Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If we are all for fairness in income tax arrangements, perhaps action can be taken.

I want to illustrate my point about the tax arrangements of the very rich, and I shall return to Sir Philip Green. He is not a non-dom. He resides and works in the United Kingdom, and he no doubt pays a fair share of tax. That is not in dispute. However, the well-known shops with which he is associated are actually owned by his wife, and she lives abroad, in Monaco, where apparently no tax is paid. That is an example involving one person—there are others—that illustrates the unfairness in the United Kingdom. A great deal of revenue is undoubtedly being lost as a result of the arrangements of that very rich individual and others, and I do not believe that that is fair. It seems that, few years ago, Sir Philip paid himself a modest £1.2 billion bonus, a lot of which went through various offshore accounts and tax havens and finally ended up in Monaco, where his wife resides.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned the amount of revenue that is lost as a result of such arrangements; I do not think that the figure he mentioned was disputed. Obviously, we can imagine how that money could be spent on hospitals and other essential facilities. In any case, it is absolutely wrong that there should be two or more different tax arrangements: one for the vast majority of our constituents and others for those who are very well off. That is why these points are being made today, especially from this side of the House.

When the Prime Minister tried to score political points by mentioning a particular candidate in the recent mayoral election, he did not of course mention Lord Ashcroft, a long-time deputy Conservative party chairman. I know that some of the Ashcroft money helped to provide funds for Conservative candidates in marginal constituencies. Lord Ashcroft apparently gave a pledge to give up his non-dom tax status in order to sit in the House of Lords. As far as we know, nothing was signed but a pledge was given, and the current Foreign Secretary, then leader of the Conservative party, was satisfied. We know now—it came out in the last weeks of the previous Parliament—that no such arrangements were made by Lord Ashcroft, who remained a non-dom.

It is interesting to note that in the United States—the least socialist country among all the democracies—no offshore tax arrangements are in place for its citizens. Wherever US citizens work abroad or wherever their money goes, they are subject to US tax regulations. It is very different from here. I must admit to being somewhat surprised when I learned that this was the position in America. All these offshore arrangements, tax havens and the rest simply need to be tackled, although whether this Government will tackle them is another matter.

Let me take up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said. One issue relates to billionaires using these arrangements; another is the matter of personal service companies. I must confess that until someone was appointed to a public institution—a very high-profile one—in 1993, I was not aware of personal service companies, the purpose of which is to minimise one’s tax. I wrote to the director-general of the BBC before the Public Accounts Committee took the matter up. I asked how many of the BBC’s most senior managers—those earning £100,000 or more—had personal service companies. I received a prompt and courteous reply—there was no attempt to evade the question, although I would have used freedom of information facilities if need be—and I was told that there was only one such person. That is one manager, but the different position regarding presenters has arisen from the PAC.

Some of the most prominent broadcasters—not confined by any means to those of the BBC, as there are the commercial channels and others—and some other very prominent people in the media, including some who perhaps have liberal leanings, have arrangements whereby the amount of tax they pay is considerably less than it would be through PAYE. For all I know, there could be complications and administrative difficulties with personal service companies, but it is unfortunate, to say the least, that these highly paid individuals, perhaps receiving £500,000 or over £1 million a year—good people in many respects, I am sure, and very professional, as no one would doubt, irrespective of their private views—use an arrangement that substantially minimises the amount of income tax they pay. That is absolutely wrong.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) complained earlier about misinformation relating to tax avoidance. Was it not misinforming for the Government, at a time of high public indignation, to promise a “general anti-avoidance rule”, but then come up with something that is too narrow and limited to be deemed “general”, too indifferent and inert to be called anti-anything, and far too weak to be regarded as a “rule”?

[Mr Winnick]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I would not expect a Conservative Government to take effective action, and it is most unlikely that they will do so. In fairness to my own side, we took some action in some respects, although I would have liked bolder action. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I certainly hope that the next Labour Government—may that come about soon—will be far more stringent in dealing with these matters, which really need to be dealt with.

This country’s tax arrangements seem peculiar and odd, so let me repeat my earlier point. Whereas the large majority of people—my constituents and, I would imagine, the constituents of nearly every Member in the House—pay their taxes according to what has been agreed to by Parliament, there are those, be they billionaires or those whom I have described who earn very large sums, who pay less than what the House has determined. The sooner we end that position, the sooner we can be satisfied that not just our constituents but those with very substantial wealth and those who earn large incomes pay their tax as they should. This issue should continue to engage the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is delighted that his party is in a coalition with mine, because we are indeed lifting more of the low-paid out of tax completely by progressing towards a £10,000 income tax threshold. We should make taxes simpler as well as lower for people on low earnings.

This is a moral as well as a legal issue, and I think that perhaps we should discuss morals more in the Chamber. We all have a duty to pay, and cash in hand actually means cheating your neighbour. I think that, as Members of Parliament, we should be more courageous about making that clear. I agree with what the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said about Sir Philip Green, but he is an easy target. We should be clear about the fact that if you are evading tax, it does not matter who you are: it is always wrong.

Health issues also arise, relating to tobacco and alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) mentioned beer duty. I am the chair of the cross-party group on smoking and health, and later this year I shall chair an inquiry into the smuggling trade—particularly the trade in tobacco, but there are cross-over issues involving alcohol. There is a very easy thing that the Government could do about those problems: they could tighten the bonded warehouse regime. There are currently very few restrictions on who can operate a bonded warehouse. Perhaps the Public Accounts Committee could consider that as well. A large amount of tax is evaded through the misuse of bonded warehouses and, as a result, people consume more alcohol and cigarettes and damage their health.

