Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Sale of state-owned banking assets—

‘(1) Before the sale of banking assets in the ownership of HM Treasury, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the manner in which the best interests of the taxpayer are to be protected in connection with such sale,

(b) the expected impact that any sale might have on competition for the provision of core services, customer choice and the rate of economic growth,

(c) an appraisal of the options for potential structural changes in the bank concerned including—

(i) the separation of the provision of core services from the provision of investment activities,

(ii) the retention of a class of assets in the ownership of HM Treasury,

(iii) the impact of any sale on the creation of a regional banking network.

(2) A copy of the report in subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament and sufficient time shall be given for the appropriate committees of both Houses of Parliament to consider its findings before any sale decision.’.

Government amendment 5.

New clause 15—Local stakeholder banks—

‘(1) Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish for consultation a report setting out proposals for the creation of networks of local stakeholder banks.

(2) This report shall contain an examination of stakeholder banking structures, defined as credit institutions that are not owned by private shareholders, with the with the aim of maximising shareholder returns. The examination should draw on experience in the UK and elsewhere and include—

(a) co-operative banks;

(b) credit unions;

(c) community development finance institutions (CDFIs);

(d) public-interest savings banks.

(3) The report shall examine potential impacts of the creation of networks of local stakeholder banks on—

(a) customer service and product range,

(b) accessibility to banking services for customer underserved by commercial banks,

(c) financial stability,

(d) accountability to local stakeholders.

(4) A copy of this report and the outcome of the full consultation shall be laid before Parliament and sufficient time shall be given for consideration of its findings by members of relevant committees of both Houses before any decisions are taken on the sale of state-owned banking assets.’.

New clause 12—Portable account numbers—

‘(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament a report considering—

(a) the adequacy of voluntary arrangements made by UK ring-fenced bodies to facilitate easier customer switching of bank account services; and

(b) legislative options for the introduction of portable account numbers and sort codes for retail bank accounts provided by UK ring-fenced bodies.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may, by affirmative order to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, confer powers upon the appropriate regulator to require UK ring-fenced bodies to comply with any specified scheme to establish the use of portable account numbers and sort codes.’.

New clause 14—Portable account numbers (No. 2)—

‘(1) Within 12 months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament a fully independent and comprehensive report detailing the options for introducing portable account numbers for bank accounts within the UK, including a full cost benefit analysis of the available options.

(2) The appropriate regulator may require banks and building societies to comply with any scheme to introduce and facilitate the use of portable account numbers, which is introduced in regulations made by the Treasury.

(3) No regulations may be made by the Treasury under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Government new clause 1—Minor amendments.

Government new schedule 1—Minor Amendments.

[Chris Leslie]

Here we are again—a second bite at the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Today, we debate a series of amendments and new clauses that have been loosely grouped together under the title “Competition etc.” I shall speak in particular to new clauses 8, 10 and 12 in due course, but I shall start with new clause 8.

We felt it important to discuss the obstacles in the way of better competition in the banking sector. I am sure that it is not true of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but many hon. Members have probably been with their retail bank since they were very young—not so long ago in your case, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although an aficionado of switching and looking at different services in banking, I must confess that I have been with the same bank since I was 14, and with no real logic other than the inertia that afflicts many customers: we tend to think that it is inconvenient to change bank accounts; we tend to think, “There is not much choice, so what is the difference or the point of shopping around?” It is this sense of a lack of competition and lack of choice that we want to remedy with the new clause, tabled with other amendments in the group.

There are significant obstacles to competition, particularly to new challenger banks coming into the system, breaking into the business and trying to do something to challenge the absolute dominance of the big five banks. The new clause would require the Treasury to publish a review considering the obstacles to those new challenger banks and ways of increasing the number of new banks coming into play.

Under the new clause,

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to begin a full market study…into UK financial services institutions involved in the provision of core services”—

in other words, retail banking. The aim is to provide a structure to support better competition, dealing with obstacles in the way of allowing new institutions to break into the market and to consider what actions could be taken to facilitate the new institutions entering into general competition.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that help is needed not just for new entrants, but for unusual, smaller players in the present financial system? As a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I have an interest in the Co-operative bank. When HBOS and RBS got into difficulties, everyone rushed around throwing taxpayers’ money at them, but when the Co-op gets into serious difficulty because of its unique ownership basis and its lack of shareholders, it receives very little help from either the Treasury or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Chris Leslie]

I hope that the Co-operative bank, and all other institutions, will now be in a position to make secure and stable progress. However, I do not think that there is really a parallel between the Co-operative bank and institutions that would have disappeared had it not been for the intervention of the taxpayer in keeping the cash machines operating. We hear Government Members say that the public deficit was somehow created as a result of ministerial choices. It is sometimes forgotten that the state—the taxpayer—had to intervene to rescue the banks. Thank goodness that happened, but it left us with a phenomenal problem with which we are still struggling years later.

[Mr Sheerman]

Many of my constituents worked for the Halifax mutual building society, and we saw what really caused the ruination of two banks. Wicked, evil, unethical people took over a bank and ran it into the ground. That was not about the Government; it was about greed, and about particular people.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. Those are the very issues that should be in the Bill, but it is a pretty thin measure. We are still waiting, apparently endlessly, for the Government to decide to populate it at some point with the recommendations of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.

We need support for mutuality and greater diversity in the banking sector, and that is why the new clause refers to competition. We do not just want more plcs to enter the market; we want institutions of many different types, including mutuals, to be given a chance to compete for business. My hon. Friend’s Co-op bank, for example, might wish to have that greater choice were it available. The new clause was largely inspired by the recommendations of the parliamentary commission, whose most recent publication made it very clear that the sector suffers from a lack of serious competition.

Which?—formerly the Consumers Association—reported recently that 55% of people had never switched their main personal current account, and that the larger banks had not earned their market share by dint of innovation or the provision of competitive services but simply through “first mover” advantage, because they had been there for such a long time. It also reported that, sadly, customer surveys had indicated that the big five high street banks—Lloyds, RBS, HSBC, Santander and Barclays—consistently gave less satisfaction than others. Those banks have a very large market share, which has increased over the last few years. They control 85% of the current account market as opposed to 71% before the financial crisis, 67% of mortgage gross lending as opposed to 38% before the crisis, and 61% of the savings account market compared with 47% before the crisis. The inertia of their customers enables those large banks to sit on a fairly stable customer base. It has often been said that people are more likely to divorce than switch current account, although I am sure that that does include those who are in the Chamber today. The lack of dynamism and choice in the market is a significant worry, and it is no wonder that it has been criticised by the Office of Fair Trading.

There are major barriers to entry for new banks, which need to establish an infrastructure to have a fair chance of competing more widely. Recent suggestions include the adoption of utility platform sharing, and an extension of the payments system machinery beyond the big banks. I think that such ideas should be given serious and detailed consideration, but they pose a challenge to institutions that own and control payments systems, and we must think carefully about how they can be tackled.

Some of the big banks were supposed to divest themselves of branches. RBS was supposed to float off a number of its branches to Santander, but that did not get very far. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman pointed out), Lloyds was supposed to divest itself of many of its branches to the Co-op, and we all know what happened in that instance. In all, 1,000 branches were supposed to be out there creating a proper challenger bank, or at least mixing it up a little by increasing the number of players in the system. That has not happened, and I have to say to the Minister that the Treasury has not exactly covered itself in glory. I am not claiming that it is entirely the Treasury’s fault, but I think that it had a hand in overseeing some of the divestment strategy. I hope that the Minister will update the House, because divestment is very relevant to the issue of proper competition.

John Fingleton, chief executive of the OFT, has said:

“More than a decade on from the Cruickshank report, we still have a banking sector where competition is manifestly not working well for consumers.”

The hon. Member for Chichester, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, who has left the Chamber—oh, there he is, next to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I apologise to him. He is clearly negotiating away as we speak. He has said:

“The lack of competition in banking has been reinforced by a regulatory regime favouring large incumbents. Customers have lost out as a result. Moves to remove barriers to entry are essential.”

We all agree with that.

We constructed new clause 8 very much along the lines of the commission’s recommendation of

“a market study of the retail and SME banking sector, with a full public consultation on the extent of competition and its impact on consumers. We make this recommendation to ensure that the market study is completed on a timetable consistent with making a market investigation reference, should it so decide, before the end of 2015.”

The time scale is very important, because the issue has drifted on year after year.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has gone to the heart of one of our key recommendations, but what we had in mind was that the Government should just get on and do it. We did not envisage a need for legislation. Am I not right in thinking that, if properly instructed, the relevant authorities could undertake the work themselves?

[Chris Leslie]

I hoped that legislation would not be necessary, but I think it worth while for the House to express its view, particularly in response to the commission’s recommendation. Heaven knows, we have been here before. We have heard plenty of warm words from Ministers. They have said “We will certainly consider this, because there is a strong case in favour of it”. When it comes to the crunch, however, if the House of Commons is to do anything through this Bill—and we shall not be doing a lot, because so much is being left to the other place—I think that it is worth our trying to insert the new clause, just to keep the Minister’s feet to the fire. All that we are asking for is a market study in preparation for the proper market investigation reference before the end of 2015.

When the Vickers report was published in 2011, Labour Members felt that specifying 2013 would allow an appropriate time in which to assess the issue, and, two years on from Vickers, I do not think that anything has changed our minds in that regard. Getting that market study under way is the very least that should be done, and the Minister needs to commit to doing that. This is a critical point. When Members listen to what the Minister has to say, they must read between the lines. He will make all sorts of warm noises and say, “The OFT has started this process for SME customers”, but it has not done so for retail customers. That is the crucial difference; focusing merely on SMEs is not sufficient.

The Government have already claimed in their response to the commission’s recommendations that they will be fulfilling the commission’s proposal, but that is not the case. They are not putting in place that retail review, and I do not understand why they are so resistant to doing that. The Minister must explicitly set out why they are holding back from having a market study and investigation of the issues in respect of retail banking.

The Government response is full of warm words—they say they are in discussions and they are engaging with the problem—but it is not strong enough. It is too piecemeal and not sufficiently transparent, and they are not giving the commitment consumers, let alone commission members, would like. If the Government can at least acknowledge that they will not accept the commission’s recommendation, that will give us a clear choice when we come to consider what to do in respect of new clause 8.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has tabled new clause 15, which focuses on local stakeholder banks and local banking. I agree that we should look at sub-national financial provision, particularly for customers, who can feel that they have very little choice at all. She will know that in new clause 10 we say that if state-owned banking assets are to be sold, options for a regional banking network ought to be fully considered. That is a very important proposal from the Opposition. There are some very plucky and hard-working institutions across the country—the credit unions, the community development financial institutions and other smaller building societies and mutuals—that do a lot of very worthwhile work at regional and local basis.

[Mr Sheerman]

Would my hon. Friend add to that list crowd funding and crowd sourcing, which many people think is the basis of a new, democratic capitalism in our country? It allows people to bypass the banks, which have so often failed us, and gives to our communities the power to regenerate businesses and communities.

[Chris Leslie]

As some have said in the past, the magic of the “interweb” will ensure that customers can avoid that intermediation—that middle-management step—and access finance. That may well develop very rapidly, although we need to make sure the regulators can keep an eye on how it develops.

[Mr Sheerman]

That must not be too heavy.

[Chris Leslie]

Well, I think it is important that we make sure the foundations are put in place to allow those new forms of finance to come to fruition in a safe environment.

My hon. Friend makes that point well, and I also want to give a name-check to the Community Investment Coalition: a number of financial institutions at local and regional level have come together to campaign on some of these issues, and in particular to call for greater transparency in the provision of financial services from community to community on a postcode-level basis, although that is anonymised as we do not need to know which organisations have been lending to which individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the shadow Minister therefore believe we should follow what the US has done? It has a community reinvestment Act, which ensures that the major banks are investing equitably on an area basis. The major problem in the UK is that investment is directed towards London, of course.

[Chris Leslie]

And not just towards London, as a lot of the major banks have had their appetites whetted to make big profits by focusing on overseas. That disconnect with locality has been part of the problem. One issue for debate—on another day, perhaps—is the idea of having a regional banking network. The German Sparkassen system has a geographic mandate that requires those banks to do business within a particular locality. That is a dynamic for making sure there is a direct relationship between the banker and the customer, particularly for small businesses, but on a retail basis as well. That is a very good idea whose time has probably come.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May I interpret the hon. Gentleman’s warm words to mean that Labour would support my new clause 15 if there were a vote on it?

[Chris Leslie]

Well, personally I prefer our new clause 10, but that is a good try by the hon. Lady. She has raised this issue in the spirit of trying to generate consensus on it, but I hope that in the limited time available to us we focus on the principle of making sure we get those commitments from the Government, which we all want in order to help get this transparency about what is happening in localities, as well as making sure we look at the state-owned assets and think about how they might be applicable to a regional banking network.

Government amendment 5 looks at some issues to do with competition, although they are mostly to do with the nature of ring-fencing and changes that might happen to the ownership of ring-fencing. I want to ask the Minister a question about the tensions between some of the objectives in the Bill. Government amendment 5 inserts a new requirement to consider competition issues, which seems to be slightly in tension with the existing provision to make sure there is no significant adverse effect from changing the ring-fencing arrangements. Can he clarify that that tension is resolvable, and confirm that the duty to consider competition will take effect subject to clause 4(3)?

On Government new clause 1 and new schedule 1, can the Minister help us by talking about the practical implications of the amendment to the Companies Act 1985 omitting disclosures to the regulators, done for the purposes of helping them fulfil their functions under part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000? In particular, this appears to stop such disclosures being exempt from section 449 of the Companies Act, which criminalises disclosure of information obtained in certain circumstances. What is the reasoning behind that change? Also, paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 amends section 376 of FISMA, changing “PRA-authorised” bodies to “PRA-regulated” bodies. Is that a significant change? Are there any bodies that are classed as PRA-regulated but which are not PRA-authorised? If so, which are they?

Our new clause 12 addresses the portability of bank accounts. I know that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has been very active on this, and that she has tabled similar amendments. She has been vocal in favour of some of these changes, and has tabled a sensible set of proposals. I hope she would agree that we are mirroring each other on this question.

Our new clause 12 would mandate the Chancellor to publish a report on the adequacy of the current account redirection service and on a possible change in the law to compel all ring-fenced banks to introduce a current account redirection service that might include portability. The banks themselves have made proposals for a seven-day switching arrangement from this September. The Minister claimed in the Government’s response that they had secured that commitment, but that might be a little bit of exaggeration and spin; I suspect that the banks were heading in that direction, but I will let him off on this occasion. This all comes down to whether that seven-day switching will radically transform the convenience for the customer. It is all very well saying that there will be a year or so when some transactions from the existing current account will automatically be made into the new account, but I do not understand why that provision has been time-limited. Some people will forget that that provision expires after a certain number of months.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Interestingly, when we get into the nitty-gritty of how the seven-day switching process will work, we find that it seems to be more string and Sellotape—on top of the string and Sellotape currently holding the legacy systems together—so it is hardly a 21st century technological solution.

[Chris Leslie]

That is the worry, and we want to see how it is going to work. It is all very well if direct debits and standing orders—the sums leaving someone’s bank account—may be switched in that way, without the aggro and hassle of having to fill in new forms and so forth, but one of my anxieties is about payments into an account. For example, even the little step of someone having to tell their employer that they have a new account number and sort code is an inconvenient step too far. Apparently the banks are saying that they might deal with that as well, but this does not feel adequate and sufficient.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is more likely to get divorced than to change his bank account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Funnily enough, divorce has already come up a couple of times in our proceedings, and I am sure that Mrs Leslie will be watching them.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reality is that the seven-day switching service must be matched against increases in the level of switching of current accounts if we are to increase competition. All the evidence from countries like the Netherlands, where such a service has been introduced, shows that it has the trust of customers but does not increase switching levels, although that is the rationale for account portability.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. Sir John Vickers pointed out in his report that a typical customer is likely to move current accounts every 26 years, on average, and it is estimated that about 6% of personal current accounts will be switched this year. All sorts of statistics prove that this is not a particularly active area, although there is a growing consensus among members of the commission, and even some of the banks, that portability might be an idea whose time has come.

[Mr Sheerman]

I switched a business account to HBOS, without knowing that anything was going to happen, because I thought that with KPMG as its auditors and with an auditor process in place my investment and my savings would be safe. What are we going to do to ensure that when people switch there is a guarantee that, at last, the accountants in this country and the auditors actually do their job?

[Chris Leslie]

That broadens things out into a whole new terrain, but suffice it to say, we should be able to trust our banks. We should be able to know that all these issues will be going on safely. To be fair to the banks—I do not say that often—some of their systems are able to cope, and complaints mechanisms are in place to deal with these things.

This is just about the customer being able to grasp and understand what is going on. The grey mist descends on many constituents—and, heaven knows, on many hon. Members, as we can see—at the mention of financial services, and that is without getting into pensions and some of those issues. Basic bank account services are incredibly important and we need the Government to say a little more than warm words in their response on this issue. I commend the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire on her campaign and we are very much behind the spirit of the changes she suggests, hence our new clause 12.

Finally, I wish to deal with new clause 10, which relates to the sale of state-owned bank assets. We feel that before a sale takes place of assets in the ownership of Her Majesty’s Treasury—we are very much focused on the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds at the moment —the Treasury ought to set out clearly a report discussing the manner in which the best interests of the taxpayer will be protected in the sale, and the expected impact that any sale might have on competition for customers and on the rate of economic growth. That should be accompanied by a proper appraisal of the options for potential structural change in the banks concerned, including: whether there should be any changes to the division between retail banking and investment banking in those institutions; whether some asset classes need to be held back—this is sometimes characterised as a good bank/bad bank split; and, crucially, the impact of the sale on the creation of a regional banking network. We think that is essential.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that the banking commission recommended having a proper study of the good bank/bad bank option for RBS. Does he think that in advance of that study it might help if the Government exercised a little more care in their stewardship of RBS, given that their disastrous political meddling of the past month has resulted in a fall in the share price of some 20%, the bank losing a chief executive without a plan being put in place for replacing him, and confidence among investors being lost by the Government’s handling of the bank?

[Chris Leslie]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct about that. If the British public realised what has happened to the value of that taxpayer stake in RBS, they would be appalled. Today’s figures show that £2 billion-plus has been taken off the value of RBS since the botched handling of the departure of the chief executive, Stephen Hester. That mishandling forced the Chancellor to back down from a foolhardy dash towards a fire sale, which we know was part of the plan from the conversations that Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of RBS, let slip in comments to journalists around that time. Labour Members, however, are absolutely focused on the need for the taxpayer to get good value for money, to get our money back. That is entirely possible. Stephen Hester revealed the flaw in the Chancellor’s strategy for a hasty sale driven by the electoral timetable when he gave an interview to the BBC last month. When asked whether taxpayers would get back their £45.6 billion, he answered:

“RBS is capable of being worth more than what the government paid for the shares”.

When asked again whether it is possible for us to get our money back, he said:

“RBS is capable of that and I would be disappointed if over the passage of time that that won’t be the case.”

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am very supportive of new clause 10, particularly the notion that the Government describe how the taxpayer will get the money back. However, has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to the timing of such a report and what information may need to be omitted, particularly in relation to asset clauses the Government may continue to hold, because it might be market-sensitive in the run-up to the re-privatisation of the bank?

[Chris Leslie]

I would have thought that before the Government considered a sale they would decide what they want to sell and what they do not want to sell. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests should be a particular problem, particularly given the taxpayer interests involved, in terms of having that report before a sale. However, I accept that there could be circumstances in which commercial confidentiality might apply and a line might need to be considered. I would be happy to examine whether some aspects of that need to be built into this concept. There is an opacity about the Government’s strategy, and the fog engulfing the Treasury, perhaps hiding the chaos within, is extremely thick—a real pea-souper. I am amazed that once the Chancellor of the Exchequer had defenestrated the chief executive of RBS—let us be honest, that is essentially what happened, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have protested, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv,” with his 82% shareholding he clearly had a hand in the decision —the Government were surprised when the markets reacted so adversely. It is amazing that they went down that route without thinking through who would replace Stephen Hester as chief executive of RBS, creating a massive amount of uncertainty about the future of the institution. We are glad that they changed their minds and were forced to back down from the rush to the fire sale, but what on earth are we left with and where is the situation going?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I am happy to take that forward. The hon. Lady will be aware that we have liberalised the rules for credit unions, but if problems are being caused, not least in East Sussex, I would be happy if she dropped me a line or came to see me.

We have great enthusiasm for the proposals that the hon. Lady makes, but what is required is not a study, but action. I make this commitment to her, and to any hon. Member who is interested in helping to establish a new regional bank in their area, that I will help them to do so. I hope that they will allow me to do that.

New clause 10 would require the Government to lay a report before Parliament before selling any banking assets. All hon. Members are aware of what the Chancellor said in his Mansion House speech about the next steps for Lloyds and RBS. For Lloyds, the Government are actively considering the options for how its shareholding can be returned to the private sector. Value for money for the taxpayer will be the overriding consideration, and there is no pre-determined time scale. Indeed, the disposal process may involve multiple stages over time, rather than a single moment.

For RBS, share sales are some way off. In line with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Chancellor has announced a review, to conclude in the autumn, into whether a bad bank should be set up for risky assets from RBS. Following the criteria suggested in the commission’s report, the review will assess whether creating a bad bank would accelerate the path back to private ownership, deliver benefits for the wider economy and be in the interest of taxpayers.

As I have mentioned, the OFT is looking specifically at the impact that new challenger banks created by the Lloyds and RBS divestments will have on competition in small business banking. UK Financial Investments has a remit to provide value for money in executing its requirement to devise the means of selling the Government’s shareholdings in the banks, and, in doing so, to pay due regard to maintaining financial stability and to act in a way that promotes competition. In doing so, UKFI and the Treasury must follow the value-for-money principles set out in the Green Book, and they will be accountable, through the Accounting Officer, to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, as well as to the House and the Treasury Select Committee.

[Chris Leslie]

The Minister is talking about the edifice of propriety, in relation to UKFI and so forth, but it is as plain as day that the Chancellor made the decision that he did not want that particular chief executive of RBS, so out went Stephen Hester. Will the Minister at least put on record what the plan is for settling the future leadership of RBS? When will the new chief executive be appointed?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a matter for the board of RBS, not for the Government.

