Autumn Statement

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am very happy to look into the specific situation for businesses in Ashfield if the hon. Lady wants to write to me—or we can meet and I will see what I can do to help. Businesses in Ashfield and elsewhere across the east midlands are eligible for the regional growth fund. We have put more money into the fund and made substantial transport improvements in the east and west midlands, which I hope will also benefit businesses in her constituency.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and pay particular tribute to the increase in the pension draw-down limit and the increase in the ISA allowance. Will the Chancellor tell the House when he expects them to be implemented?

[Mr Osborne]

The ISA uprating takes place as normal. The draw-down limit will be in the Finance Bill, which we will introduce next week.

Bank of England

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I think that that would breach the confidentiality of the interview process, but Mr Carney will come before the Select Committee and will no doubt be asked about his views on the Vickers reforms. As I have said, he supports them and it is important—this comes back to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—that we now have consensus across our regulatory system. John Vickers has provided that consensus. We will introduce a Bill next January. Let us get on and make that important change. We are leading the world and, interestingly enough, a lot of the rest of the world is thinking of following us in that direction.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Mark Carney’s actions have played a major part in helping Canada to avoid the worst of the financial crisis. Will the Chancellor reassure the House that he will be given the necessary freedom to take the required action here in the UK —something that the current Governor did not always enjoy under the last Administration?

[Mr Osborne]

I will leave the accounts of what happened under the previous Government to the various memoirs and the like. Of course, Mark Carney has independence in monetary policy and will have to work with the Government on financial stability, which is a crucial issue in which the elected Government are also involved when public money is put at risk. We will work closely together to secure the British recovery and ensure that we have something more of the Canadian experience here in Britain.

Welsh Language (Non-devolved Departments)

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that update. I bow to his superior knowledge of the history of Welsh language use.

In recent years, there have been a number of developments in the legal framework to support the Welsh language, as hon. Members have mentioned. The Welsh language is one of the 20 areas devolved to Wales, and the Welsh Assembly is responsible for the legislative framework relating to the language. The Assembly passed the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 under powers conferred on it in 2009 through the now infamous, tortuous and bureaucratic legislative competence order process put in place by the last Labour Government. The 2011 Measure established the independent Welsh Language Commissioner to promote the language, replacing the Welsh Language Board, and provides for the introduction of duties whereby organisations comply with statutory standards relating to the Welsh language in delivering services to the public in Wales.

The Welsh Government’s thinking in moving from Welsh language schemes, which are specific and bespoke to each organisation, to generic Welsh language standards has been to establish a more consistent approach to Welsh language service provision. Welsh language standards will replace Welsh language schemes over time, so that Welsh speakers will be clearer about the Welsh language services they should expect to receive. Organisations subject to the Measure will understand the levels of service in the Welsh language they are expected to provide, and the regulatory framework applied by the Welsh Language Commissioner will be simpler than at present.

The Welsh Language Commissioner consulted on proposed standards this summer, and I understand will shortly make recommendations to Welsh Ministers on what those final standards should be. The standards decided by the Welsh Ministers will be subject to final approval by the Assembly.

On the role of the Wales Office, we acknowledge from the outset that there is certainly room for improvement in the quality of Departments’ Welsh language services. As I have said, not all Departments have developed Welsh language schemes, and there have been instances in which we have been open to criticism. The Welsh Language Commissioner is, of course, a position created by the Welsh Assembly, so my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy is right to note the limitations of the post in respect of non-devolved areas.

It is important that sufficient support should be given to the Welsh language in non-devolved as well as devolved areas, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Wales Office is ready to provide the leadership and support to do so within Government. Since his appointment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has underlined the role of the Wales Office as the lead Department on Welsh language issues. Indeed, he made clear at Welsh questions last month that we in the Wales Office are fully committed to the Welsh language in non-devolved areas as they apply to Wales. We want to ensure that Departments deliver the consistently good-quality Welsh language services that Welsh language speakers need, where there is demonstrable demand for them.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that Welsh language standards would apply to Crown bodies only with the consent of the Secretary of State, but I do not necessarily share his pessimism and concerns that protection for Welsh language provision in non-devolved areas will be reduced as a result. On the contrary, the Wales Office intends to undertake a review of Departments’ Welsh language services to examine their capacity to meet Welsh language standards. We are working closely with the Welsh Language Commissioner to prepare for the review and hope to secure a secondee from the commissioner to support the work.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I applaud the action that the Government are taking. In the partnership that the Secretary of State and the Wales Office are seeking to develop with the Welsh Language Commissioner, can I ask that consideration be given to the style and mode of translation? Efforts to reduce costs sometimes lead different elements of different documents to be translated by different people in different parts of the country. That approach does not lend itself to an easy-flowing translation style, which can increase some people’s reluctance to use the language.

[Stephen Crabb]

That is an excellent point. It is exactly the kind of point worth making when we begin the review, hopefully after the arrangements are in place for the secondee from the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy said that he wanted positive and strong co-operation. I absolutely assure him that that is what we intend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has a close dialogue with the Welsh Language Commissioner on matters relating to the Welsh language in general and Government services delivered in the Welsh language in particular. Indeed, the Wales Office has always maintained a good working relationship with the commissioner and her predecessor body, the Welsh Language Board. That close relationship continues as we plan the review. We can only set about the task once we know for sure what the Welsh language standards will be, but we hope to be in a position to do so as soon as the final standards are confirmed.

In conclusion, I assure hon. Members from all parties that the Government are fully committed to the Welsh language, that the Wales Office is taking the lead in ensuring adequate Welsh language provision in Government services in non-devolved areas where needed and that we will consider carefully UK Departments’ capacity to meet the new Welsh language standards.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I accept the difficulties with public finances and the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his comments, but does he regret the actions of the previous Labour Government, who gave up the rebate?

[Chris Leslie]

The rebate has not been given up; it is still there to be defended. This is a task for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to achieve, and we will see how they do. The last time we discussed these issues was seven years ago and we are now discussing them at a critical moment ahead of the next seven-year period, so this is when they matter most of all.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she recognise the anger among the public, which warrants swift action? We will completely lose their confidence if we wait years before legislative changes are brought about. Does she not recognise that the public demand immediate action?

[Ms Eagle]

The public demand action that will be effective, and that is calm and considered.

A year ago, this House had to decide the best way to get to the bottom of practices in the media. The House made the right choice then. It decided that a judicial inquiry was the best way to get to the truth, to get to the bottom of what had gone on, and to produce recommendations on how culture and practices could be improved. In that instance, the Prime Minister said that the best way of getting to the truth was

“a judge-led inquiry with Ministers answering questions under oath where all the documents have to be revealed and the whole thing is pursued properly by a team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1251.]

I am frankly baffled about why the Prime Minister thinks that the best way to get to the bottom of what went on at News International is a judicial inquiry, but the best way to get at what has happened in banking is anything but. It is the wrong choice. Why is the Prime Minister doing what the banking industry, rather than the country, wants him to do?

Let us consider the two options before us today: a parliamentary inquiry or a judge-led inquiry. The Inquiries Act 2005 requires the panel to be independent. This is especially important when there are allegations of the involvement of Whitehall and the Bank of England. The Act ensures transparency and guarantees due legal process. Its enforcement powers are clear and set out in statute, and it can draw upon expert skills and resources to complete its task.

In its 2004-05 report, the Public Administration Committee observed that Committees are not ideally suited to conducting specialised investigations into particular events because of perceptions of partisanship—we have had a little bit of that today—and the limits of ongoing co-operation which could reasonably be expected from Government, and because their evidence-taking procedures are not well suited to drawing out the truth from witnesses. I agree with that assessment. Because of the extraordinary tone adopted by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, this inquiry has already been poisoned by political partisanship—a point recognised, to his credit, by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).

