Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is wearing a badge saying that he has a GCSE in economics, but I doubt it.

On a serious point, I have already accepted that prior to the financial crisis there was a marginal deficit to be confronted, and it was going to be confronted through growth initiatives. We have since had the financial crisis, and the important thing now is to move forward with ideas for investing in growth. Clearly, there are big questions on tax and spend and where those will be deployed. Many new ideas might emerge in the Budget, such as a windfall tax on the energy giants, whose profit margins have suddenly increased by 38% because they did not adjust their prices when costs changed and so ripped off Britain’s consumers. That is obviously a legacy of the previous Conservative Government’s privatisation and the lack of controls.

There is money available to invest in growth and services and to close the deficit gap. The point about the amendment is that we must put growth centre stage, as that will enable us to move forward in a balanced way, rather than in the narrowly defined way that the Government prescribe. With those thoughts, I will give other Members the chance to make their own unique contributions.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

After the epic speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), I will keep my comments succinct and tight, and I will try to keep to the amendment.

The most important thing about the amendment is that growth is key and that there must be some plan for growth. It is all very well saying, as many Members have, that there is no plan B, but it seems to me that there is no plan A. There is no rationale for a plan A or a plan B. It is important to know what that rationale will be. We need to know how the Government reach their decisions.

I am going to say something quite shocking: I do not believe that the majority of people in this country care about the deficit. Government Members can call me a deficit denier all they want, but I believe that when people are sitting around their kitchen tables at night they are most concerned about their jobs, their borrowing, their mortgages and their houses. That is what keeps them awake at night, not the deficit. Yes, the deficit is important.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that people such as me who are parents of young children do not worry about the deficit and the legacy that the Labour Government left their children and mine?

[Chris Evans]

If I was in the hon. Gentleman’s position, I would be more worried about whether I will have a job in four or five years’ time. That is what most people are concerned about, but they are concerned about what will happen in six month’s time—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will tell Members what I am concerned about: no one is talking to the specific amendments before us. If it is at all possible for you, Mr Evans, to mention the amendments now and again, that really would be very useful.

[Chris Evans]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker—I have not been here very long.

Getting back to the amendment, it is important that we have the rationale for growth and know how the Government reach their decisions. We cannot talk about this in the microcosm of a dry subject of forecasts. We cannot debate forecasts in this House; we can only debate judgments on how the Government arrive at those policies.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned his children. Surely the important point about growth and the amendment is that if we invest in his children, in their education and in the opportunity to go cost-effectively to university, to add value and to promote future growth, that is the future they can look forward to. That is why his children are probably a bit disappointed that he supported the increase in tuition fees. Let us have growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I totally agree. If I may digress a little from the amendment, it is all very well paying off the deficit, but if there is no economy at the end of it we can forget about it all and worry about all our futures. I have tried to keep my comments brief and say in closing that I support the amendment because we need to know how the Government arrive at their decisions so that this House can properly scrutinise them.

[Justine Greening]

I am pleased to have the opportunity finally to respond to some of the points that have been made and to the amendments that have been tabled. It is important to say first that I very much welcome the contribution that Members not only in this House but in the other place have made to get the Bill to its current stage. Despite the debate we have had on growth, which of course is important, I think that there is broad support across the Chamber, as there was in the other place, for what the OBR is intended to do and for setting up such an office that can work effectively.

All the amendments relate to growth, so perhaps we have stared the debate that will no doubt continue tomorrow after the Budget. We believe that economic growth and job creation are absolutely vital, and Members will see tomorrow that that is a core part of the Budget. I agree with many of the comments that have been made about why we need to see growth as part of the Budget. I want to take the time to clarify some points that have been raised.

The debate so far has been about policy and strategy, but the OBR is not a policy-making body; it is there is look at the forecasting and produce the official forecast for the UK Government. It is precisely not intended to make policy. One of the things we have been very careful to do in setting out how the clauses and the charter work is ensure that the OBR’s independence, impartiality and transparency, which are also vital, are not compromised.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Chris Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a privilege and honour to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who made an entertaining, engaging and thoughtful speech on this issue, which we all feel strongly about. It has been an emotional debate on both sides of the House. Constituents write to me daily expressing concern about the cost of living and how they will manage, given the way the cost of fuel has risen in recent times. It is a just concern that is understood on both sides of the House. Hauliers in my constituency write to me expressing grave concern about the situation they find themselves in and their ability to compete with operators on the continent who undercut them.

