LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As the Prime Minister said and I repeat, Mr Diamond has to account for himself before the Treasury Committee this week, and I congratulate the Committee on doing that. The chairman of Barclays has resigned, but it is not the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hire and fire the bank chiefs at this Dispatch Box. I am not sure that we want to go down that path; it is much better for the shareholders to do it, the board to do it, and they will have the appearance before the Committee of Mr Diamond to go on.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), will the Chancellor look again at my Financial Institutions (Reform) Bill, which would transfer commercial risk back to the banking sector and end the incentives that have created the culture of recklessness and rule-breaking that is ruining the City?

[Mr Osborne]

I will certainly take a close look at my hon. Friend’s Bill and get back to him on it.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

That is another example that should be taken on board in this debate.

Another example of general mis-selling already touched upon is where a swap is for a period longer than the loan. I have also seen examples of where the swap was for a sum in excess of the loan. Another crucial example is where the break cost for terminating the swap was described in one e-mail from a bank as being £9,000 but, three years later, when the customer approached the bank to break the swap, a figure of £135,000 was quoted to settle. I fail to understand how it could go from less than £10,000 to £135,000 in three years. That is another example of mis-selling. Another one worth mentioning is where the bank classified the client as a professional client and experienced derivative trader. I can assure the House that the business in question was blissfully unaware of the nature of the product it was buying, yet, for paperwork purposes, the bank had described it as a professional client rather than a retail client.

It is generally agreed that there is an issue here. The FSA accepts it is an issue. Bully-Banks, an organisation representing 350 victims, has done some work highlighting that 96% of businesses in its organisation were approached about such products by relationship managers. Businesses did not go looking for these products; they were approached with a solution to a problem that often they did not have. Some 87% of businesses surveyed by Bully-Banks were unaware that the adviser was not an adviser but a salesperson, and there was a general lack of understanding. In 95% of cases, businesses stated categorically that they entered into these agreements on the basis of advice and guidance given by their bank relationship managers.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I would like to offer my hon. Friend an explanation of why banks are doing this kind of mis-selling. In my private Member’s Bill last year on the regulation of derivatives, I explained how mark-to-market rules allowed banks to up-front unrealised cash flows to declare profit immediately on moneys that they have not received. I wonder whether the Treasury Committee will investigate whether that is a key factor in encouraging this bad business.

[Guto Bebb]

rose—

Banking Reform

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on a number of occasions, and I am not going to give a different answer from those that I or the Chancellor have given before.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the measures relating to bail-in and depositor preference in particular. However, I am sure he will remember that under the last Government the FSA came under political pressure. Will his measures deal with that and ensure that, in future, banks are resolved under the rule of law?

[Mr Hoban]

It is important that independent regulators exist and that their independence is credible. Going back to the FSA’s report on the RBS failure, it was interesting that the FSA clearly came under sustained pressure from the shadow Chancellor and the then Prime Minister to have a light-touch regulatory system, and we have seen the consequence of that. It is important that there are clear rules to ensure that regulators act independently and that their regulation is seen to be credible. The shadow Chancellor should recognise that he got it wrong when he called for light-touch regulation and championed it throughout the world.

Financial Services Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

The operation of that company has damaged the reputation of this country in Peru in the long term, so the Government must be seen to act to put in place a regulatory system to prevent that from happening again. The least we can do is take on board the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, which states that one factor to consider when overseeing the operation of a company listed in this country is its “ethical corporate behaviour”. In fact, the UN recently suggested that that was the role of member states, which should put place the necessary legislation and structures. My hon. Friend’s amendment is in line not only with the best interests of human rights and environmental sustainability but with the international obligations being placed on us and preserving the long-term reputation and viability of our financial services industry.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case, but are not directors already responsible under the Companies Act 2006 for many of the matters he raises? Would it not be more expedient to pursue directors?

[John McDonnell]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from but we have tried that and it has not worked. We sought under the recent Companies Act to increase the responsibilities on directors, but unfortunately we were unsuccessful. The evidence that came to the London Mining Network report, which I shall send to the hon. Gentleman, clearly shows that the existing system is not working, and this Bill provides an opportunity to enhance the powers of the regulatory authorities in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan will not push the amendment to a vote. I understand why, although I am a bit more proactive on these matters. May I suggest to the Minister that the Government usefully look at the report and bring together the relevant representatives, including the existing authorities and the new individuals who will sit on the various authorities when the Bill has gone through, to discuss where we go from here? How do we ensure that we have an effective mechanism that includes the monitoring of corporate ethical behaviour within companies that are listed in this country and that gain all the advantages from that, such as reputational advantage, but that are doing our country a disservice through their operations in the developing world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

It is important that we have some metrics by which to measure the Financial Secretary’s performance on his coalition promise. After all, it is there in black and white—the Government said they would bring forward not just proposals but detailed proposals for promoting the mutual sector. This is his moment. We want him to explain to us what those measures will be. I am sure he does not believe in putting such promises in an agreement straight after an election and then letting them drift as though they did not need to be attended to. Many people want to see greater diversity in the financial services sector, and it is important that he is held to account.

