Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The Government are extremely proud that fines for misconduct go to good causes, unlike under the Labour party, when any fines for misconduct were passed straight back into the hands of the people who committed it. The LIBOR fines have gone to military charities and air ambulances, as he pointed out, and the fines for the appalling foreign exchange rigging will support the NHS and GP surgeries in particular.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is a well-informed Minister. Will she tell the House what she did in her years as a banker at BZW and Barclays and, latterly, as a head of corporate governance to lobby for tighter financial regulation?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that for the last 10 years of my career at Invesco Perpetual, I was responsible for writing a quantitative bonus scheme that measured the performance of fund managers over three, five and 10 years according to the performance of the team, the business and the individual, which involved clawbacks, as appropriate. I started that work in 1999 and finished it in 2009, so I can say with confidence that I did my bit on remuneration.

What have the Government done that we are so proud of? First, we have brought down the quantum of bonuses. City bonuses are now a fifth of what they were under Labour. The banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer have been a key focus for the Government, so let me inform the House about what is happening with bonuses at RBS. We will ensure that the total bonus pool comes down again, both in total and per head. That will continue the reductions that made last year’s bonuses more than two-thirds lower than those in 2009. The bonus pool at the investment bank will come down too in total and per head. We are continuing to restrict cash bonuses to £2,000, and no executive director will receive a bonus.

Let me also tell the House what is happening at Lloyds. This week, we announced that we are getting back another half a billion pounds for taxpayers—money that they had to put in. We can do that because since the crisis Lloyds has gone from failure to being a strong, profitable bank that is helping to drive the UK recovery and is contributing £230 million a year through the bank levy. We will ensure that Lloyds sees its bonus pool reduce this year and we are continuing to restrict cash bonuses to £2,000.

Let us compare that with the Labour party, which presided over a system that paid Fred Goodwin a cash bonus of £2.9 million in 2007. It is now calling for a 10-year clawback on bonuses—once again asking us to clear up the mess that it left—and has spent its bank tax proposal 10 times over.

The Government have made the link between bonuses and performance crystal clear. Bankers should be in no doubt that their bonuses are at risk should misbehaviour occur. Under this Government, highly paid bankers and those who are liable for big decisions have their bonuses deferred over at least three years, and at least 60% must be deferred for senior managers. Bonuses are now clearly linked to the performance of banks, since 50% of any bonus must be paid in shares or similar instruments. Deferred bonuses can be subject to cancellation in the future. Since the start of this year, bonuses can be clawed back up to seven years after they are paid out when misconduct or serious performance issues come to light. Guaranteed bonuses, which were commonplace under the previous Government, are banned in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

We have taken the lead in ensuring that there is transparency in senior executives’ pay arrangements. We have ensured that all the top 15 banks have signed up to the strengthened code of practice, which is a notable improvement on the two that had signed up when Labour left office. Our reforms to company law mean that shareholders are guaranteed a binding vote on pay policy.

We are not stopping there. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which was attended so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), made strong recommendations on bankers’ pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I agree with my hon. Friend in principle. We want to see the market working properly, shareholders taking the decisions on remuneration and businesses acting fairly in the interests of all their stakeholders. That is why we have been so determined to sort out transparency, fairness and the binding votes that boards have in regard to the actions of the banks.

Our desire to see a lack of political intervention is why we have opposed and continue to oppose the deeply flawed and politically motivated EU cap on bonuses. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and the head of the Prudential Regulation Authority agree that it will not control bankers’ pay, but instead push up fixed pay, make it more difficult to claw back earnings when things go wrong, weaken financial stability and make it more likely that the taxpayer, rather than the banker, pays the cost of mistakes. We continue to believe that the cap is fundamentally flawed. Members will know that we have, however, withdrawn our legal challenge to the cap and are instead looking at how else we can build a system of pay in global banking that encourages responsibility, rather than undermines it.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the hon. Lady explain to the House and the country why it is wrong to cap bankers’ bonuses but right to cap nurses’ pay?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The point that we have made about the bankers bonus cap is that bankers will find other ways to remunerate themselves in fixed pay, rather than in variable pay. The hon. Lady smiles, but she perhaps fails to understand that the whole point of the regime we have put in place is to ensure that bankers are accountable. The way for them to be accountable is through variable pay, which is performance related, unlike fixed pay. The problem with the cap on bonuses is that it will put up fixed pay.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not take another intervention on that point because I have explained it twice and would like to move on.

The cap remains fundamentally flawed, so we are looking at other ways to ensure that there is accountability. We do, however, fear that fixed pay is going up and there is some evidence of that. Last November, the Chancellor wrote to the Governor of the Bank of England to ask him to encourage this work in his role as chairman of the Financial Stability Board. Such methods at a global level might include standards that ensure that non-bonus or fixed pay is also put at risk, maximising clawback or paying senior staff in performance-related bonds. Any such solution must be international in nature to be effective. That is why we are pushing the Financial Stability Board, which is uniquely well placed, to pursue these issues with urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is an important point. This Government have taken every step we can think of to ensure accountability, prevent future wrongdoing and improve standards in banking. We are always open to new suggestions, but it is our genuine belief that we have fundamentally changed the underlying systems that banks work with. I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that when I speak to the chief executives of banks, as I do regularly, they assure me that they, too, take the matter extremely seriously and have put in place checks so that they can indentify wrongdoing and punish the offenders under their own steam, as hon. Members will have seen in the press today.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way again; I am just coming to the end of my speech, and I want to give other Members the chance to contribute.

Fourthly, in our efforts to rebuild this vital industry, we have put in place the regulatory reforms necessary to improve bankers’ conduct and make banks serve their clients better, whether they are small and medium-sized enterprises or members of the public. We have legislated for a new senior managers and certification regime, to strengthen the accountability of senior management and raise the standards of individual conduct. We also launched an enforcement review, which recommended improvements to how regulators make decisions relating to enforcement.

We have promoted choice and competition in the retail banking sector, putting it at the heart of our regulatory system. By making it easier for customers to switch banks we are incentivising banks to look after their customers better, and by opening the door for new and smaller banks to compete with the established names we are ensuring that the entire sector ups its game, not least in helping our small and medium-sized businesses grow and expand. That is good for the customer, good for the sector and good for the wider economy.

Reforming remuneration for bankers has been a major priority for this Government. We are sorting out the mess left by the Labour party. It is not a pleasant spectacle when you lend someone your car, and they crash it and then criticise you for not repairing it quickly enough. I totally reject the proposals for changes that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made. This Government are doing the work needed to ensure that the UK’s financial services are fit for the 21st century and that we put the bad old days of banking behind us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have manipulated the jobseeker’s allowance figures by increasing the number of sanctions, which are now affecting some 25% of people who go to the jobcentre?

[Mr Bain]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In this country people want targets for abolishing long-term youth and adult unemployment, not targets in jobcentres for sanctions. We see that in our constituency offices when people arrive in a desperate state having been sanctioned because of edicts from the office of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The vision of a different economy was picked up by the OECD yesterday in its report. It stated that future growth and rises in living standards in this country will come only if our economy sees increases in productivity, exports and levels of investment. We must improve our skills record and, importantly, sort out more secure and long-term pathways to finance for business and industry in this country—real structural reform for our banks must happen in the next Parliament.

A high-skill, high-investment, higher-wage economy cannot be built when thousands of people are locked outside the labour market for long periods, with skills going to waste and promise left unfulfilled. In 10 weeks’ time—10 weeks tomorrow—my constituents and the rest of the country will go to the polling stations in the hope that change is on the way with a new Government. However, the House does not have to wait that long. By passing the motion today, it can send a powerful message to the Chancellor that a Budget that will command support in the country in a few weeks’ time must have the purpose of abolishing the scourge of long-term unemployment that is so destructive of long-term income prospects, and corrosive of the human spirit.

The House should do more. We must restore fairness to our taxation system and reintroduce that tax on highly paid financiers who have pocketed some of the biggest gains from this Government over the past five years. With the 50p tax cut, for the last few years they have had a Government who have been on their side. Now the British people, who are meeting the burden of high long-term unemployment costs through our social security system, need a new Government who are on their side instead.