However, I must say that for the Opposition to bring forward such a motion is the most extraordinary and shameless opportunism I can recall seeing in this House. It is shameful because we know that the Labour party increased duty 12 times in its period in office. We know that it took away the 10p tax rate. We know that tax discs went through the roof, and we know that the haulage industry was decimated in the last decade because the Labour Government had no interest or desire to ensure that that industry was safeguarded.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most damning verdict on the coalition’s first year in government was when someone wrote to me and said, “Mr Evans, thanks to the increase in VAT on fuel duty, I’m worse off than I was a year ago”? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most people in this country are worse off than they were a year ago?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Measures taken by this Government will take 800,000 of the poorest people in the land out of tax. The Chancellor is not in his place today; I hope very much that he is working out how he can look after the least well-off people in this country in his Budget. I hope that he will be listening and thinking carefully about how he can engage with people’s understandable concern about the cost of fuel and how the country can be put right after 10 years of being driven into the international sidings.

Financial Mutuals

Chris Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hoban]

It would be a way for credit unions to make the greatest opportunity of this. We are trying to open up more possibilities for the financial and mutual sector through a number of our measures. I go back to the debate about capital. One of the challenges that I put to the building society sector and others is that if it had the opportunity to raise more capital, what would it do with it. How would it benefit more people as a consequence of having that flexibility? I say to my hon. Friend that corporate members could include charities and voluntary groups, and their deposits could help credit unions to expand their base, so that they can lend more to local communities. There is an opportunity there for the voluntary service to help expand that base. That will also help to create a much more viable credit union sector. Like me, my hon. Friend will have had conversations with Mark Lyonette, who wants to make sure that we move the credit union sector on to a much more stable and viable footing, enabling it to take deposits from others and pay interest on them.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may be aware that in Wales everybody has access to a credit union. Has his Department made any study of the policy of the Welsh Assembly in that regard?

[Mr Hoban]

That point about access to credit unions in Wales was made before the hon. Gentleman came into Westminster Hall for the debate. We need to learn the lessons. The Treasury is very open to new ideas and any thoughts that he has about why Wales has that degree of access to credit unions would be much appreciated.

We will also implement the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 once the legislative reform order comes into force. That will modernise the industrial and provident society name and the powers available to update the legislation in the future. Other reforms include a consultation on the use of electronic communications in the mutual sector. That consultation closed at the end of January, and we will lay an order shortly to enable mutual societies to have the option of using electronic communications to engage with their members, which would reduce their costs.

Before I go on to talk about the regulatory framework, let me address the issue of Northern Rock. That issue was raised in the Treasury Committee, and I am aware of the work that has been done on it by Kellogg college. There is a degree of elegant circularity about remutualising Northern Rock, given its antecedence. But of course the responsibility for managing the Government’s investment in Northern Rock rests with United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd. UKFI gave evidence to the Select Committee, and if the hon. Member for Harrow West reads the transcript of that sitting, he will see that it is open to ideas about the remutualisation of Northern Rock. The principal objective of UKFI is to promote and create value for taxpayers from its management of our stakes in banks, but it also has to pay due regard to financial stability and act in a way that promotes competition. Clearly a remutualised Northern Rock might help it to do those things.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What factors he has identified as underlying the fall in gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2010.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Office for National Statistics attributes the actual fall in GDP to the bad weather in December, but we have been clear that even without that effect, the numbers were disappointing. In the past week, there have been more encouraging survey data showing services, construction, retail and especially manufacturing all growing more strongly—something the Opposition have been mysteriously silent about.

[Chris Evans]

Could the Chancellor please tell the traders on Blackwood High street whom I met this Saturday whether the rise in VAT will help or hinder them this quarter?

[Mr Osborne]

The VAT increase, like the other measures we are taking, helps to deal with the record Budget deficit that we inherited from the Labour party. By dealing with that, we have provided financial stability for the British economy. That has also been made clear by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who would also have gone ahead with a VAT increase.

