cap of an absolute sort without reference to other realities could end up almost undergirding the underclass, which I am afraid is a developing feature of our society. Can the Minister say a bit more on how this cap is going to work?
Lord Deighton
The cap is essentially a fiscal discipline to ensure that a very large part of our budget, which in the past has had no controls around it—and no opportunity to explain what is going on—is properly scrutinised. In the circumstances where there is justification for changing the cap, that will be done under the scrutiny of Parliament. The Chancellor has not introduced what the level of the cap should be but merely an operational measure to make sure that it is properly controlled, just as other parts of the budget are, and indeed so that all the questions and issues around the appropriate level of support for vulnerable members of society can be tackled independently. Those measures should be effectively targeted and that is also part of our welfare-reform programme.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement issued by the Treasury indicates that the free school meals commitment, costing £755 million in 2015-16, is there for only two years. Can the Minister confirm that that is not the case, and can he indicate why the OBR today sees public finances worsening in the future?
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I will have to write back to him. I am not sure what the long-term budgetary arrangement is. The usual thing is that it is not specifically in the book. It is expected to be absorbed when we come to do the specific budgets in those years. I am sure the expectation is that it will continue, and that the money will be found for it when we do the budget for that year.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the measures taken to reduce the tax on employing young people, which will be welcome all around the country. But will the Minister say a little more about the £25 billion that is supposed to be coming in for infrastructure from the insurance companies? I do not think this has been referred to at all in the exchange that has taken place so far on infrastructure. How far does he think it can help in speeding up the infrastructure work? That seems to me, as the years go by, to take longer and longer, partly because the projects are very big. What we really need is not just a large amount of infrastructure work propped with finance but that it takes effect quickly rather than slowly.
Lord Deighton
I absolutely agree that one of the principal challenges for our infrastructure ambitions is accelerating the delivery of the projects which we know are important but which take time to define, to get through planning, to be organised and generally to deliver. In a nutshell, what the Government are trying to do within the national infrastructure plan is to work away at the constraints on delivering this plan more effectively. Financing is one of those, which is why we welcome the announcement from those six insurance companies. It is an interesting example of joined-up government working, because the Treasury negotiated successfully with the European Union on the solvency question. That enabled the insurance companies to be comfortable in committing to this kind of asset, because the capital treatment in Brussels is now much more sensible.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, page 1 of the Statement makes reference to the introduction of universal credit. Part of the news that we had today was confirmation that that programme is in disarray and will not be delivered on time. Can the Minister say how much public expenditure has been wasted on that to date and what the estimates are of future write-offs of abortive expenditure? If the Minister is not able to give us the figures today, will he promise to write to us and let us have that information? The Minister referred also to tax avoidance. The introduction of capital gains tax on disposals of residential property by non-residents is to be welcomed, but, from a Government who do not hesitate to legislate retrospectively for benefit claimants, why will that not be introduced until April 2015, when it is clear that the wise will forestall that tax by upping valuations in the interim?
Lord Deighton
On universal credit, I can tell your Lordships from a personal point of view that the individual whom we have brought in to manage that programme, Howard Shiplee, worked on the Olympic Games and delivering the Olympic park, so we have got the right people focused on getting the delivery of universal credit absolutely right. Our current planning assumption is that universal credit will be available in each part of Great Britain during 2016, with new claims to the benefits that it replaces having been closed down and the majority of the remaining caseload moving to universal credit in 2017. I do not have the particular numbers on how much it has cost, but I will work with DWP and provide the noble Lord with a response to that question. On capital gains tax for non-residents, we are introducing it in the normal way. The efficacy with which we have approached closing down these loopholes puts the previous Government to shame.
