Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the appalling situation. It was an 11% budget deficit that the Opposition left us when they left office—11%. It is now going to be 7.7%. Borrowing—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asks how much money. I will tell him. The Opposition were borrowing £157 billion. We are now borrowing £118 billion. Borrowing is not going up. It came down from £157 billion to £118 billion, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that maths, no wonder he left the country in such a mess.

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

The A14 Cambridge toll road is strategically vital for the golden economic triangle that is Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich—

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Colchester.

[Mr Ruffley]

And indeed Colchester. Can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that he will have that at the forefront of his mind when the Treasury makes its capital allocations?

[Mr Osborne]

The A14 is a strategically important road, not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but for the whole country. It links ports to many of our largest cities. It is at the forefront of our mind. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out on Thursday not just the capital plans for 2015-16, important as they are, but our long-term plans for road investment. Central to that is making sure that Britain has the economic infrastructure that we need to succeed in the modern world, and the A14 is part of that infrastructure.

amendment of the law

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The Chancellor is a fiscal Conservative and monetary activist, and as such he eschewed shock and awe measures in this Budget, opting instead for sensible targeted relief that is welcome on this side of the House. Cuts to income tax mean that by 2015 a large number of income tax payers will receive a £700 cut compared with their tax bill of 2010. On child care, average two-child families with working mothers and fathers will get £2,400. Fuel duty has been frozen, and it is the longest freeze for two decades. The national insurance contribution cut of £2,000 is equivalent to someone just under average median earnings being taken on at no national insurance cost to an employer.

I support the house building programme that we have heard about. As someone on the dry end of the Conservative party economically, I have heard the criticism that it is Fannie Mae all over again. People wonder whether there will be lots of defaults when the interest-free period runs out, and whether the policy could lead to higher house prices because of supply constraints. I am sure I will hear those concerns again, but the reality is that we need an injection of confidence into British households. There is no question but that the ability to get on the housing ladder, including the encouragement to spend money, because consumer spending frequently attends the purchase of a new house, is the kind of confidence that the British consumer wants at this stage of the economic cycle.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the key issue is the blockage in getting money to people and giving them the ability to borrow it in the first place? We expect our banks to ensure that they not only rebuild their balance sheets, but lend money and make it available.

[Mr Ruffley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.

There were no shock-and-awe measures in the Budget, because the Chancellor is probably right to believe that we are not approaching a lost Japanese decade. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the Office for Budget Responsibility growth projections; it forecasts growth of 2.3% in 2015, 2.7% in 2016 and 2.8% in 2017. The forecast turns on one central OBR assumption that might be wrong. The OBR assumes that there is quite a large negative output gap—that, in simple terms, there is a lot of slack in the economy. Forecasting or estimating the output gap is very difficult. If its assumption is wrong, and if the output gap is smaller than it says, a huge amount of the £120 billion a year last year and the coming year is structural rather than cyclical. If that is the case, we will need shock-and-awe measures—deeper cuts than those implied in the spending envelope and, yes, a fiscal stimulus in deeper tax cuts.

[Mr MacNeil]

On the one hand the hon. Gentleman calls for deeper cuts, but on the other hand, he spoke a few moments ago of the importance of consumer spending. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that 90% of the money for which those who are being penalised by the bedroom tax are responsible circulates locally. Surely if the Government take money out of the economy, we will see not consumer-led spending, but further contraction in the economy and further gaps.

[Mr Ruffley]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the second part of my statement, when I mentioned deeper cuts in public spending and a fiscal stimulus with deeper tax cuts.

If we do not have the growth we want in the economy in the next 12 or 18 months, I would like capital gains tax holidays of the kind suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), to get investment moneys circulating. I also believe there could be a case for deeper cuts in corporation tax to approximate more closely the Irish model; Ireland has 12.5% corporation tax, which makes it more of a magnet for foreign direct investment.