Basic Bank Accounts (Scotland)

Chris Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. The stimulus for requesting it came from a report published in November 2010 by Citizens Advice Scotland—the umbrella group for citizens advice bureaux in Scotland—called, “Banking on the basics”. It was based on a survey that it carried out and the experiences of the many bureaux in the country. Many of the points and recommendations in the report are echoed in the report of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, “Banking services and poorer households”, which was published in December 2010. It addressed the subject on a UK-wide level. Clearly, the issues are similar north and south of the border.

One of the relatively unsung but important pieces of work done by the Labour Government after 1997 was the detailed research, analysis and, most important, development of action plans to tackle poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. Outwith some of the political knockabout that sometimes takes place, I hope that we can all agree that it is only long-term, painstaking work of that kind that will make a real difference. It has to be sustained over a long period—we will not necessarily get instant results.

One of the strengths of the work was how it was spread across Government Departments, including the Treasury. It was not simply sidelined into the kind of Department that normally deals with poverty and deprivation. In 1999, Treasury policy action team 14 made its report on access to financial services, and from that flowed, among many other things, the basic bank account proposal.

Why is access to banking so important in this context? First, it helps people to manage their budgets more effectively and cheaply. Operating in cash is extremely expensive; for example, those who cannot pay fuel bills by direct debit pay a higher tariff, especially if they use prepayment meters. Buying essential household goods through catalogues, and mechanisms such as rent to buy are also extremely expensive. A useful report which highlights some of the issues for poorer families came out just this week from Save the Children.

Basic bank accounts also serve as a gateway to other mainstream financial services, including savings, insurance and credit, so people can make the journey from the basic bank account to other elements of financial inclusion in due course. Increasingly, many employers want to pay wages into a bank account. A number of bureaux survey respondents in the CAS report had encountered difficulties entering employment because of that. They could not get a bank account, or, if they got cheques, they encountered high bank charges to have them cashed.

Clearly, becoming “banked” will not in itself overcome poverty and deprivation, but it forms an important part of the jigsaw of policies and actions that are needed. There has been considerable progress. The goal of halving the number of the “unbanked” was met by 2009. Treasury figures for the UK in December 2010 show that the proportion of adults living in a household without access to a current, basic or savings account reduced from 4% in 2002-03 to 2% in 2008-09. The corresponding figures for Scotland show a fall from 6% to 3% over the same period.

The unbanked remain largely concentrated in the most deprived areas, and among certain groups: the retired, those who are of working age but in poor health and lone parents. Fairly significantly, in terms of access routes, 54% of the unbanked were council or housing association tenants. Only 16% of those with bank accounts fall into that category. I mention that partly because I think that that is a way in which some of the access routes could be enabled.

That still leaves a substantial number of unbanked adults. The CAS survey showed that two thirds of those who did not have access to a bank account had tried to open one. It is sometimes argued that the remaining unbanked do not want bank accounts.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened to my hon. Friend. From my experience working in a bank—I worked for a bank 10 years ago, when the basic bank account was introduced—I have to say that the attitude of some bank workers was appalling. The basic bank account does not credit score, so they could not sell products, and they treated many people with basic bank accounts as second-class citizens. Does she agree that that is an absolute scandal in this day and age?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree. I shall speak later about how we can move this forward, and one way is by improving the practices of some banks in that regard.

There are several main reasons why people cannot access basic bank accounts, of which that may well be one. Another is having a poor credit history or, indeed, no credit history. I shall quote one example from the CAS survey:

“I had a full driving licence but never had a bill in my name as I live with my mum and dad. I am 28 years old and can’t get a bank account.”

There are people who have not taken any credit in the past and do not have a record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

Before the Minister moves on, what does he believe that banks can do to manage people who are currently running their basic bank accounts very well on to mainstream banking, so that they can have credit facilities? What action can move people on to mainstream banking?

[Mr Hoban]

That is an important point. Banks should see the opportunity to encourage and enable people to get greater access to mainstream services, moving them from a basic bank account to a more fully functioning current account.

