Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

If the Government are protecting the budget, why is the average cut in my constituency 8%, rising in some village schools, including to 22% in Butterknowle?

[Mr Gauke]

As I have said, the reality is that the total core schools budget is increasing, and it can increase only if we have a strong economy that can pay for it. It is also right that we have a fairer funding formula to ensure that that money is distributed fairly.

Money Laundering: British Banks

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Has the Minister discussed the matter with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who the US House of Representatives found intervened with the American authorities to prevent HSBC from being prosecuted in 2012? What has the FCA specifically done since the “global laundromat” was discovered in 2013?

[Simon Kirby]

I have not had that conversation with my right hon. Friend. It is fair to say that the FCA has carried out a number of investigations, and it is right and proper that it does so. The FCA is an independent operational body that we set up as asked, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. I did not mention this because it is not something that I particularly want to make a big issue of, but it is true that when the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill was debated in this House, Ministers made it clear that they were legislating to lock class 1 only. No amendments were tabled and no issue was raised. Indeed, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who was then a shadow Treasury Minister, said at the Dispatch Box that this Bill discharged the Conservative party’s commitment on national insurance contributions in the manifesto. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Lady might want to check Hansard.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want an endorsement from me like a hole in the head, but I am rather disappointed because there is a lot wrong with national insurance. In the wider review, will he also look at the absurd way in which it kicks in at £8,000, well below the personal tax allowance, and at the very unfair top 2% rate?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. It is important to separate the two issues involved: the substantive underlying issue about the way in which national insurance contributions and entitlement to contributory benefit work, and the equally important but separate issue of the way in which manifesto commitments work. The review that we will conduct will look specifically at the differences between the self-employed and the employed, and the access of the self-employed to contributory benefits, so her suggestion is beyond the scope of that particular piece of work. However, as she especially will be aware, all these things are routinely reviewed by the Treasury in the run-up to fiscal events.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yorkshire is of course home to some of the country’s finest financial institutions, such as the Yorkshire Bank and the Yorkshire Building Society—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

And the Skipton.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Like all financial institutions in the UK, they will be desperately keen to understand what the Government’s Brexit plans will mean for financial services. The Treasury still has not replied to my letter in January asking for some basic clarity, but we need to know how the Government intend to achieve equivalence, how it will be made certain and how we will avoid becoming just a rule taker from the rest of the EU. Chancellor, these are reasonable questions, so may we start to have some answers, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I was going to make a joke about the Liberal Democrats, but as there are none in the Chamber I will merely reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have no current plans to introduce a robot tax.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Current tax rules do not allow companies to set the cost of mathematical research against tax. That is obviously very out of date in an era of data science, and it does not apply to science and engineering. Will Ministers take this as a Budget representation, please?

[Simon Kirby]

We have significantly increased R and D tax credits; and, as a mathematician, I agree with the hon. Lady that maths is always important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The most useful thing that the Treasury could do for small manufacturers in my constituency would be to announce an objective of staying in the customs union. Up to now, the Treasury has been a beacon in saying that it wants decisions based on analysis, not on rhetoric and ideology. Can the Minister assure the House that that is still under consideration?

[Jane Ellison]

Again, these are issues that we are looking at carefully; the Chancellor has had a series of roundtable meetings with different sectors and industries in recent months, as have all of us Ministers. We are looking carefully at what those detailed issues are. Of course, much more will be said on this and discussed in the House later today, but we are clear that we want to understand the detailed issues that businesses face so that as we move forward to make our future outside the European Union, we can resolve the practical issues that businesses will face in a way that helps the British economy.

Corporate Tax Base

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 General Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I should perhaps say in anticipation that if I cannot respond to any questions from colleagues, I will of course write to them. I hope that satisfies hon. Members.

I will deal with the points raised. There was a general question about subsidiarity. We do not believe that either the CCTB or CCCTB are necessary for the internal market to function effectively, so we do not accept the assumptions that appear to underpin the Commission’s proposal. At present, we are therefore not convinced that the proposal is consistent with subsidiarity.

The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned ECOFIN’s conclusions. They were high level in nature and do not commit the UK to anything. The Government have made our reservations about the proposals clear. As directives on direct tax, the files require the unanimous approval of member states before they can be agreed. We will continue to engage constructively. As I said, as can be seen from our co-operation on the OECD project and the substantial number of measures we have passed since 2015 alone, we are clearly very supportive of the intended direction of travel. However, we will not sign up to anything that unduly restricts our sovereignty over direct tax, as the current version of the file does.

The legal base was also mentioned, which I touched on. Article 115 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for EU legislation that directly affects the single market. While we think that it might be possible to make the case that that article is an acceptable legal base, we have broader reservations about whether the proposals can achieve their objectives, as I have set out.

The shadow Minister asks what is envisaged as we go forward; that question quite reasonably arises whenever we debate EU matters. He mentioned the timing, which clearly relates to when we will leave the EU. UK companies that operate in the EU and meet the conditions of the CCCTB would need to understand and operate under its rules if it were to come into effect. The amount of profit allocable to UK activities will remain the same.