A parliamentary inquiry would be dependent on support from Treasury officials who are answerable to obviously partisan Ministers. The rules for parliamentary Committees are in a state of flux; they are obscure and potentially difficult to enforce. A judicial inquiry, as the Prime Minister has said, would have a team of barristers and experts in their field to get at the truth. It is for those reasons that the House rightly chose to set up the Leveson inquiry. Although the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did a good job in examining conduct at News International, it had some obvious limitations. First, the Committee’s powers were insufficient to get at the truth, a matter that is currently being considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee. Secondly, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was unable to agree a unanimous report and split on party lines, diluting its effect. A judicial inquiry would command widespread public support because of the requirement on those involved to act in a non-partisan way. This House made the right choice in opting for a forensic, judge-led inquiry. It should do so again today.

The Prime Minister has made the wrong choice. The Government first opposed holding any inquiry at all.

Jobs and Growth

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

Of course I welcome that. It is good to have more jobs in Britain. The thing that worries me is the 164% rise in long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That is a very great concern.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will make some progress.

Is it not the reality that we have an economy in recession and a Queen’s Speech that entirely failed to deliver on growth, jobs and investment? The Chancellor’s economic strategy is now in tatters, but have we had any admission in recent weeks that he got it wrong? We have had none. The Foreign Secretary says that British business needs to work harder, but it is this Chancellor who needs to work harder to get things right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman says I am the Chancellor, and he is right. Since inheriting those fuel duty plans from him, I have cut fuel duty, cancelled the fuel duty increases that he voted for and got off the fuel duty escalator that he supported. That is what I have done to ensure that families are better able to cope with the economic mess he presided over when he was in the Treasury.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

T2. I welcome the Financial Services Bill, which we debated yesterday. It is a significant step towards re-instilling confidence in the financial services industry, but does the Minister accept that regulators, including the current Financial Services Authority, have an obligation to work with other regulatory bodies that go beyond their competence to bring about negotiated settlements when the product is far more complicated than is covered by their jurisdiction, such as in the Arch Cru affair?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

My hon. Friend raises an important question. There are a number of cases—Arch Cru is one of them—in which different parties are in different jurisdictions. It is important that regulators work together, along with the parties involved, to ensure that a good deal is put in place to help investors.

Financial Services Bill

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

New clause 4, which is the most significant of the Government new clauses and amendments in the group, provides a framework for implementation of the Government’s proposal to retain the important rights and protections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ensure that consumers do not lose out as a result of the transfer. For example, we are likely to retain section 75 of the Act, which provides for the joint liability of creditors for misrepresentation or breaches by suppliers.

The Government’s preferred approach to the implementation of the transfer of responsibility for consumer credit from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority is to ensure that the Consumer Credit Act protections are replicated in the FCA’s consumer credit rule book, and that the relevant sections of the Act are repealed. That approach is in line with the intention to move to a more responsive, rules-based regime than the current statutory framework.

However, there are limitations to the type of rules that the FCA can make, which means that it will not be able to replicate in its rules all the CCA protections that we want to retain, including protections that impose rights directly on consumers and those that affect unauthorised third parties. That means that some CCA protections will need to be kept in the CCA itself, and that certain provisions of the CCA will therefore need to remain in force following the transfer. As a result, a number of changes will need to be made to both the CCA and the FSMA as part of the transition, to reflect the fact that the FCA will be responsible for regulating consumer credit and to ensure that the FCA, as well as local trading standards, can effectively enforce the retained CCA provisions. For example, it will be necessary to replace references in the Consumer Credit Act to the Office of Fair Trading with references to the FCA. We will also need to apply certain features of the FSMA, such as references to the FCA’s objectives, statutory immunity and fee-raising powers, to the FCA’s new functions under the Consumer Credit Act, and enable the FCA to use FSMA supervision and enforcement powers that would normally be used in relation to breaches of FCA rules for breaches of CCA requirements. New clause 4 enables the Treasury to make those changes and other necessary amendments to the CCA and the FSMA by order.

I should also draw attention to the addendum to the delegated powers memorandum, which the Department has prepared and provided to the delegated powers Committee. The memorandum sets out in more detail how this power is intended to operate and why it is necessary. Copies are available in both the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office. The order to be made under this provision will be subject to further consultation following Royal Assent to the Bill. Government amendment 11 provides that any order under new clause 4 will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so can be made only with prior approval of both this House and the other place.

Government amendment 2 supports effective collaboration between the FCA and local trading standards following the transfer, enabling the FCA to contract trading standards for the provision of services in the same way that the OFT does now—for example, to undertake local inspections and follow up on enforcement action, including by local illegal money-lending teams. Government amendment 21, and related amendments 18, 19 and 20, insert into the Bill provision for the transfer of the OFT property, rights and liabilities, including staff, to the FCA.

I hope Members will agree that the Government amendments in relation to consumer credit are sensible and practical provisions to support an effective transfer of regulation to the FCA. The new clause and related amendments sit within a process of regulatory reform that seeks to tackle some of the issues raised by Members on both sides of the House about the functioning of the credit market. We believe the FCA will have much stronger powers and greater resources than the OFT has had in order to tackle detrimental practices in the consumer credit market. Unlike the OFT, the FCA will be able to make binding rules on firms to ban specific products or product features that cause harm, to issue unlimited fines, and to require firms to pay redress when things go wrong. It will also be able to apply greater scrutiny to applications for credit licences and make it more difficult for rogue firms to enter the market.

As a consequence of the transfer we have introduced into the Bill, there will be a fundamental change in the regulation of firms such as payday lenders and debt management companies. I am pleased that the provisions enabling that transfer were welcomed in Committee.

There are a number of Opposition amendments relating to consumer credit and debt management plans, and I want to say a few words about them now. On new clauses 5 and 9, I made it clear in Committee that I sympathise with concerns about some of the practices in the fee-charging debt management sector. That is why clause 6 enables the regulation of debt management companies to be transferred to the FCA. That is also why we have chosen to leave on the statute book the enabling powers of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

More immediately, we are working with the industry to develop a protocol of best practice for debt management plans, which should cover, among other things, the nature and timing of fees. Indeed, on 14 June the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), will chair the first industry-wide meeting to discuss and take forward the protocol. That will follow several months of meetings with a smaller, representative group of stakeholders, which has talked through processes, commercial terms and advice, to reach an agreed position.

I also wish to refer the House to new guidance for the debt management sector recently published by the Office of Fair Trading, which sets out in substantial detail the standards expected of firms. I believe that it is appropriate that we give time and focus to current efforts to improve standards in the debt management sector, and take account of the significant changes to the wider regulatory regime enabled by the Bill, before we start talking about changes to a potential statutory scheme under new clause 5.

As I said in Committee, I do not think that we should throw the baby out with the bath water and shut down the market for fee-charging debt management services, as proposed by new clause 9, before fully exploring better regulation. Where suppliers of credit are aware of people who are suffering financial distress in repaying their debt, I encourage them to signpost their customers to fee-free debt advice services so that they can get the best possible advice to meet their needs.

On amendment 40 and new clause 10, I wish to reassure hon. Members that the Bill already enables the FCA to make the kind of rules proposed in those two provisions. Indeed, in relation to new clause 10, the Financial Services Authority already places a number of requirements on firms to ensure that borrowers are informed if their mortgage repayments are subject to change. I know that some hon. Members may wish to challenge the approach, saying, “But if the FCA can already make the proposed rules, what is the harm in accepting these proposals?” The point is that there are significant risks to specifying in great detail in the Bill the precise type of rules that the FCA may make. First, in doing so, we risk distracting the regulator from using its expertise and judgment to identify and address the risks that it considers pose the greatest risks to its objectives. As parliamentarians, we should be creating a framework within which technical experts can exercise their discretion, in a suitably constrained way. We should leave them to get on with the job, not provide a long laundry list of everything that we want them to do.