I will touch on the issue later, but we need to go with the grain of how people want to live their lives. Many people are comfortable with access to a bank account without an overdraft facility, for example. A challenge for policy makers is that we think of things that we might like as a function, even though sections of the community might not want such functionality in their accounts. We need to think carefully about that, although we should be clear that moving to a fully functioning current account ought to be open to those with basic bank accounts. Banks need to look at credit histories and how people manage their accounts as part of that process.

At the request of the financial inclusion taskforce, eight of the major retail bank account providers have collaborated to provide management data on their basic bank accounts. That allows us to look at levels of take-up in different local authority areas and wards across the country. At local level, there are financial inclusion champions, such as the group in Scotland funded by the Department for Work and Pensions. They are looking at how best to work in deprived areas to raise awareness and encourage more people to open bank accounts. We can continue to make effective use of up-to-date regional data to help tackle the issue in areas of financial exclusion.

The hon. Lady referred to the financial inclusion taskforce report that was published in December. That is a timely piece of work that gives us the opportunity to take stock of where we are. It raises a number of issues referred to by the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and I encourage hon. Members to read the report on the Treasury website.

The taskforce found that the experience of banking services for poorer households has been mixed. Many households have made savings on services and retail purchases, but some have lost money through bank charges. The taskforce found that the remaining unbanked are generally the poorest and most deprived people, and it recommended a number of minor changes to existing basic bank accounts to make them more accessible and easier for poorer households to use. It also highlighted the scale of the challenge of extending bank accounts to those who currently do not have them.

The research found significant indicators of relative disadvantage among the unbanked: eight out of 10 of the unbanked are in receipt of income-related benefits; more than a third have major health conditions; and a quarter have numeracy or literacy problems. As more people open bank accounts, we see the unbanked becoming concentrated in hard-to-reach, more deprived groups. We must think carefully about how to work closely with those groups to get people to open bank accounts and access the benefits that they bring.

Interestingly, we should not assume that those who do not have a bank account have not previously held one. Six out of 10 unbanked people have previously held a bank account. The research does not give reasons why those people do not currently have a bank account, but some may have had issues with managing their account and decided not to keep it open, or the account may have been closed. We are not necessarily talking about people with no experience of bank accounts. Some people may have opted not to have an account for a particular reason.

Let me reiterate the point about going with the grain of how people run their lives. Many unbanked consumers express a preference for managing their finances in cash. Some low-income households employ a number of strategies to ensure that money is available for essential living expenses, which include not withdrawing all their benefit payments at once, leaving a small amount of money as a buffer, or perhaps putting cash towards a particular purpose. We are well aware of the number of people who join holiday clubs or Christmas clubs to try to keep money in a defined account that is kept for a specific purpose, and a lot of people on low incomes find that to be a more effective way of having control over their money. They want direct control over their spending and feel that a bank account takes that away from them. Unbanked people are more concentrated in particular groups, but not having a bank account could be a conscious decision as much as a matter of exclusion, and we must therefore have a more flexible approach.

In the long term, the taskforce believes that the introduction of new models and channels for the delivery of financial services may be necessary to address the difficulties that poorer households can experience with banking. It has called on the Government to engage further with banks, e-money service providers, bill payment organisations, retailers and post offices to pursue new ways to improve the opportunities for low-income households to make the most of their money. We are in danger of getting stuck by thinking about a model of banking based around bank accounts. Increasingly, people are turning to prepayment cards or e-money as a way of controlling their finances or paying bills online.

Banking Reform

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on introducing this debate. I do not know whether he remembers it, but five years ago he spoke in Gloucester about the economy—I was the Labour party candidate in Cheltenham—and warned that the banks were out of control. A lot of people looked on that uncharitably, but, sadly, he was proved right, which is why we are having this debate.

The debate is important because there is great anger out there about bankers. No matter what Government Members say, people blame bankers. When I first came to the House, BBC Wales ran a profile of me, the last sentence of which was:

“Since leaving university he’s worked in bookmaking and in banking, which contrary to widespread belief are different professions.”

Yes, there is a difference. I come from a family of bookmakers —my father and my mother were both bookmakers—and the one thing that was drummed into me as I was growing up was risk. As bookmakers, we understood risks, which is why we had odds. We always knew what would happen if we could not cover our losses.