Lord Hollick (Lab)
The Statement recognises that we have a cyclical recovery and that in order to turn that into a sustainable, long-term recovery, we need investment—we have had a number of discussions on that—and an improvement in productivity. The Statement references a report, presumably prepared by the Treasury, showing that the policy pursued by this Government and their predecessor to reduce corporation tax has increased investment and raised productivity. In the light of this, is it not strange that the Government have so comprehensively rejected the recommendation of a report prepared by the Economic Affairs Committee of this House and enthusiastically endorsed by all sides in a recent debate that we take measures to ensure that all companies pay corporation tax, particularly those international companies which currently do not, and that UK companies using complex and—frankly—dodgy procedures not to pay tax here should all be required to pay tax? As a result of that, the tax rate to both large and small companies could be substantially reduced, to the benefit of productivity, and the Treasury would be no worse off.
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Lord for his analysis of our need for investment. We also talked about productivity. The review that the noble Lord referred to that the Treasury did on corporation tax is what we describe as dynamic modelling, which means understanding the long-term effects of the tax cuts and demonstrating that the increase in income that flows afterwards pays for the majority of them. The way that we are dealing with making sure that overseas companies pay their fair share is through the OECD and taking leadership internationally. I think that is the only way that you can do it. You have to be able to deal with these international companies on a global basis, otherwise it is impossible to close them down, so that is probably the right way to approach it. The general trend of getting people to pay less tax and making sure that everybody pays that tax is the right strategy, and one that is working well for this country.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I was not here at the beginning so I merely repeat something that has been said by somebody else. I do not believe the Minister answered the question from my noble friend Lord McFall about the OBR. Perhaps I could repeat the question. I believe my noble friend asked why the OBR was predicting that the economic situation would get worse in the years ahead.
Lord Deighton
The short answer is that you would probably need to ask it. As a former economist I can take this lightly, but in the short term, where I would rely much more on their forecast, the recovery is strong. In the longer term, if you look at the way the OBR handles it, it shows a fan of growth forecasts which comprehends just about every single possibility in the longer term.
National Infrastructure Plan
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, as honourable Members will be aware, this June, I made a Statement to the House laying out the Government’s long-term plans for UK infrastructure, in which I set out our plans to invest more than £100 billion of taxpayer’s money over the next decade towards improving our transport networks, energy networks, digital networks and other specific infrastructure projects crucial to our civic life.
This morning, the Government published the latest updates of the national infrastructure plan, or NIP, and the investment pipeline. First, the documents provide an update on the projects that have been delivered to date, including the completion of 353 flood and coastal erosion schemes; 36 transport projects; major station upgrades, as we have seen at Kings Cross; and 10,000 houses being given access to superfast broadband every week.
Secondly, the documents update our plans to further improve delivery. The updated pipeline provides the most comprehensive overview of planned and potential infrastructure investment ever produced, which gives investors the long-term clarity and certainty they need to put their money into our infrastructure.
The NIP also includes changes around legal and planning practices, including reforms to judicial review.
Thirdly, the documents update some of the details of our last infrastructure plan, including: changes to energy strike prices reducing slightly support for onshore wind and solar; increasing investment in offshore wind; meeting our growth commitments as cost-efficiently as possible; decisions on the option of the renewable heat incentive regime; changes to specific transport schemes, such as our decision not to toll the A14; to provide new investment in the A5; and to contribute £30 million to the garden bridge in London, as well as other important developments, such as our plans to double our corporate asset sales target.
Finally, today’s publication lays out the commitment, made today by a group of insurers, to work with government and regulators and invest £25 billion in UK infrastructure over the next five years. I am sure that honourable Members will agree that this represents a massive vote of confidence in the UK economy.
It also draws attention to the new agreement, signed with Hitachi and Horizon this morning, which commits us in principle to offering a guarantee for their nuclear power station at Anglesey. I am sure that honourable Members who have had a chance to look through the document will recognise that this is real evidence that we are making real progress on delivering an infrastructure fit for our country’s future.
The NIP is a plan that demonstrates a long-term vision for our energy, transport and digital networks. It is a plan that is helping to secure long-term investment. It is a plan that will lead to sustainable, strong, long-term growth. As such, I look forward to the honourable Member welcoming it with open arms and congratulating us on our progress”.
That concludes the Statement.