With as much as £34 billion a year in taxes going uncollected under this Government, we need policies that maximise revenues and encourage excluded parts of our society back into the labour market. Sweden’s equivalent of the jobs guarantee policy was first introduced in 1983 under a social democratic Government, and it helped balance the books there in the mid-1990s while restoring the right to work to thousands of people. That jobs guarantee was followed in Norway, Finland and Denmark. We should match that ambition in this country by having more people in work and paying into the system, and becoming better off and improving our public finances at the same time.

With bonuses paid by the financial sector since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007 having reached £100 billion this year, and with a few at the top pocketing the biggest gains, the case for asking for a greater contribution from those people—given the taxpayer assistance that has been provided to the banks and financial sector since 2008—is unanswerable. With the Office for Budget Responsibility having revised down by £48 billion at the autumn statement the levels of revenue from income tax and national insurance from the next financial year until 2018-19, the case for more people being in work, and for the super-rich to pay their fair share, makes best economic sense. That is why it is right to increase the clawback period for bonuses paid to people guilty of misconduct in the financial sector from seven years to 10 years, and—crucially—to introduce penalties in law for breaches of the general anti-abuse rule on avoidance.

As the High Pay Centre has shown in recent months, the link between company performance and executive remuneration and bonuses at the very top is tenuous at best. Reform of corporate governance so as to have an employee representative on remuneration committees would help secure greater accountability over what highly rewarded executives receive, and the wider commercial and social obligations that they should have in mind.

Too often, pay structures reward failure when instead there must be a greater relationship with long-term performance. That can be dealt with by the Financial Conduct Authority and greater legal transparency on bonuses, and secured by reform of the laws and corporate governance. Through the taxation system, we in this House can do a great deal more to discourage irresponsibility in the financial sector, and secure justice for the disadvantaged by raising £1.5 billion to £2 billion through a repeat of the bank bonus tax, to fund the jobs guarantee policy that will help so many long-term and young unemployed people. But as has also come up in this debate, we also need to deal with the structural reforms in the banking system which are needed to restore proper channels of finance to small and medium businesses.

A British investment bank, constructed for the purpose and capitalised by some of the revenues we can expect from 3G and 4G licences in the future, is the best way to deal with the gap in the British economy and ensure stable finance for small businesses. As the OECD pointed out yesterday, ensuring consistent lending for businesses is vital for future growth, and policies such as funding for lending have not bridged the gap. They have not delivered the necessary impetus to net lending and the next Parliament and Government need to be much more ambitious on that front.

[Mr Bain]

I am citing evidence—I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully—from the OECD and Bank of England reports that net lending to business has continued to fall. The OECD said yesterday that weak lending is a structural problem in the British economy. He might think that I am raising a straw man, but I hope that he is not accusing those organisations of doing so. It is their argument that this Government have left unsolved that structural weakness in the past five years. Tougher action is needed in the next Parliament to secure stable finance for our businesses, because that is how we will get the jobs and growth that will generate the tax revenues and lower the deficit.

[Helen Goodman]

If it is the case that some firms have high cash balances and others face shortages in investment, it is far from being an example of the success of the current banking system: it is a demonstration of its failure.

[Mr Bain]

Businesses have told me that the absence of a strong investment bank, such as they have in Germany, France, and South Korea and as the Federal Reserve acts in the US economy, is equivalent to our business having one hand tied behind its back. It is that structural flaw that must be addressed in the next Parliament, but it is absent from the Government’s thinking, given what the Minister said.

The OECD also raised a further problem—the risks that the shadow banking sector could cause to our banking sector. We heard nothing from the Minister about closing loopholes that hedge funds have been able to exploit or about strengthening the tools to oversee the shadow banking sector, given the potential risk to financial stability that the OECD mentioned.

The debate is important because the Government have the perfect opportunity in the coming weeks to aim for fairness, with a proper jobs guarantee policy, and a bank bonus tax that would extend opportunity as well as responsibility. If they fail to take that opportunity, Labour will take our case for change to the country and the British people. I am confident that they will vote for change and vote for a new Government on 7 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

The legislation is already there. The hon. Gentleman should speak to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is doing a fantastic job on the board of the Prince Bishops bank. I happily praise him for the work he is doing with the local community—with the church, the local authority and the housing association. To improve the quality of a credit union and make it viable, one has to, for example, ensure that payments to local authorities and housing associations go through the credit union, so it becomes a clearing bank in the normal way. There must be a greater degree of lending on a long-term basis. To put it bluntly, the credit union needs to go after middle-class lenders, because they are the ones who will make the deposits.

In Northumberland, a large proportion of my constituents are off-grid and have to purchase 500 litres of oil at a time. That costs approximately £350, now about £275. Banks will not give the lending facility to many unbanked people, because the number is too low, but if they were to save with a bulked-up credit union or community bank, that community bank could be the lender of choice for that specific purpose. Such people would, because they are mostly homeowners, be the sort of new lenders and new depositors who can provide the critical mass and the clout for the enhanced credit union-community bank to be more viable. The traditional problem with a credit union is that it does not have the deposit savings unless it has a white knight or a very strong church or trade union backing it.

We can discuss this another time—Mr Deputy Speaker will say that I am straying from the substance of the motion—but opportunities are out there. The point goes to the substance of the motion, which is competition. A credit union should provide competition on the high street to high street banks. Traditionally, credit unions have struggled. The Government’s changes have made it easier for them.

I will touch on two further points and then bring my remarks to a close. The sins of the bad, all of which we deprecate, are now paying for the good works of the good. We cannot have this debate without talking about LIBOR and about the terrible things that happen. However, the Government have done a wonderful thing in saying that the 96 military charities should receive the funds of the LIBOR fines and that air ambulances should receive a considerable amount of money. Last night, I was at No. 11 Downing street with the Chancellor. Representatives of many of the air ambulances throughout the country, including from Essex, were there. They are receiving significant sums of money by reason of the Chancellor’s decision on LIBOR funds. That is a fantastic thing. It was first announced in the 2012 autumn statement, originally for just military charities. It has now developed into other areas—the Minister spoke of GPs and other health services. The great work done by the air ambulances should be noted. The support we are giving to them is crucial.

I want to make one final point on the motion, which refers to tackling unemployment and youth unemployment as the purpose behind everything that it proposes. It is hard to read the House of Commons Library unemployment statistics and find a single Member of Parliament who has not benefited from a dramatic reduction in unemployment.

[Helen Goodman]

That’s not true.

[Guy Opperman]

I know the hon. Lady reasonably well and presumed she would be quite chirpy in her usual fashion. The House of Commons’ “Unemployment by Constituency” research paper 1509, published on 18 February 2015, shows that there has been a 34% reduction in unemployment in her constituency of Bishop Auckland. The reduction for those aged 50 and over is 24%. The 12-month unemployment figure, which of course is the very difficult area to address, has seen a 45% reduction in the past year. Youth unemployment is often prayed in aid by the Opposition—and understandably so, as we all agree that we need to address it.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No, let me provide the figures—

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about my constituency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is talking about the hon. Lady’s constituency is not the question. It is a question of whether Mr Opperman wishes to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), and to have listened to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). It is clear that Members representing constituencies in the north-east are extremely interested in the debate, and that in itself is significant. The fact is that the banking system is currently not serving our region well. What the hon. Member for Redcar said about the Handeslbanken was absolutely right, and the work that the hon. Member for Hexham has been doing with Atom bank is necessary because of the failure of the current banking system. I would almost go so far as to say that his concern about finance for small and medium-sized enterprises and about tackling financial exclusion would make him a far better junior Minister in the Treasury dealing with this industry than the complacent former banker who currently seems to fulfil the role.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Redcar said about the need to regulate crowdfunding. He is absolutely right: it is a fashionable new thing, and people just leap into it, just as—as he pointed out—they leapt into the free market in 1986, without thinking about the consequences. Both hon. Gentlemen pointed up the inadequacies of banking in this country, but neither of them defended bonus levels and the method of paying them that we can see in most of the financial sector. I do not understand why they will not come into the Lobby with Labour Members at 4 o’clock, because that is where the logic of their position should take them.

In the north-east it is true that unemployment is down—we had the highest unemployment in the country at 10%—but cuts and the depression in the economy of the north-east mean that earnings are down between 4% and 9%. It is not a thriving region, and no one is happy about that.