When I joined the bank, naively I thought that I was joining an institution that I could be proud of and that set standards to which other industries could aspire. Unfortunately, I discovered that it was completely and utterly different from that. I was told to lend to whomever I could. I still do not understand the logic of saying to somebody who cannot afford to pay their bills every month, “Mr Customer, you need a £10,000 loan to get you through.”

I got a warning for refusing to lend someone £25,000 in an unsecured loan, because—I was told—I was not thinking about the shareholders. That is the major problem. When I said to my manager, “This can’t go on. This is madness—we’re just writing people off,” he replied, “Son, it’s a sign of the times. You wouldn’t go into a shoe shop and expect not to buy shoes.” However, there is a difference. A person who goes into a shoe shop and buys the wrong shoes will get blisters; a person who goes into the bank and buys the wrong loan loses their house. The people at the bank did not understand that we were dealing with people’s lives. They were arrogant and blasé—“We can’t fail; we’re great banking institutions”—regardless of the Barings bank failure in 1991. I well remember the chief executive of Barings at the time saying, “It isn’t terribly difficult to make money in the City, old boy,” but the bankers ought to have learned that it is terribly difficult for builders and plumbers to earn money.

The essential truth is that banking is simple—a bank lends money to someone and makes money through the agreed interest rate—but the banks made it complicated. In the debate this afternoon, I have heard about derivatives and arbitrage, but the average person who walks into their bank will think, “What relevance do derivatives and arbitrage have in my life?” The banks made lending into mathematical equations—someone mentioned a biology graduate—and sold debt on, so the money came from several different sources. Eventually, that massive tower block collapsed when the person at the bottom failed. I have been reading Ha Joon-Chang’s “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism”, in which he argues that we should ban complex financial instruments. That is an outrageous thing to say, but if bankers and economists do not understand such instruments, how can anybody else be expected to do so?

Before I finish, I want to return to the anger that people feel. In an article in The Sun today headlined, “Bank chiefs grab £15 million bonus”, I read that Stephen Hester of RBS will receive £2.4 million, that Eric Daniels of Lloyds Banking Group will receive £2.3 million, that John Varley of Barclays will receive £3 million and that Peter Sands of Standard Chartered will receive £3.2 million. What message does that send to people? That money is absolutely obscene, including to people who work for those banks. I go back to my experience of working in a high street bank. We were kept on deliberately low wages. The only thing that kept us going was the promise of a bonus. They would say, “We want you to bring in so many leads so stay till 7 o’clock at night. Forget about your family. You’ve got to earn money and put some bread on the table boy.”

That is still going on. Someone came to my surgery the other day and said, “I have to work till 8 o’clock every night because I’ve got to speak to the people I did not speak to in the day. I’ve got to get leads.” No amount of Government legislation or regulation will change that.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that it is

“the hope of reward that sweetens labour”

for us all?

[Chris Evans]

For people earning £12,000 a year and struggling to pay the bills, the pressure is on to stay after work and phone up leads to earn a quarterly bonus just to get through. That is not right. They should be paid a living, decent wage, which is what the Opposition support. I hope that everyone else will eventually do likewise.

Finally, as I said, no amount of Government regulation or legislation will change that culture. We need to say to the bankers, who were to blame for the economic crisis, “Either you change your culture, or the crisis will happen all over again.” We had better start opening our eyes to that.

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor seems confident that the bail-out package will work. What will happen if it does not? Will there be more loans, and can we expect public sector cuts to pay for them?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, an absolute precondition of the package being negotiated is that not just the UK but the IMF and others believe that it will work. An enormous amount of effort is going into putting together a package that will deal not just with the sovereign debt situation, but—the former Chancellor alluded to this—with the Irish banking situation. That is a key part of the package.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The conflicting press reports on this policy that we have seen over the last couple of months mean that the Government must explain their plans to withdraw child benefit. Like many commentators and Members of this House, I am deeply concerned by proposals that will see a lone parent or single-earner couple earning just above the higher rate threshold lose their child benefit while a dual-earner couple both earning just under the threshold would continue to receive it.

The reform could also distort incentives for those with incomes around the higher tax threshold. As I understand it, those earning above the 40% tax bracket will no longer receive child benefit for their children—that bracket is currently about £44,000. The system is complicated by the fact that that rule applies to single wage earners. If both parents earned, say, £42,000—or £84,000 between them—their family would continue to receive child benefit.

