Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
David Ruffley Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
A Conservative Chancellor is at the height of his powers. We see falling inflation, falling unemployment, rising living standards and healthy growth, built on the basis of deficit reduction and falling borrowing.
That was, of course, the legacy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in the 1990s. I was his special adviser then, and he is the man who is responsible for my being in this place. However, my right hon. Friend the current Chancellor can boast of an even greater achievement than that legacy. He has achieved stability, and put the country on the path from austerity to prosperity, from a much more difficult starting point: the great recession. On the basis of the Budget statement and the subsequent announcements that we have heard over the past few days, I believe that the current Chancellor will receive a better reward than our party received in 1997. He certainly deserves it.
I have spent about a dozen of my 18 years as a Member of Parliament focusing on Treasury matters, and during that time I have had my fair share of Financial Times headlines quoting what I have said. I was therefore grateful when, the day after this week’s Budget, the paper quoted me as praising it for being a “grown-up Budget”, which is my valedictory FT headline. I described the Budget in that way because it is demonstrably not a giveaway or a populist Budget, but a Budget that is in the national economic interest.
One of my few regrets during my time in this place is that too many of our constituents, and too many in the media, believe that we are all the same—that there is not much difference between the parties. That is probably partly due to their sense that a number of politicians and Governments are buffeted by global economic forces that they may not understand, much less control. I think that that is wrong. I have a slightly more idealistic view of nationally important economic statements such as Budgets: I believe that they should have a moral purpose.
I should add, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that the Budgets of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were momentous events, although I did not agree with many of the measures that he introduced. I often thought that, in the noughties, he relied too much on the flow of very buoyant corporate tax receipts that were never going to last for ever, but on the back of which he spent too much. That is something that even Tony Blair has acknowledged, believing—and I think that, on this occasion, he was right—that in 2005 we could see the beginning of the opening up of a structural deficit in the Government’s public finances. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the former Labour Chancellor, ably assisted by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), undoubtedly had a moral vision of where the country was going.
Emily Thornberry
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he believed that the previous Labour Government had spent too much. He talks of being on the record, and of making a valedictory address. Is he on the record as spelling out to the former Prime Minister, or the former Chancellor, any areas in which we were spending too much, and urging us to spend less? Were there, for instance, any hospitals that he did not want us to open?
Mr Ruffley
I will give one example: middle-class welfare-ism, as it is often described. We all supported the introduction of working tax credit, a repackaging of income support and family credit, as an in-work benefit for those on low pay—it was, and is, a good thing—but it extended much too far up the income scale, and a great deal of money was spent. Most economic analysts would not deny that that spending judgment opened up a structural deficit. The country was spending more than it could afford.
Let me return to my key point. I believe that valid differences, based on a moral outlook, are exhibited in this week’s Budget, and I will shortly explain why I think that it has purpose and deserves to be praised for that. Before I do so, however, let me say that during my time here, the economic Front Benchers of the Labour party have certainly made us think. I am reminded of what Edmund Burke said in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France”. It serves as a description not just of my experience, but of what I think the Chamber is and should be about. Burke said:
“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
I want to make two points in the context of the clash of ideas to which I have referred,. One relates to the part of the country that I represent, Bury St Edmunds in East Anglia. It was looked after in the Budget in two ways. First, there was the announcement that there would be a reform of business rates, and that a considered consultation on the matter would take place in the next 12 months. Why is that important? It is important because high-quality market towns such as Bury St Edmunds rely on the shops and small businesses in the town centre. They have been hit disproportionately by the great boom in internet shopping, and we have had to acknowledge that they have significant on-costs if their business is supported by bricks rather than by clicks. The basis of business rate taxation needs to be looked at to ensure the future of our market towns. The other point is that a car is a necessity, not a luxury, in areas such as Suffolk, so another freeze in fuel duty—the longest freeze for 20 years—is warmly welcomed in the East Anglia economy.
I want to make a general point about job creation. We know that 1,000 jobs are being created every day under the coalition Government, of which 80% are full time and 80% are in high-skill occupations. The apprenticeship scheme, which will be seen as one of the great achievements of this coalition Administration, needs to permeate more into rural economies and areas like as mine. The excellent West Suffolk college should do more to offer courses in skilled occupations, increasingly levering in the apprenticeship scheme, so that we can have more high-skill jobs in Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and surrounding areas. It seems to me and many others that while Cambridge has expanded north towards Ely and west towards Huntingdonshire, not enough of the Cambridge effect has spilled over eastwards down the A14 to west and mid Suffolk, as we wish it to do.
Ours is a relatively well-heeled and successful part of the country. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was born and raised a Lancastrian. I understand that the north of England has earned a lot of brass for this country during the past couple of centuries. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has understood that and has been so imaginative in putting together his northern powerhouse proposition. I welcome the pilot for Greater Manchester to keep 100% of additional business rate revenue, and the devolved powers that he will give to transport for northern areas and, in Manchester’s case, on NHS and training budgets. We want that proposal to be extended to Yorkshire and the north-east, as well as to those parts of the midlands that have not yet had the benefits that East Anglia and the south-east of England have received.
My second point relates to the big fiscal judgment in the Budget, which is that we will run an overall fiscal surplus. We will not just balance the current budget by 2018-19, but have capital and current surpluses by 2020. The surplus will not be as big as the £23 billion-plus projected at the time of the last autumn statement, but it will be several billion pounds—and such a relaxation of the fiscal position is good—because we as a nation absolutely must run a surplus. Why? Because as anyone will tell you in the City, where I shall return after May, there will one day be another recession. There just will be, no matter who is in power. Above all else, what we must learn from the past 10 years is that we need to be prepared. If we do not have a surplus for a rainy day, the cuts and the squeeze on living standards will be that much greater.