[Guy Opperman]

Clearly more needs to be done in the north-east—no one disputes that—but does the hon. Lady not agree that the autumn purchasing managers index survey showed that we had the fastest private sector growth? We have the largest exports, and the largest export growth of any part of the country. After London, the north-east has more tech start-ups than any region in the country. There is more to be done, but I would not want her to paint a picture of doom and gloom for a second.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are indeed a successful exporting region, but the Government are spending 520 times as much on the transport industry in London as they are in our region, which does not make sense. That is one reason why the Opposition want to set up a business investment bank.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Low wages are a problem not just in the north-east but in the north-west and across the country. A third of hourly paid workers in my constituency are paid less than the living wage, and 57% of part-time workers are paid less than the living wage, which means that they depend on other taxpayers to support them so that they can get to a point where they receive a living wage.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is why people watching the debate will find it absolutely incredible that millions of pounds have been paid to bankers in bonuses.

I should like to come back to the central points in the motion. Pay should be a reward for good performance, but we have seen a disconnect between bank performance and the pay of many senior executives and traders. We have discussed whether or not there is improved accountability in the banking system. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister tried to persuade us that that was all sorted and that everything was fine and good. However, the argument that it was right for the Government to resist the EU cap on bonuses because if bankers did not receive bonuses they would just receive higher pay reveals that accountability mechanisms have completely failed. If those mechanisms were working properly, shareholders would be able to prevent that abuse and something that is in effect a loophole. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) would intervene, as that was a point that he made.

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Lady for encouraging me to speak. I agree with her. The issue is not about whether to have bonuses or not; it is about absolute levels of remuneration in banks. I do not understand why the Labour party is not trying to address that. There is a good point to be made about why Barclays needs 1,000 people who earn £1 million a year while other organisations do not. The only explanation in the end is that the market is not working properly, which is why we must have more challenger banks to compete that away.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman, if I may say so, makes a fair point. One of the regrets of Opposition Members is that not all the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards have been implemented. The weakness of the arrangements set up by the Government was illustrated only this week in the statement by Mr Gulliver, who now heads up HSBC. He said that he could not possibly be expected to know what his many thousands of staff were doing. If we are to have a proper accountability mechanism looking from the outside in at what the banks are doing, we need proper internal management systems; otherwise, the whole thing becomes meaningless. Mr Gulliver is therefore hoist by his own petard.

[Ian Swales]

I used to work in a large global organisation, and does the hon. Lady accept that part of the problem is culture? It is true that someone cannot be expected to know what every employee is doing at their desk at any moment, but if people do not have the right culture down the management chain those sorts of things happen.

[Helen Goodman]

That is common sense, and that is why the right culture was not encouraged when the Chancellor toddled off to Brussels to defend high bonuses. That did not engender the kind of attitude that we want to see.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady made an important point about Gulliver and the management philosophy that he appeared to espouse. We could call it something pretty close to plausible deniability: “I don’t know what they’re doing in Mexico—it’s a long way away. I don’t know what they’re doing in Switzerland—we’ve only just bought it.” If that is the management model, that is a better advert for the banks being split up than the retail/investment dichotomy that we have spent so long discussing.

[Helen Goodman]

That is another good point from the hon. Gentleman.

What will our constituents think of the fact that last year we saw an increase in the level of bonuses paid by the banks? What is happening at the top of the banks is not the same as what is happening for the ordinary people whom we meet behind the counter. It does not seem reasonable that bonuses are high when we have had high-profile scandals with LIBOR and forex fixing and with the revelations about tax avoidance through Switzerland.

One thing that particularly concerns me about HSBC is the disconnect between the amount of time and energy the bank is clearly prepared to put into setting up special arrangements for its private clients overseas, turning a blind eye to aggressive tax avoidance, and its attitude to my constituents when it wanted to close the branch in Shildon. We have a serious problem with financial exclusion and the major banks are taking themselves out of the poorest communities, leaving them prey to the Wongas of this world. When I wrote to HSBC saying that that was very regrettable and would mean that there was no longer anywhere for people even to access cash in a town with nearly 10,000 citizens, it would not even give a contribution to the local credit union. That shows a degree of arrogance and a lack of social responsibility that I am sure every Member of the House would deplore. I see that even the Exchequer Secretary is shaking her head in disappointment at hearing that.

We need a banking system that provides banking facilities for everybody in this country and for the whole community. Speaking as the Member of this House who was responsible for handling financial exclusion at the end of the previous Government, I think that it is fine to encourage credit unions, which are very nice institutions, but I do not believe that it is credible to believe that they could set up the kind of national network needed to fill the gaps. That is why, once upon a time, we had a more effective post office banking arrangement. We already have an infrastructure, and we already have institutional arrangements. We would do much better to build on them.

[Cathy Jamieson]

While my hon. Friend is on the point of credit unions, does she support our proposal to increase the levy on payday lenders to support various ethical alternatives, including the expansion of credit unions? I am sure that she will, as she has a great deal of expertise in this matter.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The extortionate charges put on the most vulnerable have been a total disgrace and there is something interesting to say about why a significant proportion of people in this country are unbanked. That is generally put down to being about the high lending risk in that community. It is partly about that, but it is also about the costs of having the institutional infrastructure to reach that community. That is one area where the main high street banks have failed disastrously in this country.

[Chris Evans]

My hon. Friend might know about the basic bank account, which was introduced when I worked in a bank. It allowed people on benefits to pay in their jobseeker’s allowance. There was no credit scoring for overdrafts, credit cards or anything like that. People would pay in their benefits and they would be largely forgotten about by the banks. There would be no account management, and if those people needed to borrow, they would fall into the hands of the payday lenders. They were completely ignored. How do we ensure that banks manage these people into mainstream banking as their needs change—as they get a job, look for a house or something similar?

[Helen Goodman]

Gosh, I am not sure that I have an instant answer to that complex question. This is the kind of thing that we need to think about more. When we hear that in the middle of the financial crash bankers phoned Treasury Ministers from New York worrying about their bonuses and not about the kind of people my hon. Friend has just described, we are bound to say that there is a culture problem in this industry. I also want to say something about the problems that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) needs to show a little more respect.

I want to say something about the need to provide more finance to manufacturing. One thing I am really puzzled by is what performance these bonuses are for. I have a lot of metal-bashers in my constituency and in the middle of the crash they had a lot of problems with their banks. I am sure that other hon. Members will have experienced this. They thought it was absolutely dreadful because they had to drive all the way down to Leeds, and blah-di-blah-di-blah.

The problem with that is that the assessments were being made by people with no scientific understanding and with very little understanding of industry. We are seeing phenomenally high bonuses for people who are no doubt absolutely brilliant and a whizz at the latest hedge fund hoojimaflip and at how to make four more basis points, but who are not very good at what they really need to be good at, which is understanding the financial needs of British industry. That is what we want, but that is not what we are getting. That is why the Opposition are proposing a British investment bank with regional arms and regional focus. The industrial base in the north-east is clearly different from that in London, so we need different expertise in different places. We are just not seeing that in the banks at the moment.

It is alarming that Lloyds, which is 24% owned by the taxpayer, is expected to have a bonus pool of £375 million this year. I could not understand the remarks made by the Economic Secretary. I think she said that no one at Lloyds was going to get a bonus of more than £2,000 this year, but my understanding is that the chief executive could receive more than £7 million in a three-year pay deal. I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will explain whether people will be getting £2,000, several hundred thousand pounds or millions of pounds. RBS, which is 79% owned by the taxpayer, was fined £400 million for its part in the forex fixing scandal, yet it is reported to be considering a bonus pool of around £500 million. There is a general problem with the culture of the banks and the level of bonuses being paid, but there is a specific problem with banks in which we the taxpayers have large equity stakes. Treasury Ministers have a particular responsibility to look at what is going on in those banks and to think about how they are going to control it, in our interests as shareholders as well as our interests as taxpayers.

I wonder what Ministers think about the report in the Financial Times yesterday, headlined “Rothschild eyes early bonus round to avoid possible windfall tax”. It stated:

“Rothschild, the boutique investment bank,”—

for those of us who had never heard of Rothschild—

“is considering paying its 2014 bonuses early to avoid the extra taxes Labour has vowed to introduced if it returns to power, two sources familiar with the bank’s thinking said. The deliberations show how seriously businesses are taking the prospect of Labour winning the May 7 election”.