The Treasury has a duty tonight to explain how its plans to withdraw child benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer could work in practice. Some tax experts have said that ending child benefit payments to couples with one higher rate taxpayer earning more than £43,875 a year is unenforceable. The method of recovery will require taxpayers to submit annual paperwork, new HMRC tax codes and a change in the law to cover parents who separate or live apart.

Higher rate taxpayers will need to tick an honesty box on their tax return, stating whether they or their partner have received child benefit in the past year, and it is said that they will be fined if the information provided is incorrect. According to press reports, taxpayers might face fines if they fail to disclose whether their household received child benefit. On 29 October 2010, the Financial Times stated:

“From 2013, higher-rate taxpayers in the self-assessment system will be required to tick a box declaring that their household claims child benefit. They will then pay a higher rate of tax corresponding to the level of benefit, which is worth £1,700 to a couple with two children.

Those on the pay-as-you-earn tax system will be asked in a letter to disclose if their household claims the benefit—a declaration that will put them into a different tax code. The benefit would then be deducted in the next tax year, in an ‘end-year adjustment’ similar to that in the tax credit system.”

We have seen the problems that that has caused over the past couple of years. The article went on:

“Legislation to implement the changes will include laws setting out what will happen to the benefit if parents split up, remarry or share custody.”

To me, it is not clear how a system based on an end-year adjustment would cope with in-year changes in circumstances such as the birth of a child, a partner moving out or a new partner moving in. It is also unclear what a household will constitute for these purposes. As I have said, parents who earn £42,000 each would keep the benefit—worth £1,752 a year for a couple with two children—whereas a family relying on one income of £44,000 would lose out. Someone with children on a £42,000 salary would be better off than someone on a £45,000 salary, as they could keep all their child benefit.

At present, there are no definitions of “household” in either tax or child benefit law. Defining a couple is not easy, particularly if a couple split up. He might be a higher rate taxpayer while she is the carer for the children—or, with equality fresh in the mind, she could be a higher rate taxpayer while he is the carer for the children. When they part, she could claim child benefit as she has little other income, but if the rules treat them as still part of the same household—perhaps they have split up but are still living together—she could lose her child benefit, or even have to pay back whatever she has received.

We already knew that the plans were unfair, but what has been increasingly clear is that they simply have not been thought through. We do not even know if the provisions on independent taxation will be repealed. If mothers are under no legal obligation to tell fathers that they are in receipt of child benefit, how can this tax on families work? The policy will simply create more work; there will have to be a lot of checking up. People will have to put a lot of effort in to get it and to make sure they are getting the right amount.

We are now seeing significant confusion about what the policy means in practice. Quite simply, it is creating more questions than answers. In the June emergency Budget, it was announced that the income tax personal allowance will rise by £1,000 to £7,475 from April 2011. However, the 20% tax band is being squeezed so as not to benefit higher rate taxpayers: whereas the 40% tax band currently starts at £43,875, with no tax on the first £6,475 and 20% on the next £37,400, that will change from April next year. At that point, the 40% tax bracket will start at £42,375, with a personal tax allowance of £7,475 and a reduced £34,900 tax band of 20%. Does that mean that people could lose child benefit even if they earn less than £44,000 from April next year? If that is the case, an additional 800,000 wage earners will be brought into the higher rate tax band from next April, which makes a mockery of the Government’s claims to be on the side of hard-working families. If tax allowances remain as planned, those earning more than £42,375 will be denied child benefit. The Government must answer these questions ahead of April 2011.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Let me make three very quick points, parts of which will pick up on comments that have already been made.

The first point is the issue of declaration. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned last week’s Treasury Committee hearing, during which I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury how he intended to enforce the new child benefit measure. He said that the coalition Government will introduce legislation to require higher rate taxpayers to declare whether child benefit is coming into the household. Such a declaration is partly dependent on information being passed from one partner to the other. The Chief Secretary was very clear that the obligation to provide the information will be on the higher rate taxpayer. Why not also introduce a requirement in respect of the other half of the couple? As the Chief Secretary did not answer that, will the Minister now shed some light on it and reveal whether the Treasury has taken proper legal advice? The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), a former tax lawyer, is in the Chamber. I wonder whether he advised his colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I thought it was a simple question. I thought the whole point of a debate was to exchange views. I am happy to review the financial transactions tax. It is an important proposition, and it deserves serious consideration. The Minister does not seem to know whether she is allowed to review it. Perhaps some inspiration has come down from on high. There is scurrying around, and I see that the Chancellor has been paging her officials. I am sure that inspiration will come to her shortly.

