High Cost Credit Bill
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Cathy Jamieson
Cathy Jamieson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I know her, too, to be someone who takes the issue seriously. She has done a lot of work on it. Indeed, this is such a high-profile issue—so many people are affected by it and so many external organisations are showing their concern or producing evidence, be they case studies or detailed research—that this would be an opportune moment to take the Bill forward and probe the issue further. The role of Parliament is important, and the fact that so many Members wish to speak this morning shows that there is further scope to debate the Bill in Committee, which is what I would certainly like to happen.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It concerns me that the Bill would give too much flexibility to the FCA and allow it too much arbitrary power. This House should be concerned about that issue on Second Reading.
Cathy Jamieson
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I would have thought—again, because I know him to be someone who would take a great deal of care and consideration looking at the detail of the Bill in Committee—that, with his intellect and interest in these matters, he would have been an asset to any Committee that wished to consider the matter further.
I am surprised and rather disappointed. The Minister herself raised issues about advertising and she seemed to be in agreement in principle with many of the provisions about how lenders should be obliged—although I think she suggested voluntary measures, and I am not sure that that would work—clearly to display the interest payable in cash terms. That is important so that consumers know exactly the position they would be in and could compare the costs of borrowing. The Bill would allow that consistent approach to be determined by the Financial Conduct Authority.
As I said, and as seen in contributions by hon. Members and the Minister, advertising is an important issue. We have probably all received some of these text adverts attempting to make us believe that we are somehow entitled to take out a payment protection insurance claim and that there is £500 or £800 just sitting there waiting for us to claim it at that very moment—if only we would text back. We have to look further at that issue.
We have that advertising in the background all the time—we see it when we are on the tube, on the bus, on the high street and, increasingly, on websites and the internet, if not on our own phones. The significance is that it seems to normalise the issue—as if it is perfectly normal for people to take out all these loans and as if there is nothing to be concerned about with them. As I say, it normalises that behaviour.
We heard the Minister talk about the affordability and cost of credit, and we heard the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) address some of the concerns raised about the dangers of interest caps. He described them as a blunt instrument, and he spoke about how a market for new products can emerge. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised could be explored further in Committee. His points about the role of the mainstream banks were important, too. He referred to the charging regime and to the need for the so-called jam jar accounts. When some people cannot access or have difficulty accessing a basic bank account, it makes it extremely difficult for them to consider saving. He highlighted the importance of financial education and the credit unions to encourage saving, but the harsh reality is that it is simply not possible for many people on low pay to have the financial resilience to save. If a child needs a pair of shoes or a school trip comes up, or something unexpectedly goes wrong in the home, they might have to use the little savings they have, making it extremely difficult for them to get back on track. The credit union movement has a great opportunity to develop new products.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central spoke clearly about debt collection and the problems that can arise with the continuous payment authority and customers. Sometimes amounts have been withdrawn without due notice given, which can lead to a very difficult set of circumstances, perhaps leading to other bills going unpaid.
The Bill as drafted would ensure that lenders had to signpost customers to free and impartial advice when they were turned down for a loan or when they were having difficulties with payments or defaults or if a continuous payment authority failed. That is important. The Bill would ensure, too, that the FCA would be able to determine the enforcement powers to be used for breaches of the legislation. Again, I view that as an important issue. I heard the Minister talk about the need to have everyone together and to have the code of conduct encapsulated in the provisions. It was almost as if the bad companies or those that would not adhere to the rules would somehow fall off the end of the world. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case, and enforcement is particularly important.
I said at the outset that I did not want to take a huge amount of time, but I wanted to indicate support for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and the Members of all parties who have worked with him have introduced an important Bill that should be scrutinised in more detail. There is no doubt that it could be improved through debate and discussion in Committee, with the comments of all the external agencies taken on board. I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to support it, and it would be disappointing if it were talked out or the House did not support Second Reading. I urge Members to give my hon. Friend and those who have sponsored the Bill their support by ensuring that it proceeds to the next stage.
Finance Bill
Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Cathy Jamieson(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
I want to make progress but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady; she always covers these issues with great interest. Why is the shadow Chancellor able to commit to following our spending plans, yet will not give any indication of tax rates? Surely that is the second side of the coin.