By specifying in detail what rules should or should not cover, we also risk creating the opportunity for challenge to the regulator’s ability to make rules that are not specified in the Bill. The lack of specific provision in the Bill does not, in any way, reflect on how seriously the Government take these issues. For example, in relation to high-cost credit, a number of initiatives are under way to improve standards in the sector. Those include work to improve industry codes on payday lending; research commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills into the impact of a cap on total cost of credit; and a review by the OFT of payday lenders’ compliance with its irresponsible lending guidance. As well as raising standards now, the findings of those pieces of work will feed into the FCA’s approach to regulating the sector following the transfer, including on the type of rules it may make regarding these charges.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I appreciate the comments that have been made about the Bill and, specifically, about amendment 40. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a risk of amendment 40 moving into price regulation, which is very different from product intervention? Price regulation would be a very dangerous line to follow.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, as we face a challenge in that respect. First, we believe that the FCA has the powers it needs to tackle payday lending. That could include some form of price intervention—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

That is a fair intervention. No, I would not say that they are all the same. There are companies, even those that may for some reason be using this fee charging process, that want to do the right thing, but my point is that that business model has had its time and needs to go. There is a better way, whether it is a for-profit or a non-profit avenue, for debt management consolidation to take place, and that is to tell the creditor that this is a way for them to get some money back, albeit not necessarily the full amount, from those heavily indebted customers who may owe them something, and in exchange for getting something back they have a duty as a creditor to stump up some of the cost for the administration of that consolidation. It is time to end the business model that has a propensity to cause hardship, not in every single case, but in too many cases, and that is why the Opposition believe that this is a perfectly reasonable new clause to bring forward.

New clause 10 concerns mortgages. People may well ask where the problem is at the time being when mortgage rates are at a low level, partly because the Bank of England is printing so much money that we end up with a low base rate. But the Governor of the Bank of England has been warning in a number of reports that this is an unsustainable situation and that over the medium term he expects interest rates to normalise. From the Bank of England’s point of view, whether the normalised interest rate is 4% or 5% is moot, but it is certainly much higher than the current rate.

My anxiety is that many consumers up and down the country might be under the false impression that this is a normal period, but it is not. If the mark-ups that the retail banks charge on the wholesale cost of borrowing are maintained as base rates or LIBOR rise to a more normal level, the mortgage rates that our constituents pay could end up being significantly higher, at 6%, 7% or 8%. I suspect that the difference between the price the banks pay wholesale for their money and the amount they charge customers upfront has been growing and is too wide. As soon as LIBOR creeps up, if that mark-up is maintained, we could be in serious difficulties, which is why the new clause is essential at this time.

This is a stitch-in-time new clause. We have tabled the proposal because we believe that now is a good time to require all the banks to forewarn their customers about a number of possible scenarios so that home owners with mortgages have the information necessary to prepare for them. Often when those of us with mortgages get information from lenders it is a set of retrospective information, for example on how much we have paid to defray the cost of our mortgage. We believe that it is now essential to forewarn customers about what could come in future, because we have to find a way of ending shocks to consumers, especially when changes to standard variable rates can sometimes be made with as little as two weeks’ notice.

[Alun Cairns]

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but how on earth could any individual or organisation predict with certainty what will happen in future?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is impossible to predict with certainty, but this is about scenario planning and preparedness. He will know that the Governor of the Bank of England has been saying what he regards normalised base rates to be, broadly speaking. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that our constituents, especially those on variable interest rates—this might not apply to all customers with mortgages, some of whom might have fixed rates—ought to be able to see when their rates fluctuate because of the fortunes of the base rate or, as is often the case, the standard variable rate determined by their bank, and does he not think that those banks ought to help their customers plan for the future? If we end up yet again with a cycle in which people find that they cannot make their payments and their homes are repossessed, we will all have those constituents in our surgeries.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. A couple of weeks ago Halifax announced that it would increase its standard variable rate by 0.5% from 1 May. RBS NatWest has done similarly, as have Clydesdale bank, Yorkshire bank and Bank of Ireland. In my view, all those increases are the result not of base rate changes, but of the fact that those banks are looking to repair their balance sheets not by squeezing remuneration and bearing down on the senior executive management costs that we all know they have, but by trying gradually to take a little more money from consumers. That is why we need a warning for customers in these circumstances.

[Alun Cairns]

I fail to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. If someone’s financial position at the time they take out a mortgage is relatively precarious, they probably should not have the mortgage. Furthermore, to take the logic to the next step, surely a fixed rate product would be better for those people and they should not have been on the variable rate product in the first place, so why on earth are we asking banks through additional regulation to make such predictions when it is meaningless in the reality of life?

[Chris Leslie]

We are doing this because the hon. Gentleman and I are here to represent our constituents, some of whom will be on variable rate mortgages in these circumstances. All we are saying is that we want all the banks to warn of the potential impact of rate changes across a range of scenarios. It is about helping customers anticipate what might be around the corner. It is as simple as that. The banks will give all sorts of reasons for increasing their standard variable rates. For example, they claim that costs make it difficult and often cite the special liquidity scheme, which is now beginning to taper off so the taxpayer safety net is beginning to come away, but taking more and more from consumers is in many ways unfair. I think that Lloyds bank recently borrowed many billions from the European Central Bank as part of its long-term refinancing option, so there is cheap money available wholesale for the banks. We have to keep an eye out for the way they sometimes seek to make an excessive profit off the backs of ordinary mortgage customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point of view.

If we do not take steps to deal with high-cost credit, we will do many people a disservice. I urge the Minister, even at this stage, to support amendment 40. It does not lay down a set of rules, but merely asks the FCA to make the rules an important priority. In order to protect people who will often feel that they have little choice but to use this sort of lending, we need to have controls in place.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to speak to the amendments. I welcome the Financial Secretary’s opening statement on the establishment of the Financial Conduct Authority, and the development away from the Financial Services Authority and the tick-box approach it adopted under the structure set up by the former Administration, which contributed to failures and had a harmful impact on many families and individuals. That is relevant to the responsibilities that the FCA will inherit. We shall now be able to secure an appropriate degree of protection; to promote choice and competition, which are regulatory concerns within the industry; and to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful speech about his concerns about various products and what the FCA should do to move things forward. I am concerned about some of the speeches and interventions from the Opposition, who are trying to be too prescriptive about what the FCA should do with particular products. Clearly, there is a range of issues and concerns, but ultimately we should surely allow the new chief executive of the FCA to take the decision based on what he or she feels should be the priority. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not be too prescriptive?

[Alun Cairns]

I entirely agree. That is one of my reasons for opposing amendment 40. In my view, it will not achieve what it sets out to achieve, but will have far-reaching consequences for not only the FCA but consumers and providers.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alun Cairns]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and I trust that I shall then have a chance to respond to her question.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on his concern about the expertise of the FCA and its ability to exercise the powers granted by the amendment? The amendment simply gives the FCA those powers; it does not direct it to use them automatically. I should also like to know why he was concerned by what the Minister said earlier about his support for the use of price regulation.

[Alun Cairns]

There are clauses that allow for product intervention and refer to terms and conditions, but that only underlines the fact that amendment 40 is not necessary. I do not understand the inconsistency. I am also worried about the reference to maximum pricing in the amendment. If it were passed, price regulation would be introduced to the financial services sector for the first time, because banking services are currently based on variable cost. Many products are intended to remove the risk from the consumer, and the risk is priced accordingly. Price controls could not accommodate changes and fluctuations in the marketplace. The amendment poses a major threat to the supply of valuable products to many consumers, to the free market, and to competition principles.

Direct pricing also poses the threat of practical consequences. How would the FCA determine the price of a product? One of my hon. Friends said that he considered 50% to be appropriate, but some Members are now shaking their heads, suggesting that that might be too high. How would the FCA decide whether the basis of pricing should be fixed or variable? What about the cross-subsidies that are arranged within financial institutions with the aim of securing the financial certainty that many consumers demand? What about the long-run incremental costs? It would be impossible to price products accordingly; but even if that were a solution, it would require a large-scale, sophisticated infrastructure body to provide continual oversight of the hundreds of products provided by hundreds of organisations.

For those reasons, I oppose amendment 40. In the same breath, however, I pay tribute to the campaigning that has highlighted the scandal of payday loans, and to the Treasury, which has responded accordingly. We have already heard that there will be a report by the end of the summer, and that it will be acted on. I hope that those who share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about payday loans will be reassured by what has been said not only by Ministers but by Back Benchers, who will maintain the pressure for action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

In certain circumstances, Parliament should be sovereign. That is an important principle in our constitution. I do not think that regulators should be able to override Parliament, if that is the Minister’s suggestion. I am pretty sure it is not. Ultimately, in certain circumstances, Parliament should be able to make the final decision. That is an important cornerstone of our constitution.

