Bradford & Bingley plc

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), whom I congratulate on securing this important debate, and of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I was struck by the fact that both referred to a duty of care. I therefore hope they will see fit to support the work that I and colleagues have done to try to get a fiduciary duty of care written into legislation. I have tabled amendments to that effect to financial services Bills on various occasions.

Let me return to some of the issues that have been raised. Hon. Members will no doubt be disappointed that I was not in Parliament or a member of the Government at the time of Bradford & Bingley’s nationalisation, and I am therefore not able to speak from personal experience. The collapse of Bradford & Bingley came about during the worst global economic downturn since the great depression, and we must remember the serious situation that the then Government were facing, which, to be fair, hon. Members have recognised. It is also worth remembering that we had seen just 12 months earlier the first run on a bank for 80 years at Northern Rock. I recall queues of people outside the bank’s branches seeking to withdraw their money, with police having to be deployed in some instances. It was the duty of the Government of the day not only to secure an agreement on the future of Bradford & Bingley but to steady the financial system and to ensure that the country would get through those turbulent times.

We should also remind ourselves of the surrounding circumstances at that time. It was important to take account of the 2.5 million people who had a total of £22.2 billion invested in Bradford & Bingley. A million people had a mortgage with the bank. It had also been particularly exposed to the falling house market after specialising in buy-to-let and self-certification mortgages. I am tempted to go off on a slight tangent and discuss how housing bubbles are created, but that would do a disservice to those concerned about this particular debate, so I will not at this point.

Bradford & Bingley had fallen £26.7 million into the red in the first six months of 2008, so the circumstances were serious. Bad loans increased by 86% between January and June 2008 compared with the same period the previous year. Shares had fallen some 93% in the year before nationalisation, dropping to just 20p the week before. In the first six months of 2008, more than 9,000 customers had their homes repossessed or were more than three months behind with their payments, which was twice the average. Some 370 jobs had been lost, with a further 3,000 at risk. At that time, following various plans to raise funds from shareholders, the confidence of the City had been lost.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I do not envy the position that the hon. Lady finds herself in today. I appreciate that we cannot do anything about what occurred in 2008, but we can today do something about the culture of secrecy that followed. Will she commit to the hon. Members gathered here that she will speak with her Scottish colleagues—the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—and ask the two of them to provide answers to the questions posed both here and by our constituents about what happened between the rights issue and the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I have not, to date, spoken directly to the previous Prime Minister or the former Chancellor on this particular issue. I was interested to hear what the debate would be about today, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about any action that the current Government will take. If there is something useful to be gained from my discussing the matter with the previous Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, I would be more than willing to do so, but I do not know whether that would produce the result that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she says, and I hope that she will pursue the previous Prime Minister and the former Chancellor. In the unlikely and catastrophic event that there is a Labour Government after the next election, the one thing that the hon. Lady could do is to promise that a Labour Government would actually release all the relevant papers and hold an inquiry. She might not be able to say anything about what happened back then, but she can certainly say what she would do if she had the chance. Will she commit to that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the conventions relating to previous Governments. I am pretty sure that I will not be in a position, even in the likely event that there is a Labour Government the next time around, to discuss releasing papers from a previous Government. I understand that that is the convention irrespective of political parties. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about the action that the current Government can take.

At the time of Bradford & Bingley’s problems, the Government of the day wanted not only to try to preserve the country’s financial stability but to ensure that ordinary savers were protected. My understanding is that they did that in good faith and believed it to be the correct thing to do. I am sure that it was not an easy decision, but following the Financial Services Authority declaring default on the bank’s borrowings, the Government took decisive action. It is also worth noting that it was not only the previous Government who thought that that was the correct decision. People who were in opposition then and who are now part of the coalition also believed that it was right. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who was then the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said that if there was no private sector rescuer for Bradford & Bingley, which of course there was not, the Government were right to step in. He said at the time:

“In these circumstances, nationalisation is the least worst option. The UK Government is getting these assets for free, so it could turn out to be quite a good deal.”

[Philip Davies]

There is a big difference between stepping in to help and obliterating a high street bank. Northern Rock is still out there. People can still visit a Northern Rock branch. That is not the issue, however. The issue is that Bradford & Bingley was treated completely differently from every other organisation. It is not about stepping in to help; it is about how that supposed help was given.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He has been a powerful advocate on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure that he will have other questions, but it is important to understand the context. The then Treasury director general wrote in the March 2012 “Review of HM Treasury’s management response to the financial crisis”:

“The Treasury drew on the experience of nationalising Northern Rock to resolve subsequent failing financial institutions, such as Bradford & Bingley, more quickly and decisively.”

That suggests that people thought not only that it was the right decision, but that action had to be taken quickly to avoid further damage to savers and the wider economy.

[Craig Whittaker]

In light of what the hon. Lady has just said, will she enlighten us as to why Bradford & Bingley was treated entirely differently from other banks, some of which received more than £60 billion in taxpayer money only a short time later?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I said at the beginning that I was sure that hon. Members would be disappointed that I would not be able to describe the day-to-day dealings of the previous Government. I am looking at the case on the basis of the information currently available.

The role of the European Commission was also mentioned. The Competition Commissioner has said:

“The Bradford & Bingley decision illustrates once again the positive contribution of EU state aid policy to ensuring orderly and effective solutions to tackle the financial crisis. The UK authorities’ market-oriented solution has avoided any disproportionate distortions of competition while enabling the preservation of the viable parts of the business.”

At the time, people seemed to be of the belief that the correct decision was made. It was not easy, but it was taken in good faith and because people thought that it was the right thing to do.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s position—she was not a Member of Parliament at the time. However, given the context five years ago, which she is outlining in some detail, and the problems with the Co-op bank now, will she commit to a fully independent investigation into how and why it came about, and put in place steps to ensure that it never happens again?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to come on to some of the things we can do to continue to ensure that the things that happened in the past and recently do not happen again. We need to restore confidence in the banking world for customers, consumers and the wider economy. It has given me no pleasure to see yet more allegations and accusations about the practices in RBS in the past few weeks. Various inquiries are looking into those practices.

As hon. Members are aware, I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and I have had a long involvement in the co-operative movement. It gives me no pleasure to see the situation that the Co-operative bank is in. I am sure that the inquiries will give us further clues about what we need to do to ensure that such things are not repeated in the future. I understand that what I am saying will not be much of a consolation to those who lost their jobs during the Bradford & Bingley situation, or to the shareholders who lost their money. I understand that the hon. Member for Shipley, who has worked hard as a constituency MP, continues to raise these issues to ensure that his constituents get answers.

The Bradford & Bingley shareholder action group, which speaks on behalf of the former shareholders, has run a lengthy campaign. We must ensure that no one else goes through what the people who lost their jobs and those who lost out in the crisis went through. That is why it is important that we work harder to reform the banking system, to ensure that such situations never happen again, and, as we discussed many times in Committee on financial services Bills, to future-proof against anything that could happen in the future. That is why I am making these points.

I am somewhat surprised that the Government have not given their full support to many of the recommendations of the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Vickers Independent Commission on Banking, which the Government set up. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill was a pretty thin volume in Committee, although it increased exponentially in size thereafter. Labour Members tabled various amendments during the passage of the Bill to ensure more protection for taxpayers and to rebuild consumer choice, financial inclusion and a diverse market. Crucially, we aimed to reform banking standards and the high-risk culture, while boosting the economy. It was disappointing that the Government either watered down or ignored the recommendations of the commissions and voted against most of our amendments. However, there was one victory in the other place yesterday.

I note that in the past couple of days we have heard that the Chancellor has now written to the Bank of England to review the Financial Policy Committee’s powers on leverage ratios. Although it is good news that the Chancellor has belatedly seen the importance of that issue, now that the Bill is in its final stages in the other place, it is a shame that it has taken him so long to do so.

I hope for some leadership from the Minister this morning—I know that he has a thorough understanding of the banking sector. I hope that we will see more of a change of heart from the Chancellor on wider banking reform, so that we can ensure that a similar crisis can never happen again. The Opposition will continue to press for that.

I will conclude on the point with which I started. The hon. Members for Shipley and for Calder Valley talked about a duty of care, which is important for everyone in every sector of the financial services markets. Whether people are in banking, insurance or other institutions, they must realise that they have a responsibility to the customers whose money they look after. I hope that the Government will support the call for a fiduciary duty of care that we have made on many occasions. Will the Minister comment on that, as well as answering the questions that other hon. Members have put to him?

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to get more British people into British jobs is to ensure they have the skills to do those jobs. That is exactly what the Government are focused on.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Families up and down the UK who are struggling with the cost of living simply will not recognise the rosy picture that the Minister is painting. Is the reality not shown in a recent report from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which states that changes brought in by this Government mean that families on low wages now have less than they need for a minimum acceptable living standard? That failure is on this Minister’s watch. Is it a record he is proud of?

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

We need not more laws but to address the culture within banks and financial services. We pay senior executives in those institutions to assess risk. If the highest fine associated with the 2008 banking collapse is less than the bonuses of those executives in the preceding year, as is currently the case, it is logical that executives will assess the risk of being caught and of a paltry fine as being a risk worth taking. If the penalty is against the firm and not against them as individuals, that will further embolden them to take risks from which they personally benefit. That is why I seek to draw the Financial Secretary’s attention to the opportunity offered by new clause 2 to reverse the burden of proof without condition, so that we can hit those responsible for future failure personally and where it hurts most—in their pocket.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak to this group of new clauses, and I thank members of the banking commission—a number of whom are with us today—for their thoughtful work, and for the time and energy they put into ensuring that we had a series of recommendations, which have given us the opportunity to table a number of amendments in Committee and on Report.

The Opposition tabled amendments in Committee to reflect the commission’s recommendations, but for various reasons—some of which I could understand and some of which I could not—the Government did not see fit to accept them. There was some disappointment when we got the opportunity to scrutinise the original Bill that it was so thin—to be fair, the Government recognised that in their response published today, but we must get to annex B2 to find that acknowledgment. At times it would have been good to have a clearer indication of the Government’s direction of travel, and perhaps some of the details to discuss in Committee. As is often said, however, we are where we are, and we are now discussing the Bill in the context of the report published today.

No doubt all Members have had the opportunity to read the Government’s report, which provides a slightly more detailed response to the report by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. There are, however, some areas where clarification or further information from the Minister would be helpful. The new clauses were tabled before we were aware of which provisions the Government intended to accept, and we may have tabled a number of them differently—or not at all—had we known their intentions. Nevertheless, there are a couple of issues that we believe are not covered by the report and the Government’s response.

To put my remarks in context, the areas where quick implementation can be taken forward have been highlighted and the issues that require more detailed work have been identified. Where the Government do not agree with the commission has also identified. I will come to some specific issues in the new clauses, but it is worth noting that the Government now accept the need for change and action in a number of areas in which the Opposition have consistently made the case on Second Reading, in Committee and today.

The Government have announced plans to implement measures to improve individual accountability, and some of our new clauses relate to that in the overall context of conduct and remuneration. The Government have mentioned the tough new senior persons regime governing the behaviour of senior bank staff, outlined a willingness to take forward work on new banking standards rules to promote higher standards for bank staff, and—this was controversial in some quarters—we are pleased that they have at last decided to introduce a new criminal offence for reckless misconduct for senior bankers. We have heard from the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) about reversing the burden of proof so that bank bosses are held accountable for breaches within their areas of responsibility. The Government have made further commitments to work with regulators to implement the commission’s proposals on pay, allowing bonuses to be deferred for up to 10 years, and enabling 100% clawback of bonuses where banks receive state aid. All those areas are relevant to our discussion.

Some of the proposed reforms are either already enshrined in EU legislation or are part of forthcoming EU legislation, in some cases specifically relating to bonuses capped to salaries and bonus limits on bailed-out banks. Therefore, the Government would have had to consider the issue anyway, notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition have been pressing them to do so.

On new clause 2, the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire spoke eloquently about the culture involved. We can debate legislation and change as many regulations as we like, but if we do not get into the heads of those who make decisions and create that culture, we will not change enough to ensure that past scenarios do not happen in the future. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend to push the new clause to the vote. I had assumed that perhaps the Government would have agreed to it and that he would have been acclaimed as the favoured son who had tabled a new clause that the Government accepted—and therefore his record would have been better than mine; throughout the Bill’s time in Committee, I managed to get only one word changed, much to the chagrin of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie).

New clause 3 was inspired by the commission, and builds on an amendment that was tabled in Committee and recommendations in the commission’s final report. It would introduce a licensing regime for

“all approved persons exercising controlled functions,”

to ensure that such persons have adequate standards of competence and integrity. Again, that was a feature of the discussion in Committee, and we were keen for reforms to be brought forward to ensure that future banking misconduct is prevented, whether that is fixing LIBOR rates or mis-selling financial products. In Committee we argued that similar regimes have applied to other professionals, and there is no reason in principle why that should not be the case in the banking and financial services sector. Just as with lawyers, doctors or other professionals, misconduct in banking and financial services causes potential injury, injustice or financial loss. In the financial sector, the consequences and costs of bad behaviour cost billions and harm the whole of society, so we believe it right to introduce safeguards similar to those in other professions.

We tabled new clause 3 because we wanted to introduce our senior persons regime and revised set of banking standards rules, as recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and it is good that the Government intend to take that forward. In his response, will the Minister provide a further flavour of how he intends to do that and give some detail, particularly on the scope of the legislation he proposes to introduce?

Why did the Government not feel able to introduce such a measure at an earlier stage in Committee? We would have welcomed the opportunity to scrutinise, discuss and probe the Bill in slightly more detail then. Will everything now be done in the other place, and will there be time for consideration in this Chamber? In his opening remarks I think the Minister gave an assurance that there would be ample opportunity to discuss those issues in the Chamber, but it is worth noting that when the Bill passes into statute as a result of all the work done to it, it will be very different to the one initially introduced, and it is right and proper that we have the opportunity to scrutinise it at every stage.

The Minister will be familiar with the amendment that we tabled in Committee on the duty of care, and we have now tabled new clause 4, which would introduce duties of care for ring-fenced bodies—first, a fiduciary duty in relation to the carrying out of core services, and secondly a more general duty of care across the financial services sector. As I outlined in Committee, we bring this forward because we feel that it would send an important signal to the general public, who still have some way to go before trust is restored in the banking and financial services sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Love]

The current regime for the regulator is “treating customers fairly”, which is exactly what the banks did not do in the PPI scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need something stronger, and that a duty of care is a step in the right direction, signalling that we need to do something about the scandals that have happened in the past?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend is right and he speaks with great experience, both because of the work he has done in this House and on the banking commission. He is right to say that the scandal of the PPI is exactly why today’s consumers want further assurances that the banking industry and the financial services sector are not simply about using consumers’ possible lack of knowledge or understanding of the system to turn a quick profit with no thought to the longer term, either for the individuals or for the wider financial sector. That is why we have tabled the new clause.

I suspect that the Minister may say much the same to me this evening as he said in Committee, as he felt that the amendment was unnecessary. Nor was it drafted in the most technically perfect way. However, it would be helpful if he were able to confirm that at the least the idea of a fiduciary duty—a duty of care—will be significant. I feel minded to test the will of the House on this new clause.

[Mr Ruffley]

On a point of information, what fiduciary duties, other than a duty of care, does the hon. Lady envisage?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I could go back through some of the issues that were raised in Committee. As I outlined, some of the duties that would be expected are those defined and accepted in common law already. What we want to do is try to put them in legislation to give a clear signal to consumers that things have changed and to try to rebuild trust in the banking system. I do not think that the customers of the banks think that it is unreasonable to have something that says that the banks should act in consumers’ interests when looking after their money.

New clause 5 reflects another amendment that we tabled in Committee. It is important to have assurances from the Government in the absence of knowing their intentions about remuneration reform. We tabled new clause 5 because we want the banks to take account of performance and stability over a five to 10-year period. That would reduce unnecessary risk-taking, force bankers to take a longer-term view, and end rewards for short-term profit. We tabled an amendment on this in Committee, and the parliamentary commission took a similar view in its report, which states:

“The Commission recommends that the new Remuneration Code include a new power for the regulators to require that a substantial part of remuneration be deferred for up to 10 years, where it is necessary for effective long-term risk management.”