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Lord for bringing his experience to bear on what is a very important subject. I do not want to go through the normal procedure, whereby the Government lay out their plan for infrastructure and then the Opposition say that nothing much is happening. It is much too important for that. Remember that there was no national infrastructure plan before this Government came into office in 2010. All the reasons around any deferral of capital expenditure are totally a function of the economic mess that the previous regime left this country in.
Lord Deighton
One can laugh but it is as simple as that. Over the past three years, we have been trying to fix that problem—to stabilise the fiscal position and to push across money into vital capital schemes where we can afford it. That is what happened in the Autumn Statements in 2011 and in 2012. All the schemes that we laid out then are absolutely on timetable in terms of the announcements made at those points.
My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary went through the entire list of things that are currently being delivered, but the purpose of this plan is to break us out of the short-term cycle. I do not want us to be 27th on that list of countries: we are there because of 30 to 40 years of underinvestment. We, on both sides of the House, need to fix this together by promoting a focus on infrastructure to the top of the priority list for our economic strategy. We need to continue, through Government after Government, to prioritise in the right way; to get the systems working so we choose the right projects; to improve our capability so we deliver them effectively; and to make sure that this country is modernised in the way it deserves.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I will give you a change from criticism. This plan is one of the first attempts to bring our infrastructure up to date but—there is a big “but”—we do not have the trained people to build power stations, develop the railway or set up the broadband. It is essential that we put some real life into the provision of engineering apprenticeships to provide the skilled people we need. I ask the Government to focus the necessary attention, once again, on our poor record in engineering training.
Lord Deighton
I thank my noble friend for his praise for the plan. It is important to focus consistently, year after year, on improving our capability to deliver infrastructure. I absolutely accept the importance of ensuring that we have a pipeline of engineering capability, brought right through from schools—and a renewed focus on STEM subjects—universities and research establishments, to enable us to deliver these projects effectively.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I speak as somebody who studied a bit of economics a very long time ago. All Ministers understand as well as I do that what happened in 2008 was, in fact, a banking crisis that began in the United States and affected the western world. We happen to have some big banks here and it therefore caused us some difficulties. It is not fair to neglect, over and over again, where this all started.
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Baroness for broadening the perspective of the debate. While I accept that the banking crisis was an important contributor, it is clear to me, from my time in the Treasury, that the spending planned through those last few years created significant problems for this country.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, what proportion of the sums involved in the schemes announced today, many of which are recycled, do the Government expect to be spent in the north-east, the region with the highest levels of unemployment—in particular youth unemployment—in the country?
Lord Deighton
I am afraid I do not have the regional breakdown at my fingertips. However, if the noble Lord would care to go into the national infrastructure plan website, there is a map where you can drill down and see the details of every planned project, region by region.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, do the plans include the long, long-awaited dualling of the A1 in north Northumberland?
Lord Deighton
That particular project, along with five or six others, is the subject of a feasibility study to determine the right solution. Next year, when all those studies are complete, we will make a decision to go ahead with the proposed solution.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, had the Government stuck to Labour’s spending plans, capital expenditure would have been cut by considerably more and that, in coming into Government, we actually increased the allocation for capital expenditure? I congratulate him on his initiative, but how are the Government’s proposals to reduce the cost of electricity consistent with promoting offshore wind farms, which are the most expensive possible form of renewable energy and which will have to be paid for through people’s electricity bills?
Lord Deighton
With the first part of his question, as always, my noble friend forensically brings us to the detail. It is quite true that the Opposition’s plans for capital expenditure were lower than this Government’s. Subsequently, we switched current spend into capital spend in the Autumn Statements in 2011 and 2012, which further exacerbated this side’s advantage on investment. On my noble friend’s observation about offshore wind strike prices, the purpose of today’s announcement was to give the industry certainty in order to be able to get on with the building that we need, not only in nuclear but in wind and, over time, with the capacity mechanism, in gas. There are of course a variety of views about the speed at which we should decarbonise and the value of that, but the current status reflects our view on getting a diversified supply of energy.