At the same time as wanting to run a surplus, the current Chancellor has very clearly set out two paths that are consistent with core, right-of-centre Conservative principles—the first is that individuals who work should be allowed to keep more of what they earn to spend as they choose, not as the state chooses; and the second is that individuals must be allowed to keep more of what they save to do with what they decide, not what the state decides. That is why two sets of measures in the Budget need to be praised. One set involves the new personal savings allowance, taking 17 million people out of tax on savings, which is a modest start to bolstering the savings culture. There is also the freedom for 5 million annuity policyholders to get out of their policies in a year’s time if they so choose, and the flexible ISA. The other set relates to income tax. The ambition of taking lower-paid people out of tax means that in two years’ time the personal allowance will be £11,000. That will help not just the low-paid; everybody, including those who pay income tax at the 20p and 40p rates, will receive a tax cut.
Finally, I would say that I leave the House wiser and more optimistic about this country’s economic health, its future and the ability of its citizens to compete in the world. I feel hugely grateful for, and very privileged to have had, the opportunity to represent the most beautiful constituency in the country, Bury St Edmunds. I still believe that this country is, and I hope it will remain, the greatest on earth.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Ruffley Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
First, it was this Government who got the base erosion and profit shifting process running with the OECD, looking to deal with the international rules. It was this Government who announced at the autumn statement that we are bringing in a diverted profits tax to deal with some of the contrived and artificial behaviours that people are worried about. It was also this Government who introduced the general anti-abuse rule and it is this Government who are consulting on bringing in penalties for it. I have to say, it is not a bad record.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
T5. I commend the Chancellor’s aim of running an overall budget surplus in 2019-20 and cutting the national debt so that the next generation are not saddled with punitive taxes. Does he agree that this is a case of simple fairness, not ideology?
Mr George Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Countries such as Canada and Sweden, both of which have quite strong social democratic traditions, have forms of balanced budget rules, or rules where surpluses are run in good times. That has enabled them to bring their public finances under control and their debt down. They did not endure the hardship we saw as a result of the financial crisis here in the UK. We propose that countries should run a surplus in good times. That is the only sustainable way to get our national debt down. If we do not do that, we leave Britain exposed to whatever economic shocks the world throws at us.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
David Ruffley Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I am rather excited by this debate on fiscal responsibility. This is not to say that I am an anorak who should get out more. My happiness resides more in the fact that those who support the motion will be committing to balanced budget economics. Anyone voting for the motion will not just be saying that they believe in balanced budgets; they will be voting for that.
In the new world of transparency the public will be watching who votes for what, and they will rightly hold everyone who votes for the motion to account for the two propositions contained in the charter. The first is the fiscal mandate. As the Chancellor spelled out—there is no confusion—we will balance the current budget by 2017-18. The second is the supplementary debt target, which means falling debt as a share of GDP by 2016-17.
How will we do this? The Conservatives are clear. It means that for the first full two years of the Parliament we will continue the public spending reductions, so that total managed expenditure will fall at roughly the rate that it has been falling in this Parliament—about 1% overall in real terms. That is equivalent to about an extra cut of £1 in every £100 being found in the next forecast period. Any business in my constituency asked to find a cut of £1 out of £100 would do it standing on its head, especially if it knew that that was vital to the survival of the business.
Specifically, we know that £30 billion of fiscal consolidation is required to deliver the fiscal mandate. So Members who vote for the motion tonight are absolutely committed to finding £30 billion. The Conservative party thinks it can be done as follows: £13 billion of that £30 billion by cuts to departmental expenditure limits, excluding the protected budgets for schools, the Department for International Development and health, and a further £12 billion from annually managed expenditure—the welfare budget. I shall not speculate, as I am not in the Government, but we might be looking to find those £12 billion-worth of cuts by, yes, restricting child benefit, maybe to two children; yes, perhaps restricting the top-heavy housing benefit budget and consider saying that those under 21 or under 25 should have their housing benefit curtailed. Finally—one of the biggest exemplifications of social justice that the current Treasury has come up with—yes, tough anti-avoidance rules. The Labour party in 13 years never dared introduce a general anti-avoidance rule. We are saying that those who have the broadest backs cannot be allowed aggressively to exploit tax loopholes. That will find £5 billion.
Our numbers add up. After those first full two years of consolidation, we would have flat real-terms settlements—flat, not further cuts. The result of all this, as we know, is that we would run an overall surplus, not just a surplus in the third year on current budget. Why is that important? Why did the Chancellor say it? The Chancellor said it because he understands that we have to start paying down debt. If we do not pay down debt, it will mean further tax increases and inevitably spending cuts further down the road for the next generation.
This is an ethical proposition, not an ideological one, as the Chief Secretary—I hate to say it—has branded these Conservative plans, and the Labour party as well. We need not waste any time on the Orwellian invocations of “The Road to Wigan Pier”. That is childish point-scoring. This is not ideology. It is about paying down debt.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In the Red Book there is a chart showing debt interest in 2015-16 overtaking the education budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extremely practical problem of making sure that debt interest does not consume all the tax revenue that we might otherwise spend on services?
Mr Ruffley
My hon. Friend makes a trenchant point. Do we want burgeoning debt interest under the policies of the Opposition parties to eat away at front-line services? The money, as we know, has to come from somewhere.
I am not clear where the major Opposition party stands on this. The £30 billion is what anyone who votes for the motion today must account for. It was not clear whether the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that figure on Sunday, but he made a stab at how the Labour party might fiscally consolidate. There was the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate for high earners; we know that that raises less than £1 billion. There has been reference today to restricting pensioner benefits to very well-off pensioners; we know that that raises less than £0.5 billion. Labour Members are not even remotely in the ballpark in coming up with a £30 billion consolidation in anything they have said today inside or outside the House.