That said, the Conservative party has indicated that it has the technology should we need to go further and faster in fiscal consolidation. The Conservative economic affairs committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, has discussed proposals from colleagues for a suspension of the carbon price. A key cost that is undoubtedly hampering business confidence is that, in 2011, about one fifth of the energy bill paid by small and medium-sized enterprises was attributable to green, renewable policies. Considering whether we want a holiday from that, and certainly not going further than European countries, would seem sensible.

On Budget day, the Chancellor said two important things about monetary policy. First, he explicitly said that the Financial Policy Committee must co-ordinate better in future, under Mark Carney, with the Monetary Policy Committee. At the moment, the regulators are pulling in different directions. The MPC has pumped in £375 billion by printing electronic money in exchange for purchasing gilts from the commercial banks, but that credit is not flowing into the real economy. On the other hand, the Financial Services Authority, and its successor body the FPC, are telling the banks not to lend any of that money and to rebuild their capital position to de-leverage. Those two impulses fight against each other and it is entirely sensible for the Chancellor to say that the FPC and the MPC must co-ordinate better.

Secondly, the Chancellor talked about forward policy guidance via thresholds to commit to looser monetary policy for a set period. That has had a good effect in Canada and the United States, and it will give British business the confidence that interest rates will not be jacked up just as the recovery begins and that economic activity will not be choked off.

I support the Budget with qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Building Schools for the Future scheme was expensive and inefficient and that we had to scrap it because it was unaffordable. It was one of the many unaffordable promises that he and his colleagues made before the election in order to get people’s hopes up, yet still the former Chief Secretary left a note stating, “There’s no money left.”

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

It is manifestly in the interests of the British taxpayer that foreign sovereign wealth funds invest in national infrastructure projects. Will the Chief Secretary indicate what progress is being made in that respect?

[Danny Alexander]

Significant progress is being made in that respect. We have seen significant investment in Thames Water, for example, by overseas investment funds. We announced in the autumn statement some funding for junction 30 of the M25, which is part of ensuring a significant investment from people in Dubai in a major port facility near London. No doubt there will be further such announcements to make in future.

Bank of England

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I said, there were excellent British candidates, any of whom would have made a good Governor. In my judgment, though, Mr Carney was a better candidate. He was the only one who combined central banking experience, economics, experience of financial regulation and experience in the private sector. It says something about Britain that we have the self-confidence to go and get the very best in the world to serve as our Bank Governor.

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

I welcome this bold announcement. The Chancellor is rightly concerned with the stability of the transition and has extended Dr Bean’s term, but does he wish the immensely able Paul Tucker to continue as deputy governor?

[Mr Osborne]

The very short answer is yes. Paul Tucker has been an excellent deputy governor, and I hope he continues to do his excellent job at the Bank of England.

Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union

David Ruffley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. I am drawing attention to the voting arrangements laid down as a matter of European law in a regulation that gives the eurozone the whip hand, as matters stand. But of course he is absolutely right that other non-members of the eurozone have the ambition to join the euro and that, along with Denmark, we do not have to join it as a result of the opt-out.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, even without the legal obligations we could expect members of the eurozone to cohere together to be a majority, and we can see that it will be a growing majority.

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

If the opt-in countries and eurozone members are subject to the ECB rules but are not legally called a caucus because the ECB does not write it down as such, they will nevertheless, de facto, hunt as a pack and outvote us in the European Banking Authority, so it does not matter what the regulation says.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is right. It is quite extraordinary to have a regulation setting out that they must act in a caucus, even though it is probably likely that they will do so anyway of their own free will; they will certainly see a common interest in it.

This sets a very worrying precedent for the future whereby the eurozone is going in one direction in working together as a political, coherent body, and being required to do so as a matter of law. For the avoidance of any doubt, and particularly for the benefit of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I will read out the provision that is in black and white—not up in the air somewhere, subject to negotiation—on page 33 of our documents. It requires member states of the eurozone:

“To co-ordinate and express a common position of representatives from competent authorities of the participating Member States when participating in the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board of the European Banking Authority, for issues relating to the tasks conferred on the ECB by this Regulation.”