Baroness Ford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Statement hints at changes to judicial review. As the Minister well knows, delivering infrastructure requires not just a plan —which we are pleased to hear about even though we, as a Government, plainly had a plan, whether he recognises that or not—but access to requisite finance and, critically, planning consent. The Government in their supposed wisdom decided not to go through with the infrastructure planning commission, which would have been a huge asset in delivering speedy planning consents for major infrastructure projects. Can the Minister say whether the changes to judicial review will accomplish exactly the same end?
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention and for bringing her experience to bear on this. The whole idea of the judicial review changes is to make sure that, on all matters relating to national infrastructure, we get through the process more quickly, where it is appropriate, and fast-track them. That is consistent with what she is discussing.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Lord Deighton Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I support strongly what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, have said. I speak in support of them because this is a particularly important issue.
In constructing a safe banking system, a number of things are taken into account, including risk-weighted assets and other matters of that kind, but there is no doubt that the leverage ratio is the single most important element in having a strong and robust banking system. This amendment is not about what number it should be. I mention en passant that the Government say that we must not interfere with what the Vickers committee recommended, yet when the Vickers committee recommended a number which they did not like they disagreed with it. Nevertheless, that is water under the bridge.
The review is quite unnecessary—although it will probably not do any harm—because the issue of the leverage ratio is peculiarly simple. Who will be responsible for setting the leverage ratio, the Treasury or the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England? The amendment is important because it would give the Minister the opportunity to make a clear statement. There has been movement since Committee. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Carney, gave evidence to the Treasury Committee in another place only yesterday saying that his understanding was that it would be the responsibility of the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England. We would like to have that explicitly stated by my noble friend here today.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)
My Lords, the amendment would require the Government to make an order giving the FPC a power to direct the PRA to set a leverage ratio within six months of Royal Assent. It is absolutely the case that it will be the FPC which exercises these powers. It has never been the intention that the Treasury would have those powers. For those who are not so familiar with the context, I shall have another go at being less confusing about the background, because it is important to understand why the review is necessary to get to that end case and what the current situation is.
There was a lot of concern around the idea that the Chancellor has the power to set a leverage ratio, which I think was in part a result of some confusion about how the law currently stands and works—which in turn is partly because of the various domestic and international reforms running to different timescales. We are in a process of change and a lot is moving around.
I tried last time to clarify the current powers of the regulator and the future powers of the FPC during Committee. I thought that I nearly succeeded, because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is on record as saying that he was encouraged to some extent. That was a ringing endorsement compared to how I did on some of the other amendments, so I thought that I had done quite well.
The Government have sought to provide further clarity on this point through the recent exchange of letters with the Governor of the Bank of England. I will return to that. I hope that, with that explanation and a description of the steps that the Government will take to clarify matters further, I can satisfy your Lordships that their concerns about what I agree is a very important issue will be addressed.
First, I shall try to explain the current state of the law. Then I will explain our proposals in that context, because I think that that will give noble Lords the full picture.
Under current law, three bodies are concerned with the leverage ratio: the Treasury, the FPC and the PRA. Of course, the last two are part of the Bank of England group. Of those three, one has the direct power to set a minimum leverage ratio now. That is the PRA. Let me make it absolutely clear: it can do that not just on a firm-specific basis but on a system-wide basis. It can do that now; it has that power. It can set the leverage ratio directly, as it did back in June, or on the basis of a recommendation from the FPC. When I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, I talked about the June action of the PRA as the killer fact; it was obviously not as emphatic as I hoped.
Under FiSMA, the FPC has two sorts of powers. First, there is a wide power of recommendation on any issue with regard to financial stability, which it makes to the PRA to exercise under its powers on a “comply or explain” basis. For that to work, the PRA must have powers to apply rules across the whole sector, which, as I have just explained, it does. It is envisaged that that is how most of the FPC’s decisions will be enacted. Secondly, the FPC has a narrow set of macro-prudential tools, which are powers to direct the PRA to act. There are currently two powers of direction. Currently, they are a counter-cyclical capital buffer and sectoral capital requirements. The Government also committed—this was the original situation—to giving the FPC a third direction tool to vary the minimum leverage ratio once the minimum was set in 2017.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Treasury plays no role here. If the PRA wants to set a leverage ratio either under its own initiative or under the recommendation of the FPC, it does not have to ask the Treasury, and the Treasury has no veto. The Treasury is the only body of the three that does not have the power or influence to set the leverage ratio. So the debate is essentially about how and when the Treasury grants the FPC that specific power of direction over the PRA, rather than the PRA retaining some discretion in the matter.