That was raised by the Treasury Committee in January, when the Bank of England director Andy Haldane called for various reforms.

[Stephen Barclay]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the difficulty with catch-all provisions, such as that for a 10-year period, is that they capture the good as much as the bad? New clause 2 would create targeted regulation to focus on those who have done wrong, instead of a catch-all provision that captures everyone.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I might have been tempted to support new clause 2 had the hon. Gentleman decided to put it to the vote, and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say. I understand the issues relating to length of time and the dangers of a catch-all provision but, in the aftermath of the banking crisis, the legal and regulatory structures, and the further changes that the Government promise to introduce, we need to ensure that the banking culture really changes. New clause 5 attempts to ensure that banks think for themselves about how to ensure that their performance is sustainable. Now that the Government have moved to an acceptance of the broad principle, the devil will be in the detail of what they do next. Perhaps the Minister will have more to say on that.

[Mark Garnier]

The shadow Minister raises the 10-year deferral of bonuses recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. We made that recommendation so that we could at least see the business of a bank through a business cycle, as it can take 10 years to expose irregularities. One problem occurs that when people in receipt of such bonuses—there are already some deferred bonuses, in particular in UBS—want to move to another institution, they are bought out of their held-back bonus. Does the hon. Lady have any proposals to deal with that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. It is perhaps worth remembering that not only did the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards make that recommendation, but Andy Haldane supported it when he came before the Treasury Committee. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say on that when he sets out his next set of actions.

New clause 7 relates to protection for whistleblowers. It is important to ensure that workers are protected if they make a disclosure in the “reasonable belief” that misconduct has occurred, is occurring or could occur. The new clause would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 and impose a duty on managers to inform the bank chairman—or chairwoman, if that is the case—of any report of wrongdoing that qualifies as a “protected disclosure”. This is an updated version of a clause tabled in Committee, and reflects the final report of the parliamentary commission, which in paragraph 788 states:

“A non-executive board member—preferably the Chairman—should be given specific responsibility under the Senior Persons Regime for the effective operation of the firm’s whistleblowing regime. That Board member must be satisfied that there are robust and effective whistleblowing procedures in place and that complaints are dealt with and escalated appropriately. It should be his or her personal responsibility to see that they are.”

In new clause 7 we are attempting to trigger a cultural change in the financial services sector. There is no doubt that a bank employee would wrestle with their conscience before deciding to break ranks. If an honest trader suspects wrongdoing and is considering informing the authorities, there must be protections to mitigate his or her fear of losing their job.

The LIBOR scandal illustrates the importance of making it easier to report wrongdoing. At that time there was a quite a lot of speculation in the press and elsewhere about the accuracy of LIBOR, yet nobody came forward with the evidence. New clause 7 seeks to bolster the maintenance of law and order—I think everyone would generally agree with that—and would make it easier for the regulators and the banks’ compliance teams to do their jobs.

I looked closely at the Government’s response to the commission today, which says:

“The Government recognises the important role that whistleblowing can play in exposing wrongdoing”.

It continues:

“BIS is publishing a ‘call for evidence’ to establish a strong evidence base to help Government better understand the operation of the whistleblowing framework in today’s employment environment”.

It seems that the Government are now linking whistleblowing in the financial services sector with the wider review. We need to be careful about how a code of conduct, support for regulators and the role of regulators—including their interaction with employment tribunals, which is how the report couches this issue in context—are dealt with. Will the Minister say in his response when he anticipates the review being completed and what legislative vehicle would be proposed to implement any recommendations? It was not immediately apparent to me on reading the report that that had been established or thought through. Does he agree that any delay in dealing with the issue would risk putting that change out of sync with some of the other important changes that will be made to banking and the banking culture?

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I am following the hon. Lady’s argument with interest. Proposed new section 43B(g) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 refers to where

“a breach of regulated activities under FSMA 2000…has been committed…or is likely to be committed.”

So that we can understand the new clause better, how would she determine whether something was “likely” to be committed?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a useful and probing point—I wish I had had the opportunity to probe the Government’s proposals in the same way. The point is to look at patterns of behaviour and conduct. The important thing is that this change or anything that the Government introduce should be robust and should stack up. That is why I was particularly keen to know how the Minister sees this issue being taken forward. However, I recognise that there is a wider context, so if he could respond by giving me some assurances on this issue, I would probably be tempted not to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Let me briefly mention new clause 11, which deals with criminal sanctions. New clause 11 was also inspired by the work of the Banking Commission. It would require the Government to bring forward proposals for the new offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank covering the people licensed under the senior persons regime and would seek civil recovery of money from people found guilty of the offence. Although that might be controversial in some areas, it is important. I welcome the fact that the Government now seem to be moving on this, and I await the detail with interest. It is vital that bankers are held to account for their actions. That is important not just for any action after a future crisis, but as a deterrent, should any bank executives be tempted to take unnecessary or reckless risks.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not wish at this moment to be unduly partisan, but could the hon. Lady advise us on the evolution of the Opposition’s thinking? Was the imposition of criminal sanctions for the reckless management of banks discussed in the previous Government?

[Cathy Jamieson]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, I was not in this place or, indeed, a member of the previous Government. [Interruption.] I hear someone saying “Shame”. I do, however, think it would be appropriate to look at the circumstances in which we are operating at present. In the same way as the hon. Gentleman did not wish to be partisan, I will resist the temptation to make an incredibly partisan response. Instead, I simply say it is important that the Government look at this. I welcome the fact that they seem to be willing to move on this, and the parliamentary commission was very clear that:

“It is inappropriate that those found guilty of criminal recklessness should continue to benefit from remuneration obtained as a consequence of the reckless behaviour.”

That statement sits in the context of the issue of being able to claw back.

[Mr Love]

This recommendation emerged from an all-party commission, with all parties supporting it. It is important to remember that it has the effect of signalling that we treat so seriously the misdemeanours that have occurred in the banking sector that we deem that those found guilty should face a criminal sanction.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point that this is an all-party stance and that everyone on the banking commission took this issue seriously.

It is worth remembering that in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition last month, the Prime Minister told the House that he would use this Bill to implement the report of the parliamentary commission. The Leader of the Opposition asked:

“Following the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, can the Prime Minister confirm that he supports its important recommendations on bonuses and criminal penalties, and that he will use the banking Bill to implement them?”

The Prime Minister responded:

“Yes, I do support both those measures...Penalising, including with criminal penalties against bankers who behave irresponsibly— I say yes. Also, making sure that for banks in receipt of taxpayers’ money we can claw back and have a ban on bonuses—I say yes too.”

The Leader of the Opposition then asked a further question, to which the Prime Minister replied:

“We will be using that Bill to take these important steps.” —[Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 883.]

I hoped the Minister would have been able to bring forward appropriate amendments or new clauses—or whatever is needed—at this stage, rather than leaving that to elsewhere. I hope he will be able to give us some further information on how the work will be progressed and when he now expects to give us more detail.

New clause 13 relates to the financial services crime unit in the Serious Fraud Office. We raised this issue in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East gave an eloquent description of some of the areas that an FSCU would be able to address. This new clause would require the Treasury to report on the establishment of the FSCU and to do so within six months of the Act coming into force.

I fear the Minister might sigh and think, “Here go the Opposition once again, asking for another report to be produced.” Before he says that or any Member seeks to intervene to make that point, I will say that the reason we are asking for these reports to be produced is to ensure that progress is made and that things do not just gather dust on a shelf somewhere.

We know we have to look at the resources available to tackle white collar crime. Financial products are becoming ever more complex, and they are being traded faster, and increased resources could enable specialist police officers to develop their expertise. There are huge financial incentives in looking at developing this, too. It is worth remembering that fraud costs Britain about £73 billion a year, according to the Home Office’s National Fraud Authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East recalled in Committee, Andrew Bailey, the PRA chief executive, said it was “more than odd” that bank directors had not faced formal charges over the events leading up to the crisis. The Serious Fraud Office has a bit of a mixed record on tackling the high-profile cases. The Home Secretary was forced to perform a bit of a U-turn on her plans to abolish the SFO. It is clear that the SFO needs to be improved. The LIBOR scandal again shows that misconduct in financial services can have ramifications for traders, for industry, for shareholders, for the reputation of the City and, indeed, for criminal law.

[Stephen Barclay]

I seek to understand the scope of new clause 13 and the financial crime unit. Would it have taken criminal sanctions against the auditors of RBS, who so failed that they required the then permanent secretary of the Treasury to seek a letter of direction?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I am not going to go into the detail of that case. He has had a career in the banking sector dealing with such issues, and he will be as aware as I am that looking at one case in isolation is sometimes not the best way to appreciate the overall picture. The overall picture is what I am interested in, and why I specifically mentioned LIBOR, because it is already a criminal offence to attempt to fix that rate. We need to seek to ensure that the SFO has the resources necessary to tackle this and to prevent any further scandals.

We have tabled new clause 13 to give Parliament a chance, once again, further down the line to discuss the creation of a new agency, and we hope it would send a firm message to those tempted to engage in criminal conduct. I hope that the Minister may be able to say something more on that in his response. He did not seem to be persuaded in Committee of the need for a new unit or even a subdivision. My recollection is that he took that view, “Its all fraud and there is no need to have a specific unit or part of an organisation dealing with it.”

I think I have covered a number of issues relating to these proposals. Once again, it is important to put on the record the fact that although we have had the opportunity to raise some of these issues in Committee and this evening, it is unfortunate that on Report we are not going to be able to scrutinise the detail of some of the new clauses—it is fair for us to assume that they might have been tabled at this stage. I seek the Minister’s further reassurance that we are going to get the important detail of how he intends to proceed, that we will see as much as is possible of the draft new clauses and legislation as things are taken forward, and that we will have an appropriate opportunity to discuss all that further in this place.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to discuss the proposals in this group, particularly new clauses 11 and 2. I am not a member of the Treasury Committee, I was not a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and I was not even on the Public Bill Committee, so I hope that other hon. Members will permit me to make a few perhaps less-informed commentaries about these proposals on conduct and remuneration, and the issues they raise, and perhaps come at this from a different perspective.

May I start by thanking the commission for its work on this issue and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who made an extraordinarily strong contribution? Collectively, they have a much greater claim than Goldman Sachs to have been doing God’s work on financial services. I thank the Government and congratulate them on their speedy response to the recommendations. I also thank the Minister for allowing us to see the document ahead of today’s debate.

I remember the evening when the membership of the commission was established. It was a late evening, and quite warm. It might have been 10.30 pm, 11 pm or even later and hon. Members were keen to get back to their duties in responding to their constituents. I got up to speak with some trepidation, as hon. Members were hoping that the membership would go through on the nod, to make the point that for my constituents in Bedford and Kempston the commission would fail in its duty if, as a result of its actions, nobody went to jail. It is in that spirit that I want to comment on the new clauses today.

Finance Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

Real estate investment trusts: UK REITs which invest in other UK REITs

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 57, page 15, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 13 of Schedule 18, that Schedule shall come into force after the Chancellor has conducted, and placed in the House of Commons Library, a review of the operation of the interaction of REITs with the Housing Market. The Review shall consider—

(a) tax measures in place to support house building; and

(b) what steps HM Government have taken to support house building.’.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 30 to 34.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am tempted to start by saying that I am sure this is the part of this afternoon’s proceedings that everyone has been waiting for, and that there is much excitement about the prospect of talking about real estate investment trusts, and that many Members will want to contribute on this very important issue.

Amendment 57 is another amendment that I have regularly described as very mild-mannered. It proposes that the Government must ensure that the impact of their policy is examined and reported on, and that all Members are subsequently able to access information on its impact from the House of Commons Library. In this amendment, we are asking for that information to be examined and made available before schedule 18 is implemented.

The amendment also asks that the Government conduct a review of the interaction of real estate investment trusts with the housing market and that the Government consider in particular measures that are in place to support house building and what measures they have taken to support house building. I suspect that the Minister may well say this is not necessary because everything is always kept under review so far as the Government are concerned, but he will be aware—because he has heard me say this before both in Committee and on the Floor of the House—that I think Governments always tend to say things are under review, but there is a great difference between something that sits on a shelf that may be dusted down and had a look at if someone asks a parliamentary question or writes to a Minister, and something that is a proactive review, whereby policy is examined and modelling work is done and different facts and figures are placed in the House of Commons Library so that we can all benefit from that information. That is really why we have tabled this amendment now. I keep making this plea to the Minister to take up, at least once, the opportunity to look more favourably on such reviews.

In last year’s Finance Bill Committee and once again this year, we have had important discussions about real estate investment trusts, or REITS. For hon. Members who have not followed the Committee musings over the two years or had the opportunity to read in Hansard the record of the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who said just a few words about REITs during those deliberations, I shall outline briefly what this is about and why our amendment is so important.

REITs are securities that sell like a share on stock exchanges and invest in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. As of September 2012, 34 nations had REIT-like regimes in place. REITs are tax-advantaged vehicles set up to encourage investment in the property sector. I will, of course, be developing that theme, and people may wish to consider my comments in the light of the need for the review. REITs are exempt from corporation tax on profits and gains arising from their property rental business as long as profits are distributed. In that way, taxation of income from property is moved from the corporate level to the investor level. REITs have been given tax advantages to encourage diverse investment in the property sector, where fellow investors can have a different tax status.

We seek to amend a simple, one-line clause introducing schedule 18, which of course contains considerable detail. I am sure the Minister will speak to the Government amendments in some detail in due course, but these provisions would allow UK REIT income derived from investing in other UK REITs to be treated as income of its tax-exempt property rental business. Until now, REITs have predominantly invested in commercial properties—for example, office and retail properties. We had lengthy discussions about that when debating a previous financial Bill. According to Treasury consultation documents published in April 2012, there are more than 20 UK REITs, with a market capitalisation of more than £20 billion, so this is obviously an important issue.

As I said, the Committee discussed in detail why it is important to reform the REIT regime. We did not oppose clause 38 in Committee and we are not seeking to do so now; we are simply seeking this review and reporting back. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East recognised that REITs are important investment vehicles that have changed the investment scene relating to property and those financial instruments. He spoke about that in Committee, also acknowledging that the Government appeared to be proposing relatively sensible pieces of housekeeping on the cash flow and investment profiles of the REITs. He further acknowledged the argument that REITs could make better returns on such cash if they were allowed to invest short term in other REITs. That was seen as promoting greater liquidity in the property market and potentially attracting additional investment income, particularly into the built environment. However, at that time my hon. Friend also raised a number of specific points with the Minister. For example, he asked what the policy’s effect would be on revenues to the Exchequer. He probed further the broader impact on tax treatments and also sought to discover whether HMRC had done any modelling on how the arrangement might affect yields.

My hon. Friend was interested in what the REIT vehicles are investing in and in how they are linked to commercial property arrangements and the circumstances in which residential property REITs exist. In Committee, he also sought further information from the Minister on the impact of REIT arrangements on the residential property market and its prices, given that there has been some concern in various quarters about the Government perhaps looking more at the demand side of the housing market equation than at the supply side.

I shall say a little more about the housing market later, but in Committee my hon. Friend specifically pressed the Minister on whether the Treasury had analysed the general impact of REITs on property prices in the residential sector and whether there was any overlap between the Help to Buy arrangements and investment in REITs.

The Committee also heard during that debate that although the Government originally consulted on the idea of using REITs as a vehicle to support social housing investment, they decided not to take that forward. There was no REIT vehicle arrangement to help with what the Opposition believe to be the priority—that is, of course, dealing with the need for social housing and affordable housing. I shall say something further about that in due course.

To be fair to the Minister, he advised the Committee that only 15 written responses to the Government’s consultation were received and that there was consensus that amending the tax treatment of REITs would generate positive benefits for the industry and his Government’s wider objectives, as he saw them.