That is European law, and if they fail to do what it says they will be breaking it—although they may, of course, choose do it anyway of their own free will.

This is a striking illustration of the fact that the eurozone is going in one direction, seeing its political interests as a whole cohering together, while we stand in a quite different position. This provision, and the nature of the relationship that it seeks to put in place between the ECB and the EBA, should give us all a lot of food for thought, because it has major implications for our future in the European Union.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

David Ruffley Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I was about to explain that a judge-led inquiry would not allow us to amend the law to deal with those problems in this Parliament. That is what I fear from a judge-led inquiry. It simply would not enable us to come to the kind of decisions we need to make in this Parliament. I shall set out exactly why later in my speech.

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

I support the Chancellor’s firm action in the past few days, but he should know that 12 months ago, the Serious Fraud Office declined to investigate whether LIBOR-rigging gave rise to a breach of the Theft Act and the Fraud Act 2006, and to the criminal offence of conspiracy to defraud. Instead, the SFO shuffled responsibility off to the FSA and the Office of Fair Trading. Will the Chancellor guarantee that, as part of his reforms, he will beef up the SFO so we have a serious prosecuting authority like the one in New York?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree absolutely with his instinct. We need to look at giving more criminal powers to our prosecuting bodies. One thing that Lord Turner has said is that, unfortunately, the FSA does not have the criminal powers it needs—[Interruption.] While the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) interrupts me from a sedentary position, let me say this: Lord Turner has said that it is a matter of regret that the FSA does not have those criminal powers available to it. That is precisely one of the things we need to look at this year to see whether we can amend the law this year. The second point I would make to address the point she makes from a sedentary position is that the SFO is completely independent of the Government of the day. It is actively looking at what criminal powers are available to it. The director of the SFO has said that he will be able to tell us how he will proceed by the end of the month. The hon. Lady wants to persuade me that the law unfortunately does not give us all the criminal sanctions we need to deal with financial crime in the way that we deal with crime on our high street, but I absolutely agree with her. The people responsible for that situation are Labour Members.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, hon. Members will be glad to know, under any Government, cannot direct the Revenue towards any individual. It would be a very sorry state in this country if I could direct the Revenue to the tax affairs of individuals, so I am not proposing to do that. However, as I have said at this Dispatch Box, and as others have said, this Government are introducing a general anti-avoidance rule, we are clamping down on stamp duty evasion and we have increased the resources from the budget we inherited from Labour when it comes to tackling tax evasion, and the Revenue is therefore well resourced to do its work.

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

Last year, the then director of the Serious Fraud Office, Mr Richard Alderman, declined to investigate possible breaches of the Fraud Act 2006 arising from allegations of LIBOR rigging. In the light of that, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the SFO is still fit for purpose?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, I do. My understanding, although I have not spoken to him directly, is that the director of the Serious Fraud Office feels that he is well resourced to undertake the investigations he is undertaking.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

David Ruffley Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The former Chancellor is of course right: there was poor financial regulation in American markets too, and part of the investigation has been conducted jointly with the American authorities—but LIBOR was set in London, which is why it is called LIBOR.

The right hon. Gentleman raised two points. The regulation and supervision of LIBOR is precisely what we are investigating, although we have to make sure that we are not regulating the LIBOR market as it existed three years ago. That market today is somewhat different and changing quite a lot, so we have to get the regulation right for 2012, not for 2006-07. His second point was on the individuals concerned and the FSA’s powers. I have spoken to Adair Turner and I am absolutely clear that the FSA is pursuing cases against individuals, but it is a prosecuting authority and it would not be appropriate for me to comment about those individuals and ongoing cases.

