Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Cathy Jamieson

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

Having sat on the Bill Committee for that piece of legislation, I remember well the considerable discussion that there was. If the hon. Gentleman has read our paper on banking reform, he will know that we support the reference to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that we get new challenger banks in the system. That will be an important feature of our reforms in government.

Our programme of reform, as stated in our recent paper on banking, is designed to undo the reputational damage that has been inflicted by the financial crisis and the subsequent scandals. Our approach will help to restore the trust and confidence of savers, businesses and investors, and to ensure that fair dealing, integrity, prudence and probity are once again the pillars on which Britain’s banks are founded. In a global industry, an international reputation for good practice can only be a competitive advantage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady believe that the tripartite system, which was brought in by the previous Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, was one reason why our banking system was left so much more vulnerable in the difficult time that we had? Does she accept that the Labour party should take responsibility for that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we did have a global financial crisis. The Labour party has accepted that perhaps the regulation could and should have been tighter; we have said that on numerous occasions. I was not in this place at the time of the financial crisis, but I do not recall many on the Conservative Benches making the case for tougher regulation. Indeed, the opposite is true; they were actually looking for light-touch regulation. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but perhaps he should look at his own party’s record on this matter as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. The shadow Chancellor is not here, but neither is the Chancellor, so I am not sure what point she was trying to make in that regard. I recognise that a significant amount of money has gone to support valuable organisations such as the one she mentioned, but I hope that she was in no way suggesting that the banks should not be paying attention to their current ways of operating. We must ensure that we never again have a situation in which those fines are necessary, so hopefully things will change.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that the forex and LIBOR scandals took place before this Government were elected, and that it is this Government’s regulatory regime that has taken action to deal with them? Does she also agree that bonuses tripled in four years under her Government, and that under this Government they are a fifth of what they were? Much progress has been made, and she ought to give the Government credit for the work they have done.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will always give credit where it is due, but we also have to look at what has happened on this Government’s watch. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what we have seen with HSBC over the past few weeks shows that it can take a considerable time for some of those issues to come to light and be dealt with. The important point is to have a regulatory environment in place that allows those issues to be dealt with quickly, rather than just put to one side. We also need a change in culture to ensure that those things do not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I want to finish this point.

As I said, it seemed that the scenario proposed was still fairly generous, but it was obviously not generous enough for the Chancellor, who decided to take legal action. The quest ended in failure after he meekly admitted defeat at the hands of the EU’s lawyers, but not before he had wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money in legal fees. Let us remember that this Chancellor will not devote himself to ensuring that tax avoiders and evaders are brought to book, when the first thing that he does is to challenge something of that sort, but he will devote himself to defending the right of bankers to receive high bonuses, while spending taxpayers’ money as he does so.

The Chancellor has been a diligent defender of bankers on the home front, too. Last year he had to be pressurised by Labour and others into refusing to give taxpayer-owned RBS the shareholder permission it needed to breach the cap and to pay bonuses of 200% of salary, and he still has serious questions to answer on HSBC. Over recent weeks, he has done his best not to answer them and has sent his Treasury Ministers out to do the talking for him. On Monday, he finally put in an appearance, yet he did not have any answers at all, so we need to keep asking the same questions. Did he discuss allegations of tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green before Lord Green was made a Tory Minister; why has only one person been prosecuted out of 1,100 names; and why has he signed a deal with Switzerland that could prevent HMRC from getting its hands on similar information in future? He has been Chancellor for nearly five years and this is his responsibility. He needs to start taking his responsibilities seriously. If he does not, people are going to draw their own conclusions.

Let me move on to Labour’s reforms. It has been clear since this Government took office that they do not have the stomach for the serious reforms that we need. As our motion explains, a Labour Government will do things very differently. Our starting point, as I outlined, will be trust and fairness. We believe that banks should serve the needs of their customers and the economy, and that bonuses should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure.