While evasion should be a black-and-white issue—it is always wrong—in respect of avoidance there are many shades of grey, which is a big problem. At the innocent end of the spectrum, tax avoidance is when people plan to pay no more tax than we in Parliament intend them to pay under the schemes we lay out in Finance Bills every year. I assume most of us have an individual savings account. I opened a new ISA earlier this year with Triodos bank, the ethical bank that has its headquarters in my constituency. Some of us signed a joint letter urging all parliamentarians to set an example by moving our money into ethical providers of finance, such as Triodos and the Co-op bank. By investing in ISAs, however, we are, of course, avoiding some income tax on our surplus capital.

I support all the various enterprise incentive schemes to encourage entrepreneurs to set up new businesses. I should declare a former interest, in that before entering Parliament I was a tax consultant working for some of the large firms that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton laid into, but what we were doing was enabling people who were setting up businesses to take advantage of the reliefs his Government had introduced, in order to encourage more such people to take up good ideas, transform them into a business, create wealth and employ people. That is a good thing; that is good tax avoidance in the dictionary sense. Things go wrong, however, when such sensible planning is stretched too far and there are egregious schemes of avoidance, artificial transactions and contrived schemes.

The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee mentioned the very good exposés The Times did during the summer. As well as attacking Sir Philip Green and other fat cats, parliamentarians should make it clear that we condemn similar activities by those who are popular with the public—pop stars in Take That, premiership football players or Formula 1 racing drivers whom we are asked to believe all live in Monaco. These people make huge amounts of money because of the public enjoyment of what they do and they do not need to mitigate their tax below what the people who watch them perform think they have to pay.

What should we do about this? First, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to focus much more on tackling avoidance. The headline figure of the number of people who work in HMRC has been mentioned, but how many people work for a particular arm of Government is less important than what they actually do when they are working. I hope the Minister will confirm that the efforts in the HMRC large business units and high net-worth units will be ever more relentlessly focused. The staff must have the appropriate training so they can match the skills levels of the lawyers, bankers and accountants pitted against them, and they must also have the necessary IT and other technical resources.

We parliamentarians have a duty as well. We can change the rates and rules, and we have done that in several Budgets since the 2010 general election. Last year, the Government tightened the rules in order to block a scheme of disguised remuneration, where individuals were receiving loans from their employers that they had absolutely no intention of ever repaying, and thereby were avoiding income tax. However, the Labour Front-Bench team at the time—I do not think its current occupants were part of that team, so I do not hold them personally responsible—instructed all its Back Benchers to vote against that coalition Government measure.

Under this year’s Finance Bill, we are introducing new stamp duty regimes in order to tighten up on the move of people buying properties via corporate envelopes and thereby avoiding stamp duty. The Liberal Democrats, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, called for that at the last election. Avoiding stamp duty in that way will now be almost impossible unless people want to incur an enormous liability in the future.

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton was saying about the general anti-avoidance or anti-abuse regime. His words would have had more force if he had at least acknowledged that this Government had commissioned a report by Graham Aaronson. He has been in the business for more than 40 years, so I cannot think of anyone better to chair a committee looking at how we can tighten up on avoidance schemes. At least this Government are introducing an anti-abuse regime. It may not be perfect to start with, but a rule is being introduced. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government had 13 years to do that, but it was persistently ruled out by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).

[Mark Durkan]

Is that observation not a bit like saying that if the Government were looking at creating an anti-strike rule, the person to put in charge would be Bob Crow?

[Stephen Williams]

Would the hon. Gentleman say that again, as I am not sure that I followed it?

[Mark Durkan]

On the logic that the hon. Gentleman has just deployed about the most suitable person to be looking at anti-avoidance, given his skills and predilections in that area, would the equivalent for a Government committing to an anti-strike rule not be to put Bob Crow in charge of that exploration?

[Stephen Williams]

It was the Bob Crow bit that I missed. That may be a fair point, but I would not put Graham Aaronson on the same moral plane as Bob Crow; I do not think that Mr Aaronson has held the public to ransom at various points. However, poachers do often make good gamekeepers. The Government commissioned the report and are acting on it, and they should be commended on doing so, given that the previous Government did nothing to put that in place.

We have talked about the domestic scene, but I wish to say something in passing about our obligations abroad to the developing world. During debates on this year’s Finance Bill, I mentioned how the rules tightening up on controlled foreign companies—that is fine, as it is our responsibility to secure our own tax base—will have unintended consequences for developing countries. It is for the Treasury to work in close concert with the Department for International Development to ensure that every time we change our tax law, we think through the implications that that will have abroad. In addition, some of our expanding aid budget should be expended on training overseas Governments to build up their expertise to make sure that they are able to levy taxes effectively and collect them from the multinationals operating in their countries. I know that a coalition of charities, including Christian Aid, is going to campaign on this issue later this year. I have been working with them, and I look forward to continuing to do so throughout the rest of the year.

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In common with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), I am happy to give this Bill positive support on its Second Reading, but in common with him, too, in being positive about the promise the Chancellor made when he announced these plans and in supporting the stated principle and purpose behind the scheme, I am concerned that some problems still need to be ironed out.

For all these schemes, people will say that the devil is in the detail. The problem is that as the charities and others that were interested in the idea and animated when they heard this announcement have looked at the scheme, they have seen too much devil in too much detail. This is called the Small Charitable Donations Bill; let us hope that it does not end up having a by-name of the “Petty Conditions Bill”. Although nobody wants to create a charter for chancers in connection with anything the Treasury might do to support charities and charitable giving, there is a danger that some of the qualifying conditions will end up more often becoming disqualifying rather than qualifying conditions in practice.

Other hon. Members have raised issues relating to community buildings. This is, of course, a UK-wide Bill, which will need the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to make this an accepted matter; and, of course, there is a separate Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. I hope that Ministers will take every step to ensure that the plans for this scheme take full account of the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland—not just of the different legal regime that applies to its Charity Commission, but of the border issues that relate to much of Northern Ireland.