[Steve Baker]

Looking at the amendment, I wonder whether it illustrates the tensions in the contemporary labour movement. On one hand, this should be a time of celebration for all those who believe in mutuality, co-operatives and voluntary self-help, because Members of all parties are signed up to the idea. There is a Conservative co-operative movement, and many of us are very serious about it. On the other hand, Labour insists on top-down control and state direction. It wants to enshrine in legislation measurement, management and the direction of Ministers’ performance.

Is it not time that, rather than insisting on the production of numbers and pretending that the Financial Secretary can direct people to help one another voluntarily and mutually, we eliminated barriers to entry, accepted spontaneous order and encouraged people to build up the bonds of friendship and mutual co-operation? Ministers cannot direct or legislate for those bonds.

[Mr Thomas]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could describe how the amendment would in some way create a barrier to entry to the financial services market.

[Steve Baker]

I was not suggesting that it would create a barrier to entry. I was suggesting that it would put in place measurement and management. That may well appeal to some people, but if we want spontaneous order, mutual societies and bonds of friendship, we cannot get them by state direction. There is very little point in measuring the Financial Secretary’s performance when we want spontaneous order and the bonds of mutuality. I do not support the amendment, but like many other Government Members, I certainly support the thrust of the Government’s policy.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on tabling the amendment. He is doing the job that the coalition parties promised to do in the coalition agreement but are failing to do.

I shall remind the House of a quotation from the coalition agreement. That is the benchmark for the action that the Government have pledged to take, so the House and others can judge them on it. It states:

“We will bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.”

I applaud the aim of greater diversity and competition, but missing from that statement is the aim of greater confidence and trust in financial services. My hon. Friend’s amendment captures the aims of diversity, the promotion of mutuals and greater growth in mutuals. Crucially, it would also require an action plan from the Government within six months. We have not had one after two years. It would also require regular public reports and stock-takes of progress. I say to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) that those reports would be about not the Minister’s progress but the growth of mutuals, the diversity of the industry and the growth of competition in the sector—all the aims that the Government set for reform.

Mutuals bring something quite special—a concern about values, not just valuation. That is the root of the consistently greater levels of confidence and trust demonstrated by those who deal with and borrow from building societies and mutuals compared with those who deal with their corporate competitors. Mutuals display a prudence born of concern for and knowledge of their members. If we look back over the past several years, we see that building societies and mutuals have not run the reckless risks that banks and other financial services have. They have not lost their core business purpose and their sense of what they are there to do and who they are there to serve, as many banks and other financial service companies have. Mutuals did not need a public bail-out and did not cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds to make up for their mistakes like others in the banking and financial services sector did.

Amendment of the Law

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

This is a Budget that rewards work from a Government who are making work pay, and I want to express on behalf of the small businesses in Malvern and the surrounding cyber valley in my constituency the enthusiasm that exists for taking advantage of the opportunities for growth and the lower taxation rates for small businesses.

Since today’s debate is the technology debate, I point out that in my constituency we have a growing cyber sector. There is an enormous amount of business growth, and it is estimated that 500,000 jobs will be created in the sector over the next decade. Those jobs are great for young people. There is enormous demand among firms in my constituency for teenagers who may have spent a lot of time in their bedrooms on their computers and have become ethical hackers. People in my constituency with those skills are snapped up by local businesses. Perhaps that is why the number of unfilled jobcentre vacancies in West Worcestershire rose by 70% last month, which shows that there are a lot of businesses with the confidence to take on an additional employee.

As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I wish to make a point about the Government’s introduction of universal credit. We have talked a lot in these debates about the top rate of tax, but let us think about the rate that those on the lowest incomes had to pay for 13 years under Labour. Page 95 of the Red Book shows that the marginal deduction rate for a lone parent with one child working more than 10 hours was 100%. We are changing such disincentives to work by moving to universal credit, which will be very powerful in helping those on the lowest incomes into work and out of poverty.