Fuel Duty

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Cathy Jamieson

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who I am sure is going to tell me how many of his constituents have contacted him asking him to back our motion.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am not sure that this will quite fuel the hon. Lady’s bandwagon, but why did the Labour Government, in their closing stages, include in their Budget six further rises for this Parliament?

[Cathy Jamieson]

It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that his party is now in government, and it has to take responsibility for its actions, including the Chancellor’s VAT rise, which has added 3p to the price of a litre of petrol, costing motorists on average over £100 more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to move on, because it is important that we get to the meat of the debate.

As has been said in earlier discussions on the economy, any recovery we have seen so far is fragile at best. Labour has put forward proposals that we believe the Government should put in place: a jobs plan to boost the economy, including using funds from the 4G mobile auction to build 100,000 affordable homes; a temporary VAT cut, which would cut around 3p off the price of a litre of petrol and give an immediate £450 boost for a couple with children; help for our high streets and pensioners; and a bank bonus tax to fund jobs for young people who are out of work. The Opposition believe that the Chancellor should use his autumn statement to help those on low and middle incomes with the rising cost of living.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and want to make some progress.

We believe that the Chancellor should rethink his plan to give a tax cut to millionaires in April while putting up taxes for pensioners. As the shadow Chancellor announced on Friday, we believe that the Chancellor should cancel the 3p rise in fuel duty planned for January until at least April.

Finance Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Cathy Jamieson

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak on this important issue. Notwithstanding the fact that few Opposition Members are present, I hope that Government Members will recognise the quality of the contributions, if not their weight in numbers. Neither should anyone believe that the fact that there are relatively few Labour Members in the Chamber suggests a lack of interest or concern about this issue, which matters to every one of our constituents.

Two weeks ago, on 20 June, an article in The Daily Telegraph reported the Prime Minister as warning motorists that there was

“no bottomless pit of money”

to fund a fuel duty cut. We were led to believe that this was dampening speculation that the Treasury would be able to afford the £1.5 billion needed to cancel the extra duty for one year. On 24 June, the Transport Secretary, also in an interview in The Daily Telegraph interestingly, indicated that she was not prepared to lobby the Treasury to delay or abandon the 3p increase in fuel duty due this August. She was also reported as saying that her focus was instead on “challenging” petrol firms to cut the cost of fuel at the pumps to reflect the falling cost of oil globally.

We have no problem with that. Many people are concerned that prices at the pump do not change as the oil price drops, although we know that it is difficult for small independent petrol retailers who have to buy at a particular price and might not have the same volume going through as some of the large supermarkets. We have to understand that. However, the Transport Secretary’s comments chimed perfectly with the words of the Economic Secretary in a recent Westminster Hall debate:

“Calls for the August increase to be scrapped raise an important question, because we would need to consider how to replace the £1.5 billion it would cost. That money would need to come from higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 143WH.]

Every time the issue was raised, then, Ministers made it absolutely clear that if they were to do it, they would have to come up with a way of paying for it—stating the obvious, perhaps, but I shall return to that point later, if I have the opportunity.

It might be a cliché to talk about a week being a long time in politics, but a week after the 20 June article, the shadow Chancellor, in an article for The Sun—that newspaper, like FairFuelUK, had campaigned on the issue—called for the August duty increase to be dropped, and made it clear that he wanted it to be dropped at least until next January. Government Members seemed to suggest that this was opportunistic and done on the spur of the moment or for purely political reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have consistently made it clear that action needs to be taken, especially given that times are tough, with higher VAT generally and prices rising faster than wages.

Everyone knows from their constituents—I am sure that Government Members receive the same representations as Labour Members—that filling up the car is now a big drag on family budgets. Indeed, a nurse in my constituency who was not on a high salary told me that filling up her car to get to work cost her so much that it was like having another mortgage.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady is making heavy weather over who should take the credit and whose idea it was. Is it not great news, first, that prices at the pump are falling, and have been falling in recent weeks, and secondly that the Chancellor has been able to freeze fuel duty?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I welcome the fact that it will make a difference for constituents, but once again, unfortunately, the way it was done did not suggest a Government who were organised or knew that they were going to make the announcement at that particular time. That is important in the context of how it will be paid for, but I shall come to that.