This leaves us with two possibilities in relation to Labour Members who are going to vote for this proposition today. The first is that they are voting for it in the full knowledge that they have no intention of balancing the current budget in year 3. I am a kind and generous individual, and I do not think they would do anything as dishonourable as to vote for something they had no intention of honouring. They are not going to get the money from spending cuts most of which they admit they will not pursue, and they will not guarantee our spending reductions. That leaves us, I am afraid, to conclude that the iron law of modern British politics still obtains: dogs bark, cats miaow, and Labour puts up taxes.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Ruffley Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that this Government introduced the triple lock for pensioners to ensure that, instead of under the last Government when they received only the increase in average earnings, pensioners under this Government will receive an element for inflation, average earnings or 2%, whichever is the higher.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
16. What recent representations he has received on the introduction of new fiscal rules to limit government borrowing.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government will shortly publish the revised charter for budget responsibility, which will set out new fiscal rules in detail. As the Chancellor said last week, there is more to do, but our long-term economic plan is working. The deficit is forecast to fall this year, down from what the Office for Budget Responsibility described as the post-war record deficit of 10.2% of gross domestic product in 2009-10 to 5% this year—cutting it in half.
Mr Ruffley
I thank the Minister for that reply. I commend the autumn statement, in particular chart 1.9 therein, which makes it clear that any Government who wish to reduce debts as a share of GDP to under 40% in the next 20 years will not merely have to balance the budget, but to run a surplus of 1% of GDP on the budget. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is essential that new fiscal rules are created and voted on frequently to achieve this massively important debt reduction?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition talk about balancing the books, but in fact what they are talking about is borrowing more once their current budget is in surplus, and that is a complete fabrication, because what the Opposition need to recognise is that the only way to return this country to prosperity is not just to deal with the massive debt left by Labour but also to get our economy back into long-term growth and long-term surpluses. [Interruption.]
The Economy and Living Standards
David Ruffley Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I fear that the amendment contains several new Labour clichés that make me nostalgic for the Blair and Brown years. Delivering rising living standards for the many, not the few, making work pay—the only one that is missing is “an end to boom and bust”.
Of course, new Labour did not deliver any of those things, but it did deliver the biggest peacetime borrowing deficit that the country has ever seen. I regret to say that Labour has not learnt anything in the last 12 months. According to the House of Commons Library, it has made £29 billion worth of unfunded spending commitments. As for making work pay, this is the party that refused, in the House, to back the benefit cap. Labour Members are quite happy for those on benefits to earn the equivalent of £40,000 a year before tax.
The amendment refers to child care. Of course that is very important for some of my constituents, especially working mothers. That is why we are introducing a Bill that will deliver 20% of child care costs—up to £10,000 per child, which is worth up to £2,000 per child per year—to working families. Moreover, 85% of the child care costs of families receiving universal credit will be covered.
What are we doing to support small business, the biggest deliverer of the 1.7 million extra jobs that have been created since 2010? I do not know what the Labour party is doing, but, as well as cutting the “jobs tax” by providing an employment allowance of £2,000 a year, we have come up with a Bill that will raise the maximum fine for employers who do not pay the minimum wage, and will ban the exclusivity that currently prevents people who are on zero-hours contracts from working for other employers.
Housing has been mentioned. It is true that we need more brownfield sites to be built on by residential developers, and our Infrastructure Bill will cut the red tape surrounding unneeded public sector land that is not being returned to planning permission territory. It will also reduce energy costs, which are a key component of the cost of living, by ensuring that shale extraction takes place across a wider area and more rapidly.
Finally, let me draw the House’s attention to an omission. I do not know whether it is due to slack drafting on the part of Opposition Front Benchers or to their general disdain for pensioners, but the word “pensioner” does not appear once in the amendment. We are introducing two Bills to deal with the fact that about 12 million of our fellow citizens are not saving enough to provide for an adequate retirement income. Our private pensions Bill will create collective pension schemes to ensure that more people can gain access to affordable pensions, while our pension tax Bill will bring about the most revolutionary change in pension provision that the country has seen for more than half a century. Crucially, it will allow individuals not to be compelled to buy annuities at 75, but to have true freedom in relation to the pot of money that they have built up during their working lives.
The plan is working. Labour has no plan. We should just keep on going.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Ruffley Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I have not been keeping count of how many times the long-term economic plan has been mentioned, but the hon. Lady has just added two more to the total. That long-term economic plan is reducing the deficit, which is due to be down by a half this year, seeing the creation of 1.5 million jobs in our economy and supporting the growing economy, as we have seen in the GDP numbers today.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The elimination of the deficit by the end of the next Parliament still requires reducing general Government consumption to its 1948 level. Will the Chancellor confirm that that is in the national interest and that the Labour party does not have a snowball’s chance in Hades of achieving it?
Mr Osborne
The Labour Government left us the highest budget deficit in the peacetime history of this country. The numbers to which my hon. Friend refers assume that there are no savings in welfare. I have made it clear that I think we should consider savings in welfare. Of course, other parties, such as the Labour party, have put forward proposals to increase tax.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Ruffley Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
No, I do not share that analysis. It ignores the fact that increases to the personal allowance, along with many of our reforms to the welfare system, increase substantially the incentives for people to go into work. The private sector has created a net 1.4 million jobs since 2010, so there are more job opportunities to go around too.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Chancellor last week published evidence showing that his bold cuts to corporation tax more or less paid for themselves because of the extra economic activity they generated. Can a similar piece of work not be done to demonstrate that further cuts in income tax will also pay for themselves in a similar way?
Danny Alexander
I think that is rather a good idea and I will take it up in the Treasury.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
David Ruffley Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I wish to speak substantially to new clause 14, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She has waged a Boadicea-like war to bring about account portability, and I have been happy to follow that banner—certainly over the past two years—when trying to increase competition. Between the two of us, my hon. Friend has led on account portability, while I have looked closely at barriers to entry and regulation.