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

Can the Chancellor indicate how widespread the investigation is? How many other British banks are under investigation for market manipulation?

[Mr Osborne]

HSBC and RBS are two of the banks under investigation, but international banks such as UBS and Citigroup are under investigation too, partly for activities conducted in this country.

IMF

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There have been two votes in this Parliament, in the past 18 months, on precisely the question of how much headroom the House of Commons gives the Chancellor of the day to make loans to the IMF. There have already been two votes.

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

The Economist has rightly observed that the eurozone’s big problem is not a dearth of resources to the IMF, but the institutionalised paralysis of eurozone countries. Can the Chancellor tell the House what discussions he had at the spring meetings about the need for practical steps to break that paralysis?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is completely right that providing additional resources to the IMF will not solve the eurozone’s problems, I said that in my statement. It is about making sure that the IMF is prepared for whatever is coming down the track—prepared for the worst, rather than just hoping for the best, and of course we do all hope that things improve. My hon. Friend is also right that the eurozone countries need to work more closely together in terms of the fiscal integration of their policies. That is one of the reasons why I did not want Britain to join the euro and would never want Britain to join the euro. The logic of a single currency is that devaluation is not possible and different inflation rates cannot be manufactured in different countries. The end result is the transfer of large sums of money from German taxpayers to Spanish taxpayers. That is their decision by being part of the currency; our decision is to make sure that the world is ready in case that does not come about.

Financial Services Bill

David Ruffley Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I was just coming to my conclusion and am conscious that other Members wish to speak, so I will not give way. I simply urge the House to vote for the amendment in the hope that the House of Lords will improve clause 5.

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

I rise to support new clause 1 briefly. I had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and of being a member of the Treasury Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—colleagues have noted that he is not a Privy Counsellor, but as far as many of us are concerned he is right honourable in spirit.

The main purport of new clause 1 is to establish a duty on the court of directors to conduct retrospective reviews of the Bank’s performance. The Governor of the Bank of England, in giving evidence to the Joint Committee and the Treasury Committee, has argued that it would be a bad idea to have a review into anything other than the processes by which certain policy decisions are reached. In other words, he does not want there to be a duty on the Bank to scrutinise retrospectively how good its decisions—meaning the decisions of the Financial Policy Committee or the Monetary Policy Committee—turned out to be. One of the reasons he gave was that there are lots of external commentators, such as outside economists in the City and the commentariat in the fourth estate, but it is fairly obvious that those entities are under no statutory duty to crawl through every decision of the FPC or the MPC and decide with hindsight whether they were good or bad.

The second reason the Governor gave is that the Treasury Committee holds the Bank to account, a point alluded to by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). The Treasury Committee, packed with talent though it is on a yearly basis, still has a huge amount of work to do and, not for the want of trying, does not have the amount of technical expertise or the number of macro- and micro-economists needed to conduct work month after month, tracking back and looking at how good or bad the judgment calls of the FPC, as constituted by the Bill, and the extant MPC turned out to be. My word, don’t we need such backward-looking analysis? If it had been present in 2007 and 2008, we might have avoided the difficulties of which we are all too well aware.

The Bill gives the Bank of England unprecedented powers. As a result of it, we will have a Governor of the Bank of England, whomever he or she is in the future, who will be chair of the Monetary Policy Committee, have a place on the court of directors of the Bank of England, chair the Financial Policy Committee and chair the Prudential Regulation Authority. With the creation of the FPC, alongside all the work that the Bank does on monetary policy, a lot of decisions are going to be made.

Not since the creation of the Bank of England in the late 17th century has its senior management and Governor had so much power, and, from even a cursory glance, the Joint Committee’s evidence and the evidence taken by the Treasury Committee in recent months all leads to one thing: one cannot have enough scrutiny of this big beast that the Bank will become as a result of the Bill coming into force.