Those people are good at assessing risk, and it is clear that they are expecting a Labour Government.

It is worth thinking about the purpose of the banking system. It is a shame that the Economic Secretary is no longer here, because I am sure that she has seen the book produced by the Church of England, “On Rock or Sand”, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury writes an extremely interesting essay about economic purpose. He says that there are three criteria against which economic institutions should be judged. The first is fairness, and we can see the problem in the banking sector in that regard. The second is generosity, but that does not mean that banks should be generous to those who have the most. The third is sustainability. Judging by what is happening at the moment, the institutions seem to be failing on all three counts. However, taxing bankers’ bonuses and rechanneling the money towards providing employment for young people would help banks to meet those criteria, and that is what we are proposing to do. I believe that that is what people in this country expect from the financial institutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The issue is not the extent of regulation, but the format of regulation and the fact that the previous Government took the Bank of England out of the picture. The one organisation that understands the prudential nature of risk management was pushed to one side. That, together with the failure to police risk, was at the heart of what went wrong with our banking system, so I completely reject the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The Opposition say, “Let’s have a bankers’ bonus tax, so we can raise some money.” Yet again, we have heard that the Opposition want to spend it, this time on

“a guaranteed paid starter job for young people who have been out of work for over a year”.

That is what they say today but that is the 12th time over that they have spent it; I hate to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who thought it was only the 10th time and had lost count. That is understandable, because previously the Opposition have spent this on: the youth jobs guarantee; reversing the VAT increase; more capital spending; reversing the child benefit savings; reversing tax credit savings; more money for the regional growth fund; cutting the deficit; turning empty shops into community centres; spending more on public services; building 25,000 new houses; and free child care. Now it is being spent on starter jobs for young people, but perhaps next week it might be spent on houses again—who knows? It just depends on the thing of the moment, does it not? That underlines the ludicrousness of the Opposition’s position: they simply cannot add up and cannot spend their various banking bonus tax ideas in any competent way at all.

Leaving that aside, the permanent bank levy introduced by this Government is expected to raise £2.9 billion in 2015-16 and then £2.8 billion each year thereafter. That is more than was raised by the one-off bonus tax introduced by the previous Government. I suspect what will happen is that the Labour party will end up with its madcap plans raising less money and the party then being in a quandary as to where to spend it, because it has committed it on multiple occasions. That goes to the heart of the massive contradictions of Labour policy making.

The one thing I want to touch on is the idea that we should have the European Union decide on the levels of pay, bonuses or indeed anything in this country. Let me gently remind the Opposition of a couple of things. First, we are an independent nation. Secondly, we have an independent currency—we are not part of the eurozone. I do not understand why the Opposition think it is a good idea to have the European Union tell us how to manage our banking system. We are competent enough as a country—goodness knows, we have run our own affairs for the past 1,000 years—to decide how we should organise our banking system, and pay, bonuses and bonus taxes in our banking system, without needing help from the European Union.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not think every last detail of the running of these things should be handed over to the European Union, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, but the fact is that all the time we hear from the bankers that they will whizz off to Geneva—some of them do seem to be whizzing off there—to Paris or to Frankfurt. The purpose of having a European-wide approach on bonuses is to avoid exactly that kind of behaviour.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but we are not in the euro. The only time that we would need some measure of control from the European Union is if we were in the euro. I simply do not accept the argument. Our objection to the European Union trying to tell us how to run our banking system and our bank bonuses is that we do not want to see pay rise and rocket in the banking system, which is what would happen—permanent fixed pay would rise. That is what we are most concerned about and why we have put up such resistance. There is also the principle that we can manage our own affairs in the City of London and in the financial services market, and we do not need any assistance from Brussels. I say shame on the Labour party for thinking that it is better to accept diktat from Brussels than decisions made in this Chamber.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The accelerated payments scheme means that if tax is in dispute, we ask for it up front, and if people can prove that we have got it wrong, they get the money back. That is the rule with which the vast majority of our citizens must comply at present, but it was not complied with by those who were very well off. We introduced the accelerator, and as a result we are collecting hundreds of millions of pounds of tax that was previously not collected. As my hon. Friend says, that is further evidence of the gulf between what the Labour Government did during the 13 years for which the shadow Chancellor advised them, and what we have done in the last five years.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Chancellor described the steps taken by the civil service before the appointment of Lord Green, but will he now answer this question? Did he ever discuss this matter with Lord Green, and did the Prime Minister ever discuss it with Lord Green?

Tax Avoidance

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). Much of what he said, apart from the last sentence, was very sensible.

I am pleased to be called in this debate but disappointed that the debate is necessary. The recent revelations about what has been going on at HSBC are shocking. They are shocking because of the scale of the problem and because of the apparent lack of shame. Even according to the Government’s own figures, the tax gap, which shows the amount of tax avoidance, has gone up from £30 billion to £34 billion in this Parliament.

For two weeks in a row, the Prime Minister has been avoiding—some might say evading—questions about this tax problem. Last week he refused to say why he would not increase tax for hedge funds, and the very next day the Financial Times revealed that the number of big City donors to the Tories has doubled, and that they now account for a third of the Tory party’s income. Today he refused to explain about HSBC and what happened with Stephen Green. In Newcastle there are buses going around asking, “Do you know a benefit cheat?” One wonders whether there were chauffeur-driven cars at the black and white ball saying, “Do you know a tax cheat?” They might have found a few people.

We must take the international dimension seriously. Between 2006 and 2011, Google’s turnover in this country was estimated at £18 billion but it paid only £16 million of tax.

[Mark Garnier]

I hate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but does she realise that tax is paid on profit and not turnover?

[Helen Goodman]

I will come to that point.

Facebook’s turnover was £200 million, and its tax payment £0.25 million—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman just wait? What is going on at the moment? One big thing is the division by multilateral companies of different subsidiaries, and a key aspect is the payment of branding through trade marks and licences registered in low-tax domains. We all understand that marketing and advertising are legitimate business interests, and it is completely reasonable to set them against revenues in order to determine profits and decide the tax liability. That, however, is not what is going on, because brands and trade marks are registered in low-tax domains, and licences and royalties are then paid into those low-tax domains to shift money around.

[Mark Garnier]

indicated assent.

[Helen Goodman]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now nodding his agreement.

That is a way of moving money from high-tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions. Now, of course, these prices are not contested; they are not the result of supply and demand, but are administered just as much as prices in the Soviet Union were administered. Sometimes they are administered at suspiciously high levels, and as far as one can tell that device has been used by Starbucks and Facebook, which is why there is a big discrepancy.

I also want to call in aid our noble Friend Lord Mandelson, who said that we must deal with this issue at an international level. At the moment we have constant competition to see who can cut corporation tax the most, and an arbitraging day-ahead market that is undermining everybody’s tax base—we have seen that with the Irish Republic, and now new freedoms must be given to Northern Ireland. The situation is simply not sustainable, but agreeing international changes to the rules of the game takes time. We in this country must take more urgent, unilateral action, and I hope we can consider the way that trade marks, royalties and licences are being abused.

These arrangements are complex, and to tackle them we need Ministers with determination, the right legal framework, and enough experienced HMRC officials. It is disappointing that Ministers have reduced the number of experienced officials in HMRC who have the expertise to follow up such matters. The Minister kept saying that he has a good record of which he is confident, but the Financial Times says that the amount of tax that will be brought to the British Exchequer from measures taken by the previous Government is 10 times the amount that he will bring in. The truth is that this Government are defending the tax loopholes. We want to address them in order to abolish the bedroom tax, which is paid by the most vulnerable and by disabled people in this country. The Government are defending the hedge funds and the City loopholes because they want the money for the Tory coffers for their attempt to buy the next general election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He mentions the very important universal credit roll-out. As it rolls out—[Interruption.] It is already being rolled out, and it is going well. As it rolls out, more and more people will benefit. He is right to point out that this is about both the value of work and aspiration. We are the only party that stands for aspiration and value in work, and inspiring people to get off benefits and back into work.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

14. What recent estimate he has made of the effect on household budgets of tax and benefit decisions taken in the present Parliament.