From the perspective of double taxation relief, our rules and treaties should continue to operate as they do now. In fact, we have double taxation treaties in place with all of our European partners—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath knows; we debated this on Friday—so we are not dependent on EU laws alone on such matters. Those are already in place and will continue to operate as they do now, so we do not think that that is too much of a material concern. I think I have touched on all the key points. Subsidiarity was mentioned, but I think I have alluded to it sufficiently.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have two questions for the Minister. First, I am not clear whether her primary objection is on principle, or because she dislikes the content of the proposed instrument. Will she engage in a thought experiment with me? Were member states to come together around a table and all agree to move together and change their corporate tax bases in the way that is proposed here, but not through an EU instrument, would she be happy to sign up to that? Does she object on principle, or does she dislike the content of the proposal? Secondly, what consideration has the Minister given to the impact on the Government’s Brexit negotiations of adopting this stance on this instrument?

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions; they were good, as I would expect. As I said, the UK will not give up member state sovereignty over our tax base without very good reason, and we are not convinced that there are such reasons in the directive. On some measures, such as the ATAD measure to which I referred, we have come together and been able to agree something.

Having direct control over our tax base enables us to respond to events in our own jurisdiction. We have debated tax a lot over recent years, and it has become apparent to all of us in this House that the challenges we face are global. Leaving aside the timeline issue, it is quite hard to envisage a situation in which there would be a sufficiently compelling reason—the hon. Lady set out a hypothetical situation—to give up direct control over our tax base, given the global challenge we face with some of these tax issues.

We are working very well domestically, with almost 30 measures passed since 2015—some of them are yet to come into effect, and others are already working—and have co-operated through the OECD. For those reasons, we do not see this proposal as compelling enough to cause us to give up something as important as direct control over our tax base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

Very good questions.

[Jane Ellison]

They are indeed good questions. The latter point is something to which we have all given a great deal of thought. I might write to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South with further reflections, if that is all right. He is right to say that these issues exercise us all, but they are not purely European issues. Indeed, some of the challenges with famous companies’ taxation arrangements actually have their roots in the US tax code, more than EU taxation, but I might write to him with a more thought-out response.

On my hon. Friend’s first question, it is true that we have agreed files in Europe that impact on direct tax. As he said, the UK has been actively participating in multilateral action through G8, G20 and the OECD to reform international tax standards and prevent tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning by multinationals, as part of the Government’s objective to align the taxation of profits with economic activity, which relates to his second point.

We have supported EU-level action where appropriate but are keen to ensure that it fits with the way multinational enterprises are taxed globally. We fully supported the European Commission’s work to implement the recommendations from the BEPS project through the anti-tax-avoidance directive, but the crucial point is that those actions are targeted at particular issues, and the degree of co-ordination required between countries’ tax regimes is limited to the extent necessary to address them. We feel that agreeing a common consolidated tax base at EU level is a more fundamental change in the way companies are treated. For the reasons I laid out in my opening statement, it goes too far for us to agree that it is the right way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I want to take hon. Members back two or three years to debates in the main Chamber when the UK was asked to contribute to the Irish bail-out. I had an extremely interesting conversation at that time with colleagues from the Ulster Unionist party. They pointed out that the Irish had made cuts in their corporation tax in an attempt to attract inward investment. They were extremely irritated by this, because some firms had relocated from Northern Ireland to the Republic; Northern Ireland had lost jobs, output and economic activity. However, the Republic’s tax take, which should have supported it, was not going into its coffers, so there was a double whammy, and we in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were asked to contribute to the Irish bail-out. Understandably, Northern Ireland Members were extremely unimpressed by this sequence of episodes.

That made me think we need to get a handle on competitive corporate tax-cutting around the world. Ministers are trumpeting the possibility of having the lowest corporation tax in the western world, but I am not sure how clever it is for countries to undercut one another constantly. There is a serious risk that we so distort our tax arrangements that we will not raise enough money to run the public services that we need for a modern economy. Yesterday in the Chamber, we discussed the importance of supporting science and R and D, for example. We so undermine our capacity to raise money to do things that we undermine our economic activity.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my Treasury Committee colleague for giving way. How does she respond to the fact that even though we have cut corporation tax, the total pound amount of corporation tax paid has gone up?

[Helen Goodman]

I am not sure what time period the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but we have had a recovery since the great crash; if we have more economic activity, we will get more corporation tax receipts, irrespective of corporation tax rates. I do not subscribe to extreme Lafferism; I am not convinced that going down the path of competitive tax cutting is a good idea. A common consolidated corporate tax base is an aspect of that. I see that the impact assessment states that a CCCTB would increase growth by up to 1.3%. That is an astonishing amount of money—more than twice the benefits that the Government estimate would come from signing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Compliance costs would be expected to decrease significantly as well, which is an extremely business-friendly approach.