[Alun Cairns]

It would helpful if the hon. Gentleman could outline some of the circumstances in which Parliament should overrule the regulators.

[Chris Leslie]

It is entirely hypothetical. Of course we cannot do that at this stage, but there might be circumstances. I will remember the hon. Gentleman’s intervention for the many years that he will be in Parliament for when the time comes, if it comes, that he disagrees with a particular outcome of a regulation as it affects his constituents.

Amendment 35 talks about the impact of many of the changes within the regulatory system on consumers, particularly those on lower incomes. We believe that the FCA should have enshrined in its objectives a commitment to consider how easily consumers are able to find products that are appropriate to their income, and more broadly, products that provide value for money. In difficult times as incomes are squeezed it is right that consumers feel that they have a regulator that is on their side. If we are creating a genuine consumer champion in the FCA, it is important that it has a set of objectives and values that reflect that, particularly for those on the lowest income. It is a similar argument to that made in the previous group of amendments in respect of the Money Advice Service. We have seen excessive overdraft charges, high interest rates, and charges for hidden services. Those require a genuine consumer champion and this amendment would help to create that.

Amendment 36 would also shift the balance in favour of the consumer. It would introduce what is known as a fiduciary duty of care by authorised persons, by financial services providers, towards the consumers who are their clients. “Fiduciary” means holding in trust, holding in good faith, a concept that would help to rebuild confidence among the public in financial services. There is a serious lack of trust at present that is bad for consumers, providers and society at large. The Bill contains no explicit obligation on firms to avoid conflicts of interest, nor to profit at consumers’ expense without their knowledge and consent, nor to have undivided loyalties and duties of confidentiality to the customer. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee commented on many of these aspects and recommended that some action be taken. Although the FSA has recently had its treating customers fairly initiative, we do not think that that is enough. We believe that a fiduciary duty of care is necessary, especially in the light of some of the major concerns of mis-selling scandals and the need to learn lessons from those.

Amendments 33 and 34 relate to the costs and expense of establishing the FCA and PRA, splitting the FSA into those component parts. I apologise for rattling through these. We have to minimise unnecessary additional expenses incurred, because ultimately the consumers will pay. The FSA’s budget for 2013-14 has gone up by 15.6%. I accept that the new regulatory system will have some costs involved in that, but the majority of those costs are operational and not necessarily related to the principles of regulation involved. It was a bit of a joke to see in the White Paper the Government say that the running costs under the new arrangements should not be “materially different” in real terms and aggregate from the current FSA. That will not happen. We are talking about extremely significant extra costs.

We suggest that the memorandum between these organisations should contain an estimate of the annual costs involved in administering the FCA and PRA, and compare those to the estimated costs of the administration of the FSA. That is a bit of a crude way of getting a cost comparator, but I would be interested in seeing it. Similarly, amendment 34 talks about minimising the

“unnecessary additional expenses that might be incurred by virtue of the separate administration of the FCA and the PRA, and to maximise any common administrative savings achievable through close co-ordination.”

The PRA is moving to plush offices in Moorgate, leaving vacant space at Canary Wharf, a lease that expires way down the line in 2018. There is a sense in which there is a bit of empire building going on at the Bank of England, which will be responsible for the PRA. The Threadneedle street empire is growing strongly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is making very forceful points, especially on the FSCS. As that is currently funded by the industry itself, and given that the FCA cannot have detailed knowledge of the workings of every product, does my hon. Friend agree that in order to ensure that there is adequate protection, the FCA must work with the industry and accept the intelligence that comes from it?

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that.

I want to touch on the impacts, however. Smaller firms dominate the advisory and investment sector, and they clearly do not have the capital available to make the sizeable pay-outs that are an integral part of the scheme on behalf of other companies. The larger banks are present in most major financial centres, but it is the success of innovative smaller companies that marks out Britain’s financial services industry, or at least has done hitherto.

I am aware, as I have spoken to this company in recent days, of a FTSE 250 firm whose costs have risen by 270% under the compensation scheme, year on year, from 2009 to 2010. That includes some £4.7 million of interim levy costs for Keydata, a current cost of £470,000 for MF Global—again, I fear that that is an interim cost—and some £700,000 for Arch Cru. The company had predicted that its total cost for MF Global could end up being as high as £9.5 million.

This situation is an enormous concern. Firms are facing increased liabilities through the compensation scheme and the future structure of the supervisory regime does not suggest that prudential regulation of these firms is likely to be improved. This matter should be addressed in this Bill, as the FCA will not be a specialist prudential regulator. As I say, the experts are located elsewhere, so it is crucial that the Bill contains adequate safeguards and assurances that robust information-sharing schemes are to be put in place between the two regulators.

I briefly wish to discuss my new clauses 2 and 3, which seek to amend section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Section 166 sets out arrangements for a report by a skilled person, and the whole section urgently requires changing. The FSA has the power to insist on an investigation without determining who does it and without paying for it. The result has been that too many recent section 166 reports have cost the players in the financial services market huge sums, without producing anything of great value. Under the current regime, firms are guilty until proven innocent, and they have to pay for their own prosecution, regardless of whether guilt is proved or not.

The number of section 166 reports has, perhaps understandably, risen dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis. Nevertheless, such reports are increasingly used as a standard regulatory method, rather than being reserved, as they should be, for the most serious cases. They are becoming a phenomenally big burden on hard-pressed small firms. The costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds in each and every case, and companies often cannot recoup the costs, even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

I know that others wish to speak, but I just wish to put on the record the breakdown of the cost of section 166 reports. As I say, this is now an issue of major concern. In 2006-07, there were just 18 such cases, at a cost of £3.8 million. That number increased to 29, 56, 88 and 95 cases respectively for each of the four succeeding years, with the costs increasing from £3.8 million to £32.2 million for the year 2010-11. It is essential now that the FSA, which has not previously selected skilled persons to have a direct line of accountability, changes its whole approach on this matter. There is much more that I would like to say and I am sorry that time is so limited this evening. I hope that this matter will come back for further scrutiny, although I am afraid that that will be in another place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I think that it is important that the court’s non-executives perform a full role in scrutinising the Bank’s activities. They need to be able to look at the output of those reviews, consider them and express their views on them. On the issue of minutes, I will not say that we are getting into a semantic debate, because that would be unfair. What we want to do is ensure that a proper record of the court’s meetings is published.

I am not sure that the minutes should necessarily be verbatim, reporting every word that everyone has said, but they should certainly be a very good summary, catching the thought processes that took place in the court and the issues that were debated and discussed, so that Parliament and stakeholders can hold the Bank to account for the way in which it has used its powers not just when it comes to the Financial Policy Committee, but in other areas. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he looks for on our commitment to transparency and on ensuring that we do all we can to strengthen the transparency arrangements of the Bank of England.

I am very conscious that a number of other points were made, and I want to discuss them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled two amendments on the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England and Parliament’s role in it. We do not have time tonight to go into the detail of that procedure, but the Chancellor has said that there will be an open process, and having heard the debate in the House he will reflect on it when thinking about how the process should develop.

I turn to Government amendment 1. In Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham East argued for a check on the PRA’s ability to decide not to disclose the use of its veto over the FCA. The Government accept that the PRA will always be the best placed organisation to determine whether or when to disclose the use of its veto, but there is room for an element of independent consideration when it decides against such disclosure. The Government have therefore decided to place a duty on the PRA, through amendment 1, to consult the Treasury on a decision not to disclose, and this will ensure that proper disclosures do take place.

I will respond in writing to the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made on the use of skilled persons. He raised some important issues.

[Alun Cairns]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the strength of a practitioners panel in relation to the PRA, given that he has already accepted the merits of a practitioner panel in relation to the FCA?

[Mr Hoban]

What is important is that the PRA establishes its process for consultation with regulated firms. It is required to set out in its annual report its process of consultation.

In conclusion, this is an important part of the legislation, and I am very disappointed that the hon. Member for Nottingham East has tabled a wrecking amendment that would take the guts out of the Bill. I thought that the Opposition supported the reform of financial regulation, but they clearly do not, so I hope that if the hon. Gentleman puts his wrecking amendment to the vote the House will oppose it.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo.