In response to the questions from my hon. Friend, the Minister referred to the tax information and impact note that, as he pointed out, states that

“the provision will have a negligible impact on the Exchequer”.

He went on to explain:

“It removes a barrier that has prevented REITs from investing in REITs, which has generally not happened because it has been an inefficient structure. As a result, the cost of the change to the Exchequer will be negligible.”

That is all fair and proper, but his response to the question on the impact on house prices was perhaps less definitive. At that stage, the Minister suggested that the Government could not

“yet assess the impact on house prices as there are not yet any substantial residential REITs on the market, so the answer is that they have not had an impact on house prices.” ––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2013; c. 318-19.]

Although I can see the logic in that argument—it comes from a factual perspective—my hon. Friend was probing a question on which I invite the Minister to say more today. Has the Minister considered whether he would use some of the extensive resources at his disposal to do some further modelling work, not just to consider what is happening now but to make projections for the future? That would give us some idea of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, particularly as regards the impact on house prices, and would allow us to identify the concerns and, if any were identified, to see how they could be mitigated. That was what my hon. Friend was seeking and is part of the reason why we have tabled the amendment once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some success stories? In my constituency, for example, the Government are giving almost £2 million for a purpose-built homeless shelter, which will serve a large part of Hertfordshire, and we have provided the funds to build the first council houses in Stevenage in 30 years. As for infrastructure, my local hospital redevelopment is part of a £150 million hospital rebuilding scheme, and a section of the A1M is being widened. It is not all as bad as the hon. Lady makes out.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure his constituents will appreciate the fact that he has raised the matter in the Chamber today. The people who make use of that homeless shelter no doubt welcome the fact that it is there for them but, with respect, that does not get away from the wider need to ensure that we have good quality, affordable housing right across the country. Although his constituents may be benefiting at present, sadly I see in the places that I visit and right across the country that there are areas where that level of investment is not happening. People are finding their living standards squeezed and they are finding it extremely difficult not only to balance their own household budgets, but to plan for the future.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention leads me neatly on to the subject of house building, although I suspect that that is not what he intended to do. None the less, it gives me the opportunity to move seamlessly into that part of my speech. The Government have had four major housing launches in three years and they have made more than 300 announcements on housing. Some areas would have welcomed 300 houses, never mind 300 announcements. We know, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s comments, that house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, and research by the House of Commons Library confirms that no peacetime Government since the 1920s have presided over fewer housing completions than this Government have in the past two years. So for all the launches and all the statements, are things going to get any better on this Government’s watch? That is a question that the Minister has to answer.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that of even that paltry number of housing finishes, the Labour Government were responsible for many of them? For example, the Strata Homes development in Retford in my constituency was started under the Labour Government only because of a capital grant given to get it going, and given as a present to this lousy coalition.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and I know that he always seeks to do the best for his area, but he makes important points that the Government would do well to take into account.

Is the situation going to get better? From what we know already, it is getting worse rather than better. Housing starts fell by 11% in 2012 to below 100,000. The construction sector has been hit particularly hard by the Government’s policies, which are hurting rather than helping. An estimated 80,000 construction workers are out of work and there has been an estimated 8.2% fall in construction output, despite recent signs of the beginning of change. Even in respect of home ownership, which one imagines this Government of all Governments would advocate, there are 136,000 fewer home owners than when the Government came to power. Home ownership has fallen from 67.4% to 65.3%. Crucially, on affordable homes, the official figures from the Homes and Communities Agency show that the number of affordable housing starts collapsed in 2011-12 by 68%.

I referred earlier to my own experiences when I worked on a homelessness project while I was a student in London back in 1979, which was one of the reasons that I got involved in politics in the first place. It is appalling that homelessness and rough sleeping are up by a third since the election. The Government must take responsibility for some of these awful situations.

The number of families with children and pregnant women being housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for six weeks or more has risen by more than 800% since the coalition Government came to power. A staggering 125 councils have had to house families in B and Bs for six weeks or more. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is right: it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is not only a waste of money, which is important, but a human tragedy for the families living in those conditions. I ask hon. Members to pause for a moment and reflect on how they would cope if life events meant they had to live like that. What if they were uprooted from somewhere they had been staying and had to pack up their belongings? What if they found themselves, perhaps with children, having to live for an extended period in one room in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, with nowhere to keep their belongings, nowhere to call home, and nowhere to do all the things that we take for granted with our own families?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the heat map for the new homes bonus is completely unfair, because it affects the ability of local authorities to spend on other projects such as house renovations, rather than new build? It is a Treasury policy that is not working.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. New build is of course important, but so too is bringing existing dwellings up to modern standards and ensuring that families have decent accommodation. That is a useful point to which I hope the Minister can respond.

Given that the National Audit Office report was so damning, by no stretch of the imagination could the new homes bonus be called a success. If we couple that with the rest of the record I have described, we might even call it unforgiveable.

Then there is the Help to Buy scheme, which the Treasury Committee dubbed a “work in progress”. It took us some time to get any real answers from the Minister when we probed how the scheme would work in practice. The Opposition desperately want to help first-time buyers, but the Government are making the crisis worse. As I have said, affordable house building is down. Indeed, many commentators, including those the Government might well have assumed would be on their side, are concerned that the scheme is pricing people out of the market. The Government need to take action on the supply side by building more affordable homes, just as the International Monetary Fund has been arguing. I wonder whether the Minister agreed with the IMF when it said:

“There is a risk that, in the absence of an adequate supply response, the result would ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing.”

Let us take a look at how well the affordable rent programme has worked. Labour invested £8.4 billion in the three years from 2008 to 2011, while the Tories will invest just £4.5 billion in the four years from 2011 to 2015. The Government have cut the budget for new affordable homes by 60%. No doubt they will try to argue that they are getting more for less and that this is all about lean Government, but that is not borne out in reality. Affordable housing starts have collapsed—not stalled, not flatlined, but collapsed. The Government like to claim that they are going to deliver 170,000 affordable homes by 2015, but the NAO report confirms that despite the relentless spin, over 70,000 of those were commissioned by the previous Labour Government.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

If it is about getting more for less, the result will be to push up rents, so these so-called affordable homes will not be affordable. That, in turn, will push up the cost of housing benefit, which will undermine many of the other claims the Government are making on reducing the housing benefit bill.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She spent a long period working on housing issues in Scotland and taking forward a number of very positive policies in her previous life at Edinburgh city council, so I always listen carefully to what she has to say, and I hope that the Minister does the same. We have to ensure that policies have no unintended consequences. That is why, in this very mild-mannered amendment, we are suggesting a review to look more broadly at the impact of these policies as regards taxation and the Government’s record on housing, to produce information, and to put it in the House of Commons Library so that we can all be aware of it in looking to the future.

This Government appear to care more about spin than substance. Even with a record that shows they have failed on issue after issue, there is more, because their failure to deliver also extends to the NewBuy scheme. So far, 12 months in, the scheme has delivered fewer than 2.5% of the promised 100,000 mortgages. At this rate, they will not meet their target until 2058. In September last year, the Government announced £10 billion-worth of housing guarantees that were due to open for bids in April 2013. However, as the Financial Times reported recently, the plans are in disarray because no financial group has come forward to run the scheme.

On right to buy, the Government extended the discounts, promising one-for-one replacement. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, the reality is that since the extension of right to buy, 3,495 homes have been sold but just 384 homes have started to be built or have been acquired as replacement stock.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. People were promised that there would be one-for-one replacement in social housing. The fact that it was not like-for-like replacement was another folly in the Government’s policy. It should be put on the record that it is not one for one but one for nine, and that is a tragedy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend puts his point powerfully on the record. His phrase, one for nine, will perhaps hit home more vividly than my expressing it as 3,495 homes sold but just 384 starting to be built. It is also right to say that those houses that are being built should meet the needs of people who are seeking either to get their first home or to move.

I do not want to spend too much time on the bedroom tax, but it is sad that the Government constantly say that people are living in homes that are far too big for their needs. I know from my own area and the work I did before coming to this place that many people who live in such housing are rooted in their local community. They do not want to move to another town, village or even another street. If homes of a decent standard that met their needs were available in their area, perhaps they would be prepared to move in order to free up some of the larger family houses.

[John Mann]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we built environmentally friendly, small, local authority bungalows with a little bit of garden, like we used to, many people would queue up to move into them? If only the Government would get their act together and provide the funding to build them.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes another very good point. I know of areas where elderly people would welcome such an opportunity. Indeed, I know of some elderly people who have been persuaded, because they felt it was the right thing to do, to move into good-quality housing where everything is on the flat and they have a small garden, a common area and locally provided services. It is also important that such housing is environmentally friendly and has affordable heating and rent.

[Graham Jones]

Elderly accommodation is a chronic problem in my constituency and other areas. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government, as part of their housing strategy, have undertaken any assessment that has identified the need for accommodation for the elderly?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I cannot answer for the Government, but I would have thought that any Government reflecting on the needs of citizens throughout the country—particularly given the number of elderly people in our communities and the fact that people are living longer—would want to undertake a proper and thorough assessment of future needs and that its projections would be translated into a comprehensive housing plan for the future. If such a plan is in place, I am sure the Minister will enlighten us on it before the end of this debate.

This is about people’s homes, but Government Members seem to think that it is about the number of bedrooms and do not really understand the emotional link that people have to the home that they may have been born and brought up in, that they may have raised their family in, or that they may be set to retire in in their later years. Surely any compassionate society should take that into consideration. We should also take every possible step to ensure that people do not become homeless; we must not let that become another scandal.

I will finish soon because others wish to speak on this important issue. Ministers promised last summer that the Government were on course to smash their ambition to release enough land for 102,000 homes, but they have now conceded that they are only a third of the way towards that target. I will not give into the temptation to go back over every Government failure, but they have missed target after target. After all the warm words, hot air and relaunches, it is clear that this Government are making the housing crisis worse, not better.

People who are out in the cold looking for their first home, looking to move, or looking for somewhere to live out their later years in comfort without having to worry whether it is affordable might look back at Labour’s record. There were 2 million more homes under Labour and we built 500,000 affordable homes. A million more families were able to buy their own homes, housing standards improved and homelessness fell by 70%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will, but only briefly because I am on my last words.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend has made some valuable points in what is an excellent speech. Does she agree that the Government and certainly the Treasury ought to consider in the review what impact a VAT cut would have on the construction industry and on the renovation and refurbishment of properties? That should be part of the review because half the country is being left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think that we need to worry about that. We should stick to the amendment.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had feared that the Exchequer Secretary would jump up and ask a supplementary question about the Opposition’s position on cutting VAT.

[Mr Newmark]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wants to stray into the territory where Mr Deputy Speaker has suggested we do not go. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) makes yet another suggestion that the Minister would do well to consider as part of the wider review. I look forward to hearing his response.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), in her powerful speech, pointed to the biggest housing crisis in a generation that is gripping our country. House building is down to the lowest level since the 1920s. Homelessness is up by 30% since the general election, after it fell by 70% under the Labour Government. We have a mortgage market in which millions struggle to get mortgages and a private rented sector with 8.6 million tenants, or 1.1 million families. There are many good landlords, but many bad ones too. There are chronic problems of security, stability, affordability and quality. One in three homes in the private rented sector does not meet the decent homes standard.

Like my hon. Friend, my interest in housing goes back a long way. When I was a lay trade union activist, I was also secretary of the Tenants and Residents Federation. I was a founding member of the Housing Action campaign. For older Members of the House who remember the occupation of Centre Point, I was proud to be one of those who organised what was an effective demonstration against office block speculation, against the background of rapidly rising homelessness and bad housing. I never thought that we would be back here 30 years later debating a crisis worse than that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It is a pleasure to return this debate to the amendments to clause 38 and schedule 18 to the Finance Bill before us. Before I discuss Opposition amendment 57, I shall say a few words about amendments 30 to 34, which are designed to ensure that clause 38 and schedule 18 work as intended. The clause and the schedule make improvements to the REITs regime. This year’s Finance Bill improves the REITs regime by allowing a UK REIT to treat income from another UK REIT as income of its tax-exempt property rental business. Therefore these amendments do not affect the policy, but rather ensure that it works as intended. The change would generate positive benefits for the REIT industry, and also meets the Government’s wider objectives.

Let me provide some background. During the technical consultation in February, stakeholders told us that the changes as drafted might not work quite as intended. HMRC has consulted further with interested parties, and we agree that minor changes are necessary to achieve the desired policy aims. The problem, as presented by interested parties, concerned the balance of business test, which requires that at least 75% of the REIT’s profits must come from a property business. Interested parties were concerned that in certain circumstances, a REIT that invests in another REIT might fail that test even though the lower-tier REIT derives all of its income from a property business. Consideration of the issue has revealed that minor amendments are required both to the new and the pre-existing legislation. These amendments together will ensure that the Bill’s changes correctly implement the intended policy, which is that profits of a property rental business comprising the new type of tax-exempt income do not include amounts attributable to capital allowances and other tax adjustments.

Turning to Opposition amendment 57, we have had a very broad debate this afternoon. Indeed, it has felt more like an Opposition day debate on housing than a debate on the clause and the schedule. The amendment proposes that the schedule shall come into force after the Chancellor has conducted a review of the interaction of REITs with the housing market, and I hope to address the issue of REITS and the housing market in my remarks.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hoped the Minister would understand that the nature of the debate reflected Opposition Members’ genuine concerns about the Government’s record on housing. But specifically on REITs, when he responds to the arguments in favour of the review, will he be able to say something more about the future of REITs and social housing?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady can rest assured that I will address that very point, if not necessarily every point made in the wide-ranging debate.

The proposal set out in amendment 57 is that

“The Review shall consider…tax measures in place to support house building; and…what steps HM Government have taken to support house building”

but the Government’s view is that there is no need to postpone the changes to the REIT regime, as the proposed review would add little value at this time. There is something of a routine here of the hon. Lady requesting a review and me turning it down, and she asks so nicely that I feel almost pained in doing so, but the reason we believe in this case that a review would add very little is that there are not yet any REITs with substantial housing assets on the market, so it is too early to assess any interaction of REITs with the housing market. We do not accept the amendment and I urge her not to press it to a vote.

The new changes to the REIT regime are an example of tax measures to support house building. As REITs represent the supply side of the property market, any improvements to the REIT regime are expected to have a positive impact on the market.

The hon. Lady made a couple of points on how the REIT regime works: the first, which I believe we touched on in Committee, was whether the regime could support people who want to own their own home. It is worth pointing out that residential REITs can provide accommodation only in the private rented sector, so they are not designed, nor could they be used, for the purpose of home ownership.

The second point, on which the hon. Lady intervened, was on the relationship with social housing and what role REITS could play in that sector. There was full consultation in summer 2012 involving a number of one-to-one and group meetings with interested parties in the social housing sector. The reality is that yields on, for example, affordable rents do not appear to be high enough to attract investors into that sector, but I assure her that discussions are ongoing with non-social housing entities and other interested parties to explore the possibility of residential REITs. If a workable residential model can be found, it might be possible to use it to further a move into social housing, and we certainly would not rule that out. At the moment there appears to be no interest in using REITs for those purposes, but we are entirely pragmatic about that.

We believe that REITs have a valuable role to play and we do not want to delay the implementation of the schedule while we conduct a review from which there is little to be gained. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

We discussed wider housing policy, but I do not intend to be drawn into a lengthy, general debate on housing. I just point out that we announced £5.4 billion of additional support for housing in the last Budget, building on the £11 billion this Government have already committed to investment in housing over the spending review period. Last week’s spending round announcement confirmed a total of £5.1 billion-worth of investment to support housing in England from 2015-16 to 2017-18; £3.3 billion of that new funding is for affordable housing over those years and will support the delivery of 165,000 new affordable homes in England over the next three years. I can also point out some of the recent housing numbers. Housing building starts in England rose by 4% in Q1 2013, seasonally adjusted. Housing starts are 15% higher than in the same quarter last year. Starts are now 62% above the 2009 trough.

[Mr Gauke]

No, I want to give the hon. Lady a moment or two at the end of the debate to respond to the points that I make.