I have not looked in infinite detail at every aspect of the proposals, so I can believe that they are not satisfactory, but we need to be careful about saying that we will not co-operate with other countries on this. The Minister knows that the OECD process is extremely slow. If the European Union was united on what it proposed in the OECD, we might be able to speed up and improve the international settlement. She is absolutely right to say that we need agreement with the Americans.

On the interrelationship with Brexit and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, I asked the Minister whether she had considered the read-across to the Brexit negotiations, and she did not respond, so I take it that she has not considered that. The Treasury Committee visited Berlin and Rome in September—unfortunately, the hon. Member for Croydon South was not able to be there—and we had interesting conversations. One that comes back to me is the conversation we had with the Bank of Italy about the negotiations with respect to banking.

One issue on the table is banking regulation. We have had a constant stream, if not a barrage, of lobbying from the City—we can see the City if we look out of the window—about its concerns to maintain passporting, common regulations and so on, so that we do not lose activity to Frankfurt, Dublin or even Paris. When the people on the other side of the table, our European partners, consider what concessions and agreements they will make on banking regulation, they will have in their minds the risks for their banks once the UK has left the European Union. One of the really big risks for them is our cutting our taxes on banks. If we cut those taxes significantly, that would make London even more attractive. By resisting these measures, the Minister makes it look more likely that we will reduce our taxes on the banks; that increases the resistance on the other side of the table in Brussels to the kind of regulatory settlement that we would all like to see, for the benefit of the people in the City of London who bring in so much tax revenue to this country.

I am not sure whether the detail of the measures are absolutely right, but I do think that we run a risk of appearing to be sceptical. The Minister does not have a history as a Eurosceptic, but let her not run scared from those in her party who were hard Brexiteers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

A fair point, and I welcome the clarification, but I would still slightly disagree. The debates we have been having about the challenges of international taxation and multinationals, which were laid out eloquently by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, are ongoing. They have taken place in the context of the G20 and the OECD, and will continue to take place in the EU. We will continue to have those debates after our exit from the EU because, as people have said, we are leaving the EU, not Europe, and we will continue to have very important relationships. It is important that we engage with this direction of travel, because this is hardly going to be an overnight process.

There was a slight implication in the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that compared to the OECD, the EU was a model of speedy progress; that is where I would sound my only note of scepticism. It is clear that we will be engaging on these matters for a long time to come, in a range of international forums, so the debates that we have are useful. They have been echoed in other countries. Other people have expressed issues and concerns, as we have as a country, and there have been other reasoned opinions offered.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister tell us which other countries have been resistant? She said there were seven.

[Jane Ellison]

No, I said several. I think I am right in saying that Ireland has offered a reasoned opinion, and there has been debate in other countries as well. On the issue of direct tax and sovereignty in particular, the UK is not taking a stand-alone point of view.

I want to address the points made by the hon. Lady about wider co-operation and competitive corporation tax. My main reason for pushing back against the points she made is that although it is true that UK corporation tax was 28% in 2010 and will be 17% by the end of this Parliament—we have already legislated for that—the backdrop to that is our active engagement and, indeed, leadership in international forums to address some of the issues that we are all concerned about to do with multinational tax avoidance and aggressive planning.

Our mantra is that taxes should be competitive and fair, but paid. The Chancellor has been clear about the path that we have set for this Parliament to the figure of 17%, and that it is right in the circumstances. We have no plans to go further at this time, but as I mentioned, we have brought forward a number of measures—about 30 since 2015 alone.

On one hand, it is true that we have set the most competitive corporation tax in the G20, but on the other, we are extremely proactive in international forums in leading on measures to clamp down on international tax avoidance. We shall continue to do that post-Brexit, within the OECD and with European partner countries. That is a balancing point to put against the slight implication in what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we are in a race to the bottom. We want to be competitive, but also to make it clear that taxes must be paid. The measures that we have passed underline how seriously we take that.

While we remain in the EU, the Government will continue to engage with EU tax files, championing the approach to business tax that encourages investment in jobs and growth, places proportionate administrative requirements on business, and ensures that businesses large and small pay their fair share of tax. As I said, that will happen through the tackling of avoidance. We will also scrutinise proposals to ensure that they are proportionate and effective; proportionality, and questions as to effectiveness, are obviously germane. We will not compromise member state sovereignty when it comes to direct tax.

I hope that what I have said provides an update for members of the European Scrutiny Committee on the Government’s stance on these matters, and that I have sufficiently reassured the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we will continue to be engaged. I welcome the interest in these important issues. I will review the Hansard report of the debate, and if there are any matters that I did not deal with in sufficient detail, I shall write to hon. Members. It was a good debate. We will continue to debate and engage with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland beyond our membership of the EU, because we are, and want to continue to be, a leader in international forums in ensuring that businesses can operate in a fair and competitive environment, that the taxes that are due are paid, and that—as we have already sought to do, and are continuing to do—we use reasonable ways of clamping down on aggressive international tax avoidance and evasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Autumn Statement

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. Of course, the £2 billion a year referred to is just public investment in R and D. Most investment in R and D in this country is done by the private sector. As the Prime Minister said in her speech to the CBI on Monday, we are committed to looking at the R and D tax credit system to make sure that the UK is the most attractive place for an innovative company to do its research, development and innovation.