The Economic Secretary made the point that the Bill had been changed to take account of the fact that it could have a more adverse impact on Catholic-related as opposed to Church of England-related charities. We need to recognise in the context of Northern Ireland that it is not only Catholic churches that have cross-border parishes, as other churches are organised on a cross-border basis, too. We must ensure that the interpretations and assurances that have been afforded do not end up creating problems because of the cross-border character of some organisations, which perhaps take their money, through bucket collections or other means, from either side of the border. The provisions must be sensible for the givers, sensible for the charities and sensible for the beneficiaries, as well as be consistent with the assurances that the Treasury appropriately expects in respect of taxpayers.

If the aim is to emancipate and reward a more comfortable level of charitable giving and to ensure that more charities can benefit from the gift aid scheme, the Bill has to be given every possible encouragement. We must also encourage the Government to ensure that the detail is not unnecessarily prescriptive or restrictive.

Other hon. Members have referred to start-up charities, suggesting that they might be badly disabled by the qualifying time. This applies not just to start-up charities, but to those that might be created in response to particular tragic events or a natural disaster such as a flood in a particular area that has created difficulties for certain families. Other examples might be the terrible incident in Dunblane or the terrible shootings in Cumbria, to which people might want to have a charitable response to support particular beneficiaries. In those cases, there is no need to set up a charity for life, for three years, seven years or whatever; it is about having a genuine response in order to aid particular people in particular circumstances.

It would be odd if those moved to make a charitable response in such situations were disqualified from benefiting others through gift aid. The normal situation is that people are moved to give some help on impulse, so Ministers need to think about whether another way of providing help would be more appropriate—perhaps by extending the “connected purposes” issues or allowing defined or established charities to lend their names to a particular one-off fund created in those circumstances. We need to prevent the disqualifications from coming into force when there is a response to particularly tragic situations; I do not believe that Parliament would or should intend that to happen. We may need to look further into that.

As I have said, I support the principle and the purposes of the Bill, but I join others in urging Ministers to consider not just what Members have said here, but what many charities and groups that work with them have been saying. The Bill provides an opportunity for us to do some good and to improve the position of charities, but let us not create hurdles that are impossible for them to surmount, or we shall all be writing to Ministers saying “Surely we did not intend to disqualify this or that charity. Surely we did not intend this penalty to apply when the circumstances in which it was imposed had been overturned or were seen in a different light.” Under the Bill in its present form, a penalty would stand even if it were subsequently accepted that it had been the result of over-interpretation.

I urge Ministers to listen more, and to continue to respond to some of the issues that have been raised today.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Indeed. One of the problems with the Bill, as I noted a few moments ago, is that it focuses on one appointment from one Select Committee. What would be more interesting is a debate in the House on the role of Select Committees in the public appointments that they scrutinise.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that Parliament got it wrong on the Office for Budget Responsibility?

[Brandon Lewis]

Not at all. I shall come to that in a few moments. That is not the point that I am making. There is a clear difference between a role in making an appointment to the OBR and a role in making an appointment to a position that has Executive powers and makes Executive decisions. If this were a Bill that considered the role of Select Committees, there would be an interesting debate to be had about whether Select Committees should have a power of appointment or veto, but that would apply equally to all Committees and all appointments, particularly where they have an Executive role. That is an important delineation, of which we should be aware.

It would be wrong to give one Select Committee, as important as the Treasury Committee is, a power of Executive appointment over and above that of other Select Committees, which I am sure would take the view that they have equal power and an equally important role in the House, but which would thereby potentially be put in a second category of Select Committee. Creating divisions and different types of Select Committee would impede the function of all Select Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I support the Bill, to which I have attached my name, and I hope it will be supported in the Chamber today.

Many arguments have been made, and I have listened closely to those made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). I did not agree with many of them, and indeed, as he developed some of them, he seemed not to agree with what he had previously said. None the less, several points have been made and some touched on yesterday’s business, too.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I must challenge that comment. The core point I was making throughout my speech, from start to finish, was that there is an important distinction between what the Executive do and their power, and that we should not give a Select Committee an Executive power to make Executive recruitment decisions.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman made a long contribution, and I am sure that that top-up will add value to it.

At the start of this debate and in a number of interventions, reference was made to yesterday’s motions and debate, and a challenge was laid down: “How could anybody support this Bill if they didn’t vote for the parliamentary inquiry yesterday?”. The argument was that the Bill seeks to give an enhanced role to the Treasury Committee and that we cannot support it if we did not support yesterday’s motion for a parliamentary inquiry.

I did not support the vote for the parliamentary inquiry yesterday; my name was on the other motion, precisely because I really value the role of the Treasury Committee and the service it provides to the House. People have talked about the dangers to the Committee if its gets the powers in the Bill, and that it will fall apart and start to divide along party political lines, but there is more danger to the Treasury Committee from the decision that the House took yesterday, because its Chairman will find himself committed to a significant inquiry, which we are told will be time-intensive and extensive.

The Chairman said yesterday that he wanted the membership of the inquiry Committee to be heavily drawn from the Treasury Committee, so a select number of the Select Committee will also be absorbed by the inquiry throughout the autumn when what the Treasury Committee needs to do is concentrate on many other things, not least following up what emerges from the Wheatley review, which the Chancellor has announced. That review will recommend amendments to the Financial Services Bill, so the Government have recognised that in the light of what has happened with Barclays and the whole LIBOR issue, significant amendments to that Bill will need to be considered.

In essence, the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has tabled today is a prompt, which canvasses for a fairly modest amendment to the Financial Services Bill—a modest amendment that might have its case reinforced by whatever recommendations emerge from the Wheatley review and the amendments we make to that Bill. As hon. Members on both sides have said, it already creates significant added powers, responsibilities and potential difficulties for the Governor of the Bank of England, the Bank and the whole hinterland of authorities and agencies around it.