I want to make the rather controversial statement that despite the bad press on behalf of pensioners on Thursdays, this Government have done more to help pensioners and future pensioners than any other Government in history that I can remember. First, there is the triple lock on the state pension, which will increase pensions every year by the higher of inflation, 2.5% or earnings. That is worth an enormous amount to today’s pensioners—no more 75p increases.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Did my hon. Friend, like me, hear the shadow Chancellor appearing on the Vine show during the week? The first person who came on after he had spoken was a pensioner, who denounced him and his measures.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend will also have heard in the Budget that we are abolishing the means test, which has been such a disincentive to saving for low-income pensioners, and bringing in a powerful simplification of the state pension. That will be worth much to future pensioners.

The Government are also introducing auto-enrolment, which will bring 5 million additional savers into the occupational pensions market. That is a most important step to strengthen the pensions system, and it has cross-party support.

Most important was what the Budget did not do. It did not make further changes to pension taxation and regulation, such as the amount that people can defer from their salaries to take as future retirement income. That is an important point for the overall stability of the system. Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that under the previous Government it was possible to put £250,000 into your pension fund? That was absolutely extraordinary, and I welcome the fact that this Government have lowered that limit substantially so that pensions provide fewer tax reduction opportunities for those on the highest incomes.

Finally, the Government have taken some difficult decisions on overall pensions policy and made some sensible changes that will stabilise the pensions system and make it more sustainable for the future. This is a Budget that rewards work and is good for business, and I urge all hon. Members to walk through the Lobby this evening to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I refer the House to my interest in Cobden Partners.

This is a Budget of fiscal conservatism and monetary activism. It is a Budget, above all, of economic expectations, setting out to people that we will reward work, support families, help those looking for work, back business and back aspiration. In the short time available to me, I would like to speak directly to the point of monetary activism, which is one of the Budget’s key pillars. I hope the Government will not take it as a criticism, because the Chancellor has emphasised that the Bank of England is independent and, of course, its policies are symptomatic of those followed all around the world.

Over the past 13 years under new Labour, the money supply expanded from about £700 billion in 1997 to £2.2 trillion in 2010. That was through a massive expansion of bank balance sheets—a huge amount of monetary activism led by central banks, with the Bank of England keeping interest rates too low for too long. That goes to the heart of points that Opposition Members have made. It has redistributed wealth towards the south-east and the first recipients of new money. I would say that it is at the heart of our difficulties. The scatter chart in the Red Book shows how the balance between our fiscal position and the bank balance sheet position is interlinked, and has placed us as an outlier.

When many people look at monetary activism, and quantitative easing in particular, they get worried about inflation—and why not? It would, however, be hysterical to worry about hyperinflation at this stage, when the asset purchase facility is at £325 billion—just one seventh of the money supply. I would nevertheless like to sketch out something that troubles me in my darker moments.

Right now, there is not a problem, but a housing bubble became a banking crisis—at least not a problem of inflation—which became a sovereign debt crisis, which has now been turned into an asset bubble in the bond market. The Bank of England has deliberately inflated bond prices in order to suppress long-term interest rates—interest rates that our constituents cannot do without because they are so indebted. The problem is that, as we know, all bubbles burst; the questions are when and what might burst the bond bubble. Inflation expectations might do it. If we were to look at M4 and M4ex from the Bank of England, we would see that there is no reason to doubt its inflation forecast. If we look at my preferred measure of the money supply, however, which is Kaleidic Economics MA, we can see that from July last year, year on year money supply growth was minus 2%; today, money supply is growing by that measure at plus 6%. We should thus be very cautious indeed about the Bank’s forecasts.

If the bond market bubble bursts, there will be pressure on the Bank of England to continue to prop it up. That will lead to further quantitative easing and create an expectation of rising interest rates. That could cause a flight from the bond market into cash; and it could cause the public, as they see QE continuing, to lose faith in cash itself, which could lead them to start spending.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give us an idea of when he thinks this bubble might burst—in the near or the distant future?

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as this is a critical problem. It is a problem of expectations; it about the human mind, which is extremely difficult to predict.

I was saying that, as we go through, we could find that people lose faith in cash. If they do that, they will spend it, and move into real value. Keynesians could end up celebrating an apparent boom, but actually one that is a crack-up of the currency. I sketch these events not to frighten, but to set out a perspective for the House of which we should be aware when we know that the central banks and the Bank of England have deliberately inflated this bond market bubble.

We could end up facing a choice: if prices and wages are accelerating, but less quickly than the money supply, the Bank of England will have to choose whether to supply more money or whether to abandon that monetary inflation and reveal the underlying havoc created by decades of inflationary money. Perhaps new money, instead of real resources, can be used to paper over the cracks. Perhaps expectations can be managed to avoid the bubble bursting. If I were to quote with just a little adaptation something that Hayek wrote in 1932, I would say: “We must not forget that for the last 86 or 88 years, monetary policy all over the world has followed the advice of the monetary activists. It is high time that their influence, which has already done harm enough, should be overthrown.”