The Treasury Committee argued forcefully for a severe new set of accountability and scrutiny powers. We advocated the creation of a new supervisory body inside the Bank of England in order to replace the court of directors, because the court, as everybody knows, is packed full of amateurs—well-meaning amateurs, but people who simply are not, by any stretch of the imagination, able to hold the Bank of England’s senior executive members, who are on the MPC and will soon be on the FPC, to account.

The court includes has-beens in the City, or “never-was’s”, and people with indifferent reputations in the trade union movement, in manufacturing and in all aspects of public policy. But the evidence shows that remarkably few of them have any expertise in central banking matters, in fiscal policy, in macro-prudential policy or in monetary policy. The court is desperately under-geared, and its intellectual horsepower is not what it should be.

A supervisory body, with a majority of external members, overseeing the FPC’s and MPC’s judgments and undertaking retrospective reviews is the best-case scenario; it is what the Treasury Committee thought would be the best solution for scrutinising this very powerful—all-powerful, I might add—Bank.

I understand why Ministers have concluded that they do not want to go into battle with the Governor and the senior executives about a supervisory body, because it is way too radical, but it is absolutely incumbent on this House to look at the purport of new clause 1 to see that it actually imposes more scrutiny than the Bill currently provides on the policy decisions of not just the MPC, but the FPC. Let us not forget that the MPC has recently acquired, or arrogated to itself, certain very significant discretionary powers over monetary policy—not in setting the bank rate, but in quantitative easing.

How many debates have we had in this Chamber about QE and its merits or relative de-merits? The answer is relatively few. The Monetary Policy Committee is held to account only by the Treasury Committee. It is my suggestion that the Treasury Committee, marvellous and wonderful though it is—I am a member of it, so I would say that—will need the assistance of ex-post reviews to look retrospectively at the quality of the decisions that the Bank, with its new powers, makes. I therefore urge colleagues to support new clause 1.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Treasury Committee on new clause 1. I disagree with what was said about him becoming a right hon. Member. In my experience of this place, somebody as independent and straightforward has little chance of becoming right honourable.

On a more serious note, I follow my colleague on the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), in saying that the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment or to indicate that further thought will be given to it. I agree with my colleague that the amendment could and should have been much harder. The problem is with the behaviour of the court of the Bank of England. It is not that it has not been given power; it is that it has accepted the boundaries and the servile role imposed on it by the Governor and the executives of the Bank of England. As I have said in this Chamber and as has been said to the Treasury Committee in all but terms, the court is allowed to count the paperclips, but that is about it. Anything serious or to do with policy is nothing to do with it. If its members had any dignity or self-regard, they would not be part of it, because apart from receiving a nice little stipend for going, one wonders what on earth they do.

The discussion in the Treasury Committee, and even in the Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services Bill, has been about bringing the corporate governance of the Bank of England into the 21st century with a proper board, and about stopping it being the fiefdom of one person. If I were the Minister, I would accept the new clause in spirit and say that I would speak quietly to people about it to strengthen the proposals and move on. He could well find himself having a much stronger position forced upon him, which would be good for the Bank of England in the long run.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on amendments 22 and 23. I will deal with them briefly because many Members want to speak. This is not a political point, but the response to those amendments from Government Members is interesting, because my hon. Friend has raised a matter that deserves discussion and thought. The powers being given to the Financial Policy Committee will affect people, industries and firms, and there must be accountability. The problem arises from the fact that there is no consensus on the definition of financial stability, but the House is setting up a Financial Policy Committee, the objective of which is financial stability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the most pertinent point before the Joint Committee, which was that although we do not want it to, the FPC could define financial stability as the “stability of the graveyard” and reach it. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East raised that point today.

If the FPC had the responsibility for making the definition and wanted to do it without much fuss, it could set the required level of economic activity so that it neither pressed the ceiling nor went through the floor, but would that give us the growth and employment that the Government might want? Should not the FPC be asked to work towards the Government’s policy, whichever party is in government?