I repeat my hon. Friend’s point about how the regulator has given way a bit on regulatory barriers to entry. Although I would not say it has moved substantially, it has made it easier for challenger banks to enter the marketplace. Two or three years ago, any potential challenger coming to the marketplace looked to spend between £300,000 and a potential £25 million just to get to the regulator’s front door and open a formal dialogue to get a banking licence. That is now changing, and the regulator has come up with a new process that makes it a great deal easier. None the less, smaller banks have certain problems due to ongoing expectations that give an advantage to the bigger banks. Those bigger banks have greater granularity with their account holders, and can therefore consider more sophisticated risk-weighting models for their assets. Smaller banks do not have those IT advantages and the cost of their asset book rises with greater capital requirements, which is still a problem.
Before I get to the substantial points, when considering effective competition within the marketplace we must remember the importance of a well-educated consumer. I am pleased that the Government have already responded on that—yesterday the Secretary of State for Education announced the new curriculum, which includes financial literacy, and I pay tribute to his wisdom in realising that that is one of the greatest engines of social mobility. In any sophisticated society such as ours, it is important that those we are educating can deal with the most basic measure of the economy we live in—looking after their own money. That has been achieved through the hard work of organisations such as the Personal Finance Education Group and the all-party group on financial education for young people, and it is a very good thing.
Financial education, understanding and literacy are core to driving competition. It is no good giving people a multiple choice of banks they can use if they do not understand the products being presented. When considering standards within banks, it is important that the marketplace, as well as the regulator, holds those banks’ feet to the fire to ensure they are performing well, providing a good service and delivering trust, which is crucial to restoring a properly functioning banking market in the UK.
On account number portability, in September this year seven-day switching will start. The banks have come to us proudly and said that they have spent £700 million implementing that system, but in essence it is less a switching service and more a redirection service that lasts a year—more of the chewing gum and Sellotape we heard about earlier. The measure of success for the seven-day switching service is expected to be how many people switch, but I do not think it will pass that test because I do not expect many people to switch their accounts. It comes down to the fundamental problem that there are still barriers to entry for new entrants, which leaves a small number of banks in the marketplace. Most people cannot see the difference between one bank and another, and even if they can, they do not necessarily understand what it is. In their mind, the risk of an uncertain future with a different bank far outweighs the benefits of finding a better service and challenging the bank to be more efficient.
The proposals for account number portability in new clause 14, which the Government have already agreed is a good thing, are important and will make it simple for new banks to enter the marketplace and steal market share from existing banks. The provision has the advantage of being pro-competition—we have already heard strong discussions about that—and there are number of other important issues alongside that. First, in this world where we would like a lot more transparency, the new Financial Policy Committee is considering the state of the financial system. That will help it understand what is going on in terms of transparency, and bring the visible part of the system within the auspices of VocaLink. As a result, the FPC will be able to head off any disasters if it sees anything going on.
We also heard that resolution of failing banks is incredibly important. Part of the Bill’s raison d’être, and indeed that of all the work done by Vickers and everyone who has worked on this since the crisis of 2007-08, is to try to ensure that people affected by failing banks do not lose their livelihood or face a financial crisis, so a simple resolution of a failing bank is incredibly important. Under the proposals, although an individual might see on television that there has been a run on their bank and that it is collapsing, the next morning they would simply wake up to discover that their bank account had automatically been transferred to another bank. The systems would continue to work, so their pay would be received on their behalf, their standing orders would still be paid and their house would not be repossessed because they had not paid their mortgage. More importantly, if they do not like the new bank they had been sent to, a couple of days later they could move to a better bank that they felt more comfortable with. Resolution is therefore incredibly important.
The other incredibly important point is that some banks have legacy IT systems that have been around for a huge number of years. Parts of these IT systems can date back to the punch cards of the 1950s and 1960s. In a recent conversation with someone who has done a certain amount of work in one of the larger state-owned banks, I happened to make a throwaway comment about the old IT systems. He responded, “Oh yeah, absolutely.” He explained that he had been looking at some of the software surrounding the small and medium-sized enterprise accounts and had noted that one of the software models had a converter sitting alongside it for converting pounds, shillings and pence into decimals. That must be at least 42 years old, as decimalisation was in 1971.
We know for a fact that there are a lot of old and incompatible systems being held together with string and chewing gum. Andy Haldane at the Bank of England has done a study and estimated that 80% of banks’ IT spend is on holding old systems together. If we take into account the fact that it is timely because at some point all the banks will need to update their systems, and if we consider resolution, transparency and competition, we will come up with a pretty convincing set of arguments that now is as good a time as any to introduce what will amount to fairly substantial IT investment, and there are a number of reasons that come together to make it worth while.
VocaLink, which runs a payments system, has already done a great deal of work on that. I have heard from a number of the larger banks that it could cost £10 billion, but they are dead against any sort of account number portability, so I suspect that it would be a lot cheaper. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come forward as soon as possible to get the cost-benefit analysis on moving to full account number portability and, importantly, not be distracted by looking at the seven-day switching service in a year’s time.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on introducing new clause 14, which I call the Leadsom clause. Before concluding will my hon. Friend share with us the work he has done in speaking over the past two years to potential new entrants, new challenger banks, that have said that they would consider entering the market if bank account number portability came to pass?
John Thurso
I was going to say something about “A Tale of Two Cities”, but I will leave it at my hon. Friend’s great expectations.
John Thurso
Yes, something like that.
I am very tempted by new clauses 8 and 10, which were tabled by the Opposition. I will not vote against them, but I will not vote for them at this stage. There is an immense amount in them, but I will wait to hear what the Minister says. There is also a great deal of debate to come in the other place. I do not want to say that I am against the new clauses, but I am not sure that the wording is exactly what I would like to have seen. I ask for the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on that.
On new clause 10, there was a lot of debate in the commission about the good bank/bad bank split. We ended up with a central point that we all agreed to, but a number of us wanted to go more in one direction. However, whether a good bank/bad bank split is a good idea is a completely different issue from what should be done afterwards. If one takes the view that a good bank/bad bank split is not needed, one can still consider all the points that have been put forward, including the many things the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said could be done to enhance regional banking and credit unions. All those things are equally possible whether or not one decides that the bad bank is necessary.