On immigration, I absolutely recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes. Many companies that choose to locate in the UK depend on being able to bring people with high skills into the UK to work in their businesses. I have said before and I am happy to say again today that, although it is our clear intention to introduce controls on migration into the UK from the European Union, I cannot conceive of any circumstances where we would use those controls to strangle investment in our businesses by not allowing high-skilled, high-paid individuals to be transferred here to work in them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The most alarming number in the OBR forecast is the 13% drop in forecast business investment, and the Chancellor said it himself: the big problem is uncertainty. The OBR says rather plaintively:

“we asked the Government for ‘a formal statement of policy as regard its desired trade regime…as a basis for our projections’”

but they left us

“little the wiser.”

The Chancellor had a real opportunity today to tackle this uncertainty, which is the basic problem, by setting out the objectives for the Brexit negotiations to keep us with access to the single market and in the customs union. Why did he not do so?

[Mr Hammond]

I did not, because to do so would be to give away our negotiating cards in what will be a very complex negotiation. With respect to the hon. Lady, even if I or the Prime Minister set out precisely our objectives, our tactics and our strategy for the negotiations, that will not remove the uncertainty because the outcome will depend on the negotiation itself. As the Prime Minister has said, a negotiation is a process of give and take between the parties to get to a mutually acceptable outcome, and that is what will be embarked upon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this point. The Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission has been asked to develop an ambitious plan for north Kent, south Essex and east London. I am grateful to Lord Heseltine and his fellow commissioners for leading this important work, and I look forward to receiving the interim report ahead of next year’s Budget, when I will respond to it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

When the Chancellor came to the Treasury Select Committee last week, he was unsure whether analysis of the effects of leaving the European Union was being done by region. He has had a week to find out, so will he now give us an answer?

[Mr Hammond]

If the hon. Lady checks the video, she will find that I was not unsure. I was advising my civil service colleague that I understood that we were doing such regional analysis. We are carrying out regional analysis, which will help to inform the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy.

Quantitative Easing

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I have not read the article, but I have seen the press headlines about it. That is exactly the point I have tried to make in painting a picture of the inequality. Those at the top or in the vanguard of society, if one wants to put it that way, are seen as benefiting from the quantitative easing programme—it benefits the pension schemes of those in the Bank of England—while ordinary workers and savers have been penalised. He is absolutely right, and one therefore recognises why we have the disconnect in society.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

One of the problems caused is obviously inflation in house prices, which I will say a little more about later. In response to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), is it not also the case that the Bank of England is still subsidising the mortgages of its staff and helping them up the very steep property ladder?

[Ian Blackford]

I must say that I have no particular knowledge of that, but if it is the case, I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not helpful. I did not specifically mention house prices when I was talking about the rise in financial markets, but quantitative easing has clearly led to an increase in property prices, and we know the problems that people suffer from, particularly in the south-east of England, as a consequence. That is one of the unintended consequences I mentioned.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on all this and, when he responds, tell us how the Government can bring forward measures that will address specifically the issue of rising wealth inequality, which concerns Members right across the House. While I recognise the desire of the Bank of England proactively to take action to support confidence in the financial markets and the wider economy, the Treasury has been almost completely absent in the deployment of fiscal policy tools to grow the economy and counter the negative impact of Brexit. One cannot divorce monetary and fiscal policy; they have to work in tandem. There is a particular challenge in encouraging companies to invest through their seeing a growth opportunity in the wider economy. We all have responsibility for creating the circumstances in which there is a realisation of such growth opportunities.

I appreciate that the illogical desire of the previous Chancellor to achieve a fiscal surplus in the current Parliament has now, thankfully, been abandoned. We should all share in a desire to cut the deficit and debt, but the question of how to get there requires a much deeper debate. I am pleased that voices across the Chamber now seem to recognise that we have to accept our full fiscal responsibilities, as well as our monetary responsibilities, to strengthen confidence and growth.

In particular, we need to consider infrastructure investment, as a counterpart to our monetary measures, to build capacity, improve efficiency and create an environment that will encourage business investment to allow us to improve productivity, competitiveness and, as a result, living standards. It is about making sure that we move away from a situation in which QE has been beneficial to those owning financial assets to one in which wider society sees a greater benefit from a more balanced approach.