I rise to speak to the amendments and to oppose clause 4, which will freeze age-related allowances for those who are receiving them and abolish them for those who are approaching retirement. I hope that Members from all parts of the Committee will join us in our opposition this afternoon. Defeating the clause would prevent a real-terms increase in tax for millions of older people in this country, which will cost £83 a year for 4.4 million people on modest incomes and as a much as £322 for 360,000 people who will reach the age of 65 next year.

We are seeking to reverse the Government’s freezing and abolition of age-related allowance for three simple reasons: first, that tax increase adds to the financial pressure already felt by older people on modest incomes facing rising costs; secondly, it picks the pockets of pensioners to fund an irresponsible tax cut for millionaires; and thirdly, the way in which it has been introduced adds insult to injury, breaking a promise made by the Chancellor just a year ago and using the language of tax simplification to cover up what is clearly and simply a tax grab.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is expressing opposition to the freezing of the age-related allowance. Did she express the same opposition when the last Chancellor did exactly the same in the Labour Government’s last Budget?

[Rachel Reeves]

This is a permanent freeze, and the allowance is being abolished entirely for people coming up to retirement next year, so it is very different from a one-year freeze.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will make some progress.

For the reasons that I have given, pensioners from the National Pensioners Convention have come to Parliament today to lobby MPs to vote against the change. Let us take each issue in turn and consider who will be hit, because there has been some myth making by defenders of the granny tax about how only well-off pensioners will be affected. The truth is, those who will be hit have very modest incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice]

I must confess that I have not shared that article from the Financial Times with my constituents, who, like me, are more avid readers of the West Lothian Courier. As we know, the increase in inflation, high fuel, energy and food prices and the VAT increase up to 20% have eroded any increases given to pensioners by the Government.

I am delighted to be able to tell the constituent whom I have just quoted and all the others who have contacted me about this issue that we on the Labour side of the Committee are trying our best to do exactly that today. In other words, we will do our job and kick this proposal out.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. There is an inconsistency between his actions and his standpoint at the last Budget brought in by the previous Chancellor, who froze the age allowance and the personal allowance. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the effect on pensioners on modest incomes, but at least on this occasion there was a significant increase in the personal allowance. When the previous Chancellor froze the age allowance, he also froze the personal allowance, so that tax affected people on lower incomes. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that logically that position is inconsistent?

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I thought we were talking about the proposals in this Bill.

Although we are clear that the granny tax is not right and not fair, the coalition parties have been desperate to try to play down the significant impact of the measure. As we are aware, this is a £3 billion tax raid on our nation’s pensioners. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) actually went as far as to insist that there is no granny tax at all. That will no doubt come as a great surprise to the 4.4 million pensioners who will be worse off as a result of the proposal, but it is typical of the increasingly desperate attempts by Liberal Democrats to distance themselves in the media from unpopular Government policies, before voting with the Tories to get those same measures through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

Does the hon. Lady accept that when the last Chancellor froze the age allowance and the personal allowance at the same time, pensioners on much lower incomes were affected?

[Katy Clark]

That was done as part of a range of measures. We have been talking about a package of measures today, and what we know is that pensioners will be disproportionately affected by the range of measures that this Government are steamrollering through. I will return to that later, but the hon. Gentleman’s point also highlights the fact that the changes proposed at that time treated everybody, of all ages, in the same way. In this debate we are trying to focus on the impact on pensioners of the freeze in what is an age-related benefit. We have heard a number of contributions that have highlighted how pensioners are struggling as a result of many of the Government’s policies, as well as the economic situation we are in, which the Government are not trying to alleviate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) put this debate in the bigger picture by highlighting the fact that the £3 billion that the Government will save as a result of the proposed change will be used to help some of the richest people in the country. The big picture is that the richest in this country are getting richer, at a time when the living standards of those on modest or low incomes are going down. We have heard a number of attacks on the last Labour Government in this debate, but the reality is that the figures show that the living standards of those on low, modest or middle incomes went up. There was also an increase in the living standards of the wealthiest in the country, but we are now seeing the living standards of ordinary people—people on low or modest incomes—plummeting, while at the same time we see huge and escalating increases in the incomes of rich individuals and many corporations.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Alun Cairns Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to carry on with my speech, then I will give way again. Perhaps by then the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) will have warmed up and will be able to give us some evidence, instead of more rhetoric.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

No, there is more from the Chancellor. Conservative Members ought to listen to this, because it is their very competent Chancellor speaking. A year later, in October 2010, he said:

“The public must know that the burden is being fairly shared. That’s why I said last year: we are all in this together. And I am clear…that those with the most”—

like those on the Treasury Bench—

“need to pay more. That is why… I have stuck with the 50p tax”.

Have I missed something over the past 18 months since this Chancellor has been in trouble? As far as I have seen, the economy has flatlined, growth is at absolutely zero, business investment is going nowhere and inflation is rising. The only thing that has fallen recently is unemployment. Thanks be to goodness that it has dipped today, but it is still at 2.6 million, and as I pointed out to the Minister on Monday night, 2,500 people were queuing for 200 jobs at a supermarket in my constituency last week. That is the reality of the economy under this Government, unfortunately.

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I shall give way to a Welsh colleague.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his enthusiasm for the 50% rate with the view of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who said that the 50% rate was temporary? How temporary is temporary for the Labour party?

[Owen Smith]

The 50p rate was introduced, as I said earlier, when we were in the depths of the biggest global recession—[Interruption.] I add the word global, unless Government Members are still suggesting that the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US was the fault of the Labour Government. Among the many risible claims of the present Government, that is right up there with “expansionary fiscal contraction”. While we are still asking the poor to pay the price for that global recession and piling misery upon misery on them, with VAT changes, increased job insecurity and wage stagnation, cutting the 50p rate is fundamentally the wrong thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will deal with the economic case, but this is where I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady ideologically. I do not think we can put economics and politics into separate boxes; the one drives the other. If we want a happier country, where people prosper because they feel that the whole of society is engaged in the same endeavour, we have to make sure that it feels as if everyone has equally got their—I am going to get my metaphors all mixed up—shoulder to the grindstone. I say to Government Members that in my constituency it does not feel that that is the case at the moment. It feels as if the poor are having a very rough time, and there is very little prospect of changing that. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said that 2,700 unemployed people in his constituency were going for 200 jobs. The statistics are even worse just up the road in my constituency. It is not a question of someone getting on their bike and going somewhere else to find a job, which is why the politics matter. I am talking not about party politics, but about the sense of whether we are genuinely all in this together.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point in comparing the incomes of people in his constituency with those of some in the City of London. But in order to raise the wealth and prosperity of people in his constituency and in every other constituency across the UK, particularly those in the north, Wales and Scotland, do we not need to attract investors and to attract the best brains in the world? That 50% rate is extremely important in respect of providing investment to his constituency, my constituency and others of hon. Members across this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That may well be the case. However, if a Government have to make that decision—and, yes, there are occasions when that has to be done— they must first convince people that the economic case is sound, and on the basis of the Government’s own published information, that is not so. Indeed, even the Prime Minister did not seem to know what his own Government’s information said when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions earlier. It cannot be argued that there are times when the economic case is more important than the politics and so the right decision has been made, because the Government have not made a sound economic case.

We have a political context in which the Government are saying to people: “Make sacrifices. If you’re working in the public services, take a pay freeze. If you’re a motorist, you’re going to have to pay more for your petrol. If you’re a pensioner, you must have your tax allowances frozen for some time so that allowances can catch up, with the result that you’re collectively going to lose £1 billion a year. You’re going to have to do this because we’ve got a deficit that we’ve got to address.” I could go through a whole lot of other measures. If people are going to be asked to follow a policy that is designed to reduce the deficit and to accept those impacts on their standard of living, they must understand that the weakest are not being selected for the heaviest burden. This decision is not only economically flawed but politically flawed because it will call into question the Government’s sincerity when they argue that we all have to make sacrifices together.