That being established, let me turn to the Government’s recent exchange of letters with the Bank of England. The Government have already committed to give the FPC the power of direction to vary the leverage ratio through time in 2018, subject to a review in 2017, but, given progress internationally—all the transformational change that we just discussed—there is a case for such powers being given earlier, or specified in a different form. To settle this debate, the Chancellor asked the governor, who is the chair of the FPC, to review the matter and make a recommendation to him that he could take to Parliament. The Government believe that that is the right approach to granting the FPC additional powers of direction, for a number of reasons.
First, there is an existing process for the FPC being granted such powers, established under the Financial Services Act, which many in this House and the other place, including the chair of the PCBS, helped to design. These are prescribed by the Treasury by order under Section 9L of the Bank of England Act 1998. Before making an order, the Treasury must consult the FPC and make an order in Parliament. This is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so must be approved by each House of Parliament.
To fulfil their duty of proper consultation before bringing a proposal under the Act, the Government believe that it is appropriate and necessary that the Bank furnish them with the relevant information from the planned review of the leverage ratio. As noble Lords can see from the governor’s response to the Chancellor, he is more than happy to go along with that process, given the things that are going on this year. Secondly, as a matter of policy, there are a number of outstanding technical issues that will need to be settled before the Chancellor can bring fully fleshed-out proposals back to Parliament.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, this amendment repeats an amendment tabled in Committee, the aim of which was to delete what the commission thought was an otiose strategic objective for the FCA and thereby increase the prominence and importance of what were previously called its three operational objectives, one of which was the promotion of competition. I thought that the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was unsatisfactory and I wanted to pursue it a bit further. The noble Lord concluded with the following remarks:
“After taking legal advice, the FCA has subsequently written and confirmed that it is happy with the strategic objective. On that basis, we are happy that the FCA is happy and wish to retain it”.—[Official Report, 15/10/13; col. 508.]
Perhaps I might respectfully comment that the object here is not to make the FCA happy but to make it pursue diligently the competition objective, about which a number of people have reservations. I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to give us some further assurance that the competition objective of the FCA will be pursued with the vigour that I think the Treasury and this House want.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I confirm the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, that it is of course not our objective simply to make the FCA happy. I will give a slightly longer explanation of why we think that the current situation will work just fine but, to get straight to the point, it is absolutely because we believe that the overriding mission statement is entirely consistent with the vigorous pursuit of the competition objective.
In looking at this from a personal point of view, I am very comfortable with the notion of an overriding mission statement which works in harmony with the operational objectives, can be used to support and enforce them and is very useful when it comes to shades of difference between them. I am very comfortable in this case because the overriding objective of making markets work well is entirely consistent with our mutual objective of ensuring that the FCA is pursing its competition objective with the utmost vigour.
I hope noble Lords have been able to witness that where we have been able to compromise, I have been very keen to compromise, but I am afraid here it is either yes or no, and in this case I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on the basis of my suggestion that I think it is going to be okay.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I have one issue to raise with the Minister. The competitive objective, as I understand it, applies equally to the PRA as to the FCA. As noble Lords may be aware, one of the immediate issues is that the capital requirements for banks of different sizes are dramatically different, such that a small bank’s capital requirement for certain forms of mortgage lending is about 30 times the capital requirement for one of the established clearing banks. The PRA has enthusiastically welcomed changing those arrangements and taking up the challenge to create a more competitive environment, but when I recently asked why the huge difference in capital requirements relating to mortgages had not been addressed, I was told that the PRA could not move until it was able to get agreement from the EU. I am not sure whether that is correct, but it is quite important to know whether meeting the competition objective is not just a question of having our own powers to do it but that EU requirements impinge upon it.