Returning to new clause 10, it is not clear that a new mandatory reporting requirement would add anything to the arrangements that are already in place. In the previous regulatory regime, promoting competition did not play a prominent enough role in ensuring that the banking industry operated in the interests of consumers. The strengthening of the role of competition through the reforms in the Bill will go a long way towards correcting that. The further recommendations of the PCBS underline the role of competition more prominently still, and I thank the commission for its contribution in that regard.

I should also mention new clause 1, which introduces a new schedule of amendments to correct a series of minor and technical points in connection with the Financial Services Act 2012. I was asked some questions about this earlier. It refers to the complaints scheme covering the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England. The scope of the complaints scheme in relation to the PRA and the FCA was widened to cover all their functions under any legislation, and the current scope includes functions such as those relating to the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act, which already have their own complaints mechanisms. The new clause will correct that.

I hope that the House will accept that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Government are as one in their intention of promoting competition. We totally agree that placing a high value on competition in pursuing all our objectives for the banking sector in order to make it more competitive, more responsive to the needs of consumers and more resilient is very much in the interests of the country.

[Chris Leslie]

We have had a long, well-informed debate, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House, particularly the members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, for their contributions. I am disappointed, however, that the Government are still saying simply that they will think about these things and look into them. The Bill will leave this House in the same thin state in which it arrived. In protecting taxpayers’ best interests, it should not be viewed as asking for the moon on a stick to request a proper report and an options appraisal of what to do with state-owned assets. It is very important that, at the very least, we have a thorough appraisal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

After that tour of various languages, all of which I am sure were in order as Norman French is the only language to be used in the Chamber other than English, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the Independent Commission on Banking. Sir John Vickers and his team did a phenomenal job, which was only a prelude to the output of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, chaired by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). Given that its final report was larger than a ream of A4 paper, which represented months or work, weeks of deliberations and many hours of hearings, I think that it is to its credit, and the hon. Gentleman’s in particular, that it managed to hold together a set of recommendations, which I hope at some point will find their way into the legislation.

After the global financial crisis, when we saw reckless banking require such a vast taxpayer bail-out, the public finances were adversely affected and the economy suffered. It is therefore essential that we do our best to ensure that that situation can never again be repeated. However, all we have in the legislation so far are the ring-fencing provisions. I hope that they will be an adequate protection, but they are only part of the change we need to see in banking.

We were forced to table a series of amendments in Committee and on Report because the Government stepped away from the radical changes needed to make banking reform a reality. We hope that the Minister’s warm words will be manifest in the Bill in the other place, where we will be watching what happens very closely. We will need adequate time to consider Lords amendments when the Bill returns to this House, because to provide for only a few hours for that would show disrespect to the rightful and democratic primacy of this House.

The Treasury’s response to the commission’s report was published only three or four hours before we started considering the Bill on Report. I must say that it left a great deal to be desired. It did not have the strength needed to carry on the work of the commission’s recommendations. If we needed any more evidence that the Government have been soft-pedalling on these issues, we need only look at how bank shares responded immediately after the response was published yesterday. They hardly gave the impression that the banks face strong challenges as a result of the reforms. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise to use the Bill to implement key aspects of the commission’s report, particularly with regard to criminal sanctions, so far nothing has materialised. We must hold our breath and hope that they will eventually find their way into the Bill in the other place.

It is a shame that the Government did not use this time in the House of Commons to take some proper steps forward, because ultimately if we are to have dialogue in Parliament it is necessary to start putting some flesh on the bones and including legislative provisions in the Bill, rather than leaving it to the Government as a matter of trust. That is the only way we ever really improve the quality and calibre of legislation.

There are a number of things that the Government have not agreed to do or have refused to act on so far. They have not risen to the challenge on the leverage ratio to drive the reforms that are needed from a UK perspective. Instead, they want to wait for international and European Union agreement to resolve the issue. They have fallen short of what is required for proper electrification of the ring fence separating retail and investment banking activities. That should have been backed up with a reserve power for full separation of the sector as a whole if ring-fencing proves ineffective. We hope that it will be effective, but the jury is out on that.

We think that the Government should have considered options, particularly in the sale of any state-owned assets in the main banks—RBS, in particular—to look not only at a split between good banks and bad banks, but at whether there is a case for changes in retail and investment banking or in relation to regional banking, but they rejected that. They have not gone for reform of the governance of the Bank of England to turn the court into a proper board, with the accountability needed to go alongside that when it comes to sounding the alarm on bank lobbying. We hope that the Minister will follow that up when the Bill comes before the House of Lords. There is not yet sufficient clarity on how the banking standards rules will relate to the codes of conduct or culture changes that we need in the sector. As we saw from an earlier Division, the Bill also falls short of the market study of competition in the sector, particularly as regards the retail banking activities that so many of our constituents feel frustrated about.

We tried our best to table as many amendments as we could. The Government should have listened and taken the opportunity to engage in that legislative process more effectively. We now have to find reforms to the banking system that not only focus on safety and the best interests of consumers and taxpayers but do the right thing for the economy. In our discussions on leverage and other aspects, we tried our best to make the case for a number of changes that might have got the banking sector serving the economy, going full steam ahead and giving credit support, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is clear that this Bill is still in its infancy despite having completed half its parliamentary stages. It is acceptable as far as it goes, with its baby steps on reform, and we therefore do not seek to oppose its Third Reading. However, the Government now need to get serious. They must bolster the Bill to electrify the ring fence and ensure that it will work; stand up for consumers, with proper changes to promote choice and competition and protect those consumers from being ripped off; secure the best interests of the taxpayer; and ensure that we never again see such a level of damage inflicted on public finances and our economy. Far more is needed. The Government should be listening much more carefully to the parliamentary commission, in particular. They have to do far better than this.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Of course, and today and tomorrow we will go into some further detail on that point. Let me mention one such finding, however: the Government do not agree with the proposal to abolish UK Financial Investments. I will mention various others later. We brought forward the publication of the response, which, just before the report was published, was intended to take place just before the summer recess, because I thought it was germane to the discussions in the House and I encouraged my officials to work their best to try to make it available for today and tomorrow. It has been sent to Members.

Giving a Government response to an 11-month long, 571-page commission report in just 13 working days is, I think, quite an achievement and I thank my officials for losing a nice weekend watching the tennis to do that. I had hoped that it would help the debate.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a very interesting situation. The Minister talks about the 13-day deadline and said that we had to get this done. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr Speaker, but I thought that the Government decided when the Report stage of a Bill was to be held, so the deadline was rather self-imposed. Why on earth are we wasting this Commons consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report when he could not get his act together either to table amendments or to get a response together in time for us to properly use our time on Report?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the standard response time for a Command Paper responding to a report is two calendar months. That would have taken us into the recess, which clearly is not possible, so we would have had to respond after the recess. I think he is being churlish when I have asked my officials to move at great speed to respond in a very short space of time—13 working days—to make the response available. I thought it was better for us to have it for these debates than to have it next week or in September. I am grateful to my officials for their alacrity, even if he is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend’s ingenious intervention allows me to pay tribute to the excellent event he hosted in Gateshead at which there was palpable enthusiasm for challenger banks entering the market, especially ones with a regional focus. He and I share an ambition that the north-east should be the home of such a bank, which would do wonders for the region’s economy, with its strong, vibrant business culture. The area would benefit from the local knowledge of such an institution. The PRA and the FCA were represented at the discussion, and he is right to reflect that everyone who was present on that Friday was enthusiastic about the steps the PRA is taking to make it easier for challenger banks to come forward.

[Chris Leslie]

If the Government are so enthusiastic about the concept of regional banking, will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) why their report, which came out at lunchtime, explicitly rules out any review of a structural arrangement involving regional banking for the Royal Bank of Scotland?

[Guy Opperman]

You voted against it.

[Chris Leslie]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me first time round. I am tempted to repeat myself, but it is important that he realises that his right hon. Friend the Minister has ruled out such an arrangement for RBS.

[Greg Clark]

The right way to approach this is to make it possible for regional banks to enter the market across the board, which is precisely what the PRA is doing. It has reduced the demands that entrant banks must satisfy to establish themselves as a business and speeded up the authorisation process, which is all to the good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

As I have said, I shall hear from my hon. Friend. I do not think there is any difference of intent between us; we have accepted the commission’s recommendation. We have taken the period of five years because that is the standard time for the disposal of assets when they are required through competition law proceedings.

I am certainly concerned, however, that the banks should be given a chance to address the concerns, and that chance would be lost if amendment (k) were followed. If amendment (p) were followed, we would deny banks the five-year period for divestments to be made that is typical under competition law. But as I have said, I remain open to considering these matters further during the Bill’s passage. I am confident that it can be improved to meet the concern, as I know that there is no disagreement in principle between me and my hon. Friend on the issue.

The requirement for Treasury consent follows from the commission’s own recommendation, without which the regulator could, on its own initiative, instigate radical structural reforms.

Amendment 19 is retabled as an alternative to Government amendment 6, providing for the specific full separation power. As I explained in Committee when the amendment was previously debated—when the hon. Member for Nottingham East was channelling my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, as he frequently did—it suffers from technical flaws. That is why I committed to introducing a Government amendment to deliver its objectives.

Specifically, amendment 19 is rather vague, giving the regulator power to require a group to take steps to separate without specifying what those steps are. It also lacks provision for a minimum period over which groups must execute a separation, leaving the risk of the regulator’s ordering a rushed disposal that could be destabilising to the system.

The Government amendment is intended to address those technical problems, although I have signalled our willingness to make any further improvements that may be necessary as the Bill progresses. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester will be able to withdraw his amendment at this stage, pending further consideration.

[Chris Leslie]

It is characteristic of the Minister, with his emollient tones, sometimes to give the impression of smoothing over all these issues. He is ever the swan on the surface, yet beneath the water line the chaotic paddling is evident from the Government’s response to the work of the parliamentary commission. That response was rushed out today, in accordance with the Government’s own artificial deadline of a debate on Report, which they could have scheduled so that we had time to consider where the Government stood on some of these issues.

Even the Minister’s hon. Friends did not seem to realise what he was recommending today on RBS—ruling out a review that might consider a regional banking network, for example. The message did not get through to the Government’s own Back Benchers. I do not know whether that is a whipping issue or whether other channels need to be reviewed, but something is not quite right. It would be remiss of me to pass over the fact that we are debating this Bill on Report having had in Committee no consideration of all the hard effort undertaken by the poor souls who had to serve on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Hours, days, weeks and months of their lives went by, never necessarily to be regained. There was no response to that in Committee and there has been barely a nod in its direction on Report.

[Greg Clark]

This is uncharacteristically ungenerous of the hon. Gentleman, as in Committee he tabled a whole set of amendments drafted by the parliamentary commission, saving him, I dare say, a lot of weekend drafting work. I think he might want to thank members of the commission and note that the recommendations from its first report were exhaustively considered in Committee.

[Chris Leslie]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Of course I thank them, but it is my sympathy for them that now requires us to speak in their favour. The Government ignored all those amendments. It is true: I have been channelling the wishes of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and, indeed, the rest of the commission. They dutifully drafted all those amendments and they were then totally ignored by the Government. The Government set up the parliamentary commission. They did not want to go for a broader independent inquiry; they wanted to take this route. They set up all the members to do all the work and have all the hearings. Their final report was more than a ream of paper— 570 pages. Not a jot of those amendments was accepted by the Government in Committee, and, significantly, the same applies on Report.

Let us be clear about this. House of Commons consideration of this Bill is not worth anything; all the business is to be done in the other place by members of the commission who are there. It will go to them in October, presumably they will consider it in October and November, and then we will get a little chunk of time at the end of the process for Commons consideration of Lords amendments. I hope that the Minister will allow us a little more latitude to have a look at what is put into the Bill at that time.

[Greg Clark]

I think the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The amendments in this group are a response to the commission’s first report. The essence of this Bill is the ring-fencing of the banking system. This is a response to the independent commission to which the parliamentary commission responded. The amendments implement these changes. The Government always made it clear that the final report on standards and culture would be taken on board during the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords. The situation is exactly as envisaged and perfectly orderly. He is not seeing the wood for the trees. This is about the ring-fencing of banks.

[Chris Leslie]

Well, pardon me for daring to suggest that the Government have got this totally upside down and the wrong way round. They set up the commission and asked its members to come forward with recommendations, as they dutifully did, for which I thank them, and then ignored them in the Commons Committee and Report stages. That means that it is all to be debated in the detail that is required when the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

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

Given that on Second Reading I suggested that much of the real deliberation would take place in the other place, it would be churlish of me to disagree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The situation was ever thus, given the parliamentary majorities. This has not been a chaotic process but, understandably, a holding response by the Treasury. It is a fast-moving situation. I suspect that a further banking reform Bill will be debated in the next two or three years.

[Chris Leslie]

It probably will, particularly if there is a change of Administration, but we will come to that in a couple of years’ time.

[Mr Love]

Some very eminent members of the commission are in the House of Lords, and I have absolutely no doubt that they will do a magnificent job of scrutinising the Bill. However, this is the democratically elected Chamber where most of the debate should take place, and it is incumbent on the Government to make time available for those at this end of Parliament to scrutinise it.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and we have made our point; I now want to move on to issues of substance. There is a lack of time and we have to finish debating this group of amendments by 7 o’clock. It is ridiculous that the commission spent hours on these matters but only a tiny amount of time has been allocated to debating them today.

Government amendments 1 to 4 seem to be generally welcome with regard to the extension of the regulatory perimeter and the definitions of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. It is intriguing that amendment 4 centres on clarifying the definition of “failure”. It is very tempting to ask if they know what failure is, especially given their weak response to the parliamentary commission today, but I will move swiftly on.

Government amendments 7 to 10 also seem to be fairly unobjectionable, although there appears to be a drafting error in amendment 8. Why has the Minister decided that the proposed subsection (3) should be inserted ahead of subsection (2) of FSMA? Something seems to be amiss, but that is only a minor point.

More importantly, will the Minister talk about the tribunal to which a lot of the issues will be referred? What sort of tribunal will it be and where will it be situated? Will its work add to the functions of an existing tribunal? That is a small point, but I would be grateful if the Minister would address it.

Government amendments 11 to 13 seem to focus on drafting issues. I cannot really see what will be achieved by changing “subsidiary” to “body”, but I do not have anything to say about those smaller, drafting amendments.

The first main issue of substance relates to our amendment 17 on the need for a thorough review process of the ring-fencing of retail banks, such that it augments what ought to be the electrification of the ring fence. We suggested this in Committee and it was a clear recommendation of the commission. It would be better to have a proper and independent review of the adequacy of ring-fencing every two years. We think that a more robust review process would be better than the Government’s PRA-led approach. It would be inadequate for the regulators to lead the process. We need a broader and more substantial review process to ensure successive ring-fencing.

Ultimately, as the commission itself has said, the jury is out on whether ring-fencing will work. It is fine in theory, but in order to keep a close eye on things—especially as these issues fall out of the media spotlight, as they inevitably will in the years to come—we must have a process in place that makes sure that we test, watch and scrutinise what happens.

The commission was right to be disappointed with the Government’s response. It noted that

“the Government did not accept our recommendation on potential ‘electrification’ with respect to the sector as a whole. As our First Report noted, crucial doubts remain about whether all the intended reforms can be put in place and, even if they are, whether this will be enough to prevent the Government from having to step in next time a crisis hits. In particular, we identified the possibility that the partial separation of a ring-fence may prove insufficient.”

That is why we feel that a more rigorous and thorough review process that involves the commissioning of independent members to produce, together with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, a report for Parliament would be far more effective. I do not want to take words out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Chichester, but he is right to say that if we leave it to the PRA to do this job and do not have a proper and more thorough process, there is a danger that the regulators will simply end up marking their own exam paper.

[Caroline Lucas]

Following the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, does he not agree that a better way of restoring public faith in banks and, indeed, in politicians would be to legislate firmly now for the full legal separation of retail and investment banking? Even if that is not what a large number of financial institutions want, would it not be better for the taxpayer and the public?

[Chris Leslie]

We have tabled an amendment, which I shall discuss shortly, suggesting a clear back-stop power for the full separation of retail and investment banking across the board, in case ring-fencing does not work. We believe that we should give ring-fencing a chance, but it is important to note that the jury is still out on whether it will work. We just do not know. The Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure, as the commission recommended, that nobody has any truck with breaches of the ring fence. That must be the case both on a firm-by-firm basis for specific institutions and banks and for the sector as a whole.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, are not the titles of the proposed new section in his amendments 18 and 19, which refer to “full separation”, slightly misleading? I will support those amendments, because they would be a step forward from what the Treasury recommends, but the Labour party is arguing for electrifying the ring fence, not for full separation.

[Chris Leslie]

It is true that we want to give ring-fencing a chance. That seems to be the broad consensus among those who have seriously considered the issue, either on the commission or elsewhere. However, it is important that we keep in our pocket the chance to do something serious and rigorous in case that plan does not work. I suppose we might call it a plan B, although I know the Government have an aversion to ever considering anything outside the narrow tram lines down which they career. It is important that we take this opportunity to put that plan in place.

That brings me to the Government’s rather pathetic, lettuce leaf-like attempt to claim that they are adopting a back-stop electrification power. I am not sure what voltage the Minister has opted for, but for the Government to claim the provision as a firm-by-firm back-stop power is an insult to back-stop powers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, the process in Government amendment 6 will take six years should ring-fencing fail, which is a snail’s pace. I urge hon. Members to look at the various stages involved in that amendment. First, the Treasury will look to the regulator to issue not just one preliminary notice but three—the idea of three preliminary notices seems like an impossibility—all of which will have different timetables. I do not know whether three preliminaries means, “We’re coming to get you, but not quite yet.” It is like the Education Secretary, with his firm, disciplinarian hand, saying to children, “We’re going to come and get you, but we’ll give you three preliminary notices before we do so.” The kids would be crawling all over the ring fence for months and years.

After those preliminary notices, a warning notice will be issued, followed very swiftly—not—by a decision notice. There will be at least five steps over a six-year period. “Five strikes and you might be out in six years’ time” does not strike me as an effective back-stop power for galvanising and electrifying the ring fence. If the Government recognised for six years that there was a flaw with ring-fencing but did nothing, their culpability would be almost equal to that of the banking sector. Amendment 6 could be an amendment to a misrepresentation of the people Act, and the Financial Secretary needs to take it off the table and instead consider the amendments that the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards has tabled.

This is a back-stop power in name only, and just because the Government say it is a back-stop power does not make it so. We need the ability, on a firm-by-firm basis at the very least, to take firm action to a timetable that shows flexibility and can be enacted swiftly if need be. I am afraid I tend to agree with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester. The provision needs to be truncated and the Government must withdraw amendment 6 as it is wholly inadequate. It would have been more effective to go with amendment 19 as drafted by the commission, which was a far more effective truncated version of a back-stop power on a firm-by-firm basis. That was far clearer, the drafting was improved, and it is a mystery to me why the Government have resisted it at every stage of the process. Whether that was due to lobbying from the banks, or because they do not believe in standing up to the sector and taking on this tough issue, the weakness of the Government on this matter surprises many people.

[Mark Field]

Two things come to mind. First, there should be a sense of due process, which I think is present in the Government amendment. Secondly, there is genuine concern about uncertainty and the notion of an electrified ring fence. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have questioned the whole issue of ring-fencing and the potential uncertainty it provides in this business, particularly in the fast-changing world we have seen over recent years. This is therefore a sensible response from the Treasury to the whole concern, which goes well beyond special pleading from the banking fraternity.

[Chris Leslie]

Most of the debate we have had in the short time available has pressed for firm action to be taken towards a sector that—let us not forget—brought down the economy, created massive deficits in our public finances, and required rescue by the taxpayer because of a blurring of the lines between issues that affected ordinary households up and down the country and high-risk investment banking activities that needed strong safeguards. Simply saying that we will have ring- fencing with no means to enforce or police that—no “electrification”, as it has been termed—would make that concept totally redundant. That is why members of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards were surprised that the Government always seemed to take the path of least resistance—“Let’s not upset the banks too much; let’s try and go back to business as usual”—and are not learning the lessons of history.

We have re-tabled amendment 18 not just to have a specific firm-by-firm back-stop power for separation in case ring-fencing fails, but to have sector-wide powers as a back-stop in reserve should ring-fencing not work. We have the capability for full separation, but the Government have stubbornly refused to put that on the statute book—“Oh well, if we have such circumstances we can always legislate further down the line”—as if passing a Bill on such matters can be done quickly or effectively in any way.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone he is using on giving ring-fencing a chance and full separation being a back-stop power, or plan B, to be used only in certain circumstances. Amendment 18—the general requirement of separation and industry-wide potential for that—would clearly mean an end to universal banking, ring-fenced or otherwise. What consideration have he and his hon. Friends given to that issue, and particularly the transfer of cash between the two and the impact that might have on lending to the now retail sector, or lending for investment in business?

[Chris Leslie]

Those issues were covered pretty substantially by the commission in its first and second reports, and this was the conclusion it reached. Nobody wanted to go for full separation if it could be avoided; we wanted to ensure that ring-fencing arrangements could be upheld and made to work. There are some arguments in favour of that universal model, and therefore it was felt preferable to have such a power in reserve, but in the Bill. It is no wonder that the banking sector breathed a heavy sigh of relief today, when it saw the Government’s response on this and other issues. The markets judged that the banking sector got off lightly, and that there was nothing tough or difficult for the sector. That is why we have seen the market reaction today. The notion of business as usual seems to be back on the table.

I want the House to recognise that this is not an amendment that Labour has come up with in a partisan way. We are simply tabling an amendment that was drafted by the commission after days, weeks and months of deliberation and careful cross-party thought by Members of both Houses, but thrown back in the face of the commission by the Government today. It is important to have this on the statute book. A back-stop power will incentivise the banks to comply with ring-fencing. If the Government are correct in believing that ring-fencing will be adequate, the amendment will do no harm to the policy. It will sit dormant on the statute book. But if the Government are wrong, and this backstop power is not in place when it is needed, serious consequences could arise. It is nonsense for the Minister to ignore this risk, especially as the other place will want to come back to this issue. He may be forced to concede if we get into parliamentary ping-pong at some point.

