Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

That is why I suspect that the other place will look at the truncated scrutiny. I tried to get this out of the Minister earlier—not the Minister before us, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was not a Cabinet Minister who came to the Chamber to introduce the Bill, by the way, but I am told that a reshuffle might be going on, so perhaps the Chief Secretary or even the Chancellor are in negotiations. The junior Minister acquitted himself reasonably well at the outset—as well as he possibly could, given the line that was scripted for him to take—but I think that a Cabinet Minister should have presented a Bill of such scale and importance. It deserves proper scrutiny in this place, with the right number of Committee sittings, because otherwise the other place will have to do that job for us.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)]

I am happy to confirm that the Bill will have eight Committee sittings in the House of Commons.

[Mr Leslie]

I can only hope—fingers crossed—that I am selected for the Committee. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be keen to have me on it. I try my best to be as constructive as possible at all times, so I hold out great hope for that.

Part 1 of the Bill is very wide-ranging. My hon. Friends have made speeches about trade remedies in respect of anti-dumping and subsidy provisions. Perhaps the Minister will use his winding-up speech to cast a little more light on what the UK’s policy will be on competitive trade and, in particular, on subsidy issues. I know that Government Members have an interest in many aspects of trade with places such as China and other non-market economies. The question about subsidies is important, so I would like to hear a little more from the Government about what their policy stance will be. Will we cut and paste the existing EU approach or not?

A number of big decisions have to be made. When our constituents find out that we will have the power to raise or lower a particular duty, the widget manufacturers or whatever in our constituencies who might be prone to it, or whose competitors might be prone to it, will take great interest in contacting Members of Parliament to say, “Will you push the Government to raise this duty?” or, “Will you push Ministers to lower that duty?” This has the potential to fill our inboxes for decades to come.

Members of the European Parliament—we have sort of outsourced much of this policy to the EU for 40 years—have a number of scrutiny powers in respect of customs and excise and trade agreements that we will not have when those matters are brought to the House of Commons. I worry very much about trade agreements. Members of the European Parliament have the right to comment on them and even to suggest amendments to them. Of course, they then give final consent to trade agreements, but that is not part of the current Administration’s package under the customs and trade Bills.

Productivity

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That is why I think it is so appalling that the Chancellor could not be bothered to mention it in the Budget speech in March. It should be at the top of the agenda of all Treasury teams and all Departments—

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman, who will, I know, have plenty to contribute on the subject.

Our economic prosperity depends on maximising the output from the efforts of working people and the resources available to business. The amount of output per hour worked is a useful way for us to measure whether our economy is advancing and adding value, or whether we are just treading water. Creating a more productive economy means creating a virtuous circle of higher growth, higher living standards and, as a consequence, more effective deficit reduction. When working people can produce more and they have the tools and the skills to create output more efficiently, employers can afford to pay them more, tax revenues become more buoyant and our GDP can grow in a more sustainable way.

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to my hon. Friend after I have given way to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier).

[Mark Garnier]

The shadow Chancellor is absolutely right: productivity is incredibly important. The Treasury Committee and The Economist have been banging on ad nauseam about it, certainly during my five years as a Member of Parliament. Why has he picked up on it only in the past six months?

The Economy

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

We have heard those arguments. I was asking the Government whether they plan to cut the top rate of tax of earnings of £150,000 from 45p, and perhaps down to 40p, and there is silence from the Government Benches and from the Chancellor. Perhaps he will come to that later in his speech.

The Queen’s Speech was high on rhetoric but was in reality the usual combination of diversion and distraction. As ever with this Chancellor, there is more than meets the eye. All the rhetoric is just the tip of a Tory iceberg, with 90% of their real agenda hidden below the surface, still invisible from public view. That agenda will not even be partly revealed until the emergency Budget on 8 July. Until then, serious questions remain unanswered about what drives the Government, and in what direction.

The trajectory of overall cuts set out in the March Budget goes beyond what is needed to eradicate the deficit by the end of the Parliament. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Queen’s Speech still leaves us totally in the dark about more than 85% of the Chancellor’s planned £12 billion of welfare cuts. Just this morning, the IFS criticised the Government for giving a

“misleading impression of what departmental spending in many areas will look like”.