At the time, we expressed concern that the Chancellor’s Budget plan would mean a 3p hike in fuel duty in just five weeks. Previously, we had called for the Government to cut VAT, which would have knocked 3p a litre off fuel prices, as well as helping hard-pressed household budgets in other ways. We called for the August rise to be dropped because we believed that increasing the fuel duty at this time would have sent the wrong signal to retailers, who would have had to pass every penny on to drivers and put prices up just when they should have been cutting them.

We also made the point that with Britain now in a double-dip recession, the last thing our economy needed was another tax rise adding to the squeeze on household budgets and to the difficulties faced by many small businesses. The Government’s priority should have been to boost the economy, rather than to clobber families, businesses and pensioners just when they were feeling the squeeze the most. That is why we called on the Chancellor to stop the August fuel duty rise, at least until next January. We said that we would put that issue to a vote in Parliament, and that is why we tabled new clause 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but many people will be about £511 a year worse off. Many, particularly those on the lowest incomes, will not benefit from the rise in the income tax threshold, and a large proportion will be part-time workers who cannot work for the extra hours that they have been told will enable them to continue to qualify for tax credits.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady not welcome the fact that 2 million will be taken out of tax altogether, and that most basic rate taxpayers will be better off to the tune of, I believe, £220?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The problem is that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with another. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, many people will be £511 a year worse off. That may not seem a lot of money to one of the millionaires who will benefit from that £40,000, but it will make a big difference to a low-paid worker who is struggling to make ends meet and is feeling the pinch because of rising prices for food and other commodities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am a relative newcomer to this place, and I sometimes find its procedures and conventions bemusing. I have learned from my time in the parliamentary process, however, to take advice from the Clerks and others who know about drafting legislation, and that is what we did in respect of these amendments.

The Minister will no doubt protest that the higher rate was not raising any money, but the Government’s attempts at justification have not withstood the scrutiny that has been undertaken. The Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, says that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ estimates of the reduced tax avoidance that would result from the reduced rate are “highly uncertain”. They are based only on the first year’s yield from the new top rate, which was always expected to be artificially depressed by people’s ability to bring forward their income. No real basis is therefore offered for estimating the revenue-raising potential of the 50p rate. It is for that reason that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that it is

“too soon to form a robust judgement.”

The claims that new funds would flood into the Treasury as a result of people relaxing or reversing their efforts to avoid paying the top rate have been shown to be notoriously speculative. Again, as the IFS explained,

“you’re first giving out £3bn to well off people who are paying 50p tax...you’re 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 less...there is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk with this estimate.”

A written answer provided by the Exchequer Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chief Secretary, on 19 June shows that in 2010-11 more than 73% of people earning over £250,000 were paying more than the top rate, as were more than 80% of people earning between £500,000 and £10 million, implying that many tens of thousands of people were paying the 50p tax rate of last year and are now in line for a very large tax cut if this measure comes into effect.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he would like to answer that point.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I read the impact statement and the detailed IFS discussion of the so-called ‘uncertainty’. Its premise was that the avoidance would end because people would pay themselves out, regardless of how they had parked and deferred the revenue, and would therefore pay the tax at 50p. The problem is that people who have a personal service company—as so many Labour MPs and Labour supporters, including Ken Livingstone, seem to have—can defer for a very long time. They can pay themselves a beneficial loan and almost avoid tax altogether. That has also been a scandal in recent days. It is therefore not true to say people cannot continue deferring.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will answer that point in more detail later. I am a little disappointed, however, as I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to make a different point. He seems to be suggesting that only people with a connection to Labour had been avoiding or evading tax, which is, of course, absolutely not the case. I hope Members across the House will ensure that at every stage those who are due to pay their taxes should pay them and should do so willingly and properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. That must be purely coincidental, because surely no Government would want to take that amount of money from pensioners simply to give it to the richest. Perhaps this Government would though; perhaps we have the same old Tories with the same old policies, yet again. The pensioners who have been hit hardest by this Government’s decisions are seeing them coming back for more. That £3 billion raised over the next five years is the biggest revenue raiser in the whole Budget, and it is coming from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. And it is all going towards what? Is it going to paying down the deficit? No. Is it going to help young people get back to work? No. Is it going to help the poorer pensioners? No. Instead, this money is being taken from millions of older people living on modest pensions and redistributed to a few thousand individuals with incomes of more than £150,000 a year. What an absolute disgrace: taking from the pensioners to give to those already on those high earnings.