I do not want to take up too much more time because many other hon. Members have spent a lot more time on this issue than I have, but I wish that the Government would listen to them and to the commission.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

I shall say a little more than I usually say in the House because these arrangements are quite central to the work of the banking commission and give me an opportunity— my first—to explain some of the reasoning behind that work. The two key amendments that I have tabled would empower the regulator to split up a banking group if there were serious failures in the culture and standards of the ring-fenced body or another member of its group. In deciding whether these serious failures have occurred, the regulator would be required to take account of the recommendations contained in the reports of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which I chaired.

We produced five reports about a vitally important industry, one that has become embroiled in very serious scandals that have cost the consumer, taxpayers and the whole country a fortune. The parliamentary commission was the first of its kind for a century. The last, exactly a hundred years ago, collapsed in a heap of partisan acrimony.

We have produced five reports in under a year, all of which were agreed unanimously. We also put in an unprecedented amount of detailed work, taking evidence for 171 hours in no fewer than 76 evidence sessions, in addition to deliberating in private for a further 74 hours. I would like to thank my colleagues on the commission in both Houses for their huge contributions, injections of energy and endurance. I would also like to express my thanks for the equally impressive commitment of the commission staff and specialist advisers, led by Colin Lee and his two deputies, Adam Mellows-Facer and Lydia Menzies. Only the very limited time available prevents me from listing many more of the staff who put in so much work. I would also particularly like to thank the Front Benchers of all parties, who have offered a great deal of support.

The task now is to get the report implemented, primarily by regulators and banks, and, where necessary, supported by statute. The Government have today responded to the commission’s most recent report—our fifth. I have had a chance to flip through the response, but there has been no time to digest it fully—it is about 80 pages—and, of course, no time for anyone to table amendments as a result. In view of the extent to which it looks as if the Bill has been changed, I would be grateful if the usual channels could consider recommitting this Bill to Committee. Failing that, at the very least—as the my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said—an extra day should be provided for consideration of what will inevitably be a mass of Lords amendments. Bearing in mind the struggle that we had to get the half-day tomorrow, I hope that the Government will show more flexibility about this extra time.

Having said that, I warmly welcome the supportive tone of the pre-briefing given to the Financial Times about the publication that we have had today. Still, I would rather have heard about it here first. I am also very pleased that so many of the proposals and also the argumentation for them appear to have been accepted in full. But I am not fully reassured. The Government appeared to have accepted the commission’s proposal on a specific power to force the separation of an individual bank, but here we are, at the eleventh hour, trying to prevent the proposal from being severely weakened by the Government. In fact, as I will explain, the Government’s amendments would render the specific power of electrification virtually useless.

Some of the commission’s important proposals have not been accepted at all, for example on leverage, on which we support the recommendations of the Vickers commission, and on reform of the Bank of England’s antiquated governance structure, on which the commission supports the recommendations of the Treasury Committee.

Other ideas that the Government have rejected include the need to wind up United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd and the regulatory reforms to provide statutory autonomy for the regulatory decisions committee. I find that especially regrettable. The Government have also rejected the proposal to remove the FCA’s strategic objective. No one can see much purpose to this except the Government. It can be used to trump the operational objectives of the FCA, including that of competition, and can thus serve only to weaken those operational objectives. On all those issues, I hope that their lordships will repair some of the damage that we have been left with no time to attend to here.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Leslie]

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

It is a delight to see the Leader of the House on the Front Bench to debate with me the question of the leverage ratio—I favour the pronunciation “leaverage”—and I am happy to give way to him if he has any concerns about it. As the Leader of the House—[Interruption]—and, indeed, the Minister will know, a bank’s leverage is the ratio of its assets to equity capital. Its equity capital is equal to the value of its assets, minus the value of its liabilities. Higher leverage rates magnify returns, because any growth in assets will be proportionately greater if equity is thin, but—and this is why it matters—the corollary is that any losses are magnified if leverage is greater. Its equity can be wiped out by a smaller shock than would wipe out the equity of a less leveraged institution.

The Government said that they intended to provide the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England with a time-varying leverage ratio tool, but not before 2018, and that that would be subject to a review in 2017 to assess progress internationally. The design of the tool would depend, hon. Members will be glad to hear, on European Union legislation, and will be set out in Britain in due course in secondary legislation. I know that they are keen on that particular process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I am very supportive of the notion of legislating now for the leverage provision, but in his new clause, the hon. Gentleman discusses

“a target for the overall leverage of the…system, to encompass…the activities of foreign financial institutions and non-bank originators of credit”—

or shadow banking. Although that might be taken into consideration in the calculation, the FPC would have no power to implement a leverage ratio in the shadow banking sector, so is there not an unintended consequence that leverage ratios may be too high in the formal banking sector to compensate for what the report found?

[Chris Leslie]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to look at the new clause, because it is our second attempt to cajole or persuade the Government to look at this issue. In Committee, we took a different approach to the question of leverage, and tried to clarify that there was a clear power for the Government to act. I hope in the spirit of consensus and trying to move the arguments forward, the Minister and the House will accept that we have taken a new approach, thinking about leverage as it affects the UK economy as a whole. Leverage—and I shall come on to make this argument—is part and parcel of the way in which an economy works, and in the new clause we have looked at a particular design that would encompass other institutions. I do not want to be misinterpreted: we mention foreign banks, for example, but I do not intend any extra-territorial reference in the new clause. It simply makes it clear that the provision has to encompass effective leverage on the UK financial services sector as a whole.

I have referred to the Vickers commission, and it is important that we do not forget the work that it did, and that we pay tribute to it. It said that

“a leverage cap of thirty-three is too lax for systemically important banks, since it means that a loss of only 3% of such banks’ assets would wipe out their capital.”

The commission recommended a 25:1 ratio—a 4% ratio—but the Chancellor dismissed that concern. It is essential that the ring fence is supported by tougher capital requirements, as well as by a leverage ratio.

The parliamentary commission said that it was not convinced by the Government’s decision to reject the Vickers recommendation to limit leverage in this way. The parliamentary commission said that it

“considers it essential that the ring-fence should be supported by a higher leverage ratio, and would expect the leverage ratio to be set substantially higher than the 3 per cent minimum required under Basel III. Not to do so would reduce the effectiveness of the leverage ratio as a counter-weight to the weaknesses of risk weighting.”

Sir Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, said that the leverage ratio turned out to be

“a far better predictor of the institutions that failed in the crisis”

than measures of risk-weighted assets. I could go on; a great deal of debate has taken place on this issue.

Our new clause seeks a way of ensuring clarity on the powers and what sort of process would take place. We suggest that the powers of the Financial Policy Committee in the Financial Services Act 2012 should be amended to make it clear that a target should be set by the Treasury for the overall leverage of the United Kingdom’s financial system to encompass all the activities of those institutions that are originators of credit.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

May I unpick what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Does he mean a minimum leverage ratio or a target? There is a difference. Perhaps he could clarify that.

[Chris Leslie]

That is a very good question and I am open to debate on that. I believe that looking at that minimum leverage ratio as a target to be set for the leverage of the system as a whole in the UK would be the point of public policy, which is why it needs to be dealt with in a policy-making context by the Treasury, with reference to Parliament if need be. The key point is that it should then be for the regulators to look at the detailed implementation of that on a firm-by-firm basis.

Essentially, there is a parallel to be drawn between the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets an inflation target for the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee is given operational independence to find ways of meeting that target. The purpose of the debate today is to look at the potential parallel to be drawn there, with a target being set and operational independence for the implementation of that target being given to the Financial Policy Committee and the Bank of England. Over every three-month period the FPC should respond by notifying any changes and any actions that it has taken in order to regulate leverage, so that there is a dialogue and a process that is fairly self-explanatory.

[Mr Ruffley]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, but I want to be clear about his proposition. A target would imply that a bank that was just 10 times leverage would have to raise its leverage ratio to 25 times if it was a 4% target, whereas if it was a 4% minimum leverage ratio, that would be totally different. The bank that leveraged 10 times would not be in breach of that.

[Chris Leslie]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Let me be clear. The target that should be set would be for the financial system as a whole. It would be for the regulators to make judgments about firm-by-firm leverage arrangements, so it would be on a more sophisticated basis. There is a case to be made for a regulator to look at each individual institution. Some institutions are significantly different from one another. Some of the building societies, for example, have recently been making the point that they have different asset structures and so on, and that exactly the same leverage arrangement across the board for all firms simultaneously would not necessarily be appropriate. In an effort to work towards some way of dealing with the issue, this design is one that I have suggested.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

In the proposal, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the committee has to take into account

“adequate credit availability and growth in the economy”

and report to the Treasury. Would the Chancellor and the Treasury have any right of veto or influence over that, or would they have to put up with the Bank’s judgment of what is adequate credit growth? That could be rather important if the problem were one of insufficient growth in the economy.

[Chris Leslie]

That raises the question of the operation of the inflation target. If I draw a parallel between a leverage target and an inflation target, clearly the Chancellor has been setting out his inflation target. It has been missed on a number of occasions—quite a few months and quarters have gone by—so the interplay between the Chancellor and the Bank of England is critical here. I am more than happy to come back to the issue. My point in the new clause today is that we need to start seriously discussing how, from a UK perspective, we are going to deal with the issue of leverage from a home-grown point of view, rather than waiting for the European Union to come along with a set of arrangements which may or may not fit our circumstances.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are two points that occur on the hon. Gentleman’s target weighting. One is that it is very arbitrary. If the regulator could set it for each individual bank, that would give a very strong arbitrary power to the bank to meet that overall target. The second is that although people say that their assets are particularly good ones and better than others, that is exactly what they said in the crisis and it turned out not to be reliable.

[Chris Leslie]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it would be invidious for us as politicians to try to delve into the specific analysis of bank-by-bank asset or liability, quality and the risk weighting of assets. That is why we have regulators and what their job should be, but it is important that as a body politic, so to speak, we make a judgment about the level of leverage that we should have in the economy as a whole. That is why I raise the issue today.

For us, tackling the leverage question is incredibly important. We should not wait for the European Union to decide these things for us. We sought in Committee to clarify this in part. Rather than put it in the “too difficult to handle” box, as the Government seem to be doing, we should try to move forward constructively. The approach that we have taken is on the amendment paper. First, it is necessary to prevent the banks from over-extending themselves beyond the point of safety. Ring-fencing does not do that. We think ring-fencing changes should go alongside capital requirements and leverage regulation.

Secondly, we have been hearing arguments recently about the leverage ratio as anathema to bank lending into the real economy. Sometimes it is characterised as one or the other. I do not necessarily agree that there is a seesaw trade-off between the two. Andrew Bailey at the Prudential Regulation Authority has recently made the particularly pertinent argument that capital can be lent onwards in any case, so it should not be a case of one or the other.

For the sake of clarity, in new clause 9 we looked to address this explicitly by framing a leverage target strategy for the system as a whole, which must be constructed in such a manner so as to maintain adequate credit availability to support a growing economy. It is important to recognise that we will always operate with a degree of leverage. That is part and parcel of the way our banking system works, and our constituents rightly want us to focus on getting the economy moving, while preventing excessive risk-taking. In the spirit of constructive engagement, we hope the amendment strikes the right balance.

It is sometimes argued that leverage should be a back-stop rather than a front stop. The argument about what is a back-stop and what is a front-stop can get rather theological. Andy Haldane makes the point in his famous “The Dog and the Frisbee” speech that leverage needs to be brought much further forward as a primary tool for the regulators, and that other capital and risk-weighting issues should be subordinated. The main point is that leverage should be recognised as a key dynamic in our economy and needs to be regulated in a way not dissimilar to the regulation of inflation.

For us, there are three essential elements: set a leverage target for the system as a whole, which is a task for the Government; measure that risk—the threats to whether loans are going to be repaid—more accurately by sector, to determine which sector needs more capital to make it safe if leverage is rising and which could be dealt with in a normal way; stress-test to back-test the pressures in those particular institutions to be clear that the choice of the leverage target is correct. The regulator should do that.

New clause 9 would also augment Bank of England independence in relation to operational decisions on monetary policy and take into account the need to supply credit to the wider economy. I am glad that the Building Societies Association and others support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. First, I should like to correct a grievous omission in my previous remarks. During my paean to the members of the parliamentary commission, I neglected to include my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who was behind me and therefore was invisible to me. He has been in the Chamber throughout this debate and his contribution is no less sterling and distinguished than those of the other parliamentary commission members whom I did mention. I apologise.

The new clause requires the Treasury to set a leverage target for the

“overall leverage of the…financial system”.

I welcome what I think is the spirit of the new clause. Problems with risk weights clearly contributed to the financial crisis; the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) made that point. Those problems must be addressed if risk weights are to have a place in the regulatory regime of the future.

I also share the concerns raised by the parliamentary commission about the importance of having a robust minimum leverage ratio required by the regulator. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, there is clearly support among Members on both sides of the House for that notion. We have consistently argued for a binding minimum leverage ratio to be implemented internationally, to supplement the risk-weighting requirements.

As has been said, the Basel III standard of 3% will come into force in 2018, following an observation period beforehand and a final calibration of the leverage ratio in 2017. Of course, national supervisors must be equipped to respond to new risks as they emerge in banks and financial markets. The PRA, in this country, is empowered to ensure that banks’ risk models are appropriately conservative and, where necessary, to set higher capital requirements.

As every hon. Member will be aware, the PRA has recently announced that major UK banks need to set out and implement plans to improve their leverage ratios and so to migrate further towards the new Basel III standard even now. The FPC has already been given a number of directive powers, including a counter-cyclical capital buffer and the power to set time-varying sectoral capital requirements. The Government have also made clear their intention to give the FPC the power to vary through time the baseline leverage ratio requirement, always subject to its never being below the requirement determined by Basel III.

Let me address the new clause, in whose support the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) spoke. The first thing to say is that it requires the Treasury to give the Bank of England a target for the overall leverage of the UK’s financial system; I think I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly when I see an allusion to the inflation target perhaps given to the Bank of England. I have to say, though, that that pulls in the opposite direction to the parliamentary commission’s recommendation, which calls for the FPC—in other words, the Bank of England—to be given the power to determine leverage ratios. In its first and final reports, it noted that

“the leverage ratio is a complex and technical decision best made by the regulator and it certainly should not be made by politicians.”

The new clause cuts across the views of the parliamentary commission, if delivering that recommendation were its intention.

Moreover, the new clause would require a target for the overall leverage of the UK’s financial system. Again, this is not quite the right approach. Banks should certainly be subject to individual leverage requirements to ensure that they have sufficient capital to absorb losses, but an average leverage ratio for the entire financial sector could serve to conceal the risks in particular institutions. It would seem perverse to require the Treasury to set a target for overall leverage and so create an onus on the FPC to allow some banks to remain highly leveraged as long as this is offset by smaller or more conservative institutions running with less leverage. A system-wide average, or net, leverage ratio might be of little value in tackling excesses of leverage, and it could be positively counter-productive.

Another feature of the new clause would be dangerous. The proposal for a target requires the FPC to pursue action to meet the target. It is suggested that the FPC take action to increase leverage in the system when it is less than the target level that the Government are required to set. I am not clear how or why the FPC would want to do that. The target approach seems to me to be wrong. Financial stability is not like price stability; it cannot be boiled down to a single, symmetrical target. As a recent Bank of England paper concluded:

“No single set of indicators can ever provide a perfect guide to systemic risks, or to the appropriate policy responses…Judgement will, therefore, play a material role in all FPC decisions and policy will not be mechanically tied to any specific set of indicators.”

We need to apply caution in any consideration of enshrining in law a system that focuses on one target for systematic financial stability. Goodhart’s law is relevant in these circumstances:

“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

I therefore hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful for the quality of the debate that has taken place in the short time we have had.

I am glad that we tabled this new clause on leverage, because otherwise we would not have had the opportunity to start to focus on the issue. I understand what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said about getting the balance right and the care and caution that are needed as we move towards what we want, which is a better, safer level of leverage within the overall system. It is worth reiterating that we want to do this only to make sure that banks do not over-extend themselves and become so lopsided that when they topple over they are not able to absorb the losses should things take a turn for the worse.

I am particularly grateful for the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who rightly pointed out that saying that we need action either on leverage or on getting lending going into the real economy does not represent opposite poles of the argument. It is not as clear as that. Some are arguing not only that the extra capital could be lent out but, as he said, that compensation ratios, as they are sometimes known—the remuneration levels within banks—could also be tackled. Given that we are the major financial centre worldwide, we should not just be leaving this to international regulators. We certainly should not be leaving it to the European Union completely to decide these things for us. We have a duty in the UK to make sure that we think these things through properly and spend much more time on them.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman proposes that the individual leverage ratios of the banks be published, but if that information were in the public domain it could have implications for a bank’s funding costs. If the regulator deems that a particular institution has a greater risk, and therefore looks at a lower leverage, that will clearly have implications for the business.

[Chris Leslie]

I would tend to err on the side of publication and transparency. It is long overdue that we have better insight into banks’ balance sheets and the quality of their assets generally.

If we are to have this architecture, it could be a useful dynamic to have a leverage target set by policy makers—by Government. I slightly take issue with the parliamentary commission on this. There is a systemic aspect that ought to rest in the hands of politicians. Ultimately, the buck stops with us and Parliament is sovereign; the arguments about that are well known. However, as the commission said, the operational decisions taken institution by institution have to be left to the regulator. It would be invidious for that to be in the hands of the Treasury.

[Mr Redwood]

RBS, against the wishes of some of us, had been allowed to grow to a colossal size and to gear excessively. At the point when it got into trouble, it had a balance sheet of £2.2 trillion —almost four times the tax revenue of the state—and if it lost 2% of its asset value it lost the equivalent of the defence budget for a whole year. Is not that of interest to those conducting government?

[Chris Leslie]

There is a rare consensus across the Chamber in some respects. We have to agree that the UK economy, whether it is mid-sized or not, is potentially adversely affected by our vast financial sector.

I offered new clause 9 in the spirit of consensus to try to get some engagement from the Government. I am disappointed by the Minister’s attitude of saying, “We’ll just leave this and do it internationally. We’ll come to it in 2018 through the normal conveyor belt.” The Government must address this issue far more constructively and engage with it far more seriously, because it really does matter. We need action on leverage and it is important that we put on record the essential characteristics that it could and should have within our economy as a whole. I am afraid that I therefore wish to test the view of the House.

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

--- Later in debate ---

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will shortly launch a call for evidence on whistleblowing generally. This will help the Government to establish the evidence base in looking at whistleblowing protections and considering whether further changes are required. The commission’s recommendations on whistleblowing will be considered in that context.

[Chris Leslie]

When?

[Greg Clark]

This summer.

New clause 11 concerns the new criminal offence of reckless misconduct recommended by the parliamentary commissioner. As we have already announced, we agree with the commission’s recommendations and will over the summer draft amendments to create such a legally watertight criminal offence, including compliance with the European convention on human rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford suggested, the commission did not recommend retrospectivity, and these provisions are intended to enact its recommendations. I hope that he will understand that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) was absolutely right to point out that it was of course this Government who first raised the possibility of criminal sanctions for managerial misconduct in July last year. We are grateful to the commission for its extensive work. We will follow its advice on misconduct committed by persons covered by the regime that is being set up. The commission noted the legal challenges involved in mounting a successful prosecution, but we absolutely agree that the creation of this offence should be justified by the signal that it sends and the potential deterrent effects it can have. We have to make it clear that reckless behaviour by those in charge of our banks cannot be tolerated.

New clause 13 proposes to create a new financial services crime unit. A similar amendment was discussed at some length in Committee. I can assure hon. Members that the Government fully recognise the importance of tackling financial crime. There is to be a dedicated command within the new National Crime Agency responsible for directing the national response to economic and financial crimes. The economic crime command will have a clear remit to reduce the threat from economic and financial crimes, working collaboratively across the different sectors. Substantial progress has already been made in establishing the National Crime Agency and driving early operational success against criminals who seek to engage in economic and financial crimes.

The Government accept the broad recommendations of the parliamentary commission on each of these matters. We will be acting quickly to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to make amendments that are legally watertight and likely to pass into law in the early part of next year, just six months after the parliamentary commission’s extensive report. In acting in this way, we are keeping faith not only with the recommendations of the parliamentary commission but with the urgency of the need to enact these reforms, which I commend to the House.

Finance Bill

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

Hon. Members might not have spotted the announcement on this matter in the Chancellor’s Budget in March. It is a little-noticed provision that was buried on page 64 of the Red Book in the table that sets out whether individual policy decisions will mean a gain or a loss to the Exchequer. This decision did not hit the headlines and very few people spotted it. I should look back and see whether the Chancellor even referenced it in his Budget speech.

This little-known provision is the abolition of something called the stamp duty reserve tax. It is not quite the same as the stamp duty on share transactions that many hon. Members are familiar with. That is, for want of a better term, a financial transaction tax of 50 basis points or 0.5% on share transactions. The stamp duty reserve tax is the equivalent change that was introduced in schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999. It is essentially a proxy for stamp duty on the return of units in unit trusts to the investment managers who deal in those transactions. If individuals buy units in unit trusts and then surrender or sell them back to the investment manager, a stamp duty of 0.5% has not unreasonably been paid.

The Chancellor, in his wisdom, has decided that that must go. He has decided to forgo the princely sum of £150 million in every financial year henceforth. I am afraid to tell hon. Members that there is a lot of this story to be told. The abolition of stamp duty reserve tax is essentially a decision by the Chancellor to give a tax cut to investment managers.

The new clause calls on the Chancellor, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before the House of Commons a report on the distributional impact of the change detailing who has benefited—whether it is the lower and middle-income households and families in all our constituencies or the privileged and wealthy investment managers.

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

Does the shadow Minister not recognise that the abolition of the reserve tax will be a great enhancement to the UK unit trust industry, which has been losing a lot of business to Switzerland, Singapore and elsewhere? Although he has characterised the beneficiaries as being very wealthy, this change will ensure that jobs are retained in this important industry, especially back-office and middle-office jobs, as it goes from strength to strength in the decades ahead.

[Chris Leslie]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for doing his duty to his constituents in the City of London. I confess that they probably will be right up there among the beneficiaries of this change. He is assiduous in speaking up for his constituents, but I am sure he would concede that they are not exactly typical of people in the rest of the country. The people who engage in investment trust transactions and unit trust arrangements may well benefit from this £150 million tax cut.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was supposedly faced with difficult choices and cuts in the Budget. That he has chosen to give a tax cut of this order at this time is a reflection of his priorities, which are beyond understanding for many Opposition Members.