Will the Minister say whether there should be a change in tax policy to rectify some of the loopholes, such as those in corporation tax? Should there be a further review of, for example, the bank payroll tax? Should banks have their right to carry tax losses forward limited so that they expire after a specific time, or would that be detrimental? Clearly, the Government’s feeble attempt to recoup something from the banks through the banking levy alone is barely denting their balance sheets and is dwarfed by, for example, the deferred tax assets that the banks are wielding according to the report.

Ministers should concede that the whole matter needs clearing up urgently if they are to have any hope of preventing widespread public cynicism, discontent and anger. In short, as things stand, all we see from the Government is a puny banking levy, banks still using corporation tax loopholes at taxpayers’ expense, promises on bankers’ bonuses unfulfilled, promises on banks’ net lending targets more distant than ever, and inaction on reforms to the banking taxation system. The taxpayers of this country deserve better.

[Chris Evans]

Since coming to the House, I have seen a lot of history being rewritten. We are told whenever we stand in the Chamber that we must apologise for the economy, but to coin a phrase from The Sun on the day after the general election in 1992, “It was the banks wot did it.” There is widespread public anger with the banks, and people believe that they are getting away scot-free.

At my surgeries, in my local Labour party and out in the streets, people ask me why our nurses and teachers are bearing the brunt of the deficit—what about those casino bankers? If it were not for their reckless practices, why did the then shadow Chancellor just before the general election commit to follow Labour’s spending plans for two years if we were so bad at running the economy? The simple fact is that the banks have not paid the price for the deficit that they helped to run up.

The new clause is not about destroying the banking system; it is about strengthening it, which means changing it and making it mixed. I know that this is outwith the amendment, but I would like a mutual element in the banking system, and that could start with Northern Rock. The simple fact is that the banks received £1 trillion. Can anyone imagine what £1 trillion looks like? Can anyone imagine what public works we could do with £1 trillion? Projects in my constituency are crying out for money. The Newbridge Memo, the memorial hall, needs restoration. So much could be done with a tiny part of that £1 trillion. But the bankers remain blasé and people think they are plain arrogant.

If no one believes me, let them look at Lloyds TSB, which this week appointed a chief executive. I will not embarrass myself by trying to pronounce his Spanish name, but we are told he will receive a package of £8 million. Who is worth £8 million, and what message does that send to people who are struggling to get by? It sends the message that the Government do not care how much damage bankers have done—they can carry on as they have been. When we read about such figures, what are we saying to people on the ground? They are the ones who must pay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about bankers’ bonuses, and I wholeheartedly agree that something must be done to rein them in. However, I have been a high street banker. I worked for Lloyds TSB, and I know for a fact that someone working as a personal account manager or personal banker is desperate for their bonus at the end of the month, because it makes up their wage. If we rein in the big City bonuses, we must think about the people on the ground. Let us not rein in their bonuses. They still have to pay their bills, and we must think about that. I ask the Government to consider the new clause because the banks really must pay their fair share.

[Mr Umunna]

I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I, too, hear similar sentiments expressed on the streets throughout my constituency.

Opposition Members are not under any illusion that banker-bashing, as it has been called, or reining in bonuses alone will sort out the problems with the financial services sector. It is important to reform the way it operates generally, which is why I welcome the banking commission that the Government have set up. Its terms of reference are sensible and, as a member of the Treasury Committee, I look forward to providing some input to that.

There are legitimate questions to be answered on whether the financial services sector is doing what the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget he would require it to do. He said:

“I believe that it is fair and right that in future banks should make a more appropriate contribution, reflecting the many risks that they generate.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]

That is why I welcome the new clause. We should reflect on the huge contribution that the British public have had to make to the financial services sector since September 2007 and before.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

As this is the third Finance Bill that we have debated in the House this year, one could say that Finance Bills are a bit like buses: you wait for one to come along and three arrive at once. Even though this is a dry and technical Bill, it does have some merits. My primary concern is the failure to put in place a plan for growth.

