Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Michael Meacher

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

No one can seriously doubt that Britain urgently needs fundamental banking reform, but what has been done so far, since the crash of 2008-09, is timid beyond belief. Hardly any of the factors behind the crash have been effectively dealt with. Extreme light-touch regulation left too much to the markets; a vast global market was created in credit derivatives, which were not well understood but were recklessly securitised throughout the world because of their huge profitability; the selling frenzy was stoked even further by enormous bonuses, which drove the recklessness; the banking structure was so over-concentrated in the lead banks that, when disaster struck, they were judged too big to fail, with catastrophic and desperate consequences for the national budget and debt; and the business model linked speculative investment with retail deposit-taking, with the former as well as the latter protected by an implicit taxpayer guarantee.

All those problems, which were familiar to all of us, need to be dealt with, but none has been, partly because of the intransigence of the banking lobby in resisting reform, and partly because of the weakness of political supervision. That makes another crash quite likely, but if there is one we might find it much more difficult to get public support for a bail-out.

First, no significant action has been taken to curb complex financial derivatives, which were, perhaps more than any other factor, central to the collapse. Derivatives are the obvious candidate to trigger the next crisis, because they add opacity and leverage to the financial system. The obvious requirement is transparency, and in the United States that was provided by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires that all derivatives be traded across public exchanges. We all know that in this country some highly dubious securities gained a spurious status due to the scandal of the credit-rating agencies, which were paid by the very institutions whose creditworthiness they were supposed to assess. That ought to be made illegal; better still, the function should be transferred to the public sector to ensure integrity and transparency.

Secondly, there is public outrage—even now at this late stage the Government find it difficult to accept it—at a banking system which owes its continued existence to massive Government intervention, paying itself mega-salaries and bonuses, and at the fact that 90% of investment bank profits are, in an age of austerity, directed not at strengthening balance sheets, not at shareholder dividend, not at lower fees for customers, but at gigantic personal pay-offs.

Ministers say that to do what some countries such as France are doing, with a mandatory cap and the removal of the bonus guarantee, is impractical, but there can be no doubt that, if the G20 Governments insisted on limits and made continued liquidity provisions dependent on compliance, no bank could refuse.

Thirdly, to avert financial crises, the Government have placed far too much emphasis on enhancing capital controls, and they have done so in a manner that is unlikely to be effective. At the outset of the 2008-09 financial crisis, almost all financial institutions across the globe had capital adequacy at least equal to, and in some cases even twice as much as, the minimum Basel regulatory requirements. But, despite the near-global collapse of the system under those provisions, Basel III proposed in 2010 that the core top-tier capital requirement be only 4.5% and the contingency capital requirement be only 2.5%. Of the EU's top 50 banks, 45 had already met those requirements, and Basel III does not even require them to come into force until 2019. For the Government to accept that is incredibly feeble. It is far too little, far too late and it reflects the Government’s connivance with the banks in minimising reform.

Fourthly, the Vickers commission proposals that the Government, unsurprisingly, have accepted are weak and deeply flawed. Trying to separate retail banking from investment banking with some kind of internal Chinese walls is doomed to failure because of regulatory arbitrage. Financial institutions always invent ever more sophisticated products simply to get around regulatory controls. That is the argument for a clean break between retail high-street banking and investment casino banking. That would have the key advantage of removing the implicit taxpayer guarantee, which allows financial conglomerates safely to use retail deposits for proprietary trading.

Britain arguably retains the most profoundly dysfunctional banking system of any G7 country. It came closer to collapse than any other in autumn 2008. The banking sector in this country is twice as large, relative to the rest of the economy, as in any other major EU country. It is stuffed with mega-banks that are addicted to property, mortgage lending, offshore speculation and tax evasion. Barclays Capital is only the most obvious example of that. Britain needs a much more diversified banking structure with smaller banks, in particular specialist business banks such as infrastructure banks, housing banks, green banks, creative industry banks and knowledge economy banks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern and that of many people inside and outside this House over bank charges for the ordinary account holder? The ordinary account holder seems to pay a higher price every time, whereas those at the top of the banks get the dividends.

[Mr Meacher]

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The mega-bonuses go along with small businesses having to pay exorbitant interest charges, if they can get a loan at all. The Financial Secretary says that the Government are doing their best with RBS, but why do the Government not tell RBS what level of business lending there should be and what the conditions on it should be?

The Economy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Michael Meacher

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

There is a paradox at the centre of the autumn statement that makes it self-defeating. The statement was widely touted as a growth Budget, but it is the opposite. The infrastructure plans relate to the medium-term future, on a three to 10-year time scale, but even if they materialise they are not the stimulus that is urgently needed now. Pension funds will certainly not invest in infrastructure unless the Government fully underwrite the risk, in which case it will be registered in the national accounts as a potential increase in expenditure and thus a rise in indebtedness. The paradox is that even to achieve that “smoke and mirrors” impression of growth the Chancellor is such a deficit fetishist that he has been obliged to tell the markets that there is no increase in spending at all, and everything has been funded by cutting spending elsewhere.

Significantly, the Chancellor has chosen to make those cuts by hitting the poorest hardest. Of the £1.2 billion child tax credit and working tax credit savings over the next year, 32%—nearly a third—will come from the poorest fifth but only 6% from the richest fifth, yet the poorest are precisely the segment of our population that is by far the most likely to spend and thus to stimulate growth. Reducing that source of growth in favour of will-o’-the-wisp infrastructure plans in the medium-term future is a pretty silly policy. It is certainly perverse and anti-growth.

The biggest problem facing Britain is not indebtedness, but the lack of aggregate demand. Everyone recognises that except our myopic Chancellor. In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes said that if we look after unemployment, the budget will look after itself. Exactly the same thing applies today. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, warns that if all countries deleverage at the same time, it will be economic suicide. It is absurd to imagine that the markets would not accept some modest loosening of the monetary targets if it was likely to produce a serious prospect of growth; indeed, they would welcome that.

Of course we have constantly heard the Chancellor’s refrain against this argument, his canard that any increase in public expenditure will push up interest rates, threaten the precious triple A rating and cost Britain more, but he does not have to increase public borrowing to kick-start growth. There are two sources of funding that he could draw on at no risk from the markets whatsoever. One is to require the super-rich to make a fair contribution to the Exchequer at a time of crisis for the country. At present they are contributing next to nothing.

In the past year, according to the IFS, the income of the bottom 10th of the population rose by 0.1%. The income of the directors of the top FTSE 100 companies rose by 49%. That is just about 500 times as much. It is time those latter people and the financial and corporate elite of which they are such a part made a fair contribution.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly identified those at the top of the earnings scale, but at the bottom of the earnings scale are the long-term unemployed. Does he accept the concern of many in the House that the long-term unemployed are not looked after, and that there seems to be little regard for them?