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

Since 2010, I have published regular distributional analysis of the impact on households of our reforms to tax, welfare and public spending. It is the most comprehensive analysis available. The most recent analysis we published, alongside the autumn statement last month, shows that the wealthiest continue to make the biggest contribution towards reducing the deficit. By 2015-16, the net contribution of the richest 20% will be larger than the remaining 80% put together.

[Helen Goodman]

Today, the second independent report in as many weeks shows that proportionately the Government have hit the poorest and those with small children the hardest. Today, half a million more children are living in absolute poverty than when the right hon. Gentleman walked into the Treasury. Will he tell us why, instead of tackling that, he supported tax cuts for millionaires?

[Danny Alexander]

Those analyses ignore some of the most important and most progressive policies put in place by the Government. They ignore the pupil premium, which is investing money in the life chances of young people. They ignore the extra early years education provided to three and four-year-olds, and to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. They are not included in those analyses, but they are helping to ensure that young people have better life chances under this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm remarks. He is absolutely right. It is this Government who have gone out of their way to focus on a child poverty strategy, reducing the numbers, and that is something of which we are proud.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

16. The Government’s own figures show that the number of children in poverty in absolute terms after housing costs increased by half a million between 2010 and 2013. Why does the burden of fiscal adjustment fall on the most vulnerable?

[Priti Patel]

I think it is worth my reiterating that relative child poverty has fallen under this Government by 300,000 since 2010. It is quite clear what the IFS has said about the greatest and deepest recession we have had thus far and that work is the best route out of poverty. I have said it already and I will repeat it: work is the best route out of poverty. This Government are supporting hard-working families across the country and getting them out of poverty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Changes in lottery and gambling markets have made it clear to us that the consultation on society lotteries should be more wide ranging than we had previously thought. The Gambling Commission is providing us with further information and advice, and we are planning to conduct the consultation later this year.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Arts Council announced this week that 99 organisations will be financed solely by the national lottery and it has to cut support to 58 other arts organisations because of the huge cuts in the Department. Local authorities have also been forced to reduce support to arts organisations. Given that London gets 20 times as much philanthropic money per person as the rest of the country, does the Secretary of State agree with the statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) that arts organisations that cannot raise philanthropic funds are totally misguided and “pathetic”?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that I do not agree with her. She knows that Government grants for arts funding have been cut because the Government of whom she was part left our country with the largest deficit in the industrialised world and left us with very difficult decisions to make. The good news is that the Arts Council receives funding from other sources and, taken together with total funding of almost £3 billion during the life of this Parliament, the level of funding is virtually unchanged from the situation in the previous Parliament.

Finance Bill

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I hope that will happen and that HMRC will have the resources available to it, as we know that it has faced significant reductions in staffing. That does not necessarily mean that it will not be able to undertake the sort of monitoring we would like to see under the scheme, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister that HMRC has the resource, capacity and systems to ensure that this does not become just another vehicle for tax abuse.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In the case of the film tax credits, the British Film Institute has a role in assessing whether the criteria are met, and it obviously has great expertise in that area. It would be helpful to know whether this work is going to be contracted out in any way or whether any particular expertise is needed by Revenue officials in doing this job.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I have not specifically considered it, but it fits well with some of the additional concerns put to me, which I am now putting to the Minister, about defining who should qualify for the relief and how it should be assessed by HMRC. It would be interesting to hear whether consideration has been given to using the expertise of outside bodies to ensure that HMRC gets its assessments right first time in administering this tax relief.

In the light of the National Audit Office’s recent report that HMRC monitors just 10% of its “tax expenditures”—there are more than 1,000—it would be reassuring if the Government committed themselves to reviewing the operation and take-up of this tax relief each year to ensure that HMRC is fully aware of how it is being used, and, more important, whether it is being abused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed, and Malcolm Webb from Oil and Gas UK made a near-identical point when he said:

“It is perplexing…that the Government has chosen to proceed with the bareboat measure. This can only increase costs on the”

UK continental shelf. He also said:

“we fear that this move will drive drilling rigs, already in short supply, out of the UKCS.”

That would be a ridiculous thing to do.

What makes this measure all the more peculiar is that the bareboat charter arrangements are commercial arrangements that are widely used across a range of industries, and not just in the oil and gas sector. The arrangements we are talking about are used internationally, and have formed a consistent part of the UK continental shelf operation for 40 years. So why pick now to take an extra £500 million or £600 million out of the North sea over the next five years? The Treasury’s decision in the Budget to apply this measure only to the oil and gas industry, and only now, to a few specific vessel types, is utterly illogical.

I do not want to detain the House too long, so I think that the key thing to do is to consider the points that the International Association of Drilling Contractors makes about the measure. This is not a gentle criticism of a mildly inconvenient tax; it is an excoriating critique of what the UK Government have done. The association says:

“The measure is unfair and a unilateral deviation from international best practice…with no ability for contractors to reset prices,”

it

“amounts to retrospective and double taxation”,

and in a real and practical sense, it does. It says:

“The measure will depress economic activity. The…changes affect the cost base of the drilling industry”,

with all the impact that might have. It goes on:

“The measure targets a single, specialist sector for additional rent…Specialist international companies that have relocated”

to the UK “will be particularly hit”, when they and their investment should be welcomed instead.

The association argues:

“The government has manipulated the introduction of the measure to avoid proper scrutiny.”

In a particular criticism, it goes on to say:

“It is not appropriate for legislation as complex as this to be published in initial draft form”

on the day it was due to come into effect. That is a preposterous way for the UK Government to behave. The association continues:

“The consequences of the measure have not been properly assessed by HRMC”,

and it says that there are reports that up to £2 billion could be lost from the continental shelf. It also says:

“The measure is deliberately discriminatory...all vessels bar drilling rigs and accommodation units have been exempted for reasons that are far from clear.”

To put that another way, only two sorts of vessels remain included in the scope of the measure, which appears to be the usual sort of smash-and-grab cash raid that this Government make on the North sea.

There appear to be a great many reasons why the bareboat chartering regime is wrong. There appears to be an illogicality about the way it is being introduced, as well as a complete lack of transparency and time properly to assess the long-term impact, not just on drilling rigs and accommodation vessels, but on the entire supply chain. Little concern appears to have been felt about the consequential impact on growth and jobs in the sector and in the economy in general. That is quite a scathing set of criticisms to make of this Government, although it is not unique and could apply to any number of other things that they have done.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but unless there is a very credible explanation of the amount of tax that he believes is lost, and of how the proposals will help, rather than having the consequences that I have described, I fear that we might divide on new clause 1.

[Helen Goodman]

I should like to speak to new clause 5 and new schedule 4 on the theatre tax relief and to set this in the context of the current state of British theatre.

The Government’s own documents point out that the film tax credit introduced by the previous Labour Government has been a significant success. In answer to written questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Government have told us that the film tax credit has supported 1,200 films, provides 46,000 jobs, and has brought in £1 billion of investment. Obviously, therefore, a theatre tax relief is a good idea in principle, but it is worth considering whether the drafting of the new clause will achieve all the desired objectives. If it is not drafted sufficiently generously, the positive benefits to the theatre industry and to the British economy will not be achieved, but if it is drafted too loosely, it can become open to abuse. In either of those instances, we will have to come back and revisit the drafting, and the industry will face an unstable regime that is not helpful to its planning. In one respect, the drafting is a bit too loose and in another respect it might be a little too tight.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

I strongly support the hon. Lady’s thesis that it is essential to get the wording right. At the moment, there seems to be a practice on the part of HMRC investigators to assume that any investment—certainly by private individuals taking advantage of this facility—is, by definition, improper. There is far too much of an assumption that people are on the fiddle. I share her view that it is an entirely valid form of tax allowance and that it is important to get the definitions absolutely bang on the nail.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is slightly unfortunate that the Government have brought the new clause and new schedule to the House now, because this is the only opportunity we are going to get to scrutinise this.

The object is obviously to support the development of British theatre and, in particular, to support touring. We have some of the best theatre in the world; we all know that. It all began with having the best playwright in the world. We have built on that over time, and our theatre is one of the major attractions for inward visitors and a major export industry. I point out to the Minister that we can draw a distinction—it is a little crude—between two parts of the current theatre industry. The commercial part is a series of chains of theatres producing successful, profitable plays that are often sold to New York and have very long runs, particularly in the west end of London.