Lord Turnbull
In tabling amendments, there are a number of objectives. The first is to get an amendment accepted, the second is to make a point and the third is to receive an assurance. I think I have achieved the second and third objectives. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I was a member of the original regulatory decisions committee at the Financial Services Authority, which noble Lords may remember was set up after FiSMA ran head first into the human rights legislation because the regulator was in many cases judge and jury. The RDC was set up as a filter, to be an independent assessor of regulatory decisions by the various divisions of the FSA and to stand as a relatively simple procedure prior to the final stage of going to a tribunal if agreement could not be reached between the regulator and the regulated person. In that respect the RDC and the old FSA worked moderately well—but only moderately.
It did not work so well for two reasons. First, there was considerable confusion over its independence. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has, in this amendment, quite rightly emphasised that the RDC should be independent of the various regulatory authorities. The second reason it did not work very well is, unfortunately, contained within the amendment, which states:
“A majority of the members of the Committee must be persons”,
with,
“no professional connection with … financial services”.
I am afraid that that, on the old RDC, caused us a lot of difficulty. Many of the cases which were quite complicated, with respect to financial services, took a long time because people who were very bright and committed but who had had no previous connection with the industry took a long time to get up to speed on the relevant issues that were considered. That condition in the old RDC arose because the FSA was succeeding the self-regulatory organisations. Therefore that was an overreaction to the role of the self-regulatory organisations such as the Securities and Futures Authority, which I also had the honour to serve on. That was abolished at that time and the reaction was, “Let’s have people from outside the industry in this particular role”.
Therefore, the idea of an independent RDC is a good one. That would avoid some of the very great expense of going to tribunal, where there might be disagreements, and it would also have the great advantage, which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out, of balancing the views of various regulators in any particular case. Of course, that was not necessary under the FSA, but it will be necessary under the new structure. This is worthy of very careful thought and consideration. It could be a very useful, positive step within the sequence of enforcement activities by the regulator.
Lord Deighton
In the spirit of the noble Lord’s approach, which was to move on from the specific amendment, I will not read out my speaking note, as entertaining and well structured as it is. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his valuable experience here. I feel as the noble Lord does—something in here needs to be sorted out, but at the moment we are not exactly sure quite what the right thing is. However, it is certainly likely to involve a review, as is recommended as part of the amendment. Therefore I am more than happy, in preparation for Report—I am sorry, I mean Third Reading—to see what we can come up with together on a review.
Lord Turnbull
On the basis of that quite generous assurance, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, we are considering a proposal to mandate the regulators to meet the auditors of all the banks they supervise at least twice a year. Strengthening the quality of engagement between auditors and supervisors is an objective that the Government share. I think that there is absolutely no disagreement between us about how important that is and how it has not always worked well in the past. I listened to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that voluntary commitments for regulators and auditors to meet regularly could easily fall into abeyance. However, some lessons have been learnt from the financial crisis, and the Government have taken meaningful steps to ensure that the new regulator does not slip into the habit of neglecting engagement with auditors.
FiSMA now includes new Section 339A, which requires the PRA to have arrangements for sharing information and opinions with auditors of PRA-authorised firms, and to publish a code of practice to set out the way in which it will comply with this obligation. This code of practice sets out in detail the principles governing the relationship between the regulators and bank auditors and must be laid before Parliament whenever it is changed. This change to the law has greatly improved the regulators’ engagement with auditors since the crisis, so the Government have taken action here. The Government believe that the action they have taken in this respect is in line with changes to ensure that the regulators now follow a judgment-led approach to supervision that ensures regulators are clear in their purpose and direct resources to the most important cases.
One of the criticisms of the old FSA was that its approach did not focus on the most significant issues and too much resource was taken up by inflexible processes. Operationally, this new legal framework forces regulators to be more diligent and allows them to be held accountable. The essential strength of the new legal framework is that it demands diligence from the regulators through parliamentary review and encourages proportionality by allowing them to specify where they will focus their resources. The result has been that the PRA will meet with firms which have the potential to cause major economic disruption in the case of failure at least three to four times per year. The FCA will meet with the auditors of those firms at least twice a year. This is exactly what we want—prioritised, high-quality engagement where it matters.