Child Benefit

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

I will not give way. I want to put my points on record, and it is a very short debate. If I have time later on, I will take some interventions.

The Prime Minister and his predecessors have so frequently professed their support for “hard-working families” that the expression has become a political cliché. How extraordinary, therefore, that the Government are still persisting with a policy that will undermine those hard-working families, especially those families in the squeezed middle. What families could be more hard working than those 55,000 or 60,000 single parent families where the lone parent works long hours in a demanding job to earn more than £43,000 a year, thereby qualifying as a higher rate taxpayer and a victim of this policy? Such families also often have very high child care costs. In the league table of hard-working families, they are closely followed by two-parent families where the breadwinner supports a spouse who cannot work, whether because of disability, long-term sickness or the need to support a child who is disabled or sick.

A family in the last category came to my constituency surgery in autumn 2010 and impressed on me the utter folly of the Government’s proposals. I then engaged in correspondence with the Treasury. On 18 January 2011, the Exchequer Secretary responded to my letter of 16 October—the fact that it took three months to get a response indicates something—in which I had specifically asked the Chancellor about the impact of his policy on those in receipt of carer’s allowance. My constituent’s wife earns slightly above the higher rate threshold, while he stays at home to look after his two children, one of whom has Down’s syndrome. The point that I wished the Chancellor to address was my constituents’ concern that in households where, through circumstance rather than choice, only one parent is able to work, the higher rate tax payer is normally compensating for the lack of earning capacity of the other. As my constituents said:

“This penalises families of those who live the true spirit of social responsibility each and every day.”

After a three-month delay, I received my reply; I had hoped for a better response. It merely asserted that the policy is tough but fair and that affected families are within the top 20% of the income distribution of all families. I immediately wrote back asking my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to address specifically how the impact of the proposals on families such as that of my constituent could be regarded as fair. I am sorry to say that it was another three months—on 12 April—before my hon. Friend replied. He said:

“Inevitably, introducing a simple change to a universal system can create some difficult cases and it would unfortunately be difficult to create an exception for families where one partner is a carer.”

He repeated the assertion that the Government believed the policy to be fair, but how can it be fair to target such families, by asking them to make a greater contribution to reducing the deficit, while exempting families with earnings of up to £84,000 a year that are spread equally between both parents?

Fewer than one in 10 of the families from whom child benefit is to be taken away contain two higher rate taxpayers; I think that the number is 130,000 families. Almost all the remainder, therefore, will or may be in a weaker position to bear such a loss of benefit than those households with two persons earning up to £84,000 a year between them.

When I corresponded with the Treasury, the threshold for higher rate tax was £43,876. Since then, despite rising inflation—there has been a 3.1% increase in the retail prices index in the last year—the starting rate for higher rate tax has been reduced by £1,400, while the threshold for 2013-14 is still unspecified. Therefore, even more families will be affected by this change than was originally envisaged.

The policy that we are discussing today has never been properly thought through. By all accounts, it was included in the Chancellor’s speech at the 2010 party conference at the last minute, after an earlier plan to announce the withdrawal of child benefit from all children over the age of 16 was scrapped. That is why the early estimate of the contribution that this policy will make towards reducing the deficit was £1 billion. That early estimate was wrong, but in typical Treasury fashion the Government now say that anyone who opposes the withdrawal of child benefit must come up with an alternative means of producing £2.4 billion a year to go towards deficit reduction.

It is worth reminding ourselves that families are already contributing to the reduction of the deficit through the freezing of child benefit. That policy alone will save about £1 billion in 2013-14 and the total contribution that it will make during the three-year freeze is about £3 billion. In addition, many of the families who are affected by withdrawal of child benefit will lose £550 a year in basic child tax credit from this April onwards.

In responding to this debate, I expect the Minister to argue that he is in pre-Budget purdah and that he will treat what I have said as a representation, but I want him to say specifically why the Government’s proposal to increase the tax burden on hard-working families is not being defined as a tax increase but as an expenditure reduction. We know that the Chancellor has always been keen to present his deficit reduction plan in terms of achieving a fair balance between Government expenditure reductions and tax increases. Without getting into an argument about the extent to which the original target of expenditure reductions has been missed, I must ask: is it not disingenuous to regard the withdrawal of child benefit in terms other than a tax increase? After all, the antecedents of child benefit lie in the concept that there should be a higher tax allowance for those with dependent children than for those without dependent children. In essence, the Government’s policy is to remove that tax allowance and thereby increase the tax burden.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he share my inclination to believe that the Government might be able to extricate themselves from the set of powerful problems that he describes through some combination of a transferrable child tax allowance and the universal credit system?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Many of us thought, because we went into a general election committed to having transferrable tax allowances and to promoting family values, that those allowances would be implemented. Although there was provision in the coalition agreement for the Liberal Democrats to abstain or vote against those allowances, it was expected that the Conservatives would introduce them and that the House would have an opportunity to judge them.