[Mark Field]

Would the shadow Minister be willing to extend his new clause to ensure that it takes into account what has happened since 1999 when the tax was instituted under the previous Labour Administration? More importantly, would that reflect Britain’s place in the world and what proportion of the global asset management industry was in Britain in 1999 and is still here today, compared with other countries? That may have a direct impact on why the Chancellor acted as he did in the Budget.

[Chris Leslie]

Times are tough, and for most people in the country life is getting harder. I confess, however, that I have not been lobbied by or seen those poor, unfortunate City investment managers knocking at my door, coming to my surgeries, or writing e-mails and saying, “Please, the one thing we need is the abolition of the stamp duty reserve tax. There is massive hardship among investment managers at this time, which demands a £150 million tax giveaway.” Frankly, I think the investment management community is doing reasonably well relative to the rest of the country. Moreover, I do not think that the City of London is uncompetitive. Indeed, all the evidence suggests the opposite and that the City continues to thrive and do exceptionally well—something like £5 trillion in funds is under the management of those investment managers affected by this tax change, and a tax cut of 150 million quid is small change to that community.

We are having this debate because we need to know why the Chancellor decided on this priority—cui bono would be the Latin adage. In whose interest is this? Who benefits from this change? I doubt it is my constituents in Nottingham East, and Government Members must forgive me if I am left with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth when we see the hardship caused by cuts to tax credits, the increase in VAT and the bedroom tax. The Chancellor says that individuals affected by those things must feel the pain and the squeeze, but when it comes to the City and the investment management community, I do not see how they are all in it together or sharing that anxiety.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Yet again I am back on my old hobby-horse about the economy. If this measure is passed and people benefit from it, what will that do to the local economy? Will we see massive spending on our high streets? Will it help to regenerate the economy?

[Chris Leslie]

Dare I say that my hon. Friend knows the answer to his question? I do not think it will make a blind bit of difference to the success—or otherwise—of the investment management community, and I have seen no evidence from the Government that this measure is the thing that will transform the economy at this time, or make a massive difference to jobs and growth in society at large.

Let me put this in context: £150 million is a lot of money. In fact, it is exactly the same amount that the Chancellor cut from young mothers when he abolished the health in pregnancy grant—hon. Members will remember from the Chancellor’s first Budget that the health in pregnancy grant was given to mums-to-be to ensure they ate healthily and had a little help at that time. That was slashed; that had to go because £150 million had to be saved, yet in next year’s Budget the Chancellor is introducing a £150 million tax cut for the investment management community. That is about the same amount of money as was cut from the child tax credit supplement for one and two-year-olds in that original Budget. In fact, it is about the same amount of money that the pasty tax and the caravan tax were supposed to save—I am sure the Minister will remember that from the ill-fated omnishambles 2012 Budget. All the hassle that fell on the Chancellor’s shoulders at that time was due to saving £150 million. In that context, this is a strange choice by a strange Chancellor.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point. Does he, like me, think that people will be bemused by this measure when the Government voted recently against a reasonable motion on an international financial transaction tax? When people see those two things, as well as the bedroom tax, what will they make of this Government?

[Chris Leslie]

We had that debate on a financial transaction tax a few weeks ago. I think we managed to extricate from the Minister, despite his reluctance, a suggestion that somehow, somewhere, buried in the Government, there was still some flicker of interest in a financial transaction tax. I am not sure whether it has been snuffed out by this particular measure. If this is the abolition of stamp duty on unit trust transactions, what will be next? What else will they give away to this particular set of fortunate investors? Will the Minister rule out plans to abolish the other financial transaction tax, the stamp duty on equity transactions? Do the Government have that long-standing financial transaction tax, which has been around for several hundred years, in their sights? Conservatives are second to none when it comes to defending the best interests of the wealthiest in society, and I take my hat off to the Minister for managing to slip this little one through in the Budget provisions without anybody really spotting it.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has already pointed out that this £150 million saving per year for the very richest should be compared with the bedroom tax saving of £450 million from the very poorest. The difference between the two measures is that the bedroom tax is hitting thousands upon thousands of the poorest people. The bedroom tax costs about £10 per week, and I have had people tell me that their disposable income is being reduced from £30 to £20 per week. With this tax, the £150 million saving is going to a very small number of people who will receive a large amount of money. These are the choices we face in Britain today. Does my hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful?

[Chris Leslie]

I am more disappointed that the Government think they can get away with it. I want very much to hear the Minister defend this decision. I am sure he will do so with gusto and alacrity, as ever, but I know that deep inside—the record will reflect that I am looking into his eyes—he realises that this is a completely daft idea. This is not a priority at this time. It is a crazy priority when the public are struggling, and I know that in his heart of hearts he agrees with me. It is not clear where this idea has come from. I saw something on the Deloitte website that said there had been many decades of lobbying in favour of this particular change. Perhaps the lobbying is something that the Treasury has eventually succumbed to.

When we line this measure up alongside other examples of largesse the Government have shown to those who are doing very well, it is notable. We cannot take it out of the context of the paucity of the bank levy, which was supposed to raise £2.5 billion in the previous financial year but did not. Last night, the Minister said that they will try to get £2.7 billion next year instead, but they are already £1.9 billion in arrears from the previous two financial years. It will be more than a decade before they are able to recoup the loss. It was notable last night that he did not say that he was certain that £2.5 billion would be brought in from financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

I will put the bank levy to one side. After all, what is a couple of billion pounds between friends? The Government refuse to repeat the bank bonus tax, despite the fact that financial services bonuses leapt by 64% in the first month of this year, when all those who benefited from the reduction in the additional top rate of tax—earnings over £150,000 were taxed at the 50p rate, but from, I think, 6 April they were taxed at the 45p rate—rushed out all those bonus payments. Of course, those individuals found ways and means to avoid the higher rate of tax, as the Government helpfully flagged the change up for them far in advance.

[Geraint Davies]

Does that not contrast sharply with the 2 million people in Britain who are on payday loans? They could each be given £70 with that £150 million. They are desperate for the money, but instead these tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds are all focused on, again, the very rich. Does that not speak volumes about the cruel values of the Tories?

[Chris Leslie]

The point is the context in which these things arrive from the Government. Perhaps it is our fault that we have not successfully flagged up for the wider country what exactly is happening in the Budget or what will happen in future Finance Bills; but for the time being, it is incumbent on the Minister to do at least this one thing: let us have the distributional analysis showing who benefits from the change. Which deciles, in terms of the affluence of society, will gain the most from this £150 million tax cut? The case for it has not been made. It has not been high on the public agenda. There is no problem in the City or the investment management community of such significance that it merits this intervention by the Chancellor, at the expense of the health in pregnancy grant or the cuts to tax credits that merited the pasty tax and the caravan tax.

This £150 million tax cut is an incredibly important totem of the Chancellor’s priorities. It is a sign that he does not care about the fact that most people—the typical family—will be paying an extra £891 this year because of the tax and benefit changes made since 2010. Those who have found themselves pushed into greater deprivation and poverty will look at the decision and be absolutely disgusted that this is the Government’s priority now. This change has no justification. The Minister has not made the case for it. We need more information about who benefits from the arrangement.

All that comes on top of the Government’s giveaway on the bank levy, their failure to repeat the bonus tax, the millionaires’ tax cut from 50p to 45p and other changes hidden in the Bill, such as making the additional tier 1 debt coupon tax deductible for the banks, which The Times described thus: “Chancellor to the banks’ rescue with secret £1 billion tax break”. Lots of people will have questions, although not necessarily about this Minister’s priorities. He is doing the best of a bad job and having to cope with the hand he has been dealt. He is, I am sure, a decent and honourable chap, but when he goes home this evening, turns on the television and sees the hardship afflicting families up and down the country, I would ask him to keep in mind whether making a tax cut of £150 million for those investment managers was the right call to make at this point in the economic cycle, such as there is a cycle involved.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I come very much from the school that says that if someone is under a bit of pressure and struggling, it is only right for the Government to try to step in, but I am amazed by the figures. In 2011, the UK fund management industry was up 5%, after double-digit growth in the previous two years. The industry is not struggling. Why on earth should we consider giving even more money to people who, at the end of the day, are not in desperate need?

[Chris Leslie]

That is the £150 million question. The tax cut is £150 million in the key years, but it goes up to £160 million in financial year 2017-18. It gets greater and greater as time goes on. If we roll all the numbers together, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is wont to do when presenting figures in the Budget, we get a total of £600 million of tax cuts in this area in the Red Book. I am sure that you could think of a good use for £600 million, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the very least, we want a distributional impact assessment. We want to know who will benefit from the measures, and it is incumbent on the Minister to tell the House the facts.

[Geraint Davies]

I have been provoked to stand up and speak on this outrageous stealth tax, which is an attempt to subsidise the very richest in a clandestine way. If hon. Members had known about the £145 million being crept into the back pockets of the very richest people in the City, the Chamber would have been full of Members speaking in protest, as I am doing now.

The direction of travel in the Budget and the spending review continues unabated. It consists of blaming the poorest for the bankers’ errors, punishing them with cuts in public service jobs and wages and cuts in welfare benefits, particularly outside London and the south-east—and especially in Wales—then pumping all the infrastructure growth opportunities into London and the south-east, to line the pockets of the very richest, many of whom were responsible for the disaster in the first place.

The Government are allegedly trying to balance the books, but they are dismally failing to do so. They have decided to sack 600,000 public sector workers. This is having a disproportionate effect in certain parts of the country. Many parts of Wales, for example, are 50% more likely to have public sector workers than London, and it is in those areas that the cuts are biting deepest. Meanwhile, the money is going to places such as London, where the cuts are not so deep, not only in infrastructure investment but in measures such as this one. We are talking about getting rid of stamp duty on transactions in the City of London, where a small community of people will benefit from that tax cut of £145 million a year, and rising.

We must set against that the fact that 2 million people are already using payday loans. Dividing the £145 million between those 2 million people would give them about £70 each. Only today, I have been talking to colleagues in Swansea about the emerging problem on our council estates, and on estates generally, of companies setting up shop to take advantage of people in dire need by offering them payday loans. At the same time as the Chancellor announced this cut in stamp duty, he asked the newly unemployed to wait an extra week before receiving their money. That will of course feed the stomachs of the payday loan sharks. Those sharks are not just the well-known wonga people; they are also the new, smaller operations setting up in very poor communities. They hire people in the community, on a commission basis, to persuade their neighbours to take out loans at exorbitant rates of interest that they cannot afford. They then harass them by phoning them in the middle of the night or following them into the supermarket, for example, until they repay the loan. That is the cruel reality of Tory Britain today.

Alongside that reality, we have this ghastly attempt to give another £145 million to some of the richest people in the banking community, who were part of the problem in the first place. The alleged justification is to make the City of London more competitive. It appears that these whizz kid City folk, with their red braces, zoom up in their Rolls-Royces to see their old Etonian friends, such as Ministers, and look in awe at them and say, “Have another champers, will you, Minister?” and all that sort of stuff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

This has been an astonishing debate. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), but he must have been pretty dozy in recent months if he thinks that this is a Budget measure that has emerged by stealth having hitherto been hidden from view, because it was given considerable prominence in the Chancellor’s Budget speech. The Chancellor said, in the Chamber,

“I also want Britain to be the place where people raise money and invest. Financial services are about much more than banking. In places such as Edinburgh and London we have a world-beating asset management industry, but they are losing business to other places in Europe. We act now with a package of measures to reverse that decline, and we will abolish the schedule 19 tax, which is payable only by UK-domiciled funds.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 939.]

However, the measure did not only feature in the Chancellor’s Budget speech. It was the subject of a press conference, and received quite a lot of publicity on the money pages. I should have thought that the shadow Financial Secretary would be aware of that, and would know what a good reception the proposal was given in the very important financial services industry.

Many misconceptions need to be cleared up. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about banking, but this measure has nothing whatever to do with banking. A regrettable consequence of what has happened in recent years is that the financial services sector as a whole has too often been equated with the banking industry and associated with its frequently catastrophic misjudgments and regulatory failures, and people have been tainted unfairly by that association. Just as there are hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people employed by banks who bear no responsibility for—indeed, are sickened by—some of the misdeeds that were committed by those at the top before and during the crisis, there are people who work hard for a living elsewhere in financial services, who contribute to our national income, the taxes that pay for our public services and our foreign exchange earnings, and who have certainly not put taxpayers' funds at risk in the way that characterised the worst excesses of the banking industry.

The investment management industry in this country is a case in point. It employs 30,000 people across the United Kingdom, mostly in areas such as administration, IT and legal services. At least 10,000 of these people, who are directly employed in the sector—I am not talking about those who are ancillary to it—are based outside London and the south-east. A large number of them are concentrated in Scotland—I should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) would be aware of that—and in the north-west and the north midlands. In fact, 12% of the asset management industry is in Scotland. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Nottingham East—not just as shadow Financial Secretary, but as a Nottingham Member of Parliament—did not recognise the important contribution made by investment management in his city. He should be aware that the professional services sector in Nottingham is an important component of the city’s economy.

[Chris Leslie]

The Financial Secretary is characterising the Opposition as if we were somehow denigrating the investment management community. Far from it. We are simply asking this question: where is the hardship that justifies £150 million of generosity from the taxpayer at this point in time?

[Greg Clark]

I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman professed not to recognise the problem that existed. As I have said, given the position that he enjoys, I would expect him to be aware of the long-standing damage to the competitiveness of an industry that employs people in his constituency. There are some very distinguished firms in his constituency. The Nottingham office of Brewin Dolphin has been there for 150 years, and I think that it is a vital component of our regional economy. These are valuable jobs, and they exist throughout the country.

The British investment management industry has a strong reputation internationally, yet—here we come to the reason for the reform—since 2000, countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland have increased their market share of domiciled funds dramatically in comparison with the United Kingdom. In fact, the UK’s share of EU domiciled funds has dwindled to less than half that of Luxembourg and has been overtaken by Ireland.

What is the reason for that? It cannot be because the reputation of British fund management has declined, as many of the funds domiciled elsewhere in Europe are in fact managed remotely by fund managers within the UK. It cannot be because the fundamental competitiveness of UK financial services has declined, because we have maintained, and very often increased, our market share in other parts of the financial services industry. For example, twice as many euros are traded in the UK than in the entire eurozone. One of the principal reasons for this competitive decline is a consequence—unintended, I am sure—of a change in the tax system that was made in 1999, and whose effect everyone agrees has been deleterious.

Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1999 imposed a special stamp duty reserve tax—SDRT—on the investment management industry when fund managers match investors leaving a fund and surrendering their units with those joining the fund and purchasing the units. Because the fund manager is not buying any UK shares, no stamp duty reserve tax is payable, but schedule 19 imposes a tax of 0.5% on the fund manager, as if the shares have been bought. Of course, whenever a fund manager buys UK shares within a fund, full stamp duty is paid. As well as being complex and burdensome—requiring frequent tax calculations and returns to be sent to HMRC—there is a major flaw with schedule 19. Anyone who does not wish to pay schedule 19 can simply invest in otherwise identical funds, have them managed by a UK fund manager, but have them domiciled elsewhere, and that is what has happened in recent years. Such a non-UK fund could hold exactly the same equities as a UK fund, and that is happening in large numbers. It could be managed by a UK fund manager, but the investor would—by investing in a fund in Luxembourg or Ireland, for instance—not need to pay schedule 19.

Why should this matter? [Interruption.] I think the shadow Chief Secretary should take an interest, since he was not aware of the problem to which this is the solution. What are the advantages of having funds domiciled in the UK? First, there are advantages in terms of jobs, particularly in the regional economy. While fund managers can operate from anywhere, most jobs in fund management come from ancillary services and the professional services associated with them. These are high-value jobs in IT, legal services and accountancy support, and they are typically in the jurisdictions in which the funds are domiciled.

Secondly, there are advantages in terms of tax revenue. Although schedule 19 imposes SDRT on fund managers matching investors for UK funds, the Exchequer would be advantaged by having more funds domiciled in the UK, as that would involve the paying of income tax, national insurance, VAT, business rates and other taxes by people who would be employed here, rather than in Luxembourg, Ireland and other countries, and corporation tax by the companies supplying ancillary services.

Finally, who pays? It is pensioners who pay. Schedule 19 does not come out of the pay of fund managers. It is a cost of business that is invariably passed on to UK investors. It comes out of the returns and lessens the funds that are otherwise available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I want to conclude now. I hope that the House will welcome, as commentators universally have, a significant boost to the competitiveness of a very important sector for jobs in every part of the United Kingdom. I hope that, having had the explanation, the hon. Member for Nottingham East will feel willing to withdraw the new clause and await the formal consultation, which will accompany next year’s Finance Bill.

[Chris Leslie]

You have to hand it to the Financial Secretary, because he managed to keep a straight face throughout that, but I can almost hear the thumping of those trading desks across the City of London as people are delighted at the largesse of a £150 million tax giveaway to those poor, downtrodden investment managers, who really need that helping hand just now. That £150 million is the same amount as the Government saved when they abolished the health in pregnancy grant—that was not a priority; making sure that they abolish stamp duty reserve tax on unit trust transactions is where that £150 million had to go. That is completely crazy. They cannot even agree to a distributional analysis because they know that it is the wealthiest in the society who benefit from this. Therefore, we shall be pushing new clause 11 to a Division.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Leslie, please ensure that you leave time in the debate, which will end at 8.19 pm, for the Minister and perhaps some Back Benchers as well.

[Chris Leslie]

I will be very brief. I want first to pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I have to hand it to him: he has got the Government jumping around and on the run on this issue. However, I am afraid that the Opposition are not convinced that the millions of people who are separated, divorced, or indeed widowed, would benefit from this policy, let alone those married couples where both partners work. I am all in favour of marriage, and Mrs Leslie might at first glance like the idea of the £150 give-away, but because she works and earns above the personal allowance, it would not be of benefit in our circumstances.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Leslie]

I would rather hear from the Minister.

I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was right when he called this policy social engineering. He said that when he joined the Conservative party it was opposed to it. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham seems to have got a commitment that something will be done in the autumn, and we will hear what that happens to be in a moment. In a nutshell, the Opposition’s view is that if there is to be a tax break, it should be for all families, not just a select few, and for all households on lower and middle incomes. That is where tax breaks ought to be focused. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I agree with the Minister about one thing—it was certainly a long and well-scrutinised Bill. To elaborate on that brief moment of cross-party agreement, I, too, pay tribute to all Members who served on the Committee, the Clerks, and the officials who helped pull together a substantial legislative moment in the parliamentary calendar—albeit that the Bill does not do much to help the economy or do much good for the country at large. I am afraid the Bill offers just more of the same: carrying on regardless of the urgent need for action to stimulate our economy.

We know that the Chancellor, scarred as he was from the omnishambles Budget in 2012, decided to go in the opposite direction this year and produce a Budget that contained so little of any import or substance that the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility said on page 42 of its Budget report, that the Bill would have

“no impact on the level of GDP at the end of the forecast horizon…these measures reduce GDP growth”

in 2013. It is a Finance Bill that sees the economy moving backwards.

This is in the context of a great deal of humiliation for the Chancellor, including the downgrading by not just one but two credit rating agencies. The cherished prize that was supposed to be at the heart of the Government’s strategy—retaining and defending that benchmark triple A status—is gone. Then, of course, as we saw in the most recent figures, there was the humiliation of a rising deficit, not a fall in levels of borrowing.

This Finance Bill has its priorities all wrong. The lowlights include there being little on growth, but yet persisting with the cut to the top rate of income tax. It means that the fortunate 13,000 people who earn more than £1 million a year will get a lovely, juicy tax cut of £100,000, while typical families will be £891 worse off this year on average because of the changes to tax and benefits introduced since 2010. There are failures in a number of different ways, but it has been particularly piquant this evening to focus on the Government’s largesse and the City tax cut to the stamp duty reserve tax that gives £150 million to the investment manager community.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a former investment manager, but I wonder what his view is of that change.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s indulgence in allowing me to intervene, and to answer his question, no I am not. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cut to the top rate of tax and the house tax that Labour wants to introduce. Yesterday, I sat through the debate on Report, and the Opposition Front-Bench speaker was unable to say whether, if Labour get into government in 2015, it would increase the rate of tax and introduce a house tax. For the record, will the hon. Gentleman say whether that is the intention of the Labour party, or is it again just fine words but no real meat?

[Chris Leslie]

Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, but unfortunately for the rest of us, there are still two years of this Parliament to go. He has probably two years of employment left in his parliamentary career and although we think there should be a Labour Member in his seat, we will miss him.

In two years’ time, we will set out the detail in our manifesto. When the Conservatives are in opposition after the general election, we hope to implement a radical manifesto that actually does something to benefit our economy. Today, we would implement a mansion tax that would raise a significant sum that we would give away as a tax cut for lower and middle-income households with a new 10p band of income tax. Government Members struggle with this, but we will judge what needs to be in the manifesto in two years’ time when we can judge the needs of the economy.

Government Members think they already know what their fate will be in 2015, hence the Chancellor coming forward with his cuts programme for 2015 when any responsible Chancellor would be rolling his sleeves up this summer and getting on with bringing forward capital infrastructure investment and doing something to stimulate the economy now. There is nothing in the Budget, nothing in the spending review and, more to the point, nothing in the Finance Bill to help growth. Indeed, the most interesting measures are conspicuous by their absence. There is no mansion tax, although there is provision for an annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which usefully illustrates that it is feasible to move in that direction.

[Lady Hermon]

In an earlier intervention on the Minister I asked about air passenger duty. In the context of Northern Ireland, would the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues agree to reduce air passenger duty? Rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland will be difficult to do if this matter is not addressed. Where do the Opposition stand on reducing air passenger duty more generally?

[Chris Leslie]

I am sorry that we did not have the opportunity to consider this matter on Report. I think it was given some consideration in Committee. I think we are still waiting for the Government’s review to come to fruition—I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to confirm that—and we need to see the evidence. If we feel that any changes in tax and in spending are necessary, we want to spell out clearly where we would get the resources to pay for them. The fact that the Government have ignored not just our advice—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Can we stop the chuntering from Front Bench to Front Bench while someone is trying to speak? Minister, you were listened to in silence and with proper courtesy, so it would be good if you showed that same courtesy to the shadow Minister. Perhaps Ministers and shadow Ministers could pay attention rather than shout at each other.