My party, the SNP, has long advocated ending and reversing the Tory Government’s programme of austerity, which has failed our economy and harmed our social fabric, and using fiscal tools to create a fair, resilient and balanced economy. The productivity and inclusive growth Bill proposed in the SNP’s alternative Queen’s Speech would bring about an inclusive, prosperous economy through a modest investment in infrastructure and vital public services. Such a balanced approach would return the public finances to a sustainable path while continuing to invest. The Bill would boost investment, halting the austerity programme that has strangled economic progress. It would oversee increased spending on public services by a modest 0.5% a year in real terms between 2016-17 and 2019-20, which would release over £150 billion during that period for investment in public services, while ensuring that public sector debt and borrowing fell over the current Parliament. In doing so, the Bill would stimulate GDP growth, and support wage growth and tax receipts. By transforming productivity and innovation, it would act as a major signal of confidence in our economy. Such a modest increase in expenditure would stop the cutbacks that disproportionately burden the most disadvantaged groups, cause widespread suffering and inequality, and deny opportunities to so many.

The International Monetary Fund, in its latest “World Economic Outlook”, has revised growth projections down, signalling the headwinds ahead, and urged policy makers to engage in more active policy responses to tackle the underlying challenges. It called for advanced economies to “strengthen growth” by engaging in

“structural reforms, continued monetary policy accommodation, and fiscal support—in the form of growth-friendly fiscal policies where adjustment is needed and fiscal stimulus where space allows.”

Furthermore, in an article entitled “Neoliberalism: Oversold?”, the IMF revisited the effectiveness of austerity and concluded that these policies increased inequality and jeopardised long-term economic growth.

In its latest economic outlook from June 2016, the OECD encouraged policy makers around the world to

“break out of the low-growth trap”

and deliver economic prosperity by deploying fiscal policy “more extensively”, as well as by taking advantage of the low-interest rate environment created by monetary policy. It suggested the use of structural policies to enhance market competition, but also urged Governments to intervene to enhance labour market skills and invest in infrastructure that would deliver long-term productivity and economic growth.

Even the US has pressed other G20 countries for more fiscal policy activism to put growth ahead of austerity. Ahead of the September 2016 summit in China, the US Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, said a “consensus” had formed around the US position on the need for countries to “use all policy tools”, including monetary, fiscal and structural reforms.

The UK Government’s failure to co-ordinate fiscal and monetary measures to rebalance the economy following the financial crisis has left a toxic legacy of stagnating growth. The SNP understood the use of quantitative easing by the Bank of England as a response to the financial crash and a temporary measure to regain stability. However, the effectiveness of monetary policy has been gravely undermined by the austerity agenda and it leaves a legacy of unintended consequences that will put an unprecedented burden on future generations. The Bank of England should evaluate the effectiveness of its QE programme and the wider consequences of its continuation after the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The UK Government should reflect on that and put in place effective fiscal measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this important debate, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), with whom I have discussed these issues on several occasions.

Inequality is one of the most profound problems facing this country and it is getting worse. The problem of inequality is exacerbating differences between different social groups, dividing families, because there are big intergenerational gaps, and also dividing this country geographically, with very significant regional inequalities. So to learn that the Bank of England’s quantitative easing is expanding these gaps between rich and poor is extremely alarming.

As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, the Bank undertook its own analysis of the impact of QE in 2012. I think that what it found was that the top 5% had seen an increase in their wealth of £185,000 and the bottom 50% got no increase in their wealth because they did not have assets.

Unlike the hon. Member for Wycombe, I am not critical of QE in principle or of the package the Bank of England unveiled in the early summer, because I think Brexit is a real shock to the economy and we do need to take action to stabilise it and avert the reductions in growth that would otherwise occur. None the less, I am not satisfied that the Bank had demonstrated that the way in which it was carrying out quantitative easing was the best way, which is why I think it worthwhile for us to examine the issue in more detail.

Just to set in context the increase in the asset holdings of the top 5%—a considerable part of it being in the housing market and property prices—it is worth observing that the average house price in Britain is now £212,000. What we are saying is that, in practice, the Bank of England has given the top 5% enough money to buy another house. Were the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, in the Budget or the autumn statement, “I am giving £85,000 to the richest people in the country”, I think that even Conservative Members would be alarmed and concerned, and perhaps even slightly rebellious. But because it is being done by the Bank of England and is rather hidden, we are not seeing the same level of concern, and we need to see the same level of concern.

Moreover, it is a problem when the ratio of average earnings to average house prices is eight to one. That puts the possibility of home ownership way beyond many millions of people, which is why home ownership is falling. Of course we need to address the housing market, and of course we need an increase in the supply of housing, but we are not seeing that at the moment, and QE is making the situation worse.

[Jeremy Quin]

I entirely understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, and I accept what she said about the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to the Dispatch Box and so forth, but I would not wish the message to go from the House to a broader audience that that was an intended aspect of the policy. When QE was introduced by the last Labour Administration, it was introduced with the perfectly admirable intention of ensuring that GDP growth was improved and inflation targeted. I would not wish the wrong message to go out on the intention of the policy; we are debating potential side-effects that may or may not have occurred.

[Helen Goodman]

What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely fair, and I agree with him. I would not go so far as to say, “Labour QE good, Tory QE bad”—I think that would be slightly Orwellian—and, as I said initially, I was not saying that I did not think there should have been another package this summer. My questions are about the way in which that is done.