The amendments before us, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, show the Government’s continued support for REITs and the UK property sector. I believe the Government amendments will be welcomed by interested parties. The delay that would result from Opposition amendment 57 would be unfortunate and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I find myself in the same slightly pained position that the Minister described. He said no so nicely, as he normally does, that I hesitate to come back with extremely critical comments. I am disappointed once again that he has not heeded our arguments, especially the argument for a review and a look at how the wider tax regime deals with housing issues.

Finance Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Government have previously declared that we are “all in this together”, and I want to develop that theme. I am sure the Exchequer Secretary will be listening intently. They have insisted that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but in Work and Pensions questions earlier, we heard that some Opposition Members are somewhat sceptical about that claim. Although the Government have also consistently told us that their priority is to cut the deficit by what they describe as “fair and reasonable means”, in politics it is actions, not mere words, that show priorities. The same Government, in tough times and against the backdrop of falling living standards—borrowing up last year, growth continuing to flatline and drastic cuts being made to benefits for hard-working families—have decided to give millionaires a tax cut. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) call out that that is nonsense. I am more than willing to take an intervention from him should he wish to justify the tax cut for millionaires.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am delighted to intervene on the hon. Lady. She will be aware that the art of taxation is to extract the maximum amount of money with the minimum amount of hissing. Is she aware of the principle that a lower tax rate can often lead to a higher tax take, and does she think it might apply in this case, thus meaning that millionaires pay more, not less?

[Cathy Jamieson]

It will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his point.

[Mr Stuart]

Is the hon. Lady aware of that principle?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am aware of that point of principle and I will come to it in due course, because it is an issue to consider.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Before the hon. Lady comes to that principle, she will be aware that the 2012 Red Book confirmed that, according to the Government’s own figures, the change would cost £450 million. At the most basic level, whether we agree with that number or think it is too low, if there is £450 million going spare, it would be better to do something socially productive with it than to give it back to people who are already wealthy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He and I do not always agree on every matter that is discussed in the Chamber, but on this occasion I accept what he says.

We have heard disagreement on the Government Benches with the point that I was making, but the reality is that as of this April, 13,000 people earning more than £1 million a year are receiving a tax cut equivalent to £100,000. Another 254,000 people earning more than £150,000 a year are also seeing their income tax bills go down. At the same time, if we take into account the changes that the Tory-led Government have made to tax, tax credits and benefits, households in the UK will be an average of £891 a year worse off. That is the reality that people face. As I have said in a number of previous debates, that may not seem a lot of money to the millionaires who are getting a tax cut from the Government, or to those on the highest wages, but it is a lot of money for my constituents and, I am sure, for the constituents of other hon. Members. I see some heads nodding on the Government Benches. It is a huge amount for constituents throughout the country, who are being ruthlessly squeezed to pay for the Chancellor’s economic failure.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is indeed a lot of money for many of my constituents and my hon. Friend’s. Is she aware of the figures published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that for a two-earner couple with children, the loss caused by the changes rises to £1,869.09?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Yes indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point on which I will comment further in due course.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

Let me answer my hon. Friend’s point because it is important to understand the impact that this Government’s policies are having on families across the country. He makes the important point that a couple with children in such circumstances will face difficulties, and in some instances must make choices about how they will pay for things that we or our children perhaps take for granted. Government Members have simply failed to recognise or respond to, or in many instances acknowledge, that point.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that point.

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Lady say whether Labour would reinstate the 50p tax rate if it were in government, and if that is the case, when would that be? Can she say how much money that move would raise for the Exchequer?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman has probably heard many Opposition Members stand at the Dispatch Box and make our position absolutely clear: if we were in government just now, that is not what we would be doing. There is a whole range of other things—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to finish this point. If the hon. Gentleman can contain his excitement, I am sure he will have the opportunity to develop his arguments at some stage. It is important to recognise that the Government are doing many things that Labour simply would not do. We suggested a whole range of things that the Government could do to get growth back into the economy, and I will mention some of those today. It is important, however—[Interruption.] I hear the Minister from a sedentary position say, “Borrowing more”. Is that an admission that his Government are borrowing more than they set out to do, that they have not got the deficit down as planned, and that they have not brought growth back into the economy as they promised? I would be more than happy if the Minister wished to put something on the record at this point. [Interruption.] He does not, so I will give way to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones).

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady said that if Labour was in power now it would reverse the decision and reinstate the 50p tax rate, but there will not be a general election for the next two years. If the Labour party is in government in two years’ time, would it then reverse that decision and reinstate the 50p tax rate—yes or no?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I find it astonishing that Government Members never seem to take any responsibility for what is going on under their watch. Under their watch, the deficit has not come down as much as they promised, borrowing is higher than planned, and the Government have failed to get growth back into the economy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made some important and passionate points about the impact of being worse off every year by £800, which is a big amount of money for many of my constituents. Given that we have just broadly agreed public expenditure figures for the next Parliament, does she feel that if this is a point of principle it is beholden on her to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about whether a Labour Government would stick to their principles in the next election?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that yes, we would stick to principles of fairness and equality, and we would not seek to advantage those who already have the highest incomes at the expense of those on lower incomes. Once again, I repeat what a number of Labour Members have said: at this point we do not know in what shape the economy will be two years from now, and as a responsible Opposition we intend to look in detail at where spend would be best put in the years ahead.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to make progress but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady; she always covers these issues with great interest. Why is the shadow Chancellor able to commit to following our spending plans, yet will not give any indication of tax rates? Surely that is the second side of the coin.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I always listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I know from his contributions in the House and in Public Bill Committees that from time to time he scrutinises the Government fairly thoroughly. There is a difference between saying that the overall spending limit put on by the Government will be our starting point, and accepting their approach in full, which is not what the shadow Chancellor has said, of course. He has made it clear that we would look at that overall spend and see how we could allot resources more fairly.

Despite the fact that the Government tried to make much of fairness in the spending review, let us look at the millionaires who will benefit from the tax cut. First, 643 bankers earn more than £1 million and the combined tax cut will be worth £34.6 million to them—[Interruption.] There is a lot of grumbling and other muttering from a sedentary position by Government Members. If they wish to speak, they will be able to do so later.

My constituents want to know how the Government can justify that tax cut for millionaires at a time when those on middle and low incomes are being squeezed so hard. I can understand why the public are angry and why they do not feel that the Government are acting fairly. They see many people on massive salaries that ordinary people can only dream of and working in the very same banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer now receiving a handout from the coalition. People do find that difficult to understand. That is why our amendment would require the Chancellor to consider the effect that the tax cut will have on the level of bonuses in the financial sector. That is what the taxpayer—ordinary people trying to make ends meet when their living standards are being reduced—wants to know.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the impact on bonuses. Does she welcome the recommendation from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which the Prime Minister has accepted, which will change from very short-term bonuses to long-term ones? Would not that mitigate some of the very real concerns that she has mentioned?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the points that I have made. He will, of course, be aware of some of the discussion that took place in Committee on the Finance Bill and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. It is unfortunate that the Government chose not to accept our amendments to those Bills, and so far we have not seen legislation to enact the change that he mentions. I look forward with interest to further debates on that subject at a later date.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but she has mentioned what makes the public angry. I think what makes the public angry is when they see members of a party opposing in principle, and expressing great moral outrage about, the bedroom tax—the spare room subsidy—or the 50p tax rate and then refusing to answer a straightforward question about whether they would reverse one or both of them. It is not good enough, and it is no wonder that the public think politicians are slippery and cannot be trusted.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman started by trying to pay me some sort of compliment, saying that I was making a powerful speech, but I simply do not accept his assertion that what outrages the public is politicians standing up to make passionate speeches on their behalf. The points that I am making are the very ones that have been made by my constituents, by the constituents of my hon. Friends and—I am sure—by many of the hon. Gentleman’s own constituents.

It is not good enough for Government Members simply to sit there and say, “What is the Labour party going to do two years from now?” when they are taking no responsibility whatever for what they are doing at the moment. It is a responsible position for us as the Opposition to say, “We understand that there will be an overall spending limit; that will be our starting point, but that does not mean that we have committed to it as an end point, and it does not mean that we are committed to doing exactly what the Government would do.” I am sure that as we move forward, a number of initiatives will be developed and outlined in greater detail.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is going to annoy many of our constituents is that they were told three years ago that all the measures put in place then were for a purpose, that the deficit would be brought down by the end of this Parliament and that we were all in it together, when that has simply not happened?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When we heard the spending review announcements last week, many members of the public recognised that this was a spending review brought forward not because it was part of some grand plan by the Government or something that they were always going to do, but because of the Government’s own failures on the economy—their failure to get the deficit down as promised; their failure to deal with borrowing; and, indeed, their failure to get growth back into the economy.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Further to confirm her point so that everybody gets it, did not the Chancellor promise not to introduce another spending review before the next election, and is not the failure of his economic policies the reason why we needed to have that spending review?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Many members of the public will not look at the Chancellor’s spending review as a success—it is not—and they will recognise that this Government have, as we said at the outset, cut too far and too fast, so that we have had all the pain and none of the gain that the Government promised. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can sit and sigh, make all sorts of side interventions, look at the ceiling, look to their feet or whatever else, but the harsh reality is that the constituents we all meet on a day-to-day basis know that their living standards are dropping. They know that the money in their purse does not go as far at the end of the week, because prices are rising at a time when wages have stagnated at best, and are dropping at worst.

To return to the new clause, the bankers earning £1 million or more a year will benefit from the combined tax cut at a cost of at least £34.6 million. As I said earlier, we can understand why the public are angry and why they do not feel that this Government are acting fairly. Given some of today’s comments, I suspect that many of the people watching this debate will gain the impression that the Government are not listening to them, that they have no understanding of the issues they face and that, sadly, in many instances, if not all, they do not actually care.

Our new clause is a relatively mild-mannered amendment—one of the sort that we proposed regularly in the Finance Bill Committee, asking the Government to look at the impact of the policies that they are introducing. In this particular instance, the new clause asks the Chancellor to consider the effect that his tax cut will have on the level of bonuses in the financial sector. There 30 million taxpayers in the UK—30 million people who go out to work every day and have to pay their way—yet they realise that the Chancellor has decided to cut taxes for the richest among them. There is no getting away from that. That tells you everything you need to know, Mr Speaker, about this Tory-led coalition. Never mind the rhetoric of “We’re all in it together”, and never mind the risible attempts to paint themselves as the party of fairness as they tried to do in the spending review, because when it comes down to it, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are effectively topping up bank bonuses with a further tax cut. That is the reality of what is happening.

Labour Members believe that there is a better way. We have consistently said that we would use a tax on those massive bonuses to fund a jobs guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for a year or more. We would do that because the trends in long-term employment remain extremely worrying.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

How much money does the hon. Lady expect to raise through a tax on bank bonuses, and how does she think it could be spent on the projects on which she wants to spend it?

[Cathy Jamieson]

We have consistently said that we would seek to use the tax specifically to provide a jobs guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for a year or more. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed most Members in all parts of the House, will have met—or received e-mails, letters or telephone calls from—young people who are absolutely desperate to be given that first start, to walk through the doorway, to show what they can do, to use their skills and to learn more. Sadly, as we have heard, the guarantees provided under the Work programme have not met expectations, so it is important for us to think about what we could do. In March this year—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to finish what I am saying. In March this year, 167,000 adults had been out of work for more than two years. The figure has increased by 97% since 2012, and by 216% since 2011. We believe that the way to get people back into work is to tax the very richest. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would agree—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to finish what I am saying, and I want to make progress. I think that I have been reasonably generous with my time so far.

I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would agree that returning people to work is the best way of reducing the benefits bill and getting the economy moving again. However, the facts speak for themselves, showing that the Government prioritise those at the top and leave everyone else to struggle. Let me return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said earlier.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No; I really do want to put this on the record. As my hon. Friend said, a two-earner couple with children are losing an average of £1,869 while a millionaire receives a tax cut. Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain to a two-earner couple with children in his constituency why that is fair?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I did not catch the answer to my earlier question. How much money in a fiscal year does the hon. Lady expect to raise from the bank bonus tax?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I note that the hon. Gentleman showed no inclination to explain to that two-earner couple with children in his constituency why it is right for a millionaire to receive a tax cut at a time when they are set to lose a significant amount of money.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend remembers two things. She may remember that, an hour before the beginning of the debate, we witnessed a lamentable performance by Ministers who failed to answer question after question about the Work programme, which is one of the worst and least successful programmes for the unemployed that we have seen for years; and I am sure that she remembers the future jobs fund, which was hugely successful in my constituency and returned hundreds of people to work. I think constantly about the people—nearly 1,000, including 195 young people—who have been unemployed for more than a year, and I fervently wish that we still had the future jobs fund, which was not only a successful programme but returned more than it cost.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the success of the future jobs fund. I still believe that, as we said at the time, the Government made a huge error in abolishing the future jobs fund. As I know from my own constituency, it gave young people an opportunity to get into the habit of going to work and learning skills, and gave the voluntary sector, the social economy, the third sector, call it what you like, an opportunity—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No. I am going to finish what I am saying, because I want to make clear the extent to which people are losing out. The future jobs fund gave opportunities to many young people and it was short-sighted of the Government to scrap it. It seemed to me that the Government did so simply because it was brought in by the previous Government. However, following questions in the House and elsewhere, we know that the Work programme has not delivered for many young people in our constituencies.

I go back to the fact that individuals and families are losing out in our constituencies. Not only will a two-earner couple with children lose on average £1,869, while a millionaire gets a tax cut, but a single parent who works and has tried to do the right thing in getting into employment and holding down a job, as well as meeting their caring responsibilities, will lose £1,226. At the same time, the millionaire banker about whom we talked earlier will see his tax bill cut. Two earners without children who are a couple will lose £672.

Those are remarkable figures. As I said earlier, they sum up the coalition’s warped sense of priorities. They are looking after those at the top, while making everyone else pay the price for their economic failure.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will in a moment.

No wonder that people think that there is one rule for the richest and another for the rest. No wonder people are questioning why the Government believe that the way to motivate people on low incomes is to pay them less, and the way to motivate people on high incomes is to pay them more. In these challenging economic times, surely we should focus on supporting those who need it most. New clause 8 asks the Government to look at the issue again. We are asking them to undertake a proper assessment of the impact of the cut, as well as an analysis of how much the Treasury would gain if the additional rate were returned to 50% in 2014-15. That is not an unreasonable request. I hope that, on this occasion, the Government will accept the new clause and report back in due course, although I suspect that that may not be the case.

I outlined earlier why the Opposition think that the Chancellor’s logic is rather odd. He claims to find tax avoidance morally repugnant and to want to crack down on it, but this tax cut simply rewards the wealthiest. He appears to justify it on the ground that the behavioural response to the 50p rate was more avoidance. There seems to be a rather strange logic here. Instead of cracking down on the avoidance, he is rewarding it. Surely those are not the values that we want in the Government: one rule for the richest and another for the rest of us.

It is not what the Government used to say, before their façade of fairness began to slip. The Prime Minister no less said:

“I have been very clear—we have all been very clear—that we have to do this in a way that is fair so that the broadest backs bear the biggest burden.

That is why we haven’t changed… the 50p tax rate.”

However, the Government are giving those with the broadest backs a tax cut, while people on lower incomes are shouldering the bigger burden. I heard Government Members supporting what the Prime Minister said. It is a pity that they now seem to have gone back on that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself for a few more moments, I would like to quote the Chancellor. I am sure he will want to hear what his own Chancellor said. Indeed, he may even have been at his party’s conference when the Chancellor said this:

“We could not even think of abolishing the 50p rate on the rich while at the same time I am asking many of our public sector workers to accept a pay freeze to protect their jobs. I think we can all agree that would be grossly unfair.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that would be grossly unfair?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady will know that I have always consistently argued for lower tax rates across the board, so that is my answer to her point. I am also perplexed as to why she will not give an answer to my earlier question about the amount of money she hoped to raise from a bankers bonus tax, given that that is such a key element of her party’s fiscal plans.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Once again, it is rather strange that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to give any comfort to his own constituents or give any explanation of his own policies. We have put forward the idea of the bankers bonus tax to get young people back into employment, and I also think the general public would like those bonuses to be less than they have been over the past few years.