A lot of the difficulties that have been brought about as a result of the analysis of the proposal to remove child benefit come from the fact that we have abandoned the idea of using the tax system to say, “Well, if you’ve got two equivalent families, one with three or four children and the other without any children then the costs of the family with children must be greater than those of the family without children, and therefore there should be a greater tax allowance for the family with children than for the family without children.” That is the basic principle. We could have restored it or indeed enhanced it by having transferrable tax allowances, which was a commitment in our manifesto.

What depresses me, however, is that in the 16 months since October 2010, when the original proposal was made by the Chancellor, nothing seems to have been done to take forward those issues and to try to find a fair solution. Obviously, implementing something like transferrable tax allowances would take some time; we would need to have draft legislation and any such allowances probably could not be implemented by January 2013, when the Government have committed themselves to impose this burden on higher rate taxpaying families.

The Government have missed a big opportunity on transferrable tax allowances, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have time to explain why that happened—because, as I have said, introducing those allowances was a Government policy that had been announced—and also why the Government recently reconfirmed that they have no intention whatsoever of proceeding with transferrable tax allowances.

I will give my hon. Friend the Minister some time to respond to this debate, but I should like to make some other points. I think that the Liberal Democrats are rather in favour of the policy of withdrawing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers, because they want to remove as many tax benefits from higher rate taxpayers as possible. But of course the Liberal Democrats would also like that policy to be dressed up as an expenditure reduction, because that expenditure reduction would be balanced with a tax increase and therefore there could be an additional tax increase on top of removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. That would also take the pressure off finding genuine reductions in expenditure, which would be achieved by reducing the size of the state.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can address that issue in his response to the debate, because there is a real definitional problem here. The way that the Government are proposing to introduce this tax penalty on higher rate taxpayers with children is effectively to require the family to declare whether or not the taxpayer or their partner are in receipt of child benefit, and then the taxpayer would be taxed 100% on that child benefit. Surely, that is a tax increase rather than an expenditure reduction.

As a contribution to this debate, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a devastating but none the less very useful report, and I hope that some of the issues identified in that report, which my hon. Friend the Minister will probably have been studying closely since it was published about a fortnight ago, will be addressed in his response to this debate.

Why do the Government want higher rate taxpayers with children to make a greater contribution towards deficit reduction than higher rate taxpayers without children? Surely, it would be fairer if all higher rate taxpayers contributed equally towards deficit reduction. Any changes in the higher rate tax band needed to achieve that aim would be simple, fair, easy to collect and difficult to avoid. In other words, they would meet all the original objectives of a good tax, unlike the Government’s current proposals, which, as I have said, have been the subject of withering criticism from the IFS. In its report, the IFS estimates that £90 million of the supposed yield from this new policy would be uncollectable, that £60 million would be lost through non-compliance, that £280 million would leak through what is described as tax planning and that, in addition, there would be administrative costs and a need for extra Inland Revenue staff. There has not been a defined estimate of those additional administrative and staff costs, but a rough estimate of at least £130 million has been proposed.

Could anyone think of a more absurd and ludicrous policy to introduce than this one? It increases the complexity of the tax system; it adds to the demand for more civil servants in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to examine the changes that will be made; it encourages people to fiddle their arrangements; and it exacerbates the problem of what happens when people live together during a year without declaring it. The Government were committed to reducing the couple penalty, but this proposal will actually exacerbate it. I do not think that there is anything commendable or sensible about this policy, and there are alternatives to it.

I asked the Library if it would be possible to come up with an alternative. I do not take this view myself, but if one thought that the way to deal with this issue was to say, “If there are two higher rate taxpayers in a family, they should forfeit their child benefit”, that change would affect only 130,000 families. It would not generate much income, but it would apply to those 130,000 families who definitely have a joint income that is greater than the £84,000 to which I referred earlier.

I asked the expert in the Library whether it would be possible to have a system whereby people could claim relief against loss of child benefit by certifying that the total gross income of their household did not exceed £85,000. The answer was that, in principle, that would be possible, but that it would require joint filing for households with at least one higher rate taxpayer. One presumes that having made a return at the end of the year showing total joint income was no more than £85,000, child benefit would not be withdrawn from that household.

There are ways of generating some income in the context of this policy, but I do not think it is worth the candle, because it cuts across the dearly and long-held principle that we should have a universal benefit for families with children.