I have another role in Northern Ireland as Finance Minister. We have frozen wages. We have stopped all bonuses in the public sector where that has been possible and there are no contracts. We have said to people that there will be no recruitment or promotion within the public sector. We have said to people who work in the private sector, “You’re going to have it tougher because we’re going to be spending less on public sector contracts and so on, with the impact that that has on people’s jobs.” We have said about new house building and a whole range of other things, “This can’t be done.” We have said to voluntary groups and community groups, “You’re going to get cuts in your grants because we don’t have the money to do this.”

By and large, I have found that most people accept that when they see that it is evenly spread. People stop me in the street all the time and talk about the impact that it is having on their lives. They say, “We don’t like it, but if we have to put up with it because we know we can’t carry on spending money we don’t have, we’ll do it.” Nothing undermines the argument made by those of us who wish to be responsible about the budget deficit more than the news that the Government are saying to people, “Make sacrifices”, while those who are earning more than they need to live on will get a 20% or a 10% tax cut. That is why the politics of this is all wrong. The economics is not sound and the politics is not sound, and for that reason we will vote against it.

[Alun Cairns]

Thank you, Mr Hood, for calling me to contribute to this debate on amendment 1. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I accept some of his points about the importance of the economics, but I certainly do not agree with his conclusion. I will comment on the weakness of the argument presented by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) a little later.

[Mr Love]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the message of this Budget is, “We’re all in this together except for the 1% of the richest people in this country”?

[Alun Cairns]

That is clearly not the situation, as I will seek to demonstrate in the next few minutes.

The starting point of any Budget has to be the scale of the national debt, and the debate must take into account the legacy of the deficit that has been inherited, the scale of public spending, and the projections that can be made in a situation that is uncertain because of the volatility in the economy in the UK, in Europe and across the rest of the world. There is also an important central element about the setting of personal tax rates. We need to create an environment where the economy is growing and this country is attractive to international investors and to investors who reside in the UK. We want to recreate a business-friendly environment where wealth and jobs are created, and where that is spread across all parts of the UK.

The 50% rate is absolutely key, and an awful lot of attention has been paid to that. The hon. Member for East Antrim talked about the economics and the politics of it and claimed that both were wrong, but in fact both are right. If one thing in the Budget sent a positive message to every investor and every mover of capital around the world, it was the reduction of the 50% rate to 45%, which said that Britain is once again open for business.

[Jonathan Edwards]

If the politics is not wrong, why was the policy not in the Tory manifesto in 2010, and why has the hon. Gentleman’s party dived 10% in the polls since the Budget?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point. In fairness to him, he has presented a respectable view. I disagreed with it, but I expected him, as a columnist in the Morning Star, to present that sort of image. On that basis, he would want to tax as much as he can and spend as much as he can—something that I disagree with. There is a difference between the respectable point that he made and the unrespectable point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd because of the confused message that he is presenting because of the uncertainty.

[Owen Smith]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have absolutely no idea what his last sentence meant, but I will move on. If this was such a good Budget for business, why did the OBR conclude that over the next year business investment in Britain will go up by 0.7%, which is down by almost 8% on last year’s estimate? If business is supposed to be spending lots more money as a result of the 50p rate cut and many other measures in the Budget, why is that not shown in the OBR figures? Why is GDP going up by only 0.1%?

[Alun Cairns]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is extremely selective in whom he quotes and when he quotes them. He chooses to quote the OBR’s figures when it suits his argument on one occasion, but chooses to quote the HMRC’s figures when it suits his argument on another occasion. That relates back to the uncertainty that I mentioned.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have a couple of points. I always understood that the issue of the 50p rate was not in our manifesto because the previous Government said that it was temporary. It therefore did not need to be in our manifesto, because it was always meant to be a temporary measure. On the nonsense that Opposition Members have spouted about business investment, has my hon. Friend seen paragraph 3.62 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which states:

“We therefore expect only moderate growth in business investment this year as the heightened uncertainty from the ongoing euro area difficulties limits firms’ investment plans”?

It is not the UK that is at fault, but the eurozone, which the Opposition wanted to take us into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Once again, he makes a cutting point that exposes the weakness of the argument of the hon. Member for Pontypridd.

The politics of this measure is that it sends a message to international investors that Britain is once again open for business. The 50% rate needs to be added to the national insurance rate. People could well be paying a tax rate well in excess of 60%. For some individuals, it is as high as 68%. What sort of message does that send to international investors? The politics of this is extremely important in relation to how it is interpreted by the people we want to attract to this country, because they will bring their capital with them.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am not sure what Government Members are saying is causing the lack of investment. Is it the situation in the eurozone—I agree with the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about that—or is it because of the high rate of taxation? The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) seems to agree with both propositions.

[Alun Cairns]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that there is no silver bullet. I suggest that there is a range of issues. It is partly to do with the eurozone, partly to do with the debt that we inherited from the previous Government and partly to do with the global environment. Thanks to the Chancellor and the Treasury team, we are putting Britain on the road to the recovery. The reduction of the rate from 50% to 45% is central to that because of the message that it sends to every investor around the globe, as I have outlined.

We must recognise that we have had the highest tax rate in the G20. That has an effect when international companies consider where to invest. The G20 countries are in the top league of where international companies spend their money. Obviously, I want us to be seen as the most competitive nation in the league, not for us to be at the bottom of the league. That is the situation that we inherited.

The message of the Labour party consists of nothing more than envy. Labour fails to recognise that the top 1% of earners pay 30% of the income tax in this nation. The marginal rates are exceptionally important, as has been mentioned. We need to create an environment in which Britain is open for business and make it an attractive nation to investors from the UK and from elsewhere.

The argument presented by the hon. Member for Pontypridd is hollow. He misses a number of points. First, the 50% rate was intended to be a temporary rate in the first place. In response to interventions, he said that he did not think that the temporary rate should be adjusted just yet. How temporary is temporary? He gave the impression in his response that the rate should remain at 50% for the remainder of this Parliament. That would take us up to eight years of this temporary tax. He said in another response that he could not predict the Budgets that would happen after the next general election. There are three years remaining in this term. He cannot have it both ways. He says that the temporary tax should last for eight years, but that he cannot predict what will happen in three years’ time. The reality is that the Labour party is merely presenting the politics of envy. It wants to be the tax-and-spend party once again. It was the tax-and-spend party when it left office, and it has done little to move on from that position.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that there is no envy on my part of him or other Government Members. I did not imply what we would have done in my speech; I stated explicitly that we would not have got rid of the 50p rate for the duration of this Parliament. The reason for that was equally clear: the Opposition are still asking for an equitable distribution of difficulty in these difficult times, as opposed to the Government, who are giving a tax bung to millionaires. We would not have done that and we think that it is the wrong thing to do. He clearly thinks that it is the right thing to do.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman has repeated that by “temporary”, the Opposition mean eight years and that it could be even longer. On the one hand, he is not prepared to make a commitment for three years’ time, but on the other, he is prepared to make a commitment for the next three years. That is another inconsistency in his argument.

The Opposition’s strongest argument is about the uncertainty over the change in income when the rate changes from 50% to 45%. To be kind, one would say that the hon. Member for Pontypridd has been selective; some might say that he has not been wholly honest. Everything is uncertain. There is no guarantee about how the economy will grow, nor about how the European or the global economy will grow. There was exactly the same uncertainty when the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), introduced the 50% rate. He predicted that it would bring in three times more than it has brought in.

[Alison McGovern]

On a point of order, Mr Hood. I believe that the hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) as not being wholly honest. Will you clarify whether that is in order?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair if an opinion is expressed by an hon. Member. It is certainly not against the Standing Orders of the House.

[Alun Cairns]

If my remark caused offence to any Opposition Member, I will happily withdraw it. To rephrase what I said, the hon. Member for Pontypridd was inconsistent in his argument.

There is obvious uncertainty about the data that HMRC presents.

[Owen Smith]

In the interests of consistency, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he agrees that there is gross uncertainty about the revenue receipts and about the £100 million loss? Does he therefore think that the Exchequer might lose more than that?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I can answer him directly. Exactly the same uncertainty that there is now existed when the previous Chancellor increased the rate from 40% to 50%. The economic situation has changed. Therefore, there will obviously be uncertainty in all the data, be they from the OBR, HMRC, the Institute for Fiscal Studies or any other independent forecaster. The Chancellor needs to make a judgment based on the data that are presented. [Interruption.] I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.