[Chris Leslie]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your protection from the sedentary chuntering of Government Members. They ignore anything they hear, not just from the Opposition but from the International Monetary Fund, which has pointed out that this has been the slowest recovery for a century. There has been barely 1% growth since the 2010 spending review, and the Chancellor predicted there would be 6% growth by now. Living standards have fallen and many families are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Life is much harder.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the important pursuit of growth. Will he enlighten the House on what happened to his party’s five-point plan for growth, including his commitment to a reduction in VAT?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

We are desperately keen for the Government to bring forward any measures—whether measures on VAT or bringing forward capital infrastructure—that would stimulate growth. Any Chancellor worth his or her salt would have used last week’s statement in the House to make at least a passing reference to the importance of growth in the economy, but there was absolutely nothing, and the same goes for this Bill.

The problem is not just the neglect of growth and living standards; it is the Government’s failures on borrowing and the deficit, which should be to their shame. They have been totally unable to deliver the promises they made on deficit reduction. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office can tell his constituents that the deficit was £118.5 billion in 2011-12 and £118.7 billion in 2012-13. Even he, with all his skill and acumen, can tell that that is an increase in the level of borrowing from that year to this. No wonder the Government find it an uncomfortable fact that they have failed on their promise and are not on course to balance the books in 2015 as they said they would. That was their solemn promise to the electorate. It is a busted flush.

This Bill is a reflection of the fact that the Government have no answers. They do not know where to go on this issue. It is time we had a Finance Bill to boost the economy, instead of the Government neglecting their duties to achieve strong and sustained economic growth. This Bill is bereft of the bold measures we need to kick-start Britain’s economy. The country deserves better. We oppose a Third Reading of this Bill.

Finance Bill

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

New clause 9 calls for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, within six months of Royal Assent to the Finance Act, to lay before Parliament proposals for an income tax rate of 10% on a band of income above the personal allowance. The range of income to be covered by that 10% rate should be determined by the Exchequer yield from a mansion tax—a Liberal Democrat proposal that I used to think the Liberal Democrats stood four-square behind. Perhaps in a moment those Liberal Democrats who remain in the Chamber—they are diminishing in number—will tell us a little about where they stand on the issue.

We feel that the full benefit of that 10% or 10p rate of income tax should not be available to taxpayers paying the higher or additional rates—the £50,000-and-above levels, or higher rate payers. It should be targeted and focused on basic rate taxpayers. That is the logic of new clause 9.

We think that the measure would be welcomed across the country, and that all hon. Members, including Conservative Members, should consider it seriously, because living standards are being squeezed, and for most people, life is getting a lot harder, as is manifested by the fact that wages have fallen in real terms. In fact, at the beginning of the year, we saw the steepest fall in living standards since the 1970s. That is a direct consequence of the tax and spending choices and priorities of the Government parties—the tax credit cuts that have hit lower and middle-income households; the squeeze on child benefits; and the rise in the VAT rate to 20%.

[Mr Ruffley]

What does the hon. Gentleman say to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which states that the latest Labour proposal to reintroduce the 10p rate

“has no plausible economic justification. It would complicate the income tax system and achieve nothing that could not be better achieved in other ways”?

[Chris Leslie]

I would say that the aim of the 10p policy should be to encourage people on low incomes to take higher-paid work, to work longer hours and to start the transition up the income scale. That is why it

“is right that we need to introduce a 10p tax rate in the interim; otherwise, people will go straight from their tax-free allowance to being taxed on any income above that.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 37WH.]

Those are not my words but those of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in a debate in favour of a 10p starting rate of tax that was held some months ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ruffley]

I want to return to the question that I asked the hon. Gentleman. Most technical experts say that a 10p rate would complicate the tax system. Let me ask him once again: would not his proposal complicate the tax system? Indeed, was not that the reason why the Labour Government abolished the 10p rate in 2007?

[Chris Leslie]

I would be the first to concede that it was a mistake to abolish the 10p rate in 2007. I do not think that it creates complexity in the tax system. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has long been in favour of simplicity in the number of tax bands, but I believe that there is a genuine debate to be had about progressivity in the income tax system. The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues can see the case for a 10p rate, and I believe that it would be a useful way of introducing a transition from the tax-free personal allowance to the 20p basic rate of tax. A 10p rate would be an important staging post along the way. A tax cut for those on lower and middle incomes would be broadly welcomed throughout the country.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the very nature of progressive taxation to have increasing marginal tax rates as someone earns more money? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that there is therefore a genuine trade-off between social justice and increasing fairness, as people have more money, and tax efficiency. That is fair enough, and we should opt for progressive justice.

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed. Having a 10p band in the income tax scale ensures that we can focus on that sense of fairness. “Fairness” is a word that might not necessarily be recognised by some Government Members, but it is important in our tax system. We know that their idea of fairness is to cut the highest rate of income tax from 50p to 45p. They can justify that in their own terms, and to their own constituents, but we believe that it is far better to focus on giving help by introducing that lower rate straight above the personal allowance.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman wishes to pay for a 10p rate from the proceeds of a mansion tax. Will he advise the House of Labour’s definition of a mansion? Could it, for example, include an one or two-bedroom flat in central London that was lived in by people of rather modest means?

[Chris Leslie]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of the bedroom tax, and we can come to that in a moment. I will come to the details of what a mansion tax would look like. We have looked carefully at the well-crafted and evidently well-thought-through proposal from the Liberal Democrats. They have proposed that properties worth £2 million or more should attract an annual charge, saying that that could net approximately £2 billion. That would allow an income tax band of around £1,000, which would give a tax cut of about £100 to those benefiting from the 10p band.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

It is interesting that the mansion tax could raise £2 billion. I wholeheartedly agree with such a proposal. If we could transfer that £2 billion from the pockets of the wealthy and give it to the poorest, it would undoubtedly find its way back into the economy. That is very much what is needed. We need to push more money into the economy, and to try as best we can to stimulate some kind of growth. We are seeing nothing at the moment.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend has touched on the other argument in favour of the proposal. This is not just a matter of fairness; there is also an economic imperative involved.

I apologise for boring the House about the need for growth and jobs in our economy. That seems to be anathema to some Members on the Government Benches. Many lower and middle income families have suffered increased taxes and cuts to their tax credits, and that is the price that they are paying for the failure of the Government’s economic ideology. The Government promised that all this pain would be worth while. The Chancellor promised that he had done all he needed to do, and that he would not need to come back and ask for more, but what did we see last week? He came back for yet more. That is the price to be paid for the Government’s failed economic plan. The economy is flatlining, and the Government have delivered barely 1% of economic growth since the fabled 2010 spending review in which they promised 6% by now. And let us not forget the rising deficit in the last financial year, up from £118.5 billion in 2011-12 to £118.7 billion in 2012-13. That is a rise in the deficit—

[Mr Newmark]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

And the hon. Gentleman is rising as well. Perhaps he would like to confirm those figures.

[Mr Newmark]

Following on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he shares my concern that many elderly people are asset rich but cash poor. How would his proposal deal with that particular challenge?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am not sure how many elderly people would find themselves in that predicament, but such circumstances ought to be dealt with in the design of a mansion tax. The hon. Gentleman will therefore see the logic of our new clause, which seeks to encourage the Chancellor to introduce proposals within six months. Let us look at the design of them, and think about those rare circumstances in which someone might be living in a £2 million property but have no means by which to pay an annual levy. I imagine that that would be quite rare—it is perhaps quite difficult to believe—but such circumstances might exist. I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat colleagues have thought through all those points when they drew up their carefully crafted proposals. Perhaps there are channels between the coalition parties that we are not party to, and perhaps they exchange information on these matters. I am sure that such a tax could be designed correctly, if not by the Chancellor then by the Office for Budget Responsibility, if that would be a better way of doing it.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am by the Government’s opposition to this proposal? During the previous debate on the top rate of tax, the Minister and Government Back Benchers were suggesting that our proposal would not deliver revenue because people would avoid the tax system. They suggested that a higher rate system would not generate income, but they now seem to be opposed to a proposal for a tax on a fixed asset, which presumably would not move. My hon. Friend is making a valuable contribution and I hope that some Members on the Government Benches will join us in the Lobby later.

[Chris Leslie]

It is the oft-trotted-out claim of the Liberal Democrats that they are there to temper the worst excesses of the Conservative party, and perhaps they do exercise such influence. We all know that the Conservatives are there to defend the wealth of the very wealthiest in society—that is a given—but we want to see whether the Liberal Democrats in the coalition have managed to bend that ideology a little more towards the centre ground of politics and towards the space in which most people would agree that those with the greatest assets and wealth should make a fairer contribution. That would be a good thing to do.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify, for any of my constituents who might inhabit one of those 55,000 properties, that the levy that would be imposed on them would be £36,000? Is that correct?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think that it would necessarily be £36,000. Again, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks with the Liberal Democrats, who have done some careful workings on this. He will be interested to know that the Government have introduced about 90 clauses in the Bill that relate to ATED—annual tax on enveloped dwellings—which is basically code for a mansions tax on properties owned by companies. I recommend that he reads through the 90-odd clauses. Essentially, the Government are introducing a tax on properties worth more than £2 million, with a new annual fee, to be assessed in a very detailed way. He will see that there is a set of bands for the value of the property, from £2 million to £5 million and right up the scale. The Treasury has therefore been doing a lot of work on the issue, and I think that it should be commended, because it is very worth while. When we debated the matter in Committee, we asked what would happen if the annual tax on enveloped dwellings applied not only to properties owned by companies, but to all those worth more than £2 million. That information would allow us to work out properly what the rates would be.

[Mr Burrowes]

There is a real question of financial competence, particularly in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s boss, so can he substantiate his argument, because it is his new clause that we are discussing? He needs to give us answers. My maths is not so good, so can he tell me, if he wants to raise £2 billion, how much the levy would be for 55,000 properties?

[Chris Leslie]

That is precisely why we think the proposal needs the Treasury’s support—to ensure that we can see what the levy would be. To return to our new clause, we think that the Liberal Democrats make a reasonable point that £2 billion could be raised on properties worth more than £2 million. We have not included those figures in our new clause; we have simply said that the Exchequer Secretary should study the issue and consider a 10p income tax rate band, to be funded by the proceeds of a mansion tax. That obviously depends on how wide the 10p band would be, so it is obviously moveable and that would flow through into the figures on the mansions tax.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

Perhaps the Government are going to accept the new clause.

[Mr Gauke]

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. He says that the Labour party’s objective is to raise £2 billion. Our assessment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has pointed out, is that there are 55,000 properties worth more than £2 million in the country. We have the finest minds in the Treasury working on this, and they have divided £2 billion by 55,000—it did not require a huge amount of work—and ended up with an average of £36,000 a year as the annual levy. That is an average, and there might be some cases where the hon. Gentleman would want a lower rate for those who are property rich but cash poor. Can we just have some clarity? Does the Labour party want an average levy of £36,000 on all properties worth more than £2 million?

[Chris Leslie]

That was a good try by the Exchequer Secretary, and I understand where he is going with that argument, but I am not an estate agent and do not have a figure for the number of properties worth more than £2 million. However, it is very interesting that the Government have started counting the number of such properties. He talks about how the £2 billion would be defrayed across that number, which I am not sure is correct, but of course there would be a banding exercise, with different bands for properties worth more than £2 million, and we would see how far that goes. That is precisely why we need the Treasury to share some of its calculations with us. I am sure that it must be more than a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation from the Exchequer Secretary. Let us do the work, publish the findings— [Interruption.] Well, I will give way to him if he will agree to publish that work. Will he publish the internal Treasury assessment of the policy, because it would be very helpful?

[Mr Gauke]

Short of showing the workings, £2 billion divided by 55,000 is £36,000. The hon. Gentleman says that there would be different bands, but we would still end up with an average of £36,000. He will also find that most of the properties worth more than £2 million are worth only slightly more—between £2 million and £3 million. He will not find huge numbers of properties worth between £5 million and £10 million and so on. He has all the numbers he needs. I think that we can move on to the next debate.

[Chris Leslie]

I know that the Liberal Democrats support the Government on that and note the sedentary remarks from one of only two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber today. It is typical of the Treasury to hold back key information on these facts and figures. We need to know where those properties are and what valuations have been made. The Exchequer Secretary has done the work on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, but he did not say that he would publish those findings. I think that we might be about to reach some consensus on this, because he is suggesting that the Treasury has done some work on it secretly, rather like the secrets held back in the spending review document, which was so thin that we still do not really know where the cuts have hit. Why does he not publish that information and start telling us how that could work in those circumstances? Will he publish it?

[Mr Gauke]

Actually, I quoted the figure of 55,000, which appears to have come as a huge surprise to the hon. Gentleman, several times when we had a similar debate in Committee. Admittedly, he was not dealing with the matter; his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) was. The figure has been in the public domain for some time. Has he done any work on the matter?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not know how simple I need to make the point for the Exchequer Secretary, so I will do so very slowly and particularly. The new clause suggests that the Treasury—that means him, by the way—should publish some proper, worked-through evidence on where those properties lie across the country, how a banding proposal might work and what the options for the width of the 10p starting rate of income tax might be. By the way, he did not say a word about whether or not he supports a 10p starting rate of income tax.

[Geraint Davies]

Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the figure of 55,000 is a complete red herring. It is being said that housing wealth should be progressively taxed, and that the current council tax rates are out of date. Some of these properties are worth much more than £2 million, and perhaps even £10 million—we hear stories about Russian oligarchs and all the rest of it. Add to that the Chancellor’s strategy to generate more sub-prime debt by offering cut-price mortgage deals, and we will presumably have a progressive system of different rates and a thought-out new council tax regime that would be progressive, and we would not end up with everyone paying £36,000 at all, and the Minister knows it.

[Chris Leslie]

That is why we must ensure that we move the issue forward and get some proper workings from the Treasury—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seems to think that he has all the answers, so why do the Government not publish them? What is going on with Government Members? They should share these things in the public domain. Do we really have to make a freedom of information request to Ministers in order to get those data?

[Mr Newmark]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto—I know that he has his own signed copy—said that they would introduce a mansion tax at the rate of 1% on properties worth more than £2 million, paid on the value of property above that level. We looked closely at the workings they did on the issue. They suggested that £2 billion of revenue could be raised. If that was extrapolated through to the 10p band, the band would be roughly £1,000, but it might not be. We should look at the details.

[Mr Newmark]

I know that maths is not the hon. Gentleman’s strongest suit, because in Committee we heard that he could raise £2 billion from £1.85 billion in bonus taxes. The Minister has been very clear that £2 billion divided by 55,000 is £36,000 on average. Does the hon. Gentleman at least accept the principle that this is going to cost taxpayers £36,000 per household on average, not in relation to bands?

[Chris Leslie]

The Government have apparently undertaken their own valuation exercise, perhaps stealthily, so they could publish the information on the numbers of properties across the country. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister, with his 16 special advisers, fanned out across the country to look at the issue. I do not know how they found out the 55,000 figure. If the hon. Gentleman has that information and publishes it, I will be interested to see it, but I am afraid I cannot be certain that it is the correct figure. Labour Members have to be very careful and cautious in taxation matters. We want to make sure that all the figures are very clear and well worked through instead of taking the Exchequer Secretary’s back-of-a-fag-packet approach. I take it as a commitment from him that all this information will be published in the public domain, and then perhaps we can work on devising this measure in a less partisan way.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that Government Members appear to have been sitting down with their pocket calculators regarding the mansion tax, but none of them has come up with how much ordinary taxpayers who pay the basic rate of tax would benefit from the 10p proposal?

[Chris Leslie]

It is all because their focus is on protecting the wealth of the wealthiest. Ducks go quack and Conservatives defend wealth and privilege. It is in their DNA; it is how they operate.

[Bob Stewart]

On the 10% tax rate, I understand graduated taxation in principle, but a lot of people who pay the higher rate of tax are not very rich. Paragraph (3) of the new clause says:

“The full benefit of the 10 per cent rate shall not be available to taxpayers paying the higher or additional rates of tax.”

That seems to be pretty unfair on some people.

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thought on this issue, but I disagree. I do understand that more and more people are being brought into the 40p rate. That is another stealthy move by the Chancellor as he broadens out the 40p band. In the interests of fairness, our concern has to be with basic rate taxpayers on the 20p rate. There are 25 million basic rate taxpayers, and if revenue is to be generated from a mansion tax, then most of our efforts should be focused on that group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said, that group in society feel under the most pressure and are finding it hardest to get by and to make ends meet, and they would therefore benefit most from this tax cut. It is an important point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it.

[Mr Redwood]

I wish to make a procedural point. Does not the shadow Minister accept that when a Minister asks his officials for some information and they research it, and he then comes to the House to impart that information to us, that is publishing the information? I know that that will come as a shock to a Labour shadow Minister, because Labour Ministers always made sure that somebody else was told rather than Parliament, but I rather like the fact that the Minister researches this, takes us seriously and tells us the answer. Why cannot we now work from the published answer?

[Chris Leslie]

Obviously I believe every word that the Exchequer Secretary utters, because it would be unparliamentary to do otherwise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am asking for just a little bit more from him. I just want to see the detail that the Treasury has produced on the mansion tax proposition. It would be entirely possible for him to put that in the public domain. I am sure that even Liberal Democrats would like to see it and would find it of interest, as would other hon. Members.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we seem to have got involved in a debate that is certainly not the debate that the Deputy Prime Minister was engaged in as recently as February when he talked about the advantages of a 1% levy on properties over £2 million or the possibility of extending council tax bands? It seems a bit strange that he was in favour of that and, presumably, his hon. Friends are in favour of it. Perhaps that is what we should really be talking about.

[Chris Leslie]

On 24 February the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“Victor Hugo observed that it is near impossible to resist an idea once its time is come…He was again proved right as calls for a mansion tax, first proposed by the Liberal Democrats in 2009, gathered new momentum…I offer certainty: the mansion tax, or a version of it, will happen.”

We all know that when he is determined to get these things through, he is a very persuasive individual.

In clause 97—on page 57 at about line 27, for those who are interested—there is a table of the amount chargeable under the mansion tax for homes owned by companies, which is, in essence, what the Government are proposing. For properties worth between £2 million and £5 million, the annual chargeable amount would be £15,000 a year; for those worth between £5 million and £10 million, it would be £35,000; for those worth between £10 million and £20 million, it would be £70,000; and for those worth more than £20 million, it would be £140,000. That is the Government’s half-hearted attempt at a mansion tax. Thankfully, we have it in black and white—well, black and green—in this Bill. We tabled the new clause because we would like to see equivalent detail on how a mansion tax would work on a range of different widths of the 10p tax rate band, and then we can make a judgment about what change it is reasonable and prudent to implement.

My hon. Friends are right to start to focus on the other part of the pantomime horse. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats are sometimes in the lead on these issues in the coalition. They are in a very precarious position on the mansion tax. Having advocated it for so long, they have consistently found ways and means to vote against it whenever it has been presented to the House. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrat present in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton), wants to say how he is going to vote today, but I live in hope. In a spirit of cross-party consensus, I hope that he will agree with his noble Friend Lord Ashdown, who warned those in his party before the last time they changed their minds on this issue that it would be “weird” for fellow Liberal Democrats to vote against such things. The Business Secretary said:

“It depends entirely on how they phrase it. If it is purely a statement of support for the principle of the mansion tax I’m sure my colleagues would want to support it.”

That was like the version of the amendment that we tabled previously. We did not get very far with it on that occasion, so this time we have tried a proposal that explicitly talks about passing on the revenue to those who need it most of all through the 10p rate of income tax.

The proposal has not been plucked from the air. Other jurisdictions have equivalent property charges at certain levels. I gather that in New York City, which is hardly a bastion of socialism, owners of properties worth more than $3 million—roughly £2 million—can find that they need to pay the equivalent of £22,000 a year under their form of mansion tax. The Treasury’s own documents have blown apart the argument that the Exchequer Secretary used to deploy, which was “This stuff isn’t workable; it would mean mass revaluations of council tax.” All those things have been pushed to one side as the Government propose their brand-new tax—the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. That is clear as the light of day. It has four bands, which suggests that it is entirely feasible.

The documentation on ATED states:

“The aim of the new annual charge is both to deter avoidance and to ensure the owners of high value residential property pay their fair share of tax.”

We can all go along with that. The document continues:

“The interest to which the charge will apply will be the freehold or leasehold interest”.

So far, so good. It also notes that the annual charge will be applied separately to the freehold and the leasehold and that the value of the property interest

“which will be relevant for the annual charge”

will be its value on 1 April 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend will know that there is an increasing trend of international financiers buying London properties in particular as part of their asset portfolio in an uncertain world and that, at the top end of the market, an increasing share of them are owned by Russian oligarchs, oil sheikhs and so on. Does he agree, therefore, that this is a great opportunity to introduce a charge on foreign owners who invest in London—which is fair enough—in order to redistribute some of their massive wealth to the poorest people in Britain?

[Chris Leslie]

Yes, I agree. Governments often ask Oppositions how they will pay for tax cuts for those who need them most. We have given a clear example of one possible option. It is important to show that there is a fair way to give a tax cut to the vast majority of lower and middle-income households through the introduction of the new 10p band. The mansion tax is feasible and has cross-party support, as indeed does the 10p starting rate, and the Minister’s arguments are diminishing by the day, to the extent that we have managed to get him to lift the skirt of the data and publish more of them, which is what we want to see.

It is important to consider the arguments for fairness behind the 10p starting rate, which we think would provide a good tax incentive into work, especially for those on lower incomes. It is widely supported, especially by those Conservative Members who were champing at the bit only a matter of months ago when they tried to persuade the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to consider the proposal. Conservative Back Benchers have managed to get the Government on the run on their favoured topics, including an EU referendum and a tax break for married couples. They have the bit between their teeth, so perhaps we can persuade them to consider the 10p tax rate, too.

The principle of fair taxation is at stake in this debate. It should transcend party differences. We should be looking at funding a tax cut, not defending the wealth of the wealthiest. If the Government really mean it when they say that we are all in this together, the time has come for a mansion tax to help those most in need. The Government have a history of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest—they have already reduced the 50p rate, thereby giving millionaires a tax cut—and they have hit pensioners with what came to be known as the granny tax.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I seem to have provoked the hon. Gentleman.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If the 10p rate is such a good idea, why did the previous Labour Government get rid of it?

[Chris Leslie]

I did say earlier—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber—that it was a mistake to get rid of it in 2007. There were arguments. The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the issues. The basic rate of income tax had been reduced and calculations had to be made about how to pay for it. I think, however, that the right thing to do is to take these steps and have progressivity in the income tax scale.