To my mind the good bank/bad bank argument is separate to what one does with a bank going forward. I happen to be somebody who believes that a good bank/bad bank split is right for the simple reason that if we take the flakier assets out of the bank and put them in a run-off bank, therefore liberating the capital being used in the balance sheet to support it, capital is then available in the good bank to be lent to SMEs and individuals. It is a simple mechanism for getting more capital flowing through, but I would make the point that it is not inextricably linked.
Following on from the slightly more partisan comments from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, one thing that comes out of this process, and which I have observed right the way through it, is that United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd has not been the most successful of bodies. We have seen that there are politics in such situations, and that trying to put a mechanism in between muddies the water. That is one of the reasons why the commission’s report made its suggestions on UKFI.
Finally, the commission very much supports new clause 8. As I said in my intervention, I do not think this matter needs legislation. What I would be looking for from the Minister is a commitment that does not require me to look carefully between the lines, but is, in fact, a further commitment.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
David Ruffley Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Redwood
I remind the House that I provide investment advice on world markets and world economies, but I am pleased to say that it has nothing to do with banking credit or banking leverage, so I feel quite entitled to comment in this important debate.
I welcome what I hope is a probing new clause from the Opposition. It allows us to discuss something that is at the heart of what regulators need to do to have a strong banking sector and economy and to have the comfort at night of knowing that we will not live through another dreadful crisis like the credit crunch of the previous decade. The new clause goes to the heart of the issue: what action should the Government and regulators take to try to ensure that large banks and other institutions advancing credit that can be a risk to the whole system are kept under sensible control, so that we can be pretty confident that, if something goes wrong or the world economy dips, they have the necessary money to pay the bills and deal with any losses that might arise?
If we look at the tragic history of the previous decade, we can see that the then banking regulator in the United Kingdom—I think that it has now admitted this—got it wrong both ways. It wanted the banks to have too little capital, cash and protection, and in the run-up to the credit crisis in 2008 it allowed the most enormous expansion of leverage, which previous generations of regulators had not permitted. Then, in the ensuing panic, when interest rates had to rise to tackle the problem of inflation, it lurched to wanting very high amounts of capital, but at the time the banks could not generate profit and so found that very difficult. That resulted in the previous Government’s decision, in two of the worst cases, that capital should be forthcoming from the state and taxpayers themselves. I think that we all agree that we do not want to go back around that course or to get to the position again where some Members of this House feel that the only option is for the state to provide taxpayer support for organisations that have been too leveraged.
New clause 9 suggests that it is possible to set a leverage ratio for the system as a whole, and it might be, and that might be desirable, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Of course, the regulator already does that in a way because it sets individual target ratios or capital requirements for all the major banks in the system, so if we aggregate those we get to its view of the aggregate amount of leverage. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has rightly said, if that overall leverage were to be set for the system as a whole, the regulator would still need to interpret that bank by bank. Some banks would be super-prudent and some would be straining at the other end of the spectrum and might be under special measures with the regulator to try to get their balance sheets into shape.
My particular worry at the moment is that it is never easy managing the transition. We would all be delighted to wake up tomorrow and discover that all the banks are super-safe, but if the price of getting to that stage too quickly is no growth in the economy or, worse still, the onset of another recession because the banks cannot finance the recovery, that would be a bad idea. Many of us would like to see the banks get to better ratios by writing more profitable business and generating more legitimate and sensible levels of profit, rather than having the regulator run the risk of moving too quickly to demand that they have much better ratios. The banks would then have to achieve those better ratios by not writing any new business and by trying to get old loans back ever more quickly from businesses that might find it difficult to repay them. Some of those banks, not being very profitable, could not trade themselves out of the difficulties that they found themselves in.
We also need to be conscious of what is happening globally, because although we should not chase the rest of the world if it has a group of regulators that are being far too generous and wish to re-enact the boom-type crisis of the previous decade—I do not think that we are in that position any more; I think that the regulators of the world are all generally trying to be more cautious—we need to ensure that we do not do anything in Britain that is particularly penal. What we need in order to have a prosperous economy is banks with sufficient profit, reserves and capital to be able to finance a normal recovery. It is very unpopular in this country to speak up for banks making profits at the moment, or indeed at any time, but it is important that they generate reasonable working profits, because that is the best way to make them more solvent.
Mr Ruffley
Is my right hon. Friend as unconvinced as I am by the relatively arbitrary figure of 4% being preferable to 3% for the leverage ratio? Like him, I believe that, if there is going to be any tightening on capital adequacy or leverage, it should be done when the recovery is more surely under way, and 3% is preferable to the 4% recommended by the Vickers commission and the parliamentary commission.
Mr Redwood
I think that I agree with my hon. Friend. What I am suggesting is that I would like to get closer to 4% and further away from 3% by growth, and I think that that could be inferred in Labour’s new clause, because I noticed that the hon. Member for Nottingham East wisely did not pledge himself firmly to 4%. Although he might secretly want 4%, like the rest of us he is probably wise enough to know that, although it might be nice to have 4% in due course, to lurch straight to a target that some big banks could not meet might be very damaging to the economy.
Mr Redwood
It is important that we should have proper discussion and informed debate, taking the best advice, so that we can try to get things right for a change. We owe it to all our electors and the economy generally to try to get the matter right.
Time is not generous, so I will be brief. My worry is that, under the previous Labour Government and in the early days of the coalition, we were running a strange policy in which, on the one hand, the Bank of England was trying to depress the vehicle’s accelerator by creating a lot of extra money and saying, “We really need to get some of this money out there to do some good in the economy.” On the other hand, the banking regulator was depressing the vehicle’s brake, saying, “No, you can’t possibly spend that money to create more credit and do more things. The priority is for the banks to sit on the money to have better cash and capital ratios. They probably need to wind down their loan books, which we think are too big.” My observation is that if we try to drive a vehicle with one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake, the brake normally wins.