Parliament has devolved more responsibility to the Bank and the Governor, and the appointment of the Governor will remain an appointment of government, although, as the Minister in the Financial Services Bill Committee, when correcting me and others, insisted on saying, “It is not appointment by the Government or the Treasury, but by the Crown.” I understand the distinction; I do not believe the fiction; and it is quite clear from his hon. Friends’ contributions today that they do not, either. They are ruthlessly defending the appointment as an Executive—ministerial—appointment.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman talks about modest amendments, but what is his view of the Bill before us and the large constitutional change that it embodies?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman tries to take up a point that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) made earlier, when he talked about the Bill representing “a major constitutional departure”, a phrase that he used, I think, three times. But he ended up criticising the Bill for not going far enough or ranging wide enough. He wanted a Bill to give all Select Committees responsibilities and powers of appointment in relation to all sorts of other things. Hon. Members can have it both ways in their own contributions, but they are not going to have it both ways in mine.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, but he misunderstands the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and certainly I, was making. We do not necessarily think that a Bill that changes the whole structure of Select Committees and how they work is the right thing to do or that we would vote for it; we just think that it would make more sense, if people feel that way, than a Bill that focuses on one Committee and on one particular power.

[Mark Durkan]

That is not what the hon. Member for Wimbledon said and certainly not what I heard. We seem to be hearing a lot of interventions from Government Members interpreting what each other said. Several Members have mentioned what the Treasury Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), is saying in private, and that it is different from what members of the Committee have said and different from the fact that the hon. Gentleman’s name is on the Bill.

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not want to ask about the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of somebody else’s point. I want to ask about his view, because given the point that he made before the two recent interventions, I do not quite understand whether he thinks that the Bill is a major constitutional innovation.

[Mark Durkan]

I do not think that it is a major constitutional departure; I think that it would be a significant step and gain for Parliament. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in saying that the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England should be subject to a full debate and vote in this Chamber, however, because that would cause all sorts of difficulties. Many of the difficulties that people allege could occur if the Treasury Committee had the role given to it by the Bill would certainly become risks in a highly charged debate and Division in this Chamber on the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England. The issue would become highly political and potentially partisan, and it would cause market shakes and do nothing for the reputation of this House.

This Bill, which would give a parliamentary stamp of approval to the appointment, is a modest measure, because it would involve the relatively contained, constrained and considered forum of the Treasury Committee. In yesterday’s debate many hon. Members told us how special the Treasury Committee is. They said that it was a partisan-free zone where people are wise and worthy and do not go into it with any ulterior agendas. Then suddenly we are told today that if it were given the extra role that it seeks for itself in the context of the Financial Services Bill, all that would change. I do not believe that it would. This is not the power of appointment that Conservative Members are describing; it is a power of consent and confirmation. The Treasury Committee would not be doing the interviews, drawing up the shortlists, and so on.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No. I have already been generous enough, and some Members were too greedy in terms of the length of their speeches.

The Treasury Committee would have a power of confirmation. Some hon. Members are saying that it would have a power of veto, but what appear to be powers on paper would not be exercised in that way.

Earlier we heard reference to appointments to the National Audit Office. Some appointments are notionally appointments by Parliament because they are subject to votes in this House—for example, appointments to bodies such as the National Audit Office and the Electoral Commission—and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East would say that there could similarly be a vote on the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England. However, I do not believe that that is a comparable situation. Given the significant extra powers and functions that the Governor will have, particularly after our experiences over the past few years and the allegations that we heard yesterday about the whole murky interface between the Government, the Bank of England and the City, it would be remiss of Parliament to say “We’re quite happy to leave this in that odd black box that exists somewhere between Whitehall and the City. We as Parliament do not want to step up to the plate and say, yes, when this appointment is made in future there will be a parliamentary stamp on it.” That is all that the Bill is asking for, and it would entrust and delegate that parliamentary stamp to the Treasury Committee.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be ignoring the fact that the Treasury Committee already scrutinises the work and operations of the Bank of England. In fact, only last week the Governor gave evidence to the Committee. There is already parliamentary scrutiny of the substance of what the Bank of England does, and I do not see why we need to give the Treasury Committee this major constitutional power to veto the appointment as well.

[Mark Durkan]

I am not ignoring anything that the Treasury Committee does, but nor am I here to filibuster and rehearse everything that it does. The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the Committee itself has unanimously recommended this change.

We heard in yesterday’s debate, and we heard from the Chancellor on Monday, about the importance of a parliamentary Committee of inquiry being able to produce a unanimous report and about its being worth nothing if it is not unanimous. Here we have a unanimous recommendation from the Treasury Committee, and the very people who have been telling us about the power and significance of parliamentary Committees and the compelling power of unanimity are saying, “We don’t care about it, we don’t want to know.”

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to come back to this or any other point.

It has been argued that the Bill could be dangerous because it might enable the Treasury Committee or other Committees to go on shopping sprees for all sorts of other powers or abilities. I do not believe that this is a vanity trip on the part of the Committee. Most people would think it odd if the parliamentary Committee that was considering a change of the scale and importance of the new architecture in the Financial Services Bill did not say that Parliament wanted to have at least a bit more of a role regarding the key appointment to this fixed eight-year term. I will not get into the arguments that we had in the Bill Committee about the Putin clause whereby a Governor might be reappointed as a deputy governor for certain reasons.

In yesterday’s debate we heard people who supported the call for a parliamentary inquiry say that it was about Parliament stepping up to the plate. In many ways, the Treasury Committee seeking this role is about Parliament stepping up to the plate. If there is another financial crisis or banking scandal in a few years’ time and the new regulatory regime is seen as confused and difficult to understand—as we heard earlier, even hon. Members who support the Financial Services Bill do not understand what it means and are confused about its architecture—people will turn round and ask, “Who’s to blame this time?” Of course, the current Government will simply blame the previous Government for the way in which legislation has come about. In my view, yes, legislation can be blamed on the Government who sponsored it, but when it is wrong and flawed, that is also the fault of Parliament. Parliament, as well as the Government, should take its fair share of the blame when we get legislation wrong. We will be to blame, as a Parliament, if there are mistakes in the current Government’s legislation such as those that I hope they will remedy when they make further changes to the Financial Services Bill after the Wheatley review in the autumn.