[Owen Smith]

I just want to point out that we know how much money was raised by the 50% rate. That is not in dispute or uncertain. It raised £1.1 billion. That is there in black and white on page 39 of the HMRC document on the 50p rate. It is the projections that are uncertain. It is uncertain that £100 million will be the loss to the Exchequer. However, we know that the static cost, if there is no behavioural change, will be £3 billion. We know all that.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The increase from 40% to 50% raised only a third of what was projected when it was introduced. That is how uncertain things were. If it is a bad tax and is not raising what it is intended to raise, let us get rid of it and have a sensible tax that is a lot more business-friendly and attractive to international investors. If that is the Opposition’s best argument in opposing the reduction of the rate from 50% to 45%, it demonstrates how weak they are.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I did not get a chance to say this earlier. The notion that the rate raised only a third of what was anticipated is another half-truth that was included in the Budget speech. In the year when we set the rate, we anticipated that it would raise £1.3 billion. That is there in black and white in the Labour party’s final Budget. It raised £1.1 billion. That is not a third of what we anticipated, but £200 million shy of it.

[Alun Cairns]

There are uncertainties about the drafting of any Budget at any time. There will be uncertainties in the Budget next year and the year after, as there have always been for any Chancellor writing a Budget. In the end, it comes down to the fact that a Chancellor has to make a judgment. This Chancellor had to make a judgment about whether a marginal tax rate in excess of 60% was right for Britain to attract investors and create wealth within the nation. He did so on the basis of information from the OBR, HMRC and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that at a time when we needed growth more than ever, that marginal tax rate sent the wrong message to other nations, and that a reduction in the headline rate of tax from 50% to 45% was exceptionally important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend obviously makes an extremely strong point. It underlines the argument that the last Chancellor faced the same uncertainty as the current one. The last Chancellor made a judgment that he should increase the rate of tax, and the current one has made a judgment that he should reduce it. That is the core difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. We want to create wealth, unlike the Labour party, which is the party of envy and wants to punish people and spend their money instead of giving individuals greater choice.

[Mr Love]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that because of the uncertainty about all these figures, the Chancellor had to make a judgment. Was that judgment a political one, casting doubt on the Government’s claim that it was made for purely economic reasons? It was not an economic decision; it was a political one.

[Alun Cairns]

It was quite obviously an economic judgment, but we cannot ignore the politics, which is what international investors interpret when they are considering placing their money and creating jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or mine. They consider how much they, their senior management, their greatest innovators and their scientists will have to pay under the top rate of tax. The politics cannot be ignored, but the economics, as demonstrated by the Chancellor and the Treasury team, is sound according to figures from the OBR, the IFS and HMRC. I absolutely accept them.

[Stewart Hosie]

We back amendment 1. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said, it is the only way in which we can score out the cutting of the 50p rate of tax. Government Members have made some obscurantist points, as he described them, about why the amendment may not do precisely what is intended, but we would expect the table showing the 2013-14 rates to appear in the 2013 Finance Bill, as the equivalent table does in the Finance Bill every year, whether the amendment succeeds or not.

We believe it is wrong to remove at this point the temporary 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 a year. I want to say a little about the context in which that extraordinary tax giveaway is happening. The Government say that we are all in it together and point in their various documents to the fact that every decile in society will be worse off and take some share of the burden. However, they then tell us that, almost uniquely, the personal tax-raising measure of the 50p rate is now deemed ineffective in bringing in much-needed revenue to tackle the deficit and debt, which is their primary objective, and in bringing down their borrowing requirements, which they see as an essential part of their plan.

The Revenue has produced an assessment of the impact of the change, which I am certain the Exchequer Secretary will pray in aid to justify the Government’s case. I will come back to that assessment, but first I shall explain why the removal of the temporary 50p tax rate proves that we are not all in it together, and why that single tax cut amplifies the unfairness of the Government’s plans. I hope to expand on the points that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made in his very good speech.

For those on low and fixed incomes, pay cuts, wage freezes and now a shock rise in inflation have meant the erosion of their living standards over some time. They will see no benefit from a tax cut for millionaires. For families in receipt of working tax credit, the new rules mean that their household income will fall by up to £3,800-odd a year if they are unable to find an extra eight hours of work a week. We know from our constituencies that such work often simply does not exist. They will see no benefit or fairness in cutting the 50p tax rate.

Of course, the families who face a fall in working tax credits are those who tend to earn only about £17,000 a year in total. They will see no benefit from a tax cut for millionaires. Indeed, real middle-class families earning £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 a year—not somewhere over £250,000 a year, as I suspect the Government assume middle-class families earn—are about to have their child benefit removed, even with the taper changes to be proposed.

Before a Liberal gets up to tell me that there have been moves to increase the basic personal allowance from £6,475 in 2010 to £9,205 by 2013, an increase of £3,000 leading to a saving of some £600, I point out that the threshold above which one pays the 40p rate will go down from £37,400 to £32,245 in the same time frame. That is a fall of £5,000, so the fall in the threshold at the top end is larger than the increase in the allowance at the bottom. The net impact is that by 2013, the percentage of people paying the 40p rate will go up to 15% of all taxpayers, or some 5 million people earning more than £41,500. We have never had such a percentage of our taxpayers paying that rate before, and they will see no benefit from a tax cut for millionaires.

That is before we even consider the tax changes for older people. The changes to age-related allowances—the so-called granny tax—will have an impact on some 40% of pensioners. Those above the basic tax and pension credit threshold but below the £30,000 level at which they would not benefit anyway, or some 4.41 million older people, will be worse off. They will be singing in the streets of Raith, as they say, at the millionaires getting a tax cut that they are paying for.

The Government are providing a tax cut for millionaires that is being paid for by those on fixed incomes hit by inflation, poor working families whose tax credits are being cut or removed and middle-class families earning just over the ever-reducing 40p tax threshold. It is hardly fair, it is not right, and we are definitely not all in it together.

How precisely do the Government justify that? It is an inevitable consequence of a financial plan that is seeing the Government fetishise debt and deficit levels to the extent that they plan to take £155 billion a year out of the economy by 2016-17 for fiscal consolidation, through cuts and tax rises. To understand the Tory priorities, we need to understand how the proportion of spending cuts to tax rises is changing, which is very instructive. I hope some Tories will find it instructive, because their constituents will soon be knocking on their doors asking why it is happening.

In 2011-12, spending cuts were planned to be 56% of the total consolidation, the rest of which would be tax rises, which is a pretty reasonable balance. However, the Government are increasing the proportion of the consolidation that is cuts through the next few years to 62%, 69%, 74% and 79%, and up to a whopping 81%—only 19% of the consolidation will be tax increases by 2016-17.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I would be terribly happy for all the banks, including RBS and HBOS, to make more profit. That would clearly be a very good thing for the British economy; we are entirely agreed on that. At the moment, however, they are not being asked to bear a particularly heavy burden, and nor are the other banks that are already making significant profits—lower than in previous years, but still significant. It is not easy to square that with the Conservative Government’s previous commitment to honour our intention to make those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. The Government’s decisions on the 50p rate and the bank levy do not bear out their former agreement with us; rather, they speak of a Government who have decided to make a different set of decisions over the past few years, as borne out most recently by the 50p tax rate. The Government should think again about how much money they are raising from the banks and what is the appropriate amount that they should raise.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will keep going for a moment and then happily give way.

The bank levy currently impacts on banks only after the first £20 billion in equities and liabilities is taken into account, capturing, in effect, the millionaires of the corporate world. When the idea of the levy was first mooted—initially by Labour Members and then after being picked up by the International Monetary Fund— [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is true. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) first mentioned a bank levy, and then the IMF picked up on it. It is a simple point, but I will happily give way if the Minister wants to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

As is in the Bill, have also cut a deal with Switzerland that allows people avoiding tax by the Government putting money into Switzerland to continue doing so. Again, on the plausibility of the Government’s estimates, they claim that it will net between £4 billion and £7 billion for the Exchequer, but the OBR thinks that highly questionable.