I want to go back to the point the Chancellor made. He said at his party conference that he would not

“think of abolishing the 50p rate on the rich while at the same time…asking many of our public sector workers to accept a pay freeze”.

I do not often agree with the Chancellor, but I do think he was right then—and that he is absolutely wrong now.

In the interests of balance, however, I should also quote what is perhaps my favourite of these interventions. It was made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the Lib Dem Chief Secretary. He summed things up quite neatly when he said:

“People who think that the priority for this Government should be reducing the tax burden on the very wealthiest are living in cloud cuckoo land.”

So in the words of the Government’s own Chief Secretary to the Treasury, this is a decision from cloud cuckoo land. I think that many members of the public would agree with that.

No doubt Government Members will protest and say that the higher rate was not raising any money—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I want to move on. I have been very generous in taking interventions, and it is important that I now move on to make the many points I have not yet had the opportunity to put on the record.

As I have said, no doubt Government Members will protest and say that the higher rate was not raising any money due to tax avoidance, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“By giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour and paying more tax as a result of the fact that you’re taxing them—”

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want at least to get to the end of that quote—that would be quite nice. I would like other Members to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate; indeed, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is gearing himself up for that as we speak.

Just in case anyone missed that IFS quote, let me make clear what it said:

“By giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour and paying more tax as a result of the fact that you’re taxing them…There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk on this estimate.”

I know that Government Members will from time to time quote the IFS and will, from time to time, doubt its figures. Just in case they do not accept what the IFS has said, let us look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said about this issue. It said that any decrease in tax avoidance from the reduced rate would be “highly uncertain”. A written answer from the Exchequer Secretary in the summer of 2012 stated that in 2010-11 70% of people earning over £250,000 were paying more than 40% in tax and 80% of people earning between £500,000 and £10 million were paying the 50p rate. Each and every one of those people is now in line for the tax cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I feel sure will explain to me what the Government intend to do about tax avoidance and how they will stop this issue emerging?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As it happens, I was going to say something different, which will not surprise the House particularly. I was going to say that history tells us that cutting taxes raises more money, and that is probably a better bet to working out what will happen than fishing around for convenient forecasts. In 1979 and 1988 tax rates were cut and revenue went up, and that is a pretty good basis for doing this again.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution in our future debates about the possibility of a mansion tax and a reduction to a 10p rate. I always listen with interest to what he has to say, but on this occasion I have to say to him that the first year of the new rate is not a real basis for estimating the revenue raised, or likely to be raised, by the 50p rate.

The Government should be tackling tax avoidance. We all want to see that, and we will be debating it more when we discuss later clauses.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I know he takes this issue very seriously.

[Richard Fuller]

I wish to take the hon. Lady back to the impact of the bankers bonus tax on getting young people back to work, because I do not think she had the numbers to hand. May I just indulge you with some statistics, in order to help the Opposition, Mr Speaker? Last year, the bankers’ bonus total was £5.2 billion. There are 61,000 young people who have been out of work for more than a year. Much of that £5.2 billion would have been paid to taxpayers who are not UK-resident—they will work for a UK bank but not be resident here—but let us assume that it is all paid to UK residents. An increase in the rate from 45% to 50%, as the Opposition are proposing, would yield £260 million a year—the equivalent of £4,500 per young person out of work. Is the basis of her argument that £4,500 is enough to employ a young person who has been out of work for more than a year?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information; I gave way to him because I know he takes these issues seriously. As with a range of other issues, we would have to look—if the bankers bonus tax was brought in—at the circumstances at the time and how best to get young people into employment. Other hon. Members will have heard me speak about this issue before, but I can tell the House that we believe young people and those who have been out of work for two years ought to accept that there will be a compulsory jobs guarantee. From speaking to a number of small businesses and some of the larger ones, I know they believe that a range of things could be done to encourage them, as local companies and national companies, to take on young people and get them into employment.

Where the Government have done things that we think are helpful, for example, in relation to national insurance contributions, we have supported them. As has been said, we do not accept that the move away from the future jobs fund was the correct thing to do.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise the fatuousness of her argument that this money could somehow be ring-fenced for the less well-off, which has been exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)? The same applies to the next set of amendments on the mansion tax and the 10p tax rate—the figures are not well-researched. The proposition might be attractive to the public at large, but the comparison is fatuous and has been ably exposed by my hon. Friend.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I do not think that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun who are out of work and desperate to get jobs—including the 400 or so people across East Ayrshire and into neighbouring Lanarkshire who lost their jobs as a result of the collapse of Scottish Coal, the people who lost their jobs when Diageo moved out of the town of Kilmarnock and closed the historic bottling plant, which bottled Johnnie Walker whisky, and all the people who are out of work as a result of the squeeze on small local businesses—would believe that it is fatuous to suggest that a tax cut for millionaires is the wrong priority when cuts have also been made to working tax credit and when other things could be done to support people into work.

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to follow up on the points made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about the future jobs fund and to hark back to an impact analysis of the fund done for the Department for Work and Pensions, which found that society gained £7,750 per participant through wages, increased tax receipts and reduced benefit payments. Participants were calculated to have gained £4,000 and employers to have gained £6,850, with the cost to the Exchequer calculated at £3,100 a job. The figures the hon. Gentleman cited would cover the cost. Even better, two years after the start of their time with the fund, those former jobseekers were much less likely to go back to being on benefits. Is that not something we should be re-exploring?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend has made her point extremely succinctly and has put on the record why we feel that the future jobs fund was not only important but a successful initiative. I say again to Government Members who think that the proposal has no impact on the lives of ordinary people that all those who went through the future jobs fund programmes and who worked on them say that the fund was a valuable way of getting young people back into work. People in my area would certainly have liked it to continue.

Let me come back to the points about the new clause. As I said, the Government should be tackling tax avoidance—we will debate that further later—but that does not mean that we should compensate the wealthiest at the expense of those on middle and low incomes. I would have hoped, in the light of everything the Government proclaimed around the time of the spending review about fairness and ensuring that growth came back into the economy, that even at this stage they might have dropped the plan for a millionaires tax cut. That is a forlorn hope, however.

The decision to create that tax cut goes to the heart of the coalition’s political vision and beliefs—and by that I mean both sides of the coalition. We face a period of national upheaval at a time when resources are stretched. The Government criticise the Opposition when we take responsible decisions to think about the way forward while failing to explain their positions. At a time when resources are stretched, when people up and down the country are working harder and harder than ever before for less in their pockets and when public services are being cut so drastically, it is even more crucial that our Government should be a uniting force rather than a dividing one. In that context, I must ask again why on earth this is the time for a tax cut for the richest.

The Government try to talk a good game, but as I said at the outset, reality does not match their rhetoric. They do not seem to understand the need for a one nation approach to politics and they are not able to encourage a sense of national mission, no matter how much they talk about being “all in it together”. This Government will go down in history as the most divisive.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being most generous in giving way. She said earlier that this matter is about action, not words, and has just said that it is about reality, not rhetoric. She is making an impassioned speech, but will she explain why she did not vote against the 50p tax rate and why, in addition, she is not committed to reversing the measure? Why, after the faux outrage over the spare room subsidy, is she not committed to reversing that either? People outside will think that this has a stench of hypocrisy about it.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The reality for my constituents and those of Labour Members is that they want to know why the Government made the change in the first place. They want to see action taken in the future, but there are two years until the general election—we will lay out how we intend to take things forward in good time for that—and I respectfully suggest to Government Members that we do not know exactly what sort of mess we will be left with. We see no responsibility taken by the Government for the situation that the economy is in at the moment and what has happened on their watch—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

You created it.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear yet again that tired mantra from Conservative Members, as if, somehow, Labour created the global financial crisis—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Because it is true.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I see that we have all sprung to life now.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have been asked that question over and over again. Had we been asked it two years ago, and had we based our answers on the projections that we were given by the Government, that answer would be very different from the one we would have to give now. That might well be the case in two years’ time.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend speaks words of wisdom. I have repeatedly said today, and it has been said by others, that while we have accepted that, come 2015 if we are in government, we will have to take as a starting point the overall spending plans that have been laid out, that does not mean that we would have made the same choices or that we would make the same choices in the future.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I would not expect my hon. Friend to set out our tax policies two years before a general election, but is it not important to emphasise that there is a question of priorities here? The issue is that the Government have chosen to clobber some of the lowest-paid workers in my constituency and in hers with a council tax increase caused by their changes to council tax benefit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion on behalf of his constituents and he is correct to identify the fact that we need, in difficult times, to talk the language of priorities. That is why on previous occasions—from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere—I have asked the Government why they believe that it is fair to give the tax cut to the richest and, on top of that, to give those very same people the winter fuel allowance even if they happen to be pensioner millionaires. To me, that does not seem to be fair and reasonable, and I am sure it does not to my hon. Friend either.

Even where a council tax freeze has been put in place, people are seeing local services that they rely on being cut to the bone. They are not able to access educational opportunities, leisure opportunities, support via social services, library services, the arts and culture. It is all very well having a freeze, but in a range of areas people feel that they are not necessarily getting the services in return.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the situation is even worse than that for 2.4 million low-paid families, who are losing some, if not all, of their council tax benefit. That is an in-work benefit, paid not just to people who are out of work. Those families will, for the first time, be getting a tax increase, because they will have to pay council tax.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents and those on the lowest incomes. He is correct to identify the fact that, despite the rhetoric, the Government have, across the piece, consistently attacked the living standards of those in work and on low incomes. I need only refer again to tax credits, particularly for those working part-time hours. The Government seem to think it fairly straightforward for them simply to get additional hours of work, but we know that in many industries, it is not that easy; it is not possible to get the requisite number of hours. Many people who were, to use the Government’s mantra, doing the right thing—taking up employment, for however few hours and however low the wages, rather than doing nothing or sitting at home on benefits—found their working tax credits cuts. As my hon. Friend correctly says, that was compounded by changes to housing benefit, which mean that many of them are even worse off.

Let us look at the impact. I said that this Government will go down in history as a Government who divided; of the richest who are receiving a tax cut, 85% are estimated to be men, and about 70% of the revenue raised from direct tax and benefit changes will come from women. Some 52% of those benefiting are based in London and the south-east. I do not for a moment mean to suggest that there are not people there on extremely low incomes; of course there are, and many of my hon. Friends will no doubt wish to make that point. However, long-term unemployment, including in the north and Scotland, is on the rise.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. She is right to emphasise the impact on low-income families, but the tax changes are also hitting moderate and middle-income families. She will be aware that the measures involve lowering the higher rate tax threshold to £41,450. Why is it that those on the lowest incomes and middle incomes are being clobbered, whereas those on the highest incomes are getting a tax cut?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to many middle-income earners. The issue of the lowering of the threshold at which the higher rate of tax is paid has perhaps not had as much air time as some other topics, or other cuts that the Government are making, but the reality is that it affects many who would not see themselves as particularly well off, who have worked hard over the years and been promoted in a company or in the public sector, and who are trying to do the right thing for their family, and are feeling the squeeze.

To go back to the point about who will suffer most as a result of the Government’s policies, I emphasise that I know that in many places in London and the south-east, employment is not at the level that it is elsewhere, and incomes are being squeezed, but it is interesting to note the geographic spread.

Perhaps we should not be surprised to see the Tories operating in this way. I recall, on first entering this place, attending a debate on cutting and abolishing child trust funds. I was surprised that the Government thought that was the correct thing to do at that stage. They were once again attacking those who were trying to do the right thing and support their children and families. Under their approach, it is women and families— the very people they say they want to protect—who consistently suffer. The rhetoric and the reality are two very different things. We should perhaps not have been surprised by the Government’s proposals. It is an age-old Tory mantra that the poor—those on the lowest incomes—are expected to work harder; otherwise, they will be made poorer. At the same time, the rich will work harder only if we make them richer. In this instance, there seems to be one rule for the very richest and another for everyone else. This is arguably the same old out-of-touch Tories—this time, sadly, aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats.

I always like to try to end on a positive note, however, and I come back to the point that the new clause is a relatively mild-mannered proposal. It seeks nothing more than that the Government should use their good offices to gather the necessary information to make an assessment of the impact of the changes and to produce a report. That does not seem an unreasonable request. Indeed, when the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury was in opposition, he regularly requested such reports and no doubt regularly tabled amendments and new clauses to that effect. He is nodding his head. I hope that he will remember those days, and remember why it is so important to have such reports and assessments. I hope that he will show that he is not only a listening Minister but a Minister who is prepared to act, and that he will accept new clause 8.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) has waxed lyrical at some considerable length about the iniquity of the Government’s seeking to reduce the higher rate of tax, but the question that kept occurring to me was this: if she and her colleagues felt so strongly about this, why were the Labour Government quite happy to keep a maximum higher rate of tax of 40% for their entire 13 years in office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. I wonder what he would say in response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has pointed out that the rise in receipts may be due to wealthier people trying to avoid the 50p tax rate. It says:

“Receipts in April will have been boosted by high income individuals shifting income such as bonuses and special dividends from 2012-13 to 2013-14 in anticipation of the fall in the top rate of income tax from 50 per cent to 45 per cent.”

Is he suggesting that the right way to deal with people avoiding paying their tax is to reward them with a tax cut?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is not a question of rewarding them. The truth is that the more complicated the tax system, the more it is the case that the only people who suffer are middle-income groups, often people in employment on pay-as-you-earn. The rich—the millionaires; let us talk about the group that the hon. Lady is always going on about—will always, through their expert accountants’ advice, seek to avoid paying tax, quite rightly, as it is perfectly legal and proper, and largely they will be successful. The people she is talking about—the millionaires—are precisely the sort of people who have income streams that are very mobile around the world. They are often foreign nationals. Does she honestly think that if we go on piling more and more tax on to these people they will just sit around doing nothing? Of course not; they will seek to avoid paying tax. It is a question not of rewarding avoidance but of accepting the facts of life. She might think it unfortunate—I do not—but we need these risk-takers, entrepreneurs and wealth creators in this country. Unfortunately we are in a highly competitive situation with other countries, particularly Ireland and other low-tax countries. Unless we attract these people here we will not create jobs and investment in the private sector.

We can go back to our comfort zone; we can lie in the warm bath of our own prejudices and dislike millionaires. We would probably all like to be millionaires. None of us are millionaires, unfortunately; we chose to go into public service and we are not going to become millionaires. We can have a pitch at millionaires and think that in doing so we are making ourselves popular with the rest of the population, but unfortunately they will not sit tight; they will simply leave and take that entrepreneurship and job creation away. That is what Tony Blair recognised and that is what we should recognise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend takes a sceptical view of the Opposition, and events may well turn out to justify it. I want to take a more charitable view, however—although perhaps it is, in fact, a different form of scepticism or cynicism. My view is that they are not really serious about the 50p rate at all; much though they talk about it, they will not, in truth, pursue this policy because they know it is so damaging and that it does not do anything to raise revenue. That is why, despite repeated questions earlier, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who does like to be straightforward with the House, refused to say whether Labour would support a 50p rate after the next general election. She makes the argument that Labour will have to delay and wait to see what the state of the economy is, but given that we know this does not raise any substantial amount of revenue, it cannot be dependent on the state of the public finances; instead, it is a matter of political calculation. I hope my hon. Friend is wrong and that the Opposition are trying to edge away from a position that they saw as populist but which, in truth, is economically incoherent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am intrigued by the amount of advice being given to the Labour party by those on the Government Benches. Given that the Minister said he wanted to be in charitable mode, to return to the new clause, will he not concede that there is an argument for looking at the matter more thoroughly and having this review in order, as the Treasury Committee concluded in its report on the 2012 Budget, to discover what the actual impact of reducing the rate would be?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not persuaded by that argument. I hoped the hon. Lady would take that opportunity to provide some clarity on the Labour party’s position, but she did not do so. We do not need another review. We have evaluated the impact of the 50p rate. It was an economic failure. It failed to raise revenue. It in effect put up a “closed for business” sign over the UK economy. It was about politics, not economics.