We cannot turn round in future and say “It was all the fault of the Government—it was their legislation. The Bank of England got it wrong and the regulatory regime did not work. It is the Governor’s fault and the Bank appointed him.” The public are fed up with politicians washing their hands of responsibility—with all of us being in the business, as we saw in yesterday’s debate, of trying to fix the blame rather than trying to fix the problem and taking responsibility. If hon. Members trust the new arrangements in their Financial Services Bill, they should be prepared to trust Parliament to take its stake in the key decisions that will be made. We are told that Governor of the Bank of England is a key appointment, but it is odd that it should not receive a parliamentary stamp of involvement and approval despite the fact that people want that parliamentary stamp on many other appointments.

That is why I support the Bill. It is not a starter for 10 whereby we then go on to say that we will appoint the deputy governors and others. It is modest even on its own terms. It does not even say that the Treasury Committee should have the power of consent over the appointment of the deputy governors. Those are also key appointments given the distinct roles that they will play. Conservative Members need to stop exaggerating in their arguments against the Bill. They need to listen to the compelling case for it and to remember that this would be a much more modest amendment than the significant changes that we will probably have to make to the Financial Services Bill in the autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I certainly agree that the fixed-term appointment is a huge step towards independent stability. As I was trying to explain, what concerns me is that if the vacancy arose after a change of Government, the new governing party could seek to ensure that the new Governor was much more in tune with its own political views. I fear that both the appointment and the removal are much more likely to be politicised if the Select Committee gets its way.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Government might have a partisan agenda in appointing the Governor. Surely the best way of protecting the appointment from the allegation that the Chancellor’s motivation was purely partisan is to give the Select Committee a role, whether the appointment is made at the start of a Parliament or, even more interestingly, at the end.

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not think that any appointment is without politics, but I fear that a Select Committee is much more likely to adopt a political method. We have recently seen Select Committee investigations involving minority reports, and the pursuing of party political agendas in the interrogation of witnesses.

[Mark Durkan]

Did the hon. Gentleman vote for a parliamentary inquiry yesterday? Did he support all the arguments that were advanced in its favour? He seems to be contradicting those arguments now.

[Mike Freer]

I did vote for a parliamentary inquiry, and I do not disagree with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. However, I believe that a Select Committee’s role is to investigate. There is a huge difference between investigating issues and appointing executives with Executive powers who can intervene daily in monetary policy, and there is a significant difference between making such appointments and the interviewing of bank chief executives for wrongdoing.

I have not set myself against reforms. I have no doubt that the appointment of Governors and other senior public officials requires greater transparency than we have seen hitherto. What worries me is that, while pre-commencement hearings are a good thing, involving the Select Committee in the right of veto will not help and, indeed, could hinder the appointment of Governors. I believe that the Treasury Committee should have a voice but should not have a veto, and I therefore cannot support the Bill.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way in a moment, but let me explain what the FCA’s chief executive-designate will do. It is very important. He will work swiftly and report this summer, so that the Financial Services Bill, which is currently before Parliament, can if necessary be amended and the regulators can acquire the new powers that they need. Yesterday, he responded to the damning FSA report into the failure of RBS with plans for new sanctions for the directors of failed banks, including the possibility of criminal sanctions. I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that, sadly, there is a stark difference between the powers available to the UK authorities and those available to their US counterparts. We need to correct that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Chancellor accept that the Wheatley review can proceed to do its work and inform changes to the Financial Services Bill without prejudice to the inquiry that the Opposition seek in motion 2? The motion does not prevent the Wheatley review, so using the review as an argument against the motion is a red herring.

[Mr Osborne]

I was not using the Wheatley review as a reason not to have a public or parliamentary inquiry. I was merely explaining the review for the people out there who care what the Government are doing to regulate the financial markets and who want to hear what we are doing urgently to deal with the transparency and integrity of the LIBOR market.

Finance Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The noble Lord Mandelson said that those people should pay taxes, and when my party was in power we brought unemployment down. That is what I urge the hon. Gentleman’s party to act on. I urge the Government, instead of defending bankers’ bonuses, to think about the 3 million people who are out of work. That is the responsibility of his party and his Government. He should talk to them about solving the current problems, instead of looking backwards.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

When we are talking about banksters—to use a term that was coined as far back as 1932 by an Irish-American radio priest—we are talking not just about people who are filthy rich, but about people who are filthy rich by foul means. They have engaged in rackets, they get paid in packets. Why do they deserve a cut in their taxes?

[Rushanara Ali]

They do not deserve a cut in taxes. I hope the Government will take serious action, otherwise the public, who already feel this way, will rightly believe that this Government are not for them but for the vested interests and the millionaires who make so much money and are not willing to pay their dues or to make the appropriate contribution. I am sure the Government do not want to be on the side of people who are milking the system and making so much money and not making the appropriate contribution.

I call on the Government to pay attention, to listen not just to my party, but to the millions of young people who want a job and an opportunity to make a contribution to this country. We have a plan that could help get them get into real work and would reward those who work hard—a plan that is costed and paid for by asking some of the wealthiest in our society to contribute just a little more. With the economy back in a double-dip recession and economic confidence so low that investment growth has virtually ground to a halt, job opportunities for these young people desperate to find work will not appear without help. I hope the Government will see sense and give young people in Britain the much-needed support that they deserve, by supporting the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

We have taken action to tackle the bonus culture by ensuring that the interests of shareholders and management are aligned and that where there is wrongdoing bonuses can be clawed back. That is a significant change that has happened since this Government came to office. In the same way that we are remedying the regulatory failures left behind by the previous Government, particularly by the shadow Chancellor, the inquiry set up into the fixing of LIBOR will ensure that in future LIBOR is regulated to fill the hole in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and ensure that there are criminal penalties for manipulating LIBOR—again, filling the hole left by the shadow Chancellor when he designed the regulatory system.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister refers to what the Government have done since coming to office. What did the then Opposition suggest in the previous two Parliaments by way of concrete proposals on regulation or bonus culture or amendments to any of the flawed measures that the previous Government introduced?