Along with the hon. Member for Wycombe, I have quizzed the Bank of England about the matter on three separate occasions. On the first occasion, when I asked the Governor about the distribution impact, he said that taking account of distribution would be political. I cannot see how giving wealthy people more assets is not political. However, we have questioned the Bank more recently, and it seems to me that people in different parts of it say different things. I think it would be unfair to say that they speak with forked tongues. However, on one hand the chief economist, Andy Haldane, has said that monetary policy

“cannot close other structural faultlines across the UK economy – for example, regional, socio-economic, inter-generational… Monetary policy cannot set different interest rates for different regions”,

and also that UK recovery has been

“for the few rather than the many”.

That seems to be a criticism of an unequal society. Andy Haldane seems to be saying that this is not good socially and it is not good economically.

On the other hand, when the Treasury Committee questioned Sir Jon Cunliffe on the matter, he said:

“I would only point out that we have the tools we have.”

That is a bit like “Brexit means Brexit”. It is a rather gnomic and unhelpful approach. I think it is stalling; I think that the Bank does not want to look at different ways of carrying out QE, and I do not think it is being sufficiently imaginative.

In January I visited the European Central Bank in Frankfurt and asked how it does QE. It does it in different ways, and it is able to do so in part because the financial infrastructure is different in other countries. For example, it does not just buy Government bonds and gilts; it buys bonds in KfW and CADES—the German and French infrastructure banks—and it has a special strand that aims to get more money into the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. So I do not accept the Bank of England saying, “We have the tools that we have and there is nothing different we can do.”

I commend to the Bank some work that the New Economics Foundation has done on this. It seems to me that the Bank could be buying investments in housing associations, for example. In fact, that would be a much better way of dealing with our housing crisis than giving a lot of money to rich people, thereby pulling up property prices. I do not think that the Bank has a very good understanding of the housing market—we have quizzed its officials on that as well. For example, the Governor told us last week:

“Housing finance in this economy is quite sophisticated”.

I do not think that it is sophisticated; I think that it is quite dysfunctional, because we are seeing more and more money going into people exchanging properties, rather than going into more building, which is what would actually make a difference to the housing crisis.

I really hope that the Bank will not only better analyse what it is doing, as the motion suggests—it did commit to come back in September 2018 with renewed analysis of the impact on assets and wealth distribution of this further round of QE—

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Lady just confirm that the Bank of England said that it would come back in September 2018? I hope that it will come back before then, because otherwise it suggests a complacency and unwillingness to analyse the situation and give us the information that I think this House should be demanding.

[Helen Goodman]

Well, that is probably my fault, because I asked it to do so by September 2018. We could ask it for something here and now, but obviously the new package was only announced in August and its impact will be felt some way down the track. My thinking was that there will be no point trying to analyse the new package by Christmas, because we will just not see it.

In addition to having a better understanding of all the effects of its QE programme, the Bank needs to look at what other central banks do, including the European Central Bank because there could be some useful lessons. I think that we might get some better effects if we tweaked it a bit. I have to say that it has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the issue of distribution. When we quizzed its officials about their purchase of corporate bonds, they said that they were distributionally blind. In other words, they wanted to be completely neutral and not take a position. When we asked them about the distribution of wealth among households, they seemed to confuse being politically neutral with not taking a view on the significance of distribution. I think that is a mistake. I also think that if we are piling lots of money towards richer and richer people, the monetary impact is likely to be much less, because the propensity of the wealthy to consume is much less than that of people on low incomes, so it is not even being done in the most effective way.

I will read what the Bank said:

“the Chairman made some points a little earlier about accountability and the Bank being involved in decisions that were the province of politicians, or some might think would be the province of politicians.”

It went on to say that the tools it has

“are not perfect…However, we have a clear objective, which Parliament has given us…and we have certain tools to implement it. It does have distributional effects, and if we were to be in the business then of deciding what the distributional effects should be, we would be straying even further into areas that are really the province of elected politicians.”

That is a fundamental misapprehension. The hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) pointed out that QE was embarked upon in 2009 to speed up growth; the distributional impacts were not in mind. However, now we know that it is producing those wealth effects, it is disingenuous to ignore them. That is the position the Bank is trying to take and we need to push back. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber has given us the opportunity to do that in the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

We are a small but enthusiastic band this afternoon, but it strikes me that there is something serious here. For the last eight years, the entire western world has been undertaking the most extraordinary monetary experiment in 100 years. If it goes wrong, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), the consequences will be devastating for the world economy. We may find that all we did in 2008 was delay the explosion of the world’s economy. It is that serious. I hope that the Bank of England and the regulatory authorities are watching via the camera lenses around the Chamber. This debate should not be seen as an attack on the Bank of England, however. There was an emergency in 2008 and the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England stepped in, and quantitative easing was an interesting device—an emergency brake on the banking crisis. As hon. Members have said, eight years on we should be looking at what else needs to be done.