It is wrong to hurt those in society who are most in need. They are paying the price and life is getting harder for them because the Government’s economic plan has failed. We need to concentrate on the contribution that the wealthiest 1% in society should make. They should pay a fairer share and we should make sure that that money goes to the vast majority—25 million people—on lower and middle incomes.

[Geraint Davies]

In essence this debate is about political choices and not just the technical efficiencies of marginal rates of tax. When this Government took over from Labour in 2010, two thirds of the deficit had been created by the banking community and a third by pump-priming in response to the financial tsunami after a history of sustained growth under the Labour Government. The new Government decided to focus not on growth, but on cuts to get down the deficit, which was a fundamental error that has led to a flatlining economy. They then had to decide who should bear the brunt in order to pay down the deficit—80% in cuts and 20% in taxes—and the answer that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came up with was that it should be the poorest who were hit hardest.

The recent spending review and infrastructure plans replayed the same Tory agenda: the cuts will hit hardest in the poorest areas, including Wales and the north, and 80% of the investment in infrastructure for growth will benefit London and the south-east in order to shore up the Tory and coalition votes. This new clause is about making a move in the other direction so that the very rich make a slightly greater contribution, which will be redistributed to people in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

We had certainly always understood that the Liberals supported a mansion tax, but every time the opportunity comes up to consider it, vote on it or even speak about it, they seem conspicuously absent.

The differences between London and the rest of the country, on property prices and other issues, are a serious matter. The gap is increasing, and we should all be seriously concerned about the impact of that on the whole UK. It has happened during nearly all previous recessions, after which Governments of all parties have sought to restore some balance and encourage economic growth in places outside the south-east. We always seem to be running to stand still. The situation is serious, and we should consider it.

Jobs and people are being sucked southwards in quite a big way, and local government finance now works in such a way that there are huge differences. In many areas, for example the north-east of England, the loss of public sector jobs and income for local government means that there are no jobs for people who have just qualified as teachers, for instance. All the jobs are in the south-east. We should be worried about that. We should not wait for three, five or 10 years and then say that we have to do something to redress the balance.

Property taxes do have significant advantages over income taxes. We hear a lot about the mobility of income. One argument that has always been made against raising income tax rates—it was made against the 50p tax rate when it was introduced and has been made in favour of reducing it—has been that people will leave the country or not come here. It has been argued that, faced with that tax, people will simply move elsewhere and we will not attract people here. The one advantage of a property tax—it has been an advantage of council tax and its predecessor the rates—is that it is much harder to evade or avoid, because the property is actually there. There is a significant place in our fiscal balance for property taxation.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the mansion tax. Has she followed the Government’s argument on clauses 97 and beyond, which are about the annual tax on enveloped dwellings? Has she noticed over the past hour that Government Members have not made a single argument against the administration and operation of a mansion tax? All that they can come up with is particular cases and arguments about how many properties will be affected. The administration of a mansion tax would not involve changes to council tax or other such matters. The annual charge could be used as a broad foundation of a mansion tax.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful steer towards the point that it might not be as difficult as some people assert to implement something of that kind. The advantage of property taxation is that it is more solid than income taxation, as we have clearly seen. Worryingly, the biggest reason some people give for why the 50p tax rate does not raise as much as they thought it would is that people were able to move income forward and back. Income is quite mobile.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

New clause 9 proposes the introduction of an income tax rate of 10p on a band of income determined by the Exchequer yield of a mansion tax. Let me explain why the Government do not believe that the new clause is sensible

We are already helping people on low and middle incomes by means of the tax system. In May 2010, the coalition agreement set out our commitment to making the first £10,000 of income free from income tax by the end of the Parliament. In April we increased the personal allowance to £9,440—that was the largest ever cash increase—and it will rise again, by a further £560, to reach £10,000 in 2014-15, meeting this Government’s commitment a whole year early.

Opposition Members clearly think that it would be better to introduce a starting rate of income tax, but let us not forget that they introduced a 10% rate once before and then scrapped it, to the cost of many of the people further down the income scale whom they claim to want to help. We have replaced the 10p rate that they doubled with successive increases in the tax-free personal allowance which effectively provide a 0% band. Our changes in the personal allowance have already more than compensated those who lost out when the 10% rate was abolished. In fact, since April 2013, those who lost the most as a result of the last Government’s policy have paid no income tax at all.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies,

“the proposal for a new 10p starting rate of income tax, has no plausible economic justification. It would complicate the income tax system and achieve nothing that could not be better achieved in other ways.”

The IFS says:

“A far simpler and more sensible way of achieving these aims would be to spend the same amount of money on increasing the personal allowance...This would have virtually the same impact on individuals’ tax payments… be slightly more progressive, take some people out of income tax altogether and avoid the complexity involved in introducing a new income tax rate.”

Proposed subsection (2) of the new clause proposes the introduction of a mansion tax to pay for the proposed introduction of a 10p rate. That proposal has already been debated a number of times in the House, and the Government’s position is clear. The coalition parties have different views, but the view of my party is that a mansion tax is not the answer.

We expressed our concern in the Public Bill Committee, during a debate on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. As we made clear then, a third of the properties in London that are worth over £2 million have been owned by the same people for more than 10 years. Many of those people, such as elderly owners whose properties had increased substantially in value during that period, would be faced with an average tax of £36,000 every year, and could be forced out of their homes. Moreover, families or other owners of high-value homes would not necessarily have the liquid income that would enable them to pay the tax. A mansion tax could hit asset-rich but potentially income-poor households.

[Chris Leslie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will in a moment. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s question, and will listen to it attentively. Before I do so, however, I should acknowledge his assurance that there would be a case for some type of mitigation for people in the circumstances to which I have just referred. That would, of course, have an impact on the yield, and the average of £36,000 would increase.

[Chris Leslie]

With whom do the Minister’s sympathies lie most? Do they lie most with the householder faced with the hardships of the bedroom tax, or with the householder faced with having to deal with the mansion tax?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me reply by echoing what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions during Question Time this afternoon. For all that we hear from Labour Members about the so-called bedroom tax—the spare-room subsidy—they have given no indication that they would reverse the current Government’s policy. For all the bluster on that—[Interruption.] Let me make this point. Labour Members should be straightforward about the fact that their policy would have an impact on, for example, elderly widows who have lived for many years in a property whose value has increased. Would they seek to address that?

In addition, the mansion tax would not be precisely targeted at the very wealthy. It would not take into account the number of properties owned. Therefore, a person owning two properties valued at £1.9 million each would not fall within its scope but a family owning a £2 million home would, even though their property wealth was much lower. Any mansion tax would be complex to introduce and administratively burdensome for HMRC to operate. It would come at a cost for taxpayers, not to mention that it would be intrusive for the person having their home inspected.

I know that the essence of Labour’s argument is that we already have the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. However, that is a very targeted tax. Essentially, only 1,000 properties are likely to be affected by it, so it applies to only a very small group of taxpayers. HMRC can therefore administer the tax manageably, relying on self-assessment, with a limited number of inquiries. A mansion tax would affect a much larger number of taxpayers and require greater administration and valuation, which would make it much more expensive, time consuming and difficult to collect.

[Chris Leslie]

I am interested in the fact that the Minister thinks that the analogy is not applicable. How, though, would the administration of the mansion tax be more time consuming? The owner of the property would have responsibility for the valuation. It would not be more onerous for HMRC in that respect, if it were to follow the design of the ATED arrangements.

[Mr Gauke]

We do not believe that that model could be scaled up to apply more generally. A proper valuation process will be needed if the mansion tax is a much less targeted tax. Let me give the Labour party a degree of credit, however. The hon. Gentleman said that Oppositions are often asked how they would pay for a measure, and the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said that Labour has a policy to pay for this proposal. However, under the mildest of questioning, the policy appeared to unravel before our eyes. The target yield is £2 billion. I repeat a number that I gave some weeks ago in Committee: the Treasury believes that 55,000 properties are valued at above that level. We undertook that research to cost the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. That is the number. A very simple calculation gives us an average of £36,000 a year. Rather than Labour saying, “We accept that. That is how we will pay for this. That is how we will get a yield of £2 billion,” it is sliding away from the policy. It is not accepting that that is the consequence of what it is advocating. If it thinks that £36,000 is too steep—maybe it does not, maybe it does—it should acknowledge that, but that is the average cost. I suspect that Labour does think that it is too steep and that is why the £2 million threshold is under threat. That is why, to raise £2 billion, any Government would have to apply the mansion tax to lower down the property ladder. That is why a tax that is designed for the few will become a tax for the many. The tax is ill thought out. Either it will result in very high sums being levied on small groups, or it will not raise anything like the yield that the Labour party claims it will and it will apply more generally.

Introducing a mansion tax would create real fairness issues by hitting asset-rich but potentially income-poor households. It would serve only to create complexity and uncertainty. The personal allowance is the most effective way to support those on low and middle incomes, because it enables people to keep more of their money. It is a better policy than reintroducing the 10p rate of income tax. The Government have made huge strides to make a fairer society and a stronger economy. All elements of the new clause are flawed. I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) to withdraw the motion.

[Chris Leslie]

I can assure the Minister that he is wrong to have concerns that anyone is looking to apply the policy to properties below £2 million in value. I can assure him that Gauke Towers will be safe, unless of course in leafy Hertfordshire that property has now increased in value to that level. Perhaps the Valuation Office Agency could give us an estimate, but I assure him that that is not the intention. We simply urge the Government to come clean on the research, which we now understand the Treasury has commissioned.

We now have a couple of Liberal Democrats in the Chamber, albeit looking at their iPhones—[Interruption.] Their Samsung Galaxys—my apologies. They will be interested to know that the Treasury has commissioned research into the feasibility of a mansion tax, so now we know that it is worth a freedom of information request to try to elicit the information. Let us draw out the information.

The Minister mentioned that there are 55,000 properties worth £2 million or above. The Liberal Democrat manifesto promise may well yet come to fruition. We know that the Liberal Democrats put a lot of effort into pulling together the detailed figures on the proposal. We were persuaded of the case and now it looks as though slowly but surely the Treasury is coming into that frame of mind, too.

It is right that we focus on finding a way to support a tax cut that would supplement the personal allowance zero rating. The 10p starting rate would be a better and more progressive tax, which could be supported by the hon. Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)—those Conservative Members who have voiced the case in favour of a 10p starting rate of income tax in recent months.

We know that the annual tax on enveloped dwellings could be the foundation upon which the administration of the policy could work. I was not convinced by the Minister’s argument that there was no read-across from that new tax, which the Treasury is introducing in this Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and for Telford (David Wright) spoke eloquently about the economic benefits that could arise if the new 10p band were in place for lower and middle-income households. That money could feed through into the economy more directly and in a progressive way. The hardship and the tax rises that we have seen from the coalition parties have not reduced the deficit, which is going up. Unfortunately, that is the price being paid for the Government’s failed economic plan.

We still hope to persuade the Government that steps can be taken to help people on lower and middle incomes this year. Let us get the Treasury to publish that work. Now we know that research has been commissioned, let us have it published and in the public domain. It could help to stimulate the economy and help the many people who are finding life much harder under this Government. The concept of a mansion tax, asking those with considerable wealth to pay a fairer share to help those on more modest means, is an idea whose time has come.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

In my neck of the woods, there are not too many people with £2 million houses. There may well be in Nottingham East. This issue was raised earlier, but will the hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear whether the Labour party’s plans for the mansion tax include farmhouses?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think that our plans do. We would look at mansions—that form of housing accommodation. However, I would be prepared to see whether the Treasury study, which could be commissioned under the new clause, could look at whether farmhouses would be ruled out. We would be happy to look at such questions. We should, however, be looking at personal estates of £2 million and more in that built-mansion context. That is the nature of the proposition before us. In clause 97 and beyond, definitions of property are set out in respect of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. They provide a series of exemptions and set out where the line should be drawn in terms of farmhouses and so forth. I recommend those clauses to the hon. Gentleman, as they may well serve as a guide to how a mansion tax could work in future.

We need that work to be undertaken, however. This new clause does not seek instantly to implement the Liberal Democrat proposition. It simply seeks to find ways of building on that as a basis on which to look at the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, thinking of how that might apply to a mansion tax, and in particular using that revenue to help 25 million basic rate taxpayers. That is the objective. We have got to give more help to those who are finding it difficult to make ends meet. That is why I commend this new clause to the House.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

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

New clause 6 is a technical amendment designed to give a belt-and-braces protection to prevent any possible attempt to avoid the incidence of the bank levy on the part of banks in a particular respect. Paragraph 70 of schedule 19 of the Finance Act 2011 specifies that high-quality liquid assets held by banks are not liable for the levy. This is to make sure that there is no disincentive for banks to hold assets that give liquidity protection in the event of a crisis. By their nature, the return on such assets is small, and without relief the bank levy would reduce the margins, making it uneconomic to hold such assets. It was always envisaged that the definition of assets covered would be the same as that of the high-quality liquid assets recognised by the regulator —now the Prudential Regulation Authority.

It has come to the attention of HMRC that some banks were contemplating arguing that a wider definition of assets might apply, against the intention of the original legislation. In fact, the Government do not believe that the current legislation can be interpreted in this wider way, and HMRC could and would make a legal challenge against any bank engaging in this. However, such a challenge would take some time to be heard, and in the meantime other banks could follow suit and attempt to use a wider interpretation. I hope that the House will agree that the most straightforward way to proceed is to amend the relevant Act to put the matter beyond doubt by defining high-quality liquid assets explicitly as

“assets that are eligible for inclusion in a firm’s regulatory liquid assets buffer”.

It is right that the new clause should be applicable from the introduction of the bank levy in 2011, as the Government have been clear from the outset that this was the intention. For example, the Government’s consultation document in October 2010 stated that the deduction would be for those assets

“which meet the FSA definition of high quality liquid assets for the purposes of inclusion in the liquidity buffer”.

I hope that the House will agree that it is right to move quickly to close the scintilla of a possibility that ingenious lawyers could help any bank to avoid paying its full contribution to the levy.

[Chris Leslie]

It is good to see the Minister popping up in the debates on the Finance Bill for the first time, at the eleventh hour. [Interruption.] That is not true; I apologise. He took part in Committee of the whole House, although he did not do the heavy lifting in Committee upstairs. Perhaps it seems now as though it never happened.

This is an interesting little Government new clause. Because of the hour, it would not be surprising if hon. Members’ eyes glazed over and they did not necessarily spot what is going on, but this is an admission from the Government that their bank levy has not been successful. In fact, they are having retrospectively to adjust the rules around the bank levy to make sure that they can net in the supposed £2.5 billion of revenue that the Prime Minister, no less, promised it would yield.

Let us recall the facts about the bank levy. In the last financial year, 2012-13, the bank levy did not bring in £2.5 billion, it did not even bring in £2 billion—it brought in a pathetic £1.6 billion. We should not forget that that does not include the cut in corporation tax that the Chief Secretary and others collaborating in the coalition gave away to the banks at that time. In other words, it raised a net £1.4 billion—a shortfall of over £1 billion on the amount that the Government said that it was supposed to produce. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and others in the Chamber, could certainly think of ways in which £1 billion of revenue could be put to good use. That was the giveaway that the design of the bank levy set in train for the banks. It raised not £2.5 billion but just £1.4 billion in the last financial year.

It is worse than that, because in the previous financial year, 2011-12, the bank levy raised just £1.8 billion. Deducting from that the £100 million in corporation tax, it raised a net £1.7 billion. The levy has not brought in the money it should have. The Government said that it would raise £2.5 billion, but in total it has brought in £1.9 billion—nearly £2 billion—which is less than they said it would raise.

If any other Department promised to bring in £5 billion over those two financial years but raised only £3 billion, there should and would be outrage. However, given that the Treasury hide a lot of these issues in the complex lexicon of bank taxation, many would be forgiven for not spotting that this is an absolute scandal.

[John Mann]

I thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to suggest what this money could be spent on. The infrastructure projects of Serlby Park school and Elkesley bridge—not started in three years under this Government—are shovel-ready and could immediately be commenced. I have launched a campaign today to send a postcard a day to the Chancellor until he gets his shovel out and starts work on them.

[Chris Leslie]

That is the point. The Government like to say that they are trying their best to bring in revenues, but when it comes to the banks and the wealthy they have a blind spot. Is that any wonder when nearly £2 billion of bank levy money has gone uncollected over the past two financial years?

Will the Minister give us an absolute, cast-iron commitment that the £2.5 billion from both 2011-12 and 2012-13 will retrospectively be brought into the Treasury? That, as a basic minimum, should be the intention of this new clause, although I do not necessarily think that it is the only tweak that will have to be made to the bank levy. Can we be sure that the lost £2 billion will be brought into the Treasury?

Will the Minister confirm that, by making this change, he is in effect ceding the bank levy policy to the regulators? If tax deductibility for liquid asset buffers is to be set by the regulators, does that not mean that bank levy policy will henceforth be in the hands of the Financial Policy Committee and the Prudential Regulation Authority? Will the Minister explain the consequences of last week’s decision by the Financial Policy Committee to relax the liquidity buffer rules for many of the banks? That big change will reduce significantly the amount of liquidity that banks are required to hold. That could be good news, because it may mean that there will be less tax deductibility for bank levy purposes. Will the bank levy be allowed to rise above £2.5 billion—that would be welcome—or will the Minister adjust the revenue available back down to £2.5 billion for each financial year even though the liquidity deductibility is not relevant in this particular case?

Will the Minister also explain whether the regulators will be given the right in statute to define equity or other liabilities? Other aspects of the bank levy that are enshrined in legislation could nevertheless be affected by the regulators, such as the definition of capital requirement.

I want a sense of what the new clause will do. We know that the Government are soft on the bankers because they do not want to repeat the bonus levy, which will result in a big tax cut for those bankers who did very well on their bonuses—they went up 64% in one month—in April. We also know that the millionaires’ tax cut has handed 643 bankers in this country a tax cut of at least £54,000 a year, so they are doing very well. We want to hear commitments on the bank levy. Will the Minister bring in the full £2.5 billion for financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13?

[Greg Clark]

I am glad to respond to this short debate.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) listened to my remarks earlier, in which I said that the purpose of the new clause was not to raise additional revenue, but to protect the assumptions that were there from the outset. It was always envisaged, going right back to the consultation documents that the Government published before introducing the levy, that the deduction had to be in line with the regulatory requirement. It was a rumour that legal advice was being taken on whether liquid assets could be deducted that went beyond that regulatory buffer which caused us, in anticipation, to close off that possibility and to emphasise that this definition was always what was intended and that there should be no possibility of wriggling out of it. I hope he would acknowledge that that is sensible.

The new clause is not one of the measures that we are taking to increase the yield of the levy. That is dealt with elsewhere. It will protect the yield that was always assumed would be made by the levy. As the hon. Gentleman raises the question of the yield, he will recall our debates in Committee of the whole House on the new clauses that I moved to increase the rate of the bank levy, reflecting our commitment to raise £2.5 billion from it. He will know that in the Budget earlier this year, the Office for Budget Responsibility made its assessments on the basis of the proposed increase in the levy that we have set out. This year, rather than raising £2.5 billion, the OBR forecasts that we will raise £2.7 billion. Next year and for every subsequent year, the OBR estimates that the levy will raise £2.9 billion. That means that we will recoup the under-collection of the bank levy. It is a new levy and it is not always possible to know exactly what such a levy will raise. It has always been clear that the Government intend it to raise at least £2.5 billion. The OBR’s central estimate is that we will more than recoup the requirement that we set out.

[Chris Leslie]

The Minister has said that there will be a £200 million increase above the £2.5 billion for this financial year. However, we have established that the Government are £2 billion behind the curve. There is £2 billion to be recouped. The Minister is culpable for the loss of significant sums of money. He has not given any commitments on that. It would be wrong if he did not go back to the drawing board and think again about this issue.

[Greg Clark]

Our commitment is clear that we will raise £2.5 billion a year. The amendments that we have made to the Bill will do precisely that. We have introduced a permanent bank levy, in contrast to the one-off tax that the Labour party imposed on the banks. During 13 years in government, the only bank levy that the Labour party introduced was, in effect, a levy by the banks on the taxpayer. This levy is the opposite of that: the taxpayer is benefiting from revenue from the banks.

It is right that we target the £2.5 billion yield that we have always had in mind. In addition, when we spot opportunities that might be taken to avoid the levy, we should close them. That is what the new clause does.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Anti-abuse measures

‘(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall review the possibility of bringing forward measures as part of the GAAR to work in conjunction with other G8 countries to require multi-national companies to publish a single easily comparable statement of the amount of corporation tax they pay in the UK.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the effect of incorporating a global standard for public registration of ownership of companies and trusts via a convention on tax transparency, including a requirement on companies to publish a single easily comparable statement of the amount of corporation tax they pay in the UK, on Treasury tax receipts.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consider, when counteracting tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive, what steps HM Government could take, working alongside developing country governments, to assess how UK companies could report their use of tax schemes that have an impact on developing countries, and how the UK could assist in the recovery of that tax.

(4) Within six months of the passage of Royal Assent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall place copies of the review in the House of Commons Library, and consult with G8 countries on their effectiveness.’.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 300.

Investing in Britain’s Future

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

What a lot of hot air from the Chief Secretary. Haven’t we heard it all before? Plenty of empty promises. But I must ask: when will the Government pull their finger out and actually start to build some of these things?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been sent out with this long-winded statement to talk and talk and talk about infrastructure investment, but all the evidence shows that the Government are failing to deliver. As John Cridland, the director general of the CBI said yesterday:

“While the Government talks a good game on infrastructure”—

and I think even that is a bit doubtful—

“we’ve seen too little delivery on the ground so far.”

It is no wonder that the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has described the Government’s plans for infrastructure as

“hot air, a complete fiction”.

Should not the Chief Secretary be listening to his leader—not the Prime Minister, but the Deputy Prime Minister, who said this week:

“The gap between intention, announcement and delivery is quite significant”?

A little more action and a little less Tory from him would not go amiss. Why is the Chief Secretary neglecting the health of our flatlining economy, and why was there nothing—I repeat, nothing—in yesterday’s spending review to kick-start a strong and sustainable recovery?