The Government therefore remain unconvinced of the value of changing the frequency of this dialogue in statute without some reference to proportionality. Two meetings a year with the auditors of important firms is too little, while the same number for very small firms may be too many. The Government favour the current legal framework with its provisions for diligence and prioritised application of resources. Of course, there may be refinements that can be made in the law to ensure that the requirements on regulators are always express.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
For clarification, if my noble friend reads the amendment, he will see that it does not say that the meetings should be held twice a year but that they should be held at least twice a year, so there is flexibility there. I hope that he will take this back and bring forward something better than he has said so far—interesting though that is—at Third Reading, because he has not addressed the critical point of the need to have a statutory requirement for these meetings to take place. He can decide what the right periodicity is; what I am anxious about is that there should be this statutory requirement.
Lord Deighton
I was just getting to that. The Government believe that there is a superior approach to strengthening the law in this area by clarifying the requirements on regulators to meet auditors enough times to accomplish their objectives. I think we agree that the periodicity should not be the constraint, although perhaps we could deal with that by a requirement to disclose the frequency of meetings with certain types of firm to ensure accountability. Such an approach would, in the view of the Government, be superior and retain proportionality and the judgment-based approach while increasing accountability. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment I will be willing to return to it at Third Reading, subject to further consideration of these issues.
Lord Higgins
Before my noble friend sits down, can we be absolutely clear what he is saying? He is saying that he is going to come forward with an amendment at Third Reading to put this measure on a statutory basis, but leave the frequency point on one side. Is that what he is saying? If not, we should reach a decision on this.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
In answer to the useful point of clarification by my noble friend Lord Higgins, will this measure definitely be on the face of the Bill?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Given that undertaking, for which I am extremely grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I, too, support the amendment. The problem that we have in the City today is that everything is moving so fast, and that traders have the capacity to use computers for all sorts of things. My noble friend Lord Lucas talked about high-frequency trading. I suspect that in three years’ time the new way of operating and making money will be something that none of us has even dreamt of. It is very important that this is reviewed and that there is an opportunity to take a very close look at it in a few years’ time.
Lord Deighton
My Lords, the PCBS did express concern, very understandably, despite the fact that proprietary trading is not as big a part of the current challenge as it perhaps was and perhaps will be. The concern is—just to show that I have grasped the point—that it will come back and become a major risk in the future. Therefore, the PCBS tabled an amendment that proposed two reviews. The first is a requirement on the regulator to review the steps it has taken to bear down on proprietary trading, and the difficulties it has encountered. The second, following such a review, would be a review commissioned by the Government into the issue, and into the case for changing the law.
I reassure noble Lords that at present we have a robust set of safeguards to deal with risks from proprietary trading. Indeed, as Andrew Bailey made clear in his response to the PCBS, the PRA thinks that it currently has the appropriate powers and tools to address risks from proprietary trading where it endangers the safety and soundness of a firm. The PRA continually monitors and reviews all risks that banks take, including those from proprietary trading, and it uses the capital regime to make these risks safe.
The new conduct regulator, the FCA, has a similarly wide range of tools, including sanctions, to ensure that banks adhere to a high standard of conduct in their business. Finally, ring-fenced banks, which are at the heart of this new legislation, will already be banned from any proprietary trading, further shielding them from any risks to which it might give rise. Therefore, the Government do not believe that there is a case for reviewing a ban on proprietary trading so shortly after these reviews and before ring-fencing has been put in place.
Lord Deighton
“Orders and regulations: general
(1) Any power of the Treasury or the Secretary of State to make an order or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an order under section 34 (payment systems: designation orders).
(3) An order or regulations made by the Treasury or Secretary of State under this Act may—
(a) make different provision for different cases, and(b) contain such incidental or transitional provision as the Treasury or Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
Lord Deighton
“( ) Section (Power to impose penalties on persons providing claims management services) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.”
Lord Deighton