To use a homely analogy that I hope the technical experts in the Chamber will not blanch at, in 2008 there was a fire in the financial system and we used a high-pressure hose called quantitative easing. Once the fire dampens down, if we keep on using the hose and hose everything in case the fire comes back up, we destroy everything in the house. If we look at the unintended consequences of QE, it is contributing to global deflation. There is inflation in parts, bubbling up through the system, but we have had deflation, which attacks the incentive to invest. We are destroying the propensity to save by bringing interest rates down to near zero. We are destroying bank profits. Has anyone looked at bank share prices over the past couple of years? We saved the banks in 2008 only to destroy their business model through the unintended consequences of QE. Who is going to do something about that?

If we do not do something about it, we will be into another banking crisis of a different kind. In the last two rounds of QE, in the EU and Japan, over the past 12 months, we have started a process of competitive devaluations. We are back to the 1930s; everyone’s response is, “Let’s devalue the currency. That will help our exports.” Once everyone does it, we are in the 1930s situation of beggar-my-neighbour, which inevitably leads to all sorts of political tensions. The Chinese Government are at the moment saying that they are not devaluing, but they are privately devaluing, as we can see if we look at what is happening in the international markets. Exchange rate competition is a dangerous, toxic thing, and it is a direct flow from what QE is now being used for.

As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, the whole process has grossly distorted asset prices, so that when we unwind, it will be a case of, “Who knows what we have been investing in, and whether it has been the right thing or the wrong thing?” There has been discussion about house prices, but it is clear that a series of industrial investments and other kinds of investment could be seen to be the wrong ones once prices rebalance, which of course is making people nervous.

It is rare for me to do this, but I will disagree gently with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), because I do not think it is a question of using QE for something else in a better way. If we look at the Bank of England’s recent announcement of the £10 billion it is trying to put into company paper, we see that it has chosen 300 companies’ bonds in which it is considering investing this money over the next 18 months. What bonds was it choosing? The Bank of England said it was those of companies that had made

“a material contribution to the UK economy”.

Let me read out the names of some of the companies whose corporate paper the Bank of England is planning to put that £10 billion into. They include: Apple; AT&T; McDonald’s; Pepsi—not Coke, but Pepsi; Proctor & Gamble; UPS; Verizon; and Walmart. We are funding Wall Street. What about the EU? We are supposed to be pulling out of the EU, with Brexit. The Bank’s list includes BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Bahn, Deutsche Telekom, E.ON and Siemens. There are also some fabulous entrants: Moët Hennessy is on the Governor’s list, so the champagne is all right. Even EDF—

[Helen Goodman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bank’s definition of “material contribution to the British economy” is inadequate. Like him, I do not think it is very helpful to be investing in fizzy drinks, but we do need to acknowledge that Siemens has a fantastic development in east Yorkshire and that that is good; that is a proper contribution. I do not think he is really arguing against me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Come on, sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing the debate. The subject of quantitative easing attracts a wide range of opinions, as has been convincingly demonstrated in the Chamber today. This Back-Bench business debate has been an example of something that is small but perfectly formed. It has been a very interesting debate. The topic is extremely important to our economy and I know that Members across the House will join me in thanking the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to discuss it.

Let me begin by setting out briefly the Bank of England’s role in the monetary policy of this country. The first thing to stress is that the Bank of England, and its Monetary Policy Committee, are rightly independent from the Government. The MPC holds responsibility for setting monetary policy to meet its clearly defined objectives, as set out in law. Its primary objective is to maintain price stability, defined by the Government’s inflation target of 2%, as measured under the consumer prices index. The MPC is empowered to deploy unconventional policy measures, such as quantitative easing, when necessary, to meet this objective. Wherever such instruments are used, the committee is expected to work with the Government to make sure that appropriate governance arrangements are in place to ensure its accountability.

Following the financial crisis in 2009, as Members are aware, the Bank of England was authorised to begin quantitative easing, establishing an asset purchase facility to improve liquidity in credit markets. This provided an additional tool by which the Bank’s committee could adjust our monetary policy. In August this year, the MPC judged that in the absence of monetary stimulus, there would be undesirable volatility in output and employment, and a sustainable return of inflation to the target in the medium term was less likely. As a result, the MPC expanded its programme of asset purchases and established the term funding scheme as a mechanism to ensure that banks passed on the benefits of low interest rates to our businesses and to the public as a whole.

Although financial markets have reacted positively to the latest round of quantitative easing, it will take several months before we know how the economy has responded, as is always the case. Time will need to pass before it is possible to make a full assessment of the latest round of asset purchases. Both the Government and the MPC place enormous weight on the need to research the wider impacts of our monetary policy across our society. In line with our determination to make sure that this is a country that works for everyone, we want to ensure that our businesses and the general public all benefit from the lower borrowing costs established through the Bank’s monetary policies.