I urge the Opposition to withdraw the new clause, and I hope they will also return to their approach of a few years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, when Tony Blair was in charge he was making pledges not to increase the top rate of income tax. That at least demonstrated a sense of where the UK needed to be and its place in the world, but that has, I am afraid, been long forgotten by the Labour party which just drifts ever leftwards.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Following the Minister’s example, I will be brief. We have had a useful debate containing some impassioned speeches, not least those from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, interestingly, sought to give advice to the Labour party. My hon. Friend gave an interesting critique of Laffer curve economics but related it, importantly, to what happens in the real world. He spoke with a great deal of passion and experience from his time working in the financial services sector. He was absolutely right to say that not everyone working in the banks was wrong, and many people working on the front line are trying to change things and to clear up the problems. These people did not adopt the principles that got the banks into such difficulty.

Earlier, I read out a couple of quotes from various hon. Members about cutting the top rate, but, to keep a balance across the coalition, let me cite one that I missed from the president of the Lib Dems. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has said:

“Cutting the top rate was a stupid thing to do. It probably raised up to £3bn a year. We should pledge to restore the 50p rate at the next election. It’s not enough to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair.”

That has been one of the threads running through this afternoon’s debate. [Interruption.]

Again, I hear Government Members muttering from a sedentary position about what the Labour party is going to do. I outlined this earlier, but I will state it again: we will, of course, set out our manifesto in due course, in time for the general election—that is absolutely the correct thing to do—but we will not make false promises. We will not make promises that we will not be able to keep. Let me remind the House of that quote from the Prime Minister:

“I have been very clear—we have all been very clear—that we have to do this in a way that is fair so that the broadest backs bear the biggest burden.

That is why we haven’t changed… the 50p tax rate.”

As I outlined, that particular pledge was not kept and those with the broadest backs do not appear to be carrying the biggest burden.

The Minister said that he wanted to be charitable and to understand why we tabled the new clause, and I know from Finance Bill Committees that he does at least reflect on things. He rarely gives in to temptation to resist the advice he is given to reject all amendments and new clauses, but he does at least give the appearance of reflecting. In this case, I cannot understand why he will not accept a mild-mannered proposal that simply seeks to have a review of the impact of this measure and to bring forward further information for the interest of hon. Members across the House. That is a reasonable and sensible thing to do, and I know that the Minister, certainly in opposition, has regularly argued for this type of review. We have heard nothing from him today to explain why, suddenly—[Interruption.] Given the side conversation that is going on, I am sure that the Minister never got any of those reviews into the legislation at that time, but I say to him that there is a first time for everything. He could, even at this late stage, decide it was the correct thing to do to allow the review to go ahead and ensure that the House had further information.

I do not want to repeat all the points made earlier, as that would not be helpful at this stage. However, I simply remind the House that it is not only Opposition Members who are claiming or suggesting that there are concerns about this measure. To go back to the IFS, it stated:

“By giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour”.

Much of the Government’s argument has been predicated on the notion that people will change their behaviour, but I have heard nothing from the Government that suggests to me that behaviour would be changed in such a way that there would suddenly be a huge influx of resource into the Treasury. The IFS went on to say:

“There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk on this estimate.”

[Mr Ruffley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am coming to a conclusion.

Let me finish by quoting the Office for Budget Responsibility, which stated:

“This is a judgement based on not even a full year’s data based in terms of how people have responded to the 50p rate, in particular in terms of those self assessment tax-payers.”

I have heard nothing from the Government that convinces me that we do not need to look at this issue in more detail. I am disappointed that they have not accepted the new clause and I therefore want to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly can confirm that. Putting in a floor of a 2.5% increase in the basic state pension will prevent that disgraceful situation, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, thanks to the triple lock, the basic state pension now represents a higher share of average earnings than at any time since 1992.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me be clear that we on the Opposition Benches do support the triple lock on pensions. However, at a time when our NHS and social care are under such pressure, why do the Government think it is a priority to continue to pay the winter fuel allowance to the richest 5% of pensioners?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Lady says that Opposition Members support the triple lock, but they did not introduce it when they were in office. The shadow Chancellor wishes to include the basic state pension in his short-term cap of welfare spending. Let me tell the Labour party what that might mean. Last year, the welfare forecast increased by £2.3 billion; if the pension had been included in the welfare cap, as the shadow Chancellor suggests, it would have meant freezing the basic state pension this year, not increasing it as planned. That is what Labour really means on pensions. I am certainly willing to look at the payment of winter allowance to wealthy pensioners; I am sure it will be a matter to discuss at the next election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he will know that if mortgage rates increased by 1% it would add more than £10 billion a year to the costs for British households—not a consequence any of us on the Government Benches would welcome.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the priority should be helping first-time buyers, will the Chief Secretary finally rule out the Help to Buy scheme being used to buy second homes—yes or no?

[Danny Alexander]

Actually, I have been very clear on this question throughout. It is not the intention of the Help to Buy scheme to aid people in buying second homes. The part of the scheme already up and running—the shared equity scheme—is available only for someone’s primary residence, and we will set out details of the mortgage indemnity guarantee as we go forward. The intention is not to help people buy their second homes.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Is it not staggering that two months after the Budget the Chief Secretary is still unable to rule out people buying a second home for themselves under this scheme? Let me try another question. With house building at its lowest since the 1920s and the housing benefit bill rising, why did the Government not use funds from the 4G auction to build 100,000 more affordable homes?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I call Catherine Jamieson to move the motion.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Thank you, Mr Hood, for using my full name. My mother will be most impressed, as she is the only other person on the planet who addresses me as “Catherine”, rather than Cathy. She will be delighted.

I am sure that many Government Members are interested in the rate of VAT and perhaps rather relieved that they are not in the same frenzy over it that they were when we debated the Finance Bill this time last year. I see some hon. Members agreeing, because I think that we all learned far more than we ever wanted to about ambient temperatures, pasties and the impact of the VAT proposals on not only hot food, but caravans, churches, sports nutrition products and so on. Perhaps Government Members will be more relieved to talk about our VAT proposals.

We have tabled new clause 2 because, as has been said in earlier debates, we have concerns about the rising cost of living and its impact on ordinary people. In the last debate we heard many passionate speeches from Opposition Members, particularly on how the rising cost of living is impacting on their constituents, and I was struck by the number of Members who referred to constituents having to rely more and more on food banks. Having moved on from the debate on hot food, it is sad that we are now talking about more people having to rely on food handouts. Those handouts, of course, show the generosity of many people in our local communities, and I applaud them for the work they are doing, but surely in this day and age people should not have to rely on such initiatives.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the hon. Lady tell me her definition of the “strong growth” that her new clause says would trigger VAT being put up again?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Given that I have not really got under way with all the details of the new clause, I will come to those points later. However, I will say that one thing we know is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has halved the growth forecast for this year and downgraded it again for next year, so we are not in a situation of strong growth. The Government really have to take responsibility for that, because since the Chancellor’s spending review in 2010 the UK economy has grown by just 0.7%, compared with the 5.3% forecast at the time. I do not think that anyone could suggest that that was particularly successful. Last year, of course, the UK went through a double-dip recession and the economy shrank by 0.3% in the last quarter.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Lady is quite right that growth has been very disappointing and that the forecasts have been revised downwards, but we are debating her policy, which is that VAT should go up again when the UK economy returns to “strong growth.” It is a very simple question: can she tell us what strong growth would trigger an increase in VAT?

[Cathy Jamieson]

As I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman, whose views I listen to and who always raises pertinent questions, I will come to that, but the Government must also take responsibility for, as we heard in the previous debate, trying to give all sorts of reasons why the economy has not recovered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) suggested, we were surprised to hear that the latest reason given seems to be the issue of the 50p tax rate, rather than looking at the situation in the round. I want to talk a little more about some of the issues that the economy currently faces and why we think our proposal is one way of stimulating the economy and looking to the future in order to help local businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, in case he is going to make any further interventions, that he should make them a bit shorter and get straight to the point.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has some sympathy with our proposal—I suspect that we might not have the same agreement over some of the other issues up for debate today. He raises important issues. That is why, through new clause 2, we want to ensure that a report would be produced. We are calling on the Government to do that now, rather than put it off into the future. The Government could put in place monitoring measures now; that would allow for a temporary VAT cut, which would help stimulate the economy.

Borrowing to pay for the cost of economic failure has risen—it is now forecast to be £245 billion more than planned at the time of the spending review. That, of course, excludes the one-off transfers of the Royal Mail pension fund and asset purchase facilities. The Government are not going to balance the books by 2015 as the Prime Minister promised. National debt as a percentage of GDP is not now forecast to start falling until 2017-18. It is important to remember that, as it breaks one of the Government’s own fiscal rules.

As this week’s labour market statistics show, halfway through a Parliament, Britain is still being scarred by rising unemployment, an issue raised in earlier debates by many hon. Members, who brought attention to what was happening in their constituencies in the real world.

Not only are more people unemployed than at the election, but the number is rising. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North referred to the rising numbers: 70,000 more people are on the dole now than last month; long-term unemployment has risen yet again; and, most damagingly of all, the next generation is paying the brutal price, with youth unemployment up yet again, by 20,000.

People are no longer giving the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt. I think I said that about this time during last year’s debate; I felt that at that stage the public were beginning to lose confidence in the Chancellor’s economic strategy. This week, we have to take note of what the International Monetary Fund’s chief economist said:

“In the face of very weak private demand, it may be time to consider adjusting the original fiscal consolidation plan”.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with interest and read the new clause with greater interest. She really has not addressed the issue raised by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). The new clause represents a spending commitment. Given that she is not able to specify what “strong growth” means, how will she fill the fiscal gap? Will she increase another tax, and if so which one? Alternatively, which departmental budget would be cut to pay for the measure?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We argue that the new clause would be part of a package of measures. We have heard about other initiatives that could be brought forward, and it is important to recognise that others in industry and business are also saying that one way to stimulate the economy would be to introduce at least a temporary cut in VAT. There are serious questions to be asked about the other issues, but if we could get unanimity about this issue, it might be possible for the Government to consider it and bring forward further proposals.

In the Budget, the Government had the opportunity to change course, make the necessary changes and kick-start the economy. Sadly, however, more and more commentators are reflecting that all we got was more of the same from the downgraded Chancellor. As a result, the cost of living for people up and down the country is rising day by day. The economy is flatlining, inflation remains high and food bills are rising. Energy bills are soaring, thanks to the Government’s failure to break the stranglehold of the big six energy companies. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent figures show that people will be worse off in 2015 than when the Government came to office.

The reality for people is that real wages are now £17,000 a year smaller than they were in 2010. To add to that hardship, any benefit that hard-working people might have received from the Government’s much trumpeted rise in the personal allowance has been uniformly swept aside by the raft of tax and benefit changes that the Government have made since 2010. Those changes mean that families will be an average of £891 worse off in the new financial year, according to the analysis of figures made by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies—even more money out of the pockets of hard-working people up and down the country.

The truth is that even if those tax and benefit changes had never happened, any benefit from the rise of the personal allowance would have been wiped out by the Government’s 2011 VAT rise from 17.5% to 20% alone. Research from the TUC confirms that by the time of the next election, families of all incomes will lose more from the VAT rise than they will gain from the increase in the personal allowance and the changes to national insurance, with low-paid workers losing up to four times more per year from the Government’s increase in VAT than they will gain from the raising of the personal tax allowance to £10,000.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I understand that times are tough, partly because we have to try to bring the economy together after the last Labour Government. The hon. Lady said that individuals are £17,000 worse off than they were. I cannot understand that. Has she added on too many noughts, or what?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I intended to say £1,700; if I said £17,000, I apologise. Obviously, Mr Hood, I need to put my spectacles on when I read the numbers. I am glad that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is accepting my apology.

[Neil Parish]

indicated assent.

[Mr Jackson]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to make a bit more progress. I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton about times being hard and the idea that somehow the problem is to clear up the mess left behind, as he described it. People out there in the real world are getting tired of hearing that same old mantra. The Government have responsibility for what is happening now. They have to take responsibility for policy decisions taken in Budgets that impact on the lives of ordinary people.

I go back to the research from the TUC. Some Government Members may look sceptical about it, but I assure them that many ordinary people in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends recognise the value of the work that the TUC and trade unions are doing in standing up for those finding that their individual and collective incomes are being affected.

The TUC research considers the impact of direct and indirect tax changes over the Parliament. It shows that a household with an average weekly income of £195.92, the lowest income band for working people, will gain £1.09 a week—that figure is underlined, so I have not made an error—from the above-inflation rise in the personal allowance by 2015. However, and importantly, the same family will lose £4.26 a week through the increase in VAT, which went up in January 2011, leaving them with a total annual loss of £164.84 as a result of the Government’s tax policy.

Many on the Government Benches may say, “Well, that is not a huge amount.” I repeat what I have said in previous debates: it may not be a huge amount for someone with a decent job and income—I include all of us here in that—but it is a huge amount for those trying to have a reasonable standard of living and ensure that their families have food on the table and that their kids have clothes.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Jackson]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I give way first to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is being most generous in giving way. Surely it is churlish of her not to concede that most independent specialists, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that as a result of the fiscal changes since 2010 the biggest impact has been felt among the richest 10% of earners in the country. Is it not fair to put that on the record, too?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope I am not being churlish in hoping that the hon. Gentleman will understand that most of those independent commentators also point to what is happening to those on the lowest incomes. Opposition Members feel strongly that those people are taking a disproportionate share. It is not a case of, “We’re all in it together.” When ordinary people see millionaires and those on the highest incomes getting a tax break or a tax cut, it seems unfair to them that their wages or incomes are hit hard by the Government’s policies.

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention before I forget about him.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call for an assessment of the cost of living. Does she accept, though, that it should not be restricted to the impact of the fiscal changes announced in the Budget but should look more widely at the effect on families of expenses such as increasing fuel prices, increasing transport costs, and interest payments on payday loans?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. So that I cannot be accused of being churlish, let me say that we did welcome the action taken on fuel duty, but if VAT were reduced, as we are suggesting, that would provide a further reduction in fuel costs, which would make a difference to families.

My hon. Friend mentioned payday loans. Many people will be hard hit, with not only those out of work but those in work now finding it much more difficult to manage from month to month. The worry is that many more might feel the need to try to get such loans, believing that they will help but finding themselves further caught in a downward spiral. This is a very serious problem. In my constituency in the past couple of weeks, I have heard about people in that situation, which will be very familiar to other hon. Members. Perhaps equally worryingly, I have heard people say that they fear the impact of the bedroom tax will mean that, for the very first time, they might have to rely on food banks. The saddest aspect is that many of them will not be able to do that over an extended period because food banks are supposed to deal with the crisis points rather than sustaining people, and perhaps folk have not yet fully understood that. They are clutching at any hope to try to maintain their standard of living. James Plunkett, the director of policy at the Resolution Foundation, has stated:

“The squeeze will look worse over the next few years than previously feared”.

With all that going on, it is no wonder that working people feel that their lives are going backwards, because they are.

All this has had an undeniable and damaging knock-on impact on our economy and on our high streets and businesses up and down the country. That is why, for over a year and a half, Labour has been calling on the Government temporarily to reverse VAT back down to 17.5%. That would put about £450 back into the pockets of a couple with children, help to ease the squeeze on our constituents, and give our economy a much-needed stimulus. That is why we are calling for it again today. When consumers have less cash in their pockets, our high streets, local businesses and economy suffer. These are tough times for businesses.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has noted a number of ways in which people are suffering up and down the country. Does she agree that society suffers the most when the gap widens between rich and poor, that we are now seeing it stretched to the absolute limit, and that the Government either do not recognise that or choose not to do so?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the people in his constituency who are bearing the brunt of the Government’s policies, and he is absolutely right. It is important that there is no further widening of that gap. This is not just about the money in people’s pockets, important though that is, but the fabric of society and the relationships that people build in their local communities.