[Alun Cairns]

I am astounded by the Opposition’s attitude, particularly given that their major party donor used to use those benefits in Switzerland, which we have now closed, and to hear them brag about the previous Government’s anti-avoidance measures, given that their candidate for Mayor for London is using every scheme in the book to avoid paying tax. What influence have those changes had on him?

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman ought to read some of the Budget documentation. The Government have not closed anything in respect of Switzerland; they have opened it up and continued to allow people to put money into Switzerland. They have asked them to acknowledge how much they have there and then charged them a lower rate of tax than they would have been charged had they kept their money in the UK. What is worse is that it runs fundamentally contrary to the European train of thought, established across Europe and supported by the previous Labour Government over their last five years, which is that we want more transparency, not less, in our tax affairs. Unfortunately, we will have less transparency as a result of his Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

It absolutely does. On Monday night, I put it to the Chancellor that he and those on his Front Bench were entirely out of touch with the reality in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend. Pontypridd is fortunate, right now, to have the prospect of a new supermarket opening, which will create 200 jobs, but 2,500 people queued 600 yards down the main street to try to secure one of those jobs. They came not only from my constituency but from right across south Wales. That is the desperate reality that many people in this country are facing. I saw the queue myself, and I know that many of those people were young and eager to work. They also felt that the opportunities for them were diminishing under this Government, rather than increasing. They are looking to the Government, and the Opposition, for action. They want us to put on the table solutions that will deliver growth and jobs and that will stop the economy flatlining.

Unfortunately, the net effect of all the measures in the Budget, including those in clause 209, will be an increase of only 0.1% growth in GDP—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) shakes his head, but those are the numbers in his Government’s documentation that have been agreed and validated by the OBR: growth of 0.1% in GDP and growth of 0.7% in business investment, which is down almost seven points from where we thought we were going to be just 18 months ago. That is a desperate state of affairs. How on earth can he defend it?

[Alun Cairns]

It has been said in the previous debate as well as in this one how cautious the Chancellor rightly needs to be in planning the Budget and in working with growth figures. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the improvement in the UK’s economic position announced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies earlier this week, leading it to increase its growth predictions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to the debate on how we should tax our banks. First, it is important to put on the record the fact that I think banks should pay their share towards paying down the deficit. Every day, we are borrowing more money to pay for public services, so it is important for the banks to pay their share so that the deficit can be dealt with as soon as possible. How, then, does one take money or tax? As a tax accountant by training, I know that there are many different ways of extracting revenue from businesses. We can tax them based on their income or their profits or in many other different ways.

One thing about the bank levy introduced by this Government is that it guarantees that the banks will pay some tax. If they are loss making, their losses will not wipe out that tax. The bank levy cannot increase the losses; it is non-tax deductible for corporation tax purposes. We will be ensuring that, each year, the banks pay their fair share towards reducing the deficit.

Reductions in corporation tax are also not taken into account in the levy. It is absolutely the right thing to do to cut corporation tax. We need to cut it for all our businesses, to promote entrepreneurship, so that our businesses have more money left over at the end of every year to invest in new employment, new plant and machinery and shareholder returns. Given that shareholders are often our pension funds, it is extremely important that we ensure that those pension funds get the return that they so desperately need to allow our pensioners to enjoy the living standards they expect. As I say, reducing corporation tax is important, but we need to ensure that the banks do not benefit too much from that reduction—and the bank levy makes that happen.

[Alun Cairns]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that a balance needs to be struck? Banks need to pay their fair share, but we also need a level of taxation that will help us to attract to the UK the best bankers across the globe. We do not want to drive the banks overseas to Hong Kong, Switzerland or elsewhere, which would mean a net loss to the Treasury.

[Karen Bradley]

I entirely agree. Clearly 50% of nothing is not as much as 45% of something, It is important for us to tell the world that the UK is open for business, and to say “Bring your business to the UK”. That applies very much to the financial services sector.

We have already discussed how much money the banks might or might not pay towards reducing the deficit. What we are considering now is just the additional amount that they are paying as a result of the increase in the bank levy. They are, of course, paying an awful lot more to the Exchequer. I believe that the financial services sector contributes about £32 billion to our economy, and I think it important for us to retain and increase that amount of revenue. I firmly believe that we should have taxes that raise the maximum amount of revenue to be spent on our schools, hospitals and police officers, and that ideology should not determine how we set our tax rates.

The main point that I want to make about the bank levy is that it will raise the money irrespective of the amount of bonus paid. I remember when the previous Chancellor announced, in his 2009 pre-Budget report, that the banks would pay

“a special one-off levy of 50 per cent.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 367.]

At that time I was working in a large accounting practice, and was analysing the Budget. The biggest surprise came when the then Chancellor said that the Treasury expected the bonus tax to raise £500 million. Those of us who were in that firm at the time—it was one of the big four—were staggered that the Treasury should think that only £500 million-worth of bonuses would be paid, given that the tax meant that an equal amount would be paid to the Exchequer, and I think we have now seen that that did not happen.

The purpose of the levy was to drive behaviour. The point of it was that the banks would not pay the bonuses. The then Chancellor said that the Treasury expected a reduction in the level of bonuses that would be paid that year, but that simply did not occur: the bonuses were still paid. I personally believe that tax is a very blunt instrument for the purpose of driving behaviour, and that people will behave in the way in which they wish to behave, whether it involves charitable giving, buying pasties or paying bonuses. Tax is something that businesses “manage around”. They do not think of it as a behaviour driver, and it clearly did not drive behaviour in the way that the Treasury expected in that instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I felt it was necessary to contribute to try and counter the argument from Government Members that taxation does not drive behaviour. It does.

The arguments that I have heard from Government Members are contradictory. On the one hand we are told that the bank bonus tax did not change behaviour and there was therefore no point in imposing it. On the other hand it is argued that if we have excessive taxation, people will leave the country and move banking elsewhere. One cannot argue both cases at the same time. Either taxation alters people’s behaviour or it does not. I believe that it does, but it is incredibly difficult to assess what will happen. The Treasury predictions over the past few years have not been very good at doing that.

The point has been made by several speakers that the original bank bonus tax was designed to drive behaviour, rather than to raise money. That resulted in an original estimate of receipts of about £500 million. Although the then Chancellor made it clear that it was a one-off tax, it was also made clear in the pre-Budget report that

“the Government will consider extending the period of the charge so that the tax remains in place until the relevant provisions of the Financial Services Bill come into force. Where there is evidence of avoidance schemes being put in place, the Government will take action to close those schemes.”

Implicit in that is the anticipation that other measures would defeat the bonus culture that was so damaging to our economy. It leaves open the suggestion that the then Government were prepared to review the tax if that did not happen.

It is obvious that the tax did not affect the bonus culture, which is why the tax raised about £3.5 billion. It is interesting to note that even as late as March 2010 the Treasury estimated that it would get only £2 billion—a huge underestimate of the amount that the tax would raise. Given that it raised more, behaviour had, by definition, not changed.

It is difficult to know whether the absence of any change in behaviour was in anticipation of a Conservative Government coming in who would not tackle the problem. That is a possible assumption. I contend that the previous Government had left open the option to deal with that culture, and this may be one of the measures that they would have taken both to raise revenue and to deal with the bonus culture. Given the June 2010 Budget introduced by the subsequent Chancellor and the apocalyptic vision he presented of the nation’s finances, I find it strange that a bonus tax that was raising so much money should be abandoned so readily and ruled out of consideration. The substitute tax is quite obviously designed not to raise as much and is not in accordance with the principles of responsible capitalism to which the Government say that they are committed. If we want responsible capitalism, it seems to me to be quite sensible to have a taxation regime that penalises those who act irresponsibly while at the same time raising a considerable amount of money to offset any potential burdens on those who act responsibly.

[Alun Cairns]

If the motivation behind the bonus tax is to tax those who have acted irresponsibly, would the hon. Gentleman suggest that we had an additional tax on former Labour Ministers who led us into the situation that has contributed to the debt of the nation?

[Mr Bailey]

Perhaps we should. Perhaps we should introduce a tax on certain members or major funders of the Conservative party, too.