Let me deal with some of the points raised. The hon. Gentleman, the modest crofter from Skye, mentioned the need for fiscal stimulus. Monetary policy tools are the first line of defence against a macroeconomic shock, and the Government will set out their fiscal plans in the usual way in the autumn statement. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been little growth in M4 in the past eight years since QE was introduced. However, the relationship between monetary aggregates and inflation is tenuous, and monetary aggregates are not systematically targeted by central banks. To target monetary aggregates, there would have to be a direct relationship between the monetary supply and inflation. For this to be the case, there would have to be a degree of stability in the velocity of money—the speed at which money circulates around the economy. I hope that is clear.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact on savers. Building a strong economy is in everyone’s interests, and the MPC’s remit makes clear that ensuring price stability is the prerequisite for economic prosperity. He also mentioned pensions, and the best possible protection for pensions comes from strong, sustainable employers and a buoyant economy, so it is important that action is taken to support that economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) speaks with passion on this subject, and it is obviously of great interest to him. I have looked at his excellent website, stevebaker.info, where he considers, among other matters, whether the whole economic system runs on funny money. He mentioned wealth inequality and wealth justice, and those are two very important areas. The Governor of the Bank of England has stated that this package will ensure a better economic outcome for all. Economic recovery will boost incomes and help all individuals, including those at the lowest end of the economic distribution. Inequality is lower—we should not forget this—than it was in 2010.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Kirby]

I would rather not give way, because I am genuinely trying to answer everyone’s points. I do not have a lot of time, because everyone has been so full in their contributions, but the hon. Lady can speak to me afterwards. If she wants to raise an additional point, I would be really pleased to deal with that.

The hon. Lady mentioned that QE is the responsibility of the MPC of the Bank of England. She questioned whether that was right, and she questioned the accountability of the Bank of England. I say to her that Members have the opportunity to engage with the MPC through, for example, the inflation report hearings of the Treasury Committee. The MPC is also accountable to the public. For instance, in October the Governor and the deputy governors will spend the day in the midlands meeting a wide cross-section of society to listen to the feedback and ideas of the public, and I am sure that they will take that feedback and those ideas very seriously.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) was very interesting—perhaps the most interesting point was the description of the crofter from Skye. He clearly feels passionately about this subject, and he made a useful contribution to the debate.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) wanted to hear more about the autumn statement. I am very sad to tell him that he will be disappointed; he will just have to wait and see, as happens every year in the normal manner, no matter who is in government.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) reminded us of what is now a dim and receding memory—the last Labour Government. He talked about how there was going to be hyperinflation and it did not happen, and about how the whole issue of QE was hotly debated at the time. I imagine that it is something that we will continue to hotly debate for some time.

To conclude, the independent MPC of the Bank of England has a hugely important role to play in these difficult times in maintaining monetary stability in this country. It has taken a range of steps to achieve this objective and will be closely monitoring the impact of this action. Let me remind the House once again that Members can take an interest; the MPC remains accountable to Parliament, and I would suggest that many more people take an interest in the inflation report hearings of the Treasury Committee.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and all the Members who have participated. We have had a well-informed, fascinating debate. I hope that this the start of something whereby we have signalled to the Bank of England, which I am sure will be getting a report of our proceedings, that we wish to see a more fundamental analysis of the outcomes of the QE programme. There has been a very clear message to the Government—as shown by all the actions that we have seen internationally, with the words from the OECD and even from the US authorities—that there has to be a linkage between monetary and fiscal policy. A number of Members have delivered a very strong message that we really have to make sure that we deal with wealth inequality. I look forward to carrying on this debate, and look forward to the Government addressing the issue in the autumn statement.

[Helen Goodman]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Five minutes ago, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that inequality in this country is lessening. On some measures of income inequality, that is true, but this afternoon we were debating wealth inequality.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Lady has been here a long time, and she knows that is not a point of order. I cannot continue the debate because it is now past 5 o’clock. If she had not wasted time when she was trying to make the intervention, she could have got her point across.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

This Government are determined to ensure that we have strong transport infrastructure in the north of England, but I very much hear the points my hon. Friend has made. We have committed to investing an extra £161 million to accelerate the transformation of the M62, and £75 million to improve other road links, including the A66 and the A69. We very much recognise the case he is making and, as I say, as a Government we are determined to ensure that the north of England can fulfil its potential.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Cabinet? Earlier, he was very vague about the European structural funds. Some £800 million of European structural funds were part of the north-east devolution deal. Without a guarantee from the Government, the loss of that money will drive a coach and horses through the deal. [Interruption.] I will give the Minister time to listen to what the Chancellor is saying in the hope that he can come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Government will guarantee the £800 million.

[Mr Gauke]

As I said earlier, we recognise the need to bring any uncertainty to an end as soon as we possibly can. In the circumstances, it is right that we take a moment before making any guarantees, but let me be absolutely clear that as a Government we remain committed to doing everything we can to strengthen the northern powerhouse and to ensure that the north of England fulfils its full potential, which includes transport infrastructure. On the specific point, we will make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.