It is important to consider the impact on our high streets. For generations, local businesses have offered jobs and the convenience of shopping in the local high street, and have been involved in providing services there. They are now under pressure from the flatlining economy. Consumer spending has been constrained by high inflation and stagnant wages, leading to a 6% fall in real disposable income in 2008, with a devastating impact on our local high streets. Shops are lying empty, with a threefold increase in that trend since 2008. Household names such as HMV, JJB Sports, Blockbusters and Comet have been forced to close a large number of stores or to shut up shop completely. It is estimated that last year 1,800 shops were forced to close—a staggering tenfold increase on the year before. We have heard about the impact on the pub industry, and there has been a call for the VAT rate to be considered in that context.

Not only is retail suffering, but businesses of all kinds up and down the country are feeling the impact of the Government’s failed economic policies and the flatlining economy. That has led, and is still leading, to a lack of confidence, particularly in the construction sector, with many arguing that more must be done to get people back to work and to get projects under way. Sadly, Project Merlin did not deliver the new era of loans that it was supposed to. We learned this week that lending to UK businesses fell by £2 billion in December alone, and it is down by £18.6 billion over the past year, while businesses continue to suffer. The Business Secretary seems perhaps finally to be recognising this failure. He boasted at his party conference that he would set up a Government-backed bank to get billions of pounds to businesses that need it, but we are still awaiting the fine detail of what that bank will do and when and how businesses will be helped. They may well have to wait some time for it to be up and running.

I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion because I want to give other hon. Members the opportunity to raise issues on behalf of their constituents and put the case to the Government. There are things we can do to help businesses and individuals through these tough times. We could reform the funding for lending scheme so that banks can access the lowest rates of funding only if they increase lending to businesses as well as overall lending, and extend it beyond the end of 2013, as currently envisaged by the Government, to the end of 2014. Let us do what every other G8 economy has done and set up a state-backed investment institution to provide credit to small businesses where others will not by establishing a proper British investment bank. As we have argued, that could be done through a new network of regional banks like the German Sparkassen. That would also help to return SMEs to a local relationship with banking, with managers who know what is needed on the ground and have the discretion to make local lending decisions. Regional banks are committed to their regions and in touch with local business. We have called for, and will continue to call for, the Government to bring forward these measures to help boost our businesses and get our economy moving again.

Even if the Government accepted all those proposals and they were acted on today, the benefits would take some time to come to the fore and to be felt. However, the one step we could take now that would immediately make a difference would be for the Government to agree to reduce VAT to 17.5% to put money back into the pockets of hard-working people and give a stimulus to local economies. That would put something back into the pot to help the local businesses we have talked about, whether by reducing fuel costs or stimulating the economy such that people feel that they are able to spend again. We need to get consumers back out there spending their money, supporting our high streets and businesses, and helping our economy to grow again. It is for the Government to explain to the people of the UK why they will not listen to the arguments that have been advanced and are not prepared to take this action as a stimulus to the economy and to help to get things moving again.

[Mr Redwood]

The proposed new clause is designed to stimulate strong growth, which I suspect everyone in this House would welcome. I trust that the Government are in the market for ideas that would stimulate strong growth, but my sad conclusion is that a sudden cut in VAT of undefined duration is neither a sufficient condition for stimulating strong growth in the economy nor even a necessary precondition of such stimulation.

We have to ask what the alternative is to the Opposition’s recommendation, which we all agree is well-intended because they wish to see strong growth. I submit that the prime thing the Government need to do to raise the growth rate and get over this period of extremely disappointing performance is mend the banks. It is surprising that the official forecasters at the Office for Budget Responsibility thought there would be strong growth over the past three years, because they knew that the official policy on the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is largely state owned, was to push the bank through the most enormous slim-down, a continuation of the policy begun in 2008 when it was largely acquired by the state under the previous Government.

So far, £900 billion of assets and liabilities have been removed from RBS’s £2.2 trillion balance sheet since the state foolishly took them on. How can we expect the British economy to grow rapidly when its leading bank is going through a forced slimming programme of £900 billion? This is big money, even for a £1.5 trillion economy. We spend most of our time in this place discussing the odd £5 billion or £10 billion—we are now billionaires in our discussions rather than millionaires— but these figures have very little overall impact on a £1.5 trillion economy, whereas £900 billion is eye-poppingly large. We have to deal in trillions now if we want to see the things that really make a difference to the economy. I submit that the main reason why our economy is not growing rapidly is that the banks, led by RBS and abetted by HBOS, have been on a very sharp slimming programme. It is true that some of those assets were foreign and a lot of them were derivatives and so on, but overall, this massive slimming programme has clearly placed enormous pressure on the UK economy.

In addition, this place, as part of the political debate, has discovered that bankers are even more unpopular than politicians, so it has taken great delight in trying to do as much damage as possible to the banking industry. I understand that the banking industry did not do well for itself—I am enough of a politician to realise the politics of all this—but if we target one of our biggest and most successful industries of the previous decade and force it into slimming down measures and tax it more, we should expect a drop in output, and that is what has happened. One of the reasons why we do not have much growth in this country is that our lead sector of the previous decade has taken such a big hit and is now so politically unpopular that pressures remain to prevent it from growing and recovering as some of us would like.

A third area that has caused considerable problems is oil and gas. We cannot legislate to change the age profile of our reservoirs, many of which have aged a lot recently in terms of the amount of oil and gas left to exploit. There are arguments about other tax policies we could pursue to stimulate more finds and exploitation, but some of the big, successful reservoirs of previous years are now ageing, so whoever was running the country was going to experience a reduction in output from another of our high-value-added sectors—oil and gas—and that was bound to hit the growth rate.

What more can we do to overcome those difficulties in two of our lead sectors? Tax measures proposed by other clauses that we will discuss later could be helpful. Broadly speaking, the lower the tax rate, the better from the point of view of stimulating growth, and there have been some measures in the right direction.

The problem with the proposed new clause’s VAT measure is that it is so expensive and I do not think we would get a big enough return for the colossal loss of revenue that it would cause. We have already heard an estimate of about £10 billion, but the Labour Opposition have given us no figures whatsoever. They have not told us how much it would cost, how long it would be a concessionary rate and on what conditions they would return to the new rate. That weakens their case, because if they wish to make this a serious policy, they need to cost it and explain by how much the deficit would rise in the early stages and at what point the growth would accelerate enough to start to generate serious revenues from increased activity.

The evidence seems to be that, whereas it is possible to do serious damage to the revenues generated by income tax and capital gains tax if the rates are put up too much—I fear that that is what has happened under the Labour and coalition Governments in recent years—it is more difficult to depress the revenues of VAT. Indeed, the increase from 17.5% to 20% actually produced some increase in revenue, despite the poor performance of the economy, so the argument that cutting the rate generates more revenue—economists call it the Laffer curve argument—does not apply in the same way as it does to taxes geared towards gains and income, whereby more realistic rates would do two good things, namely generate more growth and, therefore, more tax revenue. I fear that the problem with the VAT proposal is that this short-term measure would definitely increase the deficit and that the stimulus from VAT would not be sufficient to replace the lost revenue in any serious period of time over which this experiment might be tried.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he was not here for the early part of the debate. He may not have read the new clause, but the policy depends on the definition of “strong growth” and the Labour party has not provided a definition.

Secondly, the cost of this measure will be £12 billion to £13 billion a year. How will that be paid for—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson)? Will it be through higher taxes, a reduction in spending or—as we believe—an increase in borrowing? What consideration has been given to the impact on the cost of borrowing? A 1% increase in Government bond yields would add around £8 billion to annual debt interest payments by 2017-18 and result in an increase of £12 billion in households’ mortgage interest payments—the equivalent of £1,000 for a household with an average mortgage in its first year. Has the Labour party considered the consequences of that discretionary fiscal stimulus?

What is Labour’s view on the profile of deficit reduction? We believe that over the whole deficit reduction period, 80% should be achieved through spending cuts and 20% through tax increases. The Darling plan had two thirds on spending cuts and one third on tax increases. What is the view of the Labour party, given that it has put in front of the Committee a proposal for a £12 billion or £13 billion tax cut? Does it suggest that the ratio should lean more towards public spending cuts rather than tax rises? What assessment has Labour made of the impact of different taxes on the economy? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the fact that VAT is, as many economists would argue, less harmful to growth than other taxes. Is that the view of the Labour party? Why has VAT been picked as a particular issue?

The Labour party does not come forward with policies often, but I am pleased that it has done so today so that Labour Members have the opportunity to tell the Committee exactly what their policy is. They can explain that policy, and if they would care to answer those questions the Committee will be able to judge whether it should support new clause 2. My advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends is that this is just more of the same from the Labour party. It is more borrowing and more debt, and it fails to get to grips with the fiscal situation and the mess in which the Labour party left this country and which we, the coalition Government, are addressing.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is an interesting experience to see Ministers ask a whole range of questions without addressing why we introduced the proposal. The Minister failed to recognise work that shows how VAT hits those on lower incomes disproportionately hard. He shakes his head but we can point to research which backs that up and businesses that say—I have spoken to people personally as I am sure have other hon. Members—that a temporary cut in VAT would help to stimulate the economy and growth. The Minister asks what the definition of strong growth would be. It certainly is not what this Government have provided.

[Mr Gauke]

The Opposition propose a new clause that depends on the definition of “strong growth” but do not tell us what that means. They object to questions being asked about what the new clause means. It is the hon. Lady’s new clause, so will she tell the Committee what she is getting at, why she has chosen VAT, what the fiscal implications will be, and what will happen if borrowing goes up by £12 billion or £13 billion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure the Minister has heard what I have said. We believe that the new clause is one measure that can be introduced now to ensure that there is a stimulus in the economy.

The Government believe that consistently high rates of VAT are helpful to the economy. The Opposition disagree and believe there is an alternative. I find it interesting that the Minister constantly presses Opposition Members to define “strong growth” when it is clear that the Government’s policies are introducing something that is far from strong growth. It is important to recognise that, once again, the Opposition are standing up for the people whose incomes are being squeezed and who are being hit hard by the Government’s policies. The Minister can shake his head as much as he likes, but he knows in his heart of hearts that the Opposition are speaking out for the people who are hit hardest by the Government’s policies. That is why I intend to press new clause 2 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Basic rate limit for 2013-14

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 2, line 11, at end add—

‘(3) The Chancellor shall produce a report on subsection (1) which shall include an assessment of the impact of changes to taxation on the living standards of basic rate taxpayers which shall be placed in the House of Commons Library within three months of Royal Assent.’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box. Had amendment 4 been selected for debate, we could have engaged in further discussion about the mansion tax and the 10p income tax rate. However, I think that some of the broader issues that I shall raise in relation to clause 3 are relevant to that subject.

Clause 3 sets the 2013-14 basic rate limit for income tax at £32,010. In doing so, it overrides the indexed amount, which would otherwise have been set at £35,300 as announced in the 2012 autumn statement. The explanatory notes on the clause state that it is

“part of a package of measures”.

I shall say something further about the implications of that package of measures as we go on. Effectively, the rise in the personal allowance from £8,105 to £9,440 for this year and the rise to £10,000 from 2014, however welcome they are and regardless of the difficulties raised concerning those who will not necessarily benefit, will in part be clawed back by the measures implemented in this clause and a further reduction in the basic rate limit next year to £31,865.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury points out, people should be angry about the state of the public finances left to us by the Labour party. I described Labour as the “repository for people’s anger” and as a “simply fellow-traveller in sympathy”, not leaders, because those were the words of the last successful leader of the Labour party, Tony Blair. I am afraid that Labour is too often in its comfort zone. We know that there are pressures on living standards, but ignoring the deficit is no way to deal with them. The Government are prepared to take those difficult decisions, while Labour is failing to address them.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am disappointed to hear the Minister resort once again to the same tired old mantra.

We have listened this afternoon to some passionate speeches from Opposition Members talking about the very real experiences of their constituents, and it is disappointing that once again the Government choose not to recognise them. They do not seem to recognise their responsibility for the deficit and debt now—for the fact that they have to borrow more, for the lack of growth, for the fact that people are not getting back into work in the way we would want and for the problems with living standards.

Sadly, we saw some crocodile tears from the Minister, who on the one hand wants to say, “Yes, we understand the impact on people”, but on the other is not prepared to do anything about it. Opposition Members are rightly angry on behalf of their constituents. They are angry about the bedroom tax and about the fact that the Government have chosen today not to do something on VAT that would have made a difference to people in our communities who will also be angry that the Government will not even accept a mild-mannered request, as I described it earlier, for a report on the impact of the Government’s policies on basic rate taxpayers. For that reason, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on the assumption that he would answer my question, rather than coming up with another one himself. I think that we have exhausted this debate. In conclusion, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have not made the case today, so I will not be following them into the Lobby.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is always entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who moved new clause 3 on behalf of the SNP. I have shared a few flights with him, both short-haul and long-haul, and know how passionately he speaks on these matters. I hope to take a flight to Inverness in the not-too-distant future—[Interruption.] It is great to hear that SNP Members are so keen for me to get to the Labour conference, along with the other Scottish Labour MPs who will be playing a full part in proceedings.

[Angus Robertson]

Will the hon. Lady give the Committee a sneak preview and explain to Members on both sides of the Committee whether she will be voting in favour of the Scottish Labour party adopting a policy of devolving APD, and will she be joining the SNP in the Lobby later?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will not be joining the SNP in the Lobby, and I will explain why shortly. I will first take this opportunity to remind hon. Members who have chosen to portray in a slightly different way the consultation exercise that the Scottish Labour party conducted that there is going to be a consultation process. I suppose it would be too much to hope that the SNP will contribute constructively to that process. I am sure that we will continue to have interesting debates and discussions.

Let me deal with the arguments relating to new clause 3 and new schedule 1. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), who speaks with some authority on these matters, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) have made clear the limitations of the new clause and the new schedule proposed today. They would not address all the issues on APD, which have been well rehearsed in a number of debates on the Floor of the House. In the Back-Bench business debate held in November last year, hon. Members on both sides of the House raised real concerns about how APD was operating. There was a suggestion that the Government should produce a report, a point I will return to later.

[Phil Wilson]

We should set aside the selfish approach shown today by the SNP, because APD is an issue not just for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but for many UK regions, including the north-east of England. Durham Tees Valley airport, in my constituency, is under capacity. One way to ensure that we fill such airports to capacity is to have a regional variation in APD. Would that approach not satisfy the whole UK and not just Scotland?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point. In that debate in November, a number of hon. Members from different parts of the UK acknowledged that there were concerns and there needed to be a fresh look at the issue of APD, not only to tackle congestion in the south-east, but to recognise some of the representations made not only by Scottish and Welsh airports, but by those in the north-east—specifically, Newcastle and Manchester airports.

At that stage, the general view of those representations was that the issue did not affect only Scotland and Wales; it affected the wider UK. Air passenger duty puts a significant amount of funding into the Treasury so it is important to consider the issue in the round. A number of airlines as well as airports have made representations and different business and tourism concerns have been raised.

The issue of the perceived anomalies around the Caribbean destinations was raised as something that ought to be investigated further. The Caribbean Council has raised a number of issues; I believe that it has made direct representations to the Minister, as have some of my Labour colleagues, I understand, in the hope that something could be done.

I am also aware of the “A Fair Tax on Flying” campaign, as part of which more than 200,000 e-mails were sent. Many MPs received hundreds of e-mails during that time from constituents concerned about the issue.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Obviously, my hon. Friend will know that there were special circumstances for Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Committee, of which I am a member, made that clear. Does she not accept that the United Kingdom has the highest air passenger duty of any part of Europe and that we should be moving towards taking the duty completely away? In the meantime, does she not feel that devolving the matter to Wales and Scotland might be a way forward?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how much of an interest she has taken in the issue. My concern is to look at the matter sensibly in the round. The problem is that, if the amendments were implemented, we would once again have a piecemeal arrangement in which something might happen for Scotland and Wales, but nothing would happen across the wider UK.