Mr Ruffley
As has been mentioned already, some in the Bank, including Sir Mervyn King, argued that insufficient lending is a consequence of insufficient capital. I put that to Mr Bailey a few days ago in the Treasury Committee. I asked him about the net new lending level now compared with when funding for lending began last August, and he said that it was flat. Is that not evidence for his proposition that we cannot have tighter adequacy requirements on capital and lots more new lending? The figures show that lending is flat.
Mr Redwood
Indeed. That point also shows that we need banks to be profitable—particularly RBS, which is still largely state owned. Until the bank is making profits, its capital ratios will not improve quickly enough and it will then not be in a position to lend the money that the Government would like it to. The taxpayer would be grateful if it could be more profitable, because our shares would be worth more, which would be in the general interest.
I conclude by making the same point to the Minister. Yes, I want us to get to stronger banks with tighter ratios, but I want us to get there through growth and growth in bank profits—particularly for HBOS and RBS, in which we have a large state stake and whose results have been disappointing for a number of years. If we can get to that happy position, we can have a bit of growth and some more profitability and then the regulator will have to have a sensible conversation with the banks; it will say that some of the money has to be put into cash and capital so that they are stronger. We will be the better for that.
Cathy Jamieson
My hon. Friend is right and he speaks with great experience, both because of the work he has done in this House and on the banking commission. He is right to say that the scandal of the PPI is exactly why today’s consumers want further assurances that the banking industry and the financial services sector are not simply about using consumers’ possible lack of knowledge or understanding of the system to turn a quick profit with no thought to the longer term, either for the individuals or for the wider financial sector. That is why we have tabled the new clause.
I suspect that the Minister may say much the same to me this evening as he said in Committee, as he felt that the amendment was unnecessary. Nor was it drafted in the most technically perfect way. However, it would be helpful if he were able to confirm that at the least the idea of a fiduciary duty—a duty of care—will be significant. I feel minded to test the will of the House on this new clause.
Mr Ruffley
On a point of information, what fiduciary duties, other than a duty of care, does the hon. Lady envisage?
Cathy Jamieson
I could go back through some of the issues that were raised in Committee. As I outlined, some of the duties that would be expected are those defined and accepted in common law already. What we want to do is try to put them in legislation to give a clear signal to consumers that things have changed and to try to rebuild trust in the banking system. I do not think that the customers of the banks think that it is unreasonable to have something that says that the banks should act in consumers’ interests when looking after their money.
New clause 5 reflects another amendment that we tabled in Committee. It is important to have assurances from the Government in the absence of knowing their intentions about remuneration reform. We tabled new clause 5 because we want the banks to take account of performance and stability over a five to 10-year period. That would reduce unnecessary risk-taking, force bankers to take a longer-term view, and end rewards for short-term profit. We tabled an amendment on this in Committee, and the parliamentary commission took a similar view in its report, which states:
“The Commission recommends that the new Remuneration Code include a new power for the regulators to require that a substantial part of remuneration be deferred for up to 10 years, where it is necessary for effective long-term risk management.”
That was raised by the Treasury Committee in January, when the Bank of England director Andy Haldane called for various reforms.
Mr Ruffley
I shall make two brief points. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on drawing attention to something very important to the House—that it is this Government who have got behind the idea that there should be, in certain limited circumstances, a custodial sentence for breach of a new criminal offence. It is worth reminding ourselves that although the crash occurred in autumn 2008, the then Labour Government had 2009 and the first five months of 2010 to do something about it, but it is this Government who have made their intentions clear regarding custodial sentences. For that, Ministers should be congratulated.
The second and final point is that we cannot let this debate pass without reminding ourselves of the fact that existing criminal law was not being enforced in relation to the allegations of LIBOR rigging. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards came into existence as a direct result of the allegations about rigging the LIBOR market. The custodial sentences available for those activities were not seriously taken on board by the Serious Fraud Office, for in 2011, it is said, the SFO inquired into whether existing criminal offences had been committed by those manipulating the LIBOR market, and concluded that they had not.
This time last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he would ask the Serious Fraud Office to take another look to see whether criminal offences had been committed under existing criminal law. Leading counsel advised me and I said in the Chamber that there were, on the face of it, breaches of section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 through false accounting, the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, breach of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and possibly even breaches under the Fraud Act 2006.
Although the Minister clearly cannot intervene in investigations by the Serious Fraud Office because prosecutorial authorities are quite separate from the Executive, which has always been the case and will, I am sure, continue to be the case for centuries to come, it would be useful for him to indicate what the state of play is in relation to breaches of existing criminal law that might give rise to custodial sentences in the case of those engaged in LIBOR rigging.
Greg Clark
It is a pleasure to respond to this well-informed debate. I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) to the Opposition Dispatch Box. She proved rather more persuasive in Committee than her hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), as I was able to accept at least one of her amendments. I think that it was a single word, but I am sure that it was an excellent one, historically so.
We are considering a large group of amendments, as has been evident in the range of the debate, and it has given us the opportunity to have an initial discussion of the parliamentary commission’s recommendations on questions of individual accountability and corporate governance. We agree with the recommendations that have been made. The commission’s report has at its heart the essential point that the UK banking system depends totally on the trust it commands. If it cannot count on the trust of its customers, it cannot truly serve businesses and people, which is the only purpose of banking. If it cannot count on the trust of businesses and people in this country, it cannot possibly sustain a reputation for international pre-eminence, which is what we all want to see.
The commission’s conclusions are comprehensive. Never again must directors of banks be able to preside expensively over failure or misconduct and then claim that they simply did not know what was going on. Never again must banks simply, as the commission sees it, contract out ethical judgments to the regulator. Never again must senior bankers be able to make one-way bets with the money of ordinary working people and walk away financially unscathed, leaving taxpayers with a crippling bill.