[Mr Hoban]

When the previous Government brought forward the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, we voted against the decision to transfer the supervision of the banks from the Bank of England to the FSA. We are putting right that failure by the previous Government. We criticised the financial services reforms brought forward by the previous Government in the aftermath of the financial crisis. We said that they were tinkering around the edges and did not address the fundamental problems at the heart of regulation. The work that we did in opposition laid the foundations for a much tougher, more intrusive and more interventionist regulatory regime to tackle the problems left by the previous Government.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. I remember sitting at the Mansion House listening to the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), telling us in 2007 about the golden age of the City, just before the City imploded.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Chancellor recognise that many of us observed for a number of years that the competition between the Front Benches in the House seemed to be based on saying, “Our touch is lighter than yours”? The public believe that Parliament and parties have indulged the banksterism that is now all too apparent. The failure and inadequacy of legislation were a failure by Parliament, not just of Government. Is an inquiry that will be a Whips’ stitch-up, with fairly narrow terms of reference, really an adequate response to the public concerns out there?

[Mr Osborne]

In the end, the conclusion of the inquiry will command the confidence of the House only if it is a unanimous report. The Labour party will be able to choose its members. If it is a divided report along partisan lines, people will see that. I hope the joint inquiry comes forward with a unanimous report. As I say, that would be the way to proceed. A public inquiry would take months to establish and a year or two years to report; in Northern Ireland we have had inquiries that have gone on even longer. There would then be a Government response, a Government White Paper and Government legislation. We would be standing here in 2016 or 2017 dealing with a scandal that had happened a decade earlier.

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, this is an incredibly important industry for our future, despite the problems that the banking sector in particular has caused in our recent past. It is important that we do not taint the entire financial services industry with what went wrong. That industry includes insurance companies and all sorts of other businesses that were not involved, but the banks themselves, as the most prominent institutions in the industry, have a huge responsibility to change their culture and image with the rest of the country.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

What we are looking at essentially is daily daylight robbery, with a culture that said, “Anything goes, but nobody knows”. In light of what we do know, would it not be a dereliction to introduce the Financial Services Bill without specifically addressing LIBOR and looking again at the data competence of the regulators? Without wishing to draw the Chancellor on what criminal charges might be brought, does he believe that the forfeiture committee should look at the cases of other bankers who may be implicated?

[Mr Osborne]

The part of the country that the hon. Gentleman represents has been affected perhaps more than any other by what went wrong in financial services. Northern Ireland has suffered enormously from the failure of banks in the UK and in the Republic, and it has paid perhaps a heavier price than anyone else, so he speaks with authority and passion on this. Let me make it absolutely clear: we are going to deal with the regulation of LIBOR, and we will choose the most appropriate vehicle. The Financial Services Bill has been introduced in the House, so it is a convenient vehicle but, as I said, let us introduce the right regulation and get this right after its having gone spectacularly wrong in the past. As for the forfeiture committee, it is completely independent of the politicians of the day, he will be glad to know. No doubt, its members will have heard what he said.

Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome for this work. I am sure that he would not wish Ministers to investigate the tax affairs of individuals, as that way would lie ruin for the country. I cannot make such an estimate for the reason behind my previous comment: taxpayer affairs are confidential and it is for HMRC to deal with particular cases when it finds that avoidance is taking place. What I can say is that there is a very large number of cases and that this relates to the wider question of consultancy and contingent labour in government. He might be interested to know that in 2009-10 the previous Government spent £2.4 billion on contingent labour of various sorts. In 2010-11, thanks to the additional controls on consultancy that we put in place, we reduced that to £1 billion, and I expect the bill to be reduced further in 2011-12. There are things that central Government can do to reduce dramatically those costs across government, and that is precisely what the coalition Government are seeking to do.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and commend him for the action he has taken since the scandal became apparent. If we are to believe that Revenue and Customs is now boarding this Good Ship Lollipop, how will we know whether someone receiving amounts of money from the public purse over £58,200 in future will not exempt themselves simply by ensuring that they accumulate it from a number of Departments rather than one? The measures he has announced today relate to Departments reporting amounts over £58,200 that they are paying to individuals, but they do not seem to address the issue of people pocketing money from a number of contracts with different Departments.

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, and he is right that someone might be earning small amounts of money from a number of different Departments. Of course, in that case it is likely to be a contractor, of the sort my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) referred to, who has multiple clients. It is not clear on the face of it that these rules should apply in those cases, but I will certainly consider the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Financial Services Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

No, but by measuring height, one makes a statement that height matters. The amendment makes a statement that the coalition pledge on mutuals, and on greater diversity and competition in financial services, matters. That is the purpose of the amendment and the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend presses it to a Division because it will expose the Government’s complacency in making promises and failing to live up to them.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who seems to rest everything on clause 47(3)(f), on the basis that it could easily include what the amendment proposes. In the same vein, paragraph (f) could mean that there is no need for paragraphs (a) to (e) because it is all encompassing.

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has an eye for detail that I cannot match—it almost matches the eye of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming).

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

I think there are two issues in this debate. First, everybody agrees that mutuals are good. They are good in a number of ways, one of which is that “boring” is good in finance. We need more boring finance —we need things that will not double one day, fall by a half the next, and go bust by next Wednesday. We have had too much “interesting” stuff in finance; we need some more boring stuff. Building societies have always been relatively stable—nothing much has changed; things are gradual, with perhaps a few mergers. Some building societies have suffered as part of the financial problem, and in other countries some credit unions have suffered. I should declare what is perhaps a non-declarable interest, namely my membership of Citysave, Birmingham city council’s credit union.