Will the Chief Secretary confirm that this Tory-led Government have spent £5.6 billion less in capital investment over the last three years when compared with the plans they inherited from Labour? No wonder that their plans for construction and growth have been such a total flop. Is he not just a little embarrassed that the infrastructure activity in the British economy collapsed by a staggering 50%—it has halved—in the first three months of this year? Does he not realise that three years of economic stagnation means that this is the slowest recovery for over a century, with just 1% growth compared to the 6% that the Chancellor promised when he started his cuts programme?

The Treasury’s performance on capital infrastructure is lamentable. Just one project has been supported by the Government’s supposed emergency guarantees legislation, which should have underwritten up to £40 billion of infrastructure. Two years ago, the Chancellor told us—I do not know whether he remembers this—that a further £20 billion would be leveraged in from pension funds, yet in March he let slip that only £1 billion had been committed and that no investments had yet been made. Of the 576 projects in the Government’s existing infrastructure pipeline, just seven have been completed and 80% of them have not even started. All the while, the construction sector has lost 84,000 jobs since this Government came to power.

When the Prime Minister said, over 18 months ago, that he would go on

“an all-out mission to unblock the system and get projects underway”,

what happened? All that chillaxing has been at the expense of the recovery that should have been well under way years ago.

Let me ask the Chief Secretary about the detail of his statement. Will he confirm that the Government’s plans for housing construction are stagnant and that no Government have presided over such a low peacetime level of new housing completions since the 1920s? Will he confirm, too, that the local government capital budget, which includes housing, is being cut by over a third—35%—in yesterday’s spending round announcements for 2015. Will he confirm that particular figure? It looks, from the Chancellor’s face, that that is in fact the case. What action is he taking to tackle the lengthening time for both major and minor planning applications to be decided, despite his promise two years ago that they would improve on the 13-week time scale? What happened to that?

On transport, will the Chief Secretary now tell us when he is going to publish the three long-awaited national policy statements on ports, transport networks and aviation? I hope that somebody is keeping an eye on the High Speed 2 budget, which seems to have leapt overnight by £8 billion. It was good that he gave the go-ahead to the Mersey Gateway bridge—again. In fact, he also re-announced the A14 funding, which I think the Chancellor announced two years ago in the November 2011 autumn statement—and in exactly the same words.

On energy and carbon reduction, is not the Renewable Energy Association right to describe the decision to undermine the feed-in tariff rates as “a horrendous strategic mistake”? On shale gas, would it not be sensible to be led by the evidence rather than by political antipathy to renewables? If the Chief Secretary really wants to encourage new investment in our energy infrastructure, should he not have a decarbonisation target to clean up our power supply by 2013?

On flooding, it was noticeable that the Chief Secretary said that the devil was in the detail and there is still a lot to be worked out, but will he stand up and confirm that these changes might need primary legislation? If so, when is that going to happen?

On schools, does the right hon. Gentleman not now regret scrapping Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme? On “Newsnight” last night, the Education Secretary did not seem to realise that his capital budget was being cut in real terms, perhaps because his so-called Priority School Building programme announced three years ago has so far seen construction start on only one school building.

Does the Chief Secretary not understand how dangerous it is to ignore the warnings from the International Monetary Fund, which says that Britain should bring forward capital infrastructure projects because we need a significant near-term stimulus now, in 2013, not several years away? Why does he not listen to the advice of the IMF? Why does he not come clean and admit that he is cutting the capital investment budget overall, in real terms, by 1.7% for 2015-16, as it says at the bottom of page 11, table 2 of yesterday’s spending review, should anyone care to look at the detail? Is it not the truth that there is no new money for infrastructure? He is spinning a line, rolling multiple years together to make the figure sound big, reheating old announcements in his microwave statement, which should have turned into action long ago.

The House can at least agree that the Government have been negligent with the health of our economy and that the deficit is not falling as a result. The scandal is that they are still ignoring the urgent need to kick-start growth when they should bring forward projects without delay. We are seeing no delivery for three years, no infrastructure brought forward and, for all the hype, real terms cuts to long-term infrastructure in 2015. Something has got to be done about this lot, because so far they are not capable of delivering the goods.

[Danny Alexander]

What a pathetic response to a very serious long-term and detailed plan for this country’s infrastructure. We heard no admission of Labour’s 13 woeful years of delivery of infrastructure. Given some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, he obviously had not listened to my statement.

On borrowing, our deficit is falling as a share of GDP, which is the proper measure, but only the Labour party could claim that new figures showing that we borrowed less in previous years are bad news for the country—the Labour party is addicted to borrowing— and that is on the day when we learned that the hole that Labour left in our economy was even deeper than previously said. Today’s figures show that the 2008 recession shrunk our economy by 7.2%, not the 6.3% of previous estimates. As the first shadow Minister to respond since the new figures came out, the hon. Gentleman made no apology for the mess the Labour party made of the economy. We are clearing up its mess, and he ought to have shown a little humility on that point.

On delivery, let me give the hon. Gentleman the facts about this Government’s record. Since 2010, 30 major road schemes have been completed. Of the 24 major projects announced since 2010, eight are under construction, and eight more start this year. Of the 56 local road schemes announced, 28 have been completed or are under construction, and 15 more start this year. Some 150 stations have been upgraded across England and Wales, including Blackfriars and King’s Cross. Some 190,000 school places have been completed for the next school year, and 81 free schools have been built. Some 84,000 houses have been completed, and 59,000 houses have been protected from flooding. Crossrail is employing 8,000 workers with six boring machines—more than the Opposition Front Bench.

On investment, we have added £20 billion of investment at every fiscal event since the 2010 spending—

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and rather than laughing, the shadow Chancellor should welcome the fact that there is the largest investment in our railways since Victorian times. Electrification is under way, ahead of schedule as my hon. Friend suggests; the intercity express programme train purchase programme will help to improve journey times yet further; what was in our announcements in the autumn statement last year will allow direct western rail access to Heathrow from his constituency and other communities served by that line.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

If it is all so wonderful, can the Chief Secretary explain why, two years after he published the national infrastructure plan, according to the Office for National Statistics the level of infrastructure investment in our economy has plummeted by a staggering 50% in the first quarter of this year, its lowest level since he came to office? Why?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman should remember that the capital investment we are putting into infrastructure in this economy is much greater than in the plans his party set out before the last election. As the former Foreign Secretary said, Labour was going to halve the share of national income going into capital spending. We have added to that, and by using the fiscal credibility that this Government’s tough approach to the deficit has secured to offer infrastructure guarantees, we are enabling infrastructure projects in the private sector to come forward that would not be doing so otherwise.

[Chris Leslie]

What planet is the Chief Secretary living on? A year ago, the director general of the CBI was asking:

“Where are the diggers on the ground?”

A year later, the diggers are still gathering dust. I realise that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are busy focusing on headlines for the next general election, two years away, but why are they not taking the advice of the International Monetary Fund and bringing forward capital investment now, in 2013, to make up for their lamentable incompetence on this infrastructure plan?

[Danny Alexander]

We are investing more in infrastructure this year than the hon. Gentleman’s party planned during its period in government. We are supporting the private sector to bring forward further investment in infrastructure, thanks to our infrastructure guarantee programme. We are supporting the construction of more affordable homes than his party managed; after all, his party presided over a decline of 421,000 affordable homes in this country. We are increasing investment in that. He should welcome this Government’s infrastructure programme, not criticise it from the position of weakness that he is in.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Lady helpfully points out, we, unlike many other European countries, have a bank levy. The levy is targeted to raise £2.5 billion a year, but it will raise more than that this year, because we said we would increase it to ensure that it raised the amount it was targeted to raise. It is rather higher than the French and German levies.

The CBI has said that the FTT proposal “discourages important business activities” and

“undermines the ability of the financial sector to promote economic recovery”.

The European fund managers association, which is responsible for the welfare of millions of pensioners throughout Europe, has described the FTT—again, very explicitly—as a tax on savers, which will threaten the operation of capital markets and have a damaging impact. I am interested to note that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) appears to be sanguine about the effects on savers. I should have thought that the views of pensioners and others with an interest in a prosperous retirement would concern us all.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not entirely clear about the Government’s policy. I think that, once upon a time, the Chancellor said that he was in favour of the principle of a financial transaction tax. Is that no longer the case?

[Greg Clark]

In fact, we already have a financial transaction tax. It is called stamp duty, and it has existed for a long time.

Let me say something about the opinions of markets outside the European Union. Representatives of other jurisdictions are appalled by the plans, particularly our major trading partners. In the United States, the Investment Company Institute says that the tax would “crash across borders”, and that

“All investors would be hit.”

The US Government also have serious misgivings: the Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, has said that, despite objections from financial and non-financial trade associations and Government officials in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea and other countries regarding the global reach and negative impact of the proposal, their concerns remain unanswered.[Official Report, 20 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 5MC.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (a), leave out

‘further notes that the proposals for the Financial Transaction Tax have been challenged by the Government in the European Court of Justice’;

and insert

‘calls on the Government to support the principle of an FTT and to learn lessons from the EU proposal and work with other global financial centres, especially the US, to reach a consensus on a design set at a modest rate without creating negative economic consequences and which minimises international tax arbitrage;’.

Before I discuss the amendment, let me briefly deal with the latter set of issues that the Minister raised—the general issues of national parliamentary sovereignty, the remit of EU policy, enhanced co-operation and so on. Clearly, the European Scrutiny Committee is right to monitor the relationship between EU decisions and the need for public engagement and accountability. Most Labour Members, however, take a more positive view of the role that Britain should be playing in Europe, because the European Union should be a force for good that increases the chances of greater prosperity, peace and the values we hold being asserted with greater impact across the world. We are comfortable, though, with a degree of flexibility and variance across member states; “enhanced co-operation” could be used to our advantage here in the UK for the future.

Individual member states should have some latitude rather than follow a blind adherence to anything and everything emanating from Brussels. There is a danger that sometimes those who regard themselves as good Europeans—pro-Europeans—end up defending the poor decisions that the Commission and the European Parliament can sometimes come out with. There is nothing wrong at all with national Parliaments disagreeing with the European institutions; it is a healthy sign of an internal dialectic, a constructive challenge and a reality check for those who are more distant from public opinion. We should acknowledge that both the European Commission and the European Parliament need to be reformed to improve their accountability and transparency.

In the short time available to us today, let us not lose sight of what our electors sent us here to do. Our view is that the British people want us to focus right now relentlessly on getting jobs created, boosting prosperity, creating wealth, and helping to stimulate the economic recovery which is now three years overdue. Navel gazing into the constitutional niceties that fall between the gap of domestic or European institutions is slightly indulgent in that context; we should not lose sight of the most important priorities that our constituents want us to focus on. That is why we tabled this amendment.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There seems a slight illogicality in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He says that he wants to create jobs but it has already been established that the financial transaction tax would destroy half a million jobs across Europe. How can he have it both ways?

[Chris Leslie]

The Minister was talking about the European variant of the FTT, but of course he was forced then to admit that we have already got a partial FTT of sorts—the stamp duty that is in place. I will discuss that in a moment, but it was very instructive that he was vehemently against the extra-territoriality aspects of the European version. Of course the EU version does need to change, and I am not saying in any way that it is perfect. His argument is, “They should stop extra-territoriality aspects in their financial transaction tax”, but our stamp duty contains many of those characteristics, and individuals—those trading UK shares and UK equities—are liable wherever that trade takes place in the world. So the Government clearly have not thought through their position on these things.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman will know that stamp duty follows the issuance principle—in other words, the tax follows where the instrument is originated. The proposed FTT contains that and a residence principle, so it captures a far wider range of transactions, as well as this cascade point which stacks up and racks up the impact. So it is a very different FTT from, and a very much inferior FTT to, the stamp duty.

[Chris Leslie]

Why on earth then does the Minister not engage in the process, change people’s minds, get a better design, deal with this residence principle properly and let us have a financial transaction tax that is in all of our best interests, particularly across those global centres?

The Minister talked about not having objections to an FTT on equities, but he did not say anything about bonds or derivatives in that context. So I challenge him again on the principle: is he absolutely against any sort of FTT on bonds or derivatives? It sounded as though he was, but I say to him that he has to start waking up and engaging with other jurisdictions on these particular points rather than trying to stop it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May I apologise to the Minister for coming in a little late? The same argument was used about the minimum wage. I recall that when this Government were in opposition, they were telling us that the minimum wage would cost a couple of million jobs.

[Chris Leslie]

The public are sick and tired of hearing more of the same from the Government—no solutions, just reasons for not doing anything differently. It should not need to be restated—although it clearly does for Government Members—that the global financial crisis and the collapse of many organisations in the financial services sector required an enormous bail-out from the public purse. That collapse in revenues led to an extra £300 billion on the national debt. As the Government have failed to turn things around, we can see that many of the consequences are still being felt today by our constituents and that we need to do something different.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I just want to clarify that my position and that of my party is that a financial transaction tax could make a useful contribution to world development if it were introduced across all the global financial sectors. Is it the Labour party’s position that if the EU proposal, which, as constituted, would affect Paris, Frankfurt and perhaps London, were to go ahead, Labour would support it despite it not also applying to New York, Zurich, Shanghai and everywhere else?

[Chris Leslie]

I shall set out our position clearly: we do not think that the EU variant of the FTT is optimal. Of course it should be improved. We think there are better ways to design these things and I shall come to many of the arguments in a moment. I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats—well, the one Liberal Democrat who is in the Chamber—support the principle of a financial transaction tax. That is exactly why we phrased the amendment in the way that we did.

Let me read the amendment out so that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) can consider it carefully, because I am minded to test the House’s opinion on it. We are calling

“on the Government to support the principle of an FTT”—

so far, so good—

“to learn lessons from the EU proposal”,

which, of course, we have to do, and to

“work with other global financial centres, especially the US”,

as clearly New York is central,

“to reach a consensus on a design set at a modest rate without creating negative economic consequences and which minimises international tax arbitrage”.

I am quite sure that in his heart of hearts the hon. Gentleman does not disagree with a single word of that.

[Stephen Williams]

The shadow Minister is absolutely right: I did not disagree with a single word he read out. It was, however, a selective reading of the amendment, because he left out the first couple of lines, which would leave out the reference to the fact that the Government are challenging the European Parliament’s decision in the European Court of Justice precisely because it affects this country adversely while we do not have global agreement. That is the problem.

[Chris Leslie]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously be suggesting that he is going to vote against the amendment because we have to leave out the reference to further noting that there is a Court challenge. I would have been quite happy to have tabled an amendment that did not leave out that bit of terminology, but—I am sure that you can confirm this, Mr Deputy Speaker—we did not do so because the Clerks tell me that a motion can only have 250 words. Of course, the Government use up their 250 words in the motion, so we needed to find space to insert the reference to the principle of the financial transaction tax. The hon. Gentleman should trust me: I have been considering the point and I did not want to leave anything out of the motion, but we wanted to put that reference in. I hope that with that assurance, he will think again, because the amendment is eminently supportable.

[Greg Clark]

Well, of all the ingenious ways to concoct a rationale. It is very instructive that out of all the 250 words, he chose to leave out the reference to the challenge to the European version of the financial transaction tax. He could have chosen many others. It is revealing that that is the part of the motion that he thought should be removed.

[Chris Leslie]

It is a sentence that takes note of something self-evident. Of course there is a challenge—we all know that there is a challenge and that the Minister’s agenda is to try to throw a spanner in the works and do what he can to stop that European variant of the FTT. He should consider what is in the motion; we did not particularly want to remove any of those other aspects of it. Taking note of the challenge was quite a good bit to leave out. Let me restate the case on which we must focus.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I want to make some progress, as there is not much time.

For the longer term, we must recalibrate the contribution of financial services to society. Of course, we must nurture a revival and restoration of the City of London’s primacy as the most trusted and professional place for financial transactions, but we cannot ignore the fact that most other jurisdictions are revisiting how banking and finance pays into society and what sort of responsibility we seek.

We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) about the IMF report after the G20 in 2009, which sought to think through new ways for the financial services sector to make a fair and substantial contribution to meeting the costs associated with Government interventions to repair it. In this country the interventions, in one form or another, cost near £1 trillion.

When in government, we started with the bank bonus tax, a payroll tax implemented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor. We thought that was a good idea then and we still think it is a good idea today. The Government then came along with the bank levy; we think that it is a good idea, but it has been poorly enforced. Ministers promised £2.5 billion in every year, but two years ago it raised just £1.8 billion and last year just £1.6 billion. Ministers keep coming back to the House and saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll deal with this shortfall.” The Minister has said that on numerous occasions, but we will believe it when we see it.

A bank levy and a bank bonus tax can only be part of the bigger picture. We must recognise that there is an ongoing systemic risk from financial services innovation and trading beyond the mainstream banks.

[Mr Redwood]

Do the Opposition think that a bank headquartered in London, with its group corporate structure in London and with international operations, should be regulated by the Bank of England to our standards or fully integrated into euro area regulation?

[Chris Leslie]

I think that any financial institution that could have a systemic impact on our economy and UK financial services needs to be regulated from within the Bank of England and by our regulatory structures. I hope that there will be a match between our arrangements and the European arrangements. That has been part of my anxiety about the Government’s design of the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority in the context of the Bank of England and how they fit together with the supervisory structures in Europe. We have had that debate and I think it will continue to be played out over the longer term.

For the time being—for today—the time has come for the Government to get serious about a financial transaction tax. Doing whatever they can to put a spanner in the works and turning their back on the idea is just not good enough. At a time when deficits are persistently high because of rock-bottom growth, leading economies, including those of Britain and the United States, need alternative revenue measures from continuing financial market speculation to relieve pressures on lower and middle-income households and the public services they use.

There are many lessons from the banking crisis, the most obvious of which is that the sheer globalised might of financial trading can overpower the plans and defences of individual nation states. Governments should not just shrug and accept that fate, which is why the Opposition urge Conservatives and Liberal Democrats actively to champion a financial transaction tax and the reform agenda to harness international financial markets so that they serve our societies and our economies.

If ever there was a time to seek international consensus on a financial transaction tax it is now, as countries continue to deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the large deficits it created. Deducting a tiny fraction of 1% of the value of trades in equities, bonds and derivatives could raise significant sums if introduced in a concerted way across the principal world financial centres.

The House of Commons Library has considered what would happen if we applied the EU variant of the tax in the UK and says that it would yield some £10 billion annually. I do not stand by that figure—I do not think that it is necessarily convincing or viable—but it prompts the question of what could be achieved in the UK by a tax with a more modest and sensible design.

I do not decry the 11 EU countries for forging ahead on the issue—it is a brave decision for those EU countries to go it alone. Even with the participation of Germany, France and Italy, there are still risks involved, and although we are not participating at present we should not withdraw from the debate, not least given the size and importance of the City of London.

[Greg Clark]

I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He cites the House of Commons Library, which has said that the tax could raise £10 billion, and says that that would be useful. Is he arguing that such a financial transaction tax would be in addition to stamp duty? Is he proposing such a tax?

[Chris Leslie]

I think that we need to have a financial transaction tax, ideally in concert with other international centres, in addition to stamp duty. That would be a sensible and modest reaction to the modern circumstances of the financial services sector. As I said to the Minister earlier, he has got to snap out of his “no can do” attitude and to wake up and realise that the public want alternatives. They want different ideas, and the financial transaction tax could offer a good way forward.

Opposition Members support the principle of a financial transaction tax with the widest global participation. London and New York City are the two largest global financial centres. Our view is that enforcement of the FTT needs both to move in concert. The Government ought to support our amendment, which is totally unobjectionable. We should not have to wait for a change of Government to move this agenda forward. We should be building those alliances, especially with the United States. That is a very important task.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The health of the financial services industry is important not just to London and New York, but in my constituency and my city as well. Is not the crucial point that we need international negotiations and international agreement on a way forward? We are all concerned about the impact on jobs in our constituencies. I know that in my area the biggest damage to the financial services industry has been the vagaries of the market, and the uncertainty and instability. That is what we need to tackle.

[Chris Leslie]

There are others who make compelling arguments about the need for intervention on the volatility of the high frequency trades, which are clearly many steps removed from the real economy. Some of the potentially beneficial aspects of a financial transaction tax might have a part to play in that, though we must be careful about negative economic consequences. We do not want the impact that the European variant might have.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

When did this change in Labour’s policy come about? I distinctly remember, when I was in the European Parliament from 1999 to 2009, Labour MEPs who supported a financial transaction tax being slapped down by their Chancellor, who became Prime Minister. Is it a change in policy that Labour supports a financial transaction tax at European or worldwide level?

[Chris Leslie]

I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was so close to Labour Members of the European Parliament. I am not familiar with what they were thinking at that time, but on the Labour Benches here we are keen on the principle of an FTT and I have no idea why he is not. I do not understand why Government Members are taking such a stick-in-the-mud view of the issue when it is clear that some of the obstacles that are in the EU variant could be overcome if we engaged and took a leadership role. We have dealt with the stamp duty issue. There are ways of dealing with the extraterritorial and residence issue.

[Andrea Leadsom]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the impact on job losses and costs to savers and pensioners in this country if we were to adopt the financial transaction tax?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think there would be any such impact if we designed the FTT correctly and implemented it in the best interests of the UK, and if we persuaded the Americans to do likewise. Not all financial transaction taxes are the same. Stamp duty is very different from the FTT proposed by the European Union. That is a very broad concept and we need to look at it in a proportionate and modest way. I know that the hon. Lady is familiar with what I am talking about. She should read the amendment. I do not understand why she objects to it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that if there is a financial transaction tax, that money has to come from somewhere. If it is not coming from savers and pensioners and from moving business overseas, where does he think that money is coming from?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady knows very well that millions and possibly billions of financial transactions take place every day of the week—almost every hour—and it is a question of whether there is a social benefit that we should look at as a recompense to society at large, which should not see those financial transactions as totally disconnected from our economy and our society. We know that excessive risk taking and many of the problems that arose from the attachment to the derivatives trade and others got us into the problems of the global financial crisis. Rather than turning its back on it and not engaging, as the Government are doing, the financial services industry should engage in that and think about the design. Let us get it right and do it on our terms, rather than waiting to play catch-up.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Is not the answer to the Minister that Government Members want to protect the bankers? They do not want to make the bankers pay for what they did to the British economy and the world economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

It sounds that way. The Government’s reticence to get involved and start engaging is telling. I still hold out some hope for the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dem manifesto—who could forget that seminal political tract—promised that Lib Dems will

“work with other countries to establish new sources of development financing, including bringing forward urgent proposals for a financial transaction tax”.