Financial Services Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mudie]

That is an important point. I think that it was Charles Goodhart who raised the question of indicators. They are certainly interesting, but on a wider scale, I think it more important to establish that, given that the Monetary Policy Committee is linked to a target of 2% inflation, the Financial Policy Committee should be linked to growth employment measures that ensure that there is no “safety low level” of stability, and be forced to have a look at the problems of the real world out there.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s speech seems to allude to a search for an equilibrium that never exists in the real world. Does he think that that disconnection between the reality of life as a dynamic process and the search for stability is at the heart of the inability to define financial sustainability?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

That is absolutely right, and I should also pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend’s profession outside this House, because, as in the common law, every successful system of oversight that has stood the test of time allows room for both rules and judgment. The common law is an example of a system that has built up over time and that understands the complexities of human behaviour. It has strict rules in some regards, but it also allows the exercise of judgment in order to be able to adapt to modernity and circumstances. If we move entirely towards rules and away from the exercise of any judgment, we take away that ability to adapt.

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point in comparing the approach under discussion to the common law. Does he agree that a key difference is that whereas in the common law anybody can look at previous judgments and know how the law will respond to their behaviour today, under this proposal to have flexible forward-looking, judgment-based regulation we cannot necessarily be sure today how the state will treat our current actions at some point in the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

It would be better if we had an embedded and long-standing system in which there were those precedents, but as we do not have about 800 years to put it in place it is better to have a forward-looking system. If my hon. Friend has a suggestion as to how we can use precedent built up over time, given that we are starting from a system that catastrophically failed, I would be very interested to hear it.

[Steve Baker]

I hope that my hon. Friend will stay for my speech.

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said, this pendulum swung too far, but why do we need to allow the authorities to exercise discretion? It is because the world we face is as we find it, not as it is written in the rulebook. Indeed, the very complexity of the system calls for simple rules, because the more complex the rules applied to a complex system, the more likely somebody is to try to game it and, therefore, the more complex the set of rules that will need to be imposed again on the system to try to account for that behaviour. We see the same thing in respect of other areas of Government policy, not least the tax system, where complexity has led to avoidance activity, which has led in turn to complexity, and so we now have the longest tax code in the world. This attitude towards regulation and oversight makes no sense in the modern world of complexity. Complex systems need simple rules.

Complexity also adds cost to businesses not targeted initially. Worse still, the complexity leads to a moral abdication, because the rules become a substitute for personal responsibility. Just as we need to allow for the exercise of discretion by regulators, we also need, within a system that promotes responsibility, to allow for the discretion of management. That is why I have concluded that we need to ensure, especially in such a high-paying business, that the sanctions for failure and for irresponsibility are strong. It is not a good enough sanction for someone simply to lose their job in an industry where it is easy to move into another one.

In the first instance, we need to move to a system where the debarring of directors is made easier, not least because when a bank is rescued it technically does not go through the current debarring rules. The FSA is right to regulate pay and introduce claw-back, but we also need, in extremis, to introduce a measure to ensure that for recklessness at the helm of a systemically important bank there is a stronger and, if necessary, criminal sanction. I hope that such a measure would never be used but, as with other areas of life where these measures are hardly ever used, it greatly concentrates the mind to know that a deep sanction exists for reckless and deeply irresponsible negligence. I hope that such a measure would be a check on hubris and would last the test of time so that it would be in existence next time there is a boom and the associated hubris.

I hope that that change, the changes in this Bill and other changes will allow those of us who support the free market, enterprise and innovation to support, unabashedly and with enthusiasm, the wealth creators, who make our prosperity possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer the House to my interest in Cobden Partners, which has been established to help nations solve their banking crises.

I very much welcome the Bill, which I hope and believe will prove to be the zenith of contemporary thought on bank reform. With due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I wish to talk about three potential elephants in the room. First, I wish to make some remarks about accounting, then I wish to discuss the conduct of individuals and liability, and finally I wish to talk about financial stability.

I know that the Minister has heard my views on the international financial reporting standard, but I draw his attention to a letter in yesterday’s Financial Times by Lord Lawson, under the headline “Forget Fred and focus on the real banking scandal”. He stated:

“The auditing of banks’ accounts, however, is fundamentally flawed in itself. The IFRS accounting system itself has proved to be damagingly pro-cyclical, and the ability to pay genuine (and genuinely large) bonuses out of purely paper profits, which are never subsequently realised, is at the heart of both the bonuses that cause such public and political outrage, and the reason why bank management consistently does so well when bank shareholders do so badly.”