I think there is a major role for such bodies—the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) highlighted the issue of people having a stake in society. That is a very good thing, as is the fact that mutuals look to serve their depositors—often they will be depositors and borrowers. To that extent, I welcome the fact that the Opposition have raised this issue for discussion. The difficulty is that the amendment—it is a permissive amendment; it allows, for instance, the number of members of mutuals to be counted—is the sort of thing that would be done anyway. A mutual could be sent an e-mail saying, “How many members have you got?” It really does not require a statutory instrument to—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) says from the Opposition Front Bench that the number of members of credit unions is not being tracked. However, the amendment does not require it to be tracked, as he knows.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is a permissive amendment, but it is actually an amendment to a permissive clause, which anticipates that there may, for various reasons, be all sorts of changes. However, in transferring the functions relating to disparate types of mutuals and so on, surely it is right to suggest that someone should have regard to ensuring that mutuals as a sector are promoted and that somebody should measure what is happening. If those in the coalition are committed, why do they not want to be able to know or show what is happening?

[John Hemming]

The amendment does not compel anything to happen; it merely makes it possible, if the Government wish, to change the law if necessary—which it almost certainly is not—to measure the number of members of credit unions. The Opposition may be right that the figure is not being measured, although that would surprise me, as the industry bodies will almost certainly have total numbers of members. If we contacted the Council of Mortgage Lenders, for instance, and asked how many members the building societies in the council had, it would probably give us the answer. Getting the answer should not be that difficult; however, as the amendment does not compel the Government to do anything, it will have no effect if accepted.

I return to the point that we have to welcome the fact that the issue of mutuals is being kept on the agenda. I would be interested if any Opposition Member wanted to liaise with me over the coming months to see whether we could find the answers that the amendment makes it possible to find—which are probably possible to find anyway, if the Government wish to find them. Indeed, I would have thought that the Government would not be that averse to knowing what the market share was.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

I think it is a good idea to encourage mutuality. There is no question about that. As for asking me, randomly, to answer such detailed questions on what the Government are doing, I must admit that I am not a Minister. This is, admittedly, a debate about mutualism, however, and I am quite happy to do a certain amount of research to see whether I can find the answers that the amendment would allow the Government to find—if they wished to do so by changing legislation, which almost certainly is not necessary.

That brings us to the nub of the problem with such an amendment. It would have almost no effect, because if the Government wanted to find out how many members the building societies had, they would simply ask the building societies, without going through the process of tabling a statutory instrument, whether through the permissive approach or whatever it may be.

On that basis, although we should welcome the fact that the issue of mutuals is being kept on the agenda, it would be better done by an amendment that had some effect.

[Mark Durkan]

I had not originally intended to speak to this amendment, as time is tight and we need to make progress. I have also dealt with some of the points in interventions.

The Government say that they are committed. This Bill gives them an opportunity to go a bit further on that commitment. That is what the amendment offers them. The Government have said that they want to encourage mutualisation. I have heard Ministers talk about the damage done by the rampant trend towards demutualisation in the past—they have blamed that on others, as well as perhaps accepting some blame on behalf of a previous Government. However, clause 47 is a permissive clause, and there is good cause for saying that if the Treasury amends legislation dealing with mutuals—let us remember that we are talking about industrial and provident societies, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies—and if it transfers functions to the FCA, the PRA or both, given that the clause provides that functions can be transferred between different bodies, the Treasury should, in making those arrangements and exercising those powers, have regard to ensuring that someone can measure the size of the mutual sector overall and show progress where that is relevant. That is what the amendment would provide for. Such information will be relevant for Parliament’s interests and purposes—I am sure that future Treasury Committees will want to know what is happening and who is responsible for measuring such things, rather than relying on the market players. The information will also be hugely important for consumers, because if, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, we are to encourage more people to have confidence in this option, then the more people we can show are using it successfully, the better.

When the hon. Gentleman suggested that the mutual sector would, by its nature and character, not need detailed regulation and legislation, it occurred to me that he was going off in a different direction. Given the experience that some of us had with the Presbyterian Mutual Society and others, I can say that mutuals do need to be regulated by their nature, so that people can be sure that they are living up to the good name that they properly have. Consumers embrace mutuals on the basis of that confidence. They need to be able to rely on the fact that legislators have put in place a regulatory system to ensure that what they are getting is what they think they are getting.

[Mr Cash]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand what I meant. It is not that I do not think that there should be a degree of regulation. Rather, I am concerned about over-regulation to the point where the purposes of mutuals, as with so many other sectors of society, are sucked out by a vast amount of oppressive legislation, which is so bureaucratic and impossible for people to understand that they cannot see the wood for the trees. The whole objective of the mutual arrangement is that it is very much a personal relationship in a society to enable people to benefit one another.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. That brings us to the point that we go through all this complicated legislation, with all this complicated jargon, to try to give consumers confidence that a regulatory regime is policing these matters for them, so that they know that the people they are entrusting with their money—their savings and so on—are performing to a due and proper standard. I would not want the House to create a situation where people felt that mutuals were, by their nature, less safe and less regulated, because non-mutuals would use that on a predatory basis in their marketing.

[John Hemming]

Let us come back again to the amendment. I noted, on the internet, a report from the Building Societies Association indicating that in 2011 the market share of the mutual building societies increased by 16%, which contrasts with growth of 3% and a figure of 7.7% in the whole market. So the coalition Government are obviously delivering on their promise to have a larger mutuals sector, and the information has already been measured.

