Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Exactly, and never let Government Members claim again that we do not have a positive approach that would get young people off the dole and back into employment. This is the route that needs to be taken, and the choice presented to the public which they can see most starkly, particularly on a day when unemployment is rising.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has only recently come into the Chamber, but we will see—[Interruption.] Oh, go on then, as he is one of my favourites.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way; I thought there was a compliment coming along there, too. Not all banks have a bonus system; Handelsbanken is a good example. If we are to have such a separation between banks, with all the difficulties that that would bring about, what would the shadow Minister say to the suggestion that his proposal is a huge complication that will cause more difficulties than it will solve?

[Chris Leslie]

I would like nothing more than for our banking sector to move to a more enlightened and responsible approach to remuneration. I would not want to see a bloated and unfair bonus arrangement continuing in perpetuity simply as a result of a function of the tax system. For the time being, we need to start to send a signal on behalf of public policy makers that the current arrangements, which have not changed sufficiently since before the financial crash or during it, continue to be difficult. The banks often say that they want catharsis and that they want to move on, and I do not want to spend the rest of my life in banking legislation, for goodness’ sake, but we are still not there and the bonus levy is part of that process.

I do not want to talk for much longer, but I want to challenge the Minister specifically on the bank levy arrangements as we are debating stand part for clauses 200 to 202. We have had six different bank levy rates and they have failed to raise the right amount. We have talked about this time and time again, and I do not want to keep coming back in our debates on the autumn statement next year or on the 2014 Budget to a similar discussion on retrospectively tweaking the bank levy. I want to hear from the Minister when he replies that he can guarantee that in this financial year £2.5 billion will be netted in by the bank levy. If he cannot guarantee that, he must admit that we must reconsider the policy, which is haemorrhaging money when it should be boosting the Exchequer far more significantly.

As I said before, parliamentary rules prevent the Opposition from tabling amendments that would tweak the bank levy upwards. There is a convention of the House that only Governments can table amendments to a Finance Bill that would increase a charge on individuals or companies. The process is incredibly frustrating, as we need to ensure that we get into the detail of how the bank levy should work and what the rates should be. For the time being, we feel that tabling amendment 2 so that we can consider a review of how a bank bonus tax could help the young unemployed, in particular, and of how to incorporate it into a bank levy that nets the amount it should is the right way forward. I commend the amendment to my hon. Friends.

Tax Fairness

Debate between Chris Leslie and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I want to make some progress. I will give way in a moment.

The divide between the richest and the least well off is getting broader, not narrower, and the situation is getting worse. The Government are cutting taxes for one group this year—the very richest in society—with 13,000 people earning £1 million a year getting a tax cut. That is astonishing. Could any other policy better typify the twisted logic of trickle-down economics than that one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

That is an important point. I am glad that we have the hon. Gentleman’s support on this issue. Obviously there is a difference between residential and corporate arrangements, but our motion says that we want the Treasury to bring forward proposals at the earliest possible opportunity. We have seen the proposition set out by the Liberal Democrats and used it as the basis for our motion, but let us see what further options can be drawn together. We think that it would be a good idea, for example, for the Chancellor to commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to present detailed suggestions of ways in which the arrangements might work.

[Neil Carmichael]

Will the shadow Minister remind the House exactly what the top rate of income tax was throughout most of the last Labour Government, and give us some insight into why it was at that level?

[Chris Leslie]

After the global financial crisis, we decided to introduce a 50p top rate of income tax so that those earning £150,000 and above would make a fairer contribution to society as a whole. Those people are the wealthiest 1% in society. How astonishing—how absolutely breathtaking—that in last year’s omnishambles of a Budget, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to go for the right-wing trickle-down approach and cut the 50p rate to 45p. I hope that that decision will be reversed in the forthcoming Budget, in respect of which I take it that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention constituted a representation to the Chancellor.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Neil Carmichael

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Of course there are ways of ensuring that the building society sector can be accommodated in the leverage ratio framework. Building societies have a totally different equity structure, as my hon. Friend knows; they do not have the same equity as a plc structure. There are therefore important differences in that sector. In my view, however, it is important that all institutions, large and small, should be subject to safety requirements regarding capital loss absorbency and protection against over-extension in certain risk areas. There are ways and means of dealing with that, but I am annoyed that the Government have not seen fit to put any provisions on the leverage ratio in the Bill.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does that attitude not call into question the future of the Co-operative bank? What would the shadow Minister say about that?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not want any of our banks to be in a position of over-extending themselves, putting at risk either their customers or the taxpayer. It is very simple. We need to listen to the carefully thought through advice of the banking standards commission, the Vickers report and others, including the incoming Governor of the Bank of England, on these particular issues. The Government may call it the British dilemma, but it is astonishing that they always seem to be asking the European Union to come to their rescue at some point with some reform to deal with bail-in or whatever other problems happen to be around later on down the track. That is not adequate.

Let me deal with the issue of derivatives inside the ring fence, as I know that the parliamentary commission has been concerned about it. The Vickers report said that derivatives trading should not be allowed—full stop. The parliamentary commission recognised, however, that there were services on the margins where some simple derivative products might be permitted, but it added that

“allowing ring-fenced banks to sell derivatives other than as an agent creates additional prudential and conduct risks.”