Andy Haldane, the executive director for financial stability at the Bank of England, gave a speech in December. I shall not read out all the remarks that I meant to cover, but he concluded by saying that

“if we are to restore investor faith in banking sector balance sheets, nothing less than a radical rethink may be required.”

He was referring, entirely, to accounting standards. I therefore refer the Government to my private Member’s Bill introduced on 13 May 2011, which seeks to introduce parallel prudent accounting for banks. It is a couple of pages long and I hope that it can be added to this Bill.

I also refer the Government to “The Law of Opposites”, a paper produced by the Adam Smith Institute and written by my colleague Gordon Kerr, who has spent 25 years “gaming accounting rules”, as he would perhaps say, in order to make a profit. The banking system is in a far worse state than is generally believed. I do not see how either the Financial Policy Committee or the Prudential Regulation Authority can operate without a true and fair view of the state of financial institutions, and I do not believe for a moment that the international financial reporting standards give that to us.

On the conduct of individuals, we fail too often to think about the pattern of regulation in which we have engaged. It seems that the first thing that legislation does is damage the incentives and disciplines of the market. Having thereby created moral hazard, regulators come along to try to mitigate the consequences of that moral hazard. A banking licence today is a licence to lend money into existence, at interest, with the risk socialised. When we look at central banking, deposit insurance and limited liability, we find that moral hazard is absolutely rife in the banking industry, even before we consider investment banking. I suggest to the Government that it is time to increase the liability of banks’ directors. There should be strict liability for them, and bonuses should be held in a pool and treated as capital for at least five years. I will introduce a private Member’s Bill to that effect on 29 February.

We have talked about financial stability and the difficulty of defining it. There has been a sense that there is some kind of equilibrium economy—an evenly rotating one—in which there could be a sustainable and stable quantity of credit. Indeed, on pages 14 to 16 of the Joint Committee’s report there is an interesting discussion about the need to regulate credit.

To leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I will just say that if we were talking about any other commodity and were discussing adding to a failed regime of price control a regime of quantity control, we would certainly reject the idea out of hand. In Lord George’s testimony to the Treasury Committee before the crisis, he made it absolutely clear that the Bank of England had created a credit bubble to avoid falling into recession, yet we are going to give the Bank even more powers, more tools, more risk of ruin and more big-player effects and distortions of economic expectations.

I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, and I sincerely hope that it represents the absolute zenith of contemporary thinking on interventionist bank reform.

Banking Commission Report

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The 2019 timetable was recommended by John Vickers in the report. People should be clear that that is the backstop. That is the final day when everything has to be implemented. In particular, if the additional capital requirements were implemented today, it might have an impact on the economy that we would not want to see. The ring-fencing legislation will be in place by the end of the Parliament and banks will be expected to comply with it as soon as is practically possible. The competition requirements will be in place by 2013. When it comes to jibes about who is working in the financial services, I seem to remember that a number of former Labour Prime Ministers are now quite lucratively paid in the financial services.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Chapter 3 of the Government’s report, on loss absorbency, seems, perhaps reasonably, to take for granted the adequacy of accounting standards. I press the Chancellor in his forthcoming White Paper to consider seriously the pernicious effects of the international financial reporting standards, which were applied to banks by the previous Government.

[Mr Osborne]

There is a debate to be had about international accounting rules and their impact on the financial crisis, which I am happy to have with my hon. Friend in person. There are moves afoot to make the international bodies that set the standards more accountable by using the Financial Stability Board. He raises a good issue.

The Economy

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As I rise to speak I am reminded of a quotation from an economist who was a fierce critic of Keynes, a chap called Henry Hazlitt, who said:

“Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore.”

We have heard today some moving accounts of individual and collective suffering in different regions of the country and among different sections of the public. We should be asking ourselves why, oh why, have we been delivered into this misery, which looks as if it will extend over years. Much of the conversation we have heard has been along the lines of aggregates, coarse economic aggregates, and has tended to stray away from individual choices and consequences. We have talked about markets in the abstract, and it is a pity that we seem to have forgotten that markets are a social phenomenon, and that they are about people co-operating. When we talk about markets, we tend to imagine overpaid people, high-frequency trading and those who add nothing to society.

I am reminded of something a constituent said to me recently after hearing a Minister’s speech. He asked, “Why is it that everything always seems to get harder for the working man, whoever is in power?” Indeed, in my constituency unemployment is up by 6.3% among the over-50s, up by 9.5% among those aged 25 to 49 and, scandalously, up by 23% among the young. We have heard that child poverty increased by 200,000 under the previous Government and that it is likely to increase by up to 100,000 under this Government. In the 21st century, that should not be our economic position.