If the sole benefit of the tax relief was to make those companies more profitable, that would be very nice for them, but it would not achieve what the Minister is aiming for—namely, to support the development of the industry. We therefore need to look at whether the relief supports the part of the theatre that is not always profitable and is supported by the public purse. That is why the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) asked about whether the allowance will be claimable by companies that are charities is very pertinent. Large parts of the subsidised theatre sector, the Minister hopes, will be getting a tax subsidy instead of a public spending subsidy; I appreciate that that is his aim. However, that will not happen if their legal structure is not in line with what the Bill provides for. It is rather disappointing that we are being asked to agree this primary legislation when the guidelines on the definitions have not yet been published and so it has not yet been possible for them to be scrutinised by people in the industry who understand this very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has spoken about how the changes might apply to the National Theatre. Is she intending to move on to talk about regional theatre and how those changes may or may not benefit somewhere such as the Darlington Civic Theatre?

[Helen Goodman]

I am, because I know that my hon. Friend has a keen interest in that, as do people up and down this country.

So we have had big cuts to the Arts Council. The Government have also imposed big cuts on local government, and from answers that I have received to freedom of information requests, we now know that on average local authorities are cutting their arts provision by even more—some 14%. So, given the estimates in the Red Book of the value of this tax relief rising from £5 million to £20 million per year, we can immediately see that it does not compensate for the reductions that have been experienced in public support.

My hon. Friend is right: there is a big issue about what is going on in the regions. The “Rebalancing our Cultural Capital” report suggested that the Government were supporting cultural institutions to the tune of 14 times as much per person in London as elsewhere, and that is not conscionable in the long term for this country. It is clearly because of that concern about regional imbalance that the Minister has decided to provide a slightly more generous relief for touring.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady be very clear: is she opposed to the cuts in the DCMS, and if so, would Labour reverse them?

[Helen Goodman]

I think it must be a matter of regret to everybody in the House that DCMS has taken 36% cuts. Of course, the question whether they can be restored is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a completely separate one. I am just pointing out that the tax relief, if the legislation is properly drafted, will not cancel out the effect of those cuts. I am hoping that no one on the Government side is trying, through some sleight of hand, to give such an impression.

To return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) raised, it is my understanding that in Darlington, the theatre is what is called a receiving house. That means that new plays are not being made in Darlington. Companies come on tour to Darlington and their productions are shown for several days. There are many very good producing houses in the regions as well; one good example would be the Nottingham Playhouse, where they make plays and tour them, and sometimes they tour them to London—they have just had something on at the Almeida.

A receiving house will not get the benefit of this tax relief; it is the producing company that gets the benefit. Of course, it may be that if they get the tax relief or the tax credit, they could offer the production to the receiving house for slightly less money, which might ease the situation in a place like Darlington, but there will not be a direct benefit, as I understand it.

My next question is whether the definition of touring is the right one and whether the measure will address the regional imbalance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North pointed out, it is completely sensible to say that the extra relief is given if the play is taken to more than six places, but we must question whether 14 productions in two places is an appropriate definition of touring. Some of those who responded to the Government’s consultation said it would be a good idea to have a geographical definition of touring, and I do not understand why the Minister has not done that. I think he is risking some revenue leakage on this point. To give a concrete example, a play could be on on one side of Shaftesbury avenue for 14 nights, then move to the other side of Shaftesbury avenue for 15 or 25 nights and it would benefit, but the Government would not have achieved their policy objective of ensuring that the theatrical experience took in a new, wider audience.

I think there is a problem and I am disappointed by the way the Minister has drafted the provision; it is a weak spot. On the other hand, he might be being too restrictive in the number of production companies that can benefit, although we do not yet know how the guidelines will operate. In principle, of course it is a good idea to support British theatre. It is a great industry, we are very good at it and we have some of the best actors and theatre companies in the world, so in principle, it is a good idea to have a theatre tax relief, but I do have those two questions about those two parts of the new clause and the schedule.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the accelerated payment of tax and avoidance cases. I have written to him about this and received a letter from him, and also met him subsequently. Others have mentioned this issue, which has caused a lot of concern, especially within the accounting community. Many of my constituents who are accountants and who run businesses have written to me and met me to voice their concern about what they believe is retrospective legislation, with no right of independent appeal. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure my constituents and those of other Members.

The first question is about the oft-quoted 80% success rate in tax avoidance cases tried at court. The Minister has quoted that statistic, and HMRC has quoted similar figures, but we have yet to discover the source of that statistic, nor do we have a list of the cases on which it is based. Many of those who have contacted me feel that the figure is unsubstantiated. Will the Minister tell us the source of that 80% success rate statistic?

Secondly, there is a strong view that this law is being implemented retrospectively, with no right of independent appeal. I know the Minister has said it is not retrospective legislation, but he knows that that opinion is not shared by the accountancy profession, the legal profession, the CBI or even the Treasury Select Committee. Will he comment on that?

It is predicted that the legislation will result in some 150,000 redundancies, and the loss of future tax revenues from companies going to the wall, including some in my constituency, is estimated to be £50 billion, all to collect a mere £4 billion in unpaid revenues over the next five years. That seems to me to be a very bad bang for your buck. Does the Minister believe it is worth such loss and unemployment?

Consumer Rights Bill

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I admit that I have been deeply concerned about campaigning on this issue and for our proposals, because I think that it is a bit like telling turkeys how to avoid Christmas. The more we make it clear to estate agents that the Government are currently letting them get away with this behaviour, the more they will engage in it. Indeed, I am sad to report that since February, when we began expressing concern about double charging, an increasing number of estate agent chains throughout the country have been using “sale by tender” processes involving the introductory fee. I must emphasise that we are objecting not to sale by tender per se, but to the fact that people are being charged a fee to be introduced to a property. That is what is causing such concern.

When I first observed that Douglas Allen in Walthamstow was engaging in the practice, I thought that perhaps we had just one rogue estate agent. I hoped that when Phil and Kirstie came to Walthamstow recently to film “Location, Location, Location”, they would take a dim view of it, but I am sorry to say that we are now hearing of cases at Your Move, Ellis and Co. and Reeds Rains. A number of estate agents are picking up the idea that applying such fees is acceptable behaviour, and the damage that that is doing to the interests of both sellers and buyers is growing.

There is a question for us here. We can see that the practice is distorting the housing market. If we want a free and fair market, these conflicts of interests must be resolved, so that sellers can be confident that buyers are always acting in their interests, and buyers can be confident that when they participate in a bid such as this, it is taken seriously. Should we act, or should we wait until the damage to consumers’ interests becomes worse? We tabled amendment 1 in order to make charging two parties a fee to the same transaction a term in a contract that can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair. We believe—as does the property ombudsman—that such charges are indeed unfair, and should be open to challenge.

This comes at a time when there is widespread concern about the estate agent industry, full stop. I accept that it may be another “British value” to complain about estate agents, just as people complain about traffic wardens and, indeed, politicians. We all recognise that we are not immune to that moment in the pub on a Friday night. However, we know that there are serious concerns because of the nature of the housing market. I have been contacted by people who have been told by estate agents that they cannot have access to the lists of housing for sale unless they commit themselves to taking out a mortgage through them, or using their financial advisers or lawyers. That is another clear conflict of interests for the seller.

We need a tough regulatory regime to ensure that we have a fair housing market in England and Wales. We continue to be concerned about the fact that the Government have delegated the monitoring of all estate agents in England and Wales to Powys county council’s trading standards body. A Welsh rural council has been charged with the task of examining the behaviour of nearly half a million estate agents. It should be taking account of the blatant and rampant exploitation of the demand for housing that these charges represent, but when people affected by them have contacted Powys, they have been met with indifference about whether it should be dealing with the issue. The council took over only in April—this may be a new moment—but it is clear that we need to take stronger action before the situation gets out of control.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is highlighting the way in which the Government have contracted out different aspects of trading standards to various local authorities. Has she looked into the number of houses that have been for sale in Powys, and considered how experience in Powys can possibly inform an intelligent approach to the London housing market, which is totally different?