I fully expect Liberal Democrat Members shortly to be in our Lobby—they can call it their Lobby, if they wish—in favour of the amendment.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a much more moderate speech than I expected. He has made some serious logical points, but can he give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether it is his policy to go ahead with the tax if New York and Tokyo do not?

[Chris Leslie]

I want to do what we can to persuade New York in particular that including London and its financial centre in this would be the best way forward. The Americans already have a very small security exchange commission fee on individual transactions. In terms of the American principle, the foot is already in the door. I was in Washington DC in February to talk not only to Members of Congress, but to others involved in the issue. Far from the impression that those on the Government Benches have, I think we could work on the principle across the Atlantic.

It is true that Jack Lew, the American Treasury Secretary, has concerns about some of the extraterritorial aspects, but let us work on a solution and find a design that might fit, if that is an issue of principle. However we do that, we should not turn our minds away from it. Similarly, the cascade risk issues could be dealt with. There are issues relating to the impact on the repo market and the funding that many companies depend on there, but again, there are exemptions and ways of dealing with that problem and others, such as at what point a levy would be applied, whether the sale and buy-back of a security would be treated as one transaction, whether the charge would be waived on overnight repos and closing repos, and closing any loopholes that might fall open in the treatment of longer-term maturities. There are ways of dealing with these issues, but any Treasury worth its salt would be engaging on the issue, weighing up the pros and cons, dealing with them and making sure that we had a design of a financial transaction tax that offered some hope for the future.

A one-size-fits-all blanket approach will not reflect the complexities of our economy or the unintended impact that an FTT could have if it was poorly designed, but learning and adapting those early experiences of the EU approach should inform us in good time to engage in a proper dialogue on the most sensible joint approach between America in particular and the United Kingdom, ideally before 2015, but presumably after a change of Administration here.

Radical action is needed and a financial transaction tax is an idea whose time has come. For all the aversion to reform emanating from Whitehall and from the Minister, the public and the business community know that we are at risk of a lost decade of economic progress in this country if we do not take bold steps and change the rules of the game. A whole generation has been indelibly affected by that global financial failure, and the twin financial centres of London and New York are at the centre of what was a world-changing phenomenon. There is therefore an urgency for the UK to lead the way forward. We must move on from discussion of banks as part of the problem and start to settle on how they will help to repair our public finances and solve the challenges of our economy and society.

It is not clear what the Government’s policy is. They still claim in part that they are in favour of some sort of financial transaction tax, maybe a stamp duty, but they intend to oppose the amendment. Now is the time for action and leadership on an FTT. The public are sick of the Chancellor’s blind refusal to change course and look at alternatives, and it is now clear that we need serious change and new ideas, not more of the same. I urge the House to support the principle of a financial transaction tax and to support the amendment.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by referring Members to my declaration of interests and by celebrating the 198th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. We are debating Europe on Waterloo day, which commemorates an occasion when an alliance of nation states came together to defeat the ambition of a Frenchman to have a single European state, so it could not be a better day for debating these matters.

I will deal first with the financial transaction tax, because it is a rotten idea. The fact that we have stamp duty, a tax that has been around for centuries and is not paid on rapid transactions—it is paid only on long-term holdings—or by market makers, or for contracts for difference, or on American depositary receipts, is not an argument for saying that a financial transaction tax can work in the sophisticated financial system that the world operates today.

What the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) consistently ignores is who the tax would ultimately fall on. In the wonderful world that he was creating, there was a tax that could be designed—not, of course, the one that the Europeans have designed, but another, imaginary tax—that would never seem to fall to anybody. It could take £10 billion out of the economy without anyone really having to pay for it, apart from some nasty, evil bankers who, when they take their hats off, can be seen to have horns underneath.

However, that is not the real world, because the transactions that take place in the City represent an underlying reality, be it the debt issued by the Government, mortgages sold on by banks, or pension funds being invested around the globe. Individuals would end up paying that tax because the costs of their doing business with banks would increase. We know that clearly from the mortgage market, complicated as it may be, because the ability to package mortgages and sell them reduces the cost of capital to banks and reduces the cost to people of buying their own homes. What the Opposition are saying is that they want to make mortgages more expensive. They want to put a tax on people who are least able to pay.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman was doing so well, but unfortunately the level of scaremongering undermines his whole argument. Is he really saying that there is absolutely no case for a tiny fraction, less than a tenth of one percentage point—[Interruption.] I am talking not about the EU variant but about the principle of a financial transaction tax. Is he saying that there is absolutely no case to be made for a financial transaction tax on derivatives or bonds when we have 50 basis points—half a percentage point—of stamp duty on UK equities, or is he also calling for repeal of UK stamp duty?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There is no case for a financial transaction tax. It would be enormously destructive of this country’s financial system. The cascade effect to which the Minister referred is at the heart of this. When things are being traded dozens of times a day, what starts off as a little tax suddenly becomes a very big tax. The hon. Gentleman conjures £10 billion out of the air. We cannot withdraw £10 billion from the economy without it having an economic effect and without it being paid for by somebody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

In the couple of minutes available to me, I will attempt to respond to what has been a spirited debate on both sides. It has been so spirited that the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) rather startled the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who did not expect to hear anything so—

[Chris Leslie]

Good.

[Greg Clark]

It was fainter praise than good.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for his kind words. I am glad that we were able to accommodate the two debates that he was keen to have. I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the characteristic tour de force on Waterloo day from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the flinty contribution of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who shares many of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on the primacy of this place.

This has been a fascinating and enlightening debate. We have discovered that the policy of the Opposition in calling for a financial transaction tax turns out to be to call for an additional financial transaction tax. As has been clear from the exchanges across the House, we already have a financial transaction tax in this country; it is called stamp duty. The hon. Member for Nottingham East made it very clear that he proposes an additional tax on British savers, pensioners, mortgage holders and business of up to £10 billion. He said that that would come not from the magic—

[Chris Leslie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Clark]

No, I only have a couple of minutes.

[Chris Leslie]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important that the Minister’s misinterpretation of what I said should not be allowed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of debate. Resume your seat, Mr Leslie.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Opposition are very surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not come to the House of Commons today to respond to growing speculation that he has already decided the fate of the Royal Bank of Scotland. The Government’s handling of this matter has already caused widespread concern. Stephen Hester did an important job starting the process of turning RBS around, but clearly there is a long way still to go, as he has said himself, so I want to ask the Minister about the four key points on which we need urgent clarification.

First, on the departure of the chief executive, did Stephen Hester go voluntarily or was he pushed? What role did the Chancellor have in prompting his departure? When did the Chancellor set out to the chairman and the board his desire that Stephen Hester should go and is there now any role for United Kingdom Financial Investments, or has it been circumvented in the discussion on the chief executive’s role? Can the Minister explain why they got rid of the current chief executive before finding a successor? Was that really a sensible thing to do? Why have they left such uncertainty? Is the 6% fall in RBS’s share price this morning, wiping off nearly £2 billion from the value of the taxpayers’ stake, a reflection of this confusion? Can the Minister clarify reports this morning that the chairman of RBS has indicated that he will also leave if and when a new chief executive is found?

Secondly, did the chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, let the cat out of the bag when he admitted to journalists last night that the Chancellor wants a sale by the end of 2014? Sir Philip said:

“The acceleration of considering succession for a CEO role arises largely from the Treasury’s determination...where it can be returned to the private sector by the end of 2014”.

Will the Minister tell us now what the Chancellor told the chairman and the board? Is it just a coincidence that the end of 2014 would fit neatly into the Chancellor’s pre-election political timetable? Should the time scales not be driven by the best interests of the taxpayer and the British economy instead?

Thirdly, are the public wrong to suspect that this generous severance payment for Stephen Hester is just a foretaste of the wider loss that will be made for the taxpayer if they rush headlong into a pre-election fire sale? Given that Stephen Hester said yesterday that he was confident that RBS was capable of being worth more than the £45 billion the taxpayer originally paid, why is the Chancellor rushing to prove him wrong? Stephen Hester told the BBC last night that RBS was capable of being worth more than what the Government paid for the shares. Does the Minister agree? If not, why not?

Fourthly, can the Minister explain why it is sensible to intervene in the executive management of RBS rather than have an orderly process of repairing the bank and thoroughly considering the full range of future options for this institution—a process that has incredible ramifications for our whole economy? We look forward to the report from the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and any views it might have on this, but rather than this shambolic and uncertain approach, surely we need a clear, methodical process and a detailed exploration of how the shape and structure of RBS can best serve our economy in the longer term.

Finally, why has the Chancellor not come to Parliament to set out what is obviously a change of policy? No disrespect to the Minister, but it is his boss we need to hear from today. Should not the Chancellor set out his plans first to this House and not to the Mansion House?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will start with his final question, if I may. He asked why the Chancellor is not here. That is because I am here; I thought the hon. Gentleman would be pleased to see me. I could well ask him where his boss, the shadow Chancellor, is. If this is such an important issue for the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor might have turned up.

I was also hoping that I might get an apology from the hon. Gentleman and some recognition that the only reason we are here discussing this topic today is the previous Government’s failure to regulate our banking system, which led to more than £45 billion of taxpayers’ money being injected into bailing out a bank—the world’s largest banking bail-out.

Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s four questions. First, he asked about the sequence or the terms of Stephen Hester’s departure. I am pleased to confirm to him that the Chancellor has not been directly involved in meeting with Stephen Hester prior to the announcement —[Interruption.] He has not met with Stephen Hester prior to the announcement of his departure on this issue. This is a decision for RBS and its board. They have made the decision jointly with Stephen Hester and come to a voluntary agreement. The chairman of RBS, Sir Philip Hampton, asked to meet the Chancellor last week—at Philip Hampton’s request—to inform the Chancellor of the board’s decision, and that is what I would expect, given that the shareholder is the majority owner of the bank.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the succession plans and asked whether it would have been better to find a successor in the first place. If he has looked carefully at the plans, he will note that Stephen Hester has agreed to stay on until a successor has been found or, at the very latest, until the end of this year. RBS has already begun its search process. I am confident that it will find a successor in time, but it is reassuring, as I said in my statement, that Stephen Hester is staying on in the meantime to help to smooth the process of finding his successor.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the share price of RBS this morning. He will note that—I think I am right in saying—almost every major bank’s share price is down this morning. The stock market is down in general this morning. I suggest that the change in the RBS share price might also be a reflection of global stock markets, particularly Asian stock markets and markets in Tokyo, which, as it happens, also fell by 6% overnight.

Next the hon. Gentleman asked about the eventual sale of the bank and RBS’s comments about preparing the bank for its future return to the private sector. There should be nothing surprising about RBS having an ambition that the bank should be returned to the private sector. That is perfectly reasonable and perfectly normal. As for the Government’s plans, we have always made it absolutely clear that we have no target price when we are thinking about the return of RBS. We have no fixed timetable, and that includes the general election. Our major concern is to ensure, as the hon. Gentleman said himself, that when RBS is returned to the private sector, that is done with due regard to getting the best value possible for the taxpayer.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the value of the shares had been destroyed. I thought that was a bit rich, coming from him. He forces me to remind the House that when the previous Government carried out their bail-out following their failed policies and paid more than £45 billion for a stake in RBS, they overpaid by £12 billion above the share price. That amount was written off by the taxpayer at that moment, but that is something else for which we have not had an apology.

If I understood the hon. Gentleman’s last question correctly, he asked whether the Government had intervened in the decision-making process of the executive management. As I have said, those decisions are rightly made by RBS’s board. The Government’s shareholding is held through UKFI on an arm’s length basis. UKFI represents the interests of the taxpayer on RBS’s board. I remind the House that that arm’s length arrangement was deliberately set up by the previous Government; we have rightly kept it in place. UKFI reports periodically to the Treasury and provides advice, and we always take that into account when making our own decisions.

Economic Growth

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have spent more on pensions, and we are proud that we have done so, and we have a triple lock on pensions and pensioners last year got the biggest ever increase in the state pension. As for other areas of the welfare state, we have cut welfare entitlements by £19 billion a year.

Let me conclude, because there is a five-minute limit on Back-Benchers’ contributions. We have spoken about Europe, but many of the economic challenges that we face remain at home. We spoke about banking regulation, and an important part of the legislative programme this year is the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which is a carry-over Bill. We are making the changes necessary to fix our banking system, ring-fence our retail banks and make sure that we deal with the too-big-to-fail problem. We also have legislation to support small businesses. It will not be the most controversial Bill, because I suspect that the Labour party will not dare to oppose it, but it will be of enormous help to our constituents and to many businesses throughout the country. Our new employment allowance will cut the tax on jobs—

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Not for another year.

[Mr Osborne]

We have to get the legislation because we need a national insurance Bill, which is what—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman had 13 years to do something for small businesses, and the only idea he came up with was to put up the small companies’ tax rate.

From next April, every business and every charity will have their employer national insurance contributions bill cut by £2,000 a year. It means that a business will be able to employ four adults on the minimum wage without paying any employer NICs at all. I know that the shadow Chancellor does not want to hear it, because his policy was to put taxes up on jobs. That is what he fought the general election on, and that is what he still talks about when people listen to him in his interviews. That is the point. The Opposition offer more borrowing; we are reducing the deficit. They want to increase the size of government; we want it reduced. They penalise enterprise and wealth creation; we support it. They would put a tax on jobs; we are abolishing it. While they would repeat all the mistakes of the past, we are engaging in the great economic challenges of the future. We are building an economy that will enable Britain to compete and succeed in the world. We are building an economy that helps people who want to work hard and get on. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and my many other hon. Friends for their consistently strong arguments about the shortcomings of the Gracious Speech. It is a Queen’s Speech that lacks vision, substance and coherence. It lacks any answers to the big challenges that Britain faces. As such, it is entirely typical of this pitiful excuse for a Government. It is as though they could not be bothered to think through the legislation that is needed to get our economy moving, perhaps because their minds were elsewhere. We know where their minds were. Downing street has been caught in the headlights. It is fixated with internal party management and is frantically trying to hold it all together, when what we really need is a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who can focus relentlessly on the weaknesses in our economy and on the action needed to kick-start growth. They are so distracted, however, that they have lost sight of the things that matter most to the British people.

Youth unemployment still stands at nearly 1 million, and the Work programme is so useless that the number of young people on the dole for more than a year has tripled since it was introduced. At the spending review in 2010, the Chancellor said that there would be at least 6% economic growth by now, but we have seen barely more than 1%. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, yet the Government housing scheme offers a better subsidy for second home buyers than for building new homes. The construction sector is collapsing on this Government’s watch, but only seven projects from the list of 576 in their infrastructure plan are actually completed or operational. That is pathetic.

The Government promised to help 400,000 businesses with a national insurance holiday for new firms, but they have helped barely 5% of them. They are now having to replace that legislation. We are experiencing the slowest economic recovery for more than 100 years, and deficit reduction has ground firmly to a halt. When we hear the Government claim that they have cut the deficit by a third, we must remember that it was the same last year as it was the year before, and that it will be the same again this year. It is no wonder that they have lost the triple A credit ratings that they promised to preserve. It is a simple lesson: if the economy is flatlining, they should not be surprised if the deficit stubbornly remains high.

The Government are either too weak to admit that they have made mistakes or too distracted to see it for themselves. As a result, we are left with a legislative agenda that fails to rise to the challenges facing our country. These Ministers see consumers and businesses that lack confidence and they see weak economic demand, but their Government’s response is to pull back from the role that they should play, pull the rug from beneath the feet of those who are trying to move forward, pull away the safety net from families facing hardship and pull up the drawbridge against the entrepreneurs and investment that our country needs.

Where is the jobs Bill to ensure that all the long-term unemployed are offered a decent job opportunity on at least the minimum wage, with the private sector in partnership with the Government? We could do all that, and cover the costs, if only the Chancellor would stop being so weak towards the banks and instead make them pay their fair share. Where is the finance Bill to reverse the unfair tax cuts for the richest 1% and to help to make work pay with a 10p starting rate of income tax? Where are the measures that my hon. Friends have so eloquently called for to tackle rip-off energy bills, extortionate train fares and rogue landlords? Where is the action, the drive, the activity? Nowhere, because the Government are frozen to the spot.

It says everything about the hollowness of this Government that the Queen’s Speech debate today has been totally dominated by one subject that is not even in it. Where once we had a Conservative Prime Minister who boasted of her convictions, tonight we have a Conservative Cabinet united only by their abstention. As that Prime Minister once said, this is not leadership but “followership”. The truth is that this Queen’s Speech is not a legislative programme of a functioning Government; it is a sticking-plaster programme trying desperately to hold things together while Conservative MPs kick lumps out of the Prime Minister.

A week ago, the Prime Minister did not think that an EU referendum was important enough to put in the Queen’s Speech, but a week later we find that it is the first Bill that the Government have published. If they want a referendum, why are they not supporting the amendment; if they do not want a referendum, why have they drafted their Bill?

The draft Bill that the Government have rushed out—I do not know whether the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor had a hand in the very technical drafting of the one side of A4—had nothing to do with consulting the public; it was all about silencing the Conservative party’s internal divisions. They are not so much a coalition as a contradiction. There are three parties in this Government: the two faces of the Conservative party in league with the Liberal Democrats—perhaps best represented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to whom I wish many happy returns today. Hon. Members will be interested to know that this right hon. Gentleman spent a decade of his life before entering this House making the case for a federal Europe. What a triumph it is for the Government Whips facing a difficult vote on Europe that the final speech in support of the Government’s programme should come from the former chief spokesman for the campaign to join the euro. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sad truth is that this Government are too weak, too divided and too distracted; they are fiddling on about Europe while the economy burns.

[Mr McFadden]

On the subject of the Government’s tactics over the rushed, panicked publication of this referendum Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate shows that the tactic has already failed because during the debate the people who wanted this were already asking the Government to go further by having the referendum this side of the general election rather than after the next one?

[Chris Leslie]

The Prime Minister said yesterday, “No more concessions; that is the line in the sand; this is as far as they will go.” It is amazing to think, though, that he has to keep feeding the beast. The problem is that Conservative Members are carrying on a bit like the strange man in the corner of that country pub endlessly moaning about the dreadful threat of outsiders and incomers. I have to tell them that if they spend all their time trying to be like UKIP, they should not be surprised when people vote for the real thing.

We are left with a Government increasingly out of touch with the real problems facing real families across Britain. Tonight, it is those families that are paying the price: higher taxes because growth is stagnant and lower living standards because wages are falling. Every year that goes by while our economy stands still and while our Government are divided and distracted, our international competitors get further and further ahead.

The Queen’s Speech lists 15 Bills that look as though full time has been called for this Parliament, not just the end of the first half of it. The Government’s legislative agenda, supposedly to drive Britain forward, did not even make it from Downing Street to the Cabinet Office before running out of support. We should look at their child care strategy, stumbling in more directions than a toddler learning to walk. They are not going to convince the public that it is sensible to have one nursery worker looking after six two-year-olds on their own if they cannot even persuade their own Deputy Prime Minister. Surely, the Prime Minister of all people must know how difficult it is single-handedly to watch over a group of immature and disobedient trouble-makers, constantly throwing tantrums. They cannot even manage the basics.

Just at the moment when we need a strong voice for the United Kingdom arguing for the reforms and change of direction we need across the European economy, we get a Prime Minister saying one thing, an Education Secretary who is not here and a Defence Secretary who is not here saying another, while his Back Benchers are revolting and the Deputy Prime Minister is wielding his veto. Our country and our partners deserve better than that. Britain needs to be leading in Europe, not leaving Europe, and the Prime Minister should be brave enough to say it. He should stand up to those who are undermining his authority. On the very day when he was extolling the virtues of a new EU trade deal with the United States, his own Ministers implied that they would rather turn their backs on that £10 billion advantage.

The amendment has blown the last semblance of unity in the coalition to smithereens. The Prime Minister could not even tell his own troops to vote against it, so we have ended up with the absurd spectacle of Ministers being told to abstain while the Prime Minister is supposedly “chillaxed” about the rest of them supporting it. The Prime Minister should not be relaxed when those on his own side express regrets about his own Government and his own Queen’s Speech; he should be embarrassed by it. He should not “chill” at the thought; he should be chilled by it. He should have led from the start and asserted his authority, but he is too weak, and his party is too divided and distracted to be brought into line.

The fact is that this in/out, in/out, hokey-cokey referendum policy sends all the wrong signals. The Prime Minister’s party is left leaderless, and the country is left rudderless. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: there is a real-world price to be paid for this weakness, and it will be paid in jobs, with inward investors left mystified about whether or not they would have access to a single market with 500 million customers if they came here.

When will the Conservatives realise that the top priority for this country must be the strength of our economy, not their obsession with Europe? The Prime Minister once said:

“Instead of talking about the things that most people care about… we were banging on about Europe.”

They are back to banging on, and on, and on—not about jobs, not about growth, not about recovery, but about Europe, yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are too distracted to see what needs to be done, too divided to agree on how to do it, and too weak to take the action that the country needs. Weak, divided, distracted: we see a Government who are slowly imploding under the weight of their own contradictions.

Britain, at home and in Europe, needs a Government who are strong enough to make the tough decisions for our country’s future, united in seeing those decisions through, and focused on securing growth and recovery. That is the only genuine way of improving our national finances. Britain needs that one nation Government and we need it now, but sadly, with this Queen’s Speech, with this Government and with this Prime Minister, Britain must wait.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I particularly welcome his comments on the potential for garden cities to add substantially to the housing supply, a matter on which the Government will make further statements in the next few months.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have presided over a massive collapse of our construction sector. How can they maintain the pretence that they support the economy when just seven projects out of the 576 that were set out in their infrastructure plan are completed or operational? The director general of the CBI says:

“I have a queue of businesses at my door telling me the Government’s Infrastructure Plan needs speeding up.”

Will the Chief Secretary confirm that, so far, they have managed to deliver only two projects—less than one quarter of 1% of the underwriting guarantees authorised by his emergency legislation last summer?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman is stretching somewhat beyond the area of housing, Mr Speaker, but with your permission I would like to address his question. Some £10 billion worth of infrastructure projects prequalified for the guarantee scheme, bringing forward substantial investment in infrastructure. We are investing more in transport infrastructure in this Parliament than his Government managed during the economic good times. We are investing more in the railways than has been done since Victorian times. He should compliment the Government on our approach to infrastructure, because, whether in transport or communications and broadband, more is happening than his Government ever managed.