Specifically, we will enact the new senior persons regime that the commission proposes and introduce new banking standards rules to require high standards among all staff. We will introduce the new criminal offence of reckless misconduct that has been suggested for senior bankers. We will reverse the burden of proof so that the bosses are held accountable for breaches within their areas of responsibility. We will work with the regulators to implement the commission’s proposals to defer bonuses for up to 10 years and to enable 100% clawback of bonuses where banks receive state aid. We will ask the regulators to implement the commission’s recommendations on corporate governance to ensure that firms have the correct systems in place to identify risks and maintain standards of ethics. As I have said in earlier debates, where legislation is required, we will propose amendments in the autumn in the other place.
Let me deal specifically with today’s amendments and new clauses. New clause 2 was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). In a powerful speech delivered without notes, he explained that the new clause seeks to reverse the burden of proof when taking action against a senior person where there are regulatory failings by a firm in that person’s area of responsibility. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) pointed out, that is one of the parliamentary commission’s recommendations, but I think that my hon. Friend campaigned for that even before the commission reported, drawing on his own experience as a regulator. I say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that my hon. Friend needs no tawdry trinket of the Government accepting his amendment to be lionised in this House for the contribution he has made. We very much accept the thrust of his recommendation and that of the parliamentary commission.
The PCBS put it this way:
“Senior managers of banks will no longer be able to hide behind an accountability firewall, where they are too distant from the consequences of their responsibilities to be held directly accountable when things go wrong.”
At present, the regulator has to be able to show that the person knew what was going on. That cannot be right. It means that while regulators can take action against the firm’s junior employees who might be implicated, they are unable to pin responsibility on someone higher up the chain just because, as the Commission put it, the e-mail trail goes cold when it reaches their level of management. I will take on board the case my hon. Friend made on whether it is necessary to require the corporate offence to be committed, and we will reflect on that before the Bill goes to the Lords.
New clause 3 reproduces a new clause that was considered in Committee, when I predicted that the parliamentary commission would have something to say about the approved persons regime and a code of conduct. My predictions proved uncannily accurate. The commission’s recommendation that the approved persons regime should be replaced is, of course, a major feature of its report, which we accept. We will bring forward amendments to introduce the new senior persons regime to replace FSMA’s approved persons regime. As the commission recommends, the new regime will ensure that key responsibilities within banks are assigned to specific individuals who are aware of those responsibilities and have formally accepted them. As part of the regime, we will implement the commission’s more detailed recommendations, including reversing the burden of proof, which I have just mentioned, and allowing regulators to make the approval of senior persons subject to conditions and time limits.
The regulators will also be able to make rules about the conduct of senior persons, replacing the current system of statements of principle and codes of practice. The new clauses will put in place new arrangements for regulating the conduct of individuals who are not covered by the senior persons regime. The arrangements will include provisions to allow the regulators to make rules covering financial services employees whose appointments are not subject to regulatory pre-approval.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) is absolutely right: it is plausible that the deficiencies in the approved persons regime may affect not just the banking sector but other parts of the financial services industry. The relevant FSMA provisions apply to all parts of the sector, so it might be operationally simpler to apply the regime to the industry as a whole. The Government will consider, with the regulators, whether the relevant provisions should allow for the wider application that my hon. Friend has in mind.
As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, new clause 3 would not deliver the extent of the reforms that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is seeking. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
New clause 4 also reflects a debate that we had in Committee. The commission did not recommend the introduction of a fiduciary duty or duty of care, but it did recommend an alternative route. It said that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should consult on changing the duties of the directors of ring-fenced banks, to prioritise the safety and soundness of the firm first, over the interests of shareholders.
The Government strongly believe that bank directors must maintain an awareness of their responsibility to safeguard the security and stability of the firm. Changes that will support a focus on stability and soundness—for example, giving directors specific duties under the proposed senior persons regime—will help. We will indeed consult on whether changing directors’ duties will help further to accomplish those intentions. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady.
A duty of care specifically towards customers across the financial sector is difficult to make sense of, as we have previously discussed. Would it mean, for example, that a bank had a duty of care not just to its own customers and those of its competitors but, as the proposed duty is to customers across the financial sector, the customers of an insurance company with no relevance to the firm itself? The new clause has been tabled to confirm the Government’s intentions on the wider duties of banks and their directors, and I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied.
New clause 5 refers to remuneration. Of course, the Government have already taken significant steps in that regard; under the remuneration code, large parts of bonuses must be deferred and paid in shares, and cash bonuses must be limited. However, it is a question of not just the quantum of bonuses, but how they are decided in the first place. Next year, shareholders will have a binding vote on executive pay.
We strongly support the proposals made by the parliamentary commission. In particular, the commission has recommended that the regulator should have the power to require a substantial part of remuneration to be deferred for up to 10 years when that is necessary for effective long-term risk management. There is a subtle but critical distinction between the commission’s recommendation and the new clause. The power should be with the regulator to determine whether and in what circumstances to require extended deferral; my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire made that point.
The commission has commented that no single deferral period is appropriate but that it should be determined in accordance with the nature of each business and the risks and activities of the employee in question. The Government agree and will ask the PRA to consider the powers that it has to extend deferral periods as part of its consultation on implementing the commission’s proposals. I hope that that commitment will reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and that she will not feel the need to press the matter further.
New clause 7 deals with protections for whistleblowers. As the hon. Lady said, we debated this in Committee, so I do no want to detain the House further today other than to reassure her that, as I explained on that occasion, these provisions already exist in legislation. Disclosures about criminal offences are already covered by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Disclosures about regulatory breaches are covered by FSMA. This proposal would cover, for example, disclosures about the breaches of the regulatory requirements in relation to the ring-fence. I assume that the second requirement is designed to give effect to the commission’s proposal that a non-executive board member, preferably the chairman, should be given specific responsibility under the senior persons regime. Again, the powers to enact this are already available to the regulator under FSMA, and we have indicated that we support the thrust of these recommendations.