[Stella Creasy]

I think that there is genuine concern about whether Powys county council is equipped for the task. This is not necessarily just about its trading standards: after all, this is a council that has gone through three cabinets in as many months, and has had problems with the setting of its budget. Some have suggested that it needs to put its own house in order before putting our house sales in order. Certainly, double charging is a great example of the sort of problem that we would expect an effective regulator to be able to deal with. There is a clear conflict of interests. The fees being charged are clearly causing detriment to consumers.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the property ombudsman since we raised this issue with her, but I note that as yet there is no evidence of any progress in resolving this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) pointed out, the number of agents using double charging in contracts is escalating. Many of my constituents who have been hit by these contracts have asked whether their lawyers can challenge them. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and give consumers the opportunity to challenge these sorts of contracts, and to give them the legal protection that enables them to say, “This is fundamentally unfair and it infringes my rights”, and, indeed, to give sellers the opportunity to challenge them. Under these contracts, buyers and sellers are told that they cannot communicate with each other; otherwise, the offer that has been made is void. A seller may therefore be unaware of an offer that somebody wishes to make for their property, and that has to be cut back because the buyer must also include the fee. I was surprised to hear from the estate agents in Walthamstow that they always achieve 102% of the asking price of their properties, and 2% was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the fee they were charging people to buy their houses. “Who would have thunk it”—who would have thought that there would be such a close correlation?

I hope the Minister will accept that there is a genuine issue here that needs to be dealt with, and the sooner, the better. We know the pressures on our housing market are not going to go away any time soon, but although we might argue about the numbers of houses that need to be built, we can surely all agree that this is a conflict of interests that needs to be addressed. If, again, the Minister will not accept this amendment and this course of action, I hope she will set out how she will take action on this issue herself, so house buyers across the country do not have to find the extra thousands of pounds just to pay the nice fat fee for the agent.

The other amendments we have tabled in this group also address challenges we believe are creating problems in our economy, in particular through these conflicts of interest. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 relate to conflicts of interest around services, in particular debt management and log book loans. The Minister will know of the Opposition’s concern about the personal debt bubble that underpins much of our economy, and in particular the number of people who are over-indebted. We know from the Money Advice Service that 9 million people in our country are already over-indebted, and half of these families live on incomes of under £20,000. This fragile situation has arisen despite our having had for more than five years the lowest interest rates in 300 years. It is likely that interest rates will start to rise, and personal debt may well rise at the same time—after all, wages are still not keeping pace with prices—so it is all the more important that people can access credit, debt advice and debt management services in an affordable fashion.

Amendment 2 deals with the problems caused by log book loans. Members who served on the Committee will be familiar with the Opposition’s determination to reform this outdated and outmoded form of credit. There are widespread problems: more than 1,000 consumers complained about these loans to the Office of Fair Trading, and they were complaining about losses of over £1.5 million. Many of them come from the fact that these loans are based on bill of sale agreements, a Victorian type of contract that does not include modern consumer protection. Again, the Government have repeatedly voted against our proposals to reform bill of sale agreements and therefore end this outdated and quirky practice that is causing so much detriment. The Minister stated that there may well be an argument for updating the legislation, but that this is not the Bill to do it in. Those of us who saw from the title of the Bill that it was about consumer rights and protecting consumer interests were, of course, rather concerned by that, but let me point her to the concerns of the Financial Conduct Authority and Citizens Advice, which also want to see bill of sale agreements reformed.

Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the FCA, states:

“People who use logbook loans are often in difficult circumstances with few other borrowing options…Logbook lenders have borrowers over a barrel. People don’t realise their car can be seized if they fall behind in repayments, with lenders often forcing borrowers to pay large amounts to keep their vehicle when they can’t afford to.”

Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, argues:

“The logbook industry is still in the dark ages and has been getting away with lawless practices.”

Its own analysis of log book loan cases found that 14% had experienced harsh debt collection practices, almost a third were not treated fairly or appropriately by the lender, and nearly 20% had not understood the terms of the loan clearly.

It is inexcusable to leave this outmoded form of credit arrangement available for lenders to use, and for them to exploit people in this way, particularly as we know that increasing numbers of people are going to need consumer credit in the years ahead because of the debts they have. We cannot understand why the Minister will not make progress on this issue. I believe she does understand that log book loans need to be reformed and that the case we are making—that bill of sale agreements have no place in a modern consumer protection landscape—so why does she feel that that should not be part of this Bill? We urge her to look very closely at our amendment, which would simply bring bill of sale agreements under modern consumer protection laws and, again, give consumers the right to challenge any agreement that does not uphold those laws. Indeed, it would be a sad indictment of all the work she has done on the other parts of the Bill and all the consumer protection laws in them if she were to say there would be a get-out clause in other respects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

It is a red-letter day for me when the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Walthamstow agree with me. I could not have envisaged such cross-party support, and if the Minister is able to withstand that I will be disappointed. We have a political consensus, of which I am usually very suspicious. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the principle of net neutrality is the most important point. It is not simply a question of transparency; transparency is the minimum that people can expect. With my amendment, I am trying to ensure that we have net neutrality and truly open access to the internet, and to put an end to protectionist and restrictive practices that are against consumers’ interests.

I am referring to services including voice over IP, which is similar to Skype. Voice over IP allows consumers significantly to reduce their phone bills by using voice over the internet, instead of their mobile provider’s phone minutes and messaging services that use mobile data rather than text. It is especially important for consumers that that market works efficiently given Ofcom’s research finding that a quarter of the UK’s poorest households are mobile-only and are wholly beholden to mobile operators’ tariffs to enable them to access crucial services.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a consumer signs a mobile phone contract that offers internet access, he or she should be entitled to use any legal internet service that they deem fit, not just the parts of the internet that suit their mobile phone company. I hope that hon. Members understand that customers who buy a mobile phone package rarely have the time or inclination to read through all the minutiae in the small print, even if they have the foresight to imagine all the services that they might want to use over the two-year life of their contract. Surely, customers have the right to expect that an internet service will do what it says on the tin. Consumers should, therefore, be able to rely on statutory consumer protection regulations to protect them from such abusive practices.

Given the rapid evolution of the internet, I do not think that it would be wise for Parliament to attempt to define everything that the internet is and does for the future, but I am convinced that the current unfettered ability of telecommunications providers, whether they be internet service providers or mobile operators, to decide what customers can and cannot access is harmful to consumers and to the wider economy. As I have outlined, those practices not only create significant consumer harm but stifle competition—for example, in the market for non-geographic and international calls—which leads to exorbitant prices and discourages new entrants to the market.

There is also concern surrounding future innovation and economic growth. If innovators have no certainty that networks will carry their services, particularly if they rival products offered by the networks, companies will be less likely to invest in new services because the return on investment will be unpredictable. How can a provider who wants to build a mobile app have any certainty that the mobile network operator will not block his rival service and/or make it extremely opaque at the point of sale whether consumers can actually access those services? Such things should be of great concern to us, because they will stifle growth in a sector that is incredibly important to the future prosperity of the country.

When I asked representatives from Ofcom about the matter during a Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport hearing last summer, there was an acceptance that some undesirable blocking was being undertaken by certain mobile operators around specific internet services, and that more needed to be done to ensure that telecommunications providers were transparent and up front with their customers. Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, outlined the industry voluntary code on the transparency of information given to consumers about traffic management practices. I have grave concerns about whether the information that providers are supplying to their customers is helping in any way, shape or form. Ofcom’s research in September 2013 demonstrated that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices when making their purchasing decisions.

Together with the internet code around transparency, the industry has created a voluntary self-regulatory code on maintaining the open internet. I believe that the code is a good one, and it will be an effective tool for protecting consumers and businesses. The significant problem is that some major providers are yet to sign up, nearly two years after the launch of the initiative. Given that there is no obligation on UK telecommunication providers in that area, those providers that are transparent and allow access to services could easily change their minds tomorrow and not be subject to any action.

Therefore, I think it is time that the House recognised that unless more action is taken, certain industry players will continue to use clever marketing tactics and rely on the lack of consumer understanding to mislead their customers, distort the market and damage new and innovative internet services that threaten their own products. That is why I have proposed amendment 19, which would protect consumers from the practices that I have described. The amendment would ensure that anyone selling internet access, or using any similar term, will not be able to rely on any unreasonable or unusual definition of that term to restrict their customers’ access to legal parts of the internet.