Why are we in this debt crisis? I have just checked the M4 money supply figures—I am sorry to return to aggregates, but needs must. When Labour came to power the money supply was about £700 billion and it is now about £2.1 trillion, so it has tripled over the past 14 years. Unfortunately, most economists talk about money flowing into the economy as if it were water poured into a tank that found its own level immediately, but what if it is like treacle or honey? What if it builds up in piles when poured into the economy and takes a while to spread out? What if that money was loaned into existence in response to individual choices led by the excessively low interest rates pushed by the central bank? What if it was loaned into existence in particular sectors, such as the housing sector, where prices have more than doubled over the same period, and what if it was the financial sector that received the benefit of that new money first? Would that not explain why financiers and bankers are so much wealthier than everyone else, and why economic activity and wealth has been reorientated towards the south-east?

Unfortunately, the idea that money takes some time to move around the economy is lost on most economists, which I very much regret. Why did most economists not see the crisis coming? I put it to the House that it is because their theories of credit are mistaken. They make fundamental errors. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into that, but the fundamental point is that credit is a choice to consume more now and less later. It is about the exchange of present goods for future goods, and co-ordinating the economy through time, and I am afraid that the current intellectual mainstream in economics has dropped us into this desperate mess.

Opposition Members criticise the Thatcher and Reagan years. I think that there was much to applaud in those years, but unfortunately their intellectual underpinning was monetarism, which, like Keynesianism, is infected with those dreadful mistakes. People in the Occupy movement, and our constituents, are right to question the justice of our economic processes. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said earlier that the system cannot endure, and I am inclined to agree. I agree that the current debt-based and—I am afraid to say—statist system cannot endure. However, if this system is not to endure, which way should it fall? Humanity tried the statist direction in the past and it led to misery and murder. I stand for free markets and free co-operation, but I say this to the House: if this is capitalism, I am not a capitalist.

Jobs and Growth

Steve Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), and I share some of his concerns about the outright dominance of the City. I wish to draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests in relation to Cobden Partners.

We are in the midst of this jobs and growth crisis, so I feel that we should ask ourselves where jobs and growth came from, where they have gone and where they will come from in future. We know that this is a debt crisis, so why did people borrow so much and save too little? It was because interest rates were too low for too long. Anybody who has a savings account or a mortgage will know that it is the Bank of England which in the UK determines the height of the interest rates market. The set-up of our monetary system means that money is loaned into existence. It has been an institutionally inflationary monetary system since the end of Bretton Woods.

My argument, which is one Hayek advanced in his Nobel lecture, is that when employment comes from an increase in the money supply, that employment lasts only as long as the money supply increases, or perhaps only as long as it continues to accelerate. My preferred measure of the money supply comes from Kaleidic Economics. If we look at it, we find that from 2002 the money supply not only increased, but accelerated in its increase—the level was above 10% from 2004 and in 2007 it went as high as 27% by that measure. The money supply is now contracting at a rate of about 5% a year.

I am delighted to see the previous Chancellor in his place, because had he accepted my intervention earlier I would have said to him that at the time he left power there did appear to be growth, but that it was simply quantitative easing washing through the system, distorting the overall GDP numbers and causing the impression of growth. In fact, we had further money entering the system, distorting the structure of relative prices and making the problem worse later.

If we examine the Office for National Statistics price index going back to 1750—at least one of my hon. Friends will remember—we find that we have had the most astonishing currency debasement since 1971. Indeed, in the 19th century prices experienced secular deflation, and had an ordinary person saved £1 in 1800, they would have been able to buy a larger basket of goods with it in 1900. Had that person saved £1 in 1971, they would be extremely disappointed today.

Inflation is not harmless. It widens wealth inequality and creates patterns of employment that are sustained only by increases in the money supply. For those of us who are sincerely concerned about jobs and growth, it is time to consider whether we should not expect to create employment simply by increasing the money supply. It seems to me that we are now boxed into a corner. We know that we have got into this mess through low interest rates, yet we cannot now afford to allow interest rates to rise—far too many people are far too indebted. That leaves the Government with something of a problem and I think they are right to think extremely carefully about how we can achieve deleveraging. The Chancellor is correct, and has been for some time, to call for an economy based on “save and invest” and on real productive savings. It does not do to expand the money supply in excess of real savings, by which I mean prior production and consumption that is less than that production. The accumulation of capital is the only sustainable way to raise real wages for normal people.

I encourage the Government to stick to their policy of encouraging save and invest, but I express misgivings about quantitative easing. I ask them to look at the theories of the monetary effects on the trade cycle and whether patterns of employment have been sustained by increases in the money supply. As we go forward, I ask them to consider extremely carefully whether we need to go somewhat further than Vickers in creating the right monetary system on which to build a sustainable economy.