[Mark Durkan]

The information may well be measured by that group of building societies. In terms of industrial and provident societies and others, surely it makes sense that the Treasury will want to make provision on who measures the different sectors or who measures them in aggregate terms as the mutual sector—this amendment would allow that. We must remember that, as the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment is entirely permissive, and it would be set in a clause that is permissive. The clause is meant to demonstrate the coalition’s commitment to mutuals.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May I apologise for the fact that I missed the beginning of this debate? The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) spoke for the Opposition, and he knows that I chaired the mutuals inquiry to which he refers. Is the problem not the one outlined by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love): the amendment is modest? I do not think our inquiry was seeking that modest a response from the Government. We are looking for something that matches up to the commitment made in the coalition agreement, and what is being proposed is very much short of that.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it shows exactly why people should be worried. If the best argument that Government Members can make is that this amendment is modest and merely permissive, people should be worried that the Government are opposing and rejecting such a straightforward, common-sense amendment.

[Geraint Davies]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. The coalition Government say that they want to encourage diversity in the market and increase the proportion and number of mutuals, yet they refuse to agree with measuring the number of mutuals or their market share. Anybody who is serious about any policy should want to measure it in order to manage it and show that it has been successful; otherwise they come across as completely hollow. Given that we have the Office for Budget Responsibility and so on measuring important things such as outputs and economic performance, I cannot understand why we cannot include mutuals as part of that portfolio.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee. Like him, I recognise that the Bill represents an improvement but that it is capable of being improved further in a number of respects. He has touched on some issues, such as the balance of membership on the MPC and the FPC, which we addressed in Committee, and the future accountability of the new regulatory players.

There are deficiencies, and the hon. Gentleman at the very end of his remarks touched on what for some Members in Committee was a difficulty: when we put forward many amendments, we were told by the Minister that they were not necessary or were redundant, because the FSA was already doing what they proposed. For quite a lot of the time in Committee, we appeared to be told that the new regulatory regime was essentially going to be “Continuity FSA”, and that we could take it for granted that every good and acceptable thing that it was doing would carry on regardless. It was very much “Carry on FSA” throughout large parts of the debate in Committee.

Like other hon. Members, I recognise the deficiencies in the Bill. As I stressed in Committee, it has significant holes in its provisions for compelling consumer interests, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) touched on. The Government rejected key amendments to the provisions on consumer credit, and the related but very distinct issue of debt management, that would have given the Bill more meaning and relevance to people and offered them a bit more of a promise. Instead, the Government are merely saying, “We will attend to these things in future, and there is enough future-proofing in the Bill to allow us to amend it for all sorts of reasons and purposes.” They rejected, as they have again today, amendments that would have coloured in how those amending powers could be used—in particular, they rejected the amendments that would have indicated where the regulators were meant to reflect on certain matters and to advise on where regulation may need to change.

The hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Chichester emphasised the importance of parliamentary oversight and reporting. The need for crisis provisions may not be far away in the current circumstances, and we require clarity about that. After the next crisis, when there is confusion about who is responsible and which bit of furniture is meant to support which particular aspect, people will not accept that hon. Members did not know about these issues, because we are the authors of this legislation. As the hon. Member for Chichester said, it is a pity that the Bill, instead of having its own full sweep of provisions, tends to rely on going in and out of various bits and pieces of all sorts of other legislation, which are bumping into each other and not connecting very well. It is a bit like that Johnny Cash song, “One Piece at a Time”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Sing it!

[Mark Durkan]

No, I will absolutely resist the idea of singing it. The only people who ask me to sing are bouncers, because it helps them to clear the premises.

Another deficiency relates to stewardship and the fiduciary duties of institutional investors and fund managers. Again, the Government assiduously resisted straightforward amendments in that respect. I cannot understand why they would refuse to have in a Bill principles that they say are reflected in common law. If this about consolidating legislation and making sure that there are no ambiguities in future, it would have made sense to include such provisions.

There is another serious gap in relation to consolidated oversight, and I hope that the Lords will pick up on that. The Bill provides for consolidated oversight in relation to regulated authorities where the parent holding company is itself a financial institution and a regulated authority, but not where it is not. That gives rise to the whole question of the “Tescofication” of banking services. While the Bill provides that there can be changes in future, it does not specify where they might happen. The Government resisted amendments that would have coloured in the responsibility for considering where changes might be needed and, in particular, ensured that the new regulators did that.

On a more regional level, there is particular interest in Northern Ireland about the progress of the Bill and its associated measures because of the change to the regulation of credit unions. I hope that the Minister is aware that there is still deep disappointment among those in the credit union movement in Northern Ireland about the impact of the new regulations, which will take them back from where they should be and diminish their existing capacity to make sound investment choices. They look forward to being able to offer more services. Although that will be possible under regulation by the FSA and, in future, the PFA, they are disappointed that the price for that, from the first day of the new regulatory system, is that they will be restricted in making the sensible, prudential investment decisions for their members that they have been making very successfully.

Financial Services Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Quite a few more hon. Members wish to speak and the Minister wants to come in at 9.40 pm, so if we could help each other, I would be grateful.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I wish to join others in acknowledging the strong case that members of the Treasury Committee have made on the issues addressed in new clause 1. Like others, I do not think that new clause 1, in itself, goes far enough in resolving some of the Bill’s deficiencies, but it is a commendable effort.

As we are dealing with a number of proposals that appear on the amendment paper under the heading “Governance of the Bank of England and the new regulatory structure”, there is a danger that we might make the mistake of thinking that all the provisions are about issues inside the beltway; we may think that they are all about parliamentary influence, scrutiny and the relationships between the Financial Policy Committee, the Bank of England and the Treasury and so on. Of course, as we heard in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), many of these provisions touch directly on issues that we thought we were discussing in the previous grouping in relation to consumer protection and the consumer interest.

I wish to discuss a number of the amendments in this group that I have tabled, particularly new clause 13. It is aimed at dealing with what seems to be a fairly gaping loophole in the Bill and relates to provisions in clause 25, on page 108, and the regime for consolidated supervision of the parent undertakings of financial institutions. The provisions in the Bill as they stand would mean that the only parent undertakings that will be regulated under consolidated supervision are those that were deemed to be financial institutions, whereas those that were not deemed to be financial institutions would be immune.