Frankly, there is growing disbelief across the country that the Chancellor can protect those in greatest need while keeping his promises to the electorate on child benefit and disability benefits. My hon. Friends will not have failed to spot during Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday how the Prime Minister, when challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on the question of disability benefits, digressed into all sorts of reminiscences about the campaign trail and how much fun it was going to various meetings. The Prime Minister promised that

“the most disabled should always be protected”

and I will be looking to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to keep the Prime Minister’s promises. The Government might have secured a majority, but they did not secure a mandate for specific cuts to departments or services because those were never explained or set out before the election. Nor have we ever had an explanation of how they will pay for their multi-billion pound pledges on tax and services or, crucially, for the NHS.

The Opposition agree with yesterday’s OECD assessment that a fair approach is the right one to take—sensible savings and protection for those on middle and lower incomes. Cuts that decimate public services would be too big a price to pay, especially as they may even result in higher costs in the longer term. We also heard how 8,000 nurse training places were cut in 2010. The use of agency nurses then proliferated to fill the gap. Is it any wonder, therefore, that NHS trusts now face a deficit of about £2 billion? Part of the reason the deficit is so big is that productivity has been so poor. Britain has the second lowest productivity in the G7, and output per worker is still lower than in 2010. This should have been at the top of the Chancellor’s agenda throughout the last Parliament, but he did not even mention it in his last Budget speech. For the Tories, it seems that productivity just springs magically if the Government just get out of the way, unrelated to any fiscal or policy choices that they make.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor will know that many pundits have been looking at that productivity puzzle. The Treasury Committee has examined it for the past five years. If the Governor of the Bank of England, economists and everyone else does not understand that productivity conundrum, will he share with us where he thinks the lack of productivity comes from?

[Chris Leslie]

I will come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman must also be staggered that the Chancellor did not even mention it in his Budget speech. That was an omission that the Chancellor needs to correct. We take a different view of where productivity comes from because, for us, it depends in part on having decent infrastructure and public services—motorways that flow freely and trains that commuters can actually get on, tax offices answering business queries efficiently rather than keeping companies’ staff waiting on hold, employees who are off sick able to get treated swiftly in a decent NHS, an education system that supports a work force and provides training in high-quality skills. Each of these is crucial for our future economic productivity, and each depends on the Chancellor making the right fiscal choices for this Parliament.

Future Government Spending

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That was a good try, but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not have unfunded spending commitments. Our manifesto will be fully costed and fully funded. He does not need to take my word for it: we would be more than happy to let the OBR audit all of the proposals in our manifesto and to undertake to validate that they are, indeed, fully costed. I wonder if any Government Members would like to support the idea that all the political parties should have their manifestos fully costed by the OBR. Can I see a show of hands?

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

There is one individual: the hon. Gentleman is an independent champion on Treasury matters. I wonder whether he would like to at least say that there is a strong case for letting the OBR cut through this political nonsense and make sure that we have proper independent validation of spending commitments. Does he agree with that?

[Mark Garnier]

I do—absolutely. In the early part of this Parliament the Treasury Committee looked at exactly that point and there was a big and heated debate about it. Conservative members were in favour of it, but Labour members were not, and they were led by the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who was dead against it. What does the shadow Minister have to say about that?

NHS (Government Spending)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

That is rather curious, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be quite interested to know what the Minister was saying. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) heard it. What did the Minister say to him?

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I have to confess that I did not hear it—I do apologise—but it would have been very sound advice.

I am curious. As we have a shadow Treasury Minister here, perhaps this is an opportunity for him to explain to my constituents what he proposes to do to help them. It is important to remember that one of the very first things the Labour Government did when they came to power was to close the A and E department at Kidderminster hospital and downscale that hospital. As a result, Labour policies were so massively hated by my constituents that they voted in an Independent, Dr Richard Taylor. That demonstrated just how unpopular Labour’s NHS policies really are.

[Chris Leslie]

Labour Members are absolutely committed to saving the national health service from the fate that would befall it should the hon. Gentleman’s party have a further five years in office. We will absolutely not apologise for fighting tooth and nail to do what we can about, for instance, the staffing crisis that the NHS also faces.

The Economy

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The Prime Minister likes to say—the Tories have said it in party political broadcasts and keep repeating it—that the national debt is somehow falling. The national debt has got larger and larger—[Interruption.] No, let me correct the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—there is a difference between the national debt and the deficit. The national debt has got higher and higher and higher. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) was right to say that it now stands at more than £1.4 trillion. He knows that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have added more to the national debt in their four and a half years in power than the previous Administration did in 13 years.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly struggling a little with the definitions of how we run the public finances. The reason why the national debt is going up is that in 2010 this Government inherited a deficit, which is the difference between income and outgoings, of £156 billion. That had been set in place some time before. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the deficit in 2005—fully two or three years before the financial crisis—was already around £50 billion a year. The previous Government, then, were increasing the national debt. It is going up because the only way to account for the deficit is by putting it on the national debt. The hon. Gentleman must understand the most basic facts of fiscal policy.