Throughout this debate, we must remember that economists cannot predict the future. History is littered with economic theories that have failed, and I am sure that everyone in this House would agree that only time will tell how the economy will pan out. However, we can deal only in facts. There is no doubt that the economy is at a very dangerous crossroads. In the past, economic recovery following a large-scale financial crisis has inevitably been slow. It is vitally important that we make the correct decisions now on growth, jobs, the deficit and public spending. Yes, dealing with the deficit is absolutely key to future economic policy, and there is no doubt that we must cut waste where it is found. That is not deficit denial; it is the truth.

I am deeply concerned about statements made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that seem to imply that deficit reduction is the beginning and the end of economic recovery. To me, it is vitally important that we have a credible and medium-term plan to reduce the deficit based on a careful balance between employment, spending and taxation—but only once growth is fully secured and over a longer period than the Government are currently planning. Simply put, hitting growth will make it more difficult to pay down the deficit because it means less revenue for the Exchequer. That is not deficit denial; it is just plain common sense.

We face fundamental questions. Is it right to be cutting millions of pounds from public services and taking millions of pounds out of family budgets this financial year and the next? What will that do to jobs and growth? Ultimately, what will it mean for the deficit? There seems to be a growing consensus in the House today that says that the deficit is the only issue that matters in economic policy, that the measures to reduce it are unavoidable, and that there is no alternative. Adopting the consensus view may be the easy and safe thing to do, but it does not make one right or credible. We did that in the ’30s and were faced with the great depression. The leader of my party, Ramsay McDonald, fell out with his parliamentary party over cuts, and we saw what happened then.

Of course, the impact of immediate cuts to public spending on jobs and the recession has not yet fed through. Even though polls tell us that the public support deficit reduction when they are told that it will come from cutting waste in public spending, I wonder how they will view it when a local hospital is not built or a school is in desperate need of repair and there is no money to pay for it.

To attempt to repair the damage of such an event and return the national debt to its previous levels in just a few years is not only incredibly dangerously in the eyes of financial markets but places an intolerable burden on current users of public services. Even halving the deficit, as Labour Members propose, would represent comfortably the biggest and fastest cut in the deficit since the period after the second world war, but without the peace dividend to fund it.

By far the biggest influence on deficit reduction and the balance between taxation and spending is economic growth and the number of taxpayers in jobs paying their fair share. That is why the priority must be growth and jobs. It disappoints me that the Government have seen fit to cancel support for industries of the future such as the games industry. The Labour Government set out plans to support the industry in March, the new Government axed them in June, and the result was job losses in Scotland in August. That is what happens when a Government cut at any cost. The industry sustains thousands of highly skilled jobs that we simply cannot risk losing if we are to secure economic recovery and protect jobs. The industry, which contributed £1 billion to the UK economy last year, is competing with significant incentives from countries such as Canada, which are trying to entice companies to relocate their jobs. To me, cutting support for industry and highly skilled jobs is wrong at this time. I believe that the Government should urgently rethink that decision.

The UK’s creative industries will be essential to rebalancing our economy away from dependence on financial services. The Government’s decisions do not seem well thought out, and the video games industry has issued warnings about the long-term implications. The Association for Interactive Entertainment has already said that, with the absence of tax breaks, it is essential that the Government work with the industry to address the skills gap and better access to research and development initiatives. It is therefore of the utmost importance that an assessment of the impact on the creative industries is made. Perhaps most worrying, the scrapping of tax relief, which puts the future of the computer games industry at risk, took place without industry consultation or discussion.

Many hon. Members have mentioned regional development agencies and their benefit to the economy. They, too, were scrapped without consulting business. That sets a dangerous precedent, and I urge the Government to think carefully about formulating policy in that way in future.

I have tried to keep my comments brief because other people want to speak, but now is the time for a careful and considered discussion of reforming tax and benefits in this country. I hope that we can do that through the Bill. Although I am happy about elements of it, I trust that the Government and the Opposition will now engage in that discussion.