As SNP Members reminded us, we are a United Kingdom and we want to ensure that we have the benefits of the United Kingdom and continue to do so. The comments from the SNP suggesting that somehow the 2014 referendum was a done deal and that Scotland would be independent are far from the reality on the ground when we speak to the people of Scotland. Without wishing to open up earlier debates, I should say that I have absolutely no difficulty in arguing for a strong United Kingdom. That does not mean that I would support everything that the Government would do, as some suggested. I am sure that the Minister and others know that that is far from being the case.

[Mr Llwyd]

How closely has the hon. Lady monitored the views of Welsh Members on this issue? The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), the former Secretary of State for Wales, said:

“Given the Secretary of State’s admission that this measure could be included in a Finance Bill, it could be in the Finance Bill”—

this one—

“in a few months’ time. Then we could get on with it.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 23 January 2013; c. 30.]

The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), said:

“Why on earth are we waiting and not pressing ahead? The people of Wales need growth in the economy.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 23 January 2013; c. 17.]

[Cathy Jamieson]

The right hon. Gentleman asks how closely I have been monitoring the situation. I have not only been doing that; I have had discussions with a number of Members, including those from Wales. My hon. Friends from Wales, and from Scotland, appear to be able to distinguish between what has been put on today’s Order Paper as a political fix or stunt in order to grandstand and make some wider arguments, and having a sensible debate about the real issues, which is entirely different.

[Jonathan Edwards]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. Since when has an amendment agreed by the Clerks of this House been a political stunt? This is what the Labour party is saying in the media. It is a disgrace and it brings dishonour on this Chamber. [Interruption.]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Everything that is being debated today is in order; otherwise it would not have been selected. It sounds to me like part of the current debate.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Mr Evans.

I have no concern about whether what is on the Order Paper is in order; of course, if the Clerks have accepted it, it is indeed in order. I recall some of the Members who are bickering and heckling from the Back Benches making similar remarks about perfectly legitimate amendments that Labour Members have tabled in the past, and perhaps making similar suggestions. I am criticising not what is on the Order Paper but the fact that hon. Members apparently wish to widen this debate to the whole question of breaking off certain parts of the United Kingdom instead of focusing on the specific issue.

This is a very serious matter, as was highlighted during the Back-Bench debate that we had back in November. At that time, we as a House came to an agreement that the issue should be looked at in more detail. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what action has been taken. Prior to the election, the Conservatives gave a commitment to look at the per-plane duty. The resulting report was not taken forward for very good reasons; certainly, the industry did not support it. Following all the representations that have been made and the Back-Bench debate that took place, is the Minister now in a position to respond to some of the issues that have been raised today and to say whether a further report is necessary?

[Pete Wishart]

We do not have a clue what the Liberal position on APD is, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) does not have a clue himself. We have the “jam tomorrow” commission looking at this, but what is the view of the hon. Lady and the Labour party on APD?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Our view is that we will not support the new clause because we do not believe it is the correct way forward. The Labour party’s position, as already outlined by the leader of the Scottish Labour party, is to put forward some points for consultation. That is the right and proper thing to do. It is of course for the Liberal Democrats to answer for themselves rather than for Labour to do it for them.

[Mr Reid]

Let me put it on record that I will not support the new clause because, as I said, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) did not make the case for it. There has been no proper impact assessment. There are mechanisms by which the case could be made, but SNP Members have not done so today.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He has put his position firmly on the record in exactly the way I would anticipate, because I know from the work that he has done on the Scottish Affairs Committee and elsewhere that he takes this issue extremely seriously and is not slow to make points that are often not entirely in line with his Government colleagues if he feels that that is the right thing to do. His comments are very important.

I want to finish by probing the Minister further to see where the Government intend to go with this. Although representations have been made, the Government have not committed to anything other than looking at the rates for this year and the year ahead. It is unclear whether they intend to address any anomalies and conduct further work—perhaps building on various independent reports and the work of the Transport Committee—in order to consider the issue in more detail.

Those who tabled the amendments will not be surprised to hear—I suspect they expected me to say this—that we will not support them. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we might usefully take this issue forward, not just for the benefit of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are very important, but for the benefit of the various regions and areas of England where hon. Members are making a case on behalf of their constituents.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this energetic debate, which has aroused strong passions in some parties.

Clause 183 sets the air passenger duty rates for 2013-14. These rates were first announced at Budget 2012 and took effect from 1 April 2013. The rates have increased by inflation only. Because of rounding, band A has remained the same, so about 80% of passengers have seen no cash-terms increase in the rates they pay.

Clause 184 gives Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the power to require payments on account in relation to the APD annual accounting scheme, which was introduced to minimise administrative burdens for the extension of APD to business jets and will improve the fairness of the tax overall. The clause also updates the list of territories in band B of APD to include the new nation of South Sudan.

It is important to recognise the need for the aviation sector to make a fair contribution to the public finances. I remind hon. Members that no tax is levied on the fuel used in international and almost all domestic flights. Moreover, no VAT is levied on international flights and, unlike many other countries, the UK does not charge VAT on domestic flights.

It was in recognition of the fact that aviation was under-taxed compared with other sectors of the economy that APD was first introduced in 1994. It was introduced purely as a revenue-raising tax and it remains a vital revenue-raiser today. However, despite the challenge of the budget deficit that we inherited, this Government have limited increases in APD to inflation only in the period since 2010-11. During this period, rates have increased by only £1 for the vast majority of passengers. Furthermore, recognising the sector’s need to plan ahead, we have provided greater clarity on future rates. Budget 2013 set out that the rates for 2014 and 2015 will rise in line with inflation only. The real burden of APD will remain unchanged for a further year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

It is right that we own large chunks of two banks, because that was necessary to clear up the mess of the under-regulated, overheated banking system that was created under the present Opposition when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister. We are working as hard as we can to get those banks in good order and we are making progress in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The experience of small businesses across the UK does not match the rosy picture painted by the Chancellor earlier or by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Last week we learned that, despite the funding for lending scheme, net lending to businesses was down £4.5 billion in the last quarter. Will the Chancellor now act on Labour’s calls to reform the scheme immediately so that small and medium-sized enterprises get the funding that they so urgently need?

[Danny Alexander]

I am sorry that we did not hear the apology for the mess that was made in the financial system by the Opposition when they were in office. Many of the steps that we are taking are necessary to repair the damage that the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench colleagues did to the financial system and the banking system. She should also have noted that net lending to the real economy increased by £2.5 billion in January 2013. The schemes that we are putting in place are making a difference, but we are facing a continuing very challenging situation and that is why we will continue to look for further things to do to help small businesses.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have had a wide-ranging debate and heard some useful, thoughtful and constructive contributions. Everyone has had the opportunity to make all the points they wanted to—except, perhaps, for the Father of the House, who understandably bemoaned the fact that he had only 12 minutes. He might well be disappointed not to have been here at a later stage of the debate to give us the benefit of his wisdom, as he certainly gave us an interesting contribution.

We heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton). He paid tribute to his predecessors in the traditional style, but raised a number of important points, not least of which was about bank lending and particularly the lending scheme for small businesses.

I would like to pick up some of the general points and themes running through the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) gave a comprehensive opening speech from the Opposition Front Bench. Other Members picked up the point that he made that we cannot have any repetition of the actions that led to the taxpayer bail-out. The actions and attitudes of the bankers meant that the banking sector—or individuals in it, as many hon. Members have said—thought that it was okay to retain the profits privately when the sun shone, to use that metaphor, but to let the losses fall to the public purse when the rainstorms arrived. We simply cannot allow a repetition of such risks to taxpayers in the future. That is why the banks must be reformed here in the UK, and further reformed in the EU and across the world.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East outlined—it was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)—our financial sector is larger than most. The greatest global financial centre is in the City of London, and there are important centres in Edinburgh and across the UK, so we have to take any additional steps required to guard against any risk of future collapse.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East also spoke eloquently about the passage of the Financial Services Act 2012, which sought to address some regulatory shortcomings. Many hon. Members will have heard him during the course of the Public Bill Committee speaking eloquently—and, I have to say, frequently—about many of the issues that we are looking to this Bill to address. He highlighted a number of them, including concerns about LIBOR.

I hope that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) will take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East. The hon. Gentleman talked a lot about regulatory shortcomings, but we need to remember how members of the public and ordinary people in the street will view this issue. People in the banks were culpable; they were individuals who somehow thought it was all right to take those risks and—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman say, from a sedentary position, that it was our system. At the end of the day we can have systems, we can have regulatory reform, we can have all those rules in place, but if the culture and the attitude of the people involved do not change, that will simply lead to more problems in the future. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that today. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who, I understand, previously had a career in the banking industry and, indeed, in regulation, does not seem to accept that individuals as well as systemic failures bear some responsibility.

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady seems to be misrepresenting the entirety of my speech. The whole speech was about the need for individual accountability. I said that under the system established by the hon. Lady’s party, there was no such accountability. That is why Sir Fred Goodwin walked away with his huge bonus untouched. Under that system, there were no real fines and no individual accountability. That is the essence of it.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I understood the hon. Gentleman to be blaming the regulators rather than the individuals who were involved in the wrongdoing. Let me repeat that, notwithstanding the amount of regulation that is introduced, if there are people who are intent on wrongdoing, we need to address the culture and the expectations in banking. I think that members of the public expect us to do that.

A number of important points were made at the outset of the debate about the timing of the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, and a number of those who intervened subsequently, expressed concern about the fact that the Bill provides such a slim framework for further secondary legislation, largely by Treasury order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) described it as an “Is this it?” sort of Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) called it a mini-Bill.

The Minister seemed to suggest that we would have adequate opportunities not only to scrutinise the Bill itself, but to scrutinise and respond to whatever other measures or recommendations were made by the parliamentary commission at a later stage. I think that how, when, and where that scrutiny will take place remains rather uncertain. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the chair of the commission and of the Treasury Committee, asked for two days to be provided on Report, but it seems that Ministers did not consider that appropriate, or did not wish to do so. That is serious, because the Bill is very thin as it stands, and a great deal of work will be needed in connection with the secondary legislation. We ought to have every opportunity to scrutinise not just the good work that has already been done by the commission, but what it will do in future.

The commission report has helpfully provided us with a series of amendments and explanations of why they are important. It has also provided us with information on why the members of the commission feel that certain amendments should be proceeded with even if the Government do not agree with them. I think that we should have an opportunity to look at those amendments properly. I think that the public would expect us, having given the responsibility to the commission to make recommendations, to pay proper attention to them, and would expect the Government to take heed of them.

It is hard for the public to believe that things have changed when they perceive that a massive bonus culture is alive and kicking, and that has been reflected in the debate. A number of Members pointed out that debates of this kind may appear to be technical, and concerned very much with the rules and regulations. People watching may wonder how it affects their everyday lives. A number of hon. Members made the point that we have to ensure that we use the opportunity of legislation to rebuild consumer confidence, but we also have to talk about financial inclusion and diversifying the sector, and we have to change the culture of high-risk banking and see an improvement in standards, because that is what people expect legislation and the change to deliver. We also want action to support growth and to create a banking system that serves the needs of our economy, a point well made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I, too, used to work for Barclays in a past life. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would not do justice to the reputation and professionalism of this House, and to the many months of work by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Select Committee, if this Bill were not given the most time possible for scrutiny, because it is so important for this country? Does she also agree that one thing we should be very wary of is the watering down of recommendations that have been made by experienced people on commissions, in much the same way as experienced people have looked at the press?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes very good points. There would be real concerns if the Committee stage of the Bill was seen as a rubber-stamping process and the Bill was not scrutinised properly. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury likes to think of himself as a listening Minister—he says that often—so I hope he is listening today to the real concerns expressed by hon. Members. [Interruption.] He does not seem to be listening at the moment, but perhaps someone will give him a nudge and tell him what points I am making on behalf of other hon. Members about the Committee timetable.

I wish to make a number of points about the particular issues that hon. Members have raised. On leverage, I was reminded very much about our discussions on the pronunciation of “schedule” in a previous financial services debate. Obviously, it will be important for us to have the opportunity to look at the issue of leverage properly. I heard the Financial Secretary to the Treasury talk about the dilemma of trying to ensure that he not only does the right thing for the taxpayers, but listens to the industry. It is very important that the leverage ratio powers need to be clearly taken in the Bill and, as was said during the opening speeches, phased in ahead of the European Union plans for the end of the decade.

The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards highlighted that issue, particularly in respect of building societies and the concern about the 3% ratio. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw raised particular issues about small building societies, with others raising the more general issue of the building societies and how the matter could be dealt with. I would hope that proper scrutiny of the Bill would give us the opportunity to overcome any negative impact or any problems that would arise for building societies, which clearly have different equity structures. I would argue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, that that is not a reason for not putting safeguards in place. I wonder whether the Government have looked at the matter specifically or will do so. Could they give us some further information, perhaps in the Economic Secretary’s closing speech?

Another issue raised by a number of hon. Members was the derivatives inside the ring fence. A number of references have been made to the Vickers report and the fact that derivatives trading should not be allowed—that was of course the position. However, the parliamentary commission recognised that there was a case for some simple derivative products. A lot of hon. Members have sought a definition of a “simple derivative product”. Again, we need clearer protections to prevent abuses within the ring-fenced retail banks where derivatives are being sold. Again, I expect us to examine that more fully in Committee. I hope that we will be able to get assurances from the Economic Secretary about the Government’s intentions, as this is one area where they depart significantly from the original recommendation of the Vickers report.

I mentioned that the Economic Secretary likes to think of himself as a listening Minister, and we heard that again from the Financial Secretary when he opened the debate. I have heard that comment on a number of occasions, as I have been on a number of Committees and in Bill debates with the Economic Secretary. Although he has certainly appeared to listen, I am not sure that that has translated very often, if at all, into the acceptance of Opposition amendments or to any change in Government policy. I hope that on this occasion, even if he does not accept amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East and me, he might at least be persuaded to accept the amendments proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which are very important.

I also want to pick up on a number of areas where the Bill makes no comment or does not do enough, as discussed by a number of Members. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) mentioned the Bank of Dave and the Bill does not address the issue of challengers or new entrants. There is nothing in the Bill on a universal obligation for banks on basic bank account services, which is very important. We take it for granted that we have a bank account, but it is not quite so simple for many people on low incomes.

Questions were asked about switching and bank account portability. There is nothing in the Bill on mutuality and I do not see anything about a fiduciary duty of care, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain).

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South talked eloquently about how in such debates everyone on the inside speaks in code, making it difficult for those who are external to break through and understand how important such discussions are for them. She put that into perspective very well when she talked about some of the issues that matter to ordinary people. The theme was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who rose to the challenge of the dropping of the 12-minute limit on speeches and gave us a clear account of some of the challenges for his constituents in the current economic circumstances.

Of course, it is important that we have a banking system that enhances our economic prospects. We want to see support for enterprise, we want to see growth and we want to see the supply of lending and credit to the economy. A number of Members mentioned that, particularly in relation to small businesses. I hope action will be taken in the Budget, but if it is not, I hope that we will at least see an improvement made through this Bill to the funding for lending scheme so that we give priority to lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. We called for that last summer when the scheme began, but it has not been as successful as the Government might have liked.

We heard a number of interesting suggestions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East about the idea of a national investment bank as well as about how regional banking could be organised along the lines of the German model or in other ways to support SMEs. I hope that we can consider those issues as the Bill makes progress.

We heard a couple of comments about whether the Bill would become known as the Clark-Javid Act. It has certainly seemed that it might end up being known as the Chancellor’s disappearing Act, given that he did not come to the Chamber and does not seem to have prioritised the debate today. When we discussed timetabling and the Committee, the shadow Chancellor asked the Financial Secretary whether he would take the opportunity to go out to track down the Chancellor and ask whether he would be prepared to amend the timetable to allow for proper scrutiny of the Bill.

In conclusion, we will not oppose the Bill’s Second Reading today because reforms are clearly needed, but there are many important policy changes that are conspicuous by their absence from the Bill, and those must be addressed as we proceed.