I agree with the commission on that issue. We need clearer protections to prevent abuses within the ring-fenced retail banks where derivatives are sold. That was illustrated, of course, by the mis-selling of some interest rate hedging products to small and medium-sized enterprises. The danger is one of information asymmetry between customer and vendor and the fact that the trade became exceptionally lucrative for the banks. We have to move away from this era of the exploitation of the customer’s lack of knowledge, and the commission was clear about that in the three tests it set.

We have seen one of the drafts of the secondary orders, subsequent to the commission’s recommendations. It is therefore worth comparing that order with the tests that the commission has set. The commission said that there should be adequate safeguards against mis-selling, but as far as I can see, the draft order does not go into any detail about how the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority will enforce anything new. The commission said that there should be a clear definition of simple derivatives, which will be allowed, versus complex derivatives, which will be disallowed, but the draft order seems to define simple derivatives quite widely—in other words, as instruments designed to tackle interest rate risk, exchange rate risk, default risk, liquidity risk or for dealing in assets included in the liquid assets buffer. It would be easier if the Minister set out what would not be allowed rather than what would be allowed in the ring fence.

The third test relates to limits on the proportion of a bank’s balance sheet. The commission thought that was necessary, but the draft order so far leaves out what that percentage should be. There is a space left for a figure before the percentage sign, so perhaps the Minister can give us a sense of what that proportion of the bank’s balance sheet should be. That was one of the commission’s tests, as I said, so we need to secure assurances from the Minister about the Government’s intentions. As Martin Taylor said in his evidence to the commission:

“I can’t see the point of having a fence round the chicken coop, electrifying it to keep the foxes out, and then inviting a family of tame foxes to live inside it.”

That sums up the problem quite neatly. I have already alluded to the bail-in powers. Again, it is disappointing that the Government are relying on future European directives as the means to achieve bail-in rather than building it into the Bill before us. I do not think that the frequent excuse of “We’re waiting for the European Union” will do any longer.

We need also to focus on some of the other issues that should be in the Bill today, particularly rebuilding consumer choice, financial inclusion and a diverse market. The Bill is silent on all those areas. There is nothing about challenger or new entrant banks; nothing to ensure a universal obligation on banks for basic bank account services. There is also pussyfooting around on switching of bank accounts, about which I know some Government Members are concerned. There is nothing on mutuality, despite the pledge in the coalition agreement to

“foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry”;

and nothing about a fiduciary duty of care for clients and customers. We will table amendments to ensure that high street lenders offer a basic bank account, which is particularly necessary because of the onset of universal credit. We want a report within six months addressing obstacles to new-entrant challenger banks and current account provision. We also want Parliament to have an opportunity, soon after Royal Assent, to examine the adequacy of customer switching arrangements, and we want the publication of bank data on “lending deserts”, the postcode areas where—as we are finding in our constituencies—some small and medium-sized enterprises and customers find it difficult to gain access to credit. Other tests need to be included in the Bill to fulfil the coalition’s mutuality pledge. We also want a duty to be imposed on directors of ring-fenced banks to operate prudently and to safeguard deposits, and we want them to have a fiduciary duty of care to customers throughout the financial services.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Neil Carmichael

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. This is a necessary piece of legislation, not least because we need to stimulate growth by showing that we are interested in developing our infrastructure. Such infrastructure investment has taken place in the past, but we need more, and it is important to understand what kind of investment is needed and how the process needs to unfold. We do not always remember that organisations involved in civil engineering, for example, want to see a little more confidence in the world of infrastructure investment, so that they can start to prepare for projects that are in the pipeline or that are urgently needed. We must recognise that some of those projects will stimulate further economic activity. Transport and energy are classic examples of sectors in which more investment is needed, as a stimulant to create even more exponential economic activity.

Let us take transport as an example. By investing in more transport infrastructure and ensuring greater connectivity, we give businesses a better foundation from which to grow. I know that from experience in my own constituency, where the news of the investment in the redoubling of the railway line between Kemble and Swindon on the Stroud to Swindon line has had an enormous impact. There is a real feel-good factor for the medium term in relation to the connectivity of my constituency. We need to see much more of that kind of signalling, and I welcome the thrust of the measures that relate to transport.

Another critical area whose importance we do not always recognise when we talk about investment is the energy sector. Again, the word “connectivity” is important, but we must also understand the need to provide a framework for the right kind of investment, as well as ensuring, as the Bill does, that guarantees can be put in place for those investments. For example, in the renewable energy sector, we need to think about the infrastructure required to get the energy from where it is created to the place where it will be used.

We must also encourage new technologies by providing the right policy platform to enable them to be developed and promoted. A good example is energy storage. In some sectors, we have the kind of technology that could make energy storage a realistic prospect. I have told the House before about liquid air, but I will tell it again. Liquid air provides a significant way of storing energy, but we need the infrastructure to achieve that. The Bill could provide the necessary encouragement for that to happen, and for an interest in energy to be developed.

[Chris Leslie]

Is it hot air?

[Neil Carmichael]

It is certainly not hot air. It is very cold. The technology is well worth looking into; it is all about the transfer of pressure.

The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) talked about the proximity of the Bill to private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, and I agree that that proximity exists. We need to learn lessons, however, from our experience of the more complicated and convoluted PFI schemes. We need more flexibility, and we need to give the public and private sectors the confidence to think, “Let’s get this done”. We need to generate a can-do approach, and the Bill will go some way towards achieving that.