Finance Bill
David Ruffley Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans
I agree that we do not know, as there has been no investigation.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
To help the hon. Gentleman out here, if he had been in the Chamber this time last year, he would recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying in respect of LIBOR rigging that he had referred the facts in those cases to the Serious Fraud Office, which is, as we speak, still undertaking a review. Before the hon. Gentleman says, “Why haven’t the Government done anything?” let me remind him of the core principle under the British constitution of the independence of prosecutorial authorities from Ministers. Will he concede that?
Chris Evans
Yes, but I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in the Treasury Committee when Bob Diamond came to give evidence about LIBOR and that I was in the Chamber when the Chancellor announced the investigation. I listened to it and it made me sad. It made me sad because I realised for the very first time that people do not trust anybody any more. That is the problem. It goes much deeper than economics, politics, banking or whatever. People simply do not trust others any more. [Interruption.] I know that I am digressing from the new clause, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that you are itching to stop me. I want to put it on the record, however, that I genuinely feel that people do not trust each other any more. That is the saddest thing of all about this issue. It does not matter whether we are talking about Conservatives or Labour, people just do not trust politicians, journalists, lawyers or others. This is a much deeper problem than anything else for our society.
That brings me to the issue of anger about what the family man or family woman will save from what is on the kitchen table tonight. When those people hear about the tax cuts for the rich, I am sure they will think of those bankers who may or may not have committed crimes, of the journalists who may or may not have committed crimes, and of the editors of national newspapers—people earning six-figure salaries—and they will believe that those are the people who will get rewarded. That may not be the case, but that is the perception, and as we all know as politicians, the perception is usually stronger than reality. What members of the public will think about this Government and about this place is that they are run by an elite who are more interested in helping out their friends in the City than anything else. That is the real tragedy of this issue.
I have sat here and heard all the arguments about the tax cuts. Yes, I have attacked what I believe is a failed economic theory, but the truth is that the Government won the election in May 2010. I do not like that personally, and I hope that we can turn that around in 2015. The Government have the right to put whatever they want into the Finance Bill, and we cannot change it, much as I would have loved to table an amendment to abolish this tax cut. I cannot, and all we can do is bring about a review. This review is crucial because it will allow us to see how much this cut for millionaires is affecting the British economy.
This may be deemed an aside, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you may call me to order, but let me ask the Minister one more question. When the Treasury was considering the 5p tax cut, did it also consider a 1p tax cut for those whose earnings were below the threshold? If it did not consider that option, why did it not do so, and if it did, why did it rule it out?
You are clearly champing at the bit, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you want me to wind up my speech, and I shall try to do so. [Interruption.] Do not get too enthusiastic, please!
We need a review. We need to know the facts, because this is so important.
Cathy Jamieson
Following the Minister’s example, I will be brief. We have had a useful debate containing some impassioned speeches, not least those from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, interestingly, sought to give advice to the Labour party. My hon. Friend gave an interesting critique of Laffer curve economics but related it, importantly, to what happens in the real world. He spoke with a great deal of passion and experience from his time working in the financial services sector. He was absolutely right to say that not everyone working in the banks was wrong, and many people working on the front line are trying to change things and to clear up the problems. These people did not adopt the principles that got the banks into such difficulty.
Earlier, I read out a couple of quotes from various hon. Members about cutting the top rate, but, to keep a balance across the coalition, let me cite one that I missed from the president of the Lib Dems. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has said:
“Cutting the top rate was a stupid thing to do. It probably raised up to £3bn a year. We should pledge to restore the 50p rate at the next election. It’s not enough to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair.”
That has been one of the threads running through this afternoon’s debate. [Interruption.]
Again, I hear Government Members muttering from a sedentary position about what the Labour party is going to do. I outlined this earlier, but I will state it again: we will, of course, set out our manifesto in due course, in time for the general election—that is absolutely the correct thing to do—but we will not make false promises. We will not make promises that we will not be able to keep. Let me remind the House of that quote from the Prime Minister:
“I have been very clear—we have all been very clear—that we have to do this in a way that is fair so that the broadest backs bear the biggest burden.
That is why we haven’t changed… the 50p tax rate.”
As I outlined, that particular pledge was not kept and those with the broadest backs do not appear to be carrying the biggest burden.
The Minister said that he wanted to be charitable and to understand why we tabled the new clause, and I know from Finance Bill Committees that he does at least reflect on things. He rarely gives in to temptation to resist the advice he is given to reject all amendments and new clauses, but he does at least give the appearance of reflecting. In this case, I cannot understand why he will not accept a mild-mannered proposal that simply seeks to have a review of the impact of this measure and to bring forward further information for the interest of hon. Members across the House. That is a reasonable and sensible thing to do, and I know that the Minister, certainly in opposition, has regularly argued for this type of review. We have heard nothing from him today to explain why, suddenly—[Interruption.] Given the side conversation that is going on, I am sure that the Minister never got any of those reviews into the legislation at that time, but I say to him that there is a first time for everything. He could, even at this late stage, decide it was the correct thing to do to allow the review to go ahead and ensure that the House had further information.
I do not want to repeat all the points made earlier, as that would not be helpful at this stage. However, I simply remind the House that it is not only Opposition Members who are claiming or suggesting that there are concerns about this measure. To go back to the IFS, it stated:
“By giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour”.
Much of the Government’s argument has been predicated on the notion that people will change their behaviour, but I have heard nothing from the Government that suggests to me that behaviour would be changed in such a way that there would suddenly be a huge influx of resource into the Treasury. The IFS went on to say:
“There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk on this estimate.”
Cathy Jamieson
I am coming to a conclusion.
Let me finish by quoting the Office for Budget Responsibility, which stated:
“This is a judgement based on not even a full year’s data based in terms of how people have responded to the 50p rate, in particular in terms of those self assessment tax-payers.”
I have heard nothing from the Government that convinces me that we do not need to look at this issue in more detail. I am disappointed that they have not accepted the new clause and I therefore want to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second 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.
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.