Cathy Jamieson
I always listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I know from his contributions in the House and in Public Bill Committees that from time to time he scrutinises the Government fairly thoroughly. There is a difference between saying that the overall spending limit put on by the Government will be our starting point, and accepting their approach in full, which is not what the shadow Chancellor has said, of course. He has made it clear that we would look at that overall spend and see how we could allot resources more fairly.
Despite the fact that the Government tried to make much of fairness in the spending review, let us look at the millionaires who will benefit from the tax cut. First, 643 bankers earn more than £1 million and the combined tax cut will be worth £34.6 million to them—[Interruption.] There is a lot of grumbling and other muttering from a sedentary position by Government Members. If they wish to speak, they will be able to do so later.
My constituents want to know how the Government can justify that tax cut for millionaires at a time when those on middle and low incomes are being squeezed so hard. I can understand why the public are angry and why they do not feel that the Government are acting fairly. They see many people on massive salaries that ordinary people can only dream of and working in the very same banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer now receiving a handout from the coalition. People do find that difficult to understand. That is why our amendment would require the Chancellor to consider the effect that the tax cut will have on the level of bonuses in the financial sector. That is what the taxpayer—ordinary people trying to make ends meet when their living standards are being reduced—wants to know.
Cathy Jamieson
No. I am going to finish what I am saying, because I want to make clear the extent to which people are losing out. The future jobs fund gave opportunities to many young people and it was short-sighted of the Government to scrap it. It seemed to me that the Government did so simply because it was brought in by the previous Government. However, following questions in the House and elsewhere, we know that the Work programme has not delivered for many young people in our constituencies.
I go back to the fact that individuals and families are losing out in our constituencies. Not only will a two-earner couple with children lose on average £1,869, while a millionaire gets a tax cut, but a single parent who works and has tried to do the right thing in getting into employment and holding down a job, as well as meeting their caring responsibilities, will lose £1,226. At the same time, the millionaire banker about whom we talked earlier will see his tax bill cut. Two earners without children who are a couple will lose £672.
Those are remarkable figures. As I said earlier, they sum up the coalition’s warped sense of priorities. They are looking after those at the top, while making everyone else pay the price for their economic failure.
Cathy Jamieson
I will in a moment.
No wonder that people think that there is one rule for the richest and another for the rest. No wonder people are questioning why the Government believe that the way to motivate people on low incomes is to pay them less, and the way to motivate people on high incomes is to pay them more. In these challenging economic times, surely we should focus on supporting those who need it most. New clause 8 asks the Government to look at the issue again. We are asking them to undertake a proper assessment of the impact of the cut, as well as an analysis of how much the Treasury would gain if the additional rate were returned to 50% in 2014-15. That is not an unreasonable request. I hope that, on this occasion, the Government will accept the new clause and report back in due course, although I suspect that that may not be the case.
I outlined earlier why the Opposition think that the Chancellor’s logic is rather odd. He claims to find tax avoidance morally repugnant and to want to crack down on it, but this tax cut simply rewards the wealthiest. He appears to justify it on the ground that the behavioural response to the 50p rate was more avoidance. There seems to be a rather strange logic here. Instead of cracking down on the avoidance, he is rewarding it. Surely those are not the values that we want in the Government: one rule for the richest and another for the rest of us.
It is not what the Government used to say, before their façade of fairness began to slip. The Prime Minister no less said:
“I have been very clear—we have all been very clear—that we have to do this in a way that is fair so that the broadest backs bear the biggest burden.
That is why we haven’t changed… the 50p tax rate.”
However, the Government are giving those with the broadest backs a tax cut, while people on lower incomes are shouldering the bigger burden. I heard Government Members supporting what the Prime Minister said. It is a pity that they now seem to have gone back on that.
Cathy Jamieson
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I feel sure will explain to me what the Government intend to do about tax avoidance and how they will stop this issue emerging?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
As it happens, I was going to say something different, which will not surprise the House particularly. I was going to say that history tells us that cutting taxes raises more money, and that is probably a better bet to working out what will happen than fishing around for convenient forecasts. In 1979 and 1988 tax rates were cut and revenue went up, and that is a pretty good basis for doing this again.
Cathy Jamieson
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution in our future debates about the possibility of a mansion tax and a reduction to a 10p rate. I always listen with interest to what he has to say, but on this occasion I have to say to him that the first year of the new rate is not a real basis for estimating the revenue raised, or likely to be raised, by the 50p rate.
The Government should be tackling tax avoidance. We all want to see that, and we will be debating it more when we discuss later clauses.