The Government were said to be surprised by the anger this tax change has aroused. If that is the case—if they were surprised—that shows just how out of touch they are with the values, principles and priorities of the British people. At the time, the response of Age UK was very clear. It said that it was disappointing that the Budget

“offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes, who are already being squeezed”.

We could not have put it better ourselves. The chief executive of Saga said:

“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”

The National Pensioners Convention said:

“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax—whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced.

This is seen by many as the last straw...Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich—and it’s simply not fair.”

Pensioners are absolutely right to feel that way.

These amendments are a chance for the Government to rectify one of the most blatant injustices in this Budget. It simply cannot be right to ask millions of pensioners on modest incomes to pay more while finding a way for a few thousand millionaires to pay less. It is extremely hard to comprehend how the Government could ever have thought that this was fair, or that it would be acceptable to pensioners and to others who care about pensioners, but now they have an opportunity to put it right, and Members from all parts of the House have a chance to show where they stand. They can support these amendments and do the right thing by the people who did the right thing for themselves.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, who has set out such a partial view from the Labour party’s perspective on this Budget. I think there is a better approach: the more people we take out of tax, the better, as the administration cost is less and there is less hassle for people, particularly the least well-off. I want to see the personal allowance increased to £10,000 as soon as possible. Good progress was made in the last Budget, but the sooner we take the number to £10,000, by far and away the better. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that most basic rate taxpayers will see an annual cash gain of £220, and I welcome the fact that this Budget takes 2 million people out of tax altogether. That is important, particularly given that we all remember the fiasco over the 10p tax rate. The more we can look after the least well-off and take them out of the tax system, by far and away the better.

I was fascinated by the whole discussion about the 50p rate. We can see from Treasury figures that we are talking about £100 million. That figure is rubbished by the Labour party, which thinks the figure is completely wrong and cites an IFS report. Let me quote the relevant passage from the IFS report, which is where I think the Labour party draws its approach from. The IFS states:

“The worry for the Chancellor is that the estimate that cutting the top rate to 45% will only cost £100 million is particularly uncertain. It assumes a ‘no behaviour change’ cost of £3 billion offset by a behavioural change of £2.9 billion. The first number we know reasonably accurately; the second number is estimated with great uncertainty. Even if we knew the effect of introducing the 50p rate—which we don’t with any precision—responses may not be symmetric. Those who have got a taste for avoiding the 50p rate may continue to avoid the 45p rate (even if they wouldn’t have done so had the 50p rate never existed). The experiment with the 50p rate does not appear to have gone well.”

My first conclusion is that the IFS is saying that making the rate 50p in the first place was a complete and utter disaster. The second issue raised is the uncertainty over behavioural change. On that, I say that we have empirical evidence on what happens when the rate is reduced. I do not know whether everyone recalls this, but we used to have an income tax rate of about 80%. When that was reduced, first to 60%, there were great cries from the Labour party that it would cause a collapse in the revenues, but instead the revenues rose. Why was that? It was because fewer people avoided tax. The Government of the day then reduced the rate to 40p. Again there were great cries from the Labour party that that would let the rich off the hook, but what happened? The revenues rose. Why was that? It was because fewer people were as interested in avoiding tax and they paid up a fair share.