I have made it clear, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for doing the same, that I do not seek in any way to limit the ability of internet service providers to block access to sites for the purposes of child protection. Nor would my amendment prevent internet service providers from offering age-related content blocks where customers request them. I certainly would not want to do anything to change that. That is why I would be happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendment if she seeks to divide the House.

Amendment 19 would give customers confidence that when they sign a two-year contract that offers internet access, they will get full internet access and will not be left with a contract that they cannot get out of that does not do what they thought it would when they signed up to it. It is essential to preserve and protect consumer access to the legal internet. We cannot allow internet service providers to decide for themselves, based on their own commercial interests, what customers can and cannot access while still marketing their service as internet access.

The protection offered by amendment 19 would benefit all consumers, but it would also spur innovation, growth and job creation in a sector that is vital for the future prosperity of the country. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to support my amendment or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I hope that we will not have to press the matter to a Division, because I hope that the Minister will understand the strength of the case that we have made and reaffirm that the Government will deliver on open internet access. If she is not prepared to do that, I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press her amendment to a vote, which I would support.

[Helen Goodman]

I would like to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent damehood. I know that a knighthood is a real thing, but I am not sure whether a damehood is a thing. However, it is a very well deserved recognition of your excellent service to the House over many years, and I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted to hear the news.

This is a marvellous occasion for another reason. It is wonderful to be in the Chamber in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). That is a fantastic coalition, and it shows what a beacon of free speech the House of Commons is, because that principle has motivated everybody to get involved in the debate. I believe that the principle of net neutrality is the principle of free speech in the modern world. My hon. Friend set out a clear and cogent case for amendment (a) to amendment 19, and the hon. Member for Shipley proposed amendment 19 comprehensively. I shadow the Minister with responsibility for communications and creative industries, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and I hope that the Minister at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has had some conversations with him since, in many ways, this issue falls into his bailiwick.

Let me elaborate a tiny bit on what my hon. Friend said. Net neutrality is absolutely central to the operation of the internet. The principle that there should be no discrimination between services when providing internet access is fundamental to an open net. At the moment in this country we have no legislation, but we have a voluntary industry code of practice for internet and mobile service providers. However, the problem is that as it is voluntary the companies do not have to abide by it. European Commissioner Neelie Kroes has been working on proposals for net neutrality across the European Union as part of the single telecoms package. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Shipley did not highlight that excellent proposal from the European Union, but we do not need to wait for the European Union to have this debate or to ask the Government what they are doing, because the issue is a central one.

The possibility of amending the Bill was brought to my attention by ITSPA, the Internet Telephony Services Providers Association, which is concerned that some internet providers have an interest in refusing to carry voice-over IP services because they have a competing product. Having discussed the question with Ofcom, I am not clear whether that is happening. If it is, it should not be, and if it is not, there is a risk that it might happen, and we in this House need to address that.

The point made by the hon. Gentleman about the lack of transparency and consumer awareness is extremely concerning. There is a problem when people buy a piece of kit or take out a contract with one ISP or mobile phone provider if, in doing so, they restrict their access to some material and if there is no description or warning of that. That is clearly a limitation of their access to information on a free net.

Ofcom is working to improve the effectiveness of the code of practice on traffic management transparency. My view is that transparency is not enough and that we need rules of the game that go beyond it. I am not convinced that even if the information was on a strapline across the packaging when people bought a piece of kit or signed a mobile contract they would fully realise what it meant. This is too important to leave simply to transparency, which is why I have put my name to amendment 19 and why I support these changes.

The Minister needs to tell the House what the Government are doing proactively to preserve net neutrality. It is not enough to take a reactive stance, as the Government are on many communications issues. The Communications Act 2003 is a very good Act, but it is getting out of date and this is one example of that. That is why we were particularly concerned to have this debate in the House today so that we could find out what Ministers are doing.

It is essential that we preserve free speech on the internet and net neutrality is part of that. There is a small exception in amendment 19 to enable us to continue with child protection—again, we have cross-party agreement on the importance of child protection—but we are all agreed that we want net neutrality, with that single exception, to be the modern form of free speech.

The Economy and Living Standards

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Let me make a little progress and then I will take more interventions. In a debate after last year’s Queen’s Speech—[Interruption.] I am talking about this year because last year the shadow Chancellor urged me to do something this year. In the conclusion to his speech last year, he said that the Chancellor should listen to the International Monetary Fund. He also said that

“a sensible and economically literate chancellor would heed the IMF’s advice.”

I have reflected on that advice, and I think I will listen to the IMF. I have its most recent statement from last week and it states that growth in Britain is projected to be

“the fastest among the major advanced economies.”

It says that the economy has rebounded strongly, that inflation has fallen rapidly, that growth is becoming more balanced, that we are moving towards an investment-led economy, and that that good macro-economic performance is expected to persist. It stated that the news coming out of the UK recently has been “pretty much all good”, in contrast to the shadow Chancellor’s predictions, which were pretty much all bad. It concludes that our fiscal policy—the deficit reduction plan that the shadow Chancellor bets his entire economic credibility on opposing—is the “anchor” of Britain’s stability and economic success. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this: I am listening to the IMF, the CBI, the chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the OECD. Who on earth is he listening to?

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor listen to the IMF on the housing market, of which he has made a total mess? House prices are rising by 20% in London, and there is negative equity in the north. Not one property was sold for £600,000 in my constituency. Will the Chancellor now abandon the stupid Help to Buy scheme, which goes up to £600,000 for new home owners?

[Mr Osborne]

I will come on to say something about the housing market, and I am the first to say that we must be vigilant about housing. But to get a lecture from the party that presided over the biggest housing boom and bust in British history—

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for that warm welcome. I remember that drink well. He mentioned my constituency of Bromsgrove. Like his constituency, it is semi-rural and there is naturally concern among my constituents about broadband coverage. He will therefore be pleased to know that the Government are providing £780 million of central funding to support superfast broadband, so that 95% of UK premises can enjoy it by 2017. We have also launched a £10 million fund to explore with suppliers broadband solutions for the other 5%.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on his appointment. We hope that he enjoys the next year in his job. This might be the first time that he has answered questions on broadband roll-out, but so great is the concern across the House that this is the 494th time that such questions have been asked. This week, we learned that no one in Oxfordshire has applied for the vouchers under the lacklustre £150-million super-connected cities programme. Why does he not adopt our proposal of switching half of those funds into helping the 15 million people who are digitally excluded?

[Sajid Javid]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome. We looked at the previous Government’s proposals. The reason we changed the policy was that, frankly, it was not working. Already under this Government, superfast broadband coverage has risen from about 45% when we came to office to 73%. The UK has better coverage than the other EU5 countries. I hope that she will join us in implementing these policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

Clearly, bullying is bullying, regardless of the intent behind it. All forms of bullying need to be tackled in schools and stamped out. It has a hugely detrimental impact on the ability of children to enjoy school and on their achievements and their grades at the end of it. In 2012 this Government introduced the requirement that when inspecting schools, Ofsted should consider how the school tackles bullying. That is now considered part of Ofsted’s inspection, to make sure that schools are tackling all forms of bullying, regardless of the intent behind it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to support older women’s employment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jenny Willott)]

Jobcentre Plus uses a range of innovative approaches to help older claimants. Local schemes include IT support aimed specifically at older people, dedicated advisers for those aged over 50, and help to convert dated qualifications into certifications that are relevant for modern employers. Overall female inactivity is now at a record low.

[Helen Goodman]

I am rather surprised by the Minister’s response, given that unemployment among older women has rocketed by more than 40% and the Work programme has failed more than 90% of women aged over 50. Her response was complacent. What more is she going to do?

[Jenny Willott]

I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question. More than 3.5 million women aged over 50 are in employment, which is more than 63% of that age group. Across the UK more women are in work than ever before. There has been additional support for older women. One example of the support that jobcentres are providing that has made a real difference is the new employment allowance that helps people to set up their own business. Nearly a quarter of those who have set up businesses using that allowance are over the age of 50 and it is proving particularly popular.