[Chris Leslie]

We have an admission there—that the national debt is rising and has risen more in the past four and a half years than it did in the 13 years of the previous Administration.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I do not recognise that figure. [Interruption.] The Minister is making various projections about the bonus pool, but even if the changes meant that we did not manage in years to come to yield what we now feel we can yield—he could equally make the argument that said, “Well, the European Union is making changes to limit bonuses,” which would obviously mean changes to salaries and elsewhere—what we are proposing would add considerably to the bank levy revenues that he has managed to generate. As we have set out in the amendment before the Committee, we need to incorporate a repeat of the bank payroll tax. It is important to recognise that, although I am happy for the Treasury to commission further research on the issue. If the Government are interested in this agenda and are starting to move in that direction, that might be useful.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am slightly confused about one thing. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to reduce profligacy and excesses in bankers’ bonuses or is he trying to raise revenue? The problem is that if he gets rid of bonuses or drives them down—a great many of us, and certainly the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, have said that we do not like this at all—he will not get the payroll taxes, namely national insurance and income tax, on those bonuses, so the revenue will go down. I am not too sure what position he is trying to get to.

[Chris Leslie]

Of course that argument could be made about any demerit activity or level of taxation. People have been making that argument about cigarette taxes over the years, saying “Well, if people give up smoking, will the Treasury not lose a lot of money from it?” I do not want to divert too much into the wider principle, but I would say that a very considerable tax cut has been given to bankers by reducing the 50p rate of income tax to 45p—a cut that is providing a very significant bonus to those individuals in this year. The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much about these poor maligned executives in the banking system. I know that things must be very difficult for them—they may even have to defer the purchase of their yachts for that little bit longer—but we must start capturing and getting a grip on this issue in a way that the bank levy has not worked to achieve so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman speaks from the heart about the 50p tax rate and I can understand why Labour Members do so, because during 13 years they spent 12 years and 11 months thinking deeply about introducing it.

[Chris Leslie]

Should we have brought it in earlier?

[Mark Garnier]

It would have been wonderful if it had been brought it in earlier because it would have shown more resolve from the Labour party.

Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee about what is behind the proposal? Is the intention of the levy to reduce the risk of perverse incentives through what can be an obscene bonus system, or is it to generate revenue? One or the other, which is it?

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Mark Garnier

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There might well be a case for that, but we are talking about people’s homes and the roofs over their heads. Repossessions can seriously hurt people, especially if they were unable to anticipate the situation because of a shock or unpredicted changes to their interest rates. As I have said, this point in the cycle is the right time to make this sort of change. It is about preparedness and information for home owners, and I feel strongly that we ought to have that in statute. If the Minister does not agree, this is certainly one of the issues on which we want to test the will of the House.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way, but there are a number of other amendments I have to talk about.

[Mark Garnier]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about an incredibly significant problem in this country: the £1.2 trillion-worth of mortgage debt for all the people of this land. What he is describing is a steepening in the yield curve, but that could also be the result of an increase in deposit rates, so what could be taken away with one hand could be a result of giving with the other hand. What I am really struggling with in the new clause is how he envisages mortgage lenders being able to deliver the warning, given the fact that he defines a shock in interest rates as something that cannot be predicted. Moreover, how does he envisage this working in practice?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman might know that in annual pension statements, for example, in the key facts documents a number of scenarios are put forward for what the pension might be worth under a range of growth options, such as annual growth of 3%, 5% or 9%. All I am seeking to do is ask the Financial Conduct Authority to consider a way of giving a range of scenarios and helping to provide information for customers, which would not be impossible. That is why I think that that is necessary for mortgages. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support what is a pretty modest change. It is something that I know we are all concerned about. The Government definitely need to go away and look at the issue again.

Amendment 37, which also stands in my name, relates to the Consumer Financial Education Body, which we now call the Money Advice Service. We are seeking to amend the Bill so that it specifically targets

“proactive and easily accessible advice to those encountering economic disadvantage, financial exclusion or financial exploitation.”

In our view, it is vital that the Money Advice Service focuses as much effort as possible on the vulnerable and those susceptible to problems, whether as a result of misinformation or choices made in financial investments. We know already, from examples in our surgeries, that those on the lowest incomes—the most vulnerable in society—need to be better protected in legislation, and that is why the new clause has been tabled.